ADVERTISEMENT

The Onion buys Infowars

The way Jesus wanted people to act towards each other seems counter to the very human nature you think is unchangeable, though.

There are a lot of verses in this link, for example, that you seem to be arguing are exhorting people to act against human nature:


I think the teaching of these verses to people for thousands of years as the gospel has inculcated people to believe they should act unselfishly more than before they were taught. I think the notion has so permeated society (nearly all of them, now, even the non-Christian ones) that it really has changed how people think and act. Note I'm focused on actions, not urges or instincts. And I think that if we changed, and had a society teaching for thousands of years that one should only act selfishly, then far less actions that we now consider unselfish would occur.
My argument isn’t so much against that idea, much less its objectives. My argument is that it’s not possible, and the consequences of believing it is have the effect of moving us farther from, not closer to, those objectives.

Christ implored his followers to be charitable, because I believe he understood that man’s nature is bent towards his own best interests.

Like Christ, we should implore people to make selfless acts of will. We should not design a society or public policy around the idea that they’re going to do this in the manner, or to the magnitude, or with the consistency, that they would need to in order for such a societal vision to bear the fruit its designers seek.

People do make selfless acts - all the time. But it’s foolish to think we can manipulate human nature the way you’re suggesting.

If you want a charitable and compassionate society, build a prosperous one. And the way to build a prosperous one is by harnessing the core human spirit and drive…mostly by getting out of its way and ensuring that the incentive structures for building wealth through successful enterprises are sound.

Quit worrying about inequality. Our Gini may be roughly equal to Ghana’s. But there’s a helluva lot more to those two stories than can be gleaned by that metric.
 
My argument isn’t so much against that idea, much less its objectives. My argument is that it’s not possible, and the consequences of believing it is have the effect of moving us farther from, not closer to, those objectives.

Christ implored his followers to be charitable, because I believe he understood that man’s nature is bent towards his own best interests.

Like Christ, we should implore people to make selfless acts of will. We should not design a society or public policy around the idea that they’re going to do this in the manner, or to the magnitude, or with the consistency, that they would need to in order for such a societal vision to bear the fruit its designers seek.

People do make selfless acts - all the time. But it’s foolish to think we can manipulate human nature the way you’re suggesting.

If you want a charitable and compassionate society, build a prosperous one. And the way to build a prosperous one is by harnessing the core human spirit and drive…mostly by getting out of its way and ensuring that the incentive structures for building wealth through successful enterprises are sound.

Quit worrying about inequality. Our Gini may be roughly equal to Ghana’s. But there’s a helluva lot more to those two stories than can be gleaned by that metric.
I'm in agreement with you on worrying about inequality in all its forms, although I think it's pretty clear that human nature is such that people get jealous of other's wealth, and when it gets too concentrated, there will be civil strife. I'd like to protect against that.

Re the other stuff, do you admit that people in different cultures who have the same innate human nature act differently based on that culture? Look at the bolded sentence above: so with respect to inner city black culture, we should not try to use cultural or public policy forces to get black men and women to stay together and raise children in two-parent households?
 
The article doesn't make clear whether these were gross or net revenues. If Musk got rid of 75% of X employees, his operating and fixed costs should be less, as he reduces his footprint in California.


 
Brad, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on people — maybe at retirement age, maybe before that — relocating from high-tax states to low-tax states? It’s been a fairly common story in the press during recent years.

"Snow birds" have been moving to the sun belt for decades. If the weather was no different, I'd bet dollars to donuts the numbers would be far less. The tax advantages don't hurt, but you'll never convince me it's the primary (or even a significant) reason. It may be icing on the cake, or even a justification for those who might want to make it, but that's all.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT