jimmyk

22 ms·

1.
by jimmyk 9y ago
Would it change things for you if that kid was your descendant?
2.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>We want money to move around, rather than sit in someone's safe It's just paper. What's wrong with it sitting in someone's safe? We certainly don't want actual productive capital assets to be idle, but dollar bi
3.
by jimmyk 9y ago
I'm not sure quite what they meant, but that doesn't sound quite right to me either. If the currency is stagnant or close to stagnant, the incentive to invest is that you end up with more wealth overall. I'm not sure it'
4.
by jimmyk 9y ago
"Without inflation there is no incentive to spend your money" That is quite the exaggeration.
5.
by jimmyk 9y ago
Are you saying Islam doesn't teach Muslims to behave preferentially toward (some of) their fellow Muslims in any way?
6.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>It's something people reach through anti-semitism. Believing some Jews and other enemies of the Nazis (e.g. Allied governments) lie is not the same thing as believing Jews should be exterminated.
7.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>It's probably because of the Age of Enlightenment in the west that did a thorough self evaluation over a few centuries. I'm not sure what a "thorough self evaluation" would actually mean. I don't think that&#x27
8.
by jimmyk 9y ago
People are legally mandated to buy third party health care payment plans. How could you possibly expect that to go well?
9.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>You can obviously avoid marriage in the first place, in order to maximize services or avoid taxes. No, you really can't. Do you seriously think the state is going to pay out more benefits to parents solely because they haven't
10.
by jimmyk 9y ago
Is this sarcasm, or are you suggesting that the same institution which set up these perverse rules has done such a great job that it should be given control over the funding of health care for 99% of the population?
11.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>but I don't pretend to know or understand their full argument of why it should be regulated One reason might be that they believe that having a culture which is hedonistic toward sex is harmful for society, and they believe that ac
12.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>There's not really a way to counter this mentality by people like us because their worldview is so entirely alien to us As you hint at up above, there are non-religious people who believe regulating sexual behavior is important for
13.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>totally legal to be a murderer or thief as long as you don't behave that way. You must know this doesn't make any sense. Murderer and thief are words that describe people who actually murder or steal, not people who just have
14.
by jimmyk 9y ago
I'm confused by your comment. >Society bundled behaviour and innate characteristics into a single thing. It seems like that's what you're doing here: >...you don't have any choice about being gay, or about having g
15.
by jimmyk 9y ago
What I'm asking is more like, if the government microphone in your potted plant hears you coming out as gay to your friends, would that be grounds for criminal punishment?
16.
by jimmyk 9y ago
Laws against inherent characteristics seem to me at least to be worse than laws which ban behavior. Conflating the two in order to make some particular law sound worse seems sort of dishonest to me.
17.
by jimmyk 9y ago
They're pretty obviously different. One is a characteristic of a person, and one is an action that can be taken by a person.
18.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>being gay is illegal in many places. Is that true? Or is it the behavior that's illegal?
19.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>hurt/ anger I think the word you're looking for is "hatred".
20.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>The foundations of libertarianism is a belief that individual rights and human rights are supreme. Trust me, I don't need a lecture on the foundations of libertarianism. I've read enough Rothbard and company to get a pretty go
21.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>I strongly believe some moral systems are superior to others. What experiment can you perform to decide if a moral system is superior to another? >In the moral system What is your point? Are you listing examples where you expect me t
22.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>Immigrants contribute a lot more than they consume. Some do. Many don't. And even among those that do contribute more than they consume, it seems very unlikely that the contributions and the drawbacks would be distributed evenly th
23.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>Well, the United States is a living example of a country that tried that, and um ... hasn't failed because of it. When did the US A) allow unrestricted immigration of people of non-European origin, B) actually have significant numb
24.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>Broadly controlling human migration at the border is a relatively recent thing (as in, just over a century). When prior to industrialization would mass migration (especially of another ethnic group) have been seen by the current inhabit
25.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>And you absolutely don't have the right That's true according to some moral systems and not true according to others. What's more important is that we have the power to do so, and we think it's in our interest to do
26.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>would be for the best The best for who? Do the people who live in countries with valuable infrastructure and institutions benefit from having to share them with immigrants that will be net-consumers of those services? (Note: I'm no
27.
by jimmyk 9y ago
The people in countries that have built up valuable commons have a tremendous incentive to restrict access to them. How would you get them to go along with this?
28.
by jimmyk 9y ago
It will age very well. Successful countries that behave otherwise don't stay successful for that long. If a country doesn't put its interests first, who will?
29.
by jimmyk 9y ago
It's pretty much the exact opposite of arbitrary.
30.
by jimmyk 9y ago
>"Number of" is a prepositional phrase From http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/prepositionalphrase.htm : >At the minimum, a prepositional phrase will begin with a preposition "number" is not a pr

More ›