Timeline for Why should the state not provide for basic necessities?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2023 at 17:13 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @user4012 you think many people like being stuck in useless office jobs instead of building useful fountains? | |
| Feb 7, 2023 at 17:12 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @user4012 or (5) the stuff was yours to begin with and never belonged to the store owner. I'm not saying that is the case, but it's certainly a possibility, and the fact you didn't think of it is quite telling. Open your mind a little. | |
| Sep 30, 2017 at 20:44 | comment | added | agc | @user4012, Not one non-coercive method, many; of those just one example for your puzzlement. Intestacy occurs quite a lot with copyright, authors may be heirless, and the corporations that owned their works sometimes vanish with a whimper. Some movie examples. | |
| Sep 30, 2017 at 18:43 | comment | added | user4012 | @agc - Actually, if heir-less man didn't will his fountain to someone, that's equivalent to volunteerism in my view; as he chose not to give it to whoever he could. But yes, let's call the rather unlikely rare case a fourth production method, just to be methodical. But ask yourself, what's the likely proportion of drinking fountains produced by first 3 methods vs 4th? (i'm pretty sure very few people die with their estate going to public use, and even fewer own water fountains). | |
| Sep 30, 2017 at 15:56 | comment | added | agc | @user4012, Those three drinking fountain production methods of "magic", "volunteerism", and "coercion", are but three of the many more non-coercive methods possible. Or perhaps also those usages are more broadly inclusive than the common usage. Even allowing the broadest usages, it's puzzling... an heirless man owns a drinking fountain but dies intestate, the fountain becomes public. Yet our man did not die intestate by magic, did not volunteer, nor was coerced. | |
| Sep 30, 2017 at 11:58 | comment | added | user4012 | @agc - What if I don't feel like building a public well or a fountain on my free time? They don't just spring into existance by magic, someone builds them. Unless you convince me to voluntarily do so (or convince me to voluntarily pay to have other people do so), yes, you engaged in coercion to either get money or labour from me, to get your fountain/well built. Additionally, in case of fountains, frequently someone pays for the water, at least in most Western countries' developed areas. Unless they donated the water or money to pay for it voluntarily, you are coercing them too | |
| Sep 29, 2017 at 20:57 | comment | added | agc | @user4012, Re #2 (coercion, slavery): by the same argument a public drinking fountain or well (both store and freely dispense a necessary consumable) would be coercion and slavery. | |
| Apr 19, 2017 at 18:55 | comment | added | user4012 | @Westrock - "freeely" implies you either force whoever had the goods to give them to you; or convince them. The former is #2/3 in my comment; the latter is #1 (or charity, but you're unlikely to charity-get 100% of the goods you want in life) | |
| Apr 19, 2017 at 13:08 | comment | added | Westrock | @user4012 You are still trying to give an item a value. Barter, theft, steal, whatever. This is how you look at it because we can't accept the idea that goods could just freely flow. We are ingrained with the idea everything has to have a value. | |
| Apr 15, 2017 at 0:15 | comment | added | Andy | Please take a basic economy theory course to understand why this answer is nonsense. Money itself isn't a problem; all it does is represent limited resources. | |
| Apr 10, 2017 at 4:06 | comment | added | user4012 | If there's no money involved, getting things from a store requires either (1) barter (no different than money, just incredibly impossible to scale to modern economy given different types of goods/supply); (2) Forcibly taking, using either your own, or the state's brute force, as backing; or (3) Theft. Absent #4 (store owner gives it up as charity, which isn't preordained so doesn't count). #2 is slavery (you're forcing someone to work for free to get you the stuff); #3 devolves to #2 the moment the owner tries to prevent the theft. | |
| Apr 9, 2017 at 21:43 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 9, 2017 at 22:28 | |||||
| Apr 9, 2017 at 21:39 | history | answered | Westrock | CC BY-SA 3.0 |