251–260 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claiming (twice) that taxation takes most of your earnings is not the same as proving it. We didn't believe you the first time, and we don't believe you the second. Got any actual evidence?
I dunno about proving, but 20% income tax + 20% vat + property taxes + estate tax + the various extra taxed thing like gas etc, and you're easily over half.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's poverty without inequality. In some primitive tribes everyone was poor. When natural adverse conditions hit some regions, also poverty was widespread. That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system. I don't think you would consider equal and just that every person could influence justice. The problem is the justice system.
If everyone is poor, there's no poverty, just an ubiquitous state of subsistence. Poverty is always relative to some existing state of abundance. >That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system It's a weakness of any system with overbearing inequality. Equal societies don't face this issue to the same extent because those wronged can mount an equal defense or offense a…
Even with wealth equality, as long as there's scarcity, some people would try to gain advantages over others with means different than money: e.g advantageous connections with others, deception, etc. There's corruption among poor people, and rich people also steal from other rich people.
An utopic idea of equality blocks the capacity of observing how things work.
$40k compensation for 55 years of service...
The crime done here is nearly death penalty levels. Nearly. Jail time for the entire family or stripped of all wealth. Maybe public humiliation is better, release names and address.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe this is a sensitive topic for you, but try not reading more into the article than it's there. The decision was recommended by the social workers.
No it's not. I can see how it's recommended. It's the best possible decision for the victim. But the scale of the crime is still horrible. I wouldn't pin judgement on someone elses recommendation nor would I say them being a social worker validates it even more than say some rando guy on the internet. Judge the facts. Her life was ruined. That is huge. It is an epic crime. Not a mild thing.
How so? We are talking about someone coming from a poor origin in one of the poorest states in Brazil, in the 1970's!
This is the story of a girl whose mother has been working with the family and moved in with them when she was 7 years old. For some reason, after a while the mother gets out of the picture (Passed away? Tried her luck to migrate south but couldn't take her child?), she had no place to go so she stayed with them. It's not like she had a whole range of opportunities ahead of her. What do you think her life would be had she not stayed with the family? Do you think she would be better off if she was thrown on the street?
Yes, it sucks that she grew up in an environment where she was not seen as an equal peer. Yes, it is appalling to think that no one in a seemingly wealthy family never thought of giving the same opportunity to her as they would give to their own kids. Yes, she should have been given a lot more autonomy. Yes, she deserves to get a lot more for what she has done beyond shelter/food/clothes. But all things considered, at that time her staying with the family was the best alternative in a scenario where all alternatives are shitty.
Stop applying today's standards for something that happened more than 55 years ago, specially when you clearly have no grasp on what is like to live where abject poverty is the norm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's also trivially easy to not end up in involuntary servitude. Stupid people always say nonsense like this as if no person in prison is innocent.
It's also black and white thinking that carries an ego-filled, nuance-lacking, disregard for the myriad of circumstances that underpin human behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's not. I can see how it's recommended. It's the best possible decision for the victim. But the scale of the crime is still horrible. I wouldn't pin judgement on someone elses recommendation nor would I say them being a social worker validates it even more than say some rando guy on the internet. Judge the facts. Her life was ruined. That is huge. It is an epic crime. Not a mild thing.
> Her life was ruined. How so? We are talking about someone coming from a poor origin in one of the poorest states in Brazil, in the 1970's! This is the story of a girl whose mother has been working with the family and moved in with them when she was 7 years old. For some reason, after a while the mother gets out of the picture (Passed away? Tried her luck to migrate south but couldn't take her child?), she had no pl…
What I do know is from my own background. That is, if the same situation happened to her in the US, orphanage can do much better for her. She can have more chances. Even 55 years ago.
You make a convincing argument here, but that's only if all the details of what you say is true and full aligns with the true reality of her exact situation... which I doubt. Do you live in brazil? do you know the history of brazil 55 years ago and the exact living conditions? If not, then your argument doesn't hold weight. On the other hand if you have detailed knowledge and experience with her circumstance then I will concede.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Her life was ruined. How so? We are talking about someone coming from a poor origin in one of the poorest states in Brazil, in the 1970's! This is the story of a girl whose mother has been working with the family and moved in with them when she was 7 years old. For some reason, after a while the mother gets out of the picture (Passed away? Tried her luck to migrate south but couldn't take her child?), she had no pl…
I do not know her complete circumstance in Brazil because I don't know brazil very well. I'm not yet convinced you do either. What I do know is from my own background. That is, if the same situation happened to her in the US, orphanage can do much better for her. She can have more chances. Even 55 years ago. You make a convincing argument here, but that's only if all the details of what you say is true and full align…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serfdom wasn't legally abolished in Russia until 1861. Slavery was technically abolished in the late 1700s, but in some areas serfs were still bought and sold like chattel until the end of serfdom. The Ottoman Empire legally abolished slavery in the 1880s, but there was still illicit yet tolerated slavery in Turkey into the 1930s. I think in some areas of the Sahel chattel slavery may still exist as a practical matte…
And, today, in the whole middle east everyone, from governments to individual families, keep getting "embarassed" by having it turn that that they're "holding servants". And then it happens again. And again. And again. Daesh/IS "brought back" slavery (which is one reason bringing back terror brides, some of whom exploited slaves while in the middle east, is such a judicial nightmare. What do you do with a legally Aus…
Let's not forget the same happens in the US including by the political elite
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If everyone is poor, there's no poverty, just an ubiquitous state of subsistence. Poverty is always relative to some existing state of abundance. >That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system It's a weakness of any system with overbearing inequality. Equal societies don't face this issue to the same extent because those wronged can mount an equal defense or offense a…
You redefined the word poverty there, that's not the common or dictionary definition. Even with wealth equality, as long as there's scarcity, some people would try to gain advantages over others with means different than money: e.g advantageous connections with others, deception, etc. There's corruption among poor people, and rich people also steal from other rich people. An utopic idea of equality blocks the capacit…
He says, without citation.
>Even with wealth equality, as long as there's scarcity, some people would try to gain advantages over others with means different than money
No one says that wealth equality leads to an absolutely equal society; that's a straw man. What is incontrovertibly true, and empirically proven to be so, is that societies that are more equal in terms of wealth are less unequal socially, and see fewer negative outcomes that can be attributed to any disparity that does exist, wealth or otherwise. This is because we are talking about effects directly downstream of resource allocation, and monetary wealth is the primary way resources are denominated. Maybe if commodities were priced directly in Twitter follower count or bench press, you'd have a point.
The poor and rich are not equally corrupt (again, something shown empirically).