> Society should not be arranged to give people a free pass just because they want to do something that requires money.
Why not?
I mean, if it works for that society and it's democratically passed, why shouldn't a society do whatever it wants?
Use of the word 'should' makes it sound like there's a moral imperative for us to not help each other. I don't think that's the case, and I think there's a good argument that in future we'll need to consider different types of society that deal with abundance rather than scarcity; for example, with universal living wages.
What I meant was that the amount of wealth redistribution would be a function of your income, not the fact that you really need more money to do a particular thing.
So if I decide it would be really life assuming to quit my job and become an artist, society doesn't have more duty to help me do this than they do to help anyone else on a particular income.
Comments
> Society should not be arranged to give people a free pass just because they want to do something that requires money.
Why not?
I mean, if it works for that society and it's democratically passed, why shouldn't a society do whatever it wants?
Use of the word 'should' makes it sound like there's a moral imperative for us to not help each other. I don't think that's the case, and I think there's a good argument that in future we'll need to consider different types of society that deal with abundance rather than scarcity; for example, with universal living wages.
What I meant was that the amount of wealth redistribution would be a function of your income, not the fact that you really need more money to do a particular thing.
So if I decide it would be really life assuming to quit my job and become an artist, society doesn't have more duty to help me do this than they do to help anyone else on a particular income.