The person in my description would be housed, fed, safe. To this you say, we're well beyond the scarcity that would require this.
Believe it or not, people still work to produce almost everything. While aided with machinery, farmers are human beings and work. People actually physically build houses. Everything that you own, is assembled or manufactured from components and parts that come from human labour.
If someone is going to live off the backs of the work, and effort of other human beings, then certainly they should not live in luxury. They should, in fact, feel as if they are putting other people out, which in fact they are.
I've already expressed a situation where I want nobody to starve. Where I want nobody to not have a roof over their head, if they're having a difficult time, where I want them to be safe.
This is an extremely generous, extremely kind, extremely compassionate thing for me, or anyone else to do. To give some of my daily effort to help others, is laudable.
To this you say, why don't you give more? To this you say, it's not enough to be housed, but why doesn't somebody get a free large screen TV too? To this you say, why doesn't somebody get more than just the basic necessities? Can't they have steak, a large home, all, provided by the efforts of others?
Do you not realize how completely selfish that is? It's completely out of touch with the whole dynamic of people working to produce goods, and other people just getting those goods without effort.
> Do you not realize how completely selfish that is? It's completely out of touch with the whole dynamic of people working to produce goods, and other people just getting those goods without effort.
The vast majority of our wealth is already stolen by megalomaniacs so they can buy big useless yachts. I'd give up twice as much if it meant the local crackhead got not just a house, but a PS5. At least the crackhead is funny, and when my dog got his head stuck in my fence, the crackhead got him out.
You specifically said you didn't want them to be comfortable... Which means you wish suffering upon someone you don't know. Just because you think it's unfair that you work and they don't? Why focus on the downtrodden then, rather than the generationally wealthy vultures?
I just gave them life, vs death. I just gave a little of myself, so they don't starve, aren't going to freeze to death, and are safe. Yes, I don't want them comfortable. You think this means I wish suffering, when I just helped them?
Absurdly selfish. "Why not give more!! How dare you only prevent starvation, giving housing, and ensure safety!! What's wrong with you!", you say?!
Blathering on about wealth and the rich is an absurd tact to take. We're talking about the fact that a person toiling every day, is giving to another who isn't. No hand wavy gibberish, will change that the house was built be a human being, one that isn't wealthy, and is paying a portion of their daily work (it's called taxes) to house someone.
If you want to donate your own effort and work to help people beyond that, no one is stopping you. But don't walk around complaining to others that giving basic necessities aren't enough.
You need to get your head on straight.
If you want to discuss the economic system and the rich, that's an entirely different conversation. Discussing the working person's need to house those that aren't working?
> If you want to discuss the economic system and the rich, that's an entirely different conversation. Discussing the working person's need to house those that aren't working?
It's the same conversation. The only reason the burden falls upon us at all is because the tax system is fundamentally broken. No reasonably organized resource allocation algorithm would allow so many people to hoard so much of our wealth. If our resources were allocated more efficiently, it wouldn't just be the homeless that the state could house comfortably, it would be all of us. After all, Singapore manages it, and they also have a mostly broken tax system, just slightly less broken than other places.
Preventing a stranger's death from starvation and exposure has been a bare minimum for human decency in many cultures for thousands of years. You've read about it in the Greek and Roman stories you had to read in school, where a god shows up disguised as a beggar. Native Americans had similar stories, so did Peloponnesians, Chinese, areas in Africa, northern Europe... It's a modern degeneration of our human values that this is considered such a big ask. We used to accept that we're responsible for each other's well being.
Why? We are well beyond the scarcity that would require this.