As far as charity being scams or more susceptible to waste and fraud - I'd argue both are abused to some extent. The only difference is, a private Charity exposed as a fraud can be eliminated by the consumers/market, whereas government assistance/subsidy fraud never eliminates the government programs.
A fraudulent private charity only defrauds the voluntary contributors of their resources, it did not, and can not, harm the people who did not donate. Whereas fraud in government assistance harms all people who were taxed. This is why a voluntary system is better.
This is short-sighted.
Voluntary systems don't work as they cannot generate the kind of cash needed to help those who need it, or with any sort of consistency needed to help people on a constant and/or long-term basis.
For example, lets say you're a sufferer of Multiple Sclerosis. It's said to be quite common, at around 1/100 of the population of varying severity.
One of the drugs, Interferon, is frighteningly expensive (think more than $1500 a fortnight). Add the rest of the drugs etc. to that.
Do you honestly think we could even get close to supporting 1/100 of the population for their lifetime, or even 1/200 based just on charity?
And now consider that is just MS, what about all the other welfare needs?
Even if charity didn't replace welfare, welfare may still end.
RE: Welfare > We're all forced to contribute via the tax system, whether we're feeling charitable or selfish doesn't matter, which is why it works.
Welfare will no doubt be scaled back as the baby-boomers get older, simply because the number of tax sources will contract and the number of costs escalates.
The old age pension may be a thing of the past. Guess we'll have to wait and see on that....
Welfare will never simply end in a western society.
Think about it;
If a govt. slashed all welfare spending down to nothing, they would get voted out pretty quick. So it wouldn't happen.
But if hypothetically it did, and people voted to keep welfare spending at zero, wouldn't charity also be dead?
So it's a false dichotomy because the free market will magically supply something? You know what the free market solution is to poverty? Shantytowns, starvation and a de facto underclass. That's the logical conclusion, and that is exactly how society has always worked, we've just found various ways to rationalize poor people being poor so that we can feel morally superior by not being them.
I'm not saying that welfare is a magical solution, either, but to think that 'the free market will find a way' that is still humane is hopelessly naive. You're basically just praying to the Father, the Son and the Holy Free Market.
When the government is doing everything in its power to keep the free market down and unable to do anything, then it becomes easy for someone to look at the problems we have in the world and cry out "market failure!" Yet you guys keep ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the state. For example, a lot of cities have been passing legislation to make it illegal for people to feed homeless people. So basically if you're poor your only way to get assistance is to go to the state for help and get on the dole. That's just one example out of thousands that the government deliberately uses to keep voluntary charity from working. That's why people like IcecreamMan and I are such big proponents of the free market. We're sick and tired of getting regulated and legislated away from trying to help others out.
Welfare will never simply end in a western society.
Think about it;
If a govt. slashed all welfare spending down to nothing, they would get voted out pretty quick. So it wouldn't happen.
Don't you see this as a major problem? Having politicians be able to essentially buy votes because their voters become dependent on the very same government programs the politicians leveraged to get into and stay in power?
But if hypothetically it did, and people voted to keep welfare spending at zero, wouldn't charity also be dead?
No, it wouldn't. You must really underestimate the natural kindness many people have when it comes to helping others.
When the government is doing everything in its power to keep the free market down and unable to do anything, then it becomes easy for someone to look at the problems we have in the world and cry out "market failure!" Yet you guys keep ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the state. For example, a lot of cities have been passing legislation to make it illegal for people to feed homeless people. So basically if you're poor your only way to get assistance is to go to the state for help and get on the dole. That's just one example out of thousands that the government deliberately uses to keep voluntary charity from working. That's why people like IcecreamMan and I are such big proponents of the free market. We're sick and tired of getting regulated and legislated away from trying to help others out.
I wish I could be on your side....I really do because idealistically its great but practically naive. As people pointed out, there are large swaths of people who the government has the ability to help but charity overlooks. Further, if charity was the answer, what's stopping them now? Regulation on charity is not that stringent. With that said, I really think the problem is the federal government being in charge of distributing the aide to the end user. This money should be diverted to state and city governments to focus it on their particular needs. idealistic libertarian or conservatives ignore reality when it comes to public policy. You are never going to remove entitlements. What we can do is help focus on making those entitlements more effective and efficient.
Does someone else have more of a right, or a higher claim to the fruit of your labor than you do?
If so, why?
If not, justify the non-voluntary system of fruit redistribution.
This is a pointless argument, which only makes sense if you value the merit of the people over everything else. Just because someone doesn't deserve a thing doesn't mean they don't need it. Nor does it mean that giving it to them wouldn't be the right thing to do. This is especially evident when you remove yourself and the biases associated with that from the equation, and look at the equation from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't themselves benefit either way.
I never used the word 'DESERVE'.
I refuse to get into a morality pissing contest of who deserves what and how much. I said the right, or greater claim.
I know some people who deserve to get hit by a car, but do I have a right, or a greater claim to hit them with a car?
I know some people who deserve a nice Hawaiian vacation, but do I have a right, or a greater claim to take money from someone else and buy them that trip?
Say you were a politician, and you were tasked to improve the average happiness of the citizens under your rule, because you're actually supposed to represent the entirety of the people. Now, you see two people, one who earns a lot and one who earns very little. The quality of life for the rich person would be barely affected if 5% of his income went towards the poor person, but the quality of life for the poor person would drastically improve. How would you justify not choosing the action that results in greater good?
I contest this. I would never agree to or accept the task of "improving the average happiness" of the citizens.
A wholly subjective and perpetually economically crippling quanta of "Happiness" is the last thing I want to be responsible for.
Instead, I'll let them be as FREE as possible, and they can work to obtain whatever level of happiness they can.
At most, I'll provide a cop and a court to settle any issues of direct harm caused to one by the other.
Charity should exist over welfare. For two reasons, it's voluntary, and it's compassionate.
If it's not voluntary, it's not compassionate.
It is also strongly biased, easily manipulated through publicity campaigns, and tends towards radical ideologies rather than actual people in need.[/quot]
I agree. Charity can be just as corrupt and dirty, and equally "marketed" on false pretenses and a complicit media spinning issues to get what they want.
[quote from="IcecreamMan80" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/558374-can-charity-and-merit-replace-the-welfare-state?comment=3"]Is the goal indeed to foster compassionate people, or is it simply to have people?
Do we want the most people possible, or do we want the best possible people?
I assure you that charity achieves neither, as it is primarily the poor that give significant portions of their income to charity. Current market economy already benefits sociopaths and allows them to reach high income levels, precisely due to their lack of compassion. Under a system of charity they would benefit more, and would be able to amass even more of a fortune. Nowhere does your system explain how charity would get rewarded in your system, so that compassionate people would actually benefit.
I won't answer the first falsehood contained in this paragraph, so long as you're already biased against the "sociopaths who lack compassion".
As far as the system rewarding the most compassionate people? How do we measure this?
In a real world way, where Bill Gates gives $300k and is therefore more compassionate than I, who gave $10. Bill gates then becomes what, President?
Or in a YAY, Jesus! kind of way, where $300k to Bill Gates is less of a sacrifice to him, than my $10 was to me, therefore I'm more compassionate, and become President?
It should be added that for most people, paying taxes is also voluntary. You most likely have the means to move to a tax paradise and apply for citizenship, after all.
I also do not approve of corporate subsidies and bail-outs. Businesses should succeed or fail based on the merits of their product, and their ability to both meet supply & demand, and manage their money. They should not be sheltered from decisions that cause their business to suffer, maybe even become insolvent, by the government.
If there were no programs funded by the state, the state wouldn't need to tax you (well, other than pure greed).
When programs are created, funded by taxation, people who become dependent on those programs then perpetuate the need to have them, thus perpetuating the need to tax.
But it is a FALSE dichotomy to assume that if the State didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. If there is a demand for something, someone will supply, and that is the condition that creates a profitable mechanism.
I can see it. "Mr Ca$h's Funhouse - Come here and suck dick for your welfare checks." "Cut & Slice Organ Bank - Offering special rate of $300 for kidneys tonight!"
Hyperbole aside, the issue here is that there are people dependent on charity/welfare to survive in any society. People with chronic diseases and birth defects are obvious examples, but it goes further than that to old people and those severely injured for whatever reason. There simply is no profit in catering to these people, even though they have a high demand for things such as food, lodging and protection. This situation will only get worse if you eradicate the government, for without subsidies for farmers the price of food will enjoy explosive growth.
By your logic there would be a profit in disassembling the slums near Indian cities, but I do not see that happening any time soon. Trades require two sides, both of which want something the other side has. These slums have nothing other than uneducated people in poor physical condition, which there isn't a great demand of.
If those people, so affected, put in a position of institutionalized poverty, want to end such abuses and usurpation's of their humanity, is it not their responsibility to cast off the shackles of oppression and form new guards for their future security?
Who said it was other peoples responsibility to save them? Who commanded that we should, as individuals, help the needy, and if we don't want to, we'll help anyways against our will through taxation?
