5 ms·
> The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite. Ex
by thatswrong0 13y ago
> The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite.
Explain how this works logically. Do you honestly believe that if you simply took most of the money from rich people, that you would be able to sustainably feed everyone else? Have you considered all, if any, of the potential consequences of this action?
> For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost.
Again, explain how this works. A major issue with food, for example, is not one of production but instead transportation and distribution. How would making the rich poorer solve this problem?
> Institutionalized theft? How about economic and social justice?
Define justice.
And who on Earth do you trust to take and do well with all of the money taken from rich people?
- scotty79 13y ago> Define justice. At least a setup where right to live is actual right to live and does not degrade to right to not get killed.
- ctdonath 13y agoPositive rights vs. negative rights. I reject the notion of "positive rights" on the grounds that forcing other people to do things for you at gunpoint (actual or implied) is morally wrong. I support your right to not get killed; I do not support your "right" to threaten the life of another to compel him to improve your situation.
- scotty79 13y ago> I do not support your "right" to threaten the life of another to compel him to improve your situation. Does that mean that you also don't support kicking renters to the curb during winter months if they don't pay?
- ctdonath 13y agoIf they're not paying, they're trespassers. Out. They're free to pursue their right to life without violating someone else's, and they've got far more ability to provide for themselves than you're giving them credit for. Charity has its place, I advocate and facilitate it, and am not under any delusion that it comes from compelling others to contribute.
- eli_gottlieb 13y agoThe problem with your theories being, of course, that property is theft in the first place.
- ctdonath 13y agoycombinator.com is an odd place for you to advance that notion
- scotty79 13y agoThat's what I thought. You are not against threatening somebodies life to compel him to improve someones situation in general. You are perfectly fine with that when it's done to protect the right to do whatever you like with the things you own. There are a lot of people such as you that think that right to own things and do whatever you like with the things you own trumps pretty much every other right. Including the right not to get killed of the people who'd try to steal your stuff. Fortunately lawmakers in lots of first world countries got passed that barbaric notion. In my country for example you can't hurt the thief. You can try to hold him until the police comes, but if you beat the shit out of him or set a booby trap to harm him you will be prosecuted because you endangered his life and health, a value more important than your petty stuff. Same way you can smash the window of a car parked in the sun on a hot day if you see dog left inside. You are violating less important right to protect higher value.