3 ms·

We should absolutely do that. If you want the public to respect your claim over an overly large piece of private property. Being your rich uncle's favorite neph

We should absolutely do that. If you want the public to respect your claim over an overly large piece of private property. Being your rich uncle's favorite nephew shouldn't suffice. You should have to do something that benefits the public in order for the public to grant you that right. And if you want the property to land in your nephew's hands, they too should have to contribute.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> You should have to do something that benefits the public in order for the public to grant you that right In our corner of the world we call that "taxes". What proportion of property comes from "Being your rich uncle's favorite nephew" Where do you propose we stop? Do we reevaluate your assets every day and expropriate them if some bureaucrat deems you are not "contributing" to society. Who makes that determination? Why stop at property? If humans are deemed not beneficial maybe the state can take over your body and donate your organs? Think that is hyperbolic? Nope. CCP started with property and is now doing forced organ harvesting. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests...
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  The problem with continual taxation like that is that the kind of entities that collect taxes become less trustworthy over time. So maybe the expenditure starts out as beneficial to the people, but over time it fails to corruption. So then you get this situation where everybody knows that the taxes are doing more harm than good, and somebody really ought to do something about it, but nobody wants a discontinuity of government because their property is justified via taxation by the old corrupt one.
ericd 4y ago
Setting one’s kids up well is one of the primary motivators to work an outsized amount.
- lancesells 4y ago
  This is part of why I can see copyright extending past an author's death. For many it takes a lifetime to pay off monetarily. For some artist's they don't see any success until death.
- jhanschoo 4y ago
  I see a society where one's kids have to put in their own effort in order to do well as more egalitarian, productive, and democratic. Parents of means who want their kids to do well can't do so with material possessions, but have to take exceptional care in their upbringing and skills. It correctly dissuades parents from working to the point of alienation and unjust negligence of children attempting to set their children up for success (which presumably increases the chances of maladjusted children), and presumably will result in more productive labor from the child.
  - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
    I see that society when I'm being optimistic. Usually I see one where the parents' efforts end up contributing to zero-sum games such that they set their children up for success at the expense of their peers, which creates wasteful conflict down the line and ends up being negative-sum in the long run.
    - jhanschoo 4y ago
      Presumably parental involvement in their children to set them up for success inherently makes lives more worth living than, say, excessive work to the neglect of children. It's not as though private corporate competition isn't at times wasteful and destructive effort anyway.
      - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
        Well yeah, working too hard and neglecting your children is obviously the worst of both worlds. But I don't think anybody is shooting for that outcome. I'm worried about the cases where the parents are working hard, for instance, to be able to afford property in the good school districts. In aggregate this widens class strata and creates preventable problems that the children will have to address (e.g. now you have to pay cops to keep the riffraff in its place when you could've just not had riffraff). Better to invest in solving problems that everybody shares, because your kid will be part of that everybody. Though I admit that that's easier said than done.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago

> You should have to do something that benefits the public in order for the public to grant you that right In our corner of the world we call that "taxes". What proportion of property comes from "Being your rich uncle's favorite nephew" Where do you propose we stop? Do we reevaluate your assets every day and expropriate them if some bureaucrat deems you are not "contributing" to society. Who makes that determination? Why stop at property? If humans are deemed not beneficial maybe the state can take over your body and donate your organs? Think that is hyperbolic? Nope. CCP started with property and is now doing forced organ harvesting. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests...

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
The problem with continual taxation like that is that the kind of entities that collect taxes become less trustworthy over time. So maybe the expenditure starts out as beneficial to the people, but over time it fails to corruption. So then you get this situation where everybody knows that the taxes are doing more harm than good, and somebody really ought to do something about it, but nobody wants a discontinuity of government because their property is justified via taxation by the old corrupt one.

ericd 4y ago

Setting one’s kids up well is one of the primary motivators to work an outsized amount.

lancesells 4y ago
This is part of why I can see copyright extending past an author's death. For many it takes a lifetime to pay off monetarily. For some artist's they don't see any success until death.
jhanschoo 4y ago
I see a society where one's kids have to put in their own effort in order to do well as more egalitarian, productive, and democratic. Parents of means who want their kids to do well can't do so with material possessions, but have to take exceptional care in their upbringing and skills. It correctly dissuades parents from working to the point of alienation and unjust negligence of children attempting to set their children up for success (which presumably increases the chances of maladjusted children), and presumably will result in more productive labor from the child.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  I see that society when I'm being optimistic. Usually I see one where the parents' efforts end up contributing to zero-sum games such that they set their children up for success at the expense of their peers, which creates wasteful conflict down the line and ends up being negative-sum in the long run.
  - jhanschoo 4y ago
    Presumably parental involvement in their children to set them up for success inherently makes lives more worth living than, say, excessive work to the neglect of children. It's not as though private corporate competition isn't at times wasteful and destructive effort anyway.
    - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
      Well yeah, working too hard and neglecting your children is obviously the worst of both worlds. But I don't think anybody is shooting for that outcome. I'm worried about the cases where the parents are working hard, for instance, to be able to afford property in the good school districts. In aggregate this widens class strata and creates preventable problems that the children will have to address (e.g. now you have to pay cops to keep the riffraff in its place when you could've just not had riffraff). Better to invest in solving problems that everybody shares, because your kid will be part of that everybody. Though I admit that that's easier said than done.