3 ms·
> What value is there in asking taxpayers to pay for an increase the supply when there's already too much supply? When "taxpayers" refuse to subsidize non-taxp
by geocar 5y ago
> What value is there in asking taxpayers to pay for an increase the supply when there's already too much supply?
When "taxpayers" refuse to subsidize non-taxpayers, they run the risk of those non-taxpayers murdering them; the "value" is that it directly prevents death and revolt.
Some people just simply don't agree that people should have to die simply because there are too many people, either because they're (directly or indirectly) worried about revolt or because they're "good people" who think people have a right to life, dignity, and happiness.
But some people don't: either because they lie to themselves about what the ramifications of their decisions will be (or are simply ignorant to it), or because they believe in destiny -- that god, for example, wants some people to live and others to die.
- barrucadu 5y agoCome on, the alternative to taxpayers subsidising artists isn't that artists face a choice between death or revolt. It's that artists get a different source of income (which may require stopping being an artist).
- geocar 5y ago> It's that artists get a different source of income (which may require stopping being an artist). What a peculiar thought: Is an artist still an artist if they stop being an artist? > Come on, the alternative to taxpayers subsidising artists isn't that artists face a choice between death or revolt. No of course not, yet artists committing suicide for being unable to create their art isn't exactly unheard of. And what I said is exactly true if you maybe think about things a little differently.