Many people, especially communists, see inheritance as a bad thing. They don't think it's fair that people who've done nothing get a head start in life that essentially creates a difference in outcomes between two people despite perhaps both those people being equally capable in the work they do. Many people believe the solution is wealth redistribution in order to correct for the injustice inheritance creates.
My question is that if the above is true then can't we hold the same logic toward natural born appearances and the outcomes in relationships they lead to? A person does not choose to be born ugly yet because of their ugliness, they end up alone/single or with ugly wives/boyfriends. This is despite the fact that a person might be equally capable in terms of personality such that if it weren't for this imbalance in appearance, they would have the same outcome in relationships.
Should we not correct for this imbalance by redistributing people? For example, we should take good looking people and pair them up with bad looking people in order to correct for the injustice that natural born appearances create which is outside of anyone's control.
Many people, especially communists, see inheritance as a bad thing. They don't think it's fair that people who've done nothing get a head start in life that essentially creates a difference in outcomes between two people despite perhaps both those people being equally capable in the work they do. Many people believe the solution is wealth redistribution in order to correct for the injustice inheritance creates.
My question is that if the above is true then can't we hold the same logic toward natural born appearances and the outcomes in relationships they lead to? A person does not choose to be born ugly yet because of their ugliness, they end up alone/single or with ugly wives/boyfriends. This is despite the fact that a person might be equally capable in terms of personality such that if it weren't for this imbalance in appearance, they would have the same outcome in relationships.
Should we not correct for this imbalance by redistributing people? For example, we should take good looking people and pair them up with bad looking people in order to correct for the injustice that natural born appearances create which is outside of anyone's control.
Well I'm only 5'5 so I want them to take Lebron James down some cause it's not fair he's so tall and therefore can make money with his height. Not fair at all. Average height matters!!!!
Not just about the money. See if you only focus on the money someone could argue that if they simply taxed lebron more and redistributed it to you that would be fair, except you and I both know that despite equal incomes, our outcomes would be different because money isn't the only determining factor in people's outcomes in life. Just like how the labour that someone does isn't the only determining factor in the wealth/income of a person.
Why do you think the commies want us wearing masks so bad?
It's, "Harrison Bergeron", being played out irl.
Came here to say this.
communists are not people.
Communism should be illegal
you can't trust government to do the right thing. it falls on all of us to wipe out any idea of ''human bad = elite good'' and similar aristocrat thoughts.
I always wanted to play in the NBA. I also wanted to be able to play like SRV on the guitar.
best post of the day
The answer is yes. Theres a short story called harrison bergeron that i think you'll enjoy.
This was my same thought when "white privilege" became a thing. Aren't handsomer people more privileged? Yes. There's a privilege in bring raised with two heterosexual parents. Privilege of being raised in a (not Muslim) religion; a privilege of being tall, fast, thin, smart, straight teeth, and, I'd wager, there's more privilege today in any other skin color than white. Bigot leftists can get bent
If inheritance is unjust, then what is abortion?
Don't try to reason with commies.
According to their logic, yes we should.
I think we should push for this. Any self-described communist should be placed into a list and we should use the threat of violence, such that we use to force taxes on others to redistribute the rewards of their labour to others, in order to force the redistribution of good looking people within society.
Imagine how fast woke liberal communist women on onlyfans would drop the marxist obsession if they were forced to marry an ugly man for the sake of redistributing appearances in society in order to attain a more equal outcome.
This is why a black trans handicapped person wins the oppression Olympics
But to leftists all people are beautiful.
To leftists, all people are equally beautiful despite that being objectively wrong, then why can't they simply see all people as being equally wealthy, despite that also being objectively wrong?
they already do this when they tell you you're a bigot if you won't sleep with a tranny
Life's not fair. That shit about created equal means with equal rights and opportunities. People are tall, short, fat, thin, smart, liberal, black, white, etc. They certainly aren't equal in personal and physical qualities.
Yes, all differences in appearance, physical strength, height, weight, IQ.... it’s all horribly bad and evil. We should use genetics to make sure we are all EXACTLY the same...
I knew someone once who wanted to create a breed of people who were all superior... I forget what his name was though?
Yep and this is the problem with their insane ideology. It goes on and on and on and there is no conclusion. 30 years ago (when I was a young "progressive" in Southern California) we were pushing for common sense things like not beating people over who they were attracted to and not allowing corporations to dump toxic waste into your local drinking water supply. Every time one hurdle was passed there had to be a new one. Now we are facing a violent, hateful ideology that seeks total conformity of it's racially obsessed, gender obsessed, sex obsessed, crime obsessed, drug obsessed, propaganda fueled agenda and demands total disenfranchisement of its enemies. It evolved from a champion of the disenfranchised into a Tyranny of the bitter.
I'd argue your "common sense" things aren't necessarily common sense. I'd actually take the position that beating people over who they were attracted to is a good thing. The suppression of the use of violence in males has led to a poor outcome for males. We should actually promote violence in society to a point. Solving disputes in a non-lethal but violent manner is a fine way to solve disputes.
