3 ms·
> The question that follows any argument that advocates some form of wealth sharing is "what do I get in return?" This is a ridiculous question to ask. The b
by hashkb 8y ago
> The question that follows any argument that advocates some form of wealth sharing is "what do I get in return?"
This is a ridiculous question to ask. The basis of society is sharing resources; some of us have just forgotten because it's convenient. What do you get in return? To live in a society where nobody is starving, everyone is educated and free to do whatever makes them happy.
- freeone3000 8y agoI'm already fed, educated, and free to do whatever I want. It doesn't help me for other people to get the same.
- rosser 8y agoYes it does. A broadly better-educated citizenry makes for a richer, more robust economy. Reducing or eliminating poverty, the same. "A rising tide lifts all boats," as they say. If you actively think that's not somehow fundamentally helpful to you, or in your best interests, maybe you don't belong in society. If your notion of "freedom" is predicated on other people starving (which I take people to mean when they say it's an infringement upon their freedom to be "forced" to participate in other people's not starving), then I think it's a pretty terrible one. If anyone, anywhere is starving, or enslaved, and you trumpet your own freedom in the face of that, you are necessarily treating freedom as zero-sum, and washing your hands of the costs the people on the other side of that coin are paying — often with their lives. When "freedom" is propped up on someone else's lack of it, I don't personally find it worth celebrating, or being all "Welp, I got mine!" over, myself. EDIT: Phrasing