3 ms·

> just so their heirs can have an unearned pile of cash Do you think everyone should start out at zero and then build up debt until they are old enough to star

by zepto 5y ago

> just so their heirs can have an unearned pile of cash Do you think everyone should start out at zero and then build up debt until they are old enough to start working and paying it off?

alisonkisk 5y ago
Everyone? No Some people, but not others? Also no.
andrepd 5y ago
Why is it more leginitate for some people to start at zero and build up debt until they are old enough to start working and paying it off, while other people start with a cool few mil in the bank and never have to work a day in their lives, being able to extract the surplus value from the former's labour and still enjoying a vastly superior standard of living?
- zajio1am 5y ago
  Because it is not possible to forbid procreation to ones who cannot provide enough starting capital to their children. But one can still consider that irresponsible. It is false dilemma 'start at zero' vs 'few mil in the bank'. Providing to children some basic capital resources that are necessary for living in society is something that could be done by significant share of population.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    > Because it is not possible to forbid procreation to ones who cannot provide enough starting capital to their children. Neither possible nor desirable, what on earth made you think I was suggesting such an absurd dystopian notion? > But one can still consider that irresponsible. No. Making children is our #1 biological imperative. In a sense, it's the only "objective" purpose we have on this land: generate descendants before we die. It's absurd to say poor people are to blame if they want to have children. > Providing to children some basic capital resources that are necessary for living in society could be done by significant share of population. Not sure what you're arguing for here.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Why is it more leginitate for some people to start at zero and build up debt Why would some choose to bear a child and place them in such circumstances?
  - andrepd 5y ago
    The things you read online... Like I said in another comment, making children is our #1 biological imperative. In a sense the only "objective" purpose it can be said we have in life is generating descendants before we die. It's ridiculous to say that the poor and capital-deprived persons in this world should abstain from starting families. The very suggestion borders on eugenics.
    - zepto 5y ago
      If it’s ridiculous to suggest the poor should care about the conditions they bring children into and should do it anyway, then why is it not also ridiculous to suggest that the rich should care about those conditions? Many people in fact do put off or abstain from having children for exactly the reason that they don’t think they can provide for them. > The very suggestion borders on eugenics. This seems like a bizarre inference.
boublepop 5y ago
Of cause not! That’s preposterous. That should only be true for poor people.

by zepto 5y ago

> just so their heirs can have an unearned pile of cash Do you think everyone should start out at zero and then build up debt until they are old enough to start working and paying it off?

alisonkisk 5y ago

Everyone? No Some people, but not others? Also no.

andrepd 5y ago

Why is it more leginitate for some people to start at zero and build up debt until they are old enough to start working and paying it off, while other people start with a cool few mil in the bank and never have to work a day in their lives, being able to extract the surplus value from the former's labour and still enjoying a vastly superior standard of living?

zajio1am 5y ago
Because it is not possible to forbid procreation to ones who cannot provide enough starting capital to their children. But one can still consider that irresponsible. It is false dilemma 'start at zero' vs 'few mil in the bank'. Providing to children some basic capital resources that are necessary for living in society is something that could be done by significant share of population.
- andrepd 5y ago
  > Because it is not possible to forbid procreation to ones who cannot provide enough starting capital to their children. Neither possible nor desirable, what on earth made you think I was suggesting such an absurd dystopian notion? > But one can still consider that irresponsible. No. Making children is our #1 biological imperative. In a sense, it's the only "objective" purpose we have on this land: generate descendants before we die. It's absurd to say poor people are to blame if they want to have children. > Providing to children some basic capital resources that are necessary for living in society could be done by significant share of population. Not sure what you're arguing for here.
zepto 5y ago
> Why is it more leginitate for some people to start at zero and build up debt Why would some choose to bear a child and place them in such circumstances?
- andrepd 5y ago
  The things you read online... Like I said in another comment, making children is our #1 biological imperative. In a sense the only "objective" purpose it can be said we have in life is generating descendants before we die. It's ridiculous to say that the poor and capital-deprived persons in this world should abstain from starting families. The very suggestion borders on eugenics.
  - zepto 5y ago
    If it’s ridiculous to suggest the poor should care about the conditions they bring children into and should do it anyway, then why is it not also ridiculous to suggest that the rich should care about those conditions? Many people in fact do put off or abstain from having children for exactly the reason that they don’t think they can provide for them. > The very suggestion borders on eugenics. This seems like a bizarre inference.

boublepop 5y ago

Of cause not! That’s preposterous. That should only be true for poor people.