[amw]

> but anytime you buy stock, the goal is to benefit from the profits of the company without doing any work yourself.

Which is arguably also bad for the same reason. Not bad, morally, though, and that's kind of the key thing. When you live in a society where scarcity (either real, or cultivated) creates constant precarity for you and your family, doing what you can to exit that precarity is not a bad thing to do, even if the thing you end up doing ends up being something that leads to an overall trend of society into more misery for more people. After all, it's not like you individually choosing not to be a landlord means society would suddenly turn into one that hadn't created a social niche for landlords to occupy.

[000ooo000]

>doing what you can to exit that precarity is not a bad thing to do, even if the thing you end up doing ends up being something that leads to an overall trend of society into more misery for more people

So your logic is: it's not bad, because even if you didn't do it, there'd still be an opportunity to do it? Not very convincing..

[amw]

My logic is that just as you don't change the movement of a cloud of gas by changing the velocity of individual molecules one at a time, you also do not change society by imputing moral weight to individual actions. People constantly live in precarity and _should_ seek to exit it. We should also seek to build, _collectively_, a society where that precarity is minimized, and in the meantime, societies where the more deleterious ways to exit it have less incentive for being pursued.