4 ms·

Are you serious?

kuschku 5y ago
In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work. Inheritance acts against this principle.
- notch656a 5y ago
  In your fair world there would be no more than one generation's worth of success in science and innovation. Success of the next generation depends on our own. What I think you mean is a fair world socializes the success by removing the ability for consensual trade/gifting of resources from a person of one generation to another. But that is also unfair because it uses coercion on individual success. If you remove the ability to pass on success, I would just quit my job and abandon my children. Why try if they gain nothing.
  - otterley 5y ago
    > In your fair world there would be no more than one generation's worth of success in science and innovation. Success of the next generation depends on our own. Scientific knowledge usually goes into the public domain through patents and other information-sharing techniques. We didn't lose Newton's, Einstein's, and all our other scientific forebears' knowledge because they died. Come on. > But [socializing successes] is also unfair because it uses coercion on individual success. Coercion isn't always necessarily unfair. It depends on context and on what your society's values are. If one of your children takes all the candy away from their siblings, and you redistribute the candy to your other children, that's a type of coercion to enforce fairness. If you believe that a fair and just world is one where, by the sheer luck of being born to wealthy parents, you get advantages that others don't; and that you get to build on that wealth by keeping everything you accumulate based on that and get to pass it to your children, where the cycle repeats endlessly -- well, then, you have differing values than the rest of us. But that doesn't mean that alternatives are "unfair." > If you remove the ability to pass on success, I would just quit my job and abandon my children. Why try if they gain nothing. Or, you could not be a dick and instead spend it while you're living on your children's education, or give your excess earnings to charity.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      >Scientific knowledge usually goes into the public domain through patents and other information-sharing techniques. We didn't lose Newton's, Einstein's, and all our other scientific forebears' knowledge because they died. Come on. But if I use it it is unfair. You said to be fair, I quote, "the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work." That means I can't use Newton's work because that is not my own action or work. If I use it my sucess depends on his action and work too. > If one of your children takes all the candy away from their siblings, and you redistribute the candy to your other children, that's a type of coercion to enforce fairness. I don't follow how that is fair. One child just robbed another child, that seems the essence of unfairness. This is even more apparent when I say "one farmer worked hard and bred 9 cows while the lazy farmer barely fed his one. I took 4 cows from the hard working farmer and gave them to the lazy one so both had 5." > instead spend it while you're living on your children's education But that would be unfair as the child would benefit unfairly from my success rather than solely his/her own.
      - otterley 5y ago
        > But if I use [scientific knowledge] it is unfair. No it isn't; everyone gets to use it by nature of it being public knowledge. > You said to be fair, I quote, "the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work." I said no such thing. > I don't follow how [redistributing candy among siblings] is fair. One child just robbed another child, that seems the essence of unfairness. Usually, when a child gets all of everything compared to their siblings, it's because the first child got it unfairly in the first place. Redistribution in this case is correcting for the original unfairness. Note the fact pattern I stated: one child "took the candy away." > This is even more apparent when I say "one farmer worked hard and bred 9 cows while the lazy farmer barely fed his one. I took 4 cows from the hard working farmer and gave them to the lazy one so both had 5." So what you're telling us is that you don't actually have children and this whole thread is just some libertarian claptrap. Okay then.
        notch656a 5y ago
        I have one kid, it was an honest mistake that I pluralized them as it's one of my linguistic tics. I'm sorry but I don't see why the number of children I have is relevant. Your rebuttal is outrage at the number of children I have? >No it isn't; everyone gets to use it by nature of it being public knowledge. The definition of fair presented on the thread we are on specifically said, "In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work." If you want to change that definition then why are you arguing with me? My whole point was the absurdity. Newton's work was performed by Newton, not you or I or any other living person. >Usually, when a child gets all of everything compared to their siblings, it's because the first child got it unfairly in the first place That's far from a given. I was an only child but had best friends with a lot of people with siblings who commonly had scenarios with winner-take-all for certain goods because of chores they did, gambling, won a game, whatever. But it's true, unfairness does exist in the world. I never said unfairness doesn't exist at all. >one child "took the candy away." Yes it is unfair to take away things that one obtained consensually, like to take away someone's inheritance. >I said no such thing. Sorry I was quoting the original quote we both responded to above, I didn't realize you were actually disagreeing with it. If that was not your belief then you aren't really even rebutting against me because my rebuttal was against this statement I replied to and then you replied to me. [reproduced here ] In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work. Inheritance acts against this principle. >No it isn't; everyone gets to use it by nature of it being public knowledge. BUT THE PERSON I REPLIED TO SAID, "In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work". What do you not get about that? You're AGREEING WITH ME that by the OP definition using scientific knowledge is "unfair."

