Of course, you’re not earning over $1MM ever again…
1 Like
Is this a global system or just national? What keeps me from moving?
How do you deal with real property and/or gold, vintage cars, art, etc.?
It’s a national system and nothing keeps you from moving. However, you will pay an expatriation tax if you decide to leave equal to 50% of your net worth in the form of cash or real property or a combination.
This is just an earnings cap (I think that was the original premise?). So, if you convert your earnings into real property to save it or as an investment I think that’s fine. However, note any investment gain would also count towards the annual earnings cap.
*You did say capping “wealth” vs. capping “earnings”. In that case, I would say the sale of real property would be monitored by a second additional department of the treasury and would count towards your wealth cap. If you’ve accumulated $1MM in real property you would forfeit your entire earnings.
**Real property assessments on things like vintage cars and homes would occur on a three-year basis. Gold and other commodities would be assessed using either a rolling average for the year or as of Dec 31st.
1 Like
That’s what. How’s that a good thing?
I’m going to sort of cheat here, because arguing for a single world government makes me want to vomit. I disagree with the assertion but, well you’ll see.
No religion shouldn’t be banned.
If we take the post modernist view of “every relationship and interaction is based on power” or even the classical view of “power corrupts” you need religion in the Holy Trinity of power institutions. Those three being the State, the Economic Giants and Religion.
As of right now, evil people with a will to power have to corrupt one of the trinity and use that to destroy the other two, in order to get absolute power. For example, Hitler took the State and forced the other two to prostrate its will. If we ban one of them, it only makes it easier to gain absolute control.
This, while a sufficient reason for freedom of religion on it’s own, ignores the pure power of faith in and of itself. Once one’s faith in God or some iteration of the “god concept” is channeled into a religion, it is hard, if not impossible, to break the bond between one’s faith and one’s religion. So any attempts to ban one or any religion will be met with much hostility from the religious, which are far too much of the population to effectively control, without using their said religion.
Just as the Contemporary American Leftists have effectively created the “alt-right” and people shifting to the right, and serious attack on religions, even if by a single world government, would prove too costly from strictly a moral problem, let alone a body count one. If we were to pit a situation where the religious had to band together, and they would under enough pressure, the anti-theists and other standout atheists would be vanquished in a matter of hours, the world over. (Not including the sheer volume of converts to religion being in a true battle, and not a computer simulation, the anti-theists would be outnumbered quickly.)
Pushed to it’s logical limits the costs of banishing religion would be significantly greater than any current costs of freedom of religion and “tolerance” of various religions.
1 Like
No one said it had to be a “good” thing.
But I believe you agree with the assertion, so you’re technically not allowed to answer that question.
Are you looking for brief answers like the questions? Maybe I don’t know the rules all that well, I confuse easy…
You have to pick an assertion you disagree with, and then answer the question.
I suppose the answer can be short, but that doesn’t really offer much in the way of discussion of self exploration.
Ah! Okay, I give it a whirl.
This is actually an impossibility. Mathematics by default are objective and always true in their essence hence the results cannot be subjective.
Mathematics in it’s simplest from is a quantity of something, real or imaginary, and an operation, to add quantities together or remove a quantity from another given quantity. Since the existence of quantity concept and operation concept exist only metaphysically and are merely represented physically, it’s impossible for mathematical results to be subjective.
How is 2+2=6 true? Even in a base 6 set, it is impossible to make the operation of adding 2 to another 2 and arriving at 6 alone, unless there was another unmentioned quantity but the equation itself does not indicate that.
the only other way to arrive at a symbol of ‘6’ would simply reassign the meaning of what the symbol ‘6’ and make it what currently the symbol for number ‘4’ stands for and assign that meaning to the symbol ‘6’. However in Roman numerals, ii+ii would still equal iv, unless you change the meaning of those symbols too.
That better? Make any sense or am I wasting my time? Anybody really think math is subjective?
I disagree with this assertion. It requires one (and I have seen it done) to stretch what one means by religion. Selfishness is the actual root of all problems attributed to the behavior of man.
So, by extension, nature is the actual root of all problems since selfishness is attributed to the behavior of man, naturally. Unless you think selfishness is a learned behavior? Or, what do you mean by selfishness? Man’s behavior is pretty damn complex - we act in our own self interest which can and usually does mean selfishly helping others or bettering another’s life for our own personal gains or goals … so, I guess, define selfishness 
For the context of the discussion, I would consider selfishness that is behavior that serves the ‘self’ to the detriment of others. So, by that context there are 2 parts. It has to be something ‘good’ or enjoyable for you and do some sort of harm or have some negative impact on someone (or more) persons or other conscious creatures that can experience displeasure.
You know, like fucking a chicken… You may like it, but the chicken sure don’t.
Self-preservation is natural. Selfishness is just one of many behaviors people exhibit, alongside cooperation, empathy, compassion, etc. In nature selfishness leads to extinction so it is a learned to not be expressed behavior.
Ah, that ponders the interesting problem of ‘no true altruism’ or rather that all behavior, even if good is inherently selfish. There is no way, externally, to determine that a positive behavior, no matter the sacrifice of the actor to the maximal benefit of many or all, is truly selfless and can be in fact still selfish.
One can infer implied intent, but nobody can definitively, externally, judge intent.
The definition of selfish includes the notion that it is a behavior that is done without regard or concern for others, which doesn’t rule out regard for oneself. So a positive behavior, positive for others, cannot be selfish even if it also benefits the person exhibiting the behavior. The fact that others benefit means that it goes beyond the self.
I am not arguing the antithesis of being selfish. I am stating that pure altruism is impossible to prove. So long as there is the remotest possibility of self benefit exists.
It’s not the question of always being selfish, its the impossibility to prove selflessness, beyond the shadow of any doubt.
Is it self-benefit or the awareness of self-benefit? You could help someone because you saw they needed help. That act may benefit you but you may not have been aware of it at the time.
What is impossible to determine is true intent. For instance, it may be your instinct to help someone in a situation because helping others makes you feel good.
That doesn’t take anything away from the good act, but it’s impossible to know for certain the act was truly selfless.
It’s a long standing philosophical paradox.
Is it possible for a person to act truly selflessly?
Yes it’s possible, but it’s impossible to determine
lol.
You can’t argue the assertion. You can get creative and disprove it in the answer to the question but the goal is to answer a question that follows an assertion you disagree with, without arguing the validity of the assertion.
I’ve read accounts from those in the grips of mental illness pontificate on this. Someone in the grips of clinical self loathing can very easily convince themselves that everything they do is actually selfish.
I want to say it was from people who have PTSD from extensive dealings with others who are on the NPD spectrum.
Heavy stuff.
Nope. Mathematics is not subjective - and the most important thing, it doesn’t change or evolve over time, like physics. The proofs of ancient Greek mathematicians such as Pythagoras and Thales still stand, not to mention the calculation of Earth’s circumference.
New mathematical discoveries simply opened new fundamental truths - from geometry to differentials and finally to group theory.
Throughout history, mankind has used the tools provided by mathematics to imperfectly describe the world around them. From the first astronomical calculations of Sumerians, Babylonians to Newtonian physic. The tools (mathematics) were always the same, the model built with those tools differed.
That’s why physics changed so much in the last 150 years, from simplified models of the atom to quarks. In mathematics, except things like proofs where raw computational power was used (all those calculations regarding the attributes of large prime numbers, for example) you didn’t have a domain changing groundbreaking discovery such as quantum theory in physics.