3 ms·
> you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away. That is a non sequitur.
by tmnvix 9y ago
> you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away.
That is a non sequitur.
- tensor_rank_0 9y agoI don't understand what you mean.
- tmnvix 9y agoGP suggested that a redistribution of resources could allow the poorer section of society to engage in the type of risky behaviour that often results in financial success. You then assumed that this means depriving wealthier people of the ability to engage in that sort of behaviour. That isn't a logical consequence. You seem to be assuming that any redistribution will deprive wealthier people of these opportunities which is obviously not true. For instance, GP might be suggesting that only the wealthiest 1% should be required to make a sacrifice for the benefit of the poor.