This is a strawman, we are talking about workers right in the US, not healthcare or gun control. You may disagree with the way work is regulated in the US, but at least attack those regulations instead of trying to derail into two other, highly nuanced and emotional, subject matters.
>This is a strawman, we are talking about workers right in the US, not healthcare or gun control.
Thats not what strawman means and the parent comment was talking about taxes, regulation and "individual freedom." Not wanting to die in a mass shooting or go bankrupt due to medical costs are certainly not highly nuanced...
You've been posting a lot of flamewar comments to HN. We ban that sort of account, and we've warned you before.
You've also been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle, and we ban that sort of account too, regardless of which ideology you're for or against, as explained here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... I had to scroll back months in your account history to notice even one comment that wasn't ideological battle. That's seriously not cool—it's basically vandalism, if not arson.
Since you've ignored our previous requests not to do this, I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Would you care to elaborate why? Estate tax (which IMO seems way too low in the US) makes it harder to accumulate generational wealth, and is a good way help prevent inequality.
Loving your children can be one of your chosen "ends."
What is abhorrent is when the government choses your ends, for you.
We should not want that.
We should not want government-forced sacrifice instead of giving an inheritance to a beloved person according to our own choices.
I would argue that people who want to ban inheritance love their "brothers" (random and probably non-deserving strangers) too much, and love their children too little.
Recieving an unearned $11.70 million untaxed income for free is the opposite of "our own ends" and "sacrifice". It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time but want to make a special exception for yourself and your kids.
The government forcing someone to give their estate to random strangers is absolutely a forced sacrifice. This is not me being poetic. I think we can agree on this. Do you not?
The question is, whether we want human sacrifice, or not. I think many people want that and would admit it openly. I, on the other hand, do not support human sacrifice.
> It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time
Do you want to have an honest intellectual discussion or do you want to try to advocate for your ideal system using emotionalism? Because obviously what you've said in this part has no intellectual content. Seems like you're on the border. Make a decision. Do you want to be rational, or not?
Can hiring only white people be one of my chosen "ends," which the government has no business interfering with? Can serving food to only white people be one of my chosen "ends"?
Yes. Freedom does not work if we are not also permitted to make irrational choices.
What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? That was true in my home state within living memory.
What if the state thinks it's irrational to not be a Christian?
What if the state thinks horses are "good enough," and cars are too dangerous to be allowed? Today's America would never allow the automobile to be invented. And Big Candle would probably lobby against the creation of lightbulbs.
Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Whether on the level of a single establishment, or a country. Rightly so. The civilized world--if there is one--will move on, and will help the discriminated relocate to free societies. (It's a shame we are not doing this for the Uigyurs--we should.)
I think we will respectfully depart there. I think there is, and hence, rights come from God. You don't think that, but it's such a fundamental difference that it's hard to go anywhere from there.
I'm curious what you would claim as evidence, if you are willing to share, even though, full disclaimer, I don't think talking about this sort of thing is within the realm of intellectual discourse.
When trying to reconcile budgets, I need to know what was bought for how much. On the order list page, Amazon does not show the total price paid, but makes you click into each item to see the total. Seems like a dark pattern.
I'm assuming you're trying to corner a point of "You cannot cite a specific law because it doesn't exist" without outright saying it.
It seems plain that, at best, Robinhood has violated its fiduciary, and at worst manipulated the market. This is one of those things I've come to understand as being illegal in the same way that I know insider trading is illegal. No, I cannot cite which law makes insider trading illegal.
Maybe you're right and there is no law. I personally don't have the time or experience to go digging through legal text to treat HN like an official courthouse. We will know by the results of the lawsuits, or by a video from the Legal Eagle on YouTube.
Insider trading is illegal. And I think what robinhood did should be /unless they explicitly stated they could do so in their terms and people went in with eyes wide open/.
I imagine it is, as it seems pretty close to market manipulation, I just want to be careful and understand what’s really going on.
Besides, along with individuals or corporations we should be going after the fed who really manipulates markets and steals from the poor. End the fed.
RH's terms don't overwrite laws and regulations. It is very tightly regulated what organizations like RH are allowed to do and they don't set their own rules.
The fed argument is really nuanced and difficult. They absolutely manipulate but not all manipulation has to be bad.
What reversal? If you're referring to a different scenario, then you should explain why they are comparable, instead of sarcastically declaring that they are.
I meant the general tone of this forum in regards to private companies doing what they want. Last week it was parler being deplatformed and most here were happy with that as the free market was doing what it wants. Now the free market is doing the same and people are pissed.
Unless you think that what robinhood did violated their contract, but I doubt the court will see it that way.
I don't know why you are being downvoted, from what I've read they have added a ton of users in the past few weeks. I think the Parler move is backfiring, prior to that it seemed like a battle between dozens of alt-social networks all trying to gain a foothold and after the Parler move it looks it everyone displaced from the traditional social media platforms has decided on Gab.
I think you have a rather stunted view of capitalism. Go and earn your money in the free market. You are then free to spend it how you want. Capitalism doesn’t dictate that every voluntary monetary transaction has to be market-driven. Charities exist. Donate to those of your own volition.
In fact Jesus came from Galilee, the working/merchant class area. Generally the more capitalist area. He spoke a lot about money, but all of the vitriol was aimed at Judeans, who were close to Jerusalem and politically connected. I.e. ones who didn’t necessarily get their money from usual hard work, but through political exploitation. Good podcast on it here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wROu4IPB4bQ
> Capitalism doesn’t dictate that every voluntary monetary transaction has to be market-driven. Charities exist. Donate to those of your own volition.
True, but only the market-driven transactions are capitalist.
>He spoke a lot about money, but all of the vitriol was aimed at Judeans, who were close to Jerusalem and politically connected. I.e. ones who didn’t necessarily get their money from usual hard work, but through political exploitation.
Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. He didn't make an exception for those who earned their fortune "honestly." He constantly told people to give all of their possessions away to the poor and abandon their individual identities and ambitions to the extreme of even attending their families' funerals ("let the dead bury their own dead.") He said "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
The goal of capitalism is the accumulation of material wealth, which is clearly at odds to what Jesus and the early church were trying to preach.
> He constantly told people to give all of their possessions away to the poor
No, this is an imbalanced view. Listen to the podcast linked, it was directed at Judeans.
I’m not saying that individuals shouldn’t be wary of holding wealth up as the most important thing as Jesus said you cannot serve God and mammon. But that’s a different thing entirely from “how do you get wealth to begin with”. One can become wealthy in an honest way and then be quite generous if he serves God instead of mammon.
Also not laying up treasures speaks to what one should do when they have money, not the system by which they got money. Coming from Galilee, I think he’d be more pro-free market since he railed against the politically connected who got their money through corruption.
Also there’s a time and a place to take care of the poor voluntarily, but don’t trust everyone whose says they care for the poor. You should donate to them out of your own heart, and be wary of centralized programs. Socialism is the Judas Iscariot view of economics: pretend to care for the poor and then line your own pockets.
Ok not sure I’d say it didn’t work out well. The important thing to emphasize is that they were voluntarily showing their love toward each other by selling goods to help take care of needs within the community. It sets a fine example that many strive for today within the church.
I'm mostly going with that because of the whole "it didn't last" part. It did seem to help them get through some tough times when the world had basically turned against them.
