4 ms·

> People are making rational and sound financial decision that benefits them personally and that is deemed a problem? Do you apply this logic to rich people an

> People are making rational and sound financial decision that benefits them personally and that is deemed a problem? Do you apply this logic to rich people and taxation as well?

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
I technically assume I know why you are asking this question, but I will respond in good faith. No. Money is power and too much power gathered in too few hands is a recipe for a disaster. You may consider me as something of a radical since if I had any real power to implement policy, there would be an upper bound to what you can own ( say 3 Hawaian islands ). I do not consider some poor sap trying to decide whether it is a better thing for him to get $cheap_food as a result of unemployment or minimum wage job an issue of the same magnitude. In fact, their only nexus is that they happen to involve money.
- drstewart 5y ago
  This is the logical conclusion to your statement: that someone making a personally beneficial decision can and should not be considered detrimental to society. Since you obviously _dont_ think that's the case, then it becomes a question of whether this is detrimental to society, not whether it's prima facie justified just because it's in each individual's personal interests.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    My statement >>People are making rational and sound financial decision that benefits them personally and that is deemed a problem? Your statement >> This is the logical conclusion to your statement: that someone making a personally beneficial decision can and should not be considered detrimental to society. Based on the above it would appear that you assumed a conclusion that happens to include benefit to society. That I did not state. What I did say, however, is that I find it mildly amusing that in a country where individualistic approach to life if not, dare I say it, selfish as a celebrated norm, the moment the situation happens to benefit the little guy, out of the woodwork come people bemoaning that someone is not making nearly as much as they did before. Forgive me while I do not shed to many tears in the process. But even if I assume your assertion that it logically follows that "that someone making a personally beneficial decision can and should not be considered detrimental to society."( and clearly do not think it does ). The two situations are diametrically different in scope, its societal impact and the way we would attempt to correct it. In other words, the problem is scale.

> People are making rational and sound financial decision that benefits them personally and that is deemed a problem? Do you apply this logic to rich people and taxation as well?

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

I technically assume I know why you are asking this question, but I will respond in good faith. No. Money is power and too much power gathered in too few hands is a recipe for a disaster. You may consider me as something of a radical since if I had any real power to implement policy, there would be an upper bound to what you can own ( say 3 Hawaian islands ). I do not consider some poor sap trying to decide whether it is a better thing for him to get $cheap_food as a result of unemployment or minimum wage job an issue of the same magnitude. In fact, their only nexus is that they happen to involve money.

drstewart 5y ago
This is the logical conclusion to your statement: that someone making a personally beneficial decision can and should not be considered detrimental to society. Since you obviously _dont_ think that's the case, then it becomes a question of whether this is detrimental to society, not whether it's prima facie justified just because it's in each individual's personal interests.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  My statement >>People are making rational and sound financial decision that benefits them personally and that is deemed a problem? Your statement >> This is the logical conclusion to your statement: that someone making a personally beneficial decision can and should not be considered detrimental to society. Based on the above it would appear that you assumed a conclusion that happens to include benefit to society. That I did not state. What I did say, however, is that I find it mildly amusing that in a country where individualistic approach to life if not, dare I say it, selfish as a celebrated norm, the moment the situation happens to benefit the little guy, out of the woodwork come people bemoaning that someone is not making nearly as much as they did before. Forgive me while I do not shed to many tears in the process. But even if I assume your assertion that it logically follows that "that someone making a personally beneficial decision can and should not be considered detrimental to society."( and clearly do not think it does ). The two situations are diametrically different in scope, its societal impact and the way we would attempt to correct it. In other words, the problem is scale.