Peterkin

You might have articulated that in the opening post, if only to save on confusion. The title question is rather obscure. But, on the principle of "better late", which nuances of taxes do you wish to explore? For that matter, what do you mean by 'nuances'? Still don't know how you frame the the issue of 'value to society'. It's not for me to suggest; it's for you to clarify what aspect of ethics you wish to discuss. Enlighten us, please.

That's the best sentence I've read all week. It could crown a pyramid of economic, sociological, psychological and historical scholarship. Alas, such an edifice would not fit into the available space. As things do stand, humans, if they hope to prosper as a species, must learn to control money; reduce its status from deity to the medium of exchange that its advocates assert it to be. Taxation is one mechanism whereby that could be achieved - if government were not in thrall to money. There are other devices. Christian, Judaic and Muslim scriptures urge charity on the prosperous faithful, and they have had much influence. A sense of obligation to some particular institution or organization, such as the one Jared Isaacman holds for St. Jude's hospital or Alex Trebek did for his alma mater, often prompts generous contributions to the betterment their fellow humans. A personal interest in some cultural activity makes some wealthy people lifelong supporters of the arts and art education. Love and friendship. Concern for the future. Popularity; social standing. Very rich people are as motivated by the same feelings and ideas as the rest of us. Unfortunately, one of the most compelling of these feelings is "I want mooooore!" and one of the most pervasive ideas is "Anything I own this, nobody else can. " It's at this end of the scale that government needs to step in, like a good parent, and regulate the uncouth child's behaviour. Siblings and peers can help!

It's a cognitive gap, apparently. The Craig. T. Nelson problem. Granted, he's only a millionnaire, so maybe that doesn't count.

Is there a purpose for this thread? Why is it in Ethics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWS8Mg-JWSg How old do you think I am?

You're asking me? OTOMH, government, ex-wives and spiral staircases. Did I guess any right? Do I get to cross the bridge?

There's lots in Alaska. I think, as far as water is liquid - it's a really hardy plant. Poor. I had some in a small pond, years ago. As the pond dried up, the bullrushes retreated. By the third year, they had all died out. It more commonly propagates through rhizomes, so you could dig some up from a roadside ditch to have a stand of them sooner. But they do need mud.

I realize that. As the launches take place at Cape Canaveral, I just wondered how this: @dimreepr : transaction works. Still unclear, actually, but it's not important.

No. You pointed out that at first, only a very few people made use of air transportation because of the cost. Then as it became cheaper, more and more people did. Which is how the aviation industry grew and grew, consumed more and more more fossil fuel and produced more and more CO2, noise pollution, bird deaths, airport sprawl, etc. and a lot of peripheral damage due to tourism and the industries serving it. Not an altogether risible idea, but of course civilization is dependent on it now. Still, the Covid crisis did reduce much of the frivolous flying and made the world a little cleaner and safer for a while. There isn't much to recommend a pandemic! As with air traffic, so also with space traffic: I disapprove of using such incidentally harmful and potentially deadly tools as playthings. I didn't think it was on topic. His good works won't prevent anyone burning to death in a defective vehicle. Once the mechanical problems are corrected, I'm sure electric cars will be safe, clean and wonderful. In space, bailing out doesn't seem like an option.

I didn't count them, but I know "filthy" isn't one I generally employ, as I don't consider t a term of endearment, and I have an unsubstantiated suspicion they don't, either. Why do you think I should be complimentary about the super rich? I am failing to take comfort from that. Indeed I did. He paid for all the seats. He is doing it for a hospital, which is very nice - but not a pre-requisite for space jaunts. No, there are lots, not heavily used. But that's the SpaceX is launching from. They're where I left them. Read as you please.

What did I say about them that's so offensive? 1. They're useless in an emergency on a space flight. 2. Their joy-riding does not advance science and technology, but does add to space debris and air pollution. 3. I think that's a waste of resources. How??? He'd just die, same as on the Challenger. There is absolutely nothing he could do. I don't know why this happens; it's a technical bug that needs to be corrected. I never said "filthy" - you did, at least twice. How come? AFAIK, they're the only ones who can afford a seat. unless somebody wins one in a lottery. 10 years from now, it might be as cheap as $100,00 - still a bit out of reach for the average paramedic and short-order cook. Plastic surgeons and stock brokers, I suppose. They won't be able to fly a spaceship, either, but if one place is taken up by an astronaut, it'll be $I33,000, plus a third share in his salary and life insurance premium. That's not politics; that's economics. I happen to think that money could be put to more productive uses, including more effective ways of promoting science, but that's just opinion. Funny, that's exactly what I've been saying all along. They're grownups; presumably they know the risk; if they want to assume that risk according to the terms of their contract, whether that's wise or not, it's perfectly appropriate for them to do so. I have concerns, but that's not one of them. At least until Cape Canaveral is under 10' of ocean. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/cape-canaveral-launch-sites-threatened-by-rising-seas When were we ever off? Do you think this is wise or appropriate? No. Yes.

What we each might want for ourselves is not really on the table. It's not us going into the capsule. I wouldn't. They want to. Whether it's wise or not, it seems to be the right decision for them.

