5 ms·

So you are supposed to just give your estate to the government? Fuck that.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
A king would say the same thing about his throne. Why should privilege - whether it's power or wealth - flow through bloodlines if we can prevent it?
kenmicklas 8y ago
Why not? Then the wealth can be distributed to everyone fairly. Having this safety net available for everyone and not just the rich would reduce the need for wealth hoarding in the first place. Your ideology has no justification besides your own particular interest in the class position of your offspring.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  >Then the wealth can be distributed to everyone fairly. Who determines what is fair?
  - kenmicklas 8y ago
    Divide evenly by number of people? It's really not that difficult.
- aswanson 8y ago
  Because I want my children to benefit and build on my life's efforts.
  - kenmicklas 8y ago
    And I don't want you to be able to do that. If this is supposed to be a rational position you're going to need more justification than "you want it".
    - aswanson 8y ago
      Most parents want that. An overwhelming majority, in fact. Not just me. Good enough?
      - kenmicklas 8y ago
        Nope. I would argue that most parents want that because the economic system we live in compels them to.
        aswanson 8y ago
        It also compels me to pay my bills and be responsible with my money. Such is life.
    - bsbechtel 8y ago
      That's a truly horrendous position you've taken. You're arguing that it is somehow rational to not want a child to benefit from his or her caretakers. The only logical conclusion from this is why stop at death? Why don't we make it so it's illegal for a parent to take any action that provides any sort of benefit for their children, and all children are dependent upon the state from birth, with all adults paying a mandatory 'childcare' tax. This way all children can start out life on 100% equal footing, and also without any opportunity to experience what a parent's love and sacrifice really is. What a dystopian future you desire.
      - kenmicklas 8y ago
        Actually, we live in quite a dystopian reality. Your only argument is a slippery slope fallacy. I never said that a child should not benefit from their caretakers. Only that they should not inherit economic wealth which they did not produce.
        bsbechtel 8y ago
        So explain what's the tangible difference between receiving benefits while the parent is alive and after they're dead? Either way the child is inheriting economic wealth they didn't produce, which shines a light on the horrendousness of your argument.
aswanson 8y ago
Amen.

A king would say the same thing about his throne. Why should privilege - whether it's power or wealth - flow through bloodlines if we can prevent it?

kenmicklas 8y ago

Why not? Then the wealth can be distributed to everyone fairly. Having this safety net available for everyone and not just the rich would reduce the need for wealth hoarding in the first place. Your ideology has no justification besides your own particular interest in the class position of your offspring.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>Then the wealth can be distributed to everyone fairly. Who determines what is fair?
- kenmicklas 8y ago
  Divide evenly by number of people? It's really not that difficult.
aswanson 8y ago
Because I want my children to benefit and build on my life's efforts.
- kenmicklas 8y ago
  And I don't want you to be able to do that. If this is supposed to be a rational position you're going to need more justification than "you want it".
  - aswanson 8y ago
    Most parents want that. An overwhelming majority, in fact. Not just me. Good enough?
    - kenmicklas 8y ago
      Nope. I would argue that most parents want that because the economic system we live in compels them to.
      - aswanson 8y ago
        It also compels me to pay my bills and be responsible with my money. Such is life.
  - bsbechtel 8y ago
    That's a truly horrendous position you've taken. You're arguing that it is somehow rational to not want a child to benefit from his or her caretakers. The only logical conclusion from this is why stop at death? Why don't we make it so it's illegal for a parent to take any action that provides any sort of benefit for their children, and all children are dependent upon the state from birth, with all adults paying a mandatory 'childcare' tax. This way all children can start out life on 100% equal footing, and also without any opportunity to experience what a parent's love and sacrifice really is. What a dystopian future you desire.
    - kenmicklas 8y ago
      Actually, we live in quite a dystopian reality. Your only argument is a slippery slope fallacy. I never said that a child should not benefit from their caretakers. Only that they should not inherit economic wealth which they did not produce.
      - bsbechtel 8y ago
        So explain what's the tangible difference between receiving benefits while the parent is alive and after they're dead? Either way the child is inheriting economic wealth they didn't produce, which shines a light on the horrendousness of your argument.

aswanson 8y ago

Amen.