I am currently in a discussion with a Green about “Freedom from…”. He says that establishing such freedom from need, hunger etc. would not necessitate force as everybody profited from government infrastructure and other ressources.
Does one first have to advocate for the dissolution of government infrastructure programs and education etc. before one can go further to argue against such “freedom from”?
Before you can argue for anything, you need to define “freedom.” It’s impossible to advocate socialism while holding a correct definition of that word.
I would rather say his definition of force is wrong. I wrote back that I can’t see where someone who profits from infrastructure and education entered a contract that says government is allow to tax him.
He says that establishing such freedom from need, hunger etc. would not necessitate force as everybody profited from government infrastructure and other ressources.
Yeah. Capitalism does free people from hunger etc., it does not involve force, and everybody profits!
Prosperity is not the motive of altruism.
Bastian - When talking to the Green, it is essential that you both understand what the other is saying. More often than not, two people use the same word (such as ‘freedom’ or ‘altruism’) to define two different concepts.