4 ms·
I.e. make it illegal to rely on anyone but the government to provide for your children. I'm sure unlike the last few times it was tried, this time such centrali
by Bran_son 3y ago
I.e. make it illegal to rely on anyone but the government to provide for your children. I'm sure unlike the last few times it was tried, this time such centralization of control and severing of parent-child relations will work out wonderfully.
- EA-3167 3y agoIt's Jacobin, they're just a tiny step away from being tankies, and their readers are already there.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoThe other alternative, everything is owned by the king was also tried. It ends with the king getting his head chopped off. It's almost like black-and-white thinking like this isn't exactly intellectually curious.
- Bran_son 3y ago> black-and-white thinking like this What does "this" refer to? I am not advocating for zero inheritance tax (though it should be low) or zero income tax (current level seems to be in a reasonable range) or zero trust-busting/antitrust regulations (currently woefully underutilized). I assume this is the neo-feudal "king" you refer to - the corporate concentration of capital? The only thing I objected to was entirely severing the chain of inheritance, to further cutting off parents from children (they are already mostly government educated). Objecting to one extreme proposition is not black and white thinking, unless one claims the opposite extreme is the only alternative.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoCan you help me understand? It just seems that when we're talking about nuance and middle ground that rejecting one side seems a little biased.