4 ms·

> I've always thought that economically, fairness would be "all the natural wealth is shared equally" with "all the man made wealth accumulates to the man doing

> I've always thought that economically, fairness would be "all the natural wealth is shared equally" with "all the man made wealth accumulates to the man doing the making" seemed like the most fair option. I don't. The world is not so simple, person "making" something sure creates something. Who prices it? How do you price it? Is a man entitled to the price he sets? How do you ensure a man who mines silicone today is pricing it correctly so that he does not "unfairly" disadvantage a man who is going to be born 300 years later that will live next to the now depleted silicone mine? Would that man born 300 years later even matter? Where should people live? Do we maximize the utility for the average? Do we maximize utility for the most productive? > So, the question we should probably not asking while stroking our chins is not "what is the precise level of wealth inequality that is fair?" No, we're still there, you can't pretend like you've convinced me with jumps in logic and then continue talking past me. Or you can, see how far that gets you in getting support. > It is "who are the parasites? and how do we kill the parasites?" You haven't even established what a "parasite" is, and you're jumping to culling them already? When does someone turn into a "parasite", exactly? See, we're back to asking what amount level of "wealth inequality" is OK again. This is what happens when you skip or ignore questions.

pydry 3y ago
>I don't. The world is not so simple Why would you assume forming a fair economic system would be easy and simple? Is a fair justice system easy and simple? Do you want to destroy the justice system and replace it with "king decides" like we used to have because it's oh, just too complicated to have a legal system? >No, we're still there You're still here. You're still asking the question "what's the exact volume of blood a human body is supposed to have? Answer me that!" while I'm asking "how can we better identify and kill mosquitoes?" It's worth noting that in nature, parasites often try to "trick" hosts into believing that an exchange is necessary or mutually beneficial. That can make killing parasites complicated. Nature doesn't give up though. Hosts will form elaborate defenses to protect themselves. >You haven't even established what a "parasite" is I gave a very clear definition above. If you take a greater than equal share of the world's wealth then you are a parasite on somebody else's share. This includes Saudi Princes who contribute nothing and sell access to oil from under "their" sand. If you extract the value of somebody's labor you are a parasite. This includes Alice Walton. This includes every businessman who exploits his workers. This includes shareholders of those businesses. Some parasitic wealth transfers are more obvious than others. Some are legal. Some are not. Some are subtle. Some are not. A person's wealth can constitute a mix of parasitic wealth transfers and earned wealth. A parasite can also be a host. Sometimes these transfers can cancel each other out. One thing that is always true is that the more parasitic a wealth transfer is, the more absurdly insistent the parasite is that they've really earned it. Hence all those stupid fawning Forbes articles about how they work long hours and sleep under their desk. That is the parasite trying to trick the host. It's worth remembering that the justice system is not perfect. Perfect justice is impossible. Mediocre justice is hard. Good justice is very complicated. So the logical corollary of your argument that "perfection is impossible, why bother trying" is that we should trash the entire justice system and return to something nice and simple like "king decides". Is that what you want though? >See, we're back to asking what amount level of "wealth inequality" is OK again. You certainly seem really keen to keep dragging the question back to "what is the exact volume of blood a mosquito victim is supposed to have, anyway, huh?" If mosquitoes could speak, I'm sure it'd be something a mosquito would say :)
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  > You certainly seem really keen to keep dragging the question back to "what is the exact volume of blood a mosquito victim is supposed to have, anyway, huh?" Because you avoid describing it, you avoid taking a position, so only you can have a position, but no one knows what it is, so there is no way for anyone to argue against you, so you, and only you, get to talk. If that's your only goal then by all means, talk to yourself. > If mosquitoes could speak, I'm sure it'd be something a mosquito would say :) Why not just outright say what you mean instead of being a coward?
  - pydry 3y ago
    >Because you avoid describing it, you avoid taking a position Because I'm obviously going to take an opinion of "however much blood a person has before a mosquito bites them is however much they should have" rather than specifying a precise amount in liters. The technical term for what you're doing here is "red herring".
    - latency-guy2 3y ago
      There is nothing technical about your rhetoric

pydry 3y ago

>I don't. The world is not so simple Why would you assume forming a fair economic system would be easy and simple? Is a fair justice system easy and simple? Do you want to destroy the justice system and replace it with "king decides" like we used to have because it's oh, just too complicated to have a legal system? >No, we're still there You're still here. You're still asking the question "what's the exact volume of blood a human body is supposed to have? Answer me that!" while I'm asking "how can we better identify and kill mosquitoes?" It's worth noting that in nature, parasites often try to "trick" hosts into believing that an exchange is necessary or mutually beneficial. That can make killing parasites complicated. Nature doesn't give up though. Hosts will form elaborate defenses to protect themselves. >You haven't even established what a "parasite" is I gave a very clear definition above. If you take a greater than equal share of the world's wealth then you are a parasite on somebody else's share. This includes Saudi Princes who contribute nothing and sell access to oil from under "their" sand. If you extract the value of somebody's labor you are a parasite. This includes Alice Walton. This includes every businessman who exploits his workers. This includes shareholders of those businesses. Some parasitic wealth transfers are more obvious than others. Some are legal. Some are not. Some are subtle. Some are not. A person's wealth can constitute a mix of parasitic wealth transfers and earned wealth. A parasite can also be a host. Sometimes these transfers can cancel each other out. One thing that is always true is that the more parasitic a wealth transfer is, the more absurdly insistent the parasite is that they've really earned it. Hence all those stupid fawning Forbes articles about how they work long hours and sleep under their desk. That is the parasite trying to trick the host. It's worth remembering that the justice system is not perfect. Perfect justice is impossible. Mediocre justice is hard. Good justice is very complicated. So the logical corollary of your argument that "perfection is impossible, why bother trying" is that we should trash the entire justice system and return to something nice and simple like "king decides". Is that what you want though? >See, we're back to asking what amount level of "wealth inequality" is OK again. You certainly seem really keen to keep dragging the question back to "what is the exact volume of blood a mosquito victim is supposed to have, anyway, huh?" If mosquitoes could speak, I'm sure it'd be something a mosquito would say :)

latency-guy2 3y ago
> You certainly seem really keen to keep dragging the question back to "what is the exact volume of blood a mosquito victim is supposed to have, anyway, huh?" Because you avoid describing it, you avoid taking a position, so only you can have a position, but no one knows what it is, so there is no way for anyone to argue against you, so you, and only you, get to talk. If that's your only goal then by all means, talk to yourself. > If mosquitoes could speak, I'm sure it'd be something a mosquito would say :) Why not just outright say what you mean instead of being a coward?
- pydry 3y ago
  >Because you avoid describing it, you avoid taking a position Because I'm obviously going to take an opinion of "however much blood a person has before a mosquito bites them is however much they should have" rather than specifying a precise amount in liters. The technical term for what you're doing here is "red herring".
  - latency-guy2 3y ago
    There is nothing technical about your rhetoric