If some political actor, say the president or Congress, attempts to alter some of these choices, say by shifting the tax burden from the working class to the superrich, or by taxing consumption rather than income, or by eliminating subsidies to various industries, then it is certainly valid to argue about whether the proposed changes make sense on their merits. But it is not valid to oppose them simply on the grounds that altering the distribution of wealth itself is wrong in principle.
Everything Is Obvious: *Once You Know the Answer (Duncan J. Watts)
- Highlight Loc. 3414-17
In other words: criticism must be based upon points open to debate. Criticism because something is novel or different to status quo or expected results is invalid.
@alforque: Weird. Physical buttons sure, but I'm always amazed at the accuracy and resolution of the touch screen on my phone.
via @AngryChad 8:49AM, February 6, 2012.
Samsung, you nailed it! I totally want a phone that's too large to hold and a stylus like it's '99. #sarcasm
via @tylertravitz 10:00PM, February 5, 2012.
This is something new that I'm starting to understand. It's difficult because using "common sense" to predict the future is default. Then, after such an event does or does not occur, we use "common sense" as the explanation.