Sorry for taking so long to get back, I've been really busy.
1. They both deserve what they got because they freely chose to take a risk that could have either result. If none of us deserve what we've gotten because of the risks we've taken, it seems hard to find any justice in any system of private property and free enterprise.
2. It isn't fair to punish people for the acts of their ancestors or associates. But part of the right to own something is the right to assign ownership to someone else, including your offspring. Part of being a successful human is imparting the tools of success to your offspring. So if my parents earned it, they should be able to pass it on to me if they see fit. And I shouldn't have to feel guilty about it. Hopefully I do well enough in life to make my kids "lucky" too.
3. There are a lot of people around the world who are worse off than we are. If we (following your logic) eschew luxury items in favor of giving our money to those who need it more than we do, nobody will be buying stereos at all. Are you in favor of a stereo-free world in the abstract? It's a reasonable position, assuming that going stereo-free would save people from going hungry. But you seem to be not only in favor of such a world, you seem to be in favor of enforcing that through government coercion. I hope I'm not off-base when I impute this to you: If I'm spending my money on a stereo instead of somebody else's healthcare, that's immoral. In fact, it's the equivalent of actively hurting them. In that case, are any of us moral? Do you own a stereo? Does your mom?
4. The only reason civilized debate is possible is because enough people subscribe to your position on this.
no subject
1. They both deserve what they got because they freely chose to take a risk that could have either result. If none of us deserve what we've gotten because of the risks we've taken, it seems hard to find any justice in any system of private property and free enterprise.
2. It isn't fair to punish people for the acts of their ancestors or associates. But part of the right to own something is the right to assign ownership to someone else, including your offspring. Part of being a successful human is imparting the tools of success to your offspring. So if my parents earned it, they should be able to pass it on to me if they see fit. And I shouldn't have to feel guilty about it. Hopefully I do well enough in life to make my kids "lucky" too.
3. There are a lot of people around the world who are worse off than we are. If we (following your logic) eschew luxury items in favor of giving our money to those who need it more than we do, nobody will be buying stereos at all. Are you in favor of a stereo-free world in the abstract? It's a reasonable position, assuming that going stereo-free would save people from going hungry. But you seem to be not only in favor of such a world, you seem to be in favor of enforcing that through government coercion. I hope I'm not off-base when I impute this to you: If I'm spending my money on a stereo instead of somebody else's healthcare, that's immoral. In fact, it's the equivalent of actively hurting them. In that case, are any of us moral? Do you own a stereo? Does your mom?
4. The only reason civilized debate is possible is because enough people subscribe to your position on this.