|
|
 Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yes. A is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to pay for B's misfortune. Forcing A to pay for B's misfortune is theft.
What I said was: "...your first inclination is to define B as a victim." You seem to misunderstand what I mean, so I'll clarify: My first inclination is to assume that he's strong enough as a human being to overcome his hardships (which can include accepting charity given voluntarily from A or some other party) and achieve his potential, whatever that may be after his hardships, in spite of those hardships. One consequence of that is that I don't believe we need to force someone at gunpoint to give what they have to B just because he has been unlucky (ie: theft). This is what I mean as opposed to defining B as a victim (not to be confused with saying he wasn't a victim of some terrible shit that happened).
Regarding the bold, I just want to reiterate that the difference isn't in labeling what happened to him; it's a difference in labeling him as a person.
The whole premise of your model seems to be that people get what they deserve in terms of their earnings,and if even they don't that's not a good enough reason to redistribute wealth.
So, if A makes £3m a year due at least in some part to good luck (or lack of bad luck if you will), whereas B makes a lot less than that, A is in his rights to say 'not my problem, luck smiled on me and not someone else' to the government who would take some of his salary (a portion mind you, not all of it) and use it to pay for B's lightning burn treatments?
|
Reply With Quote