3 ms·

There's too much of "we know better" attitude. Where people fail to realize that what they want to force other people to do - is not necessarily the best option

There's too much of "we know better" attitude. Where people fail to realize that what they want to force other people to do - is not necessarily the best option.(the typical issue of healthcare and freedoms) In the end getting back to the OG topic - it ends up being forced social engineering, instead of freedom and social fluidity. People who can only et paid 6 figures by virtue of geography are going to shout and scream about COL being awesome. People who are awesome get shafted. And humanity's progress is limited, because we get sub-optimal use of resources. PS: Hi fellow libetarian.

bumby 6y ago
>There's too much of "we know better" attitude. I think this is the cynical view that paints it in an arrogant light. The alternate is there is an acknowledgement that the system is less than ideal and could be improved. >People who are awesome get shafted I mean, isn't this par for the course in any group environment? If you're healthy, you get shafted by paying more into insurance than you use. If you're wealthy and subjected to a progressive tax structure, you get shafted by paying a disproportionate amount of taxes. Sometimes I wonder if getting shafted is part of the cost of living in a stable society. You agree to carry a load so that in the event you need it, somebody can carry the load for you. Game theory shows that this leads to more optimal solutions as long as you can keep free-loading within certain bounds. I used to be a staunch libertarian but came to realize society doesn't work so well when it's structured to only let the top percentile be successful. At a certain threshold, the top percent will always be successful. The utilitarian in me is concerned with finding a way to may the most people successful, which means gearing some policies to the mean rather than the high performers. To that utilitarian perspective, I think it's a more optimal use of resources if you consider human capital one of the more useful resources. I've noticed libertarians tend to be those high performers who would tend to benefit (or perceive themselves to benefit) from not being held back. I personally moved away from it because most of the discussions seemed to lack nuance. Even Ayn Rand collected social security when her health started failing...
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  > I think this is the cynical view that paints it in an arrogant light. Because it is arrogant to say that vegans must subsidize milk production(which they do), it is arrogant to say that an atheist must pay compensate for Church tax exemptions... and the farther away the taxing authority, the more arrogant it is. The biggest issue that I have with my taxes here in US - subsidies for military to fight a war on behalf of the Saudis in Yemen. If you're willing to pay for or contribute to something bigger/better - then why use tax for it? > I mean, isn't this par for the course in any group environment When you voluntarily join said environment - sure. Funny... Being gay, growing up in Lithuania and living on $10 per week(between me and my mother) - I got to be libertarian well before I got to earn those 6 figures. PS: I also detest Ayn Rand.
  - bumby 6y ago
    I think it's arrogant for the collective to assume they know what's best for the individual just as it's arrogant for the individual to think they know what is best at the group/societal level. I think everybody has policies that their tax dollars support that they don't agree with. That is part of the compromise of living in a society. I don't think the solution is to have individuals decide on each line item they are personally willing to support unless we want to be a yeoman farmer society. Modern society is too complex and I think the ship has sailed on that point. I do think there is room for middle ground. I think it would be useful for people to see, say, on their tax returns how much of their individual tax money goes to each high-level government agency. This would bring it out of the abstract and connect them more closely to those policies so they can adjust them to their particular values by voting at the polls while reducing the overall information budget they have to digest.

bumby 6y ago

>There's too much of "we know better" attitude. I think this is the cynical view that paints it in an arrogant light. The alternate is there is an acknowledgement that the system is less than ideal and could be improved. >People who are awesome get shafted I mean, isn't this par for the course in any group environment? If you're healthy, you get shafted by paying more into insurance than you use. If you're wealthy and subjected to a progressive tax structure, you get shafted by paying a disproportionate amount of taxes. Sometimes I wonder if getting shafted is part of the cost of living in a stable society. You agree to carry a load so that in the event you need it, somebody can carry the load for you. Game theory shows that this leads to more optimal solutions as long as you can keep free-loading within certain bounds. I used to be a staunch libertarian but came to realize society doesn't work so well when it's structured to only let the top percentile be successful. At a certain threshold, the top percent will always be successful. The utilitarian in me is concerned with finding a way to may the most people successful, which means gearing some policies to the mean rather than the high performers. To that utilitarian perspective, I think it's a more optimal use of resources if you consider human capital one of the more useful resources. I've noticed libertarians tend to be those high performers who would tend to benefit (or perceive themselves to benefit) from not being held back. I personally moved away from it because most of the discussions seemed to lack nuance. Even Ayn Rand collected social security when her health started failing...

JAlexoid 6y ago
> I think this is the cynical view that paints it in an arrogant light. Because it is arrogant to say that vegans must subsidize milk production(which they do), it is arrogant to say that an atheist must pay compensate for Church tax exemptions... and the farther away the taxing authority, the more arrogant it is. The biggest issue that I have with my taxes here in US - subsidies for military to fight a war on behalf of the Saudis in Yemen. If you're willing to pay for or contribute to something bigger/better - then why use tax for it? > I mean, isn't this par for the course in any group environment When you voluntarily join said environment - sure. Funny... Being gay, growing up in Lithuania and living on $10 per week(between me and my mother) - I got to be libertarian well before I got to earn those 6 figures. PS: I also detest Ayn Rand.
- bumby 6y ago
  I think it's arrogant for the collective to assume they know what's best for the individual just as it's arrogant for the individual to think they know what is best at the group/societal level. I think everybody has policies that their tax dollars support that they don't agree with. That is part of the compromise of living in a society. I don't think the solution is to have individuals decide on each line item they are personally willing to support unless we want to be a yeoman farmer society. Modern society is too complex and I think the ship has sailed on that point. I do think there is room for middle ground. I think it would be useful for people to see, say, on their tax returns how much of their individual tax money goes to each high-level government agency. This would bring it out of the abstract and connect them more closely to those policies so they can adjust them to their particular values by voting at the polls while reducing the overall information budget they have to digest.