Tree
3mo ago
I think you're a reasonable guy, like the two under discussion, so I would never do that.
Tree
3mo ago
Right, I disagree that "his comments were pretty obviously unkind and failing to make reasonably clear and plain points, on top of making extreme claims without proactively providing evidence" and 'deleterious to debate'. So at least take out the 'obviously's and 'blatant's.
Else I'd have to report an "attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity." (illustrating the point about the rules applying to whoever we choose).
Tree
3mo ago
Those rules are so vague they can apply to anyone. And when you‘re facing a hostile community, they apply to you.
The ‚they‘re obviously not interested in debate‘ talking point is an absurd, but very common justification for censoriousness. Just dumping the responsibility for one‘s negatively- coded actions onto the victim. Here or on reddit, you hear that every time an OP doesn‘t cave immediately to the social consensus. To the stake with OP! He „has been given ample opportunity“ [to repent].
Tree
3mo ago
Well, if he‘s really not interested in debate, let him leave, don‘t ban him(or threaten to ban him). Call it keeping the moral high ground. I don‘t see anything wrong with ‚starting an argument‘.
But bottom line, I think millard or hlynka are reasonable people, who should not be banned for their overconfident tone.
Tree
3mo ago
We should ask the pseudo-communist. He was genuine. How did you find us, @MillardJMelnyk?
I‘ll also note that the harsh moderation pushed him away (He‘s also obviously been downvoted for disagreement, but I‘m just wasting my time complaining about this, and it‘s not the main factor).
Tree
3mo ago
This is perverse whether it's your funeral or some other party. As I've said like 3 times now, it has nothing to do with your death!
Disagree, it’s way worse when the sponsor’s a dead guy. And destroy value for the dead used to be a common cultural practice.
Or I could still do it myself in this bizarro world, but I'd have to go through a convoluted legal process to do so. For example, I could build a nonprofit with the sole stated goal of giving me a funeral, hire someone to run the nonprofit, and then give them enough money to pay for the funeral.
I’d close that loophole. I don’t like foundations controlled by a ‘dead hand’ anyway, especially if they have large assets. Harvard, the rockefeller foundation, churches etc, they don’t need all those assets, they need to be brutally taxed imo. As long as joe sixpack still has to pay some taxes, the state should go after those zombie assets first.
If your opinion is actually that contracts with dead people should be voided
What examples of contracts that should not be voided by death, are you thinking of? Marriage and mortgage are , hum, liquidated. Insurance contracts, work contracts, are just cancelled. Wills would definitely be voided if the inheritance tax was 100%.
Tree
3mo ago
You're setting yourself up for failure when you start these conversations by talking about whether dead people have any right to their assets at all.
I'm not doing PR, you know. I often phrase my opinions in a deliberately provocative manner to poke the bear, encourage discussion and the questioning of assumptions. "We're living in a necrocracy, sheeple!".
Any contract I make that involves paying for a funeral is void upon my death--the company can just run off with my money.
Let's say you organized your funeral where there'd be a bonfire of priceless works of art, destroying hundreds of brand-new washing machines , slaughtering and burning 10,000 heads of cattle. I do find that a bit perverse.
Likewise, sometimes your organs can save another human - it should not be allowed to be buried with such treasures.
Any contract I make that involves paying for a funeral is void upon my death--the company can just run off with my money.
You would not make such a contract obviously. If your family and friends care about you, I'm sure they will organize something.
Tree
3mo ago
Sure, that's a problem I acknowledge. I'd have to tax live gifts to children, though the argument there is weaker than in the inheritance case.
But the state taxes you whatever you do: working, buying, owning a house, making capital gains etc (a lot of it is economically productive, and in theory entirely yours), so I never understand the 'double dipping' complaints, or how people get offended when a new tax is proposed: "But it's my money, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, and I want my kids to get it"
"Okay, but it was also your money when they took part of your salary, then when you bought something with it, and when your investments paid off, and the public media tax, and the car licence tax and so on.... it's not double dipping, it's infinite dipping, you're on a merry-go-round of taxes, so what's one more at this point?" .
And no matter what guys like @The_Nybbler think, not all discussion of taxes is some dishonest ploy by his blue enemies to raise taxes. I would like overall taxes and spending to be slashed, starting with the pensions and welfare. We should be able to discuss which taxes are better (obviously inheritance, wealth, property, tobacco, congestion, consumption, and speeding tickets) without the bad faith accusations.
Tree
3mo ago
The transfer of the dead man's equity in the house that he originally got in exchange for his payments.
Tree
3mo ago
That's fine. Although if we decide to go that way, I think this ownership transfer should be taxed also.
Tree
3mo ago
The mortgaged house did not fully belong to the dead man when he was alive to begin with. Since he could not dispose of the mortgaged house as he pleased in life, he can't in death either.
The contract did not extend past the death, it ended: It said, paraphrasing: 'X will pay for 30 years and then gets the house. If X stops paying because of deadness for example, the house is sold and the proceeds shared according to the following formula:... , etc." .
could a living man make a contract with his children and have that take precedence over the state when he dies?
No. I can't make a contract with you where we, for example, exchange goods, but both agree we won't pay the tax the state puts on such things.
