6 ms·

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

by capisce 12y ago

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.
    - saalweachter 12y ago
      Yeah, you're probably right. Irreconcilable differences. I think the origin of my socialism is that, honestly, I don't trust things. This is a topic that often comes up in Bitcoin threads: there is no such thing as a perfect store of value. There is no thing I can invest my time or money in that will not decay or depreciate over time. Currencies inflate. Houses fall down. Land fluctuates in value and can agriculturally fail. The gold supply inflates at a roughly constant rate of 1.5% as people dig more up. Uranium decays, albeit slowly. On the other hand, I have a very positive view of social networks. I grew up in the middle of a strong safety net. My parents, my siblings, my aunts and uncles and cousins, we grew up close. If I needed help, they'd give it. If I lost everything today, they'd take me in for as long as I needed. Since then, I've acquired a few close friends who would help me out, with a job or a place to crash. So even if I cannot trust my things not to betray me, having fifty people and all their resources there to catch me if I fall brings me a great deal of security and comfort. So I like the added layer of protection that comes from a safety net of 300 million people. I don't view taxes as something being taken from me, I view them as an investment I'm making in the only resource which has a chance of holding its own against time, no different than the time and money I invest in my kith and kin.

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

by 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.
  - saalweachter 12y ago
    Yeah, you're probably right. Irreconcilable differences. I think the origin of my socialism is that, honestly, I don't trust things. This is a topic that often comes up in Bitcoin threads: there is no such thing as a perfect store of value. There is no thing I can invest my time or money in that will not decay or depreciate over time. Currencies inflate. Houses fall down. Land fluctuates in value and can agriculturally fail. The gold supply inflates at a roughly constant rate of 1.5% as people dig more up. Uranium decays, albeit slowly. On the other hand, I have a very positive view of social networks. I grew up in the middle of a strong safety net. My parents, my siblings, my aunts and uncles and cousins, we grew up close. If I needed help, they'd give it. If I lost everything today, they'd take me in for as long as I needed. Since then, I've acquired a few close friends who would help me out, with a job or a place to crash. So even if I cannot trust my things not to betray me, having fifty people and all their resources there to catch me if I fall brings me a great deal of security and comfort. So I like the added layer of protection that comes from a safety net of 300 million people. I don't view taxes as something being taken from me, I view them as an investment I'm making in the only resource which has a chance of holding its own against time, no different than the time and money I invest in my kith and kin.