4 ms·

"I don't want to live in a world where we're unable to escape working by constant taxes." I am against a system in which some escape work while others do not.

axiosgunnar 5y ago
What incentive would I have in your system to be a frugal hard worker that practices delayed gratification instead of a dopamine-addicted wasteful lazy consumer?
- gugagore 5y ago
  What incentive do I have in not-that-system to be a cooperative, generous hard worker that practices collectivism instead of a power-addicted exploitative ambitious business magnate? ^- is another awfully slanted question.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    > collectivism Collectivism is overrated and unnecessary. I'm a misanthrope and I don't want to live in a collective society, I want to live in a society where I can get away from other humans and keep to myself. Taxes and laws are enough to keep society civil and functional; going beyond that is imposing your own personal beliefs on everyone else, like a theocracy or dictatorship.
    - gugagore 5y ago
      You either missed my point or you are making my point. It is hard to tell!
    - naasking 5y ago
      > Collectivism is overrated and unnecessary. This is a pretty hilarious take IMO. Cooperation is literally the only reason humans are the dominant species on the planet. But sure, "overrated and unnecessary".
      - silicon2401 5y ago
        There's a difference between collectivism and cooperation. I contrast collectivism with individualism; i.e. valuing the collective over the individual vs valuing the individual over the collective. I want to live in an individualist society, not a collectivist one.
silicon2401 5y ago
This comment perfectly encapsulates the political/societal leanings I completely disagree with. This sentiment of "nobody can have anything nice unless there's enough for absolutely everyone to have an equal amount." Life's not fair, and no amount of politics or regulations will change that. There will always be some people with better health, more attractiveness, more intelligence, more charisma, better connections, more drive, better self-control, and so on. I have excellent physical and mental health despite hardly ever going to a doctor in my life; I have good genes and I have a natural interest in eating healthy and exercising. Some people are born into rich families and will never have to work a day in their life if they don't want to. Some people are beautiful and go about their life just shy of being worshipped because of their looks. That's life. I have zero problem with a world in which some people have a way better life than everyone else. My goal is to avoid bringing anybody down while bringing as many people as possible up. Let the rich guy be rich, and find a way to help the poor guy educate himself and get more opportunities. Let the beautiful people be beautiful, and help everyone else take care of themselves better and learn to make the most of what they have. It's anti-freedom and dictatorial to force everybody to wage slavery just because some people are born poor or are careless about their finances.
- naasking 5y ago
  > This comment perfectly encapsulates the political/societal leanings I completely disagree with. This sentiment of "nobody can have anything nice unless there's enough for absolutely everyone to have an equal amount." That's not what the OP said. They said that they're against a system that permits some to escape work while others never can. In other words, some people can comfortably retire when they're old, and some are basically forced to work until the day they die, and some never have to work at all. That's not at all the same as saying that everyone should have equal outcomes at all levels of the game, so much as saying that everyone should eventually be able to cross the same finish line. > It's anti-freedom and dictatorial to force everybody to wage slavery just because some people are born poor or are careless about their finances. What you're failing to recognize is that wealth disparities are artificially created by government policies. The government isn't going around dictating to people what is or is not beautiful, or dictating what you must eat so you will be healthy, or what you must wear to be fashionable, but they are dictating what every person must pay into the system to keep it running. It turns out, the people who are benefitting the most from the system are not paying into that system. If you're really interested in spreading freedom, then perhaps you should be more invested in the 99.9% whose financial freedoms are being curtailed in order to prop up that remaining 0.01%.
alok-g 5y ago
So no one ever retires?

axiosgunnar 5y ago

What incentive would I have in your system to be a frugal hard worker that practices delayed gratification instead of a dopamine-addicted wasteful lazy consumer?

gugagore 5y ago
What incentive do I have in not-that-system to be a cooperative, generous hard worker that practices collectivism instead of a power-addicted exploitative ambitious business magnate? ^- is another awfully slanted question.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  > collectivism Collectivism is overrated and unnecessary. I'm a misanthrope and I don't want to live in a collective society, I want to live in a society where I can get away from other humans and keep to myself. Taxes and laws are enough to keep society civil and functional; going beyond that is imposing your own personal beliefs on everyone else, like a theocracy or dictatorship.
  - gugagore 5y ago
    You either missed my point or you are making my point. It is hard to tell!
  - naasking 5y ago
    > Collectivism is overrated and unnecessary. This is a pretty hilarious take IMO. Cooperation is literally the only reason humans are the dominant species on the planet. But sure, "overrated and unnecessary".
    - silicon2401 5y ago
      There's a difference between collectivism and cooperation. I contrast collectivism with individualism; i.e. valuing the collective over the individual vs valuing the individual over the collective. I want to live in an individualist society, not a collectivist one.

silicon2401 5y ago

This comment perfectly encapsulates the political/societal leanings I completely disagree with. This sentiment of "nobody can have anything nice unless there's enough for absolutely everyone to have an equal amount." Life's not fair, and no amount of politics or regulations will change that. There will always be some people with better health, more attractiveness, more intelligence, more charisma, better connections, more drive, better self-control, and so on. I have excellent physical and mental health despite hardly ever going to a doctor in my life; I have good genes and I have a natural interest in eating healthy and exercising. Some people are born into rich families and will never have to work a day in their life if they don't want to. Some people are beautiful and go about their life just shy of being worshipped because of their looks. That's life. I have zero problem with a world in which some people have a way better life than everyone else. My goal is to avoid bringing anybody down while bringing as many people as possible up. Let the rich guy be rich, and find a way to help the poor guy educate himself and get more opportunities. Let the beautiful people be beautiful, and help everyone else take care of themselves better and learn to make the most of what they have. It's anti-freedom and dictatorial to force everybody to wage slavery just because some people are born poor or are careless about their finances.

naasking 5y ago
> This comment perfectly encapsulates the political/societal leanings I completely disagree with. This sentiment of "nobody can have anything nice unless there's enough for absolutely everyone to have an equal amount." That's not what the OP said. They said that they're against a system that permits some to escape work while others never can. In other words, some people can comfortably retire when they're old, and some are basically forced to work until the day they die, and some never have to work at all. That's not at all the same as saying that everyone should have equal outcomes at all levels of the game, so much as saying that everyone should eventually be able to cross the same finish line. > It's anti-freedom and dictatorial to force everybody to wage slavery just because some people are born poor or are careless about their finances. What you're failing to recognize is that wealth disparities are artificially created by government policies. The government isn't going around dictating to people what is or is not beautiful, or dictating what you must eat so you will be healthy, or what you must wear to be fashionable, but they are dictating what every person must pay into the system to keep it running. It turns out, the people who are benefitting the most from the system are not paying into that system. If you're really interested in spreading freedom, then perhaps you should be more invested in the 99.9% whose financial freedoms are being curtailed in order to prop up that remaining 0.01%.

alok-g 5y ago

So no one ever retires?