Again, if you want compassion, you're not getting it by taxation.
Again, disclaimer: I am NOT an anarchist, I am NOT against taxation, I am also NOT against having government.
I am discussing the philosophy of these things.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
'Welfare' is a loaded term, because when people say 'welfare', they don't literally mean the actual TANF welfare program. They mean a selective number of social programs that they've chosen to mean 'welfare' that benefit their argument. So get your definitions straight, are we talking about GOP Talking points (and which year and which GOP member, as it varies), or we talking about socialist programs?
Some Charity facts to begin with from the National Philanthropic Trust. Welfare (TANF) spending is about $6 billion, while charitable giving in the US in 2012 was $316 billion, meaning the Federal goverment only spends about .02% (rounding up) of what the American public gives freely. In that respect, it is certainly possible that charity could replace welfare. The problem is that charity is unfocused and unreliable. The funding involved is entirely dependent on donations, and that funding goes to the most popular causes. That means that the charities that succeed are the ones that can sell themselves, not the ones that are most likely to help people. It could be that saving a rare bird in South American gets all the funding while families have to live on the street*. In charity, people are 'shopping' for the program that makes them feel best, not the most efficient or effective one. Because of this, charity can never effectively take the place of welfare (or other entitlement programs) because it naturally lacks focus and consistency and the incentive for dollars skews towards the trending and popular and the charities that make the donors feel good.
I don't really disagree with anything here.
I think there is definitely a value in welfare programs, or at least entitlement programs. I'd rather discuss them on a case-by-case basis than in general terms, however, because all programs are not created equal.
Yes, there is a value, and yes, I wouldn't use a large brush to black out the systems - they should be looked at case by case, program by program.
As far as charity being scams or more susceptible to waste and fraud - I'd argue both are abused to some extent. The only difference is, a private Charity exposed as a fraud can be eliminated by the consumers/market, whereas government assistance/subsidy fraud never eliminates the government programs.
'Never' is a big word, plenty of countries are cutting entitlements. Both kinds of programs are driven by popularity, the difference is that a government entitlements are stable. Sure, they both have waste and abuse, and they're hard to get rid of, but that also means that they're not as subject to the immediate winds of popularity. That was kind of the point when we established a legislative branch and checks and balances, we didn't want our efforts to be subject to the immediate and fickle nature of public opinion.
Yes, but they aren't being cut because of the FRAUD - they are being cut because one side is selling an 'austerity' policy.
My point was that I've never seen a government program ended because of fraud or embezzlement. Someone might get fired, and an "investigation" takes place - but the program goes right on trucking.
In addition to being 'able' to get rid of bad Charities, it also means that popularity entirely dictates how charity dollars are spent. The most efficient and effective charity in the world may have to shutter overnight because a charity for blind Pomeranians with good PR showed up and is in vogue.
You're assuming that all donors to cause 'A' would abandon cause 'A', and jump on the Blind Pomeranian wagon. This is incorrect (which is not to say untrue, maybe it would happen) but you can't just assert that it would.
A fraudulent private charity only defrauds the voluntary contributors of their resources, it did not, and can not, harm the people who did not donate. Whereas fraud in government assistance harms all people who were taxed. This is why a voluntary system is better.
If I don't want to donate to ASPCA, I don't have to. Then if ASPCA uses some of its donations for CEO trips to Vegas and snorting drugs, they didn't defraud me of anything.
By extension, then, wouldn't any fraud in any government program defraud you? Should we make taxation entirely voluntary then? Maybe the military should be a private militia funded through donations? I really don't understand the logic of this, because the extension makes all government harmful... you know, except for the alternative.
Yes, anytime the government spends tax revenue fraudulently, they have defrauded the people.
No, I am NOT an anarchist, no I do NOT want a private military, leo, fire, rescue, or prisons. (some of which we have already unfortunately)
Yes, all government can be potentially harmful. But I DID say that charity can also be harmful, and fraudulent. DTA man DTA.
The point is, to work towards the least amount of harm.
With private charities, if the harm the donors with fraud, the charity can be abandoned by it's donors/consumers, and therefore dissolve almost instantly. A new charity, (which would likely promise to be good, lol) would rise to take it's place.
With government, I'd argue that the oversight, which is supposed to reduce fraud and harm in tax funded programs, is failing miserably. We need better oversight, with more effective means of correcting illegalities.
It's far more useful to take programs individually and understand that anything with a human element is going to have some fraud and abuse. The problem is there aren't any statistics on the subject that aren't heavily skewed in one direction or another.
I agree.
Quote from IcecreamMan80 »
But it is a FALSE dichotomy to assume that if the State didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. If there is a demand for something, someone will supply, and that is the condition that creates a profitable mechanism.
So it's a false dichotomy because the free market will magically supply something? You know what the free market solution is to poverty? Shantytowns, starvation and a de facto underclass. That's the logical conclusion, and that is exactly how society has always worked, we've just found various ways to rationalize poor people being poor so that we can feel morally superior by not being them.
We haven't had a free market. We don't have a free market here and now, we didn't have one in England, we didn't have one in Byzantine, we didn't have one in Rome, we didn't have one in East India...
I said, (something maybe Tiax should have paid better attention to)that the ASSUMPTION that "if the state doesn't do it, it won't get done" is a false dichotomy, and it is. This doesn't mean it's always false, sometimes it might be true that a thing fails to get done in private hands. But to ASSUME that it won't, or to ASSUME that without the government, something would cease to be provided to people is false.
"If you don't buy me dinner, I'll die", is a false dichotomy.
Someone else could buy me dinner, or I could buy it myself.
Even if you did buy me dinner, I might still die. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
There could be other options, there is not only TWO.
I'm not saying that welfare is a magical solution, either, but to think that 'the free market will find a way' that is still humane is hopelessly naive. You're basically just praying to the Father, the Son and the Holy Free Market.
If there is indeed NOT a way to solve a particular problem through free and voluntary cooperation between compassionate, and like minded people, without the force of taxation, the threat of fine or imprisonment, the invisible gun to the head...maybe (just maybe) that problem should NOT be solved.
If there is indeed NOT a way to solve a particular problem through free and voluntary cooperation between compassionate, and like minded people, without the force of taxation, the threat of fine or imprisonment, the invisible gun to the head...maybe (just maybe) that problem should NOT be solved.
There's always a man with the gun, the question is who is it and what relationship you have with the man with the gun.
Yes, but they aren't being cut because of the FRAUD - they are being cut because one side is selling an 'austerity' policy.
My point was that I've never seen a government program ended because of fraud or embezzlement. Someone might get fired, and an "investigation" takes place - but the program goes right on trucking.
Just so I'm clear before we gone down this path, how much fraud is 'too much' for you? In any system involving human beings, there will always be a way for someone to cheat the system. Charities are scammed or scam people all the time (as you point out).
You're assuming that all donors to cause 'A' would abandon cause 'A', and jump on the Blind Pomeranian wagon. This is incorrect (which is not to say untrue, maybe it would happen) but you can't just assert that it would.
Okay, that (the bolded portion) is a fair statement. However, it wouldn't take all the donors to jump ship. Many charities already run on incredibly tight funding, and just a small percentage jumping can have serious repercussions on the former recipients on the charity and the charity's ability to function.
The point is, to work towards the least amount of harm.
With private charities, if the harm the donors with fraud, the charity can be abandoned by it's donors/consumers, and therefore dissolve almost instantly. A new charity, (which would likely promise to be good, lol) would rise to take it's place.
With government, I'd argue that the oversight, which is supposed to reduce fraud and harm in tax funded programs, is failing miserably. We need better oversight, with more effective means of correcting illegalities.
Ha! Look, I get what you're saying about new charities rising to take their place, my issue is the 'in-between time', in the redundant charities competing with one another, funding cycles where they can barely afford to pay their own people much less do what they're intended to. The lack of focus makes the overall process of charity a difficult substitute for government programs. I have nothing against a fusion of the two.
We haven't had a free market. We don't have a free market here and now, we didn't have one in England, we didn't have one in Byzantine, we didn't have one in Rome, we didn't have one in East India...
Because free market conditions are a theoretical construct, not reality. Human beings are hierarchical in nature, and power dynamics mean that croneyism is the sad reality, and as long as we have people with power and influence, they'll use it to the cheat the system.
Besides that, a true free market is inhumane - it literally can't care about people.
But to ASSUME that it won't, or to ASSUME that without the government, something would cease to be provided to people is false.
I actually agree, because there is value in feeling good about helping people, so people will invest in that feeling. The issue isn't whether or not it would happen, but to what degree. I don't believe it would be enough to maintain what I would call a livable standard for people.
If there is indeed NOT a way to solve a particular problem through free and voluntary cooperation between compassionate, and like minded people, without the force of taxation, the threat of fine or imprisonment, the invisible gun to the head...maybe (just maybe) that problem should NOT be solved.
