Nostr Web Client

In an ideal society?

How is that any less contrived than my scenario?

Your ideal society doesn’t exist.

You move towards my ideal society where people have savings, people are responsible for one another, and businesses treat employees better by getting ride of welfare and inflationary monetary policy.

That’s why I support those two policies, and that’s why I see a difference between freezing a bank account of money someone has already earned and owns, versus ending welfare payments.

The only critique I have is that the end of welfare should be applied evenly. Applying that only to political opponents is indeed immoral and dangerous. But it’s not the same situation at all as what happened in Canada, and on principle I support reducing the state in any form.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Zach⚡️ 2y ago

Rid* damn typos

Sikto 2y ago

Well, then we disagree.

Taking away one’s means of survival because they don’t agree with your policies is morally abhorrent, regardless of how one “earns” or achieves said survival.

I wasn’t looking to get into a debate about ending welfare, I was simply pointing out the similarities of strong arming protestors.

For me, there isn’t a difference.

We can save the debate about how best to support people who are less a fortunate for another day.

Zach⚡️ 2y ago

I agree that it’s immoral to strong arm protesters.

Zach⚡️ 2y ago

To be even more fair to your point, the biggest recipients of welfare are not people, but large businesses and corporations. And the government already selectively discriminates against businesses it doesn’t like, while funding businesses that it does.

Don’t you see how welfare is the mechanism which enables that dependency in the first place? Very little of our taxes are spent giving food and shelter to the poor. The vast majority of them are spend on bribes and handouts which create dependency and help political parties and the state in general achieve its goals.

I think that every human has something of value that they can provide for others. Even if it’s not monetary, and comes in the form of companionship or some intangible relationship.

To say that people need government, need taxes, need welfare, because they aren’t capable of providing for themselves or have no one in their lives willing to help them, is degrading to those people. If we stop stealing from the working class through taxes and inflation, and you’ll see just how capable the average person is. And that’s what makes life, and humanity, beautiful.

Sikto 2y ago

I do not believe that I said anything in this thread in opposition to your points above.

As you have said, I would be in support of any policy that enables people to be less dependent on the state.

I guess the only place where we may disagree is that I believe that there will always be a group of people who do not have support, who can’t provide for themselves, and the generosity of other people would not suffice.

I believe in supporting these people, and believe our institutions and government still has a role to play in this. I agree with the sentiment that it should be as small as possible.

Zach⚡️ 2y ago

Then we are in agreement. I agree with what you’re saying, it’s unfair and immoral to suspend welfare for political opponents and I would prefer institutions at least pretend to have some objectivity.

I suppose the only thing which even made me engage was the comparison to the Trucker convoy. Withholding charity is not theft, even if the results can be just as damaging. Confiscating funds from bank accounts is theft.