Basic needs
“It is fatal to look hungry. It makes people want to kick you.” ― George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London
Everyone should have safety, basic shelter, food, clean water, and essential healthcare, regardless of income or employment. Education and a livable environment matter too. I consider these shared obligations because people’s need for them does not disappear when meeting that need is unprofitable. A person’s ability to pay cannot be the only consideration in whether they have somewhere safe to sleep or receive essential care.
Individual generosity is valuable, but a guarantee of basic necessities cannot depend entirely on whether someone happens to offer help. People have limits on what they can give and whom they can welcome into their lives. Collective provision allows us to respect those limits while accepting responsibility for needs that remain. Taxes are part of the cost of that responsibility.
I want everyone to have a place they can call their own. Property can provide security and independence, which is part of why it matters to me. The same concern for security also places obligations on owners. A landlord should have to fix dangerous conditions in the homes they rent out. The owner’s control over a property does not make the tenant’s safety less important.
Economic power
I support a mixed economy with worker protections, regulation, and redistribution. I’m open to private, public, and collective ownership. I want to judge each by how it works for the people affected and whether they can hold those in charge accountable. Changing who owns something may be important, but it does not answer every question about how that power will be used.
My concern with inequality extends beyond whether everyone has enough to survive. Wealth also gives some people power over others’ choices. Meeting basic needs matters, and so does limiting the control that concentrated wealth gives its owners. I object to concentrated power whether a government, a corporation, or a wealthy individual holds it.
Corporate and private greed anger me, especially when people accumulate wealth while others lack necessities. Having the right to keep your wealth does not make indifference to suffering admirable. The distinction matters because a society needs both limits on what people can be compelled to do and standards for judging what they choose to do.
Publicly funded research is one place where I expect the public’s contribution to carry obligations. I want the findings to be accessible and the resulting inventions to benefit the public too. Being able to read a paper does not necessarily mean being able to use the technology it describes. Publication access and access to an invention therefore need separate consideration. Private ownership should not make the public’s contribution irrelevant.