I disagree. If have a $100,000, and somebody else has zero, neither of us have any value until I spend the money.
If I spent the $10,000 to have someone do my laundry for the year (increasing my free time), then they have $10,000 with which to buy things that they might value more than the time doing my laundry. It may be groceries, it might be books, it might be a vacation.
If I invest the remaining $90,000 (let's say by buying a bank CD) then the bank will lend the money out to people, who have an opportunity to buy houses, start businesses, or otherwise put it to use.
Unless I stick the money under my mattress, putting money to use helps others. Nobody forces them to accept it.
In fairy tales maybe. In real life, need to feed the family, debt, hunger, mortages, need for shelter, medical treatment needs, etc etc are forcing them to accept it.
>Unless I stick the money under my mattress, putting money to use helps others.
The same thing happens with giving slaves food. It helps them. That doesn't mean it's the best kind of help they can get.
>Why other people should provide food, housing, medical treatment, etc if the person provides almost nothing in return?
They do provide stuff in return. Actually they do all the important stuff: cooking, cleaning the streets, driving the cabs, delivering packages, extracting oil, mining coal, replacing the hospital bedsheets, growing and picking our food, taking care of the dead, and tons more besides, while the rest of the population gets to play "highly specialized professional" for doing high level BS from marketing to accounting.
>Another question: Would you replace your doctor, who earns 50x minimum wage, with 50 random minimum wage earners to do a medical procedure on you?
No, I'd replace him with a doctor that earns 1x mininum wage -- so everybody can afford him. If he doesn't like the job enough to do it for what it is and for the service he offers, then he's not a passionate doctor anyway. (In the same way real hackers would even program for free, just because they enjoy it so much)
And that's exactly why money is freedom, when you have it, at least.
Having money or, more specifically, not needing money means that you are free to engage in whatever business engagements you see fit. For the illegal immigrants, oftentimes, their options are "work for less than what is fair" or "not work at all". For them, the decision is easy.
For many Americans, overextended, and with no way to feed themselves without work, we see a similarly exploitative environment as well. The minimum wage is designed to prevent against that, and it does, though now people are suggesting it doesn't, but either way, economic freedom is freedom from having to enter into an agreement that you wouldn't do if you didn't have to.
Unfortunately, only having money buys you that economic freedom.
You're putting Mother Teresa into other people's mouths.
If there is large unemployment, and lots of people need work, is it morally better to spend $1,000 hiring one person or $500 each for 2 people, or $100 each for 10 people?
If I spent the $10,000 to have someone do my laundry for the year (increasing my free time), then they have $10,000 with which to buy things that they might value more than the time doing my laundry. It may be groceries, it might be books, it might be a vacation.
If I invest the remaining $90,000 (let's say by buying a bank CD) then the bank will lend the money out to people, who have an opportunity to buy houses, start businesses, or otherwise put it to use.
Unless I stick the money under my mattress, putting money to use helps others. Nobody forces them to accept it.