Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Woman in Brazil enslaved for 55 years by 3 generations of the same family

english.elpais.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 281 posts

Re: Woman in Brazil enslaved for 55 years by 3 generations of the same family

#271

Post by argentinian »

59percentmore wrote: post #268
argentinian wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dictionaries are easily available. > The poor and rich are not equally corrupt He said, without citation. Also it seems you don't know much about poor people.

>Dictionaries are easily available. You should use one. >He said, without citation. Also it seems you don't know much about poor people. It is a structural impossibility for a poor person to be as absolutely corrupt from an extrinsic viewpoint as a rich person, as much as it is a physical impossibility for an ant to be as absolutely strong as a bear. You're conflating some measure of (subjective) inner morality with…

Look at Ghandi. He was not a millionaire and did a lot of good.

In the same way there are poor persons who cause a lot of suffering to others without being rich.

As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people

Re: Woman in Brazil enslaved for 55 years by 3 generations of the same family

#272

Post by argentinian »

59percentmore wrote: post #266
argentinian wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's is poor people who exploit other poor people. Poor people that sends children to work for example. Only the rich can use power for evil? A stronger or armed person has a power differential with a weaker person. A smarter person has more power than a dumber one. And it's impossible for the smarter one to lend intelligence to another, and to the stronger one to give muscles to the weaker one. And in spite of th…

>A stronger or armed person has a power differential with a weaker person. A smarter person has more power than a dumber one. These are all examples of inequality. >There's is poor people who exploit other poor people. Poor people that sends children to work for example. Only the rich can use power for evil? Rich people have greater reach to do evil commensurate with their wealth. It is a matter of such a degree that…

If as you say, corruption requires inequality, and there are inequalities that cannot be leveled, like strength and intelligence, and power, then monetary equality won't stop corruption.

In a hierarchical organization like a government there will be different power levels.

So, there are inequalities you cannot level. And you suggest that reducing wealth inequality will make the world better. I don't know, I still believe that aiming at reducing poverty is a better goal.

Why? Because without poverty people won't suffer because of survival needs. And without inequality you don't guarantee that there's no poverty.

To me, only a very envious person would put equality over reducing poverty.

Re: Woman in Brazil enslaved for 55 years by 3 generations of the same family

#273

Post by 59percentmore »

argentinian wrote: post #272
59percentmore wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A stronger or armed person has a power differential with a weaker person. A smarter person has more power than a dumber one. These are all examples of inequality. >There's is poor people who exploit other poor people. Poor people that sends children to work for example. Only the rich can use power for evil? Rich people have greater reach to do evil commensurate with their wealth. It is a matter of such a degree that…

If as you say, corruption requires inequality, and there are inequalities that cannot be leveled, like strength and intelligence, and power, then monetary equality won't stop corruption. In a hierarchical organization like a government there will be different power levels. So, there are inequalities you cannot level. And you suggest that reducing wealth inequality will make the world better. I don't know, I still bel…

You're either under the mistaken impression, or have constructed the impression as a strawman to argue against, that any of the concepts and states which we're talking about are absolute and don't exist in a state of flux. But measures of strength, intelligence, and power vary by context, and the goal is not the impossibility of absolute wealth equality (which cannot exist in an energetic economic system). Since money is a fungible asset that can be used to rent or even purchase access to higher levels of strength, intelligence, power, and other inequalities, wealth is an outsize target for reducing inequality broadly. Unless you think a world with locked-in hierarchies is better (and you argue like you do), then reducing wealth inequality clearly allows the world to become less corrupt by giving people a tool to reduce, or even upend, existing power deltas (the source of corruption).

>And you suggest that reducing wealth inequality will make the world better. I don't know, I still believe that aiming at reducing poverty is a better goal.

They're the same thing. You only refuse to see it because you expect your personal wealth to fall. You jealously guard a dysfunctional status quo for illogical and selfish reasons.

