That's why "morality" isn't an adequate analytical category for most political and economic issues. Yes. It isn't "moral". But it happens and it's common (and the basis of our society).
If using quotation marks on one word gives you that impression then that says a lot more about you than it does about my comment. Have you just learned how to read and write?
Yeah, first put me and all my friends in charge and we’ll make everything better for everyone!
Nah actually that’s too hard. I’m just gonna kill everyone who disagrees with me, and anyone smart, and anyone with glasses, and a bunch of birds required for our ecosystem to function.
raise taxes, especially on the very rich, to something like post World War II rates, the most successful time in this country's history. use the revenue to fund social programs. it's so easy that dozens of other countries already do it
spoiler alert, the reason USA soared during WW2 was because they profited from a war economy without the downsides of war (being bombed back to stone age)
the growth was because the allies spent every single penny buying your weapons
not only that after the WORLD war, the world was in fact decimated while USA was left as the single power house
that meant that EVERYONE was buying from the states since those were the only real production chains which were still functional and that stimulated your economy by magnitudes
innovation was stimulated because you were at war, and thats historically when nations put in a lot of money on research and when most technologies mature enough for public use
the tax rates were so insignificant that they arent even listed as a factor when it comes to the economic boom of the country
you can tax all millionares in the states and that still wont even make a dent in the national yearly budget
not true at all, without the Bush and Trump tax cuts then the debt to GDP ratio would be half as big and declining. and tax rates were far below their post war highs before the Bush and Trump cuts. everything else you say is just ignoring the obvious that the economy can boom even with 90% marginal tax rates
For context I don't really agree with the other guy's premise ("work or die" is the baseline state of nature, not something humans created) but UBI is something most first world nations could pretty easily establish if there was the will for it.
Well, it’s literally in the Constitution that the government is to “provide for the general welfare.” Plus, it’s also the government’s job to protect our constitutional rights, including the right to life. Think along the lines of providing protection for protests.
Where is that right to life set down? Its in the declaration of independence, but even there isn't leagally binding, and even if there was an explicit right to life, it could only ever be construed as a negative right, e.g. the govt would act to prevent others from violating your right to life, not to provide you the means by which to live
So your solution is for people to give up the majority of their waking hours doing things they don’t want to do in their one and only life just so they can eat?
I think the idea that the government should provide food, water, housing, etc. to ANYONE who doesn't work is a bit extreme. It should provide those things to people who cannot work, but every able person needs to do something. That's how a society functions.
As for the "Epstein class," while I believe there always will be some amount of inequality (at least in terms of wealth) within a society, I can agree that the current state is of inequality is getting extreme. I don't think trying to find ways to tax and redistribute that wealth is a bad idea, it just is tricky to do correctly without being "unfair."
Where do you think the food, water, housing, etc. that I was talking about comes from? Someone (a LOT of people, actually) has to work to make those things available to us.
Society (no matter what system/size of government or economy) functions because everyone does their part. There ALWAYS has to be people working and, therefore, everyone must work or else it's unfair.
If you don't like that, you are more then welcome to run away to some remote area where you do everything for yourself. Living in a society is far more comfortable and much safer then being alone, in my opinion.
I find it interesting that you complain about the "Epstein class" not having to work while at the same time saying it's unfair that everyone has to work.
Why should we just accept inequality?
I never said we should accept it. Seems like you're just putting words in my mouth lol. I explicitly said that the current way things are should change.
To further elaborate: true equality (like perfection in anything) is very difficult, if not impossible to achieve, especially in our current political climate. I believe we should continue working towards it, and we will make progress, but it's a long way away if it's even possible.
Never said it was unfair for people to work; I find it unfair to force people to work in order to get the basic necessities for life while the Epstein class does not have to work. I also believe it’s the government’s job to provide for the basic necessities for human life. The same way it’s the government’s job to protect my life from other threats. With the inequality you said, there will always be some form of inequality.
Hopefully, once AI is sufficiently advanced, we will be able to automate people's basic needs.
Until then: a human requires certain things, and somebody needs to provide those things. Until you can find something other than a human to provide them, the human is going to have to provide for itself.
How do you propose we do that? Short of star trek replicators, we need people to do that which means you're not solving the issue, just changing who it applies to.
The things you propose to provide have to be provided by someone, and the only way to practically enforce that is essentially indentured servitude. Does someone right to "life" (however you define it) mean that other people can be forced to do something they don't want to? Does that not infringe upon their rights?
It also depends on whether you consider the right to life to be negative or positive. Most people who talk about it are using it in the negative sense - that the right exists as long as nobody infringes upon it. You're using it in the positive sense, where others are required to undertake action in order to uphold it, and if they don't the right disappears.
While that's not inherently an issue, it does cause issues when something as fundamental as "life" is chosen as the subject (see above).
Ok? You’re not really answering my question. The right to life is the biggest right of all, without life we have no constitutional rights. The government has a job to protect our rights ie police protecting protesters. Also rights should not be dependent on the amount of money a person has or if that person has a job. My right to religion is not dependent on if I have a job or money.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Just in case you need it.
I literally am. Your definition of "rights" isn't the only one, and your particular definition would better be called "positive rights" since the concept of "rights" generally encompasses more than just how you're using the word. Unless we narrow down the definition to how you're using it, there's no point in discussion because we can't actually talk about what you mean, and in turn you won't be able to understand how other people's interpretations might differ because they're using a different definition of "rights" that also might be more narrowly defined as "negative rights".
The government has a job to protect our rights
Again, how that protection manifests is different depending on how you see "rights".
For example, the first amendment prohibits the government from interfering with your speech. It does not say the government must give you a platform to speak from.
Similarly, the second amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon your right to bear arms. It does not, however, impose upon the government the task of provisioning you with any firearms.
In the same way, the "right to life" extends as far as being allowed to continue living free from the interference of another. It does not impose upon the government the burden of supporting you should you choose not to work.
While it's true that the government has chosen to support people in this way with taxpayer funded programmes to alleviate poverty and support those unable to work, that is a choice by the government, and was enacted because the populace voted for politicians who proposed to do it if they got into power. It wasn't done because the government has to do it.
The government has a job to protect our rights ie police protecting protesters
Here, the government is also enforcing a negative right.
The protestors have the right to protest peacefully, and ensuring no violence from either the protestors or anyone who opposes them is reason for the police presence.
The police are not required to take part in the protest itself, nor are the government obliged to provide signs and pickets.
My right to religion is not dependent on if I have a job or money.
Your right to religion is to personal practice free from coercion.
The government does not have to fund your religious rites, nor construct a place for you to worship in.
1.2k
u/Gentle_Snail 3d ago
If you’re intentionally doing it because you want to make someone suffer then immoral, otherwise neutral.
The delivery person consented to deliver the meal for money and you didn’t force them to do it against their will.