3 ms·
> then someone somewhere has lost the right to refuse to serve me - either directly (I’m allowed into their store if they want or not) or indirectly (they are f
by Pfhreak 7y ago
> then someone somewhere has lost the right to refuse to serve me - either directly (I’m allowed into their store if they want or not) or indirectly (they are forced to labor in fields in terrible conditions).
There are other options than this false dichotomy. We could all chip in, relative to our means, to ensure a baseline of healthy food is available to all. I neither serve food nor labor in the fields, and yet I'm pretty sure I could be part of a solution that ensures everyone gets basic healthy food even if they cannot/do not work.
- erulabs 7y agoOf course - but the implication is enough people need to willingly do that - which is a negative right - you’re allowed to spend whatever time and money you want on feeding people. But as soon as you flip it - we just need everyone to do ____ - you’re describing forced labor. Hoping everyone would be good enough citizens to want to do the forced labor does not make the labor not forced.
- praptak 7y agoHow is it forced? In most Western countries you are free to leave the country and not pay any taxes.
- Pfhreak 7y agoAm I? I don't think I am. I think I'm describing a system where we take a portion of the product of the labor you choose to undertake, and use it to raise the minimum standard. You can do more labor or less labor. You can do more valuable labor or less valuable labor. You are not forced to labor, but you are required to give up a portion of what you choose to undertake.