This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Again, it's not that dead people have power to coerce the living. It's that living people have the power to coerce each other in the future, including in futures where they're dead.
When I take out a loan, I'm getting money in exchange for signing a contract obligating me to pay it back over time. 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.
IDK what you're talking about here. It's not like the mortgage goes away. The bank gets its money back, often when the home is sold. If mortgage payments were actually voided, banks would never give old people mortgages in the first place.
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.
They get insurance that pays off if the borrower dies.
Not semantics. I currently have a mortgage. I think I have a right to make mortgage agreements that involve the bank getting its money back in the event of my death.
That's just not true.
At their most fundamental level, one important thing laws need to do is reflect reality. And in reality, there are innumerable ways to do things that echo for generations after your death.
The death itself is fundamentally unimportant. It's not like it matters that much whether you die and send your money to an NGO, or send your money to the NGO 1 second before death--either way you're choosing, while alive, to give your money to an organization with long-term plans.
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 get the complaint about unaccountable NGOs, and dead people exerting overly much influence, but you're taking this to quite an extreme.
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.
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.
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.
Why does the bank get the house instead of the government via inheritance taxes?
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.
Why? Their contract was with a dead man, it should no longer be in force. Are only banks allowed to enter into these contracts that extend past the death of the counterparty, or could a living man make a contract with his children and have that take precedence over the state when he dies? Maybe we could call it something like a "will"?
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." .
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.
If contracts with the dead really aren't valid, this wouldn't be true. If X stops paying because of deadness, there is no contract. The clause about selling the house and sharing the proceeds is part of the contract, so it's no longer valid. The bank just owns the house, period, they don't need to sell it or give away any of the proceeds if they don't want to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link