It's a legit question, although the tone of it kind of gives an air of entitlement rather than philosophical inquiry. I guess first question is, why would you expect not to pay? What's the alternative? The historical examples haven't born much fruit yet (e.g. Marxism and the like). Come to think of it, even in non-capitalist systems, you're still expected to pay your way. Only difference being that you're also expected to pay the way of others as well. Any more palatable? flagamuffin already mentioned social contract somewhat in passing. That gets to the heart of it, at least on a political note. There are a couple 101 texts you could read that gnaw at the wherefore of the social contract. First one: Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. That digs around a little bit, esp at the beginning, at the question of why we pay for stuff and why we agree to provide services and accept services and generally help each other out. It's a fair amount of artifice for the sake of later points, but given that it helped inform the formation of our current society, it's got good social propaganda value and should be read just for that. Then you should consider the prospect of life without social contract. For that, Hobbes' Leviathan. Chock full of mad quotable blurbs. Paints a pretty dire picture of life in the absence of social contract. Then you could consider alternatives- already mentioned Marx, but also check out Plato's Republic, in which Socrates attempts to lay out the social/political foundations of an imaginary "perfect" society, mainly in order to illustrate its impossibility, and reason to default to a more imperfect political agreement. I'm sure people could pipe in re. the economics of paying for stuff, but I never got past 101 on that so I'm unqualified to write about it. Scarcity? There are a lot of econ buffs around here from all sides of the political spectrum, wouldn't mind hearing their take.
You're talking about socialism, institutional governments, etc. organic_ant is thinking about left libertarianism, mutualism, stuff like that (I think). I could say a lot more on all of the above but I'm kinda busy today. [Locke and Hobbes are great starting points for governmental theory but they aren't two sides of a bipolar coin.] organicAnt, like fuffle notes, I think this question is much more interesting and would yield better results when couched in terms of the rights of man, inherent ownership of property, the ethics of choice, etc -- rather than phraseology about birthright, which is a nebulous idea and has utterly derailed this thread.Come to think of it, even in non-capitalist systems, you're still expected to pay your way. Only difference being that you're also expected to pay the way of others as well. Any more palatable?
Yeah, didn't mean to present Hobbes and Locke as polar opposites. I just think Hobbes does a particularly good job underscoring the violent pitfalls presented in the absence of social contract, whereas Locke doesn't really dwell on that aspect because it does nothing for his argument. They both arrive at similar places, but Locke does it through an appeal to reason, Hobbes through fear. Both approaches are valuable in addressing organicAnt's question, though. I know nothing about mutualism, little to nothing about left libertarianism. Wouldn't mind learning alongside organicAnt if you've got some jumping-off points...
I am neither, but I know a few. Currently reading this monster, which is their bible. It's longer than the actual bible by a lot, and less poetic. However I read both for the same reason, which is to understand the insidious arguments presented within. Mutualists hold that everyone should own a portion of the factors of production and profit according only to their labor. The reason I mention it is that as a theory it's sort of a compromise between anarchism and communal government -- sort of! (The idea being, you come into this world responsible only for yourself and beholden -- economically -- to no one else, which seems somewhat to be what Mr. Ant is saying.) I would hazard a guess that Locke and Hobbes are both far removed from the reality Antman would like to see in the world, but such speculation is probably meaningless. (That is, he asks "why do we have a social contract" and you say "here are the two primary ways by which the social contract was derived during the Age of Reason" -- which begs out on the deeper question.)I know nothing about mutualism, little to nothing about left libertarianism. Wouldn't mind learning alongside organicAnt if you've got some jumping-off points...
Both approaches are valuable in addressing organicAnt's question, though.
Insidious indeed. The problem with that philosophy is that it doesn't on its face leave much room for compassion. Which is ironic, if you're going to give it a name like "mutualism." Maybe that concern's addressed in the specifics. But on its face, seems like a wholly unappetizing philosophy. Alright, I'm gonna see how far through this text I can get without wanting to kill myself. See you on the other side. EDIT: Actually, from the intro it least it seems like the bigger problem is that this philosophy is totally unworkable outside of the theoretical vacuum.