Even if we accept all of that as true, I don't think that obfuscating the issue through a sort of price fixing is the right solution.

We settled that earlier, didn't we.

If we concluded that it was immoral and society at large should ensure their continued livelihood, then one can explore solutions such as a loan or financing social security, or Milton Friedman's negative income tax.

now we're talking!

But by mandating this social responsibility you are not proposing a solution much different from holding a gun to my head to enlist me to carry your spouse up a hill.

Let's address the moral mechanics of it:

Let us say your spouse needs to be brought to a hospital up a hill. You cannot carry her alone. I come by.

If you had a way to coerce me, such as a gun, would it be moral for you to force me to help you?

I don't know. I happily accept the responsibility the way things work where I grew up. But why? No clue, tbh.

Regardless of why, you do so willingly. But what if you didn't?

And if you had some responsibility, through some sort of debt, for example, how should it best be enforced?

I don't take the position that the state is useless. I am not a complete anarcho-capitalist.

> how should it best be enforced?
Cannot tell. Apparently western democracies seem to show quite some variation in this concern, which is what makes this topic interesting, I guess.

Let's steelman your argument then, or the position I think you're taking:

Let's take my view to the most unfavorable degree.

Let's say that I am an incredibly wealthy person, a billionaire. You have a starving mother.

If you take just a tiny fraction of my wealth, through a means that does not even do physical harm to me, you could save your mother.

Would it be moral?
Would you do it?

(BTW, I would do it, but for reasons I will explain after.)

> be it only that society is a multiplayer game where one can't always control the circumstances one ends up in.

What would I think of you, the shitbag billionaire you'd be, if you didn't?
If you want a society that sustains billionaires, you'll probably have more than one starving mother. That's just how a society goes, I guess.

Yes, a pretty shitty society it would be.

But what is that society then? You allow people to steal, as long as they think they can do more good than you with what they stole.

To what degree does that rule hold? Do we not end up with a Sorites Paradox?

It is, that's why western societies vary on these terms so much, I guess.

||My bike was stolen today...||

I think we can have both.

I think I can save your mother AND be a society of law and order, in which stealing is illegal.

...taxes?

If we do not want a sorites paradox, we have to stick to principles that do not depend on the judgement of degree. Any judgement of degree always results in grey zones, which is why I am a free speech absolutist.

If I steal from the billionaire, I should be punished.

BUT I should only be punished to the degree of harm I cause.

I might have acted immorally in stealing, but the state can compel me, according to absolutist laws, to restore the damage I have done.

If I stole $100 to save my mother, the state can force me to pay it back.

I will then commit the crime, knowing how much the life of my mother is worth, and accept the punishment.

But the harm to the billionaire should not be ignored simply due to its degree of harm.

It is no less an immorality and should therefor be balanced by the state.

so, to sidestep the thought experiment a bit: let's build a government that manages to sell saving the starving mother to billionaires in a way that makes them want to invest that money, too. A bit like some places in my country accept tax deals with rich people...

Or rather, some places got rather "famous" for doing so in recent decades 😃

To give any intelligent answer to that I'd have to return to issues of principle.

I should not be forced to be the caretaker of people I owe nothing to, but as soon as I have a debt, there is a contract, which the state should enforce.

If a group of people are all in agreement that they assist each other in times of need, we do have voluntary systems that do not require coercion.

Those systems, for example, are implemented in insurance.

Maybe that's why there are so many insurance companies around here. I must say, though, I really like living in a place where people aren't pushed too far beyond what they can bear. You're not guaranteed to win, but if you lose, there are enough resources so you can get your act together.

Yes, but our ability to consistently reproduce these conditions depends on the degree of our understanding of the underlying principles.

Which is, as far as I understand it, not even entirely untrue for the US, so maybe my views aren't free of some cliche, either.