3 ms·

> the current consensus is that the various social causes aren't important enough to pay for them No, the only consensus I see from this article is that this p

• int_19h 7y ago
  Like I said, I do not agree with libertarian ethics. I'm explaining how it looks from that perspective. And in it, by definition, whatever the market does is the consensus. The larger point is that they're not trying to solve the problem you (and the author) think about. It's not about solving hunger per se. It's about alleviating it to the extent permissible by the bounds of what their value system deems moral - and those bounds do not accommodate wealth redistribution via taxation. So it's kinda like complaining that communists can't solve the problem of protecting private property - well, yes, but they aren't trying to, so you should complain about that very fundamental premise. In a way, it is rather like religion. Islamic banking, for example, is hardly efficient at solving most problems that modern banking does. If all you cared about was solving them, you wouldn't need it. But if you are under a religious prohibition on charging interest, then you have to come up with all those alternative convoluted schemes, that don't cover many scenarios outright, and are inefficient in others - but it's the best that can be had. Conversely, if a problem requires a sinful action to solve, then it's not really a problem. "Whatever God does is good" is a common religious trope - replace it with "whatever the market does is good", and you'll see that it works just the same here.