3 ms·

> The problem (and I think roughly the point being made) is that if you follow that logic through, then surely almost everyone here should have the vast majorit

> The problem (and I think roughly the point being made) is that if you follow that logic through, then surely almost everyone here should have the vast majority of their possessions & wealth taken, to fund the equalising up-lifting of others. And if not software developers why not? Who gets to chose which grift is a grift and which is an honest living? > I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. So you agree - software devlopers, who make vastly more than the average person should have their wealth siezed to save those people? Or are you the one being glib aboout saving lives?

Joeboy 4y ago
Have you ever been close to anybody who died? If you have prevented that, and then you multiply that by a few hundred thousand, do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out doesn't seem like something to get too upset about? It's interesting to me that there's a kind of horseshoe effect here with the "rich people must be protected" on the same side as the "rich people are evil" people.
- blitzar 4y ago
  > do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out Rich people like software developers And investments like every cent they earn Absoultely 10000% happy with taking every cent of it and saving as many lives as possible. Why are you against this?
FeepingCreature 4y ago
Humans have very strong instincts against exploitation by peers. I think the appropriate answer here is: "Sure, let's seize the wealth of approximately everyone in a western country." Singling out a particular group, even though it's less seizure in total, raises people's hackles for reasons entirely unrelated to whether redistribution is a good idea.
- blitzar 4y ago
  Like the around 88% of American drivers considered themselves to be above average at driving - everyone also believes that they are the exception. As for redistribution of wealth, even many multi millionaires consider themselves to be on the poor side of the wealth divide.
OJFord 4y ago
> > I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. > So you agree - You're quoting someone else there, not me (GP).

Joeboy 4y ago

Have you ever been close to anybody who died? If you have prevented that, and then you multiply that by a few hundred thousand, do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out doesn't seem like something to get too upset about? It's interesting to me that there's a kind of horseshoe effect here with the "rich people must be protected" on the same side as the "rich people are evil" people.

blitzar 4y ago
> do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out Rich people like software developers And investments like every cent they earn Absoultely 10000% happy with taking every cent of it and saving as many lives as possible. Why are you against this?

FeepingCreature 4y ago

Humans have very strong instincts against exploitation by peers. I think the appropriate answer here is: "Sure, let's seize the wealth of approximately everyone in a western country." Singling out a particular group, even though it's less seizure in total, raises people's hackles for reasons entirely unrelated to whether redistribution is a good idea.

blitzar 4y ago
Like the around 88% of American drivers considered themselves to be above average at driving - everyone also believes that they are the exception. As for redistribution of wealth, even many multi millionaires consider themselves to be on the poor side of the wealth divide.

OJFord 4y ago

> > I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. > So you agree - You're quoting someone else there, not me (GP).