[ExI] libertarians and inheritance
pharos at gmail.com
Fri May 8 16:59:17 UTC 2009
On 5/8/09, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Yes, yes, yes, all this is self-evident. It has nothing to do with the
> point I raised, which is that if giving tax-sourced money to the lazy poor
> is held to be wrong *in part because* it corrodes the moral character of the
> recipients (among other reasons why it's wicked and damaging), then giving
> money to the children of the rich might do just the same damage, and should
> be prevented *if only for their own sake*.
Is it true that Damien drives round in a 250,000 USD Winnebago
with a sticker on the back that says
'Spending our kids inheritance' ?
> This line of thought might lead to further questions: if nanotopia arrives,
> with all of us getting food, shelter, education, communication and transport
> for free, must we face a future of hopeless degradation because these
> benefits are *unearned*? Or is that okay, because in this case the goodies
> aren't being taken from your pocket and "spread around" to the welfare
> queens--and besides, you don't have a taxable job anyway because the AIs
> took it?
So, nanotopia will make the whole human race stop working and live on welfare?
The failing with this idea is that it makes Star Trek type
assumptions. i.e. one thing will change, but all else remains much the
same. How many Star Trek plots were resolved by a John Wayne style
When nanotopia arrives, *everything* will change. Even humanity itself.
If a human becomes a vortex of energy spiraling around a miniature
black hole, it hardly seems relevant to talk about 'welfare queens'.
More information about the extropy-chat