No. I characterize someone choosing to be homeless who does not have to be (the situation described above) and yet depending on others to feed him as unjust, yes. It would be equally unjust of me -- a perfectly able-bodied human adult -- to ask for charity as well.
This is not about unchosen homelessness and poverty; this is about people shirking responsibility because they don't like it. Stop changing the topic.
> It's the lowest stage of moral development to insist on rigid adherence to each and every rule.
No. It's simply not paying attention to people whose philosophy is inherently duplicitous.
> There are people playing by the rules doing immensely more damage to the world and to the economy.
Where did I say this man was damaging the economy? All I pointed out was that his philosophy (living away from the rat race is a good thing) is inconsistent. Please don't change the goalposts. I was having a discussion on living with integrity (having your actions align with your purported values), not economic damage / benefit.
> I was having a discussion on living with integrity (having your actions align with your purported values), not economic damage / benefit.
I don't know you from anybody but I'm one hundred percent sure that you live with contradictions to your own values, no matter how carefully cultivated and adhered to.
I'm saying this to disparage you, because the same applies to me. In fact one of the hallmarks of humans is that they are inconsistent in their beliefs, morals values and so on.
If we were not inconsistent, then everything would be frozen in place and no change would be possible, so I see it as a good thing.
> I don't know you from anybody but I'm one hundred percent sure that you live with contradictions to your own values, no matter how carefully cultivated and adhered to.
Years ago I read an interview by Nolan Bushnell or someone like that. He was asked what he did about unproductive engineers and his answer was 'an unproductive engineer is his managers problem because fundamentally I don't care' He went on to say that the problem is negative productive engineers or worse managers. While an unproductive engineer wastes his salary, a negative productive employee destroys the work of many people.
I take that to heart. Big picture a bum costs society basically nothing as long as he's not actively making trouble. Meanwhile you have successful people consuming huge amounts of resources while destroying immense amounts of societal value. See Sears and Eddie Lampert.
> Big picture a bum costs society basically nothing as long as he's not actively making trouble
That's because you think of society in purely monetary terms. Socially, a bum that needs not be a bum, but chooses to be one, reduces social cohesion, makes people distrustful of necessary welfare programs, and unnecessarily inflates the homeless numbers.
This is not about unchosen homelessness and poverty; this is about people shirking responsibility because they don't like it. Stop changing the topic.