4 ms·

That's not irrational at all. Why would the decisions of people 50 years ago have any impact on my hiring decisions today? You will rapidly end up arguing about

That's not irrational at all. Why would the decisions of people 50 years ago have any impact on my hiring decisions today? You will rapidly end up arguing about subconscious bias and other things you can't prove. The idea that innocent people today should suffer for supposed crimes of their ancestors is called 'corruption of blood' and it's explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution as well as most notions of human rights.

tptacek 8y ago
That's an almost Wesley Snipesian con-law argument, militating as it does against taxation, which, after all, is in large part a visitation of the debts of parents and even grandparents on their children and grandparents.
- repolfx 8y ago
  What a straw man. "Men should not be punished for the perceived crimes of their ancestors" is not in any way an argument against the general concept of taxation. But if it helps you ignore the argument, feel free to write it off as "we must discriminate against men because if we didn't, we'd find ourselves getting rid of tax".
  - tptacek 8y ago
    What is the difference between market interventions that correct imbalances due to past prejudices and forcible appropriation of resources from later generations to repay the debts of former generations?
    - repolfx 8y ago
      You seem to be starting from the assumption that the former is obvious and proven, and the latter is OK. Both assumptions seem wrong to me. 1) I don't believe gender imbalances today are due to past prejudices in past eras. Many other people don't either. There's overwhelming evidence that gender disparities have other explanations. 2) Well run governments don't rack up huge debts. The ones that are doing, like the USA, need more fiscally conservative governments to get it under control, although nobody in America seems to care much about the deficit or getting it under control. This is not true of every country however.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        You haven't so much answered my question as talked around it. Plenty of people disagree just as strongly or more strongly with the decisions their forebears made with the national debt as you do about the "overwhelmingly evidence" you claim to have about the cause of gender disparities. Are taxes that repay those debts a form of "blood corruption"?
        repolfx 8y ago
        No. Corruption of blood is a constitutional term that specifically means penalising children for the crimes of their parents. It's related to crimes. Racking up the national debt is a bad thing to do but it's not a crime, and it's something that affects everyone equally, not specific individuals or subgroups. Arguing, as so many people on HN unfortunately do, that white men deserve to be dumped on because in times gone by some other white men did something the speaker did not like, is a lot closer to the original concept of corruption of blood, even though it's not exactly the same thing as what the constitution is talking about. But I don't understand why you dragged us down this irrelevant tangent. My point was that explicitly penalising people for things their ancestors did or supposedly did is bad and wrong. Yes, I am also a supporter of balanced budgets because making children pay for the mistakes of their parents is also bad. This has nothing to do with the general principle of tax - it's just a logical fallacy wrapped inside a straw man. Governments can easily tax and spend whilst also not borrowing.

tptacek 8y ago

That's an almost Wesley Snipesian con-law argument, militating as it does against taxation, which, after all, is in large part a visitation of the debts of parents and even grandparents on their children and grandparents.

repolfx 8y ago
What a straw man. "Men should not be punished for the perceived crimes of their ancestors" is not in any way an argument against the general concept of taxation. But if it helps you ignore the argument, feel free to write it off as "we must discriminate against men because if we didn't, we'd find ourselves getting rid of tax".
- tptacek 8y ago
  What is the difference between market interventions that correct imbalances due to past prejudices and forcible appropriation of resources from later generations to repay the debts of former generations?
  - repolfx 8y ago
    You seem to be starting from the assumption that the former is obvious and proven, and the latter is OK. Both assumptions seem wrong to me. 1) I don't believe gender imbalances today are due to past prejudices in past eras. Many other people don't either. There's overwhelming evidence that gender disparities have other explanations. 2) Well run governments don't rack up huge debts. The ones that are doing, like the USA, need more fiscally conservative governments to get it under control, although nobody in America seems to care much about the deficit or getting it under control. This is not true of every country however.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      You haven't so much answered my question as talked around it. Plenty of people disagree just as strongly or more strongly with the decisions their forebears made with the national debt as you do about the "overwhelmingly evidence" you claim to have about the cause of gender disparities. Are taxes that repay those debts a form of "blood corruption"?
      - repolfx 8y ago
        No. Corruption of blood is a constitutional term that specifically means penalising children for the crimes of their parents. It's related to crimes. Racking up the national debt is a bad thing to do but it's not a crime, and it's something that affects everyone equally, not specific individuals or subgroups. Arguing, as so many people on HN unfortunately do, that white men deserve to be dumped on because in times gone by some other white men did something the speaker did not like, is a lot closer to the original concept of corruption of blood, even though it's not exactly the same thing as what the constitution is talking about. But I don't understand why you dragged us down this irrelevant tangent. My point was that explicitly penalising people for things their ancestors did or supposedly did is bad and wrong. Yes, I am also a supporter of balanced budgets because making children pay for the mistakes of their parents is also bad. This has nothing to do with the general principle of tax - it's just a logical fallacy wrapped inside a straw man. Governments can easily tax and spend whilst also not borrowing.