4 ms·
The counter-counter argument is that not giving someone your money isn't "punishing" them, it's just retaining consent over your finances which everyone should
by malvosenior 8y ago
The counter-counter argument is that not giving someone your money isn't "punishing" them, it's just retaining consent over your finances which everyone should have a right to do, without shame.
- bsanr 8y agoThe counter-counter-counter argument is that, in a society of interdependent individuals, ownership is a limited right which may be curtailed in the face of substantial harm to that society, e.g., in the way that poverty amounts to a higher burden to the interests of ensuring the nominally inalienable right to life than the costs of ameliorating poverty would be.
- macintux 8y agoHow much of "your" money is an indirect result of previous generations' sacrifice so that you can have a better life?
- cma 8y agoHe create the land, of which he gets a share of the vegetable produce, straight out of a vacuum with his ego alone or maybe with just a little bit of help from Ayn Rand.
- dang 8y agoThis thread had already devolved to generic ideological tangent, which is exactly what we don't want here. But you took it to an even deeper circle of hell with snark and personal attack. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the spirit of this site more to heart? Maybe you don't owe your enemies better, but you do owe it to the community you're participating in.
- malvosenior 8y agoI don't think previous generations were particularly altruistic toward the poor. In general people "sacrifice" for their family or themselves, not for others.