4 ms·

It is very easy (and inexpensive) to say that every problem should be solved on someone else's dime It's not someone else's dime, full stop. The system misall

It is very easy (and inexpensive) to say that every problem should be solved on someone else's dime It's not someone else's dime, full stop. The system misallocated the money in the first place by giving them a disproportionate amount. The mechanism for valuating people's contributions is self-serving and broken right now. A teacher contributes 1000000 times more to society than a hedge fund manager, despite what the hedge fund manager will tell you about the benefits of liquidity that his activities are supposedly bringing about.

nickff 13y ago
>"The system misallocated the money in the first place by giving them a disproportionate amount." Though I have never seen convincing evidence (either way) on this subject, I will accept it ad argumentum. Using coercion to force someone else to pay for things I want is still a cheap and lazy way for me to achieve my ends. My point is that one should convince the hedge fund manager to donate money to important causes. Alternatively, you might contribute your own hard-earned money to achieve the ends you profess (or pretend) to value so highly.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  How very Randian of you. I don't imagine that you'd have much luck convincing the hedge fund manager to donate to anything unless they themselves think it is important. And it is very hard to convince them that others have it bad when they have it so good. Asking the parent to contribute their hard-earned money also seems sort of disingenuous. How do you know they are not doing so? Even if they did, if they are unable to contribute enough (for any number of reasons), it likely will not effect the issue in a large enough fashion. A Democratic decision is not 'coercion'. If the public decides something is important enough to them to pass a law/change the tax code they are not coercing the rich to pay more. The wealthy could just leave (with all that would entail for both parties) and no longer make their money off/with said public... Or they could stay.
  - nickff 13y ago
    >"A Democratic decision is not 'coercion'." So if a state decides (through referendum or legislative measure(s)) to compel slavery or imprisonment of one race or another, through police or military action, that would not be "coercion"?
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      Are you really attempting to equate slavery with the wealthy paying higher taxes? If we are reducing to absolute absurdity... This conversation is over. I have no interest in an HN fallacy battle. A 'democratic' decision to enforce slavery/commit genocide/etc is pretty clearly well outside of what was being discussed.
      - nickff 13y ago
        >"If we are reducing to absolute absurdity... This conversation is over." My example was based on the many governments which have treated certain races as sub-human; I agree it is not directly analogous, but I was trying to demonstrate that democracies are not always fonts of virtue. You went and called me a "Randian" (without any demonstrated reason), I believe it was you who was enjoining a "battle" through unsubstantiated allegation.
        mempko 13y ago
        That's a joke. Name me one democratic government that voted a race of people into slavery?
        nickff 13y ago
        I said "slavery or imprisonment of one race or another", and I believe the three examples below are all debatable, as to which they exemplify. Thirteen Colonies, 1705 Wood, Origins of American Slavery (1997), p. 92. "In 1705, almost exactly a century after the first colonists had set foot in Jamestown, the House of Burgesses codified and systematized Virginia's laws of slavery. These laws would be modified and added to over the next century and a half, but the essential legal framework within which the institution of slavery would subsequently operate had been put in place." Germany, 1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_... South Africa, 1948 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,_1948 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,...
philwelch 13y ago
The average teacher's contribution? In America? I'm not sure if it's even a positive number. You must have gone to really good schools.
AnimalMuppet 13y ago
The system didn't allocate what was given to them. Most of the wealthy either earned it (by doing something that others wanted badly enough that they paid for it) or inherited it. The only system that gave it to them was the free market. (Yes, I know: Some stole it, some got it via government influence, etc. But in the majority of cases, what I said is true. Bill Gates, for instance: what system gave him a disproportionate amount? Did he earn it by paying substandard wages to Microsoft employees? Well, no, he didn't.) (Also note that nothing in this comment is a justification for the appallingly poor rate at which we pay teachers.)
- gopher1 13y ago
  Actually, most of the wealth is created in the financial services industry, and one can make quite a compelling argument that most of this wealth is ill-gotten. Insider trading, market manipulation, government lobbying, money laundering, and on and on...

nickff 13y ago

>"The system misallocated the money in the first place by giving them a disproportionate amount." Though I have never seen convincing evidence (either way) on this subject, I will accept it ad argumentum. Using coercion to force someone else to pay for things I want is still a cheap and lazy way for me to achieve my ends. My point is that one should convince the hedge fund manager to donate money to important causes. Alternatively, you might contribute your own hard-earned money to achieve the ends you profess (or pretend) to value so highly.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
How very Randian of you. I don't imagine that you'd have much luck convincing the hedge fund manager to donate to anything unless they themselves think it is important. And it is very hard to convince them that others have it bad when they have it so good. Asking the parent to contribute their hard-earned money also seems sort of disingenuous. How do you know they are not doing so? Even if they did, if they are unable to contribute enough (for any number of reasons), it likely will not effect the issue in a large enough fashion. A Democratic decision is not 'coercion'. If the public decides something is important enough to them to pass a law/change the tax code they are not coercing the rich to pay more. The wealthy could just leave (with all that would entail for both parties) and no longer make their money off/with said public... Or they could stay.
- nickff 13y ago
  >"A Democratic decision is not 'coercion'." So if a state decides (through referendum or legislative measure(s)) to compel slavery or imprisonment of one race or another, through police or military action, that would not be "coercion"?
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    Are you really attempting to equate slavery with the wealthy paying higher taxes? If we are reducing to absolute absurdity... This conversation is over. I have no interest in an HN fallacy battle. A 'democratic' decision to enforce slavery/commit genocide/etc is pretty clearly well outside of what was being discussed.
    - nickff 13y ago
      >"If we are reducing to absolute absurdity... This conversation is over." My example was based on the many governments which have treated certain races as sub-human; I agree it is not directly analogous, but I was trying to demonstrate that democracies are not always fonts of virtue. You went and called me a "Randian" (without any demonstrated reason), I believe it was you who was enjoining a "battle" through unsubstantiated allegation.
      - mempko 13y ago
        That's a joke. Name me one democratic government that voted a race of people into slavery?
        nickff 13y ago
        I said "slavery or imprisonment of one race or another", and I believe the three examples below are all debatable, as to which they exemplify. Thirteen Colonies, 1705 Wood, Origins of American Slavery (1997), p. 92. "In 1705, almost exactly a century after the first colonists had set foot in Jamestown, the House of Burgesses codified and systematized Virginia's laws of slavery. These laws would be modified and added to over the next century and a half, but the essential legal framework within which the institution of slavery would subsequently operate had been put in place." Germany, 1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_... South Africa, 1948 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,_1948 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,...

philwelch 13y ago

The average teacher's contribution? In America? I'm not sure if it's even a positive number. You must have gone to really good schools.

AnimalMuppet 13y ago

The system didn't allocate what was given to them. Most of the wealthy either earned it (by doing something that others wanted badly enough that they paid for it) or inherited it. The only system that gave it to them was the free market. (Yes, I know: Some stole it, some got it via government influence, etc. But in the majority of cases, what I said is true. Bill Gates, for instance: what system gave him a disproportionate amount? Did he earn it by paying substandard wages to Microsoft employees? Well, no, he didn't.) (Also note that nothing in this comment is a justification for the appallingly poor rate at which we pay teachers.)

gopher1 13y ago
Actually, most of the wealth is created in the financial services industry, and one can make quite a compelling argument that most of this wealth is ill-gotten. Insider trading, market manipulation, government lobbying, money laundering, and on and on...