Depends on the understanding of the word "debate" or indeed argue
To be able to argue a point clearly and objectively is not a bad thing - quite the reverse - in my opinion of course.
I believe its okay to argue the point that "I live without cash and I manage just fine" is morally deficient. Money is the basis of taxation, taxation is the basis of universal health care, the welfare state and, in the form of things like water rates, things like clean, safe drinking water, sewage etc. For these things to work, people (and yes, I absolutely agree companies) must shoulder their share of the burden - to the benefit of all. Without that, people die, disease is rampant, unemployment spells destitution. So deciding to "opt out" of paying your share by "taking food instead of money" and other things aluded to in the thread shows, to me a weak moral compass.
Remember, money is not the root of all evil, it is the love of money that is.
So as a man attempting to live a self sustaining life, to grow our own food, heat and cook without fossil fuels and work with nature and the environment it would be very easy to say "yes, stuff money". But I have elderly neighbours who rely on their pension, families who need their children immunised without having to pay and the disabled and unemployed who should not be reduced to begging. So I believe that I have a responsibility not only to myself - but also to a wider society.
I do agree wholeheartedly with those who despise corporate greed, the huge amounts of government inefficiency and the individual scroungers too. But I do not believe the answer to that is to turn our backs on centralised welfare and healthcare, to deny the funding of law and order, or to cut of fresh water and sewage from those who cannot pay. I want a society where the basic necessities of life are available - free of charge - to the truly needy (if not the shiftless and indolent). But since I want that, I feel that I am morally obligated to shoulder my share of the burden of it. Removal of money implies the removal of universal care and human rights - and I feel okay arguing that that is not a cause to be espoused without challenge
Red
To be able to argue a point clearly and objectively is not a bad thing - quite the reverse - in my opinion of course.
I believe its okay to argue the point that "I live without cash and I manage just fine" is morally deficient. Money is the basis of taxation, taxation is the basis of universal health care, the welfare state and, in the form of things like water rates, things like clean, safe drinking water, sewage etc. For these things to work, people (and yes, I absolutely agree companies) must shoulder their share of the burden - to the benefit of all. Without that, people die, disease is rampant, unemployment spells destitution. So deciding to "opt out" of paying your share by "taking food instead of money" and other things aluded to in the thread shows, to me a weak moral compass.
Remember, money is not the root of all evil, it is the love of money that is.
So as a man attempting to live a self sustaining life, to grow our own food, heat and cook without fossil fuels and work with nature and the environment it would be very easy to say "yes, stuff money". But I have elderly neighbours who rely on their pension, families who need their children immunised without having to pay and the disabled and unemployed who should not be reduced to begging. So I believe that I have a responsibility not only to myself - but also to a wider society.
I do agree wholeheartedly with those who despise corporate greed, the huge amounts of government inefficiency and the individual scroungers too. But I do not believe the answer to that is to turn our backs on centralised welfare and healthcare, to deny the funding of law and order, or to cut of fresh water and sewage from those who cannot pay. I want a society where the basic necessities of life are available - free of charge - to the truly needy (if not the shiftless and indolent). But since I want that, I feel that I am morally obligated to shoulder my share of the burden of it. Removal of money implies the removal of universal care and human rights - and I feel okay arguing that that is not a cause to be espoused without challenge
Red