I disagree. Not that I wouldn't love free and voluntary cooperation between compassionate people, but knowing that in the entire history of humanity people have always been crappy to one another doesn't fill me with confidence. This is a great what to get things accomplished at the community level, where libertarianism can work and where people know each other and identify with each other. But it's not such a great way to do things when the people involved aren't people you know.
Humans tend to lump success with worthiness, and when it's someone you know you can create a justifiable reason for them having issues. But when it's a large scale group of nebulous strangers, stereotypes kick in and they become 'the other'.
No I feel you are wrong about this, the welfare state exists solely BECAUSE we as human beings are not charitable enough to our fellow man. THink about it if we all supported and helped eachother out of the goodness of our hearts their wouldn't BE any people that need helping. Look at the world, in north America we produce enough food to STOP WORLD HUNGER entirely, we LET FOOD ROT on the vine instead ship it to hungry people in the name of money, that alone would tell me that we do not have "natural kindness". That we would willingly and knowingly let food rot and go bad instead of giving it away, for money. This is but only ONE example! How many under privileged suffer when we could at next to no cost to us permanently fix the problem? Sure we may get guilted in to it occasional by charity adds, but to say we have natural kindness I think we would be willing to jump at the chance to help our fellow man, instead we do not. We have to guilted in to it, not just informed but guilted!
When the government is doing everything in its power to keep the free market down and unable to do anything, then it becomes easy for someone to look at the problems we have in the world and cry out "market failure!" Yet you guys keep ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the state. For example, a lot of cities have been passing legislation to make it illegal for people to feed homeless people. So basically if you're poor your only way to get assistance is to go to the state for help and get on the dole.
While the issue of homelessness in cities is a complex one and local governments are handling it poorly, you can't argue against federal programs by pointing at local ordinances. If you want to talk about the politics of poverty, fine, but when did we jump to this?
I also have to say the gist of your argument reminds me of the anti-vaccer movement. By that I mean that we've got a problem where the solution has come full circle and the 'solution' is so ubiquitous that people now blame the solution. This is one of my problems with Libertarians in general, but to put it simply as a country we've tried Laissez-Faire economics and we went back to the drawing board to draft the constitution largely because that kind of hands-off policy didn't work. All social programs right now are a direct result of abuses in the market, but now people are trying to argue the market has the solution.
The 'Free Market' is only a concept. It can never exist in a pure form because humans will corrupt any attempt to run one, outside of small, isolated communities with a common belief in the cultural values that would support it. You might as well argue that serfdom will always find a solution for a problem because it's in the best interests of the liege lord to ensure his people can keep working at maximum efficiency. Except, you know, for the part where people are corruptible and some will always cheat the system if they can. That's why no pure ideological belief works: because you need A) everyone to believe in it and B) nobody to abuse it. But humans don't all think the same or have the same capacity, and they certainly don't all have the ability to make independent thought free from their subjective interpretation and rhetoric or marketing. AND, with about 5% of the population being a mix of psychopaths and sociopaths ready to take every corrupt advantage they can, I honestly don't know how anyone can think a pure system (any system) could work.
So while you may see an Elephant in the room, all I see you pointing at is a stuffed children's toy.
That's just one example out of thousands that the government deliberately uses to keep voluntary charity from working. That's why people like IcecreamMan and I are such big proponents of the free market. We're sick and tired of getting regulated and legislated away from trying to help others out.
I'm sorry, what?
There is no government regulation deliberately trying to keep voluntary charity from working, it's a side effect of other issues in a much more complex discussion that we really can't get into without going off topic here. I can tell you right off the back that 'not feeding homeless people' isn't to restrict voluntary donations (you can still donate to soup kitches and volunteer at them), it's to prevent panhandling and begging which are viewed by some to be detrimental to business development, tourism and city growth. In a time when cities are shrinking faster than ever, it's simply a complex issue that can't be summed up as 'government trying to keep you from donating food'. That's overly simplistic and essentially a strawman. If all it exists to do is keep you from donating, that'd be a whole different issue.
I should also note that these legislation are largely passed because people don't like having to look at homeless people. It's not like the government decides one day that donations are bad, city council members are lobbied by businesses and private organizations to 'beautify' and it results in legislation that puts homeless people out of their camps. Out of sight, out of mind. Doesn't really sound like a world where your idyllic charitable system would work, does it?
Does someone else have more of a right, or a higher claim to the fruit of your labor than you do?
If so, why?
If not, justify the non-voluntary system of fruit redistribution.
This is a pointless argument, which only makes sense if you value the merit of the people over everything else. Just because someone doesn't deserve a thing doesn't mean they don't need it. Nor does it mean that giving it to them wouldn't be the right thing to do. This is especially evident when you remove yourself and the biases associated with that from the equation, and look at the equation from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't themselves benefit either way.
I never used the word 'DESERVE'.
I refuse to get into a morality pissing contest of who deserves what and how much. I said the right, or greater claim.
So you insist on having some absolute right to things, based on no rational argument, be a thing that dictates lawmaking?
Because unless you can ground these "rights" somehow, you're not entitled to the fruit of your labour either. No one is. The fruit just happens to exist, and no one has a claim to it.
Say you were a politician, and you were tasked to improve the average happiness of the citizens under your rule, because you're actually supposed to represent the entirety of the people. Now, you see two people, one who earns a lot and one who earns very little. The quality of life for the rich person would be barely affected if 5% of his income went towards the poor person, but the quality of life for the poor person would drastically improve. How would you justify not choosing the action that results in greater good?
I contest this. I would never agree to or accept the task of "improving the average happiness" of the citizens.
A wholly subjective and perpetually economically crippling quanta of "Happiness" is the last thing I want to be responsible for.
Instead, I'll let them be as FREE as possible, and they can work to obtain whatever level of happiness they can.
At most, I'll provide a cop and a court to settle any issues of direct harm caused to one by the other.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Is the goal indeed to foster compassionate people, or is it simply to have people?
Do we want the most people possible, or do we want the best possible people?
I assure you that charity achieves neither, as it is primarily the poor that give significant portions of their income to charity. Current market economy already benefits sociopaths and allows them to reach high income levels, precisely due to their lack of compassion. Under a system of charity they would benefit more, and would be able to amass even more of a fortune. Nowhere does your system explain how charity would get rewarded in your system, so that compassionate people would actually benefit.
I won't answer the first falsehood contained in this paragraph, so long as you're already biased against the "sociopaths who lack compassion".
If you insist that fostering people with compassion is a desirable trait of a society, you need to be able to explain how the society you proposed as superior does that. You can't criticize the current system for prioritizing multiple people over compassionate people if your proposed alternative does not improve in either of these fronts.
As far as the system rewarding the most compassionate people? How do we measure this?
In a real world way, where Bill Gates gives $300k and is therefore more compassionate than I, who gave $10. Bill gates then becomes what, President?
Or in a YAY, Jesus! kind of way, where $300k to Bill Gates is less of a sacrifice to him, than my $10 was to me, therefore I'm more compassionate, and become President?
If those people, so affected, put in a position of institutionalized poverty, want to end such abuses and usurpation's of their humanity, is it not their responsibility to cast off the shackles of oppression and form new guards for their future security?
This has already happened: It's called the welfare state. It's comprised of institutions and laws that provide minimum level income for the poor, so that the unfortunate do not have to rely on irregular charity to survive.
Who said it was other peoples responsibility to save them? Who commanded that we should, as individuals, help the needy, and if we don't want to, we'll help anyways against our will through taxation?
Again, if you want compassion, you're not getting it by taxation.
The law.
For a more profound answer: The people who wrote the law.
For an even more profound answer: The people who voted for those who wrote the law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Jay13x: Besides those ordinances he points to are actually a symptom of the "free market" its business heavy districts that felt that the homeless were scaring customers away that pushed for such legislation. That even in an anarchistic variant (like everyone knows SC wants) of the universe they'd just hire thugs to do the same if they felt that way for a completely "free market" variant.
What he's actually quoting as a symptom of a lack of free market is anything but, it's actually completely created because of the free market.
Also, "always" is too strong of a word. Just like me using "never" was too strong of a word earlier.
It isn't always the case that the cooperation be coerced.
Even if it were, ought it be?
Protection rackets, gangs, or other forms of neo-tribalism. When looking at places that lack security there's two ways gangs/tribes gain legitimacy:
1. Violence
2. Rule of law
3. Human services
Al Qaeda and affiliates have tried #1 and #2 enforced through #1, however #3 when offered made the organizations more legitimate in the eyes of the people within the area. It's a combination between enforcement and seduction and effectiveness that governing bodies attempt to work. The rule of law, which is to define basic operating system is an attempt to provide a template for complex transactions.
Whenever we take into consideration the effects of the tragedy of the commons, when humans begin a punishment mechanism that leads to the degeneration within a system. The rule of law helps to get beyond the legitimacy issue on who the "big man is." Other socio-political forces such as your ABC organizations through a more Madisonian system allows for strong inter personal reactions by constantly reminding people that there are other factions in the mix for competition.
