6 ms·

Replace "wealth" with "intelligence", "attractiveness" or even "physical strength", and you get similar threats. Big, strong people could hurt us at any time, a

Replace "wealth" with "intelligence", "attractiveness" or even "physical strength", and you get similar threats. Big, strong people could hurt us at any time, and "it's only through their continuing mercy that they haven't"; intelligent people could manipulate or persuade us, while attractive people could seduce us for their own benefit. And yet, we still let people go to the gym to work out and go to school and read books, even encourage them in most cases. I find this idea of "disarming" rich people for "the safety of us all" to be itself highly dangerous, and a slippery slope. People should be punished according to the law for the illegal things they have done, not the things they could do.

capisce 12y ago
So we shouldn't attempt to disincentivize countries from building up a nuclear arsenal, as long as they haven't nuked anyone yet?
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  On the individual level, that's like saying "so we shouldn't attempt to disincentivize people from buying guns, as long as they haven't shot anyone yet?" Opinions are divided on this topic, I think "no, unless they're a clear and obvious threat".
- VexXtreme 12y ago
  You didn't answer his question whether it's ok to try to neuter the power that people derive from certain innate attributes. I.e. is it OK to make an exceptionally good looking person pay a higher tax, because there's a loose correlation between physical appearance and one's ability to secure a good future? Furthermore, doesn't everyone deserve the same shot at procreating with a good looking individual? Shouldn't we start using the power of coercion to make sure that unattractive people get to mate and have children as well? Where does it stop?
  - saalweachter 12y ago
    Your argument is assuming that property rights are as important and as fundamental as other human rights. I personally am quite comfortable distinguishing between "what a person can own" and "what a person can be", and don't view property rights as anywhere near as fundamental as rights like freedom of speech or association or movement. So I think the notion of a slippery slope towards eugenics is absurd; that's like saying that dancing leads to lynching because both involve crowds of people and tend to happen at night. That's not to say that there isn't a slope towards, say, absolute communism or radically unfair property seizure, but that's way less scary.
    - VexXtreme 12y ago
      Ok, I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Our respective systems of values seem to be fundamentally different, because I believe that property rights are sacrosanct and an extension of who we are. In case you're curious how I came to that conclusion, here goes: in most cases (not involving criminal situations), private property is basically a store of our previously invested time. We spend a portion of our lives on learning skills and then applying those skills to certain ends, such as making money and acquiring property. If we assume that a human lifetime is finite, then reserving the right to redistribute private property and wealth is basically reserving the right to take the most valuable resource humans have - their time on this Earth. So if I'm working 10 hours a day and I'm being taxed some 40% (through a combination of income, property and consumption tax), then it means I am working only 6 hours for myself and my own personal gain, and the remaining 4 hours in fact belong to someone else. Now, I apologize in advance for this loaded language, but to me, that is a form of slavery. No one has the right to demand, at gunpoint, that people give their time and person to an end that they don't care about and that doesn't directly improve their situation. I feel very strongly about this, to the point where I left my country of birth (a European country with ridiculously high taxes), for a much better place where the taxes are much lower and more reasonable. It's a clear example of capital flight, on a smaller scale. I know my opinion is extremely unpopular in this day and age, but it is what it is. To me, strong property rights are some of the most basic human rights, no different than freedom of speech or association.
      - 12y ago
tszyn 12y ago
First, a pretty face, high IQ and physical strength do not translate into power the way, say, a hundred million dollars does. Sure you can hurt people if you're physically strong / attractive / smart, but not that many people. Second, if you believe law should only punish us for actually hurting people and not potentially hurting them, then you are against speed limits. Third, taxes are not punishment any more than piracy is theft and abortion is murder.
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  > Second, if you believe law should only punish us for actually hurting people and not potentially hurting them, then you are against speed limits. Germany has roads without speed limits, and they're doing just fine. > Third, taxes are not punishment any more than piracy is theft and abortion is murder. When did I say "taxes are punishment"? I was responding to the idea that we should take away rich people's money to prevent them from having too much power, which I think is a terrible slippery slope. Direct quote from GP: > Wealth taxes are about disarming everyone -- good and evil -- for the safety of us all, not about morality. Edit: > First, a pretty face, high IQ and physical strength do not translate into power the way, say, a hundred million dollars does. Sure you can hurt people if you're physically strong / attractive / smart, but not that many people. They do if you go into politics or the military.

