Paul talks about cruelty of not having a safety nets, but forget to mention about cruelty of taking someones else hard work to pay for those safety nets, when the person getting robbed does not want any of that. I absolutely hate people who want someone else to pay for their virtue. If you want to give people safety nets then you pay for all of it. Open up a private charity and invite like-minded individuals. Or create a society like Freemasonry, where people help each other out, but also have obligations to that society - that will actually create a lot of social connections, instead of having goverment distributed welfare and having everyone atomized.,(reply>), This stems from his Rawlsian view on justice. Justice is not an easy topic, and not objective. People diverge in political philosophy.,(reply>), @13th Loona Just because I am forced to pay for this unnecessary stuff does not mean that I support it. Taxes that you cannot opt out of should be limited only to absolutely essential stuff, like military, because that is a prerequisite to having country that lives longer than republic of Minerva. I would be perfectly fine with welfare, pensions, public schools, et.c. IF it was optional. I.e. if you could decline to pay taxes for it, but in return you would not receive this service.,(reply>), We already "pay" for things others benefit. My taxes go to public schools even tho I dont have kids, to roads I'll never drive through, and so on... The interesting question would be what are we (not) wiling to pay for,(reply>), ​@Jimmy Baker I think inheritance is none of the 3rd party business. If anything a 3rd party 'earned' a part of that money even less, because at the very least the person in question maintained a good relationship with someone who gave him inheritance/position/et.c., while a 3rd party is a complete stranger.,(reply>), @Jimmy Baker that the argument always focuses on the successful, who, surely, deserve to punished just a <b>little</b> bit, is telling<br><br><br>the frame is not a mistake<br><br><br>were the argument genuinely aimed at helping the less fortunate, the focus would be the less fortunate, and what theoretically acceptable level of prosperity they'd need to be lifted to. How much the successful deserve to be punished would be irrelevant.