As with earlier, there's been the issue with people opting to not help specific groups over others because we are discriminatory by nature as a specie. It need not coerced, until we begin to take into account security risks versus laziness when it comes to mentally people who have a history of violence. The personal responsibility excuse versus cooperation becomes moot whenever the community has a tragedy. Sees their young people shot, then there's the kumbaya moment where people vow "It'll never happen again." Then the system falls flat, and the people and the two community activists are back to square one. Maybe the victim's parents become more volunteerist to find meaning, but for the most part whenever this violence occurs. It's not government, the community acknowledges, mourns, then basically go back to apathy until they reach a tipping point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Does someone else have more of a right, or a higher claim to the fruit of your labor than you do?
If so, why?
If not, justify the non-voluntary system of fruit redistribution.
This is a pointless argument, which only makes sense if you value the merit of the people over everything else. Just because someone doesn't deserve a thing doesn't mean they don't need it. Nor does it mean that giving it to them wouldn't be the right thing to do. This is especially evident when you remove yourself and the biases associated with that from the equation, and look at the equation from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't themselves benefit either way.
I never used the word 'DESERVE'.
I refuse to get into a morality pissing contest of who deserves what and how much. I said the right, or greater claim.
So you insist on having some absolute right to things, based on no rational argument, be a thing that dictates lawmaking?
Because unless you can ground these "rights" somehow, you're not entitled to the fruit of your labour either. No one is. The fruit just happens to exist, and no one has a claim to it.
What I mean is, I'd rather not argue with you about what is more or less MORAL to do with the fruit. Since it's far too subjective.
Instead, I want you to posit the PRINCIPLE you stand on. What PRINCIPLE guides your decision on what should be done with the fruit.
What PRINCIPLE are you standing on that says it's right to take fruit from others and redistribute it?
Say you were a politician, and you were tasked to improve the average happiness of the citizens under your rule, because you're actually supposed to represent the entirety of the people. Now, you see two people, one who earns a lot and one who earns very little. The quality of life for the rich person would be barely affected if 5% of his income went towards the poor person, but the quality of life for the poor person would drastically improve. How would you justify not choosing the action that results in greater good?
I contest this. I would never agree to or accept the task of "improving the average happiness" of the citizens.
A wholly subjective and perpetually economically crippling quanta of "Happiness" is the last thing I want to be responsible for.
Instead, I'll let them be as FREE as possible, and they can work to obtain whatever level of happiness they can.
At most, I'll provide a cop and a court to settle any issues of direct harm caused to one by the other.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Let's not pretend this is about you and me and our credentials.
WHY should I sign up for a job to maximize HAPPINESS, instead of say maximizing usefulness, or righteousness, or self-awareness, or self-actualization, or independence, or toughness, or...
I'm not going to entertain your little thought experiment, until you make it clear what the experiment IS.
Saying "you're supposed to increase the overall happiness of the people" is so vague it's not even funny. How are we measuring happiness? Do I have to increase the happiness of the greedy people too, or just the needy people? Do I have to increase the happiness of the idiots as well as the educated? Do I have to increase the happiness of the pedophiles as well as the virtuous? What IS "happy". How can I tell if I've done a good job with my appointment?
Don't talk to me about complex levels of thought, and quote Aristotle, until after you've actually put some into your question.
Is the goal indeed to foster compassionate people, or is it simply to have people?
Do we want the most people possible, or do we want the best possible people?
I assure you that charity achieves neither, as it is primarily the poor that give significant portions of their income to charity. Current market economy already benefits sociopaths and allows them to reach high income levels, precisely due to their lack of compassion. Under a system of charity they would benefit more, and would be able to amass even more of a fortune. Nowhere does your system explain how charity would get rewarded in your system, so that compassionate people would actually benefit.
I won't answer the first falsehood contained in this paragraph, so long as you're already biased against the "sociopaths who lack compassion".
If you insist that fostering people with compassion is a desirable trait of a society, you need to be able to explain how the society you proposed as superior does that. You can't criticize the current system for prioritizing multiple people over compassionate people if your proposed alternative does not improve in either of these fronts.
I only posit that compassion is a desirable trait. I never once talked about fostering it, or forcing it.
Do we want compassionate people, or just taxed people? Taxation treats the symptoms, compassion is the cure.
If you agree with this, and I'm going to guess that you do, then I only argue that taxing people will never achieve the cure. All we have is institutionalized poverty, a welfare state, and not a compassionate people who work to cure poverty.
I claim NOT to know how to achieve this, I only know that I want to.
As far as the system rewarding the most compassionate people? How do we measure this?
In a real world way, where Bill Gates gives $300k and is therefore more compassionate than I, who gave $10. Bill gates then becomes what, President?
Or in a YAY, Jesus! kind of way, where $300k to Bill Gates is less of a sacrifice to him, than my $10 was to me, therefore I'm more compassionate, and become President?
So you admit that your criticism was ludicrous?
NO.
I want you to explain how we measure compassion for the purposses of "rewarding the most compassionate".
Because I myself feel that if Billionaire Bill sends a check in the mail for $50,000 to a homeless shelter while cruising on his yacht in the virgin islands, it is not a given that he is more compassionate than say Minimum-Wage Margaret, who gives her free time after work volunteering at the shelter, and what little bit of cash she has to help.
Here's the thing, that's my opinion, and maybe you agree (or not), but what happens when I'm the government, and I go to "reward the most compassionate"? Billionaire Bill says "Hey hey hey, I gave so much more!! Why does Minimum-Wage Margaret get to be Council Chair!?"
If those people, so affected, put in a position of institutionalized poverty, want to end such abuses and usurpation's of their humanity, is it not their responsibility to cast off the shackles of oppression and form new guards for their future security?
This has already happened: It's called the welfare state. It's comprised of institutions and laws that provide minimum level income for the poor, so that the unfortunate do not have to rely on irregular charity to survive.
Who said it was other peoples responsibility to save them? Who commanded that we should, as individuals, help the needy, and if we don't want to, we'll help anyways against our will through taxation?
Again, if you want compassion, you're not getting it by taxation.
The law.
For a more profound answer: The people who wrote the law.
For an even more profound answer: The people who voted for those who wrote the law.
While the welfare and social programs we have are indeed part of the law. I was more speaking to people. As far as I know, there is no law that says I MUST help the needy, in fact, I don't even have to help someone in danger. Bystander laws have been written just for that even.
Because I am not required by law to help the needy, or those in danger, then it's on me, as a moral creature, to inwardly look at my own ethics and self-worth to decide that I want to both help the needy, and assist those people in danger. This is how I know I'm a compassionate person. I empathize. I've been poor, I've had the welfare Christmas, I've eaten donations from a food bank. I've slept in someones attic.
I volunteer, and donate, out of the kindness of my heart, and this is knowing that I've already paid taxes.
However, are there not whole groups of people who want to end the welfare state, AND pay less taxes, AND believe that the poor are just lazy layabouts who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, etc.? Yeah...look no further than some of those TEA party loudmouths.
Clearly, society is failing to foster compassion within those people. Fault lies with their parents, their peers, their chosen forms of media, etc.
All that being said - what good does it do then, to tax the those who lack compassion, only to watch them vote the taxes down, or vote them away altogether. Now you don't have the taxes, AND you don't have the compassion.
If we tried harder to steer them towards being compassionate, first they likely wouldn't fight the taxes so much, but ideally, if we succeeded in making them, and ourselves compassionate enough, there would be no need to tax at all.
Interesting read, I think many have forgotten we went to welfare because the charity system wasnt working. It wasnt that long ago that the church was in the position to dispense the charity and the government did not like how they were handling it.
Interesting read, I think many have forgotten we went to welfare because the charity system wasnt working. It wasnt that long ago that the church was in the position to dispense the charity and the government did not like how they were handling it.
I think it's important to note that, due to many factors, Churches (specifically the Catholic Church) began to downsize. This happened more or less concurrently with the growth of the welfare state and for a wide variety of reasons, and is an interesting topic on its own. Catholic Charities still make up a fairly large number of charities these days, though.
I wouldn't say that government did not like how they were handling it, I'd say that A) the church was not able to continue supporting all their ventures, the Catholic church once controlled a sizeable number of the hospitals in the US (which is another interesting history topic of its own in the history of healthcare in this country) and B) Television and the Civil Rights movement pushed things to the forefront that could previously be ignored.
Does someone else have more of a right, or a higher claim to the fruit of your labor than you do?
Isn't that pretty much the basis of capitalism? The owner of the company I work for gets to claim the "fruit of my labour" because he provided the capital for the business and is supplying the tools and materials I use. In exchange I get a salary.
Does someone else have more of a right, or a higher claim to the fruit of your labor than you do?
Isn't that pretty much the basis of capitalism? The owner of the company I work for gets to claim the "fruit of my labour" because he provided the capital for the business and is supplying the tools and materials I use. In exchange I get a salary.
The owner isn't taking the fruit of your labor without consent. You are selling it to him for your salary. If you feel your labor is worth more, you ask for a raise, renegotiate the contract, or quit and find new employment if you so desire. It is still a voluntary exchange between both parties.
