• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

River said:
Right, because helping your actual children, is dumb, but depending on the government to supplement them with everything they need is great. Got it.
Click to expand...

Well... yea. Because not all children have parents who want to give them help or can give them help or have the resources to help.

Your argument is "Children are important, therefore the system in place to help them has to be random."
 
Belz... said:
That isn't what he argued. The point is that a full meritocracy has everyone start at precisely the same point.

Of course, that's theoretical. No one wants such a system, nor would it ever be possible.
Click to expand...

This is false. Meritocracy does not require people to throw away their assets upon passing. Meritocracy can build assets for many generations, based on that families ability to acquire assets. The same way a company can gather assets that benefit more than just one person.

There is no requirement for taking away things, or giving things to someone to have "an equal starting spot".

I'm not suggesting taking away social programs that help people who are down or homeless (welfare programs) but I am suggesting a huge reform to them that would include having those that are able to, work for their benefits. No one gets a free lunch (unless they are unable to work for it)

Liberals always seem to want to turn everything into a handout.
 
River, do you deny that coming from money allows people to compete in ways most less fortunate can not?

If you want both Merit and inheritance, you would have to set up a Handicap system: rich kids would have to be twice as good as those from low-income households since they had many times the advantages.
 
River said:
I've seen it also attributed to two other authors. I've not seen any publications of it or transcribed speeches that date to Lincoln. Kind of irrelevant to the point however.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point. The point is that your posts are likely to be riddled with falsehoods and the time spent correcting such BS is better spent watching cat videos. Even my dog agrees. Well, maybe not the larger one, but anyway.
 
River said:
This is false. Meritocracy does not require people to throw away their assets upon passing. Meritocracy can build assets for many generations, based on that families ability to acquire assets. The same way a company can gather assets that benefit more than just one person.
Click to expand...

Oligarchy is the new meritocracy!
 
River said:
This is false. Meritocracy does not require people to throw away their assets upon passing. Meritocracy can build assets for many generations, based on that families ability to acquire assets.
Click to expand...

In that case your personal success is not entirely due to merit. Wasn't that your original point?

Liberals always seem to want to turn everything into a handout.
Click to expand...

Assuming you mean "the left", I'm not on "the left". If you actually mean "liberal", I'm pretty sure you're a liberal too.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
River, do you deny that coming from money allows people to compete in ways most less fortunate can not?

If you want both Merit and inheritance, you would have to set up a Handicap system: rich kids would have to be twice as good as those from low-income households since they had many times the advantages.
Click to expand...


Would you also like to hand out participation trophies to everyone that competed? Or do you think it is better to reward people based on their performance? That's pretty basic.
 
Last edited:
River, you are evading my questions by going on an anti-social rant.
Sounds a lot like you haven't thought your ideas about Meritocracy all the way through.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
River, you are evading my questions by going on an anti-social rant.
Sounds a lot like you haven't thought your ideas about Meritocracy all the way through.
Click to expand...

I'm not evading anything -- I've stated people that acquire assets by merit can keep them or give them to whomever they please. This includes their children.

You seem to think everyone has some entitled right to an equal starting point in life. It doesn't work that way. However, you will be rewarded by merit and performance in life. Being rewarded by merit, does not mean everyone gets an equal inheritance, or an equal body, or an equal mind.
 
Belz... said:
Oh, well then. Blacks in the US are in a meritocracy, then. If only their parents hadn't ****** up and been slaves, this wouldn't have happened to them! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'll ask you the same thing.

Do you have a problem with people gifting things to others or their children? Should everyone not be allowed to? (because it might further someone along?)
 
River said:
Participation trophies or rewarded by performance?
Click to expand...

Isn't an inheritance a participation trophy?
The recipient of the inheritance did not earn it based on his own merit.
His parents/ancestors did.

If you advocate rewarding purely based on merit, why do you insist on rewarding people for things that other people did?

The point is that if you advocate inheritance, you really don't advocate a pure meritocracy. You think it's OK for people to benefit from advantages given to them by the success of their ancestors, which is fine, just not merit.

Others advocate doing things to help those whose parents did not leave them with that starting advantage. You call that a handout, but the truth is they are both handouts. The source and recipients are the difference.

For the record, I don't advocate for a 100% inheritance tax. And FI think people should be rewarded for their effort. That's not mutually exclusive with programs to assist those without the benefit of successful parents. These really aren't black and white one way or the other issues.
 
TomB said:
Isn't an inheritance a participation trophy?
The recipient of the inheritance did not earn it based on his own merit.
His parents/ancestors did.

If you advocate rewarding purely based on merit, why do you insist on rewarding people for things that other people did?

The point is that if you advocate inheritance, you really don't advocate a pure meritocracy. You think it's OK for people to benefit from advantages given to them by the success of their ancestors, which is fine, just not merit.

Others advocate doing things to help those whose parents did not leave them with that starting advantage. You call that a handout, but the truth is they are both handouts. The source and recipients are the difference.

For the record, I don't advocate for a 100% inheritance tax. And FI think people should be rewarded for their effort. That's not mutually exclusive with programs to assist those without the benefit of successful parents. These really aren't black and white one way or the other issues.
Click to expand...


My bold. No. Someone earned it correct? They can choose where it goes.

Making someone or forcing someone to hold onto all of their assets 100% and then at the end of life give it all to a government without the ability to help anyone is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen suggested.
 
River said:
I'll ask you the same thing.

Do you have a problem with people gifting things to others or their children? Should everyone not be allowed to? (because it might further someone along?)
Click to expand...

Don't confuse definition with values. The point is that if merit is the ONLY factor, you shouldn't have factors outside of that. Your parents' money shouldn't be a factor.

That has nothing to do with whether I think parents should be able to leave money for their kids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom