I find it particularly disturbing that these thoughts even find an outlet on HN which is the antithesis of the zero sum world. Splitting the world into two sid

I find it particularly disturbing that these thoughts even find an outlet on HN which is the antithesis of the zero sum world. Splitting the world into two sides based on some simple criterion, and assuming that one side will always have one opinion and the other side the opposite opinion, is a gross oversimplification and disrespectful of everyone involved. To run with the taxation example, taxing the rich is not simply a matter of "less" or "more," "good" or "bad." That kind of thinking simply drives the rate to 0% or 100%. Of course there is some optimal level, and deciding whether that level is higher or lower than the current rate requires some examination of the current state of affairs, not just a cartoon narrative that always says "less" or "more" no matter what the current situation is. Policy decisions have to be based in facts and reality. I find it flabbergasting to see on HN -- where we are supposed to be hackers, people adept at working with concrete technology that is not amenable to rhetoric (could you please persuade my code it should run faster?) -- I am flabbergasted to see someone suggest that a gross misconception about reality is harmless, and that drawing attention to such a misconception should be stigmatized as "scaremongering." The author doesn't hide his political leaning, but he limits his editorializing to a few stray comments, and he makes an excellent point about the importance of facts: "It's fine if reasonable people have different ideas about whether we should extend the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $250,000. Or think estate taxes are unfair. But when we have those debates, it's critical that everyone has a clear understanding of how things really are." If anything should be accepted as fair in political argument, it's the presentation of facts, unless you wish to challenge their accuracy. Finally, as a point of rhetoric: By disagreeing with the above, by stigmatizing facts as "scaremongering" without challenging their accuracy, and by assuming that the presentation of these facts has an inherently redistributionist implication, you appear to be endorsing the slogan, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." You may want to consider making your point in a different way to avoid this perception.