Safe spaces / microagressions

Microaggression training is likely to backfire and increase racial tensions. The term itself encourages moralistic responses to actions that are often unintentional and sometimes even well-meaning. Once something is labeled an act of aggression, it activates an oppressor-victim narrative, which calls out to members of the aggrieved group to rally around the victim. As the threshold for what counts as an offense falls ever lower, cross-racial interactions become more dangerous, and conflict increases.

The problem with the anonymous reporting system on microagressions. How would your behavior change if anything you said could be misinterpreted, taken out of context and then reported—anonymously and with no verification—to a central authority with the power to punish you? Wouldn’t faculty and students of all races grow more anxious and guarded whenever students from other backgrounds were present?

Inheritance allows wealth accumulation - so it is crucial for poor people to break the cycle of poverty: (1) not having money for college education that only parents can give; (2) not having own house – so need to spend big proportion of income on rent

When a person works she does not spend time with her family - inheritance is a compensation for lacking parental attention

As taxation is morally justified by giving back to the society for the benefits we receive from the society, the tax rate should ideally reflect the proportion of your income not-related to our individual choices. In this regard, 100% taxation implies that individual’s income is completely unrelated to her life choices and this is nonsense.

Fundamental problem of banking is three-fold: (1) the more risk you take the more profits you make – this is the very idea of financial intermediation; (2) managers benefit directly and to the full extent by the profits; however they are not always responsible for the risks they take due to limited liability; (3) profits are realised in the short term while the risks are realised in the medium to long-term while both managers and shareholders are mostly short-sighted.

The double jeopardy rule in UK law states that you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. It is a rule that dates back to the 12th century under common law.

Defence 1. The state has far more power to investigate and dig up evidence than an individual. The individual will not have the resources to go out and look for the evidence that clears him and anyway, from the point of being charged, may be held in custody whilst he waits for his trial. Thus, the individual’s ability to construct a defence against a charge is quite limited.

Defence 2. Removing the double jeopardy rule opens up the possibility of the state harassing an individual with repeated prosecutions for the same crime.

Defence 3. Removing the double jeopardy rule means that the innocent accused can never rest easy.

Defence 4. The double jeopardy rule encourages the prosecution to make as strong a case as it can manage. If there is the option of trying again should the conviction fail, then when a crime is being investigated, once the police believe they’ve got their man, there is no pressure to investigate further to ensure the strongest possible case is presented rather than one they think will be merely adequate.

Defence 5. Retrials after an acquittal may undermine the presumption of innocence. If the jury knows they are judging a retrial where what a judge has found to be “compelling”, “new” evidence is available, the jury may decide that they cannot judge that it wasn’t compelling. Yet had the evidence been presented at the original trial, there is no guarantee it would have led to conviction