There are a few basics I would like society to adress more:
# is it really OK to have people live well off of other people's work?
# is it OK to tell other people how they should live their lives?
# is it OK to criminalize actions that concern no one else but the person in question?
Two of those are easy, in my view - but it doesn't take much for murkiness to cloud the answer.
For instance,
no, in general, it is not OK to tell other people how they should live their lives. This applies most straightforwardly here in the States to issues such as sexuality (gay marriage) and morally tinted issues like abortion. It becomes murky when you talk about issues that involve far more people. Is it ok to keep poor people from buying fast food?
And why is it that, more often than not, it is the same people up in arms about the right to abortion services yet insist that we shouldn't sell fast food to poor people? To me, that's inconsistent. I think what Wast is saying is that it is a matter of rights vs. what is best for society. Right to abortion, from a consequentialist point of view - I think, and Wast, please correct me if I'm wrong - is justified b/c it ... keeps unwanted children from existing and negatively impacting society. Keeping fast food away from poor people, from a consequentialist point of view, helps keep obesity and related maladies from driving up healthcare costs and negatively impacting society. In that way they are consistent.
Where you draw the line must then be a more accurate reflection of your belief system, right? And everyone (except psychopaths and sociopaths), draws a line somewhere.
Also, no it is not
OK, in general, to criminalize actions that concern no one else but the person in question. But again, murky, and all about where you draw the line. Marijuana legalization for instance. But many of the same people for legalization are also FOR laws requiring people to wear helmets when on a motorcycle. I think this question is even murkier because I have trouble tying either of those to the betterment of society at all. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what Wast is saying. Or maybe my line is really far to one side?
Is it really OK to have people live well off of other people's work? I don't know. This is a damn good question, and I wonder if it's a basic belief in "non-American" cultures that it is not fair. My initial reaction is yes, if those people are smarter, harder working and more driven than the other people, then it is not only OK, it is admirable. That's why dirt poor Republicans will rage against the 1% being excessively taxed - the 1% earned it, they believe. And they believe that, if they were smarter, or harder working, or more driven, they could be in the 1% as well. It's the "American Dream" after all.
But I'm not tied to my initial reaction, because at some point, it becomes unfair and/or too much. Unfair that some people (like Mr. Trump) start with millions of dollars and turn it into billions by being a ruthless businessman who will cut hundreds of thousands of jobs to earn an extra million in profit. Too much when an HP exec. slashes and burns through a company, laying off 1000,000 people and decreasing it's stock value 60%, and then leaves with a $75 million golden parachute while the laid off people have to go on welfare to survive. Just another question about where you personally draw the line?
