6 ms·

> $11.7 million for individuals Should be 0. Death taxes are horrible.

elric 6y ago
Would you care to elaborate why? Estate tax (which IMO seems way too low in the US) makes it harder to accumulate generational wealth, and is a good way help prevent inequality.
- javert 6y ago
  We should not want to prevent inequality through government intervention. We should want to live for our own ends, not for the sake of other people.
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    > not for the sake of other people By that measure there should be no objection to eliminating inheritance altogether.
    - javert 6y ago
      Loving your children can be one of your chosen "ends." What is abhorrent is when the government choses your ends, for you. We should not want that. We should not want government-forced sacrifice instead of giving an inheritance to a beloved person according to our own choices. I would argue that people who want to ban inheritance love their "brothers" (random and probably non-deserving strangers) too much, and love their children too little.
      - geofft 6y ago
        Can hiring only white people be one of my chosen "ends," which the government has no business interfering with? Can serving food to only white people be one of my chosen "ends"?
        javert 6y ago
        Yes. Freedom does not work if we are not also permitted to make irrational choices. What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? That was true in my home state within living memory. What if the state thinks it's irrational to not be a Christian? What if the state thinks horses are "good enough," and cars are too dangerous to be allowed? Today's America would never allow the automobile to be invented. And Big Candle would probably lobby against the creation of lightbulbs. Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Whether on the level of a single establishment, or a country. Rightly so. The civilized world--if there is one--will move on, and will help the discriminated relocate to free societies. (It's a shame we are not doing this for the Uigyurs--we should.)
        CRConrad 6y ago
        > What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? The state doesn't think that it's "stupid" to only serve white people; it thinks that it's evil to only serve white people. Therefore the state makes that illegal. (And rightly so. Had it thought -- or, as you say, when it did think -- the opposite, then it was the state that was evil.) The state also seems to (at least to) some tiny extent think that it's bad to contribute to (or by inaction to allow) economic power becoming concentrated in ever fewer hands, and therefore tries to avoid doing that by limiting your freedom to aggravate this concentration. You don't seem to have a cogent counter-argument; what you're spewing is just simplistic libertarian rah-rah. > Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Yeah, right. That's why the USA kept doing precisely that for at least another century after the civil war. (Or, arguably, is still doing it.) The view you're proclaiming is hilariously Pollyanna. (That often seems to go hand-in-hand with simplistic libertarian rah-rah.)
      - Can_Not 5y ago
        > sacrifice Recieving an unearned $11.70 million untaxed income for free is the opposite of "our own ends" and "sacrifice". It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time but want to make a special exception for yourself and your kids.
        javert 5y ago
        The government forcing someone to give their estate to random strangers is absolutely a forced sacrifice. This is not me being poetic. I think we can agree on this. Do you not? The question is, whether we want human sacrifice, or not. I think many people want that and would admit it openly. I, on the other hand, do not support human sacrifice. > It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time Do you want to have an honest intellectual discussion or do you want to try to advocate for your ideal system using emotionalism? Because obviously what you've said in this part has no intellectual content. Seems like you're on the border. Make a decision. Do you want to be rational, or not?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- tesmar2 6y ago
  > good way help prevent inequality It's not the gov's job to prevent inequality, but rather to secure God-given negative rights. Or where do you think rights come from?
  - javert 5y ago
    Rights come from deciding what rules we need to have in place to thrive. Not God. There is no evidence for God. The argument that rights come from God is not sustainable today.
    - tesmar2 5y ago
      > There is no evidence for God I think we will respectfully depart there. I think there is, and hence, rights come from God. You don't think that, but it's such a fundamental difference that it's hard to go anywhere from there.
      - javert 5y ago
        I'm curious what you would claim as evidence, if you are willing to share, even though, full disclaimer, I don't think talking about this sort of thing is within the realm of intellectual discourse.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Would you care to elaborate why? Estate tax (which IMO seems way too low in the US) makes it harder to accumulate generational wealth, and is a good way help prevent inequality.

javert 6y ago
We should not want to prevent inequality through government intervention. We should want to live for our own ends, not for the sake of other people.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  > not for the sake of other people By that measure there should be no objection to eliminating inheritance altogether.
  - javert 6y ago
    Loving your children can be one of your chosen "ends." What is abhorrent is when the government choses your ends, for you. We should not want that. We should not want government-forced sacrifice instead of giving an inheritance to a beloved person according to our own choices. I would argue that people who want to ban inheritance love their "brothers" (random and probably non-deserving strangers) too much, and love their children too little.
    - geofft 6y ago
      Can hiring only white people be one of my chosen "ends," which the government has no business interfering with? Can serving food to only white people be one of my chosen "ends"?
      - javert 6y ago
        Yes. Freedom does not work if we are not also permitted to make irrational choices. What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? That was true in my home state within living memory. What if the state thinks it's irrational to not be a Christian? What if the state thinks horses are "good enough," and cars are too dangerous to be allowed? Today's America would never allow the automobile to be invented. And Big Candle would probably lobby against the creation of lightbulbs. Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Whether on the level of a single establishment, or a country. Rightly so. The civilized world--if there is one--will move on, and will help the discriminated relocate to free societies. (It's a shame we are not doing this for the Uigyurs--we should.)
        CRConrad 6y ago
        > What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? The state doesn't think that it's "stupid" to only serve white people; it thinks that it's evil to only serve white people. Therefore the state makes that illegal. (And rightly so. Had it thought -- or, as you say, when it did think -- the opposite, then it was the state that was evil.) The state also seems to (at least to) some tiny extent think that it's bad to contribute to (or by inaction to allow) economic power becoming concentrated in ever fewer hands, and therefore tries to avoid doing that by limiting your freedom to aggravate this concentration. You don't seem to have a cogent counter-argument; what you're spewing is just simplistic libertarian rah-rah. > Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Yeah, right. That's why the USA kept doing precisely that for at least another century after the civil war. (Or, arguably, is still doing it.) The view you're proclaiming is hilariously Pollyanna. (That often seems to go hand-in-hand with simplistic libertarian rah-rah.)
    - Can_Not 5y ago
      > sacrifice Recieving an unearned $11.70 million untaxed income for free is the opposite of "our own ends" and "sacrifice". It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time but want to make a special exception for yourself and your kids.
      - javert 5y ago
        The government forcing someone to give their estate to random strangers is absolutely a forced sacrifice. This is not me being poetic. I think we can agree on this. Do you not? The question is, whether we want human sacrifice, or not. I think many people want that and would admit it openly. I, on the other hand, do not support human sacrifice. > It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time Do you want to have an honest intellectual discussion or do you want to try to advocate for your ideal system using emotionalism? Because obviously what you've said in this part has no intellectual content. Seems like you're on the border. Make a decision. Do you want to be rational, or not?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
tesmar2 6y ago
> good way help prevent inequality It's not the gov's job to prevent inequality, but rather to secure God-given negative rights. Or where do you think rights come from?
- javert 5y ago
  Rights come from deciding what rules we need to have in place to thrive. Not God. There is no evidence for God. The argument that rights come from God is not sustainable today.
  - tesmar2 5y ago
    > There is no evidence for God I think we will respectfully depart there. I think there is, and hence, rights come from God. You don't think that, but it's such a fundamental difference that it's hard to go anywhere from there.
    - javert 5y ago
      I'm curious what you would claim as evidence, if you are willing to share, even though, full disclaimer, I don't think talking about this sort of thing is within the realm of intellectual discourse.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]