Hate the game, not the player.
If it becomes a big enough problem, then EU countries could change their laws to make government-funded medical care conditional on paying certain amounts of taxes in-country.
If it becomes a big enough problem, then EU countries could change their laws to make government-funded medical care conditional on paying certain amounts of taxes in-country.
That's a lame excuse for anti-social behavior. "Somebody has to get those kids addicted".
Read some Kant, then ask yourself what would happen if everybody acted that way, taking all the benefits and then silently stepping out when it's time to give something back.
That said, I fail to see how his behavior is antisocial. He’s creating far more wealth in his current job than he could in the EU. If he ever moves back, he’ll bring millions of dollars with him and inject it into the local economy.
It's not about sainthood, it's about ethics.
> The fix is to create incentives that make it easier to behave better, not chastise people for doing what benefits them.
Breaking the rules will always give him more benefit, unless we "chastise" (that is: punish) that behavior. There's little we can do to make not murdering people that stand between him and riches "better" but making him believe that we will punish him.
Clearly, relying on ethics and/or rational acting won't work with that kind of people.
> That said, I fail to see how his behavior is antisocial.
There would be no society if everybody acted like him.
> If he ever moves back, he’ll bring millions of dollars with him and inject it into the local economy.
He will, as he stated, only move back if he gets seriously ill and requires the social net to catch him. He will only come back if he's going to cost money.
1) Not even try to move to the US to pursue the dream of a world-class tech career (dream I had since I was 12), stay in my own EU country with a mind-numbing consultancy job (which again, it's the only kind of employment available since the country is mostly rural with a limited software industry) to be fully consistent with morals. This also means I won't be able to financially help my parents as a sign of gratitude for all they've done for me, since my salary will be barely enough to keep me afloat.
2) Move to the US and completely renounce to my EU citizenship, so I won't ever have a way to go back and "take advantage" of my EU country (meaning I wouldn't even be able to see parents and family without an immigration visa).
3) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, but completely deny to myself the option of eventually moving back if needed. So, if I get a massive debilitating cancer that will force me to quit my job and lose my health insurance in the US, I'll die without treatment and all alone (loving family is all in EU) but with morals.
4) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, keep the possibility of eventually moving to EU, but to be consistent with morals find a way to donate to my EU government a few hundreds/thousands a month to keep contributing to the social safety net even if I'm not a resident there (I don't believe that's even physically possible?). But certainly that wouldn't be enough to cover the expenses my government paid for my education, so I should also find a way to refund that?
5) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, and start a countdown mandating that in exactly N years (where N cannot be certainly changed!) I will move back to EU regardless of where I am in my career or health status, so I won't be able to just move to the EU at the most convenient time.
I'm asking because it's easy to talk about problems at a philosophical level, but please try to step down from your judging pedestal and come back to the real world with real problems, thinking what YOU would have done in practice.
I know plenty of people in the EU that work in IT, get paid very well (compared to their peers) and do not work in a consulting company. Especially for very talented people, I haven't heard of any stories about not finding interesting, fulfilling work.
> 3) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, but completely deny to myself the option of eventually moving back, so if I get a massive debilitating cancer that will force me to quit my job and lose my insurance in the US, I'll die with morals.
Since you renounce your duties to the society that gave you your free education and upbringing, renouncing the benefits sounds fair, yes. Living and dying by your personal convictions is what I respect in people. Living by them only while it's convenient and stopping to do so when they get tested just means that you don't actually have any.
> 4) Move to the US, keep the EU citizenship, keep the possibility of eventually moving to EU, but to be consistent with my morals find a way to donate to my EU government a few hundreds/thousands a month to keep contributing to the social safety net (I don't believe that's even possible for non-residents).
That's another option, I'm sure you can find a way if you want to.
I don't mind the emigration part at all, it's the reasoning I dislike. Saying "I don't like the bureaucracy" or "I don't like the population density" or "I don't like the language/food/culture/tv program" etc, that's perfectly fine in my book. But saying "I've taken all I can, it's time to move on, otherwise I'd have to give back. Oh well, I might come back if I ever get needy again and there's more to take" is not in my book. Living in a society that finances your education and catches you if you fall comes at a cost. Ducking out when the bill comes isn't what I'd do.
Why not formalize it by saying one should lose citizenship automatically under these circumstances? If you don't agree with that, then realize you are drawing a line somewhere, and deanmoriarty is merely drawing the line in a different place. Both of you are the same, and are merely quibbling with the degree by which you are the same.
