> People who can contribute but choose not to are pretty quickly pushed out. "Pushed out" meaning what exactly? Shamed? Debtors' prison? Homeless? No medical c

> People who can contribute but choose not to are pretty quickly pushed out. "Pushed out" meaning what exactly? Shamed? Debtors' prison? Homeless? No medical care? Left to starve? Euthanized? Plenty of options, none befitting a decent society. Also, fairness (which literally everyone supports) depends greatly on framing: 1. Alice pays taxes, Bob doesn't, Bob gets free stuff from the government, so Alice is paying for Bob's selfish laziness. 2. Alice and Bob both pay 30% of their income in taxes. The government guarantees all its citizens a decent standard of living, and so gives Bob, who falls below some threshold, assistance. 3. Alice is physically and mentally healthy, so she compounds her advantages and resources. A portion of her financial gains go to the government as taxes. Bob isn't so lucky, struggles with physical or mental illness, experiences personal or family tragedies, etc. He struggles to stay financially afloat, and can't consistently accumulate a safety net to weather multiple bad outcomes. He turns to the government for help sometimes. It comes down to whether you'd rather punish the guilty and innocent alike or would rather help the downtrodden and seemingly slothful alike. I choose to be kind, but I get that it's hard to act that way if you feel threatened.