3 ms·
> This is why we should have a robust social safety net in wealthy societies. People frequently say that, but how does that serve the interests of capitalism?
by tivert 3y ago
> This is why we should have a robust social safety net in wealthy societies.
People frequently say that, but how does that serve the interests of capitalism? If a safety net is too robust, they'll have to pay to support unproductive non-workers indefinitely. Seems like it would make a lot more sense (and be the moral thing to do w.r.t. objective, capitalist morality) to make the safety net inadequate and hard to access, to eventually cull the unproductive people that turn out to be useless and cannot find other work.
- fasterik 3y agoCapitalism isn't a moral agent with interests. It's an activity that humans participate in. Humans and non-human animals are what we should really care about. Capitalism produces benefits for everybody, and it also produces harmful side-effects and unintended consequences. Our moral obligation as a society is to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms. If cutting all social safety nets really maximizes overall well-being, then that's what we should do. But I don't think anyone seriously believes that. I think those who advocate for cutting off all aid to people with bad luck simply don't care about their suffering.