“If Joe wants to make himself unproductive (and accept the consequences) with alcohol, or other drugs, or staying up until the wee hours every night playing Minecraft - his productivity belongs to him and not to the collective.”
The problem with Joe’s lack of productivity is that it doesn’t just effect him. Joe’s liberty stops at the beginning of my nose, or wallet as it were in this case. We would have to repeal every law on the book that cover’s Joe’s butt in the eventuality that he wants someone else to sustain his lackadaisical existence.
Joe will eventually look to someone else to sustain his existence unless forced to deal with the consequences directly (which is where reasonable law comes into play). Joe might look for any way to sustain his existence including breaking other laws and becoming a net drain on society. That really is the point I’m trying to make.
The problem with Joe’s lack of productivity is that it doesn’t just effect him. Joe’s liberty stops at the beginning of my nose, or wallet as it were in this case. We would have to repeal every law on the book that cover’s Joe’s butt in the eventuality that he wants someone else to sustain his lackadaisical existence.
Which of course is what we should do anyway. In the meantime, should we ban alcohol, or other drugs, or Minecraft?
Joe will eventually look to someone else to sustain his existence unless forced to deal with the consequences directly (which is where reasonable law comes into play).
Nothing is more direct than "I have no food in the cupboard."
Joe might look for any way to sustain his existence including breaking other laws
If and only if he does, then government has a legitimate role to play.