Thank you for that. I don't really have any further arguments. The only objective one was about the waste and pollution mentioned in my first post. Seems to me, the Earth is fragile enough, and is already orbited by an unconscionable amount of its own squandered resources; it doesn't really need to be an even more reckless playground for the people who benefit most from squandering its resources. If such a stance is considered political, I'm okay with it. If holding it gives me a bad rep, I'm okay with that, too. My personal opinion regarding these private flights is that I would not willingly be riveted into a vehicle owned by someone whose vehicles occasionally combust spontaneously. But if an autonomous, informed adult wants to take that risk, it's theirs to take. I'm no more concerned with their safety than that of Everest climbers or motorcycle racers. I do see that NASA, unable to launch its own ferry service for astronauts and scientists, would rather depend on charter flights with a private American company than a Russian government one. (I'm not crazy about the situation where America's space agency has that choice to make, but that wasn't in the OP topic.) However, I don't see how circus and mail-order business CEO's having a super-expensive carnival ride advances mankind.

If I missed a point, please provide information to set me straight. I thought NASA was publicly funded.

They've contracted out all space flights: it's the public paying Musk, not the other way around. https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html

How should any of us know? It's their decision. They have the resources and information to make the one that seems right, wise and appropriate for each of them.

I'm sure they've made plans for various foreseeable problems. Nobody has plans for the unforeseen ones. Sometimes the rocket explodes and everybody dies - including the professional astronauts.

They don't seem to be clueless; I'm not terribly worried about their safety. I am, however, concerned that this is a one-off advertising gimmick - presumably to promote the newest fad in overpriced leisure activities, so that all future passengers are likely to be useless rich people, wasting jillions of dollars and fuel. Depending on the fuel used, they'll produce a significant to unacceptable amount of air pollution and CO2 emission . To no good purpose whatever.

If I may inject a word of caution from experience? The child may be very bright and very keen, but she is also very young. The attention has not yet stretched to adult proportion, and the world is till growing. Some children do discover their vocation early in life and stick with it for life, but it's far more common for interest and enthusiasm to wax, wane and shift in the developing years. Be careful not to overwhelm her with stuff and information and activity. Or invest too much, both in material resources and parental concern, in this one area of her education. Most importantly, be extra careful not to overwhelm her with your own enthusiasm! It can lead to complications. (PS Not mad keen on the ant farm idea. They usually die - right in front of the little kid who's learned to care about them. Far better - and infinitely more instructive! - to study real ants, living their natural life. Especially if she's interested in how they fit into their ecosystem. Bonus: the two of you get to spend quality time outdoors, crawling on hands and knees, on the same level. No magnifying glass, okay?)

They're wonderfully versatile little things, primary food source for marine life, human food and medicine, potential fuel, and there will be more of it, anyway, as the icecaps melt, the phyloplankton blooms are already increasing - with some interesting side effects. (You might want to read that whole article.) On the other hand, human criminality threatens the planktons, as it does all ocean life. What's the point of genetically modifying something while killing it? As part of a comprehensive and united global application of drastic measures, yes. Side-note: a good deal of the carbon being released this year is from burning trees. You may find this publication useful.

How long has that been incubating?

Yeah, but all that striving and competing is another byproduct of money - or more to the point, the tragedy of not having it, the fear of not getting enough, the constant anxiety over how to repay a half again what you borrowed, if you can meet hefty payments regularly over a decade. That's assuming you finished high enough, with a degree that's in demand and got a pretty good job right away. Taking the crippling student loan out of the mix could change the whole picture. It would mean that young persons interested in liberal arts, social sciences and philosophy could afford to indulge their true interests, rather than race to the job-scrum with the MBA's (a bachelor's is just waste paper anymore) and BEc's . They might even be enabled to take lower paying service and arts positions.

Well, since you have been born and that's a one-way ticket, your next best option is a nice tall mountain, find a cave with some juniper berries growing nearby and contemplate your purity in perfect solitude.

That's one advantage of the Scottish system. The core curriculum is for all students 5-16, before they begin streaming into specialty subjects. And there is no reason to abandon the humanities and arts when taking a more intensive trade-directed practical course - just as we could have geometry, home economics, literature, origami and airplane mechanics in some of the experimental vocational schools of the 60's and 70'S. What went wrong there is complicated, with a whole lot of people at fault, but mostly simple underestimation by idealistic educators of the existing caste system. That would continue to dog a government funded college level program, but I think we're more accustomed to meeting the challenges now.

The specifics have not yet been considered, since the question at the moment is only a general principle. Has that happened very often? If it ever did, the tuition would still be waived for the number of qualified applicants for the courses being offered. When each class is filled, the rest remaining applicants would be counselled to seek other fields of study for which their previous testing shows an aptitude. Why should/would we suppose such an absurd situation? From the overflow that was turned away from full courses. The fact that medical schools and law schools the world over limit their intake to the number of places available in any given year is not a function of the funding mechanism. They also, BTW, have pretty good vocational programs, as well as academic ones. https://www.techacademyscot.com/ https://www.edumaritime.net/uk/scotland https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/scottish-agricultural-college-sac Just not seeing the problem.