Agreed.

This is not true. I am not attempting to make the decision for anyone else. When we talk about my money, then my opinion needs to be taken into account.

What is happening here is that the person in charge of making the decision shifts when you talk about the government getting involved.

As shown above, I am not making that shift. You are the one shifting by shifting the person in charge of making the decision. That's why my position changes.

In an attempt to clarify my position, if some billionaire wanted to duplicate the exact same government programs with his own money, I would not support a law banning him from doing that. Although I would still believe that would cause the same amount of harm (assuming he did it in the exact same manner with the same waste etc).

Wait, so you actually married someone who was either too stupid or lazy to support herself and her children after failing as a wife?

How about we let you give the money to your kid, but announce that there will not be any state enforcement of property rights related to the money? So if someone takes it...no punishment from the state. Sound like a good deal?

It's like the most SMP thing ever to pick at the nit of the "giving people free stuff isn't harm" like it was some absolute statement and end up betraying your inner idiot/racist.

Jibs would like us to believe he's spent like three pages arguing simply because he took an absurdly specific interpretation of something Wookie said that everybody else understood. Which, because most of the rest of us are actual humans who can do things like "draw inference" becomes super transparent when you consider his very likely motivations for perpetuating this argument. Why does this semantic nittery keep popping up in conversations where Jibs tries to deny the very obvious existence of racism?

LOL too perfect. Too ****ing perfect.

What?

Poor people earn money and pay taxes. Why are food stamps different from a property tax refund?

Jibs I know your position. It's the standard conservative position. I'm pointing out that the "undeserved money can be harmful" is always applied selectively.

We were talking about "undeserved money harming people" but we never have conversations about the harm caused to the trust fund baby or that taking their money away would make them actually work while stockman going on about the imagined moocher who loves to live off the extra $200 the government gives him in spite of working a full time job just so he can keep the lights on.

That doesn't show it it states that someone else has shown it. And it doesn't demonstrate that reparations is a policy that hurts black people, how could it.

Well, you don't seem to want the state involved with your money. Seems logical that extends to the enforcement of property rights.

I think, by the way, lol Jibs, that weird shift to "decision making person" to obscure that he actually tried to argue that inheriting money does more harm than good. Right?

It's weird that we don't see children who inherit significant wealth experiencing the sort of mooching lack of responsibility that I am assured by the trustworthiest experts is endemic amongst the Negro, capable of being triggered by buying an infant formula or helping out an old person with their heating oil bill. In fact, hell, it's weird we don't see that among wealthy adults. Bill Gates was rich enough to retire and live comfortably off his savings before he turned 30.

P.S. Jibs really thinks he's something. Like y'all see him switch to specifically "billion" there? But we're talking about ****ing food and clothing, not billions. There is no ****ing way that anyone, anyone, sincerely believes that providing children food and clothing makes them lazy.

So, and this is a fun game for FoldN, when someone expresses a rationalization for a given policy preference that is CLEARLY insincere, some of us are able to conclude through the magic of logic that the actual reason is something else. Can you? SMP intellectual strength has its time to shine.

So why isn't that lazy moocher still on assistance?

She found a charity to support her?

Jib's, this was duffee's original definition.

When challenged that it wasn't a correct definition duffee defended it thus;

The bolded question in the second post has **** all to do with the bolded definition in the first. Like he may consider that reparations do harm but that wasn't the definition he was offering and certainly isn't some logical consequence of his premises.

Now Wookie's challenge

We are clearly talking about reparations here right you get that, that was the point of duffee's original post and hence why your response to Wookie was clearly taking it out of context in order to make some tangential point about welfare.

It doesn't appear that way as you are still incorrectly attributing positions to me.

I doubt that.

And I am point out that it is you that is being selective, not me.

We may not talk about that in this forum, but it is definitely talked about.

Your scenario A is the problem of only the people involved. Your scenario B is societies problem (through the use of force) as society foots the bill. You are not seeming to grasp the difference here.

No no no it's perfectly cool for the state to take money to do the things he agrees with. Those other things are theft.

Maybe we should set up a bank account in Fly's name so you guys can harm him by depositing money into it every time he says something mean.

I'm glad we agree that trust fund babies' potential slothfulness is a problem. Now with going the way duffee thinks of welfare recipients we are going to remove the source of the trust fund babies' sloth and give it to someone who is hard working no? Perhaps a heavy tax on inheritance and then a tax credit to everyone with a full time job, triple the credit for two full time jobs.

This would seem to remedy the "undeserved money can make people lazy" idea.

Jibs, you are a much bigger societal problem than the person described in scenario B. Like way worse for society, and its not close. Id gladly pay double the taxes if people like you didn't exist.

No. you can see my other posts as to why I completely disagree.

lol, I also feel that way about you. But without people like you we wouldn't need much taxes so I would pay less, hurrah!

I don't see it in your other posts. You never propose a normative solution to 'undeserved money may make people lazy'. In fact you think it doesn't even matters if the wealth is undeserved or not. You just change normative framework to a procedural justice framework and say that having preexisting wealth is really the important part, not any potential laziness.

So I guess you are right, you could advocate a transfer of wealth to the less well off so it wouldn't even matter if they are slovenly or not, not to prevent laziness like I mistakenly thought.

So you are claiming that the welfare state we have created is nothing more than giving poor people their own money back? If that's the case then we have solved the problem. Take whatever the poverty line is or a reasonable amount of income, say $30k per year, and don't tax them. Then we can get rid of all entitlements, hurrah!

Sigh. Either you are unwilling/unable to comprehend what I am saying, or I am not able to articulate to you properly. Either way it appears we are at an impasse. Thank you for the civil conversation.

Don't you need to demonstrate that the welfare state you're imagining actually exists first?