If out of nearly 200 governments you can’t find one of your liking you have very difficult taste.
Or maybe the kind of government you’d like is not sustainable and dies off or evolves into something else, it’s a bit like natural selection out there.
1 Like
Sorry, that’s a excuse. There are thousands of ways to avoid people having access to things they haven’t paid for.
You’re missing the point: it’s not the fact that you pay for education but the fact that you don’t have choice of election: you pay they decide…
I’m fine with paying for military and justice.
Would you also put your weight forward by "contributing"one of your kids to the state so that they are “redistributed” to people without them?
Is that a common thing? I haven’t heard of many government do those, to me it sounds like something like that.
1 Like
Stop using this argument, you cannot redistribute kids simply because they’re people like you.
2 Likes
Why is that unacceptable with kids but desirable when it comes to money?
This is mostly a forum to do with finance and from a pure economic point of view, having kids is one of the best pension schemes…
It’s a perfectly valid point but so it happens that most people have kids.
Socialism is great when it doesn’t affect you.
We could debate it, but it doesn’t matter because that’s not a position I’ve heard anyone advocating. I mean we could also debate if we should force relocate entire population, or any other extreme policy that nobody here would advocate for.
I’d hope most people feel like there’s a difference between property or assets and people.
3 Likes
Sorry but I don’t think so, I don’t have kids, I don’t want kids…but I was a kid. I was not an asset.
And claiming that changing fiscal policy (the topic here) is comparable to redistributing kids is very far-fetched. Can you find another example which doesn’t involve mass-deportation?
5 Likes
What you guys are looking forward to telling me is: “if you want kids have your own, you f*cking moron”.
But then I’d apply the same logic with money: if you want the money of others…
My philosophy is to respect the property and assets of others but I cannot help to point out the hypocrisy of people willing to take what rightfully belongs to others claiming righteousness and equality (of outcome)
Ok so you agree that people are equivalent to property? You must have been very sad when slavery was abolished.
I’m pointing out to hypocrisy and double thinking of the common folk.
Neither of us were born then by the way.
Furthermore I neither support taking stuff nor people from others, it’s you who support one of them but sees the other one unacceptable.
Only thing you are doing is spouting one logical fallacy after another. Only person who thinks that you are winning this debate is you.
3 Likes
If you’re that interested in my “discourse resource” I’d say is close to reductio ad absurdum.
I cannot care less about whether I’m winning or losing the debate…and it’s sad you think it’s about it (but you have my sympathy though)
Have a nice afternoon guys!
It is not about winning or losing a debate. It is about having an exchange of ideas in a manner that is remotely feasible.
Children are not owned by the parents, the parents just have custody. That’s why I would think of a better example, if I were in your place. But I liked the Thatcher reference. Too bad politicians who think like her are rarely ever in power.
2 Likes
I’m presenting my ideas and you don’t like them. So what?
Have I been disrespectful to other people?
Different ideas is not a bad thing…
No, no…it’s done on purpose.
Everybody has kids so it’s something that affects them and by using kinds I hope it’s understandable that taking whatever is from others is not a good thing (even when directed to a good end).
You paying 5000 CHF now and not having them in the future (if you happen to need them) is something nobody (but you) cares about.
I’m not adressing the children argument because I get behind the statement that people are not stuff and that children are not owned by their parents. Also, children don’t have to provide for their parents in retirement except if their parents can’t pay for even their basic needs and the children have the means to provide. For people who don’t have children, the state provides through social help.
Besides, adoption exists for people who’d want to take care of children but can’t have, or don’t want to give birth to their own biological ones, for various reason (provided the adoption is for the benefit of the child).
I’m answering to this, though:
So this is about representative democracy. I can get behind it (though, on the local level, for the Gemeinden that still have Landsgemeinde, the citizens themselves have the responsibility to vote - or reject - the budgets that they are proposed). That’s where I become a strong proponent of political involvement, whatever your ideas might be. Citizens can join a party, exchange ideas with them, have direct access to their representatives and provided they lobby enough and are willing to change party if the road ahead appears stuck, get candidates themselves and get elected if a majority of voters supports them.
The system is pretty open, this is why I like it. All of that is protected by the constitution and the laws, the same that make it mandatory to pay taxes. If we don’t like part of the law, in Switzerland more than maybe anywhere else, it falls to us to change it by convincing people that the change is warranted.
2 Likes
Yet, it is an absurd line of logic and not a reductio ad absurdum which relies on exposing the extreme cases of an argument. The extreme case of income tax is not distribution of children. I don’t have a clue what you think one has to do with the other. It is like saying “Sky is not blue because my table is brown.” Okay? What you are doing is raising a strawman argument and reaching an irrelevant conclusion.
4 Likes
Your opinion, not mine.
As indicated I see as unacceptable to redistribute kids as to redistribute assets.
No, no…I’m sorry but I think it’s important because I think you’re missing my point.
My argument it’s about equality (of outcome)
That’s why I’m proposing the redistribution of kids as extreme case.