5 ms·

> Existence isn't free From this we can logically conclude that some people do not have sufficient value to exist. Perhaps there should be special camps for th

> Existence isn't free From this we can logically conclude that some people do not have sufficient value to exist. Perhaps there should be special camps for them? Maybe we could deliver them to thise camps in some sort of trains? Alternatively let us consider that every person may have an intrinsic right to exist, even if they do not fit well within our society. After all, our society made a hunter gatherers lifestyle impossible by introducing land ownership. To those who cannot thrive within the new system don't we at least owe the modern equivalent of a hunter gatherers subsistence lifestyle? I suspect that debt is the price we pay for making the alternative impossible.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> From this we can logically conclude that some people do not have sufficient value to exist Why? > let us consider that every person may have an intrinsic right to exist This is compatible with the statement "existence isn't free." One side describes the obligation. The other describes the cost.
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  > why? If we take it as granted that life has a "cost" (and therefore a value), it is also a given that someone must pay that cost for people to live. Given that some people are born more capable than others of paying the cost (their value) we find ourselves forced to take the monsterous position that some lives have intrinsicly more value than others, and worse that some lives have negative value as they cost more than than the value they provide. However, it is obviously not true that life itself has a fixed "cost", except within one of the specific systems of government that acknowledge property rights and the concept of cost in general. A lone man born into nature incurs no "cost" by existing, he is a part of the ecosystem that supports him and "costs" it no more than the beasts of the forest "cost" it. "Cost" as a concept is a fiction that we develop to trade with other humans, not some natural and unavoidable aspect of life granted to us from the gods. > This is compatible with the statement "existence isn't free." It is not. Existence is free, and the only cost it incurs is within our imaginations. The obligation to care for those who can't or won't function within the new systems of trade are the debt we owe for taking that freedom away by enforcing property rights through violence. The obligation is real, the cost is a social fiction dreamt up for accounting purposes.
  - nh23423fefe 2y ago
    idealistic altruists have never worked on a group project with bums.
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      Ah yes, altruism, the well known root of all evil.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> From this we can logically conclude that some people do not have sufficient value to exist Why? > let us consider that every person may have an intrinsic right to exist This is compatible with the statement "existence isn't free." One side describes the obligation. The other describes the cost.

stevenAthompson 2y ago
> why? If we take it as granted that life has a "cost" (and therefore a value), it is also a given that someone must pay that cost for people to live. Given that some people are born more capable than others of paying the cost (their value) we find ourselves forced to take the monsterous position that some lives have intrinsicly more value than others, and worse that some lives have negative value as they cost more than than the value they provide. However, it is obviously not true that life itself has a fixed "cost", except within one of the specific systems of government that acknowledge property rights and the concept of cost in general. A lone man born into nature incurs no "cost" by existing, he is a part of the ecosystem that supports him and "costs" it no more than the beasts of the forest "cost" it. "Cost" as a concept is a fiction that we develop to trade with other humans, not some natural and unavoidable aspect of life granted to us from the gods. > This is compatible with the statement "existence isn't free." It is not. Existence is free, and the only cost it incurs is within our imaginations. The obligation to care for those who can't or won't function within the new systems of trade are the debt we owe for taking that freedom away by enforcing property rights through violence. The obligation is real, the cost is a social fiction dreamt up for accounting purposes.
- nh23423fefe 2y ago
  idealistic altruists have never worked on a group project with bums.
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    Ah yes, altruism, the well known root of all evil.