| > supposing that an individual decides he doesn't earn enough All forms of safety nets require the consideration of a reasonable floor. I mean if someone feels public transport is beneath them, well tough, but have a warm safe place to sleep with a locked door and fridge seems reasonable. Of course, in time the floor will rise. > isn't is better to rely on him to investigate what he can do to address the situation? There are many things that can be done to address the situation from working more hours, People shouldn't have to spend all their time working, even if they have no worthwhile skills. Just because someone has no economic value doesn't mean they don't have human value. They should still have a life. > to changing jobs, to taking on training for a new job for example. Those require money and time, not easily obtained. Also, the people who need it most are those with the least amount of access to it. > Isn't this preferable? This is personal question, but I say no. Even if you don't agree, then maybe you'll agree with this "The best reason to feed the barbarians at the gate is to keep them out of your gate". Law & order is a democracy, and when enough people decide that the current order doesn't benefit them, it ends. |
Yeah, that seems reasonable to me but we also know that there's a great deal of variation on all of the details there (warm, safe, locked door, refrigerator). I see it as necessary to allow/require individuals to make the decisions on all those details. I see it as a necessary condition for people to be free.
> People shouldn't have to spend all their time working, even if they have no worthwhile skills. Just because someone has no economic value doesn't mean they don't have human value. They should still have a life.
I'm sympathetic to this outlook. It's the details of it where I get tripped up with people. One area in particular is the state where someone has no worthwhile skills. I think that while a human being has no less dignity when he has no worthwhile skills, that is an unsustainable state that needs work. Similarly, I question the implicit assumption that there is a connection between someone's economic value and intrinsic worth as a human being. Perhaps what we disagree on what is it looks like for a society to place minimum acceptable value on such life.
> Those require money and time, not easily obtained. Also, the people who need it most are those with the least amount of access to it.
I don't dispute that money and time are required, and that it may not be easy. However I still maintain the responsibility lies in those individuals/workers.
> This is personal question, but I say no. Even if you don't agree, then maybe you'll agree with this "The best reason to feed the barbarians at the gate is to keep them out of your gate". Law & order is a democracy, and when enough people decide that the current order doesn't benefit them, it ends.
There is a version of the statement I could agree with, but in your specific statement of barbarians at the gate, it's also a possibility to not feed them. It really depends and since it's a hypothetical I don't want to engage with it too much. But I do agree that you can't expect to build up a huge class of miserable people and expect stability forever. The question to me is, how can we best serve them? I adamantly prefer to teach and raise them up, difficult as that may be, then to place demands/restrictions on employers.