Mronz wrote:To each according to their need, so simply because someone needs something, they are to receive it?
From each according to their ability, you expect taxes to be paid by those based on their individual ability?
Is this ability, as in their physical/intelictual ability, regardless of whether they are productive or lazy, or is ability meaning based on their income, not actual their potential ability?
Certain things should be human rights. Healthcare, housing, food, water etc. We as a species have more than enough wealth to provide these basic things for all. It's just that literally 8 people own half the PLANET's wealth.
Mronz wrote:"but I think the simple fact that such a society is possible"
What is the present example, showing this society is possible and sustainable?
Scandinavia? Portugal? Many others in Europe?
It's funny to me that people lately love to point at Venezuela, then say "X isn't REAL socialism" when those are brought up, but then Obama is literally a Marxist-Leninist hellbent on the destruction of the USA because he wanted... a single payer healthcare option???
Besides, your argument here basically is "this is the best we can do." I disagree. We can do better than a system which results in most people struggling while climate change comes to kill us all. People just want everyone to just shut up and accept the status quo because attempts to improve or change failed in the past so we should never try to tweak anything ever again and besides things are more or less fine now anyway - basically what aristocrats said in defense of feudalism. Well, it fell apart eventually and I think it is naive to assume we are at the end of history now and that neoliberal economics is more or less the best we can come up with. Friedman in particular has a lot of just straight disproven nonsense in his work.
Mronz wrote:Regardless of past or present foreign policy, I see no "requirement or moral responsibility" of a prosperous nation to allow non-citizens to enter that nation, expecting to be taken care of, provided assistance, simply because their home nation sucks...
That would be like someone from a ghetto in Dallas, walking into a rich neighborhood, knocking on a mansion door, and demanding to be fed, given a bed, and requiring said family fire their existing maid, to give the newcomer a job, simply because their homelife was terrible.
Perhaps I'm not understanding, but that makes no since at all.
Historically, every single time the USA has accepted immigrants, skilled or not, we have massively benefited. More people equals more goods and services required to sustain them which means more jobs etc. We are creating demand, as opposed to giving rich people tons of money and hoping they somehow supply-side us all to a better life. The wealth of this country is hugely based on the labor of migrants.
Aside from that we absolutely have a moral responsibility when it is directly because of our actions that their home nation is in dire straights, as often is the case. Maybe hey let's stop messing with their elections, overthrowing democratically elected leaders, putting pressure on them to pass economic policies detrimental to themselves but to our benefit, causing rampant inflation, having an insane drug war which does nothing but put billions in the hands of cartels...
You don't want people flooding the border? Maybe actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE because we're going to have millions of climate refugees within decades at this pace. Rising sea levels aren't just a fantasy, even Trump is building seawalls around his properties.
Mronz wrote:If said person wants a better life, work hard, figure something out, and eventually move yourself out of your ghetto, don't expect someone else to do it for you.
Ah so, "just world" basically. It is never a systemic issue, it is always on the individual, if someone is struggling it is 100% their fault always. Propaganda brainwashing.
There is a huge group of people not working hard whatsoever while collecting the huge lion's share of the wealth society produces and it isn't immigrants or poor people. It's people engaged in rent seeking activities while contributing nothing (such as telecomms exploiting a natural monopoly and using lobby power to shut out competition), it's my billionaire landlord who buys up all the apartment complexes in the area, has someone else manage it, and cranks rents because he can - sucking money away from people actually contributing to the consumer spending driving the economic engine in order to run up his high score some more. It's people like the Waltons who pay their employees below the poverty line which results in gov't subsidy of their labor costs (since the employees then need food stamps or welfare help) but meanwhile collect billions of dollars for themselves to do crap like hoard artworks in their own private museum.
Plus, there is fundamental flaw with your reasoning - we will *always* need people on the "bottom rung." We need janitors, food service workers, farmers, etc. We can't all be STEM employees. Why should the people on the bottom level of the societal pyramid be completely screwed? Why should we have ghettos and wide swathes of poverty at all
? Rawls has a lot to say about this with regard to his "veil of ignorance."
Long post already but;
The "veil of ignorance" is a method of determining the morality of political issues proposed in 1971 by American philosopher John Rawls in his "original position" political philosophy. It is based upon the following thought experiment: people making political decisions imagine that they know nothing about the particular talents, abilities, tastes, social class, and positions they will have within a social order. When such parties are selecting the principles for distribution of rights, positions, and resources in the society in which they will live, this "veil of ignorance" prevents them from knowing who will receive a given distribution of rights, positions, and resources in that society. For example, for a proposed society in which 50% of the population is kept in slavery, it follows that on entering the new society there is a 50% likelihood that the participant would be a slave. The idea is that parties subject to the veil of ignorance will make choices based upon moral considerations, since they will not be able to make choices based on their own self- or class-interest.
As Rawls put it, "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like." The idea of the thought experiment is to render obsolete those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation. The veil of ignorance is part of a long tradition of thinking in terms of a social contract that includes the writings of Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson.
Based on this, why should our janitors, food service workers, etc. be struggling just to meet basic necessities?
While their employers are so wealthy they go on twitter to say "idk what to do with all my money, but screw paying employees more... spaceships it is" (Bezos).
It's madness and most people my age can plainly see it. Even from a purely capitalist free market point of view, we're literally shooting ourselves in the foot by sucking money away from everyone who actually spends it in the economy in order to give it to people who already don't know what to do with all the money they have (so they hoard it by the trillions in tax havens) in the hope that somehow they'll magic us all out of poverty with some new exciting product, even though no one can afford to buy it. We've kiinda gotten around that with access to easy credit but that house of cards can't just be built forever. Henry Ford didn't give his workers decent wages and a day off because he was just nice, he did it because he wanted them to be able to afford and use his product. In the modern day we've been bamboozled by some utterly fake "trickle down" thievery. I say utterly fake because it was a joke as early as the 1890s - Horse-Sparrow economics, or "feed a horse enough oats and there will be enough left over in its feces to feed the sparrows, too."
e: Also I pay 40% of my income to rent (just
rent, not utilities, insurance, etc.) unless I want to live 2-3 hours away from my decently well paid job (plus then cost of transportation, insurance, my time, etc. it's not like it would just be way cheaper to live that far). I went to college, got good grades, got a "real" degree, did everything I was supposed to do. I'm not loaded down with debts, I carry no credit card debt, I don't spend all my money on avocado toast or whatever other condescending thing the media has decided millennials blow all their money on. Saving up enough for a down payment is probably not going to happen anytime soon, even if I subsist on Ramen noodles. I still have it a lot better than many others my age.
It's just a struggle to even have any kind of savings or feel like I'm making any progress. Spinning my wheels to make my landlord his rent money. It's not a question of "poor people are just lazy." Not when 6 of 10 Americans don't even have $500 saved up (Bankrate report, also the Fed in 2017 reported that "44 percent of all respondents could not cover an unexpected $400 emergency expense or would rely on borrowing or selling something to do so. The survey also shows that many adults have no savings for retirement.")
Forget about kids any time soon, since I probably won't have any by accident and I'm not having one while I can barely support myself.
Okay this is now an essay but let me also just mention that 1 in 3 GoFundMe campaigns are for medical bills. We literally have people begging on the internet so they don't die of easily treated conditions/diseases (and sometimes it fails - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shane ... r-insulin/
). There is something deeply wrong here.