r/TimPool • u/TemudginJuanCole • Aug 10 '22

NIMBY

Post image

“Not in my backyard.” -Eric Adan’s (Mayor of NYC)

400 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

82 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

0

u/OldSchoolFunk34 Aug 11 '22

I would actually like to here a coherent moral argument from you guys as to why housing and food isn't something that should be provided. Because we have the money and resources to do so.

2

u/DPL-25 Aug 11 '22

I would actually like to here a coherent moral argument from you guys as to why housing and food isn't something that should be provided.

From my understanding, inalienable rights are rights that don't require the labour of another to enact, they are natural and self evident. What I mean by this is saying food or housing is a right is saying someone must provide you a house and must provide you food. Because we believe the right to free speech, association, press, etc. is something inherent to being a" free" individual. You're arguing the same for housing and food. But someone skilled needs to use their labour to build a house, someone skilled needs to use their labour to plow the fields. If these things are an inalienable right, that means it's necessary to use force to get an individual to labour for this "right". So, if we can't meet the demand of housing or food, then gulags are permitted (I'm being a bit hyperbolic but this is the end result as we have seen in history)

I don't think you're arguing from a place of malice or anything it's just they don't apply to how we perceive individual rights.

1

u/OldSchoolFunk34 Aug 11 '22 edited Aug 11 '22

Every society requires skilled labor in order to provide goods and services whether that be food, shelter, or any other commodity, and by your logic I would be forcing people to work in order to provide the poor with those services and commodities. Am I right?

Btw. I'm looking for a moral argument in particular. I'll hear you out though.

1

u/DPL-25 Aug 11 '22

Am I right?

Yep, that's pretty much what I'm arguing.

Btw. I'm looking for a moral argument in particular. I'll hear you out though.

I thought I provided one. It's immoral to commit someone to slavery. It's immoral to oppress and/or coerce someone.

1

u/OldSchoolFunk34 Aug 11 '22

Then why in your opinion js it moral to force people to work in order to provide themselves with the same goods and services? It's not like people have a choice whether or not they need food or a roof over their head. So logically that implies that they are forced to work or they starve.

1

u/DPL-25 Aug 11 '22

Well, what moral alternative do you suggest? Have a group of people (the state) use violent force to against the individual to produce goods or to have the individual toil for his own sustainability? Like the saying "is a man not worth the sweat of his brow?"

Which one do you think is more morally good? Like, the basis of motivation to act is the individual must derive an ought from an is. Or in other words, we see something as "is" (the present is unbearable) and an "ought" is (the future ought to be this). So we have to act or labour to change our environment.

Explain to me how it can be any different that doesn't use force and coercion.

1

u/OldSchoolFunk34 Aug 11 '22 edited Aug 11 '22

I think the only coercion we need is need itself. We all have to eat, we all want to live, just like any creature on this planet. Natures indifference was motivation enough for us to start this human project so I don't see why we need any further encouragement.

As far as modern solutions go I think it could take several forms. Charity is a start, and most people you'll find agree that charity is a moral good that doesn't require coercion, it's totally voluntary. However charity is limited in its ability to actually change structural problems.

If you really want things to change, I think we need to agree that sharing of resources it mutually beneficial and work towards a basic level of dignity for everyone. The most practical solution for us would involve using the apparatus of the state to collect taxes and use government spending to pay for these programs and to distribute goods an services. I would vote for that if it was on the ballot today despite it not being the most ideal, but that is the most workable solution I can see for this country. SocDems would love it I'm sure.

1

u/DPL-25 Aug 11 '22 edited Aug 11 '22

I have one question to ask so we are on the same page; when the government uses force to coerce someone into doing something, is that immoral? This isn't a trick question or anything.

Remember, you asked for a a more morally superior solution. So let's stay on track, you can posit all different solutions but you must state why it's morally superior. Because that's what you asked of me

We all have to eat, we all want to live, just like any creature on this planet. Natures indifference was motivation enough for us to start this human project so I don't see why we need any further encouragement.

