2 ms·
Sure, but "If Person A wishes to survive, they must work" and "If Person A wishes to survive, either they or an ancestor must work" are very different things. I
by geofft 8y ago
Sure, but "If Person A wishes to survive, they must work" and "If Person A wishes to survive, either they or an ancestor must work" are very different things. If we feel like "he who does not work, does not eat" is a principle (and it's a very common one!), the ancestral exception doesn't make sense. I understand the ancestral exception exists, I'm just trying to push back on it being defensible. (Mostly because I think that it's equally defensible to have a blanket exception for "or lives in a society that can afford to feed and house them".)
- nailer 8y ago> I understand the ancestral exception exists, I'm just trying to push back on it being defensible. Do you think parents shouldn't be able to provide for their children in general?
- geofft 8y agoI'm not the one claiming that people who don't work shouldn't have a wage, so I'm not sure why my views are relevant here. (I have complex views on this that start from a totally different set of assumptions. But you can round it to "No, I do" for now.) I'm trying to ask why someone who believes that people who don't work shouldn't have a wage - i.e., not me - should believe in the ancestral exception.
- nailer 8y agoProbably because they believe parents should provide for their children.
- geofft 8y agoOK, but why do they believe it's a good thing for society for parents to provide for their children, even after their children reach adulthood, and even when those children will distort the markets of the places they live with affluence? I think with most answers to that question, I can construct an argument that it's a good thing for society for government to provide for those unwilling to work. But if the answer is "It just is," I don't have a hope of an argument. I cannot convince someone of why things are good and bad if they have a random list of specific situations that are just axiomatically good and just axiomatically bad. I am hoping that 'SlowRobotAhead has some other answer, so I'm not sure what your goal is in repeating things I already know (and that you say you know I already know) at me. If you, personally, are a person who believes that it's a good thing for society for parents to provide for their children, but not for government to provide for those unwilling to work, can you explain why you believe the former?
- nailer 8y agoBecause stealing is immoral but benefitting from your parent's earnings is not.
- geofft 8y agoYou're just restating the premise. That's not an argument. Why do you define whatever-it-is-you're-calling-stealing as stealing, and why is benefiting from your parents' earnings moral?
- nailer 8y agoBecause I do not consent to pay you in exchange for nothing.
- geofft 8y agoAre we really having a discussion on whether taxation is theft using the most boring possible arguments for it? If you really believe that, live up to your principles, stop using the taxpayer-funded internet, and get off this site. We share no morality in common and I have no hope of convincing you of anything. Meanwhile, 'SlowRobotAhead has claimed to be open-minded, and I was having a discussion with them before you jumped in saying this was the last comment from you in the thread - another lie, but that doesn't surprise me from someone with your moral code.