That is true, but the flip side is that people should not have to live or die depending on compelled acts of strangers either.
No ideological purity survives the myriad of real world circumstances; but the normal case should be that people don't need charity because when life hits them hard there are avenues where they can live a dignified life through their own hard work.
The fact is an individual in America who “made it all by themselves” was the beneficiary of myriad social service: public education, roads, water, rail, police, fire, the courts, the army, the regulators and the agencies like the EPA. Drawing the line at healthcare, sick time, and paid leave rules is just a truly arbitrary line in the face of all this.
> No ideological purity survives the myriad of real world circumstances...
Well said. In my opinion the default should be that you can live a comfortable life, and if you are successful you should be rewarded with outsize returns. In part because we as a society can afford to treat everyone well, and also because a baseline of comfort frees you to take risks. It’s how people who do well at a startup suddenly have money, and many more of them on average go on to start their own.
Just wanted to praise the way you've been able to summarise something I find so true.