Surprised he didn't recommend Euthanasia for anyone over a certain age as reaching a certain age is now considered an inappropriate property right that must be appropriated. I told a friend yesterday maybe we could frame our borders/citizenship as a property right when dealing with anti-ICE people, which is everywhere in SoCal, to create a less divisive conversation. Now I see that won't work either. Owning a home, having a family and now being alive past a certain point are all unearned property rights that must be extinguished to feed the spirit of the State.
"Moyn’s fourth recommendation is to impose a progressive tax on the elderly to force them to sell their homes." Does he plan on issuing them tents to live in?
I wouldn't say they're in control (completely) but they have a stranglehold on our politics and our housing market. Old people (in my experience) are running the software from a different era. They tend to be self-indulgent (rather obliviously) and they're PROFOUNDLY unaware of the frustrations and struggles of young men. And young men are not one of the groups that they feel inclined to sympathize with (it's not politically fashionable and it doesn't make them feel cool or nice), although they're the basis for a healthy society in the future.
This leads to an epistemological blind spot in which financial exploitation and institutional discrimination are assented to, sanctioned, and even facilitated by old people.
> He would start with putting age limits on politicians, something the whole country would applaud. This issue barely touches on the concept of genontocracy because the group of politicians is small.
Hrm. I'm not sure I agree that it barely touches the concept of gerontocracy simply because the group is small, there are additional downsides to older people being in charge of passing laws and running the country, such as being ... less in touch with many ways in which technology has changed.
But I'd *absolutely* approve of forcing Three Branch folks to retire at whatever the age is at which people have to start drawing Social Security or sign up for Medicare or whatever it is. (I dunno, I'm not there and even when I am that old, I'm not going to see any of it.) 65? 67? That seems entirely reasonable, even if it *would* turf out my favorite Supreme Court Justice. (Clarence Thomas, of course.)
Surprised he didn't recommend Euthanasia for anyone over a certain age as reaching a certain age is now considered an inappropriate property right that must be appropriated. I told a friend yesterday maybe we could frame our borders/citizenship as a property right when dealing with anti-ICE people, which is everywhere in SoCal, to create a less divisive conversation. Now I see that won't work either. Owning a home, having a family and now being alive past a certain point are all unearned property rights that must be extinguished to feed the spirit of the State.
"Moyn’s fourth recommendation is to impose a progressive tax on the elderly to force them to sell their homes." Does he plan on issuing them tents to live in?
Just have a government without much power. Then no one can have a stranglehold on it.
Now, get off my lawn.
I wouldn't say they're in control (completely) but they have a stranglehold on our politics and our housing market. Old people (in my experience) are running the software from a different era. They tend to be self-indulgent (rather obliviously) and they're PROFOUNDLY unaware of the frustrations and struggles of young men. And young men are not one of the groups that they feel inclined to sympathize with (it's not politically fashionable and it doesn't make them feel cool or nice), although they're the basis for a healthy society in the future.
This leads to an epistemological blind spot in which financial exploitation and institutional discrimination are assented to, sanctioned, and even facilitated by old people.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/vassal-of-the-boomer-regime
> He would start with putting age limits on politicians, something the whole country would applaud. This issue barely touches on the concept of genontocracy because the group of politicians is small.
Hrm. I'm not sure I agree that it barely touches the concept of gerontocracy simply because the group is small, there are additional downsides to older people being in charge of passing laws and running the country, such as being ... less in touch with many ways in which technology has changed.
But I'd *absolutely* approve of forcing Three Branch folks to retire at whatever the age is at which people have to start drawing Social Security or sign up for Medicare or whatever it is. (I dunno, I'm not there and even when I am that old, I'm not going to see any of it.) 65? 67? That seems entirely reasonable, even if it *would* turf out my favorite Supreme Court Justice. (Clarence Thomas, of course.)