Taxation is taking the fruit of your labor without consent. Now, you may argue that you have given consent, que claims of <social contract>. However, taxation is done with the explicit threat of fine, imprisonment, or both. If you refuse to pay your taxes, they fine you. If you refuse to pay the fines, they lien you. If you still do not cooperate they incarcerate you. If you resist incarceration, they may shoot you.
So, to avoid this real and potential harm to yourself, you comply, and cooperate with the taxation.
Much like a rape victim might lay still and comply, because the rapist has a gun and threatens to beat and kill them if they fight back.
Now, que <social contract> again.
We are said to have all been born into this social contract. But this is inherently unjust. I was never asked if I wanted in on it. I was never given a chance to weigh my options, and negotiate my own deal with a reasoned and consensual agreement that benefited both myself, and those who are taking my fruit. This is essentially a slave being born on the plantation. Sure, if all the slaves born into this bondage were to refuse to work the fields, the plantation would surely fall apart, and since many slaves depend on the Plantation for their food, and survival, any slave who stands up and say "HEY! this is unjust!" is quickly marginalized, and they are told to shut up and work or you will harm your fellow slaves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
I am NOT an anarchist, I am NOT against taxation, or government. Because I'm a realist, and a pessimist. I see that the whole WORLD is plantations. I happen to agree that THIS plantation is better than any other plantation. So while I can see that I was born into bondage, I do not run, because I can only possibly run to another plantation, and they aren't as good as this one. There is nowhere to escape to. There is no place without this bondage, so just pick the plantation you like best, and go there.
I'm a nonbeliever, life is short, and thankfully I don't have to endure this forever.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
While the issue of homelessness in cities is a complex one and local governments are handling it poorly, you can't argue against federal programs by pointing at local ordinances. If you want to talk about the politics of poverty, fine, but when did we jump to this?
I also have to say the gist of your argument reminds me of the anti-vaccer movement. By that I mean that we've got a problem where the solution has come full circle and the 'solution' is so ubiquitous that people now blame the solution.
Charity should be most effective at the local level, because you will be able to maximize the effectiveness of getting aid to those who need it. That's why I find it particularly disturbing that cities are taking matters into their own hands to stymie voluntary charities from being able to assist the poor. It doesn't just affect the local church by keeping them from feeding homeless on a Saturday afternoon. It also affects the random girl who has some compassion for a homeless guy while walking by him and offering him a snack or two.
we've tried Laissez-Faire economics and we went back to the drawing board to draft the constitution largely because that kind of hands-off policy didn't work. All social programs right now are a direct result of abuses in the market, but now people are trying to argue the market has the solution.
The 'Free Market' is only a concept. It can never exist in a pure form because humans will corrupt any attempt to run one, outside of small, isolated communities with a common belief in the cultural values that would support it. You might as well argue that serfdom will always find a solution for a problem because it's in the best interests of the liege lord to ensure his people can keep working at maximum efficiency. Except, you know, for the part where people are corruptible and some will always cheat the system if they can. That's why no pure ideological belief works: because you need A) everyone to believe in it and B) nobody to abuse it. But humans don't all think the same or have the same capacity, and they certainly don't all have the ability to make independent thought free from their subjective interpretation and rhetoric or marketing. AND, with about 5% of the population being a mix of psychopaths and sociopaths ready to take every corrupt advantage they can, I honestly don't know how anyone can think a pure system (any system) could work.
So while you may see an Elephant in the room, all I see you pointing at is a stuffed children's toy.
I understand there is no social system which will utterly eliminate evil. In a stateless society, there will still be rape, theft, murder and abuse. To be fair, just and reasonable, we must compare a stateless society not to some standard of otherworldly perfection, but rather to the world as it already is. The moral argument for a stateless society includes the reality that it will eliminate a large amount of institutionalized violence and abuse, not that it will result in a perfectly peaceful world, which of course is impossible. When I argue for defense of a free market approach to solving issues, I do it under the reasoning that it will provide better solutions and services than the state does, and not that it will be a panacea that will utterly erase every single problem society faces.
I'm sorry, what?
There is no government regulation deliberately trying to keep voluntary charity from working, it's a side effect of other issues in a much more complex discussion that we really can't get into without going off topic here. I can tell you right off the back that 'not feeding homeless people' isn't to restrict voluntary donations (you can still donate to soup kitches and volunteer at them), it's to prevent panhandling and begging which are viewed by some to be detrimental to business development, tourism and city growth. In a time when cities are shrinking faster than ever, it's simply a complex issue that can't be summed up as 'government trying to keep you from donating food'. That's overly simplistic and essentially a strawman. If all it exists to do is keep you from donating, that'd be a whole different issue.
I should also note that these legislation are largely passed because people don't like having to look at homeless people. It's not like the government decides one day that donations are bad, city council members are lobbied by businesses and private organizations to 'beautify' and it results in legislation that puts homeless people out of their camps. Out of sight, out of mind. Doesn't really sound like a world where your idyllic charitable system would work, does it?
I do not buy for one second that cities are wanting to ban feeding homeless people as an attempt to make said cities have a better image by somehow eliminating the "look at all these poor people here" stigma. Many of the people who make and support these laws are career politicians who will do what it takes to keep themselves in power. Let's think about this for a second. As I mentioned in my previous post, if you ban people from feeding the homeless and/or doing anything else to help them out, those same homeless people are going to have no choice but to turn to the government for welfare. This sets up a trap, because those people will then become dependent on those programs and will become reluctant to vote away the benefits. This means they'll inevitably keep voting for the politicians that want to keep the welfare coming, creating a constant cycle that screws the taxpayer twice over (once from the money required to pay for welfare and again for the politician's salary + benefits + pension). Then like you said there's the money from businesses and special interest groups that lobby these same politicians into pushing for such laws.
It may sound crazy to you and for pretty much everyone else on this forum, but it's all about following the money. If you were someone who has been elected to work for the city as a public servant, you want to keep your job safe and your income to keep rolling in. If it means keeping people on welfare and preventing people from escaping the "welfare trap" so they keep voting for you as well as collecting oodles of money from your cronies, then so be it. That's the inevitable conclusion that will occur when we give power to the government to help the poor.
I do not buy for one second that cities are wanting to ban feeding homeless people as an attempt to make said cities have a better image by somehow eliminating the "look at all these poor people here" stigma. Many of the people who make and support these laws are career politicians who will do what it takes to keep themselves in power. Let's think about this for a second. As I mentioned in my previous post, if you ban people from feeding the homeless and/or doing anything else to help them out, those same homeless people are going to have no choice but to turn to the government for welfare. This sets up a trap, because those people will then become dependent on those programs and will become reluctant to vote away the benefits. This means they'll inevitably keep voting for the politicians that want to keep the welfare coming, creating a constant cycle that screws the taxpayer twice over (once from the money required to pay for welfare and again for the politician's salary + benefits + pension). Then like you said there's the money from businesses and special interest groups that lobby these same politicians into pushing for such laws.
Then you're willfully blind - these bills have by and far in every single of dozens of cases I've looked up been promoted by businesses or by organizations that represent businesses.
Additionally, 19/30 that I've found on a quick search were even promoted by folks with an (R) after their name (likely not big welfare supporters due to party affiliation) and at least two blue dog (D)'s that want to scale back welfare in other public statements on the matter. The rest are I's and D's that I really don't have a good read on or that actually might fit your concept.
Even wikipedia says that the anti-homelessness laws make it HARDER FOR THEM TO GET WELFARE because of the fact that most of them will end up with a criminal record and criminal records restrict access to welfare programs much more harshly.
So yea, all in all a pretty weak argument that falls under conspiracy theory nonsense. Reality looks quite the opposite of it. Even just simple logic would deflect it. (How many businesses want homeless people bugging their clients? Zero - they want the cash from those clients and they don't want their clients feeling uncomfortable to come shopping there - as a soon to be business owner, I'd personally prefer an anti-homeless zone for my business area when I go shopping for locations since they'd turn off some number of potential customers)
Then you're willfully blind - these bills have by and far in every single of dozens of cases I've looked up been promoted by businesses or by organizations that represent businesses.
Additionally, 19/30 that I've found on a quick search were even promoted by folks with an (R) after their name (likely not big welfare supporters due to party affiliation) and at least two blue dog (D)'s that want to scale back welfare in other public statements on the matter. The rest are I's and D's that I really don't have a good read on or that actually might fit your concept.
Even wikipedia says that the anti-homelessness laws make it HARDER FOR THEM TO GET WELFARE because of the fact that most of them will end up with a criminal record and criminal records restrict access to welfare programs much more harshly.
"The citations and trespass warnings against Chico and Debbie Jimenez and their volunteers are part of an increased effort by the police to discourage Good Samaritans from steering homeless people away from the agencies set up to provide the same services. It's part of the city's and county's broader effort to eventually centralize homeless services."
In other words, the government doesn’t want private citizens providing charitable services to needy people because it lowers the number of people who might apply for welfare.
