[alchemist1e9]

Yes absolutely I’m definitely suggesting that!

You see there is nothing more honorable than risking what you have for a better future for yourself and others. Capitalists are the actual heroes in the world. Socialist governments the single biggest evil.

Capitalism isn’t an intuitive concept and that’s caused by our evolutionary past, much like our desire for sugar and fats cause us health problems, our evolutionary past with Envy is making us sick, where it once made small groups perform better and survive longer. In a tribal setting Envy encourages the middle of the group to reach towards the accomplishments of the best performers. Unfortunately in a large scale society the middle and bottom of the group can’t conceive of how to reach the top performers and can only think of cutting them down resorting to theft which lowers overall performance.

Some insightful quotes to help:

"Socialism is an alternative to capitalism as potassium cyanide is an alternative to water."

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

“The case for capitalism is counterintuitive: to most of us, capitalism simply feels wrong. Socialism, in contrast, chimes with our moral intuitions. Socialism simply feels right. Being a socialist is a 'default opinion', which comes easily and naturally to us. Appreciating the benefits of a market economy, in contrast, takes some intellectual self-discipline. Even prominent free-market intellectuals, such as Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayek did not start their careers as free marketeers. ”

[Kon-Peki]

> Yes absolutely I’m definitely suggesting that!

Now we have a serious conundrum. If words can only have a single meaning regardless of context, surely we need some sort of centralized authority to manage this authoritative dictionary. Who should that be?

[alchemist1e9]

The answer to your conundrum is trivial as hopefully you know and your comment was made in sarcasm. However given the serious brain rot civilization id experiencing, for those who don’t understand the sarcasm, I’ll explain.

Unconditional free speech solves it. The IRS can call it want they want and I can say they are idiots and evil. As long as we are allowed to speak truth then there is hope.

The ministry of truth will bring nothing but death and destruction. You are forewarned.

[Kon-Peki]

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. When the IRS classifies some things as earned and others as unearned, they are using the definitions of those words as provided by Congress in the law that was passed.

We have the liberty to assign whatever meaning we want to words, but at the same time we need to come to agreements on what those words mean to be able to communicate effectively. In the US, laws almost always have a table of word definitions at the beginning. Some of them are longer than the actual law!

It's almost paradoxical to rail against the IRS text as socialist propaganda. You are imposing your definition of "earned" on everyone, but the US government is saying "you will use the English language however you wish, but just to be clear, when you read this law (and only when you read this law) this is how to interpret the words"

I think we agree with each other quite a bit :)