3 ms·

Are you making a false argument about trust funders? The argument is clearly about providing economic security to those unwilling to work. People with trust fun

Are you making a false argument about trust funders? The argument is clearly about providing economic security to those unwilling to work. People with trust funds don't need economic security, they have it. You know this though.

geofft 8y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "false argument." I'm definitely making an argument you don't like, but those are different things. How is it justifiable for trust fund kids to have economic security while being unwilling to work while also being unjustifiable for non-trust-fund-kids to have economic security while being unwilling to work? What is the difference? You are claiming that it is a moral principle, perhaps even wired into our biology, that those unwilling to work are unwilling to live. Yet this is clearly not true in the case of those with trust funds. What is your defense of this fairly glaring exception? (One perfectly coherent answer is that this exception should be closed and inheritances to adult children should be disallowed; if you're an adult unwilling to work, having had parents who were willing to work does not save you. There are other defenses, too. I'm curious what yours is.)
- nailer 8y ago
  The difference is someone worked and made enough money to set up a trust fund for their kid? I suspect you know that so that's it from me in this thread.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Sure, but "If Person A wishes to survive, they must work" and "If Person A wishes to survive, either they or an ancestor must work" are very different things. If we feel like "he who does not work, does not eat" is a principle (and it's a very common one!), the ancestral exception doesn't make sense. I understand the ancestral exception exists, I'm just trying to push back on it being defensible. (Mostly because I think that it's equally defensible to have a blanket exception for "or lives in a society that can afford to feed and house them".)
    - nailer 8y ago
      > I understand the ancestral exception exists, I'm just trying to push back on it being defensible. Do you think parents shouldn't be able to provide for their children in general?
      - geofft 8y ago
        I'm not the one claiming that people who don't work shouldn't have a wage, so I'm not sure why my views are relevant here. (I have complex views on this that start from a totally different set of assumptions. But you can round it to "No, I do" for now.) I'm trying to ask why someone who believes that people who don't work shouldn't have a wage - i.e., not me - should believe in the ancestral exception.
        nailer 8y ago
        Probably because they believe parents should provide for their children.
        geofft 8y ago
        OK, but why do they believe it's a good thing for society for parents to provide for their children, even after their children reach adulthood, and even when those children will distort the markets of the places they live with affluence? I think with most answers to that question, I can construct an argument that it's a good thing for society for government to provide for those unwilling to work. But if the answer is "It just is," I don't have a hope of an argument. I cannot convince someone of why things are good and bad if they have a random list of specific situations that are just axiomatically good and just axiomatically bad. I am hoping that 'SlowRobotAhead has some other answer, so I'm not sure what your goal is in repeating things I already know (and that you say you know I already know) at me. If you, personally, are a person who believes that it's a good thing for society for parents to provide for their children, but not for government to provide for those unwilling to work, can you explain why you believe the former?

geofft 8y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "false argument." I'm definitely making an argument you don't like, but those are different things. How is it justifiable for trust fund kids to have economic security while being unwilling to work while also being unjustifiable for non-trust-fund-kids to have economic security while being unwilling to work? What is the difference? You are claiming that it is a moral principle, perhaps even wired into our biology, that those unwilling to work are unwilling to live. Yet this is clearly not true in the case of those with trust funds. What is your defense of this fairly glaring exception? (One perfectly coherent answer is that this exception should be closed and inheritances to adult children should be disallowed; if you're an adult unwilling to work, having had parents who were willing to work does not save you. There are other defenses, too. I'm curious what yours is.)

nailer 8y ago
The difference is someone worked and made enough money to set up a trust fund for their kid? I suspect you know that so that's it from me in this thread.
- geofft 8y ago
  Sure, but "If Person A wishes to survive, they must work" and "If Person A wishes to survive, either they or an ancestor must work" are very different things. If we feel like "he who does not work, does not eat" is a principle (and it's a very common one!), the ancestral exception doesn't make sense. I understand the ancestral exception exists, I'm just trying to push back on it being defensible. (Mostly because I think that it's equally defensible to have a blanket exception for "or lives in a society that can afford to feed and house them".)
  - nailer 8y ago
    > I understand the ancestral exception exists, I'm just trying to push back on it being defensible. Do you think parents shouldn't be able to provide for their children in general?
    - geofft 8y ago
      I'm not the one claiming that people who don't work shouldn't have a wage, so I'm not sure why my views are relevant here. (I have complex views on this that start from a totally different set of assumptions. But you can round it to "No, I do" for now.) I'm trying to ask why someone who believes that people who don't work shouldn't have a wage - i.e., not me - should believe in the ancestral exception.
      - nailer 8y ago
        Probably because they believe parents should provide for their children.
        geofft 8y ago
        OK, but why do they believe it's a good thing for society for parents to provide for their children, even after their children reach adulthood, and even when those children will distort the markets of the places they live with affluence? I think with most answers to that question, I can construct an argument that it's a good thing for society for government to provide for those unwilling to work. But if the answer is "It just is," I don't have a hope of an argument. I cannot convince someone of why things are good and bad if they have a random list of specific situations that are just axiomatically good and just axiomatically bad. I am hoping that 'SlowRobotAhead has some other answer, so I'm not sure what your goal is in repeating things I already know (and that you say you know I already know) at me. If you, personally, are a person who believes that it's a good thing for society for parents to provide for their children, but not for government to provide for those unwilling to work, can you explain why you believe the former?