capisce 12y ago

So we shouldn't attempt to disincentivize countries from building up a nuclear arsenal, as long as they haven't nuked anyone yet?

ahomescu1 12y ago
On the individual level, that's like saying "so we shouldn't attempt to disincentivize people from buying guns, as long as they haven't shot anyone yet?" Opinions are divided on this topic, I think "no, unless they're a clear and obvious threat".
VexXtreme 12y ago
You didn't answer his question whether it's ok to try to neuter the power that people derive from certain innate attributes. I.e. is it OK to make an exceptionally good looking person pay a higher tax, because there's a loose correlation between physical appearance and one's ability to secure a good future? Furthermore, doesn't everyone deserve the same shot at procreating with a good looking individual? Shouldn't we start using the power of coercion to make sure that unattractive people get to mate and have children as well? Where does it stop?
- saalweachter 12y ago
  Your argument is assuming that property rights are as important and as fundamental as other human rights. I personally am quite comfortable distinguishing between "what a person can own" and "what a person can be", and don't view property rights as anywhere near as fundamental as rights like freedom of speech or association or movement. So I think the notion of a slippery slope towards eugenics is absurd; that's like saying that dancing leads to lynching because both involve crowds of people and tend to happen at night. That's not to say that there isn't a slope towards, say, absolute communism or radically unfair property seizure, but that's way less scary.
  - VexXtreme 12y ago
    Ok, I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Our respective systems of values seem to be fundamentally different, because I believe that property rights are sacrosanct and an extension of who we are. In case you're curious how I came to that conclusion, here goes: in most cases (not involving criminal situations), private property is basically a store of our previously invested time. We spend a portion of our lives on learning skills and then applying those skills to certain ends, such as making money and acquiring property. If we assume that a human lifetime is finite, then reserving the right to redistribute private property and wealth is basically reserving the right to take the most valuable resource humans have - their time on this Earth. So if I'm working 10 hours a day and I'm being taxed some 40% (through a combination of income, property and consumption tax), then it means I am working only 6 hours for myself and my own personal gain, and the remaining 4 hours in fact belong to someone else. Now, I apologize in advance for this loaded language, but to me, that is a form of slavery. No one has the right to demand, at gunpoint, that people give their time and person to an end that they don't care about and that doesn't directly improve their situation. I feel very strongly about this, to the point where I left my country of birth (a European country with ridiculously high taxes), for a much better place where the taxes are much lower and more reasonable. It's a clear example of capital flight, on a smaller scale. I know my opinion is extremely unpopular in this day and age, but it is what it is. To me, strong property rights are some of the most basic human rights, no different than freedom of speech or association.
    - 12y ago

tszyn 12y ago

First, a pretty face, high IQ and physical strength do not translate into power the way, say, a hundred million dollars does. Sure you can hurt people if you're physically strong / attractive / smart, but not that many people. Second, if you believe law should only punish us for actually hurting people and not potentially hurting them, then you are against speed limits. Third, taxes are not punishment any more than piracy is theft and abortion is murder.

ahomescu1 12y ago
> Second, if you believe law should only punish us for actually hurting people and not potentially hurting them, then you are against speed limits. Germany has roads without speed limits, and they're doing just fine. > Third, taxes are not punishment any more than piracy is theft and abortion is murder. When did I say "taxes are punishment"? I was responding to the idea that we should take away rich people's money to prevent them from having too much power, which I think is a terrible slippery slope. Direct quote from GP: > Wealth taxes are about disarming everyone -- good and evil -- for the safety of us all, not about morality. Edit: > First, a pretty face, high IQ and physical strength do not translate into power the way, say, a hundred million dollars does. Sure you can hurt people if you're physically strong / attractive / smart, but not that many people. They do if you go into politics or the military.