Society is like a framework you build upon, without the scaffolding there to hold you up and none of what you accomplished would be possible. None. In turn, it is our responsibility to manage the upkeep of society.
I grew up on open source software. I started using Debian when I was still in grade school. Without it, many of us wouldn't be doing what we are now.
In advocating that volunteering charity as a solution to society's ills, you need to consider the cases that charity simply can't or won't make a meaningful impact on. You also have to factor in the marketability, trends, and prejudice that will invariably select equally worthy social causes over another. We've seen how without a proper safety net, the public at large will let the sick and poor rot, then charities and business went on just as usual and profits and donations were better than ever. Yet we still denied the mentally ill the healthcare they needed to take care of themselves. We vilified and locked up the poor and minorities.
Business as usual hasn't addressed what didn't directly benefit business (why would it?). Think of the cases that open source software tackled as a community that lead a richer software environment. We were no longer at the whim of the walled-garden software giants. We saw how without proper disruption in business as usual we were screwed.
Remember, we are lucky and privileged to be in a position where we can almost assuredly find (self)employment on our own terms and be guaranteed high salaries. That can change, and you can bet that employers will jump at any opportunity to bring costs down so in the long run our position will be whittled to maximize profit. The next generation of programmers will experience lower entry level pay + benefits and that trend will follow them throughout their life. They will never see the level of privilege we experience now. This is the trend almost every middle class profession has seen in the last 30 years.
We can effectively be exiled from the walled-garden, and every paycheck you employer hands you is another reason to find a way to replace you. The vast majority people are experiencing this.
We created an environment where there is no alternative to the pittance the wealth giants feel like granting us. It gave us a shitty software environment and locked down hardware, and it never addressed the scope of the problems government, welfare and public works solves.
>And why do I owe it to society as a whole and not some particular individuals?
When you pay for your meal at a restaurant, are you only paying the specific people who prepared and handled your food? Again, specific individuals didn't accomplish anything in a vacuum. You are a by product of society as a whole just as your meal was the product of the restaurant as a whole.
Well, let me say that your opensource software analogy is great and here's why. I use Rails and make money building apps with it. Am I expecting @dhh or other Rails devs to knock on my door and demand their fair share? Of course not. If they did so, they'd be ridiculed and judged by the rest of the community! Open source is a voluntary cooperation: nobody expects anybody else to pay and hardly anyone started an open-source project because they expected donations. People donate because they want to. Or opensource devs make money by providing a service or building an actual product on their platform. And there are many opensource projects. I don't use all of them, even if indirectly. Should I still consider donating to projects I don't really use? Of course not.
My point is this: no one in the opensource world uses force to keep it running. If I don't donate to an opensource project, IRS is not going to come take my possessions. Governments on the other hand do use force to keep the state running. How can you fail to see this? And if you do see this, how can you defend the use of force?
People aren't programs. They aren't tools. They aren't frameworks either.
People are people.
If you don't force them to help their peers, they won't. Hell, I come from that poor background and I still whine whenever I see all the money the government takes out of my paycheck. Imagine someone who never had any contact with the poor.
You have two choice:
-Upset (a little bit) people and force them to help out their peers. This cost them almost nothing. But they will whine.
-Do nothing, turn a blind eye and let poor people suffer.
Sure, you can try to encourage people to give. But it won't work. It will never work. We are hardwired to help ourselves, then our families, our friends and THEN if you have extra... and I mean a lot of extra, you may think about giving some money to strangers. But no. You will buy the new iSomething. Don't feel guilty. That's how we are. That's how the modern world roll.
If nobody forces you to help out your peer, you will never do. I will never do either. Sure, we may act as if we are helping people. But we don't. We buy the indie bundle for $2 more than the average. We give that penny to the hobo so he can "buy a pizza". But it ends there.
Each paycheck, I lose about X in taxes and stuff. It used to piss me off. "All that hard work for nothing!". Then, one of my best friend came one day and told me "Raph, it's awesome. The government is giving me X every two weeks now. I can make it and finish school now!". Damn. Sinking feeling. That's pretty much the money I give away.
