3 ms·

You can make just about anything a slippery slope if you wanted to - “they’re putting limits on guns, what’s next, kitchen knives?” Morally you should probably

by mxkopy 2y ago

You can make just about anything a slippery slope if you wanted to - “they’re putting limits on guns, what’s next, kitchen knives?” Morally you should probably be spending more time figuring out how to get everyone their first car instead of worrying about your legal rights in owning your second.

amatecha 2y ago
Right? What's with all the volunteer billionaire-wealth advocates?
- fragmede 2y ago
  well, see, it's embarrassing to admit, but you see, I'm a billionaire. I mean, I'm not one right now, it's a temporary thing. Once I'm back on my feet, I'll have a billion dollars and then, see, I just couldn't have restrictions like that placed on me. I think everyone should be able to get that. So even though it's hurting me now that the rich don't get taxed more, it's just this temporary embarrassing thing where I'm not currently a billionaire.
- Auracle 2y ago
  Just because something won’t affect people doesn’t mean they can’t be allowed to think it’s morally wrong.
FredPret 2y ago
Why yes, there are countries with limits on kitchen knives. And if your focus is on providing that first car, then the system currently doing that en masse for billions of previously-poor people is called “capitalism” and your moral imperative is to speed it up, not slow it down.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mxkopy 2y ago
  Capitalism only works when you have a middle class. Protecting billionaires’ abilities to hoard wealth is not in the interests of the middle class. To be charitable I’ll point out that in general that’s not what you’re arguing for. There is a real sense in which personal freedom is essential to people making it out of poverty. Protecting one person’s and not another’s would defeat the point. Here is the compromise. It should be easy for people to do things that billionaires would have no point doing (i.e. take out a business loan of $10K) and difficult for billionaires to do things that people would have difficulty doing (hoard the global supply of some good). That’s if your goal is to have an equitable society where everyone is on the same difficulty level, more or less. Approached this way there would not be a slippery slope because the delineation is quite clear. Moreover there’s no squashing of personal freedom, a billionaire is always free to do things a regular person is able to do. In fact the system we have now basically squashes the freedom of the average person because they are not free to do things (buy a house, have a chance in court) by virtue of not having money while other people have a ton.
  - AdrianB1 2y ago
    "Capitalism only works when you have a middle class" - I never saw a scientific demonstration of this. It is always in the "everyone knows" fallacy class of statements pulled out of the landing gear.
    - mxkopy 2y ago
      Ok, argue for a smaller middle class all you want
AdrianB1 2y ago
That is not even an argument. "shall not be infringed" means you cannot put the first limit, no concerns about more limits.

by mxkopy 2y ago

amatecha 2y ago

Right? What's with all the volunteer billionaire-wealth advocates?

fragmede 2y ago
well, see, it's embarrassing to admit, but you see, I'm a billionaire. I mean, I'm not one right now, it's a temporary thing. Once I'm back on my feet, I'll have a billion dollars and then, see, I just couldn't have restrictions like that placed on me. I think everyone should be able to get that. So even though it's hurting me now that the rich don't get taxed more, it's just this temporary embarrassing thing where I'm not currently a billionaire.
Auracle 2y ago
Just because something won’t affect people doesn’t mean they can’t be allowed to think it’s morally wrong.

FredPret 2y ago

Why yes, there are countries with limits on kitchen knives. And if your focus is on providing that first car, then the system currently doing that en masse for billions of previously-poor people is called “capitalism” and your moral imperative is to speed it up, not slow it down.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mxkopy 2y ago
Capitalism only works when you have a middle class. Protecting billionaires’ abilities to hoard wealth is not in the interests of the middle class. To be charitable I’ll point out that in general that’s not what you’re arguing for. There is a real sense in which personal freedom is essential to people making it out of poverty. Protecting one person’s and not another’s would defeat the point. Here is the compromise. It should be easy for people to do things that billionaires would have no point doing (i.e. take out a business loan of $10K) and difficult for billionaires to do things that people would have difficulty doing (hoard the global supply of some good). That’s if your goal is to have an equitable society where everyone is on the same difficulty level, more or less. Approached this way there would not be a slippery slope because the delineation is quite clear. Moreover there’s no squashing of personal freedom, a billionaire is always free to do things a regular person is able to do. In fact the system we have now basically squashes the freedom of the average person because they are not free to do things (buy a house, have a chance in court) by virtue of not having money while other people have a ton.
- AdrianB1 2y ago
  "Capitalism only works when you have a middle class" - I never saw a scientific demonstration of this. It is always in the "everyone knows" fallacy class of statements pulled out of the landing gear.
  - mxkopy 2y ago
    Ok, argue for a smaller middle class all you want

AdrianB1 2y ago

That is not even an argument. "shall not be infringed" means you cannot put the first limit, no concerns about more limits.