Is there also a vested interest for businesses to lobby to the state to ban feeding homeless people. Of course. I already acknowledged that in my previous post. But there is also a vested interest in the state to do that as well.
What I mean is, I'd rather not argue with you about what is more or less MORAL to do with the fruit. Since it's far too subjective.
Instead, I want you to posit the PRINCIPLE you stand on. What PRINCIPLE guides your decision on what should be done with the fruit.
What PRINCIPLE are you standing on that says it's right to take fruit from others and redistribute it?
That it's very easy to come up with situations where doing so is overall beneficial, and maximizes overall happiness.
WHY should I sign up for a job to maximize HAPPINESS, instead of say maximizing usefulness, or righteousness, or self-awareness, or self-actualization, or independence, or toughness, or...
Because these things only have an instrumental value in maximizing happiness. None of those things matter unless they contribute towards happiness. A system where everyone is unhappy but self-aware isn't particularly good one.
Saying "you're supposed to increase the overall happiness of the people" is so vague it's not even funny. How are we measuring happiness? Do I have to increase the happiness of the greedy people too, or just the needy people? Do I have to increase the happiness of the idiots as well as the educated? Do I have to increase the happiness of the pedophiles as well as the virtuous? What IS "happy". How can I tell if I've done a good job with my appointment?
So you'd rather sign up for a easy job than a beneficial one?
I should also add that we do have the ability to collect data that does a decent job of measuring happiness. Some of your former suggestions such as "self-awareness" or "self-actualization" would be even harder to measure.
If you agree with this, and I'm going to guess that you do, then I only argue that taxing people will never achieve the cure. All we have is institutionalized poverty, a welfare state, and not a compassionate people who work to cure poverty.
I claim NOT to know how to achieve this, I only know that I want to.
But this argument is worthless in exclusion. You need to prove that what you want is achievable in the first place. If the cure isn't possible, which is a possibility you're completely disregarding, treating symptoms is the optimal course of action. I want world peace and complete disarmament, and everyone being considerate of those around themselves, but I know it won't happen.
Because I am not required by law to help the needy, or those in danger, then it's on me, as a moral creature, to inwardly look at my own ethics and self-worth to decide that I want to both help the needy, and assist those people in danger. This is how I know I'm a compassionate person. I empathize. I've been poor, I've had the welfare Christmas, I've eaten donations from a food bank. I've slept in someones attic.
I volunteer, and donate, out of the kindness of my heart, and this is knowing that I've already paid taxes.
And under a system where welfare would be abolished, you would continue to do so but those that currently avoid doing it wouldn't. They would benefit from not having to pay taxes, causing them to gain a competitive edge over yourself. This is the core issue with your assumption that charity can replace welfare: It assumes that people stop being selfish dicks at some point.
All that being said - what good does it do then, to tax the those who lack compassion, only to watch them vote the taxes down, or vote them away altogether..
Vote the taxes back up. If you disagree with this being possible, we can get to an argument about how democracy isn't actually democratic, but I'm willing to bet we should start another thread for that mess.
If we tried harder to steer them towards being compassionate, first they likely wouldn't fight the taxes so much, but ideally, if we succeeded in making them, and ourselves compassionate enough, there would be no need to tax at all.
And your claim is that such a situation is achievable?
----------
Let's make something clear here. I agree that such a situation would be ideal. I just do not see it happening. Not now, not in the future. Not as long as two sentient beings are still alive. Any system that relies on voluntary decision to help others will punish those compassionate, unless there is some method of rewarding them for their acts of kindness, at which point we can no longer talk about compassion but optimization, as self-sacrifice to help others is no longer self-sacrifice if it benefits the self.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I also do not approve of corporate subsidies and bail-outs. Businesses should succeed or fail based on the merits of their product, and their ability to both meet supply & demand, and manage their money. They should not be sheltered from decisions that cause their business to suffer, maybe even become insolvent, by the government.
@Owl
Nice try, but no.
You have it backwards. Society did not create the conditions in which someone is able to profit.
Supply & demand is the ONLY thing that creates a profitable condition. If you had no supply of labor, no one would demand it of you. Likewise, if there was no demand for the fruit of your labor, you would not supply it.
Your argument in the thread has evolved to not hinging on this, but it still confuses me. You say supply will appear where there is demand. It will happen in every case. What if the business model doesn't work? What if the scale is unwieldy? What if the problem solving that needs to get done is complex and no one capable to do it is in the interest of that particular exploit? You say supply appears for demand. Why?
But it is a FALSE dichotomy to assume that if the State didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. If there is a demand for something, someone will supply, and that is the condition that creates a profitable mechanism.
So it's a false dichotomy because the free market will magically supply something? You know what the free market solution is to poverty? Shantytowns, starvation and a de facto underclass. That's the logical conclusion, and that is exactly how society has always worked, we've just found various ways to rationalize poor people being poor so that we can feel morally superior by not being them.
I'm not saying that welfare is a magical solution, either, but to think that 'the free market will find a way' that is still humane is hopelessly naive. You're basically just praying to the Father, the Son and the Holy Free Market.
If people aren't prepared to have the compassion that ... supports the poor and underprivileged when they have the freedom of the free market, what is it about a welfare state that lets this same indifferent people, who rationalize, and who like to feel morally superior, do anything better for the poor? I mean actually explain it to me, if you would, get into it, like I know nothing, because I probably don't.
Now I tried multiquoting but it's another thing the forum software isn't doing correctly. Trying to get it to work gobbled up the time I wanted to spend here for now, so I'll be leaving it, but I certainly had more questions to ask.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Then you're willfully blind - these bills have by and far in every single of dozens of cases I've looked up been promoted by businesses or by organizations that represent businesses.
Additionally, 19/30 that I've found on a quick search were even promoted by folks with an (R) after their name (likely not big welfare supporters due to party affiliation) and at least two blue dog (D)'s that want to scale back welfare in other public statements on the matter. The rest are I's and D's that I really don't have a good read on or that actually might fit your concept.
Even wikipedia says that the anti-homelessness laws make it HARDER FOR THEM TO GET WELFARE because of the fact that most of them will end up with a criminal record and criminal records restrict access to welfare programs much more harshly.
"The citations and trespass warnings against Chico and Debbie Jimenez and their volunteers are part of an increased effort by the police to discourage Good Samaritans from steering homeless people away from the agencies set up to provide the same services. It's part of the city's and county's broader effort to eventually centralize homeless services."
In other words, the government doesn’t want private citizens providing charitable services to needy people because it lowers the number of people who might apply for welfare.
Is there also a vested interest for businesses to lobby to the state to ban feeding homeless people. Of course. I already acknowledged that in my previous post. But there is also a vested interest in the state to do that as well.
Without conspiracy theory reasoning, there's nothing there that says that.
What the police are saying in the article as easily means "We want them to stay clear of this area for their panhandling - send them elsewhere" - just in a PC way that can't come back to bite them in the ass if they just said "Get those homeless the $%#@ out of here!" like the strict interpretation of the law actually means.
Believe it or not most police aren't just about the letter of the law, especially those that get up to Police Chief tiers - they actually care about helping people and directing them to services they need to get them along - that doesn't mean the laws that lead them to giving those suggestions are intended for those purposes, just the nature of the job.
[Same way that police that show up for domestic disturbance calls will often offer suggestions on counseling - it's not actually part of what they're required to do - they do it because they care]
In fact the only person actually making the quote that he states in the article was THE COUPLE THEMSELVES - that was the interpretation of two people - likely angry over being asked to disperse.
[And again note, Daytona Beach (convenient spot FYI, it's only one hour north of where I'm planning to open my shop (Brevard County, hopefully Meritt Island as that's where I'll be buying my home in a few) - so easy to tap information on from my business groups) started it's ordinance at the behest of the business groups and only applies to boardwalk and main street areas - literally they could set up the same thing in an alley area and they'd be fine with how the ordinance there is handled. (Haven't read it, but that's how it's enforced regardless of how it's written - out of sight of the major businesses is how it's enforced) - so evidence in this case seems quite against the interpretation you theorize]
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
This is short-sighted.
Voluntary systems don't work as they cannot generate the kind of cash needed to help those who need it, or with any sort of consistency needed to help people on a constant and/or long-term basis.
For example, lets say you're a sufferer of Multiple Sclerosis. It's said to be quite common, at around 1/100 of the population of varying severity.
One of the drugs, Interferon, is frighteningly expensive (think more than $1500 a fortnight). Add the rest of the drugs etc. to that.
Do you honestly think we could even get close to supporting 1/100 of the population for their lifetime, or even 1/200 based just on charity?
And now consider that is just MS, what about all the other welfare needs?
RE: Welfare > We're all forced to contribute via the tax system, whether we're feeling charitable or selfish doesn't matter, which is why it works.
Welfare will no doubt be scaled back as the baby-boomers get older, simply because the number of tax sources will contract and the number of costs escalates.
The old age pension may be a thing of the past. Guess we'll have to wait and see on that....