Are you serious?

In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work. Inheritance acts against this principle.

notch656a 5y ago
In your fair world there would be no more than one generation's worth of success in science and innovation. Success of the next generation depends on our own. What I think you mean is a fair world socializes the success by removing the ability for consensual trade/gifting of resources from a person of one generation to another. But that is also unfair because it uses coercion on individual success. If you remove the ability to pass on success, I would just quit my job and abandon my children. Why try if they gain nothing.
- otterley 5y ago
  > In your fair world there would be no more than one generation's worth of success in science and innovation. Success of the next generation depends on our own. Scientific knowledge usually goes into the public domain through patents and other information-sharing techniques. We didn't lose Newton's, Einstein's, and all our other scientific forebears' knowledge because they died. Come on. > But [socializing successes] is also unfair because it uses coercion on individual success. Coercion isn't always necessarily unfair. It depends on context and on what your society's values are. If one of your children takes all the candy away from their siblings, and you redistribute the candy to your other children, that's a type of coercion to enforce fairness. If you believe that a fair and just world is one where, by the sheer luck of being born to wealthy parents, you get advantages that others don't; and that you get to build on that wealth by keeping everything you accumulate based on that and get to pass it to your children, where the cycle repeats endlessly -- well, then, you have differing values than the rest of us. But that doesn't mean that alternatives are "unfair." > If you remove the ability to pass on success, I would just quit my job and abandon my children. Why try if they gain nothing. Or, you could not be a dick and instead spend it while you're living on your children's education, or give your excess earnings to charity.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >Scientific knowledge usually goes into the public domain through patents and other information-sharing techniques. We didn't lose Newton's, Einstein's, and all our other scientific forebears' knowledge because they died. Come on. But if I use it it is unfair. You said to be fair, I quote, "the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work." That means I can't use Newton's work because that is not my own action or work. If I use it my sucess depends on his action and work too. > If one of your children takes all the candy away from their siblings, and you redistribute the candy to your other children, that's a type of coercion to enforce fairness. I don't follow how that is fair. One child just robbed another child, that seems the essence of unfairness. This is even more apparent when I say "one farmer worked hard and bred 9 cows while the lazy farmer barely fed his one. I took 4 cows from the hard working farmer and gave them to the lazy one so both had 5." > instead spend it while you're living on your children's education But that would be unfair as the child would benefit unfairly from my success rather than solely his/her own.
    - otterley 5y ago
      > But if I use [scientific knowledge] it is unfair. No it isn't; everyone gets to use it by nature of it being public knowledge. > You said to be fair, I quote, "the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work." I said no such thing. > I don't follow how [redistributing candy among siblings] is fair. One child just robbed another child, that seems the essence of unfairness. Usually, when a child gets all of everything compared to their siblings, it's because the first child got it unfairly in the first place. Redistribution in this case is correcting for the original unfairness. Note the fact pattern I stated: one child "took the candy away." > This is even more apparent when I say "one farmer worked hard and bred 9 cows while the lazy farmer barely fed his one. I took 4 cows from the hard working farmer and gave them to the lazy one so both had 5." So what you're telling us is that you don't actually have children and this whole thread is just some libertarian claptrap. Okay then.
      - notch656a 5y ago
        I have one kid, it was an honest mistake that I pluralized them as it's one of my linguistic tics. I'm sorry but I don't see why the number of children I have is relevant. Your rebuttal is outrage at the number of children I have? >No it isn't; everyone gets to use it by nature of it being public knowledge. The definition of fair presented on the thread we are on specifically said, "In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work." If you want to change that definition then why are you arguing with me? My whole point was the absurdity. Newton's work was performed by Newton, not you or I or any other living person. >Usually, when a child gets all of everything compared to their siblings, it's because the first child got it unfairly in the first place That's far from a given. I was an only child but had best friends with a lot of people with siblings who commonly had scenarios with winner-take-all for certain goods because of chores they did, gambling, won a game, whatever. But it's true, unfairness does exist in the world. I never said unfairness doesn't exist at all. >one child "took the candy away." Yes it is unfair to take away things that one obtained consensually, like to take away someone's inheritance. >I said no such thing. Sorry I was quoting the original quote we both responded to above, I didn't realize you were actually disagreeing with it. If that was not your belief then you aren't really even rebutting against me because my rebuttal was against this statement I replied to and then you replied to me. [reproduced here ] In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work. Inheritance acts against this principle. >No it isn't; everyone gets to use it by nature of it being public knowledge. BUT THE PERSON I REPLIED TO SAID, "In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work". What do you not get about that? You're AGREEING WITH ME that by the OP definition using scientific knowledge is "unfair."