4 ms·

> would be full of people willing to throw that all away People do things for their own benefit, and for the benefit of others, all the time. For example, is

by stale2002 6y ago

> would be full of people willing to throw that all away People do things for their own benefit, and for the benefit of others, all the time. For example, is everyone going to disown their friends and family, all for some nebulous concept of society? No, I don't think so. I think that many people's friends and family will be perfectly willing to continue to interact with someone who disagrees with the current state of society. I certainly wouldn't disown any of my family members, for the mere fact of them engaging in some nebulous action of "rejecting society". Family matters to a lot of people. You are not going to be able to convince all of a person's friends and family to disown them. Some people will still help out those friends and family > This isn't helping the disadvantaged I mean, you are straight up saying that you don't think these people should be able to have access to food. I think that there are many people who would say that they are disadvantaged. You are not going to be able to convince everyone. Even if something like 10% of the population is willing to help out people who don't agree with your concept of society, that is more than enough to make sure that these people are still able to survive. > this is helping those wishing to exploit you. When it comes to friends and family, this just isn't a dealbreaker. Family members look out for other family members all the time, even when those family members are engaging in bad actions against them! This is very common! Family is very important to a lot of people. As well as friends, to a less extent. I could not imagine any of my friends of family members disowning someone, because they don't agree with this definition of what society should be. Instead, people care more about their close relatives, and friends, than these high level concepts, a lot of the time. > Why would the current concept of *charity" exist? Because some people want it to? Even a small percentage of people disagreeing with you, is enough to make this work. If your whole idea of society hinges on basically everyone in your society engaging in embargoes, that sounds pretty doomed to failure. Some people are going to disagree with you, and that is enough. > If a member of the community is in need, the community will help them Ok, but that argument works in my favor. There would absolutely be people who would consider these societal outcasts to be "people in need". And then this community of people, who disagree with you, would help them. > we are discussing people who openly refuse to be part if society But you have to target the people who disagree with you as well. Are you going to hunt down all the people who actually don't agree with you, and instead are perfectly fine with selling goods and services to them? Or are you going to hunt down the friends and family members of these societal outcasts, for their action of helping out their freaking family member? Not everyone is going to commit their life and soul to your cause. Many people would simply not care, and would instead be perfectly willing to trade housing and food for labor that these "reject society" people are offering. Even more so, there is a monetary incentive to engage in trade with those individuals. People could make a bunch of money by trading goods and services with the societal rejects. Are you going to embargo these individuals as well? That's a lot of people you'd have to embargo, if you are doing it against the people trading goods with them, for profit, as well as any of their friends and family who refuse to go along with your embargo. > everyone in the community will know or will be told. Finally, this statement is ridiculous. I live in a city, with a 500 thousand people in it. I could run into any of them, walking in the street, at any time. Am I going to have to check someone's societal ID or something, before selling them something, or hiring them, or renting out a room in my apartment? What does that even mean? Will you track me down, and embargo me as well, if I don't care about them rejecting society, and rent them a bedroom in my apartment anyway?

