I wholeheartedly believe in Joseph's thesis that, as humans, we are instinctive in helping our fellow humans even when that instinct has not been nurtured or entirely manifested. I also concur that it is our responsibility to assist humans in need rather than observing as bystanders admiring our own fortunateness. I can support this claim because I do participate in fund-raisers that feed the poor or give gifts to the less fortunate. So the ethical demand that gravitates humanity toward an instinctive sameness resides in my self-consciousness constantly and I am just as guilty as everyone else in my apathy. I also agree with the fact that society does have a decadence to it that is way too shallow in its purpose; as it gorges on a surplus of resources that could provide so much for others on the other side of the Earth. The money invested and wasted from political campaigns, private jets, spoiled brats' sweet sixteen parties, cosmetic surgery, homes that could pass for hotels, political payoffs and ongoing nepotism could all have been used to help a greater good that will constantly be in disequilibrium. I believe if we act with more humility and with more charity it will not only save our own soul's sanity but it could save others this is the major dissension I have with Joseph's view.

As humans it is true we have a self-consciousness to become ethical toward others in a giving way but we also have the instinct to survive through competition, which is what defines the state of nature we still subsist. Joseph's stipulation for a sane world that "each person receives according to their needs and labors according to their abilities" is an ideal filled with only good intentions for humanity but is fatally wrong because it contradicts humanity's inclination for competition and it will provide a hierarchy that Joseph himself calls out to be a human injustice. Charles Darwin once theorized nature evolves to meet the stresses of the environment presented and runs on the basic program of survival of the fittest. Not coincidentally, humanity runs on the same program. I believe humanity will never reach an equality in socio-economic stature because we all have different passions and goals that drives us to our own means of surviving, therefore those of us who wish not to work or become productive members of society will not have equal socio-economic status to someone who works harder to achieve their goal. This example works in nature, if a group of a species is born with a trait suitable for it to survive it will flourish with offspring just as strong; while if another of that same species is born without that vital trait that group will die to allow the strong to continue through evolution. If Joseph's ideal was applied to nature then every group of a species would receive the nourishment to survive but the weak would dilute the gene pool and inhibit evolution and progress. As humans we need to compete to innovate and evolve our own knowledge but if we are provided resources without trying to work beyond our limits we will go backwards in our evolution. Lastly, in order to distribute the needs of humans equally it would need a complex bureaucracy to be successful. Referring back to the history of civilizations who tried to function on a bureaucracy we have clear evidence such a system will not work because of inefficiency in distribution and those in bureaucratic positions will abuse their power. These things will happen because it is inherent human nature, those in power will strive to keep it manifesting even more inequality and injustice. I will stake my belief that people's effort should be rewarded disproportionately based on the energy and passion they exert because that is how nature has operated since life's existence. And as long as those who have made a fortune off hard work act charitably and refrain from decadence they deserve what they have achieved, that is my definition of freedom.