[carlosjobim]

The end result is that a class of people live and die to provide for others. That's against nature, unless we reduce ourselves to the existence of ants.

Down-right evil is what the consequences would be, but I retract that comment regarding the idea itself, because I don't think any malice is intended.

Economic incentivizing by the government often have awful side effects. Let me make a comparison: Business is good for the economy and nation. Therefore the government should incentivize people to have businesses. Let's therefore give a million dollars to every successful business owner. We take the money by taxing those who don't have businesses.

I think most do not like that idea, but it's basically the same thing.

Let's not pit young people against each other furthermore.

[thfuran]

Houses are against nature. That doesn't mean they're bad.

[TheFreim]

I don't agree with the person your replying to but its clear that they aren't using "nature" to mean "things happening outside" or "things happening to non-humans". When people say "against nature" almost always they are saying that something runs contrary to the nature of man in such a way as to inhibit an ordering towards flourishing. Against nature means something not conducive to the proper ordering of the human person, so a house is not in principle "against nature" since it acts in accord with human nature and furthers human flourishing rather than frustrating our natural faculties.