I don't whine anymore when I see my paycheck.
Sure, I would LOVE to be able to choose where the money I get taken goes to. But I just have to trust the government on that one.
So if you yourself admit that you won't voluntarily donate money and help the poor unless you really have some extra, what moral right do you think you have to tell other people they should? Why do you think it's ok to take care of your family and friends less and care about strangers more? And, finally, if somebody forces you to help the poor, are you really becoming a better person?
>So if you yourself admit that you won't voluntarily donate money and help the poor unless you really have some extra, what moral right do you think you have to tell other people they should?
He is acknowledging that the trend the of the public as a whole is to let the poor rot. Morals come in when he recognizes that this is wrong, and can be solved by society as whole. Not specific people.
>Why do you think it's ok to take care of your family and friends less and care about strangers more?
This safety net isn't exclusive to 'everyone else'. It is in place to catch everyone, including your family and friends, and their family and friends, and those who might not have family and friends. How is paying a measly some annually/quarterly caring about strangers more? It doesn't necessitate taking care of your own less, and is a straw man on your part. To me, it is a pittance of a tribute to the fact that 'others exist, ugghhh'.
> if somebody forces you to help the poor, are you really becoming a better person?
That does not matter. What matters is that someone isn't starving, homeless, or without medical care.
My analogy was to provide a stepping stone towards understanding why you aren't an island and, yes, that your success depends on EVERYONE as a whole. Not just specific people.
I used to be an libertarian, so I crafted my analogy to appeal to the self-made Only I Deserve The Sweat Of My Brow type of person. As programmers, we live in a bubble. We tend to think we are smarter than everyone else. We forget we are in the same boat as everyone else. And if we look around, we are sinking. We just happen to be in the crows nest, so we have a while til we will have to worry.
Society is not a voluntary cooperation. It has fees and dues. If you feel collecting those fees and dues are against your morals, then please pay back what you've taken and exit society to stop reaping its fruits.
WRT to your point. The non-aggression principle is a well thought out red herring. Guess what happens if you violate a contract? Guess what happens if you are the wrong side of a property dispute? Guess what happens if you violate court orders?
You can complain about the monopoly of force, but it is better than the alternative. That force keeps you from being stripped of your possessions by the masses. That force ensures you can do honest business. What do you think keeps people from holding a gun to your head and taking everything you've got?
If the government didn't ensure corporations property rights and ability to collect dues, do you honestly think they wouldn't be enforced through the guns of a private entity? One that has no accountability to the public? Today, we see the rise of private security agencies as the wealth gap increases.
You are taking from society and then stubbornly trying to find any way to not give up some of your bounty.
You are essentially stealing, and complaining that it will get you in trouble with the government. The same exact thing will happen if you work at an Apple store and take a new iMac, because you sold ten today therefore deserve to take one home. You will end up in jail in both cases.
You do have a choice in paying taxes just as you have a choice in stealing that computer. You can leave society, just as you can leave the Apple store. Don't complain when men with guns try to stop you if you go ahead and steal.
We have tried having private entities handle what governments govern. It was disastrous. It was business as usual.
If people don't pay taxes and dissolve government, then infrastructure will crumble. Violent factions will arise. Warlords and fiefdoms will manifest. Businesses will escape the hostile and uncertain landscape. We will look like Somalia did a few years ago. Thankfully, government has restored some order to the area as of recently.
Worst of all, it maximises for suffering. Even today, when we do have programs in place by the government to address social issues, suffering is rampant. How can you fail to see this? And if you do, how can you defend the maximization of suffering so you can save some pennies?
I'm sorry, but your definition of theft doesn't make any sense. If you say I steal from society, then certainly I do it without even a threat of force, without lying and by asking people to get into businesses relationship with me voluntarily. When government steals from me, it's quite the opposite.
But I understand that you made up your mind, so if you're still checking this thread let me ask you something. You mentioned you were a libertarian. What was the turning point for you when you ceased being one?
He clearly grew up. He's dead on now about how absurd the non aggression principle is and dead on about everything he just said to you. If you were wise, you'd listen.