Re: Woman in Brazil enslaved for 55 years by 3 generations of the same family

#274

Post by 59percentmore »

argentinian wrote: post #270
59percentmore wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Impossible if there's competition between producers and it's at world scale. That's a goalpost move if I've ever seen it. Maybe a No True Scotsman fallacy, too. Geography confers varying conditions at world scale. Hence, "local" is the window. And producers create cartels unless regulated; wealth accrues to itself, capital returns more than labor. Piketty. >Tyrannies begin with those kind of ideas. You can't see me…

Then regulate cartelization. That's a government function, if it doesn't work don't blame capitalism, blame governments. Pretending to know better than other people what that other people should choose our want - and imposing it - is tyrannical.

You regulate cartelization in part by reducing their access to capital and redistributing it to non-cartel rivals, i.e., reducing wealth inequality.

>if it doesn't work don't blame capitalism, blame governments

Corporate capture is why government can't function in this regard.

>Pretending to know better than other people what that other people should choose our want - and imposing it - is tyrannical.

No one has to pretend, they can just prove it. That's not tyranny, it's reason.

Re: Woman in Brazil enslaved for 55 years by 3 generations of the same family

#275

Post by 59percentmore »

argentinian wrote: post #271
59percentmore wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Dictionaries are easily available. You should use one. >He said, without citation. Also it seems you don't know much about poor people. It is a structural impossibility for a poor person to be as absolutely corrupt from an extrinsic viewpoint as a rich person, as much as it is a physical impossibility for an ant to be as absolutely strong as a bear. You're conflating some measure of (subjective) inner morality with…

Look at Ghandi. He was not a millionaire and did a lot of good. In the same way there are poor persons who cause a lot of suffering to others without being rich. As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people

I'll give you one thing: you're bold to try to spin a comment like this. There's not a sentence here that isn't a falsehood or working in service of one.

Ghandi was not poor. He was a trained lawyer with experience working abroad who adopted some practices in solidarity with people who were actually suffering in poverty. Just because he wasn't a millionaire doesn't mean that he hadn't accrued significant social capital, and the influence over economic capital that this represented. His capacity for good was rooted in this dual capital access; he did not necessarily have a similar capacity for evil, because social capital is not fungible in the same way that economic capital is.

But without either form of capital, one's reach is commensurately shortened, so no, such a poor person does not have the same capability to "cause a lot of suffering" as someone who is rich.

>As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people

Astonishingly, wealth inequality has ballooned to the point that the holdings of the top percent or so so dwarf that of the rest of the planet that it overcomes the population disparity.

Re: Woman in Brazil enslaved for 55 years by 3 generations of the same family

#276

Post by argentinian »

59percentmore wrote: post #273
argentinian wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If as you say, corruption requires inequality, and there are inequalities that cannot be leveled, like strength and intelligence, and power, then monetary equality won't stop corruption. In a hierarchical organization like a government there will be different power levels. So, there are inequalities you cannot level. And you suggest that reducing wealth inequality will make the world better. I don't know, I still bel…

You're either under the mistaken impression, or have constructed the impression as a strawman to argue against, that any of the concepts and states which we're talking about are absolute and don't exist in a state of flux. But measures of strength, intelligence, and power vary by context, and the goal is not the impossibility of absolute wealth equality (which cannot exist in an energetic economic system). Since mone…

> They're the same thing

That's you opinion and is not an absolute fact. At least you can see that it's debatable:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/19/poverty-...

And your suppositions about my motives are wrong.

Edit: my motives are that I simply believe that they are not the same, just that.

Re: Woman in Brazil enslaved for 55 years by 3 generations of the same family

#277

Post by argentinian »

59percentmore wrote: post #274
argentinian wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then regulate cartelization. That's a government function, if it doesn't work don't blame capitalism, blame governments. Pretending to know better than other people what that other people should choose our want - and imposing it - is tyrannical.

