dohboi wrote:So let's picture this very small tippy boat. On one side you have four small scraggly kids huddled together, not weighing collectively more 200 pounds.
Let's draw another picture...
Let's say we move your home to saharan africa. Stocked fridge and everything, then tell all the poor starving people where to find you. Would you be there emptying out your fridge to everyone for the sake of being magnanimous or would you be shitting bricks and grabbing the shotgun?
I'm not saying anybody's entitled to yachts and learjets, but it's natural to want to live comfortably even though we may not like that there are have-nots. The only difference between my scenario and the reality is the geographic distance between you and the poor people. That is currently the "drawbridge" between the first and third world.
dohboi wrote:Denied justice, and faced with an insane pariah sinking the whole boat, the kids may just decide that real 'lifeboat justice' would be to just push the fat moron off the boat.
You're just locked into the whole blame/rage/guilt cycle.
I've seen this debate circle around and around countless times before.
The poor breed like rabbits. The rich consume at a rate of a dozen poor people. It's just two sides of the same coin. The poor are not by nature saintly victims nor are the rich demons. We're all made of the same flawed human nature.
I just think this wealth redistribution thing (which is ultimately what you're hinting at with social justice) is a continuation of the battle of -isms which kind of peaked in the 20th century with fascism and communism.
The only thing I know about thew way humanity manages its affairs is that we'll NEVER be able to get everyone to agree on how to do it. NEVER. Someone will always be arguing that they got the short end of the stick.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)