Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahomescu1 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

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

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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

I understand your viewpoint. It's interesting how your lack of trust for things made you become socialist, while my lack of trust for people made me develop anarcho-capitalist tendencies. I guess everyone's political philosophy tends to stem from their core personality traits. Interesting.

My issue with the concept of centralized power in the society is that it has a tendency to consolidate over time and if left unchecked, tyranny is almost inevitable. Sure, you trust your government now, but nation-states generally have a very ugly history of oppressing and even exterminating portions of their population every once in a while. I just don't believe that they can be trusted not to do it again. Not everyone is a good person, and many people in the higher rungs of power tend to have psychopathic tendencies.

So at the end of the day, you don't trust your physical assets not to betray you, but you tend to trust the society you live in. My mindset is completely opposite: I don't think that people can be trusted not to do bad things. You mentioned bitcoin, and I think this is one of the elements that it solves almost perfectly: it eliminates the need for trust, if used correctly. Strong gun rights solve the same problem, they almost completely eliminate the need for trust: I don't have to trust the society to respect my property rights, I just have to trust that most people are not crazy enough to try to get themselves shot.

I think socialism is a nice concept and I think that the idea of helping the less fortunate is commendable. The problem is that it has to rely on the coercive element (uniformed men with guns showing up at your door) if you disagree with the system.

Not to drag this out much longer; as someone who strongly believes in non-violence, self-ownership, self-governance and rejects most forms of collectivism, I can't agree with pointing guns at people in order to create a safety net for others. It defeats the spirit of charity and looks more like extortion and robbery. In my opinion, helping the less fortunate should a voluntary act that stems from one's desire to do good, rather than fear of being violated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com