You regulate cartelization in part by reducing their access to capital and redistributing it to non-cartel rivals, i.e., reducing wealth inequality. >if it doesn't work don't blame capitalism, blame governments Corporate capture is why government can't function in this regard. >Pretending to know better than other people what that other people should choose our want - and imposing it - is tyrannical. No one has to pr…

> Corporate capture is why government can't function in this regard.

Do you believe that the same government people that is influenced by lobbying is going to vote to close the ways in which corporations give them money to control their decisions? How could that happen?

> No one has to pretend, they can just prove it. That's not tyranny, it's reason.

Tyrants believe that they know what's reasonable for the people to do with their lives, and as is often there case a lot of people don't agree with them, so then they use force to coerce people to do what they will.

There's no reasonable way to prove how people must live.

Re: Woman in Brazil enslaved for 55 years by 3 generations of the same family

#278

Post by argentinian »

59percentmore wrote: post #275
argentinian wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at Ghandi. He was not a millionaire and did a lot of good. In the same way there are poor persons who cause a lot of suffering to others without being rich. As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people

I'll give you one thing: you're bold to try to spin a comment like this. There's not a sentence here that isn't a falsehood or working in service of one. Ghandi was not poor. He was a trained lawyer with experience working abroad who adopted some practices in solidarity with people who were actually suffering in poverty. Just because he wasn't a millionaire doesn't mean that he hadn't accrued significant social capit…

Consider human history. You will be able to see that the greatest acts of good and evil were not done by the ultra rich.

Re: Woman in Brazil enslaved for 55 years by 3 generations of the same family

#279

Post by 59percentmore »

argentinian wrote: post #276
59percentmore wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're either under the mistaken impression, or have constructed the impression as a strawman to argue against, that any of the concepts and states which we're talking about are absolute and don't exist in a state of flux. But measures of strength, intelligence, and power vary by context, and the goal is not the impossibility of absolute wealth equality (which cannot exist in an energetic economic system). Since mone…

> They're the same thing That's you opinion and is not an absolute fact. At least you can see that it's debatable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/19/poverty-... And your suppositions about my motives are wrong. Edit: my motives are that I simply believe that they are not the same, just that.

A Forbes editorial is unconvincing. Tim Worstall is far from a dispassiinate observer; in fact, as an Adam Smith Institute fellow, it's safe to say that he has a major conflict of interest.

That reducing wealth inequality makes a more fair and prosperous world for the vast majority of people is about as much of an opinion as saying that reducing pollutant exposure reduces cancer risk.

And if you claim that those are "simply" your motives, you're not speaking in good faith.

Re: Woman in Brazil enslaved for 55 years by 3 generations of the same family

#280

Post by 59percentmore »

argentinian wrote: post #277
59percentmore wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You regulate cartelization in part by reducing their access to capital and redistributing it to non-cartel rivals, i.e., reducing wealth inequality. >if it doesn't work don't blame capitalism, blame governments Corporate capture is why government can't function in this regard. >Pretending to know better than other people what that other people should choose our want - and imposing it - is tyrannical. No one has to pr…

> Corporate capture is why government can't function in this regard. Do you believe that the same government people that is influenced by lobbying is going to vote to close the ways in which corporations give them money to control their decisions? How could that happen? > No one has to pretend, they can just prove it. That's not tyranny, it's reason. Tyrants believe that they know what's reasonable for the people to…

>Do you believe that the same government people that is influenced by lobbying is going to vote to close the ways in which corporations give them money to control their decisions? How could that happen?

I just told you.

>Tyrants believe that they know what's reasonable for the people to do with their lives, and as is often there case a lot of people don't agree with them, so then they use force to coerce people to do what they will.

All of that is true. And it has no bearing here, because we're not talking about tyranny. A society that redistributes wealth because the redistribution of wealth has been proven to promote a healthier society (along objective metrics) is not suffering from tyranny, no matter how much you, personally, feel like you've been wronged. That sense may very well be disordered. A million people shouldn't have to suffer because one person is aggrieved that his advantages were stripped. In this case, your aviation is a confession, and you're the one promoting tyranny.

Post reply on HN