4 ms·
"and the (im)morality is no different." Morality is relative, but I don't understand your views on it. If a society is rich enough to give a good life to all t
by RobertoG 11y ago
"and the (im)morality is no different."
Morality is relative, but I don't understand your views on it. If a society is rich enough to give a good life to all their members, is it immoral to do it?
What about keeping a big part of the population afraid of how are they going to pay the rent tomorrow so you have cheap and available workers? is that moral? specially when we live in the richest societies of history?
People that believe in the overwhelmed goodness of markets should investigate a little more history. For instance:
the ten hours bill in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factories_Act_1847 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factories_Act_1847) and how the "laissez faire" crow of the time opposed to "restrict the working hours of women and young persons (13-18) in textile mills to 10 hours per day" because its immorality.
- eanzenberg 11y agoWhich current society is rich enough to give a good life to all of their members?
- RobertoG 11y agowhich is not? Do we have the infrastructure (or can we build it) and the knowledge or not?
- beat 11y agoDepends on your definition of "good life", but mine is making sure you don't have to worry about shelter, food, or vital medical care. And every industrialized nation can afford that, easily.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoThat's true. So why do we feel the need to coerce people into paying into such systems? The more I investigate it the more I think it's because of the power such systems grant the coercers. Consider the uproar over Zuckerberg having the temerity to spend his money on charity in the way he pleases, instead of the State getting to choose.
- rifung 11y agoI believe the reason we need to coerce people into paying is because economically if you don't let people volunteer to pay, it just doesn't work. Excuse me if I don't have the sources for this as it was my Econ PhD friend who explained it to me. I wonder if the argument against it is something like this: imagine for every person, they have some amount they are willing to contribute to said scheme. However, unless the total amount needed to fund such a project is small, if you don't force everyone to contribute then the cost will be significantly higher per person. Then, because it's higher than what some people want to pay, they choose not to pay although they would have otherwise. After that happens, the price increases more, and this effect continues.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoSure, that sounds entirely reasonable from a mathematical perspective. But the question to ask is: does that justify the use of coercion to secure funding? I.e., does efficiency justify the use of force?
- eanzenberg 11y agoWhat does that equate to, about 40k a year for the US? $40k * 300M = $1.2 * 10^13, or the whole GDP of the US Okay maybe that's too luxurious for the common people. Let's say only 20k per year, and to only 200M people. $20k * 200M = $4 * 10^12, or about the total federal spending for 2015. So how exactly is the 'richest' nation in the world able to afford this, easily?
- beat 11y agoYou're including children in that. Also, this would presumably replace Social Security and other welfare costs (or retirees would be excluded). And finally, people would still be working. I'm sure the taxes I pay would more than cover the cost for giving it to me.
- eanzenberg 11y agoWhere is the line drawn for income where above it you pay more net (through taxes) and below it you pay less?
- duncan_bayne 11y agoI don't have any problem with people who want to support a minimum basic income with their own money. The moral issue begins when you force others to financially support your scheme.
- drdeca 11y agoWhat do you mean by "Morality is relative"? Do you mean that there is no fact of the matter as to whether an act in a context is moral? Because if that is your claim, I disagree.