4 ms·
Why? The wealth was not taken from those children.
by jp555 6y ago
Why? The wealth was not taken from those children.
- claudiawerner 6y agoIt is, however, extracted from their parents. To post a quote about envy when the discussion is not based in envy but in concern for the welfare of the most vulnerable in society is the upsetting part.
- jp555 6y agoextracted? As in not through voluntary agreement? I think you're talking about taxes, and missing the point entirely.
- xnyan 6y ago>extracted? As in not through voluntary agreement? This argument is so facile that I can't believe you are arguing in good faith. The power dynamic between an a low-wage employee (any almost any kind of employee) and an employer is incredibly biased in favor of the employer.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- claudiawerner 6y ago'Extraction' does not imply lack of voluntary agreement, neither does exploitation, in fact[0]. [0] https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/v_2011_10_27_yoshihara_veneziani.pdf https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/v_2011_10_27_yoshihara_veneziani...
- pacala 6y agoThere can be more than one truth valid at any given point: * The wealth was not taken from those children. At the limit, those children can just fuck off and die in the street of starvation, it's not like they have too many useful skills to offer to society anyways. * We have an ingrained tribal expectation that the tribe will take care of all its members to some degree, within the available resources. Driven by the game theoretical proposition that tribes that fail to do so will find their human resources and social cohesion depleted and be easily torn apart by rival tribes. By now integrated in our genetic heritage. One only need look into the streets [or at Twitter] to see that we are incapable of having any nuanced conversation anymore. It's either 100% A or 100% B. If you dare explore a balance, both sides will rip you apart for lack of ideological purity.