3 ms·
Your definition of freedom is just anarchy. The obvious question: What's to stop somebody from murdering you and taking your wealth? The same objective (or su
by nugget 6y ago
Your definition of freedom is just anarchy. The obvious question: What's to stop somebody from murdering you and taking your wealth?
The same objective (or subjective, take your pick) morality that discourages robbery-murder can effortlessly extend to the distribution of wealth in society. An objective moralist once said: "Render unto Caesar...". A subjective moralist could say: "whatever minimizes human suffering and maximizes human opportunities" which leaves policy-makers with a broad canvas.
Personally I don't think this is a particularly moral issue, except near the extremes; but even if it were, the answer isn't what you're hoping for.
- refurb 6y agoYour definition of freedom is just anarchy How do you go from "it's no ones business how much wealth I accumulate or give to my children" to "anarchy"? That's not what the OP said at all.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sofal 6y agoIt was just a bald assertion that one should have freedom to do what they want because we live in a free society. If we live in a free society then we should be free to do what we want to do, because otherwise we wouldn't live in a free society. Any argument that justifies itself merely with "because freedom" can be used to argue for complete anarchy. After all, "rule" of any sort inherently implies restrictions on freedom. And if restrictions on freedom are inherently bad, then "rule" of any sort must be bad by definition.