71–75 of 75 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that tweet is nothing of the sort. Food is not a luxury, but you can never have a right for someone else's labour.
But food stamps arent the right to someone elses labor. The laborer is getting paid. Its taking tax money and giving it to a producer and a consumer. Its really no different than a subsidy. If you think taking money from the population and redistributing it is theft, youre basically arguing against taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In nature, most of children die in infancy, might makes right, murder rates are sky-high and starvation is a constant threat. > So, if anything, using "in nature" is working against your case, not for it. Total non-sequitur. The point is that the idea of unlimited wealth is an artificial construction. > everybody should be able as much wealth as they have acquired through any kind of lawful exchange. Any state that…
> Total non-sequitur. The point is that the idea of unlimited wealth is an artificial construction. But you're trying to reach some kind of value judgement from this point - as if "artifical construction" means it's bad in some way. It is not. On the opposite, these completely virtual notions of money and finance helped achieve modern-day prosperity that humanity enjoys. So, yes, it is artificial, which makes it good…
I'm not saying property is bad nor am I making a value judgement about it. I'm saying is that it's a concept created by the state.
> So, pay off the potential looters and thieves to sooth them? You do understand that this is basically "might makes right" moral imperative and nothing more?
You're begging the question. There's no such thing as "looters" prior to the concept of property.
> First of all, the artificially constructed right of private property is given to all, equally.
Sure, just as basic necessities like education, food and housing should be.
> And second of all, while both of these rights are artificially constructed, one is moral, while the other is not.
Again, not at all clear how you're making a moral judgement about this issue prior to the creation of the concept of property. Yes, stealing is wrong, but in order to steal something it has to belong to someone first. If we're trying to figure out what should belong to who, it's silly to come into the discussion by simply insisting that stealing is wrong.
I could just as easily say that the wealth of a society belongs to everyone prior to it's distribution. Why then should rich people be entitled to steal it from poor people? Stealing is wrong, remember.
older generation is not wise at all. they should be saving for when the current pension and old age benefit system collapses. i guess they are the same people that gave us climate change so i am not surprised at their shortsightedness
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true, and that's why you should advocate for charity - which is based on free will decision on controlling your own property and resources, just as all the interactions that make up modern world that you so thoroughly describe. The "human right" concept, however, is entirely different: it is referring to use of the mechanism that has monopoly on violence, the state, to redistribute these resources, by the use…
Using violence to collect taxes is monstrous but using violence to protect the property of rich people is right and just? In nature, a person cannot have infinite wealth. The idea that someone can have as much wealth as they want is a creation of the state and is enforced by violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many places outside of big cities are depopulating, have few decent jobs and services, and are still pretty expensive. If you are from the areas, have a family or an already decent career it might work, but for the majority it isn't a solution. And if people would actually would start moving somewhere else instead the same things would happens there.
> if people would actually would start moving somewhere else instead the same things would happens there. Not really. Unless everyone moves to the same place. We need to diversify from London. Having everything centred there is madness.
If you want to participate in that industry, you need to live in one of those cities or have the luxury caveat of remote workability.
Want to work in tech? Good luck buying a house for cheap - anywhere that property values are languishing will not have useable broadband internet providers.
Got a chemistry degree? There's a short list of cities to move to, where you specialize in either medicine or petrochemical plastics. The option to do either rarely exists in a single city.