Welfare will never simply end in a western society.
Think about it;
If a govt. slashed all welfare spending down to nothing, they would get voted out pretty quick. So it wouldn't happen.
But if hypothetically it did, and people voted to keep welfare spending at zero, wouldn't charity also be dead?
When the government is doing everything in its power to keep the free market down and unable to do anything, then it becomes easy for someone to look at the problems we have in the world and cry out "market failure!" Yet you guys keep ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the state. For example, a lot of cities have been passing legislation to make it illegal for people to feed homeless people. So basically if you're poor your only way to get assistance is to go to the state for help and get on the dole. That's just one example out of thousands that the government deliberately uses to keep voluntary charity from working. That's why people like IcecreamMan and I are such big proponents of the free market. We're sick and tired of getting regulated and legislated away from trying to help others out.
Don't you see this as a major problem? Having politicians be able to essentially buy votes because their voters become dependent on the very same government programs the politicians leveraged to get into and stay in power?
No, it wouldn't. You must really underestimate the natural kindness many people have when it comes to helping others.
I wish I could be on your side....I really do because idealistically its great but practically naive. As people pointed out, there are large swaths of people who the government has the ability to help but charity overlooks. Further, if charity was the answer, what's stopping them now? Regulation on charity is not that stringent. With that said, I really think the problem is the federal government being in charge of distributing the aide to the end user. This money should be diverted to state and city governments to focus it on their particular needs. idealistic libertarian or conservatives ignore reality when it comes to public policy. You are never going to remove entitlements. What we can do is help focus on making those entitlements more effective and efficient.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I never used the word 'DESERVE'.
I refuse to get into a morality pissing contest of who deserves what and how much. I said the right, or greater claim.
I know some people who deserve to get hit by a car, but do I have a right, or a greater claim to hit them with a car?
I know some people who deserve a nice Hawaiian vacation, but do I have a right, or a greater claim to take money from someone else and buy them that trip?
I contest this. I would never agree to or accept the task of "improving the average happiness" of the citizens.
A wholly subjective and perpetually economically crippling quanta of "Happiness" is the last thing I want to be responsible for.
Instead, I'll let them be as FREE as possible, and they can work to obtain whatever level of happiness they can.
At most, I'll provide a cop and a court to settle any issues of direct harm caused to one by the other.
I won't answer the first falsehood contained in this paragraph, so long as you're already biased against the "sociopaths who lack compassion".
As far as the system rewarding the most compassionate people? How do we measure this?
In a real world way, where Bill Gates gives $300k and is therefore more compassionate than I, who gave $10. Bill gates then becomes what, President?
Or in a YAY, Jesus! kind of way, where $300k to Bill Gates is less of a sacrifice to him, than my $10 was to me, therefore I'm more compassionate, and become President?
If those people, so affected, put in a position of institutionalized poverty, want to end such abuses and usurpation's of their humanity, is it not their responsibility to cast off the shackles of oppression and form new guards for their future security?
Who said it was other peoples responsibility to save them? Who commanded that we should, as individuals, help the needy, and if we don't want to, we'll help anyways against our will through taxation?
Again, if you want compassion, you're not getting it by taxation.
Again, disclaimer: I am NOT an anarchist, I am NOT against taxation, I am also NOT against having government.
I am discussing the philosophy of these things.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I don't really disagree with anything here.
Yes, there is a value, and yes, I wouldn't use a large brush to black out the systems - they should be looked at case by case, program by program.
Yes, but they aren't being cut because of the FRAUD - they are being cut because one side is selling an 'austerity' policy.
My point was that I've never seen a government program ended because of fraud or embezzlement. Someone might get fired, and an "investigation" takes place - but the program goes right on trucking.
You're assuming that all donors to cause 'A' would abandon cause 'A', and jump on the Blind Pomeranian wagon. This is incorrect (which is not to say untrue, maybe it would happen) but you can't just assert that it would.
Yes, anytime the government spends tax revenue fraudulently, they have defrauded the people.
No, I am NOT an anarchist, no I do NOT want a private military, leo, fire, rescue, or prisons. (some of which we have already unfortunately)
Yes, all government can be potentially harmful. But I DID say that charity can also be harmful, and fraudulent. DTA man DTA.
The point is, to work towards the least amount of harm.
With private charities, if the harm the donors with fraud, the charity can be abandoned by it's donors/consumers, and therefore dissolve almost instantly. A new charity, (which would likely promise to be good, lol) would rise to take it's place.
With government, I'd argue that the oversight, which is supposed to reduce fraud and harm in tax funded programs, is failing miserably. We need better oversight, with more effective means of correcting illegalities.
I agree.
We haven't had a free market. We don't have a free market here and now, we didn't have one in England, we didn't have one in Byzantine, we didn't have one in Rome, we didn't have one in East India...
I said, (something maybe Tiax should have paid better attention to)that the ASSUMPTION that "if the state doesn't do it, it won't get done" is a false dichotomy, and it is. This doesn't mean it's always false, sometimes it might be true that a thing fails to get done in private hands. But to ASSUME that it won't, or to ASSUME that without the government, something would cease to be provided to people is false.
"If you don't buy me dinner, I'll die", is a false dichotomy.
Someone else could buy me dinner, or I could buy it myself.
Even if you did buy me dinner, I might still die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
There could be other options, there is not only TWO.
If there is indeed NOT a way to solve a particular problem through free and voluntary cooperation between compassionate, and like minded people, without the force of taxation, the threat of fine or imprisonment, the invisible gun to the head...maybe (just maybe) that problem should NOT be solved.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
There's always a man with the gun, the question is who is it and what relationship you have with the man with the gun.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Also, "always" is too strong of a word. Just like me using "never" was too strong of a word earlier.
It isn't always the case that the cooperation be coerced.
Even if it were, ought it be?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Just so I'm clear before we gone down this path, how much fraud is 'too much' for you? In any system involving human beings, there will always be a way for someone to cheat the system. Charities are scammed or scam people all the time (as you point out).
Okay, that (the bolded portion) is a fair statement. However, it wouldn't take all the donors to jump ship. Many charities already run on incredibly tight funding, and just a small percentage jumping can have serious repercussions on the former recipients on the charity and the charity's ability to function.
Ha! Look, I get what you're saying about new charities rising to take their place, my issue is the 'in-between time', in the redundant charities competing with one another, funding cycles where they can barely afford to pay their own people much less do what they're intended to. The lack of focus makes the overall process of charity a difficult substitute for government programs. I have nothing against a fusion of the two.
Because free market conditions are a theoretical construct, not reality. Human beings are hierarchical in nature, and power dynamics mean that croneyism is the sad reality, and as long as we have people with power and influence, they'll use it to the cheat the system.
Besides that, a true free market is inhumane - it literally can't care about people.
I actually agree, because there is value in feeling good about helping people, so people will invest in that feeling. The issue isn't whether or not it would happen, but to what degree. I don't believe it would be enough to maintain what I would call a livable standard for people.
I disagree. Not that I wouldn't love free and voluntary cooperation between compassionate people, but knowing that in the entire history of humanity people have always been crappy to one another doesn't fill me with confidence. This is a great what to get things accomplished at the community level, where libertarianism can work and where people know each other and identify with each other. But it's not such a great way to do things when the people involved aren't people you know.
Humans tend to lump success with worthiness, and when it's someone you know you can create a justifiable reason for them having issues. But when it's a large scale group of nebulous strangers, stereotypes kick in and they become 'the other'.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
While the issue of homelessness in cities is a complex one and local governments are handling it poorly, you can't argue against federal programs by pointing at local ordinances. If you want to talk about the politics of poverty, fine, but when did we jump to this?
I also have to say the gist of your argument reminds me of the anti-vaccer movement. By that I mean that we've got a problem where the solution has come full circle and the 'solution' is so ubiquitous that people now blame the solution. This is one of my problems with Libertarians in general, but to put it simply as a country we've tried Laissez-Faire economics and we went back to the drawing board to draft the constitution largely because that kind of hands-off policy didn't work. All social programs right now are a direct result of abuses in the market, but now people are trying to argue the market has the solution.
The 'Free Market' is only a concept. It can never exist in a pure form because humans will corrupt any attempt to run one, outside of small, isolated communities with a common belief in the cultural values that would support it. You might as well argue that serfdom will always find a solution for a problem because it's in the best interests of the liege lord to ensure his people can keep working at maximum efficiency. Except, you know, for the part where people are corruptible and some will always cheat the system if they can. That's why no pure ideological belief works: because you need A) everyone to believe in it and B) nobody to abuse it. But humans don't all think the same or have the same capacity, and they certainly don't all have the ability to make independent thought free from their subjective interpretation and rhetoric or marketing. AND, with about 5% of the population being a mix of psychopaths and sociopaths ready to take every corrupt advantage they can, I honestly don't know how anyone can think a pure system (any system) could work.
So while you may see an Elephant in the room, all I see you pointing at is a stuffed children's toy.
I'm sorry, what?
