If a rich man spends all his money buying an heirloom from a poor man, then he is now the poor man, and their roles are reversed. Does the new rich man owe the new poor man anything? Did the rich man owe anything to the poor man before the transaction? If 'yes' or 'no', then please explain your answers. If your answer is complicated because I didn't consider society as a whole, then don't waste your time here. Quantitative differences among groups of people are pointless excuses for not answering the question. There are no qualitative considerations because one is simply a rich man and the other is simply a poor man.
Your scenario fails because neither man was poor to begin with. Both were wealthy. One was cash-wealthy, and the other asset-wealthy.
Yes. Before and after the transaction, they both still owe each other the basic social responsibilities necessary for civilization. As in, if either one of them (rich or poor) is hitchhiking in the Arctic and the other one is driving by, the one in the car owes the other one a ride to shelter.
If that's the case, then why, objectively, would not the one hitchhiking in the Arctic have the right to expect the other to drive up to the Arctic specifically to give him a ride? Is there an objective amount beyond which one is no longer responsible, or is it just that whatever feels good to a subjective third party with the power to enforce his moral values is right?
Finally, an intellectually honest answer. Although I disagree with you based on the fact that we have two different opinions on what constitutes social responsibility, I am glad to see someone who isn't a wuss. For everyone else: this thread is not bait. I am just curious about your opinions.
Very good point. You assert that lines cannot be drawn arbitrarily concerning individual or social responsibility.
Which makes sense in a world where everyone either has millions of dollars in cash or millions of dollars in assets. Where can you find such a world?
It is just a question about a rich man and a poor man. I never said that the heirloom was actually worth millions of dollars. Maybe the rich man just chose to purchase it for all his wealth. To comfort you I'll revise the question. There is one man who is rich and one man who is poor. Does either one owe the other anything?
Because that's impractical, I think. But picking up a hitchhiker is not impractical, at least not under those conditions. It's not what feels good, it's what seems right. Do you not think it seems right? I'm not sure about a quantifiable line, but I think I'll stick with what's practical as a measurement of what should be done.
So the rich man is an idiot? You are now creating a scenario that is internally flawed. Who is going to pay their entire net worth for something that is near valueless? That is not a rational action, and in economics, people are assumed to be rational actors.
I proposed a scenario in which there is a poor man and a rich man. Thank you for working so hard not to answer the question. Edit: I never claimed to be making an analogy; so, I can come up with whatever hypothetical situation that I want to. There is no flaw in the question if I am not claiming to use it to prove a point, dumbass.
So your premise is that neither owe each other anything? Okay. Another poor man steals from the rich man, should the poor man contribute to a police force for the benefit of the rich man?
