3 ms·

Climbers & their money do tons for the Sherpas and their communities - but that exchange is at gunpoint I have a big problem with characterizing it thusly. Th

Climbers & their money do tons for the Sherpas and their communities - but that exchange is at gunpoint I have a big problem with characterizing it thusly. The Sherpas lived and died in Nepal for thousands of years before the arrival of western adventure seekers. A people continuing to live in the same manner as their ancestors isn't the worst thing in the world, especially if that's what those people want. We can best raise standards of living for people around the world by engaging in trade with them. We bring a lot of western problems, like obesity and heart disease but we also bring western solutions, like medical care and abundant food sources. The morality of that question alters drastically when you offer universal basic income. If there's a morality question with, as you describe it, offering opportunities at gunpoint; how can there not be morality questions with taking tax money from others, actually at gunpoint? There's also the cultural imperialism that's implicit in your scenario. Why would we assume that most Nepalese want to come to the US? If travel and trade boosts their standard of living, because of their voluntary participation, that's a good thing.

vacri 11y ago
> taking tax money from others, actually at gunpoint? Oh, please. The 'gunpoint' in the tax system is the same 'gunpoint' in any legal dispute - you have to go through a long and tedious process before you get the deputies with guns at the door, and even then, they're not there for your tax money, but to take you into custody.
lmm 11y ago
> If there's a morality question with, as you describe it, offering opportunities at gunpoint; how can there not be morality questions with taking tax money from others, actually at gunpoint? Non-taxation is also at gunpoint. Particularly in the case of land/property ownership (possibly the biggest factor in inequality), the thing that makes a wealthy person's land and buildings "theirs" is ultimately their ability to expel other people from them by force. Ultimately you can frame anything as a negative or positive right. We as humans need to decide what sits best with our own consciences. Personally, I feel a visceral sense of injustice at the gross inequality of today's world - a sense that I don't feel when we talk about taking a fraction of the incomes of the wealthiest (provided we do so from all equally) and redistributing it to those less well off. It's possible that I'm peculiar in this regard, but I suspect not.
- LordKano 11y ago
  The crux of ownership is having the right to determine who has access to something and under what conditions. You own your body and can use force to prevent someone from having sex with you against your will. I wouldn't say that you're going around not having sex with random strangers at gunpoint. We as humans need to decide what sits best with our own consciences. I can agree with that. It's just that our consciences are different. I feel a visceral sense of injustice at the gross inequality of today's world It's not just today's world. There has always been inequality and injustice. It used to be far worse. You won't be thrown into debtors prison for not being able to repay the usurious loan you had no choice in accepting to feed your starving children. You won't be executed for illegally killing a deer to feed your family. You won't be worked to death on a chain gang for stealing a loaf of bread.
  - lmm 11y ago
    > You own your body and can use force to prevent someone from having sex with you against your will. I wouldn't say that you're going around not having sex with random strangers at gunpoint. I think that just boils down to the statement that it's very natural and instinctively moral that you control your own body. Whereas for one individual to control huge tracts of land or buildings that could house hundreds of other people is not natural or instinctively moral.

vacri 11y ago

> taking tax money from others, actually at gunpoint? Oh, please. The 'gunpoint' in the tax system is the same 'gunpoint' in any legal dispute - you have to go through a long and tedious process before you get the deputies with guns at the door, and even then, they're not there for your tax money, but to take you into custody.

lmm 11y ago

> If there's a morality question with, as you describe it, offering opportunities at gunpoint; how can there not be morality questions with taking tax money from others, actually at gunpoint? Non-taxation is also at gunpoint. Particularly in the case of land/property ownership (possibly the biggest factor in inequality), the thing that makes a wealthy person's land and buildings "theirs" is ultimately their ability to expel other people from them by force. Ultimately you can frame anything as a negative or positive right. We as humans need to decide what sits best with our own consciences. Personally, I feel a visceral sense of injustice at the gross inequality of today's world - a sense that I don't feel when we talk about taking a fraction of the incomes of the wealthiest (provided we do so from all equally) and redistributing it to those less well off. It's possible that I'm peculiar in this regard, but I suspect not.

LordKano 11y ago
The crux of ownership is having the right to determine who has access to something and under what conditions. You own your body and can use force to prevent someone from having sex with you against your will. I wouldn't say that you're going around not having sex with random strangers at gunpoint. We as humans need to decide what sits best with our own consciences. I can agree with that. It's just that our consciences are different. I feel a visceral sense of injustice at the gross inequality of today's world It's not just today's world. There has always been inequality and injustice. It used to be far worse. You won't be thrown into debtors prison for not being able to repay the usurious loan you had no choice in accepting to feed your starving children. You won't be executed for illegally killing a deer to feed your family. You won't be worked to death on a chain gang for stealing a loaf of bread.
- lmm 11y ago
  > You own your body and can use force to prevent someone from having sex with you against your will. I wouldn't say that you're going around not having sex with random strangers at gunpoint. I think that just boils down to the statement that it's very natural and instinctively moral that you control your own body. Whereas for one individual to control huge tracts of land or buildings that could house hundreds of other people is not natural or instinctively moral.