4 ms·
Yes, let’s further remove everyone from nature’s only real instinct for selflessness (familial bonds) so we can all become disembodied laborers for our true fam
by pembrook 2y ago
Yes, let’s further remove everyone from nature’s only real instinct for selflessness (familial bonds) so we can all become disembodied laborers for our true family: the central planner class in Washington.
I’m sure creating a strong disincentive to value creation won’t affect the economy in any way. Europe is doing so great with their much higher taxes, just look at Norway. By wealth tax hammering their entrepreneurial class the’ve encouraged them to leave so they can fully focus their economy on becoming a natural resource extracting petro-state. A real progressive utopia.
It’s not like we’d be creating a crazy strong incentive for the state to literally kill certain people to stay solvent. Ok, low key maybe we would be…but the Bolsheviks did such a fantastic job with all the private assets they seized.
There’s no possible way this can’t result in a utopian, prosperous, fair society. It works beautifully every time it is tried. Great idea comrade.
- ikrenji 2y agohow are you personally benefiting from the billionaires billions? trickle down is a fairy tale ~ always was.
- UltraSane 2y ago$20 million of completely unearned money is plenty for children to inherit.
- pembrook 2y agoYes, it makes perfect sense. Don't address any of the counterpoints I raised, ignore the implementation details, and just keep repeating that. It sounds like a really great idea. Artificially creating fairness by eliminating success has no downsides, especially in a competitive anarchic global system. It's gonna feel so good to not have those evil entrepreneurs trying to create too much value in the world to enrich their families. Fairness should be the ultimate end goal for everything, not overall prosperity. Because nature is 100% fair, this totally aligns with reality. History has shown these systems work every time.
- UltraSane 2y agoChildren of rich people don't automatically deserve all of that money they did nothing to earn.
- pembrook 2y agoYep, and good looking people don't deserve all the preferential treatment they get in the world. Those genes were inherited from their parents. We should do plastic surgery to the best looking children to make them average-looking...it's social justice. We won't achieve true fairness until we forcibly take central control of all decentralized processes (markets, nature) to ensure no tall poppies.
- mckn1ght 2y agoBad analogy. Money is representative of externalities, of things exchanged by others, like the time they spent working to earn the income, or selling something, and it extends through many levels of transactions in society. That’s nothing like someone’s good looks, which, by the way, is subjective and has changed over the ages.
- pembrook 2y agoUsing this logic, having good genes represents an even greater injustice. As you have said, money is a fuzzy representation of at least some value created via societal transactions. Genetics, on the other hand, are wholly undeserved, even by the people passing them on. If we aim to champion fairness, I don't see how this cannot be part of the conversation.
- mckn1ght 2y agoThe lady doth protest too much, methinks. If that’s what you want to believe, so be it, but I disagree.
- mckn1ght 2y ago