4 ms·
Well, that almost looks a classic conflict of interests of a society versus interests of an individual, but only at the first glance. Because when you dig in, y
by golergka 6y ago
Well, that almost looks a classic conflict of interests of a society versus interests of an individual, but only at the first glance. Because when you dig in, you realise that it's the most successful and capable individuals that are most interested in building something for their children and next generations of their family — and that's the most marginalised and useless ones that have to get the most by redistribution. And the more you enact redistribution policies in one country or another, the more those types of individuals self-select. The ones who're most able to build and create something will always be able to leave. Ones who complain about disadvantages, on the other hand — those you're stuck with, I'm afraid.
- brazzy 6y agoAnd if you dig in a little deeper, you realize that that's a bunch of social Darwinist bullshit perpetrated by those already rich who stand to gain the most from inequality - No different from the concept of nobility in centuries past. Very telling are those "ands" and what's left out: "successful and capable (implied: rich)". "marginalised and useless (implied: poor)". Those traits don't go together automatically at all unless you use circular logic to define them in the first place.