Oh hey, also the same thing with environmental issues

  • Comment105@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    We can choose to either provide for those who lack food, housing, and other things, or we can choose not to. We often choose not to despite having both sufficient food and shelter.

    We can also choose to pursue the goal of making the poor independent.

    But if we choose not to leave people unprovided for, that is just what we have chosen. There is no way around that.

    Making the poor independent is a separate project, in the same vein as making people stop being violent, or unhealthy, or depressed, or sick. Except in that case, if the population of dependent poor die off while the newly made Independent population remains, it would be a success. No more dependants is the goal, quite literally.

    There’s also the matter that we’ve chosen very explicitly to disallow the poor any power to simply leave the city and establish their of towns of rejects with the materials that exist in nature, as harvesting huge quantities of wood and clay without permissions – unlikely to be obtained – is expressly illegal. Apparently we have to, to protect the environment from people. But it’s not civilization’s responsibility to rectify that injustice, is it? It can just disallow you your shelter and leave it at that. Civilization does not have to compensate a man for the option it has taken away from him.