|
|
|
|
|
|
by greedo
5166 days ago
|
|
|
>I think it is entirely consistent and rational to support a rule for higher taxation while still striving to pay the minimum required amount. Yes. It's called hypocrisy. Rational yes, consistent with the idea that there are rules for me and rules for thee. |
|
|
Say in the NFL a group of players started advocating for a change in rules. Say, they want a rule where a player must be evaluated and sit out of a game after taking so many hits of so many g forces to the head.
If certain teams decide to implement the rules unilaterally it would put them at a disadvantage. The rules have to change for everyone for it to make sense. It is perfectly reasonable for a team or player to advocate for a rule change without acting as if that rule is in place without a hint of hypocrisy.