Pemalite said:
Within reason. Money being taken from richer people isn't the same as giving up your OWN rights to your OWN body.
The highest earners don't loose any incentive what so ever.
It takes two. The male should have a say. - But at the end of the day... Because the female is the vessel carrying the fetus, she should get the final say of what happens to her own body.
Plenty of nations with significant financial safety nets though.
Yeah. I was corrected prior. Cheers.
Because the mother owns the body? Not the child?
Nope. Because what you are suggesting is that a person should give up their Freedoms to their own bodily autonomy.
So I assume you are against the consumption of meat? Against the death Penalty?
Anyone who quotes anything from the Bible can generally have their view discarded in it's entirety until they can prove their assertions with empirical evidence that it is factual with it's claims. |
Let's say there's a husband and wife, and he supports them financially, but over time she gets crazier and crazier, and more annoying as each day passes. He tries a bunch of things like getting her help and even lives separate from her at times, yet she still goes out of her way to make his life beyond miserable. Let's even say she got examined and somehow comes away without being diagnosed as a nut job because she's that sly. If the husband can't take it anymore because he feels like she isn't worth it and is a burden, but won't divorce her because he doesn't think she should be able to leech off of him financially anymore, and can't live his life because she's clearly willing to go out of her way to make his life miserable, so much so that he's been pondering suicide, if he one day snaps and literally beats her to death, should he get away with it? Should someone be forced to withhold physical rage towards another? If he's going to cause harm or even death to himself otherwise, which scenario is preferred?
Is it his fault for getting into the situation in the first place or by not using another option to get out of it, as much as he doesn't want to? Is it ok because things weren't planned or expected to turn out that way, and it's his mind and body that were also at risk, and it's his body to decide what to do with?
What's the point in working harder or smarter if you're being given enough free money? Where's the incentive to do more? Because you could one day make it to the top? Where is the top? Was it gasoline transportation, single core 1GHz CPU's, PS2, Blackberry's? Why create newer better stuff if there's little incentive to do so, other than life or death scenario's like war or pandemic's?
How much billionaires have stashed vs how much is locked up in some multi year fund or stock probably isn't as much as many would think in comparison. You don't get billionaire rich by not wisely investing a bunch of that money. You also don't stay that rich if you give it away. The world is so connected today that if you run a multi billion dollar business, having billions to keep things going if something happens isn't a dumb idea. Just look at the stir over the tariff war. That's just one possibility of the many that could hurt your business, that you basically have no control over. What you do have control over, is how much you decided to put away for a rainy day, or year. Most billionaires did whatever had to be done to make that money, and many people benefited off of that in some manner in terms of goods or services rendered.
If you and a buddy were dropped into a cage against a team of two other guys, and you each had a knife dropped to you in a team death match, and you had little idea how to fight let alone wield a knife, but your buddy is a military trained badass knife fighter, are you seriously going to hold onto your knife and hope for the best, or are you going to give it to him so he has two? If he by chance dies, odds are you were dead anyway, but if he slay's both, you live and simply had to give up something you really didn't need to do so.
One of the main reasons socialism doesn't work is because many of the bright people and hard workers stop doing so because there is little incentive. If everyone is treated as much the same and equally as possible, that's exactly what you end up with. The bright idea's disappear and less and less work get's completed. Why come up with a great idea if you might not be able to make it happen because you can't get enough money to do it? Even if you find a way to, why do it for a pat on the back? Why work your butt off if it's not going to really help you or the company get ahead much if at all? Once the loopholes are sealed and taxes are jacked up the businesses will slowly crumble or they will flat out leave.
The greater the incentives, the more push there will be to gain that incentive. The more push, the greater the competition. The greater the competition, the wider the array of idea's brought to the table. The better the overall idea, the more the market will reward it. The more the market rewards it, the more incentive to improve it or build upon it.
Last edited by EricHiggin - on 19 May 2019
