4 ms·

It's certainly not half, and really how we get mired in these things is way more complex than what you mentioned; I'd argue a lot of getting bogged down and acc

It's certainly not half, and really how we get mired in these things is way more complex than what you mentioned; I'd argue a lot of getting bogged down and accomplishing nothing is people whose views are not worth consideration (not all of them are, shocker!) clamoring about how oppressed they are that their disingenuous positions are not being taken seriously. If someone really believes taxation is theft, that is past the point of consideration. That leaves little avenue for reconcile, makes the bias very clear, and puts on full display the lack of critical thinking.

0xbadc0de5 4y ago
I get the sense this discussion has more to do with which team you play for than the substance of the policy. Team A will lean hard into it because Team B is hard against it, and vice-versa. Every year, we all have the option to donate more money to the government or related charities, voluntarily. That money could be put to good use on programs like this. How many people advocating for such policies do it? Probably very few. It's much easier to spend someone else's money than your own. Especially if we can convince ourselves that people with more money than us are bad people and don't deserve the same respect as we do. Where have we seen that play out before?
- Yizahi 4y ago
  You can't seriously propose a solution for the tragedy of commons scenario. I wouldn't voluntarily donate money to the government because it is dumb to make your living worse for statistically zero gain (because a single donation is like that, and no one else would donate). But I fully support taxation (as a concept, current brackets and laws are very inefficient), exactly because it is enforced on all population at gunpoint. I would not join army voluntarily, but I actually was in one because we have a mandatory draft and unfortunately a reason for it now. The only way humans can function in communities bigger than 100 people is enforcement of resource sharing, or they will be expelled/punished. This doesn't mean that enforced sharing is bad in absolute terms. It is relatively "bad" and inefficient, but the only alternative is chaos and no sharing at all.

0xbadc0de5 4y ago

I get the sense this discussion has more to do with which team you play for than the substance of the policy. Team A will lean hard into it because Team B is hard against it, and vice-versa. Every year, we all have the option to donate more money to the government or related charities, voluntarily. That money could be put to good use on programs like this. How many people advocating for such policies do it? Probably very few. It's much easier to spend someone else's money than your own. Especially if we can convince ourselves that people with more money than us are bad people and don't deserve the same respect as we do. Where have we seen that play out before?

Yizahi 4y ago
You can't seriously propose a solution for the tragedy of commons scenario. I wouldn't voluntarily donate money to the government because it is dumb to make your living worse for statistically zero gain (because a single donation is like that, and no one else would donate). But I fully support taxation (as a concept, current brackets and laws are very inefficient), exactly because it is enforced on all population at gunpoint. I would not join army voluntarily, but I actually was in one because we have a mandatory draft and unfortunately a reason for it now. The only way humans can function in communities bigger than 100 people is enforcement of resource sharing, or they will be expelled/punished. This doesn't mean that enforced sharing is bad in absolute terms. It is relatively "bad" and inefficient, but the only alternative is chaos and no sharing at all.