For practical reasons. It's hard to formalize and having people be stripped of any citizenship is shit. I don't mind the idea of losing your previous citizenship once you acquire a new one, that's fine.
I'd much prefer a system where education etc is fundamentally free but is converted into a loan if you emigrate. Society X invests into you, you want to jump ship to Y so you pay back what X invested into you, possibly in multiple installments or an additional income tax.
One more question for you, to understand the scope of your philosophy: I don't plan on having kids ever, and to be honest my reasoning is partially driven by the fact that I see them as an unnecessary financial and time burden on me and my partner (she agrees).
Does that mean that in your world view we don't deserve a place in society at all, because if everyone was like us we wouldn't have a society at all in a few decades, so once again I am living by exploiting all the financial and time commitments spent by other people in raising other humans for my benefit?
I'm also not against suicide, even though society would end if everybody did it. It's about your interaction with others where your morality matters. Whether you have children or not is your personal decision and is up to you, similarly to burning your possessions. It's when you're contemplating to burn other people's possessions that the do/don't questions arise.
I know this comment will trigger a bunch of people, but for me a sign of maturity is when people realize the categorical imperative isn't all it's hyped up to be.
I was a big believer of the categorical imperative since my teens - years before I had heard the phrase or heard of Kant. But the more I understood statistics and its role in the world, the more I realized the categorical imperative is only a first order way of looking at things. Once you take into account human psychology, and its inevitable spread statistically, you realize that in many cases, viewing things with a categorical imperative lens is not only futile, but counterproductive. One needs to take that spread into account (i.e. realize that all people will not behave as you do) to get an optimal solution. The question to ask is "What behavior/policy will get the best outcomes given the differing behaviors you will see in society?"
Personally, I realized I was dodging difficult issues by invoking the categorical imperative.
That's my thought on the categorical imperative in general. Regarding this specific case: Various commenters have already mentioned that some countries do indeed make it hard for you to use their healthcare if you've not been paying into the system all these years. I know one guy who ran into this - he spent most of his career outside making big bucks, and then retired in his country which provides socialized medicine. They told him they will not cover conditions he developed while he was not paying into the system (essentially, pre-existing conditions when he moved back). He has to pay full cost to get treatment for those services.
deanmoriarty is not the sole actor here. The US, as well as his country of citizenship are quite capable of ensuring they don't get exploited. If either country thinks this is abuse, they are welcome to modify their policies.
And BTW, yes, part of the reason people in the US get paid high salaries may be due to the lack of socialized health care. However, there is no implicit social contract in the US to spend that money for medical care in the US. In fact, I'd argue the social contract is quite the opposite. The US is making the message clear: "We will not provide you with socialized healthcare. You are free to pursue whatever medical care as you wish." Which includes going abroad.
The categorical imperative isn't about "is it likely that everybody will act like me" but "would it be good if everybody acted like me". You'll likely not end humanity if you start murdering your neighbors, because most people will not follow your example. Your murder might not even get noticed, so even the statistics won't change - and yet you'll probably agree that there's an ethical problem involved in murdering your neighbors.
I do agree with you that we shouldn't use Kant as the one-size-fits-all solution. Don't rely on telling people (or people understanding!) not to throw their trash everywhere, just put up a trash can so they can throw it in there. It is a solid framework for judging acts, but has it's weaknesses of course. The whole "the murderer is coming for your friend who is hiding in your bedroom, are you allowed to lie to him to save your friend" thing is something where I don't agree for example.
> The US is making the message clear: "We will not provide you with socialized healthcare. You are free to pursue whatever medical care as you wish." Which includes going abroad.
Sure, externalizing costs will provide advantages.
I know what it's about. My point is that in many tough situations, following it leads to suboptimal solutions (not just for me, but for society). It is not a good way to decide the morality of many things.
>You'll likely not end humanity if you start murdering your neighbors, because most people will not follow your example. Your murder might not even get noticed, so even the statistics won't change - and yet you'll probably agree that there's an ethical problem involved in murdering your neighbors.
I would agree, but I don't need the categorical imperative to decide this. It's not as if this is a tough scenario that the categorical imperative made a lot easier to analyze.
I agree with this, I'm not sure why I'm being downvoted for asking though because I think anyone would be curious to read personal testimony of their own situation. I would question myself if taking advantage of being in a country that strips social programs for keeping wages high for skilled employees. It's not like paying taxes negates that reality.