ccffpphh

Sorry to kind of jump off of you here, but what do you mean by "diversity is good"? Diversity of what? If we have 5 people that all think the same but they're all different races, is that good? Is that better than or worse than 5 people of the same race with diversity of thought?

From my point of view, I believe diversity of thought enables groups of people to consider new ideas and positions that wouldn't be considered, i.e. thinking outside of the box, but I don't understand why this is extrapolated to different races, gender identities, immigration statuses, sexualities, etc. I am not claiming you brought them up but they tend to be common "diversity" points the modern populace loves to clamor around.

Why do any of those imply anything about how people will think? We've all seen some creative people that are of our own race, or that were also our own sexuality, etc.

All of this is of course at the expense of speed, in that greater variance in thought/ideas leads to slower movement, which I think is important in business (a solo or very tight knit organization can move much faster).

You are still going to have a biological advantage. Bone structure, muscle mass, endurance, reaction time, oxygen capacity

These are things that persist even after chopping your penis off or taking hormones - you can't undo the changes that your body went through during the developmental phase.

Someone male who was on female hormones literally their entire life since maybe age 0-2? Ok, you have a case. Otherwise it's just incredibly unfair for women to compete against.

You are just going to go back to the same issue where the only top performers are men, and then there will be outcry as to how it's not fair.

The issue is that many allege that one doesn't need surgery so long as they identify as their respective gender. Saying "I identify as a [gender]" is enough. There are clear differences between the biological sexes which drastically impact physical performance in athletics. Look at the texas high school wrestling champion, the under-15 boys team in dallas beating the world champion womens soccer team, etc.

What were these people doing before Uber and Lyft came around?

There is risk in any action taken due to the fundamental lack of information regarding events occurring in the future. I agree with you that much of it is luck, this at the same time does not mean because one is born lucky that they now need to suffer to bring someone else to their level. I disagree that it is meaningless, I believe that since no one person is entitled to anything from anyone else (to think otherwise would be to support slavery), the only morally correct form of interaction is through consensual voluntary action.

I do not think we need checks and balances. Minimum wage actually harms those who are most disadvantaged - if I am hiring two people and I must pay them the same amount, there's no reason I would take the socially less valuable person. At the very least, eliminating the floor would allow the disadvantaged to compete and make racists pay for their prejudice, i.e. "Do I really want to pay $10.00 for a white straight privileged [whatever insert here] or $5.00 for a black trans [etc]".

Inheritance tax is violence against those who pass on their wealth. If you have indeed earned so much that you would like to ensure your lineage, what right does anyone else have to stop you? Why is it wrong for you pass on wealth to your children? Whose business is it? What if instead, you simply lived a thousand years and kept your wealth?

If you want to donate money because you are very rich and have a lot of money to spare and truly believe this, then by all means, you can even pay more in taxes nowadays and never file a return. Nobody will stop you.

How many of those governments are just, however? Can you reasonably claim that all citizens consent to the policies of their government? If everyone agreed to murder you, would that make it ok? What about if everyone agreed to rob you of all of your property, your livelihood? What about only half of that? Quarter? A tenth? What's the right number? Non-consent to any degree is not morally right. In the same way, it would morally wrong for me to coerce you to pay me some arbitrary amount I come up with.

Are you claiming that if someone else exists, it is now your burden to ensure their living at your own expense until they die?

That's exactly what I was suggesting. The throwaway was correct.

Under the current government system, they clearly provide value - otherwise they wouldn't exist. Whether the government is complicit in their existence is another matter entirely - but they're not just making money appear out of thin air. They clearly provide value in streamlining the spaghetti nest of the tax code for average consumers.

The issue is with government enabling the monopoly.

I agree!

You don't need taxes for roads or electricity. In the same way we don't need taxes for grocery shopping, or education.

Workers indeed show up and make things run, but only because they voluntarily chose to agree to a contract where that is their duty. If they don't like the terms of their contract, they can not take it, renegotiate their current one, find a new one, or take on risk and start your own income. You can't "accidentally" fall into a job.

Yes, the one thing we can all agree on is the right to self. Nobody other than themselves can control their body - by that I mean that no matter what you do, nobody can tell you what to think. You can be brainwashed by force, or conditioned to react a certain way to escape force, but you can never really know what another person thinks.

Regardless, one has a right to their body. It is their property. More explicitly, any individual intelligent agent that exists takes up some physical space and that space they occupy at any point in time to continue their existence is theirs only. Property can be given up voluntarily or if nobody else has a claim to it - in this case it extends that clearly rape is wrong, but prostitution is okay, as it's voluntary on both sides. Seizing someone's house is wrong, but exploring space and building new structures in the middle of nowhere is not.

Whether laws exist regarding private property (or the lack thereof), we can define a set of natural rights that any person has regardless of any local, regional, or global laws, constructs, or ideologies. We can all agree murder is wrong, rape is wrong, stealing is wrong, slavery is wrong, and the clearest and most concise way of setting this forward is by understanding that nobody is entitled to anything other than their body and any property they have gained which was either unclaimed or voluntarily from another agent.

Certain schools of thought disagree on unclaimed property, e.g. if one settles a piece of land and the landowner doesn't notice, but after a decade or so has passed and the resident has worked the land and only then the landowner notices, who really owns it? I am not in a position to answer this but I don't think it's "arbitrary" or "man-made" to expect natural rights over your body and property. Everything else, indeed, is abstract.

Anyone can make any arbitrary decision and call it a human right, it does not make it so. Watch:

----

Article 6753 Everyone has the right to play video games 24 hours a day.

----

Nobody is entitled to life, nor dignity. Simply because someone else exists on the planet doesn't mean their livelihood is now my burden. Me existing doesn't mean you ought to be enslaved to provide for me.