A disabled person has no inherent “right” to expect to continue living in the apartment and expect people to send him money on time. Though, if people volunteer to provide any of those services that is fine. There is no real reason why donations have to come from those neighbors either, it can come from anywhere in the world.
To paraphrase Thomas Sowel from many years ago:
You cannot just start an argument in the middle after all the current day baggage has already been applied and then debate solutions with the assumption those pieces of baggage have to remain.
In a Libertarian society there would not have been generations of death taxes robbing children from enough inheritance from parents and grandparents to see them through tough spots
There would have been several generations of no income tax, no state tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no gasoline tax, which conservatively would leave an additional 50% in more spendable income for people to live on and donate to charity.
There would be very low inflation, so the few dollars, the little house or small farm left behind by grandpa would still have relatively the same value as when he bought it. (Inflation robs future generations of huge chunks, lets say 80% of value of savings)
There would have been fewer booms and busts so less likelihood that grandpa, grandma, brothers, sisters, aunts , uncles, cousins, ALL would have lost their possessions through foreclosure or seizure
There would be no forced charitable donations through withholding from payroll so every soul in the country would have at least 15% more disposable income to donate to charity or a distant relative if they wish. When there are obvious needs like the Tsunami or Haiti Americans by the millions donated billions of dollars without government intervention
Medicine would be cheaper so family savings accounts and trust funds won’t get emptied so fast
There would be no government safety net, but also no minimum wage, so vastly higher number of unemployed would in fact find SOME form of subsistence employment, even like paraplegics paint Christmas cards with their mouths.
There would be no government restrictions on families and restaurants donating left over food to the hungry. Billions of tons of food gets thrown away under penalty of law
Rich capitalists would in fact donate to free hospitals, free sanatoriums and free health clinics like they did during the Laissez faire period of robber barons- they only stopped doing it because governments started muscling in
People would know there was no government agency to help people in the streets so they are more likely to respond if only for the self interest of keeping their own neighborhood safe and clean. It is the nanny state welfare mentality that contributes to people ignoring the injured
Charitable organizations would have to compete in the free market, so there would be more transparency and less fraud
The actual number of poor, homeless, unemployable and hungry, would be miniscule compared to a welfare society
If after all of this, there are still people that disqualify themselves from life through being career criminals or heroin addicts etc. I suspect they would find sympathetic communes they could live in together. Maybe some drug pusher would have a monetary incentive to provide primitive opium dens where addicts can live, who knows
Should I take this to mean that you consider involuntary communities to be morally/ethically legitimate?
Finding a morally legitimate society is a wild goose chase. Who am I to define the world’s morals? I do find them legitimate based on the fact that they have and use power. But morals have nothing to do with it.
Which ways would you consider to be legitimate for forming communities? An exhaustive list would be appreciated here.
2 or more parties find some benefit in tying their long-term interests together; this could be a partnership, a corporation, a town/city, a nation, or just a group with a common cause.
o you mean the supposition of giving for welfare would be part of the basis for forming the community
You should probably read the rest of the thread. Your questions have already been answered.
I’ve read the rest of the thread lol, Assuming the mind is different from the body, you believe that if the mind owns the body. The body is a slave to the mind. The mind is the slave master. So I am my own slave. LOL, Are you trolling? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and imagine you didn’t just say that.
Humans are unique in their ability to reason. We have an evolving ratiocination. You could argue an animal’s “self ownership is slavery” because of their automation. But, humans are not automatons. Since the acting man acts with purpose and all actions are only the actions of individuals, all individuals must own themselves.
I do not mean ownership as a privilege but as a social liability.
Humans are unique in their ability to reason. We have an evolving ratiocination. You could argue an animal’s “self ownership is slavery” because of their automation. But, humans are not automatons. Since the acting man acts with purpose and all actions are only the actions of individuals, all individuals must own themselves.
This is an outdated 18th century view of nature. Humans are not unique in their ability to reason. They are unique in the degree to which they reason. When a bear stands in a stream for hours on end waiting for a salmon, he is acting with purpose, with a specific goal in mind. When a chimp fashions a stick into a tool to dig ants out of an ant hill he is showing all the creativity and foresight of a human.
Nonetheless, human beings are different then animals and should be treated differently.
Self-ownership is a metaphor that signifies individual sovereignity. Even if the mind-body dualism was true, your idea that self-ownership is wrong because you are a slave to yourself is a stupid argument.
Nonetheless, human beings are different then animals and should be treated differently.
Why? You can’t just assert t his, and hold it as true because you like it. There has to be a reason. Self-ownership is inherently contradictory, but if you want to believe in it, you need to provide some justification for why Johnny Chimpo doesn’t get such protections.
Self-ownership is a metaphor that signifies individual sovereignity. Even if the mind-body dualism was true, your idea that self-ownership is wrong because you are a slave to yourself is a stupid argument.
Debating you is like debating a creationist.
Yes, I create reasoned arguments that correspond to real-world examples and you just assert things as if they are true because you asserted them… but I am the creationist.
Your reasoning capability is about as powerful as your argumentative capacity..