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>For example, is everyone going to disown their friends and family, all for some nebulous concept of society This isn't "some nebulous concept of society," this is the community that you have chosen to be a part of and are in control of. You say that you wouldn't abandon a family member, but what they are doing is akin to standing up and with a clear mind stating "I don't consider you family and want nothing to do with you." That is what "rejecting society" entails. You would not still blindly support that person. >mean, you are straight up saying that you don't think these people should be able to have access to food. These people chose not to have access to food. They are not "disadvantaged," they are facing the consequences they knew they would face for their actions. There's no need to immediately starve them, but they know they can't stay in the community if they won't be a member of it. >Even if something like 10% of the population is willing to help out people who don't agree with your concept of society, that is more than enough to make sure that these people are still able to survive It is not "my concept of society," it is something the society together builds. Yes, some people will disagree. They can build their own society and we can coexist. Most of your arguments have put "me" as the ruler of this society and justify actions as them rebelling against me. This is not how the power structure goes. People may be willing to help those rebelling against "me," but they are less willing to aid someone rebelling against something they themselves chose to enact. Similarly, the punishment for someone harboring such an individual isn't my decision, it's something the community decides based on the circumstances.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > this is the community that you have chosen to be a part of and are in control of Not everyone in the US lives in some 100 person small town "community". Instead, many people live in cities that have hundreds of thousands of people in it. > That is what "rejecting society" entails. You would not still blindly support that person. People absolutely still continue to support family members, all the time, even when they do "bad" things. It is extremely common. People care a lot about family. Yes, many people would absolutely still support them. I absolutely would continue to support them, as would many others. And there is nothing that you could do to stop me from helping them, unless you are going to do something very impractical, like exile everyone who supports their friends and family as well. > These people chose not to have access to food. Doesn't matter. There would still be people who disagree with you, and would consider them to be disadvantaged, regardless of your opinion on the matter. > they can't stay in the community if they won't be a member of it. Of course they could still be in the community. They could still be in the community if they have friends and family who would be willing to support them. Which there definitely could be! People such as myself would absolutely continue to support my friends and family, even if they did this. > Yes, some people will disagree. They can build their own society and we can coexist. Or, they can continue to live in the same place as you do, and continue to support individuals who "reject" society. > . Similarly, the punishment for someone harboring such an individual isn't my decision, it's something the community decides based on the circumstances. Ok, and I am saying that people attempting to enforce punishment on every individual who harbors a friend or family member is going to be extremely impractical. There are numerous motivations and reasons for someone to "harbor" others, and this "society" that you are talking about would require a near unanimous agreement on everything, which just isnt going to happen. Instead, there would be a sizeable minority of people, who would continue to work with their friends and family. Why? Because thats what happens all of the time, in real life. People, all the time, continue to support their friends and family, even when they have done bad things.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>For example, is everyone going to disown their friends and family, all for some nebulous concept of society This isn't "some nebulous concept of society," this is the community that you have chosen to be a part of and are in control of. You say that you wouldn't abandon a family member, but what they are doing is akin to standing up and with a clear mind stating "I don't consider you family and want nothing to do with you." That is what "rejecting society" entails. You would not still blindly support that person. >mean, you are straight up saying that you don't think these people should be able to have access to food. These people chose not to have access to food. They are not "disadvantaged," they are facing the consequences they knew they would face for their actions. There's no need to immediately starve them, but they know they can't stay in the community if they won't be a member of it. >Even if something like 10% of the population is willing to help out people who don't agree with your concept of society, that is more than enough to make sure that these people are still able to survive It is not "my concept of society," it is something the society together builds. Yes, some people will disagree. They can build their own society and we can coexist. Most of your arguments have put "me" as the ruler of this society and justify actions as them rebelling against me. This is not how the power structure goes. People may be willing to help those rebelling against "me," but they are less willing to aid someone rebelling against something they themselves chose to enact. Similarly, the punishment for someone harboring such an individual isn't my decision, it's something the community decides based on the circumstances.

stale2002 6y ago
> this is the community that you have chosen to be a part of and are in control of Not everyone in the US lives in some 100 person small town "community". Instead, many people live in cities that have hundreds of thousands of people in it. > That is what "rejecting society" entails. You would not still blindly support that person. People absolutely still continue to support family members, all the time, even when they do "bad" things. It is extremely common. People care a lot about family. Yes, many people would absolutely still support them. I absolutely would continue to support them, as would many others. And there is nothing that you could do to stop me from helping them, unless you are going to do something very impractical, like exile everyone who supports their friends and family as well. > These people chose not to have access to food. Doesn't matter. There would still be people who disagree with you, and would consider them to be disadvantaged, regardless of your opinion on the matter. > they can't stay in the community if they won't be a member of it. Of course they could still be in the community. They could still be in the community if they have friends and family who would be willing to support them. Which there definitely could be! People such as myself would absolutely continue to support my friends and family, even if they did this. > Yes, some people will disagree. They can build their own society and we can coexist. Or, they can continue to live in the same place as you do, and continue to support individuals who "reject" society. > . Similarly, the punishment for someone harboring such an individual isn't my decision, it's something the community decides based on the circumstances. Ok, and I am saying that people attempting to enforce punishment on every individual who harbors a friend or family member is going to be extremely impractical. There are numerous motivations and reasons for someone to "harbor" others, and this "society" that you are talking about would require a near unanimous agreement on everything, which just isnt going to happen. Instead, there would be a sizeable minority of people, who would continue to work with their friends and family. Why? Because thats what happens all of the time, in real life. People, all the time, continue to support their friends and family, even when they have done bad things.