Because the answer to the second question is obvious.
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
404 points (100.0% liked)
Memes of Production
334 readers
995 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 6 days ago
MODERATORS
Obvious answer to second question makes obvious answer to the first.
Only because you're assuming the conditions are the same.
Not to a wide part of the population. At least in Germany, most voters of the conversative / liberal parties are absolutely fine with people starving as long as it means others can hoard wealth.
So a bit of more to-the-point ethics lessons in early school might be helpful.
Because we live in a complicated system. If it was one guy inside a compound with more food than he could ever eat and there's one person outside who's starving, then yes, that's immoral.
But there's a ton of different participants and different incentives. For example, if a farmer stopped getting paid to grow food, they'd probably stop growing. (At least more than they need) Or if a store owner loses enough product to theft that they're losing money, they'd probably close.
On the other hand if one person steals bread that's not going to close a store or bankrupt a farmer. But as that number increases there's some threshold where it becomes a problem, or if people stealing are all concentrated on one area.
I think we should guarantee that all people have enough to eat, a place to live, healthcare and education. I'm not entirely sure how to implement that even if I'm king of the world.
For food I think it could look like some sort of universal "food tax" based on income, then every person gets a food stipend. It could be rolled into a universal basic income. Some rich people pay much more than they'd ever eat, some poor people pay nothing. Food still gets paid for so food producers have an incentive to do what they're doing, and we continue to have variety and innovation.
You're right, The problem is misaligned incentives created by a system that's prioritizing for a select few rather than maximizing the production of the system and ensuring a certain minimum level of subsistence for people.
I guess the answer is we need to change the incentives and I really only believe that can be done on a policy level.