ArturoBandini wrote:This is a fun discussion.
On this we profoundly disagree.
ArturoBandini wrote:And you claim that water should be provided for free, which is impossible. It is paid for by resources that come from somewhere, even if the recipients don't need to pay money for it. That's not to say that giving it away at no cost is wrong, I'm just contesting the idea of "freeness".
Oh fer fuckssakes, I meant, "free to the people who need it", not "without any cost to anyone anywhere at anytime." Yeesh. The government, using our taxes, should pay
for water and then distribute it free of charge
to those in need.
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:I do believe that considering how to profit from disaster, whether the end result is positive or not, is disgusting, and should be illegal.
How would you enforce this policy? If disaster profits are illegal, do you enforce this at tax time? Anyone who made a profit in New Jersey this quarter has to hand it over to the government?
Really? Being willfully obstinate is fun for you?
There's a difference between "making a profit" as a normal business always strives to do, and price-gouging. To pretend there's no way to tell the difference is ludicrous.
ArturoBandini wrote: There is no clear external distinction between wholly-selfless behavior and self-interested behavior that benefits others.
Sez you. But regardless, I'm arguing that self-interest is the problem, whereas you see it as part of the solution. It is the very fact that people more often than not act almost exclusively in their own self-interest that I believe government is necessary to act in the interests of society as a whole. I am a very strong advocate that yes, government should force
people to not act like selfish assholes. Yes, I know you disagree.
ArturoBandini wrote:Distinguish the taxes from the disaster relief actions, those are two separate issues.
I have no idea what your point is here. But please, don't feel it's necessary to elucidate further.
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Do you agree that people who put profit ahead of providing emergency aid are immoral and should be punished? Because I do.
No, I disagree.
I know you do, which is why I found your earlier claim that we were on the same page so baffling.
ArturoBandini wrote:Both profit and emergency aid can be pursued simultaneously, to mutual benefit. There is no need to prioritize or sacrifice one for the other.
I fundamentally disagree.
Look, I strongly believe government should force people to do things they would not do on their own, while you vehemently disagree. It's fine that we don't agree, but it's not fine when you label those with different views as "profoundly wrong" (can you tell yet that it's your arrogant phrasing that really sticks in my craw, not your actual opinion?)