Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is true and the reason why individual wealth ought to be regulated as a matter of pragmatism. There will always be those who wildly outperform the rest of the population and unchecked, that can be detrimental to the group depending on its composition.
What of those who regularly underperform or habitually err? Why should the rest of society pay for their failures?
|
What is it you think we are doing for underperformers? Do you have any idea what welfare is actually like in the United States? It's not a glamorous existence.
One of the reasons it's in our best interest to try to help them is because of how profoundly poverty is heritable, and all the ways that growing up impoverished stunts an individual. Punishing somebody for being impoverished, or leaving them to die, may feel good and just, but it does little to solve the problem. And this is less about just giving them money, and more about providing opportunity. (Affordable tuition, affordable housing, decent wages)