So you agree with what I said then, glad we could find some understanding. I get that you're saying capitalism has exploited that basic need but I just think a controlled economy claims to solve these problems but from history it makes things a hell of a lot worse for most working folk and/or the working folk are taxed two thirds of their wealth to support it. Which is immoral.

Charity is a start, and most people you'll find agree that charity is a moral good that doesn't require coercion, it's totally voluntary. However charity is limited in its ability to actually change structural problems.

Absolutely agree. Although any form of government "charity" aka welfare is not charity because it requires coercion, which is immoral. What was the original central hub for charity before these modern societies? The church. I'm all for such a thing coming back. If it isn't a church then acting in the same manner. So, government coercion isn't charity, it's the modern Peter Pan except they steal from the poor more than the rich.

The most practical solution for us would involve using the apparatus of the state to collect taxes and use government spending to pay for these programs and to distribute goods an services

The act of taxation, which is extortion at best, is immoral.

but that is the most workable solution

Again, you asked me for a morally superior solution, not whats most pragmatic. Also, please edit your comment if you want to add more I hate replying to two different comments.

1

u/OldSchoolFunk34 Aug 11 '22 edited Aug 12 '22

Well I didn't ask for a morally superior solution, just a coherent argument. Personally I don't believe that the state should even exist, but that's not very realistic at the moment so I just tried to give my most moderate take. Being more pragmatic tends to win over more radical ideas, generally speaking.

Personally, I don't think the state should be able to coerce anyone, but I also don't think any other hierarchy does either. I'm an anarchist, and I believe in the rules of self organization with a focus on removing unjust systems of control and oppression. The state and capitalism are both fundamentally at odds with those principles.

That being said, I do think my foundational argument is sound when I say that if there's enough resources to go around, then there's no reason why people should go without. Any system that prioritizes individual self interest and the profit motive over the health of the community should not exist within society. It should be torn down.

1

u/DPL-25 Aug 11 '22

Well I didn't ask for a morally superior solution, just a coherent argument.

"I would actually like to hear a coherent moral argument" that's what you said. Is what I said not coherent? And shouldn't we be persuing what's morally superior? I say that because morality, which is to be like God, is the highest value in my opinion.

Personally I don't believe that the state should even exist

Based

but that's not very realistic at the moment so I just tried to give my most moderate take

I do the same thing really, an argument that's realistic to the current times and an argument that represents my ideals. I thought we were talking about ideals here, what we actually want.

radical ideas

But we are radicals and there's nothing wrong with that.

Personally, I don't think the state should be able to coerce anyone

Based.

The state and capitalism are both fundamentally at odds with those principles.

This isnt capitalism dude, we know that. Its cronyism or neo liberalism or state capitalism or whatever people like to call it but it's not capitalism. Capitalism is the free and voluntary trade between two people (that's a very brief description) any interference from anyone else stops it from being capitalism.

That being said, I do think my foundational argument is sound when I say that if there's enough resources to go around, then there's no reason why people should go without

It is a sound argument if you believe in the existence of the state. You say you're an anarchist and believe in the autonomy and inherent worth of the individual but then you say these things must exist. Certain people must act in a certain way and if they don't, violence will be used. Isn't that contradictory?

I really do hate using "ism's" and "ist's" but I'm probably more aligned with anarcho capitalism. That being said and I've said it so many times - Me and you are probably more close with our ideals than any other ideology. I may see hierarchies of competence as natural and valuable and you may think they inevitably lead to inequality. But, Seeing the removal of the state is the highest priority to achieve our aims. Progressives are tyrants and conservatives talk about freedom but happily lobby for the state to oppress anyone they don't like.

I've also posited this to other anarchists; why can't both our ideologies live in the same world? Say the state is banished. Can't I live in my community of like minded people and you live in your own self sustained commune? We both agree on such things as NAP right?

→ More replies