4 ms·

I don't believe that anyone's need is a valid claim on another's life. For two thousand years we've had it beaten into us that we are our brother's keeper, but

I don't believe that anyone's need is a valid claim on another's life. For two thousand years we've had it beaten into us that we are our brother's keeper, but this is simply false. Altruism is simply moral slavery - it is an ethical system where everyone is enslaved to everyone else. Like any other form of slavery, it's bad for the enslaved people because they are not left free to think and produce the material values needed for a flourishing life. (I shouldn't have to spell this out, but I will so that there is no danger that I might be misunderstood: I think it's just as wrong to make someone sacrifice himself to others as it is to sacrifice others to him.) If you want to educate your kids, earn your money honestly and pay out of your own pocket to educate them. If you like the idea of paying for other people's kids to go to school, no one is stopping you.

tptacek 16y ago
You can pay to educate kids or you can pay to police and incarcerate adults. And that's if you're otherwise willing to let them starve, and to deny them any of the myriad of other social services they'll claim. Since we clearly do not live in a country guided by your principles, this is not a particularly valuable discussion to have in this thread. If it were a simple choice between kids not going to school and people paying extra taxes, people would overwhelmingly opt for higher taxes. Your argument thus represents Conway's opposition to stock option taxes... poorly.
- maxharris 16y ago
  I would pay to educate my own kids. What you do with yours is your own business, as long as you're not abusing them. Parents do have a legal and moral obligation to provide some education to their children, and that's it. We have universal education. Why do some of these students still go on to adopt criminal lives at the risk of going to jail? With all the money that is spent on students? All this money that wasn't spent on students over a century ago? It's simply not true that the choice is between paying for other people's kids and paying to jail them. People have free will, and basic moral facts (such as "don't steal, don't kill, don't cheat") are discoverable without any formal education, much less the awful force-fed government school kids must attend today. (Your thinking certainly reflects the mainstream. It is no accident that these schools bear striking similarities to American prisons.) America was once the greatest country on earth when it was guided implicitly by the principle I have outlined above (late 19th century). Since then, things have gotten worse, and just about any honest person will admit this (although they might not agree with me as to the cause). Ultimately, avoiding collapse and starvation will take nothing less than the discovery and acceptance of this moral system.
  - wglb 16y ago
    Do you know any really poor people?
    - maxharris 16y ago
      Yes. But that doesn't matter. The only question that I need concern myself with is, "how do I make the most of my life?," not "what does my neighbor need today?" The more people do this simple (but difficult thing), the happier they will be.

tptacek 16y ago

You can pay to educate kids or you can pay to police and incarcerate adults. And that's if you're otherwise willing to let them starve, and to deny them any of the myriad of other social services they'll claim. Since we clearly do not live in a country guided by your principles, this is not a particularly valuable discussion to have in this thread. If it were a simple choice between kids not going to school and people paying extra taxes, people would overwhelmingly opt for higher taxes. Your argument thus represents Conway's opposition to stock option taxes... poorly.

maxharris 16y ago
I would pay to educate my own kids. What you do with yours is your own business, as long as you're not abusing them. Parents do have a legal and moral obligation to provide some education to their children, and that's it. We have universal education. Why do some of these students still go on to adopt criminal lives at the risk of going to jail? With all the money that is spent on students? All this money that wasn't spent on students over a century ago? It's simply not true that the choice is between paying for other people's kids and paying to jail them. People have free will, and basic moral facts (such as "don't steal, don't kill, don't cheat") are discoverable without any formal education, much less the awful force-fed government school kids must attend today. (Your thinking certainly reflects the mainstream. It is no accident that these schools bear striking similarities to American prisons.) America was once the greatest country on earth when it was guided implicitly by the principle I have outlined above (late 19th century). Since then, things have gotten worse, and just about any honest person will admit this (although they might not agree with me as to the cause). Ultimately, avoiding collapse and starvation will take nothing less than the discovery and acceptance of this moral system.
- wglb 16y ago
  Do you know any really poor people?
  - maxharris 16y ago
    Yes. But that doesn't matter. The only question that I need concern myself with is, "how do I make the most of my life?," not "what does my neighbor need today?" The more people do this simple (but difficult thing), the happier they will be.