[Bran_son]

I.e. make it illegal to rely on anyone but the government to provide for your children. I'm sure unlike the last few times it was tried, this time such centralization of control and severing of parent-child relations will work out wonderfully.

[EA-3167]

It's Jacobin, they're just a tiny step away from being tankies, and their readers are already there.

[kelseyfrog]

The other alternative, everything is owned by the king was also tried. It ends with the king getting his head chopped off. It's almost like black-and-white thinking like this isn't exactly intellectually curious.

[Bran_son]

> black-and-white thinking like this

What does "this" refer to? I am not advocating for zero inheritance tax (though it should be low) or zero income tax (current level seems to be in a reasonable range) or zero trust-busting/antitrust regulations (currently woefully underutilized). I assume this is the neo-feudal "king" you refer to - the corporate concentration of capital?

The only thing I objected to was entirely severing the chain of inheritance, to further cutting off parents from children (they are already mostly government educated). Objecting to one extreme proposition is not black and white thinking, unless one claims the opposite extreme is the only alternative.

[kelseyfrog]

Can you help me understand? It just seems that when we're talking about nuance and middle ground that rejecting one side seems a little biased.