3 ms·

I'm concerned my response will be taken poorly so I will try to phrase this well. I hope you take this in the manner I intend it - with love in my heart. We,

I'm concerned my response will be taken poorly so I will try to phrase this well. I hope you take this in the manner I intend it - with love in my heart. We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. To believe otherwise may be to hoist the black flag to take from others that which they did not earn. Now, we as people are also compassionate and we want the elderly to not starve and we want the infirm cared for. We have instituted social programs to cover these smaller cases. But, to believe that a normal human being can do nothing and that someone else will provide for them - wholesale across our country - doesn't seem very sustainable. I'm not sure what you want, or I may be mischaracterizing your view - if so I apologize. If you can explain better your point or who would provide for those who don't want to, I would appreciate it.

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
> We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. So then why do we have inherited wealth, why not ban that. Make things equitable, born with nothing but you can scavenge yourself. > To believe otherwise may be to hoist the black flag to take from others that which they did not earn. You mean like "private property"? Your logic only makes sense in an equitable world, where everyone is born equal, but that's not the case. Just look at the wealth inequalities around the world, like 1% of people owns majority of all wealth.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  This is diving into a conversation that may be best not had on HNN. @Dang - delete this if you like man, no offense taken. I don't think the goal is equity but equality. At least, that is my goal. I want the lowliest shoeshine boy to have the opportunity to do amazing things. I make no apologies for the country I was born or the circumstances. I grew up on a poor farm in a broken trailer surrounded by my backwoods relatives. I chose to do something different. My view does not make sense only in an 'equitable world' - consider the inverse. If everyone decides not to work because they are 'owed food so as to not starve' then who will harvest the grain, who will sow the fields, who will till the earth. A policy that would require people to work and then give away all of their product is not equity its slavery.
  - vladharbuz 4y ago
    I really think you would get some interesting perspective out of reading “The Tyranny of Merit” by Michael J. Sandel, and I'm really curious how the ideas in the book would come together with your views. I would be happy to gift you the book if there was a way to do so.
  - catlifeonmars 4y ago
    You are equating work with the production of value (in some way shape or form). However, machines can till the earth.
    - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
      Whos sweat and blood was used to make the machine that was taken from him and given to someone else? Look, at some point we may be in a true post-scarcity environment where we can fabricate food/clothing/items with just energy from an abundant resource. At that time, I will consider this question anew. Until then, I just don't think it has legs.
      - pwinnski 4y ago
        It is quite possible we could live in a post-scarcity economy today, at least in rich countries, if we chose to eliminate scarcity on food and clothing and shelter and health care. During the pandemic, many (most?) US schools stopped charging to feed kids during the school day. Food suddenly became free. My own daughter still brought lunch from home every day, but a lot of kids ate better than they had been, and food scarcity, in that small context, stopped being an issue. This year they seem to be ending that, but it definitely demonstrated that we could do more than we are, if we wanted to.
      - catlifeonmars 4y ago
        I think a post scarcity environment is achievable with today’s technology. It’s today’s political and socioeconomic systems which are preventing that from becoming a reality.
- balfirevic 4y ago
  >> We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. > So then why do we have inherited wealth, why not ban that. It doesn't say that people are forbidden from having more than they themselves can provide. For example, if someone chooses to grant them some wealth voluntarily, as is the case with inheritance.
becquerel 4y ago
> We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. Humans are entitled to nothing, because there is no metaphysical overseer that decides who does and does not deserve things. Entitlement is an idea created and perpetuated by human beings to justify certain kinds of behaviour. > To believe otherwise may be to hoist the black flag to take from others that which they did not earn. Capitalist labour, by its very nature, is an extractive process that takes from workers what they earned. This is the genesis of that thing known as 'profit'. I followed the same logic as you when I became a socialist bent on upturning the current social order. > But, to believe that a normal human being can do nothing and that someone else will provide for them - wholesale across our country - doesn't seem very sustainable. I don't really care about what's sensible or sustainable, compared to what is good and just. (Our current way of doing things is certainly neither!) I wouldn't feed someone because they're infirm and can't get their own food; I'd feed them because they're hungry, end of story.

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago

> We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. So then why do we have inherited wealth, why not ban that. Make things equitable, born with nothing but you can scavenge yourself. > To believe otherwise may be to hoist the black flag to take from others that which they did not earn. You mean like "private property"? Your logic only makes sense in an equitable world, where everyone is born equal, but that's not the case. Just look at the wealth inequalities around the world, like 1% of people owns majority of all wealth.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
This is diving into a conversation that may be best not had on HNN. @Dang - delete this if you like man, no offense taken. I don't think the goal is equity but equality. At least, that is my goal. I want the lowliest shoeshine boy to have the opportunity to do amazing things. I make no apologies for the country I was born or the circumstances. I grew up on a poor farm in a broken trailer surrounded by my backwoods relatives. I chose to do something different. My view does not make sense only in an 'equitable world' - consider the inverse. If everyone decides not to work because they are 'owed food so as to not starve' then who will harvest the grain, who will sow the fields, who will till the earth. A policy that would require people to work and then give away all of their product is not equity its slavery.
- vladharbuz 4y ago
  I really think you would get some interesting perspective out of reading “The Tyranny of Merit” by Michael J. Sandel, and I'm really curious how the ideas in the book would come together with your views. I would be happy to gift you the book if there was a way to do so.
- catlifeonmars 4y ago
  You are equating work with the production of value (in some way shape or form). However, machines can till the earth.
  - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
    Whos sweat and blood was used to make the machine that was taken from him and given to someone else? Look, at some point we may be in a true post-scarcity environment where we can fabricate food/clothing/items with just energy from an abundant resource. At that time, I will consider this question anew. Until then, I just don't think it has legs.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      It is quite possible we could live in a post-scarcity economy today, at least in rich countries, if we chose to eliminate scarcity on food and clothing and shelter and health care. During the pandemic, many (most?) US schools stopped charging to feed kids during the school day. Food suddenly became free. My own daughter still brought lunch from home every day, but a lot of kids ate better than they had been, and food scarcity, in that small context, stopped being an issue. This year they seem to be ending that, but it definitely demonstrated that we could do more than we are, if we wanted to.
    - catlifeonmars 4y ago
      I think a post scarcity environment is achievable with today’s technology. It’s today’s political and socioeconomic systems which are preventing that from becoming a reality.
balfirevic 4y ago
>> We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. > So then why do we have inherited wealth, why not ban that. It doesn't say that people are forbidden from having more than they themselves can provide. For example, if someone chooses to grant them some wealth voluntarily, as is the case with inheritance.

becquerel 4y ago

> We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. Humans are entitled to nothing, because there is no metaphysical overseer that decides who does and does not deserve things. Entitlement is an idea created and perpetuated by human beings to justify certain kinds of behaviour. > To believe otherwise may be to hoist the black flag to take from others that which they did not earn. Capitalist labour, by its very nature, is an extractive process that takes from workers what they earned. This is the genesis of that thing known as 'profit'. I followed the same logic as you when I became a socialist bent on upturning the current social order. > But, to believe that a normal human being can do nothing and that someone else will provide for them - wholesale across our country - doesn't seem very sustainable. I don't really care about what's sensible or sustainable, compared to what is good and just. (Our current way of doing things is certainly neither!) I wouldn't feed someone because they're infirm and can't get their own food; I'd feed them because they're hungry, end of story.