'It' ?
What exactly is immoral and why?
What exactly is immoral and why?
A lot of people are concerned about the countryside going empty, and there are various policies aimed at reversing or at least halting that. They are necessarily income-transfer programs where cities subsidize the countryside.
An individual getting paid 500 euros to live in a remote area doesn’t seem like a bad deal in that context. It’s a much more measurable outcome than many of these other programs, at least.
But somehow giving money to an individual is much more morally controversial than giving money to a larger collective like a province or state. For example, Republicans generally don’t have a problem with federal programs that transfer income from rich states like California and New York to poor states like Alabama and Mississippi. But they would absolutely oppose similar income transfer on a personal level.
I wonder why. I would love to empty and re-wild more countryside.
If you could get a 21-year-old to move into the countryside, it might have significant long-term upside even if the person appears like a slacker right now. They could find a spouse and have kids. They could come up with an online business (which might still look like “slacking at a computer” to most of the world). They could eventually do local volunteer work that is important but can’t get done at market prices. There’s a lot of ways that a young person’s life can go.
For older people the equation is a bit different for obvious reasons. But most government programs can’t discriminate by age, so you’d have to aim at a compromise.
An addition would be to create various centres to allow people to learn new skills and eventually reenter the workforce
Just making decision to live off that and spend time doing hobbies is abusing good thing and asocial. People who openly advocate for something like that are endangering existence of those programs for those who really need it because of mental health or physical issues.
Moreover, those programs typically comes with social workers and requirements designed to make you change your life. You should cooperate with that goal so that you cease to be so dependent.
Instead of using a framing that sees other people as parasites, I prefer to see it as a bribe to people to get them away from me and leave me alone.
If I'm forced at the end of a barrel of a gun to give up any portion of the fruits of my labor to support others, it is immoral.
And if society did contribute more to your work than these taxes cost — which it likely did, considering you didn't move to a third world country yet — then society is free to take its fair share in return.
I actually like your reply the most. You almost proudly admit to being in favor of violence against your fellow man but didn't quite get there. I'll help finish your thought:
> then society is free to take its fair share in return. And if you don't give up what society thinks is fair, then society will imprison you and if you resist their agents, society will authorize them to kill you.
If I go into a walmart and take products off the shelf, Walmart also expects that I'll pay, and will enforce that under threat of violence.
I'd gladly switch to a voluntarism based society, but it turns out the vast majority that claims to support voluntarism just wants to take advantage of society without paying for it.
If you are able at all to give up any portion of the fruits of your labor you should be grateful for the conditions set up before you that allowed you to reach such place.
And the only way to do that is to threaten those that can support themselves with imprisonment and death if they don't support the weak? There's no other way where people might voluntarily help those people? You don't see the hyprocisy?
>It's not to have a pool of resources from which you can accumulate and hold on to as many resources as you can.
And violence is the only solution.
>If you are able at all to give up any portion of the fruits of your labor you should be grateful for the conditions set up before you that allowed you to reach such place.
Because my parents and grandparents where coerced, I should be grateful and repay them with more coercion?
1. Your parents gave birth to you, so they are the source of you feeling that something is just or unjust. Go complain to them that they brought you into this universe.
2. Take away the guns of the government. End result: other people still have guns. Organized violence by the government turns into non organized violence and you don't even get to vote. What if this results in more coercion?
3. Take away the guns of everyone. Guns aren't the only thing that can kill you. You are embedded in the laws of nature and are mortal. Therefore, the origin of that mortality must be erased, either by ending the laws of physics or by going to an afterlife.
Oh, by the way, if you eat meat or animal products, then you are worse than the thing you complain about, because we are literally stealing the fruits of their labor, including their body.
2. How about take away the government?
3. Why are you obsessed with guns? Is it because I used the word gun? Feel free to replace the word 'gun' with rocks, sharpened sticks, nuclear weapons, fists, etc.
I get what you're saying "by the way". The weak should be subjugated at the feet of the strong. In your scenario human beings are the "meat and animals" and the government are the epitome of the evolvoled being.
If I don't support the potential outcome, how could I justify participating?
Here's a scenario for you:
11 people in a room. They decide to take a majority vote to murder one of the 11 at random. What's your vote? No? What happens in the case you're outvoted? You are now complicit in murder. Vote yes? You are now complicit in murder. Casting your vote is your acknowledgement that the you accept the results. The only moral action is to object, conscientiously and refuse to participate.
Now stand in a room of 300,000,000 people where the end result of your participation is endless evil and murder. Congratulations.
That is why they (the upper class) came up with progressive taxes - so middle class (the minority) would subsidize lower classes (the majority). Basically you suggest a pack of wolves and a ship to democratically decide who will be eaten for dinner.
You're not addressing my point at all. You're just rambling trying to justify your position.
No one ever simply admits to being in favor violence and murder towards their fellow man. Just admit it instead of diverting and attempting an attack on the person presenting the position.
You love that the State sticks guns into peoples faces and forces them to fund the endeavors you support. Can you even do that?