5 ms·

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

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."

otterley 5y ago
> Yes it is unfair to take away things that one obtained consensually, like to take away someone's inheritance. If it's never obtained by the heir in the first place because it's taxed before the property comes into the heir's possession, is that still unfair? Does that same logic also apply to income taxes that must be paid post-earnings? How about sales taxes? And if taxes are unfair, how do we ensure all the public things we want as a society get funded, if we assume everyone is equally selfish, while avoiding the free-rider problem? The more you pull on this thread, the more you begin to realize that we can't live in a functioning society without us all sacrificing.
- notch656a 5y ago
  >If it's never obtained by the heir in the first place because it's taxed before the property comes into the heir's possession, is that still unfair? Yes, that's back to one kid stealing from the other kid. Only the kid stealing is the government. >Does that same logic also apply to income taxes that must be paid post-earnings? How about sales taxes? Yes >And if taxes are unfair, how do we ensure all the public things we want as a society get funded, if we assume everyone is equally as selfish as you? If you want something, you trade for it, obtain it through consensual pact (like insurance or farm co-op), beg, do it yourself, or seek charity. Something that involves not stealing. You don't steal from others. >The more you pull on this thread, the more you begin to realize that we can't live in a functioning society without us all sacrificing. Exactly, you sacrifice by performing labor and engaging in trade and you get what you want. It's unfair to say I want a pony or a free CT scan and I'm going to rob that rich guy to get it. Do you go robbing guys in suits to feed starving African children?
  - otterley 5y ago
    > If you want something, you trade for it, obtain it through consensual pact (like insurance or farm co-op), beg, do it yourself, or seek charity. Something that involves not stealing. You don't steal from others. I think most of us would prefer not to have to go back to pre-Roman times. We get a lot more done when we as a society (if not necessarily individually) agree to what outcomes we want and what the rules are, and are forced by law to contribute to make it happen. > You sacrifice by performing labor and engaging in trade and you get what you want. It's unfair to say I want a pony or a free CT scan and I'm going to rob that rich guy to get it. Do you go robbing guys in suits to feed starving African children? Gee, you caught me! Seriously, there's a huge difference between an individual robbing someone of something that's rightfully theirs by law, and the law (to which we, through representatives acting on our behalf, have agreed) saying everyone has to contribute their fair share to a common cause we think is just.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      >to which we, through representatives acting on our behalf, have agreed I've never voted for a representative who was in agreement with taxation, and I've never agreed to be taxed. If you want to elect to do that voluntarily I have no problem with you doing that. I never even agreed that US government is legitimate. So nah, I don't agree. >We get a lot more done when we as a society (if not necessarily individually) agree to what outcomes we want and what the rules are, and are forced by law to contribute to make it happen. I don't take this to be fact. Government monopolies tend to be inefficient and free-rider problem can be rampant. > has to contribute their fair share to a common cause we think is just. If something is just and you want to pay for it there's nothing stopping you. Not a big fan of men with guns saying I have to pay to bomb brown in the middle east or fund nun-raping insurgents in Central America. I have looked into waiving my social security rights for instance, but that requires you to file a form 4029 and be part of a religious organization that has been around since about 1960. As an atheist I'm unable to file these forms to waive my rights. I would happily do so if the law is updated. >Seriously, there's a huge difference between an individual robbing someone of something that's rightfully theirs by law So which is better, taxing someone to bomb brown people in the middle east, or robbing a guy in a suit and feeding starving children in Africa? To me they're both bad but the robber sounds slighlty better if not because less people are killed with the ill-gotten gains. So yeah there is a difference, I think the child-feeding robber is better than the tax-man.

otterley 5y ago

> Yes it is unfair to take away things that one obtained consensually, like to take away someone's inheritance. If it's never obtained by the heir in the first place because it's taxed before the property comes into the heir's possession, is that still unfair? Does that same logic also apply to income taxes that must be paid post-earnings? How about sales taxes? And if taxes are unfair, how do we ensure all the public things we want as a society get funded, if we assume everyone is equally selfish, while avoiding the free-rider problem? The more you pull on this thread, the more you begin to realize that we can't live in a functioning society without us all sacrificing.

notch656a 5y ago
>If it's never obtained by the heir in the first place because it's taxed before the property comes into the heir's possession, is that still unfair? Yes, that's back to one kid stealing from the other kid. Only the kid stealing is the government. >Does that same logic also apply to income taxes that must be paid post-earnings? How about sales taxes? Yes >And if taxes are unfair, how do we ensure all the public things we want as a society get funded, if we assume everyone is equally as selfish as you? If you want something, you trade for it, obtain it through consensual pact (like insurance or farm co-op), beg, do it yourself, or seek charity. Something that involves not stealing. You don't steal from others. >The more you pull on this thread, the more you begin to realize that we can't live in a functioning society without us all sacrificing. Exactly, you sacrifice by performing labor and engaging in trade and you get what you want. It's unfair to say I want a pony or a free CT scan and I'm going to rob that rich guy to get it. Do you go robbing guys in suits to feed starving African children?
- otterley 5y ago
  > If you want something, you trade for it, obtain it through consensual pact (like insurance or farm co-op), beg, do it yourself, or seek charity. Something that involves not stealing. You don't steal from others. I think most of us would prefer not to have to go back to pre-Roman times. We get a lot more done when we as a society (if not necessarily individually) agree to what outcomes we want and what the rules are, and are forced by law to contribute to make it happen. > You sacrifice by performing labor and engaging in trade and you get what you want. It's unfair to say I want a pony or a free CT scan and I'm going to rob that rich guy to get it. Do you go robbing guys in suits to feed starving African children? Gee, you caught me! Seriously, there's a huge difference between an individual robbing someone of something that's rightfully theirs by law, and the law (to which we, through representatives acting on our behalf, have agreed) saying everyone has to contribute their fair share to a common cause we think is just.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >to which we, through representatives acting on our behalf, have agreed I've never voted for a representative who was in agreement with taxation, and I've never agreed to be taxed. If you want to elect to do that voluntarily I have no problem with you doing that. I never even agreed that US government is legitimate. So nah, I don't agree. >We get a lot more done when we as a society (if not necessarily individually) agree to what outcomes we want and what the rules are, and are forced by law to contribute to make it happen. I don't take this to be fact. Government monopolies tend to be inefficient and free-rider problem can be rampant. > has to contribute their fair share to a common cause we think is just. If something is just and you want to pay for it there's nothing stopping you. Not a big fan of men with guns saying I have to pay to bomb brown in the middle east or fund nun-raping insurgents in Central America. I have looked into waiving my social security rights for instance, but that requires you to file a form 4029 and be part of a religious organization that has been around since about 1960. As an atheist I'm unable to file these forms to waive my rights. I would happily do so if the law is updated. >Seriously, there's a huge difference between an individual robbing someone of something that's rightfully theirs by law So which is better, taxing someone to bomb brown people in the middle east, or robbing a guy in a suit and feeding starving children in Africa? To me they're both bad but the robber sounds slighlty better if not because less people are killed with the ill-gotten gains. So yeah there is a difference, I think the child-feeding robber is better than the tax-man.