4 ms·
Speaking of lazy things: your justification has entirely consisted of "history has shown" without even giving anecdotes, let alone data to support it. I will d
by kolbe 7y ago
Speaking of lazy things: your justification has entirely consisted of "history has shown" without even giving anecdotes, let alone data to support it.
I will do some actual work and delve into said history.
(1) Taxing the rich and corporations excessively -> offshoring income and sheltering assets.
(2) Prohibition -> mass gang violence, marginal reduction in alcohol consumption and a repeal of it.
(3) Recreational drug laws -> overcrowded prisons, broken families and generations of damage.
You cannot just make a law and not consider all of the consequences. Especially one as flippant, unresearched, vindictive and pointless as banning the ability of people to pay to add intellect to their own children.
- _bxg1 7y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man If the children of the wealthy were forced to remain in the public school system, then their parents would be forced to have a stake in it, and would therefore be forced to participate in its improvement - as voters, as donors, as volunteers - instead of jumping ship and leaving it to the people who don't have any choice. That would help intellect to be added to all children, not just the children of those who happen to have money.
- kolbe 7y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_argument_whatsoever https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_argument_whatsoever How about a false equivalency? You're right that if people are forced to do things like you claim, some of the consequences would come about. But making a law is not the same thing as force.