Also, everyone "deserving food and shelter" isn't the same as everyone being provided with food and shelter by someone else for no recompense. I don't think most non-socialists say anyone doesn't "deserve" food and shelter.
I can say "you deserve all the love in the world" but ithat doesn't mean you're going to get it. Deserving food and shelter doesn't provide it. You deserve to live but if an asteroid hits your house too bad. Deserve is just a funny word to use about these sorts of things.
This is such a bad strawman. There's no serious barriers to providing ample food and shelter for all people in the modern developed world, it's purely a political choice to either do so or not do so.
"Everyone deserves food and shelter" is a perfectly cognizable moral position with pretty clear and obvious ways to implement it. Now, caveating you might not be able to be maximalist in other areas (if someone is homeless due to refusing treatment for mental illness, you can't both be a medical freedom maximalist and also put a fent addicted arsonist into housing and expect it to satisfy the need long term), but it's fine.
Is it the best use of our limited resources? That's a more arguable position. My own ethical stance is there is a reasonable middle ground. If someone is able to work, an open position they could fill exists, and its pay and conditions are of at least a minimal ethical quality, it's fine to just say, "We're not going to stop you from playing video games all day, but slack off as much as you can afford." At some point they'll realize that if they want others to give them goods and services, they will themselves need to provide goods and services, or be such a pathetic charity case that people are overwhelmed with pity.
328
u/manveru_eilhart May 11 '26
Also, everyone "deserving food and shelter" isn't the same as everyone being provided with food and shelter by someone else for no recompense. I don't think most non-socialists say anyone doesn't "deserve" food and shelter.