Opinion of the following statement

[Gustaf]

To answer the question of why I feel it is a moral issue: I see it as a social contract; those who contribute to the productivity and well-being of society should not have to fear for where their next meal is going to come from.

If an individual contributes to the well-being of another (by working for him, by selling him a product, etc.), then he will be compensated in a free market. This compensation will normally be equivalent to the value of the service provided, and not more. If the amount received is insufficient to feed oneself, then the blame does not rest with society. The appropriate solution here is to perform some other job, not to steal money from another person.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a poor family gets to spend an extra hundred dollars, then the implication is that a taxpayer somewhere gets to spend a hundred dollars less. The purchases made by the recipient of funding are seen, because the act is performed, while the purchases that would have been made by the taxpayer are not seen, because he is prevented from performing it. An increase in demand in one area of the economy is counterbalanced by an unseen decrease in demand in a different area.

I thought you didn't believe in right and wrong?

I could also repeat my statement to Nym about demand, but since it's already been done here, I won't.

[Gustaf]

I thought you didn't believe in right and wrong?

I don't believe in objective right and wrong. I was merely stating my subjective opinion.

What gives you the right to apply these subjective morals to society? Why should Nym or anyone else care for them?