jimmyk

Would it change things for you if that kid was your descendant?

>We want money to move around, rather than sit in someone's safe

It's just paper. What's wrong with it sitting in someone's safe? We certainly don't want actual productive capital assets to be idle, but dollar bills don't produce anything. If they're sitting in a safe, the value of the ones that aren't in the safe goes up slightly.

I'm not sure quite what they meant, but that doesn't sound quite right to me either.

If the currency is stagnant or close to stagnant, the incentive to invest is that you end up with more wealth overall.

I'm not sure it's possible for deflation to be both predictable and higher than the market rate of return, because people today would immediately speculate and bid up the price of the currency to reflect its future expected value.

Of course inflation is an added incentive to invest money, or at least to store your wealth in assets other than money.

"Without inflation there is no incentive to spend your money"

That is quite the exaggeration.

Are you saying Islam doesn't teach Muslims to behave preferentially toward (some of) their fellow Muslims in any way?

>It's something people reach through anti-semitism.

Believing some Jews and other enemies of the Nazis (e.g. Allied governments) lie is not the same thing as believing Jews should be exterminated.

>It's probably because of the Age of Enlightenment in the west that did a thorough self evaluation over a few centuries.

I'm not sure what a "thorough self evaluation" would actually mean. I don't think that's even remotely feasible, given the immense scope of the subject matter. What has happened is that certain elements within western civilization have focused their efforts on criticizing western civilization, some in good faith and some not, and the rest of western civilization has allowed them to do so. That is the part that is rare, just like suicide, and for the same reason.

People are legally mandated to buy third party health care payment plans. How could you possibly expect that to go well?

>You can obviously avoid marriage in the first place, in order to maximize services or avoid taxes.

No, you really can't. Do you seriously think the state is going to pay out more benefits to parents solely because they haven't signed a marriage certificate?

You _can_ absolutely qualify for more benefits if the other parent is unable or unwilling to contribute financially and the state is unable to coerce them to do so. But the state goes after the other parent first.

Part of the reason these programs are so harmful is that they provide incentives for the father to stay away from the children. Staying around to raise the children makes it a lot easier for the state to A) find him and B) make the case that he's the father or has taken on a fatherly role and is therefore responsible for paying for them.

Is this sarcasm, or are you suggesting that the same institution which set up these perverse rules has done such a great job that it should be given control over the funding of health care for 99% of the population?

>but I don't pretend to know or understand their full argument of why it should be regulated

One reason might be that they believe that having a culture which is hedonistic toward sex is harmful for society, and they believe that acceptance of homosexual behavior necessarily leads to having such a culture.

>presumably Stalinists?

That is definitely not a reasonable assumption to make.

>but if you're not religious and don't believe in utilitarianism, what exactly is the goal for your society?

It is perfectly possible to be utilitarian, non-religious, and opposed to the acceptance of homosexuality. All it takes is a belief that acceptance of homosexuality is on the whole and over time more harmful for people than intolerance of homosexuality.

>There's not really a way to counter this mentality by people like us because their worldview is so entirely alien to us

As you hint at up above, there are non-religious people who believe regulating sexual behavior is important for society. Do you have a way to counter that idea when it's based on a secular worldview which is not so alien to yours?

>totally legal to be a murderer or thief as long as you don't behave that way.

You must know this doesn't make any sense. Murderer and thief are words that describe people who actually murder or steal, not people who just have a desire to murder or steal. Gay describes who you are attracted to.

I'm confused by your comment.

>Society bundled behaviour and innate characteristics into a single thing.

It seems like that's what you're doing here:

>...you don't have any choice about being gay, or about having gay relationships.

Being gay does not mean you have to have gay relationships. Having gay relationships is a choice.