Would you mind saying more on the "who get's to decide" argument? That's a new phrase to me. (Although perhaps an old experience that I just haven't recognized as a pattern.)
Would you mind saying more on the "who get's to decide" argument? That's a new phrase to me. (Although perhaps an old experience that I just haven't recognized as a pattern.)
Suppose the topic is inhibiting concentration of wealth. I say there should be a maximum amount of money that one person or family can control, since past that point it's not more luxury or safety, just more power. But we never get to the reasons because sure as taxes someone will burst in with "who gets to decide" how much wealth is too much.
The actual discussion disintegrates because someone showed a potential for —choke—subjectivity.
As if we couldn't come up with some deterministic criteria for the corrosiveness of the megabillionaire.
I usually block people like that, because it's an asinine objection and I am disgusted with the whole "subjectivity" dodge.
Would you mind saying more on the "who get's to decide" argument? That's a new phrase to me. (Although perhaps an old experience that I just haven't recognized as a pattern.)
Sure. Easiest illustrated by example.
Suppose the topic is inhibiting concentration of wealth. I say there should be a maximum amount of money that one person or family can control, since past that point it's not more luxury or safety, just more power. But we never get to the reasons because sure as taxes someone will burst in with "who gets to decide" how much wealth is too much.
The actual discussion disintegrates because someone showed a potential for —choke—subjectivity.
As if we couldn't come up with some deterministic criteria for the corrosiveness of the megabillionaire.
I usually block people like that, because it's an asinine objection and I am disgusted with the whole "subjectivity" dodge.