3 ms·

Okay, so your stance is "indulgences are good."

• AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  How are they not good? The reason we have rules is that breaking the rules has costs to society. When the value of breaking the rule is worth more to you than the cost to society, it's a net beneficial transaction on both sides to let you do it in exchange for a premium. The only way it's a problem is when the value is set wrong, so that you're only paying $100 but causing $1000 in damage. But that's not the fault of the premise of pricing damage, it's the general problem with corruption or government inefficiency. And the alternative is that the corruption causes you to be able to do $1000 in damage and pay nothing because the whole thing is swept under the table -- at least this way it's happening in the open and the public can evaluate whether the price is appropriate.
  • fwip 8y ago
    You can read Martin Luther's writings on the matter, if you like.
  • perl4ever 8y ago
    "The reason we have rules is that breaking the rules has costs to society. When the value of breaking the rule is worth more to you than the cost to society," What if the harm to society of a rich person breaking a law is more than the harm of a poor person breaking that law? The positive actions a person does may be magnified by wealth; why wouldn't the negative actions be?
• mruts 8y ago
  That doesn’t seem like a problem to me.