Nostr Web Client

and if you can't have children for one of the many reasons people can't have children?

i agree there are big problems with governmental social security, but a generalized "friends and family" support structure ignores a lot of the potential problems in the family unit, not to mention problems with world population.

James A Lewis 2y ago

> if you can't...

That's why I said "default".

What one does when he employs the force of the government to tax his neighbors to support him in old age is in effect a broad, legal theft at the point of a gun. It (1) robs the neighbors of their wealth, (2) creates great inefficiencies with hungry middle men, (3) creates bad incentive structures (no more incentive to invest in neighbors while able bodied), and finally (4) robs his neighbors secondarily of the opportunity to make the charitable gift to him in supporting him in old age.

The government can be the supporter of **last resort**, but by no means the default.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

🤦🏼‍♀️ 2y ago

it seems like you've assumed my position and argued against that, but not answered my question.

in the "non-standard" case of a childless person, what societal structures do you imagine existing that would help that person continue to contribute to their community into old age?

how do we handle and mitigate unequal or fraudulent distribution of a communal pool of value?

James A Lewis 2y ago

My point has been that the current default hurts society in the long run. A neighbors-first approach is much more moral and for sure more efficient.

A "communal pool of value" should not exist. Likewise for its distribution and the potential for fraud.

If one is in need, let him go to his neighbor. If his neighbor is unable or unwilling, let him go to another. If the second neighbor is alike to the first, let the needy go to the community and find support there. Communities ought always to endeavor to support their needy as they see fit. If a community is overburdened, let its leaders approach the neighboring communities until the needs of their members are fulfilled.

Employing the state in support of individuals is to subvert the authority and autonomy of the community and is a violation of subsidiarity.

🤦🏼‍♀️ 2y ago

by "communal value" i do not necessarily mean a centralized pool funded by taxation. i mean Earth. the family unit is not equipped to deal with problems on that level, but that's where governments operate.

saying governments should or shouldn't do things while focusing on an insufficient solution to Earth sized problems is not really solving anything.

your hot take is a distraction from the larger grifts. governmental power is here to stay (for better and worse, there are always trade-offs), largely because there are many governments fighting for dominance.

we need to transform governance, not dismiss it.

James A Lewis 2y ago

> Earth sized problems

This is the problem paradigm. We are too concerned with earth's problems and not concerned enough about our neighbors'. Localize your efforts and you will find progress and fulfillment.

If each locale solves its own local problems, no global problem needs solving. Global problems are the sum of local problems.

To "Love thy neighbor" is the second greatest command of the greatest man to walk the earth, but He said nothing of loving earth. Zoom in, not out.

🤦🏼‍♀️ 2y ago

economic supply chains, monetary policy, and military action make us all neighbors. we're interconnected. ignoring that solves nothing and ripens you for exploitation (tho IMO that's already happened).

local matters, don't get me wrong, but if you zoom in *right now* you're just pretending your actions don't have the reach they actually possess and externalizing real, tangled, obtuse problems.