3 ms·

> Is it fair to redistribute wealth from people who are working, to give it to people who don't? I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just anot

> Is it fair to redistribute wealth from people who are working, to give it to people who don't? I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just another one of those clichés. Surely you can see how this sort of communication doesn't promote a healthy discussion. Is there an argument that you want to make or are you just going to demand that someone argue against your cliché?

gruez 3y ago
>I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just another one of those clichés. Surely you can see how this sort of communication doesn't promote a healthy discussion. And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is? >Is there an argument that you want to make or are you just going to demand that someone argue against your cliché? 1. if you look carefully I'm not the person that you originally accused of using "thought-terminating cliché" 2. You really haven't really presented any arguments for the original argument was a "thought-terminating cliché". All you did was assert that was the case and posted a wikipedia link.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  I am the original commentor. My intention was to form an assertion that could be disproved via a counterexample. Let me try again: Why should citizen A have to involuntarily transfer their private property gained through voluntary economic transactions to citizen B?
  - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
    Why should citizen B defend citizen's A extreme wealth in a state of war? Citizen A's property ceases to be private without a maintained defense.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      National defense is a public good. It is permissible to tax for public goods (nonrivalous, nonexcludable). Welfare ia decidely not a public good. Apples to oranges.
      - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
        National defense protects the public against external threats. Welfare protects the public againt poverty. Both benefit the public.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        The public benefit is not the same. National defense protects everyone equally. Welfare only protects those that receive it. Welfare is not a public good by definition. It is both rivalous and excludable. Governments should not take from some to give to others. They should only ever take from all to give to all.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  I'm not sure how you appease you other than to have simply not bothered with my comment; perhaps that would have been better. Still, seeing the mistake -- as I see it -- and ignoring it to move on to something else doesn't seem necessarily better. > And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is? In this case, an honest attempt at raising general discussion quality, even if it happens to lower it in the immediacy. > 1. if you look carefully I'm not the person that you originally accused of using "thought-terminating cliché" Yes, but you did use such a cliché in your response which seemed to have demanded that I argue against said cliché ("... but rather than trying to argue for why we should, you drop a link to some fallacy on wikipedia and call it a day.") > 2. You really haven't really presented any arguments for the original argument was a "thought-terminating cliché". Indeed, and I am still not even sure specifically what point they intended to argue. I don't know what a coherent response would look like other than to point out why I can't seem to form a more coherent response. -------------- Anyway, back to the initial statement. > I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others. It seems to be commonly decried that "people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should [not] be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others" and rarely asserted that "people with less fortunate life circumstances should be allowed the opportunity to take risks with their productive time rather than being forced into employment as soon as they reach adulthood". Your point is that I could start with this explanation or otherwise include it in my initial comment -- which is fair enough! I suppose I might subscribe a bit too much to a "Socratic" method of teasing out another person's thoughts rather than supplying my own.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    > and rarely asserted that "people with less fortunate life circumstances should be allowed the opportunity to take risks with their productive time rather than being forced into employment as soon as they reach adulthood". I don't deny this assertion. I deny the method of achieving this outcome whereby private property is stolen/taxed involuntarily from others to achieve it. People with worse initital conditions are absolutely free the opportunity to take risks with their productive time. I believe that the risk should be funded voluntarily by either charity or lrivate capital. Involuntary funding necessarily leads to less efficient economic outcomes.

gruez 3y ago

>I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just another one of those clichés. Surely you can see how this sort of communication doesn't promote a healthy discussion. And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is? >Is there an argument that you want to make or are you just going to demand that someone argue against your cliché? 1. if you look carefully I'm not the person that you originally accused of using "thought-terminating cliché" 2. You really haven't really presented any arguments for the original argument was a "thought-terminating cliché". All you did was assert that was the case and posted a wikipedia link.

hellojesus 3y ago
I am the original commentor. My intention was to form an assertion that could be disproved via a counterexample. Let me try again: Why should citizen A have to involuntarily transfer their private property gained through voluntary economic transactions to citizen B?
- tenebrisalietum 3y ago
  Why should citizen B defend citizen's A extreme wealth in a state of war? Citizen A's property ceases to be private without a maintained defense.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    National defense is a public good. It is permissible to tax for public goods (nonrivalous, nonexcludable). Welfare ia decidely not a public good. Apples to oranges.
    - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
      National defense protects the public against external threats. Welfare protects the public againt poverty. Both benefit the public.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        The public benefit is not the same. National defense protects everyone equally. Welfare only protects those that receive it. Welfare is not a public good by definition. It is both rivalous and excludable. Governments should not take from some to give to others. They should only ever take from all to give to all.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
I'm not sure how you appease you other than to have simply not bothered with my comment; perhaps that would have been better. Still, seeing the mistake -- as I see it -- and ignoring it to move on to something else doesn't seem necessarily better. > And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is? In this case, an honest attempt at raising general discussion quality, even if it happens to lower it in the immediacy. > 1. if you look carefully I'm not the person that you originally accused of using "thought-terminating cliché" Yes, but you did use such a cliché in your response which seemed to have demanded that I argue against said cliché ("... but rather than trying to argue for why we should, you drop a link to some fallacy on wikipedia and call it a day.") > 2. You really haven't really presented any arguments for the original argument was a "thought-terminating cliché". Indeed, and I am still not even sure specifically what point they intended to argue. I don't know what a coherent response would look like other than to point out why I can't seem to form a more coherent response. -------------- Anyway, back to the initial statement. > I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others. It seems to be commonly decried that "people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should [not] be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others" and rarely asserted that "people with less fortunate life circumstances should be allowed the opportunity to take risks with their productive time rather than being forced into employment as soon as they reach adulthood". Your point is that I could start with this explanation or otherwise include it in my initial comment -- which is fair enough! I suppose I might subscribe a bit too much to a "Socratic" method of teasing out another person's thoughts rather than supplying my own.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > and rarely asserted that "people with less fortunate life circumstances should be allowed the opportunity to take risks with their productive time rather than being forced into employment as soon as they reach adulthood". I don't deny this assertion. I deny the method of achieving this outcome whereby private property is stolen/taxed involuntarily from others to achieve it. People with worse initital conditions are absolutely free the opportunity to take risks with their productive time. I believe that the risk should be funded voluntarily by either charity or lrivate capital. Involuntary funding necessarily leads to less efficient economic outcomes.