|
Dead Reckoning posted:Actions taken in response to an imminent threat from an aggressor take on a different character due to both urgency and the aggressor's agency.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If a negative right to life means I have an obligation not to take positive actions that I can reasonably foresee will lead to another's death, then it's pretty obvious I can't take the positive actions required to chase a man and his starving family from my fields and prevent them from getting food. It would be really nice if there was some organized way to save food for starving people so they didn't have to burglarize farms. Then the farms could have fences and a little more privacy, and each farm could contribute a little bit to the "food library" so no one farm was impacted too much. Actually, if only farms are contributing to the food library, that's not very fair... non-farmers should contribute a little bit of whatever they make, too. Whoever is organizing the system could hopefully create some measuring system between different things, and then everybody could send in an equitable contribution, and that's really fair. I don't feel like continuing the stupid taxation/currency analogy. The solution to providing starving people with food (i.e. life) and still allowing private property is taxation. There could be a literal food bank where poor people pick up loaves of bread, but if we're going to the trouble of collecting taxes from everyone to pay for food, we might as well cut out the middle-man and just give the tax money to starving people so they can buy the food themselves. We could even add a few safeguards so the money can only be used for food and not iPods. This is literally food stamps. Without a government large enough to collect taxes, and distribute them to programs like food stamps, you can't solve collective action problems like this. That's why we have governments in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 18:38
|
|