The song and dance of attracting a mate which you see as common sense bad, is not actually a bad thing in my view. The conflict that arises from men beating up other men or perhaps women over who they were attracted to leads to certain outcomes and emotions within people that actually creates a better atmosphere for love to flourish and a better outcome for people despite this adversity. Some women like men to show this sort of dominance and fight over them, this creates attraction in their eyes. Some women like to see a weaker man stand up for his love for her in the face of the danger the bully presents and this heroism in the weaker man is what attracts him to her, etc... When you take this away because you think violence in these circumstances is bad you take away the very essence of what often attracts people to others. The outcome isn't necessarily better, at all.
Kurt Vonnegut already covered that in Harrison Bergeron.
The left is already trying to do that. Have you seen any feminism before and after shots? So many beautiful women completely destroyed. Then there's body positivity to encourage people to let themselves turn into landwhales. Then there's trannies. Then there's piercings and tattoos. I can't tell you how many boners I've lost after seeing a cow nose ring.
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut
Short relevant story
Many good things come with a trade-off. Freedom for example often comes with the trade-off of security. Owning guns for example has the trade-off of criminals potentially having guns.
I agree, Soros is an example of the bad associated with inheritance but that doesn't mean because bad exists, inheritance itself is bad thing. There is more bad in preventing inheritance and there's a lot of good in inheritance also. Trump inherited his wealth and here you are on a website titled thedonald because you believe this person is standing up for what is right. Without his inheritance, Donald likely wouldn't be in this position. If you think about it, without monetary inheritance, it might be near impossible for non-politicians born into political families like Bush/Clinton to ever become President, because it's that inheritance that allows them the ability to compete with people born into political dynasties. I'm just speculating.
Regardless, denying people their inheritance denies their ancestors contribution to society and denies their ancestral heritage. The outcome without inheritance, imo, would be far worse for people than with inheritance. Any outcome which is inherently unjust, which an outcome without inheritance would be since to accomplish this you must oppress people, leads to unhappiness and an non-optimal outcome for all involved.
You see the issue as money but that's not the issue, the issue is immorality.
In a moral society, people's talents do shine through and people are elevated based on their talents because in a moral society, this is promoted. People seek to better themselves and this betterment is promoted by all within society. As you've indicated, despite differences, people's talents are still able to shine through.
What has happened to our society today is not the conglomeration of wealth such that it stifles the ability for talent to shine through because of this nepotism and incest but the proliferation of immorality and the lack of morality within society. Who ultimately empowers Hollywood? Who ultimately empowers academia? The people who purchase their products/services. In a just and moral society, people would not promote Hollywood and its degenerates. You wouldn't have the problem you speak of because there would be no Hollywood. It isn't money and inheritance that stifled talent but it was the acceptance of immorality that stifled talent. People of talent aren't entering Hollywood, just like quality journalists aren't joining CNN because these institutions have become bastions of immorality so good people, who would have talent, aren't accepted to these professions or entering them.
That is one angle.
Another angle is that it is precisely the promotion of equality that is not allowing talent to shine through. By promoting diversity and inclusion everywhere, we're specifically not hiring and promoting talent in society because we're trying to promote equality. Without promoting talent, you end up with no talent. In a society that promotes inequality and thus talent, these monopolies like Hollywood would have competition from those with talent and this competition would allow talent to rise up. By forcing equality we're stifling competition because competition is seen as inequality. By stifling this competition you reduce invention/innovation etc... Also, by promoting D&I over talent, obviously you don't have talent. Inheritance isn't the problem. Equality is the problem. If you want everyone to be equal to average so you promote average you get average. Only by allowing inequality to prosper by empowering your strongest and most talented people in society rather than oppress them for the sake of equality do you get quality in organizations like Hollywood and if Hollywood didn't promote talent, a competing industry would take over.
To put the two together though, in a society of "subjective morality" such as the one we're in now, you no longer have an objective perspective of what "better" is. You see that exemplified in "fat acceptance" movements. A person who believes in objective morality would say fat is gluttony and a sin, it is not moral. People should strive for a healthy weight and to improve their looks. This is objective morality. In a society with objective morality you can have progress because the rules are set. You treat fat people as lesser to non-fat people because fat people are immoral. This is how you achieve "talent" in Hollywood is by having objective morality by which to measure improvement and superiority. When you have a society that is immoral (subjective mortality) combined with one that promotes equality over talent (inequality and empowering superior people) you end up with the situation we're in. Money, has nothing to do with it.
Some of the greatest scientists/artists in society had domestic welfare from nobles for life.
It isn't the money that shapes a person but a person's moral character which is a result of their parents and the culture. Yes, money has an impact because we all know the age old story of the behavior of a spoiled kid and a kid who has to work hard to get by.
Ultimately though, the vice of wealth can be overcome to a person's character. There are people of good moral character that still work hard despite their inheritance. Taking this away from them because you see the spoiled kids is unjust. Also, by taking this inheritance away from them to redistribute toward the PhD students who work hard, you're reducing the drive in these PhD students. It is their lack of having and thus the inequality that exists which allows us to "get more out of them".
Keep in mind that there is a natural check and balance on these people who inherit without skills. Most of these people end up losing their wealth within a few generations. As it should be.
Soros and his bloodline should be wiped from the earth. His property should destroyed and the earth salted
There are countless people who are definitively and unobjectively ugly. Take Stacy Abrams for example.
But no, inheritance is not evil. Leaving a better world for your kids is one of the things that makes people do good. What's bad is pass on money without passing on morality.