Kimstu said
“Do you believe that these people [those who refuse to work] will be so numerous and/or destructive to the health of society that it would be better and cheaper literally to let them starve than to allow them the bare-minimum support to sustain life? If so, what’s your basis for thinking that way?”
For the sake of your argument, and my rebuttal, let us assume that we have a society in which only those who would truly rather starve than give up their muse refuse to work. Presumably, this would be a very small portion of the population indeed. And, in this case, it would not destroy this hypothetical society to put them on the same support system that helps the mentally and physically incapable.
The problem is, there isn’t a society that does or could work this way. Once you hand out some food to the few people willing to die for their muse, you get a queue of those who would work if the only other option was starvation, but who will happily jump on the dole rather than work if given the option. And these opportunistic dole-jumpers would be (and are) destructive to society.
If you feel an obligation to feed them, do so via the charity of your choice. But do not attempt to force me to waste the sweat of my brow on them. Because I would literally let them starve.
-ellis