Tree
3mo ago
They have the greater claim to the estate. A dead man is like a bankrupt company: first the creditors get paid. The state gets the leftover equity.
Tree
3mo ago
They get insurance that pays off if the borrower dies.
That's just not true.
An older relative of mine died, and the mortgage was instantly paid off by the insurance he and the bank had contracted with the loan, so I was going off that. But in any case, the loan is also guaranteed by the house, and so the bank will give out such mortgages to the elderly, even if, as I recommend, people have no power after death.
What's the alternative? Confiscate the money from the NGO because the donor died soon after donating? Require that all organizations only make year-long plans, because nobody has the right to plan further in advance than that?
I don't know where you're getting this from. The NGO should be taxed normally, they don't have to give back anything, what's done is done. When the man dies however, his assets should be heavily taxed before it reaches any NGO or heirs.
And in reality, there are innumerable ways to do things that echo for generations after your death.
An echo is not equal to the original sound. The dead are not equal to the living. I respect your rights, partly because I'm nice, partly because you have the power to defend them. Unlike the dead. What could be more important than this distinction? And I'm not interested in being nice to inanimate objects.
If I die, the contract should remain in force, or it prevents the contract from being made in the first place, and deprives me of my current right to sign such contracts.
Semantics. I don't believe you should have such 'current rights', because they are future 'dead people's rights'.
I find it ludicrous that some dead people control giant foundations for decades when they are incapable of enforcing their will or even reacting to things. It's like worshipping a statue. Fake veal or whatever the christians call it.
If mortgage payments were actually voided, banks would never give old people mortgages in the first place.
They get insurance that pays off if the borrower dies.
Tree
3mo ago
Do contracts generally become null and void when someone dies
Yes, generally, they should be voided. Dead people should not (and in practical terms, do not, because they're inanimate) have the power to coerce the living. Your mortgage payments are usually voided with your death. Your IP rights should also be voided.
Tree
3mo ago
Because he’s dead, for one. A man’s right to dispose of his money as he pleases considerably diminishes with his passing. I don't consider a corpse an equal citizen.
Then, it’s more of a value thing, but I think a man should pay his own way. Not rely on handouts, be they from the state or his family. I think this is good, results in a more productive & happy society. I’m more of a minarchist than a social democrat, however even I find inherited wealth inequality unfair. Heirs give wealth a bad name. The populace would be less supportive of high taxes if that contingent was reduced to zero.
Tree
3mo ago
It was not a value judgment. Those who keep predicting this upcoming 'permanent democratic party domination' are simply wrong, because of the mechanism I described. I did not say it was not a loss for the right. I understand a lot of you people are chronically depressed pessimistic, but let's keep that black-tinted perspective in focus at least.
Tree
3mo ago
I do agree, in theory, that inheritance tax should be 100% - a dead man’s belongings is a far more legitimate source of funding for the state than a man’s salary. My dad’s money is not really my money, while my salary, or my stock gains, are. But I worry about the distortion – of course most people would then spend wildly and die with nothing, and nothing would be gained.
OP, you know, we have places for people like you. Communes. Go there and share, show up all the psycho squares. Jokes aside, I really think you should, it’s the nicest, most cooperative, failsafe, beneficial way to determine who’s right. Can’t break anything (except dreams) and it’s a fun adventure.
Tree
3mo ago
ensure permanent domination
Not how politics work. It’s never over. The entire political spectrum moves left with the new median voter, maintaining equal winning chances. Show goes on.
Tree
3mo ago
Tree
3mo ago
What in your circles is denounced as fringe ‘race science’ we call HBD, and it was always very popular here, culminating when mods tried to ban it against the majority. This focus does not distinguish him. Everyone and their mom flogs the genetics horse to own the progs.
Most of what you read is written by people who seem to have a lot of time on their hands, and, if you curate wisely, requires a lot of specific knowledge the man on the street does not possess. The internet is full of these idle autists.
Besides, I seem to remember TPO living in liechtenstein, which would be hard to conceal as cremieux.
Tree
3mo ago
That is an insane guess. What are the million-to-one idiosyncrasies that you recognize in both?
Tree
3mo ago
Even in their own fantasy, they cast themselves not as the hero, not even as the villain, but as the disloyal servant of the villain.
Tree
3mo ago
Before 1990, their marginal economy was possibly propped up by the US against soviet afghanistan and soviet ally india.
With the china trade war and the war in ukraine, everyone’s talking about rare earths these days, but imo they are insignificant. The entire global market is 12 billion dollars, that’s like 20 times less than the copper market, 250 times less than the oil market. People have a strategy game view of resources, where if you don’t have them in your territory in the beginning, you’re screwed. In reality, if their price rose to significance, everyone would dig in their garden and find rare earths.
FYI, your link doesn’t work in “It's so overt that Pakistan's defense minister almost let the mask slip off. “
That‘s not evidence of anything. He had like 50 responses, he can‘t be expected to respond to all.
How interesting the discussion he was trying to have is, is really beside the point.
If you threaten to shoot me and I leave I did not ‚self-deport‘ of my own free will. If you threaten to put me in jail and I cop a plea I did not willingly go to jail. The man was bargaining in the shadow of the law.
More options
Context Copy link