[hliyan]

Her idea of equality as the ability to function equally as human beings resonated with me too.

Many years ago, what started my shift from a capitalist to what I am today, was the following question: "If people had to earn and pay for breathable air (a basic) the same way they had to earn and pay for food, education and medical care (also basics), would the world be a better place or a worse place?"

The world I imagined was one of such desperation that hardly anyone had time to think about anything but themselves, a world that barely advanced because hardly anyone had the luxury of time to think of greater things.

I am now completely sold on the idea of taking the basics out of the competitive equation (nutrition, education and health). Desperation is the enemy of civilization.

[andonisus]

I believe the fundamental difference between paying for air versus food, education, medical care is that air is abundantly free. Someone could try to charge you for it, but you could just open your lungs and consume all of the air which they haven't bottled.

Food requires land, plants, and animals. It requires labor. It requires you to either produce it yourself or interact with someone who does. Air does not.

[lucas_membrane]

Read _The_Air_Trust_, a sci-fi novel about a century old. Then consider that human intelligence declines when CO2 reaches levels that might occur within the next century or two. If levels of inequality do not decline, we can reasonably expect that the wealthy will be polluting the planet with even more CO2 in their efforts to protect the brains of the dominant class.

[n-exploit]

This is already starting to happen in China. The upper class are able to utilize air cleaning technologies to eliminate any external pollution within their living spaces, while the lower and middle classes can't afford such luxuries.

[andonisus]

Is the decline in intelligence with respect to CO2 correlation or causation? Obviously, we should make real efforts to protect our air quality, as we all benefit from this. And we should make efforts to prevent people from polluting the air to their benefit (creating capital or profit from some action which pollutes the air -- an action which otherwise would be unprofitable if we were to make it illegal).

[hliyan]

But what if food was similarly abundant? Either because of natural abundance or massive AI/robot labor?

[andonisus]

Then I would have to reevaluate my position!

[fromthestart]

Because nutrition, education, and healthcare require resources and effort, one cannot guarantee their availability for all without forcing labor, thereby impinging on the freedoms of others. Thus they cannot be basic human rights without forcing some degree of inequality.

One should have every right to pursue such goals, but defining these as unalienable rights is incompatible with egalitarianism.

[hliyan]

This used to be my thought as well when I was a capitalist. But then I realized that this is a form of insurance. What we pay to maintain the welfare system in an insurance premium in case we need it one day. It is also a sort of social utility fee -- it reduces crime and makes society more livable. I'd gladly pay for these benefits...