There is no government regulation deliberately trying to keep voluntary charity from working, it's a side effect of other issues in a much more complex discussion that we really can't get into without going off topic here. I can tell you right off the back that 'not feeding homeless people' isn't to restrict voluntary donations (you can still donate to soup kitches and volunteer at them), it's to prevent panhandling and begging which are viewed by some to be detrimental to business development, tourism and city growth. In a time when cities are shrinking faster than ever, it's simply a complex issue that can't be summed up as 'government trying to keep you from donating food'. That's overly simplistic and essentially a strawman. If all it exists to do is keep you from donating, that'd be a whole different issue.
I should also note that these legislation are largely passed because people don't like having to look at homeless people. It's not like the government decides one day that donations are bad, city council members are lobbied by businesses and private organizations to 'beautify' and it results in legislation that puts homeless people out of their camps. Out of sight, out of mind. Doesn't really sound like a world where your idyllic charitable system would work, does it?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
So you insist on having some absolute right to things, based on no rational argument, be a thing that dictates lawmaking?
Because unless you can ground these "rights" somehow, you're not entitled to the fruit of your labour either. No one is. The fruit just happens to exist, and no one has a claim to it.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
If you insist that fostering people with compassion is a desirable trait of a society, you need to be able to explain how the society you proposed as superior does that. You can't criticize the current system for prioritizing multiple people over compassionate people if your proposed alternative does not improve in either of these fronts.
So you admit that your criticism was ludicrous?
This has already happened: It's called the welfare state. It's comprised of institutions and laws that provide minimum level income for the poor, so that the unfortunate do not have to rely on irregular charity to survive.
The law.
For a more profound answer: The people who wrote the law.
For an even more profound answer: The people who voted for those who wrote the law.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
What he's actually quoting as a symptom of a lack of free market is anything but, it's actually completely created because of the free market.
Protection rackets, gangs, or other forms of neo-tribalism. When looking at places that lack security there's two ways gangs/tribes gain legitimacy:
1. Violence
2. Rule of law
3. Human services
Al Qaeda and affiliates have tried #1 and #2 enforced through #1, however #3 when offered made the organizations more legitimate in the eyes of the people within the area. It's a combination between enforcement and seduction and effectiveness that governing bodies attempt to work. The rule of law, which is to define basic operating system is an attempt to provide a template for complex transactions.
Whenever we take into consideration the effects of the tragedy of the commons, when humans begin a punishment mechanism that leads to the degeneration within a system. The rule of law helps to get beyond the legitimacy issue on who the "big man is." Other socio-political forces such as your ABC organizations through a more Madisonian system allows for strong inter personal reactions by constantly reminding people that there are other factions in the mix for competition.
As with earlier, there's been the issue with people opting to not help specific groups over others because we are discriminatory by nature as a specie. It need not coerced, until we begin to take into account security risks versus laziness when it comes to mentally people who have a history of violence. The personal responsibility excuse versus cooperation becomes moot whenever the community has a tragedy. Sees their young people shot, then there's the kumbaya moment where people vow "It'll never happen again." Then the system falls flat, and the people and the two community activists are back to square one. Maybe the victim's parents become more volunteerist to find meaning, but for the most part whenever this violence occurs. It's not government, the community acknowledges, mourns, then basically go back to apathy until they reach a tipping point.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
What I mean is, I'd rather not argue with you about what is more or less MORAL to do with the fruit. Since it's far too subjective.
Instead, I want you to posit the PRINCIPLE you stand on. What PRINCIPLE guides your decision on what should be done with the fruit.
What PRINCIPLE are you standing on that says it's right to take fruit from others and redistribute it?
Let's not pretend this is about you and me and our credentials.
WHY should I sign up for a job to maximize HAPPINESS, instead of say maximizing usefulness, or righteousness, or self-awareness, or self-actualization, or independence, or toughness, or...
I'm not going to entertain your little thought experiment, until you make it clear what the experiment IS.
Saying "you're supposed to increase the overall happiness of the people" is so vague it's not even funny. How are we measuring happiness? Do I have to increase the happiness of the greedy people too, or just the needy people? Do I have to increase the happiness of the idiots as well as the educated? Do I have to increase the happiness of the pedophiles as well as the virtuous? What IS "happy". How can I tell if I've done a good job with my appointment?
Don't talk to me about complex levels of thought, and quote Aristotle, until after you've actually put some into your question.
I only posit that compassion is a desirable trait. I never once talked about fostering it, or forcing it.
Do we want compassionate people, or just taxed people? Taxation treats the symptoms, compassion is the cure.
If you agree with this, and I'm going to guess that you do, then I only argue that taxing people will never achieve the cure. All we have is institutionalized poverty, a welfare state, and not a compassionate people who work to cure poverty.
I claim NOT to know how to achieve this, I only know that I want to.
NO.
I want you to explain how we measure compassion for the purposses of "rewarding the most compassionate".
Because I myself feel that if Billionaire Bill sends a check in the mail for $50,000 to a homeless shelter while cruising on his yacht in the virgin islands, it is not a given that he is more compassionate than say Minimum-Wage Margaret, who gives her free time after work volunteering at the shelter, and what little bit of cash she has to help.
Here's the thing, that's my opinion, and maybe you agree (or not), but what happens when I'm the government, and I go to "reward the most compassionate"? Billionaire Bill says "Hey hey hey, I gave so much more!! Why does Minimum-Wage Margaret get to be Council Chair!?"
While the welfare and social programs we have are indeed part of the law. I was more speaking to people. As far as I know, there is no law that says I MUST help the needy, in fact, I don't even have to help someone in danger. Bystander laws have been written just for that even.
Because I am not required by law to help the needy, or those in danger, then it's on me, as a moral creature, to inwardly look at my own ethics and self-worth to decide that I want to both help the needy, and assist those people in danger. This is how I know I'm a compassionate person. I empathize. I've been poor, I've had the welfare Christmas, I've eaten donations from a food bank. I've slept in someones attic.
I volunteer, and donate, out of the kindness of my heart, and this is knowing that I've already paid taxes.
However, are there not whole groups of people who want to end the welfare state, AND pay less taxes, AND believe that the poor are just lazy layabouts who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, etc.? Yeah...look no further than some of those TEA party loudmouths.
Clearly, society is failing to foster compassion within those people. Fault lies with their parents, their peers, their chosen forms of media, etc.
All that being said - what good does it do then, to tax the those who lack compassion, only to watch them vote the taxes down, or vote them away altogether. Now you don't have the taxes, AND you don't have the compassion.
If we tried harder to steer them towards being compassionate, first they likely wouldn't fight the taxes so much, but ideally, if we succeeded in making them, and ourselves compassionate enough, there would be no need to tax at all.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I think it's important to note that, due to many factors, Churches (specifically the Catholic Church) began to downsize. This happened more or less concurrently with the growth of the welfare state and for a wide variety of reasons, and is an interesting topic on its own. Catholic Charities still make up a fairly large number of charities these days, though.
I wouldn't say that government did not like how they were handling it, I'd say that A) the church was not able to continue supporting all their ventures, the Catholic church once controlled a sizeable number of the hospitals in the US (which is another interesting history topic of its own in the history of healthcare in this country) and B) Television and the Civil Rights movement pushed things to the forefront that could previously be ignored.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Isn't that pretty much the basis of capitalism? The owner of the company I work for gets to claim the "fruit of my labour" because he provided the capital for the business and is supplying the tools and materials I use. In exchange I get a salary.
The owner isn't taking the fruit of your labor without consent. You are selling it to him for your salary. If you feel your labor is worth more, you ask for a raise, renegotiate the contract, or quit and find new employment if you so desire. It is still a voluntary exchange between both parties.
Taxation is taking the fruit of your labor without consent. Now, you may argue that you have given consent, que claims of <social contract>. However, taxation is done with the explicit threat of fine, imprisonment, or both. If you refuse to pay your taxes, they fine you. If you refuse to pay the fines, they lien you. If you still do not cooperate they incarcerate you. If you resist incarceration, they may shoot you.
So, to avoid this real and potential harm to yourself, you comply, and cooperate with the taxation.
Much like a rape victim might lay still and comply, because the rapist has a gun and threatens to beat and kill them if they fight back.
Now, que <social contract> again.
We are said to have all been born into this social contract. But this is inherently unjust. I was never asked if I wanted in on it. I was never given a chance to weigh my options, and negotiate my own deal with a reasoned and consensual agreement that benefited both myself, and those who are taking my fruit. This is essentially a slave being born on the plantation. Sure, if all the slaves born into this bondage were to refuse to work the fields, the plantation would surely fall apart, and since many slaves depend on the Plantation for their food, and survival, any slave who stands up and say "HEY! this is unjust!" is quickly marginalized, and they are told to shut up and work or you will harm your fellow slaves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
I am NOT an anarchist, I am NOT against taxation, or government. Because I'm a realist, and a pessimist. I see that the whole WORLD is plantations. I happen to agree that THIS plantation is better than any other plantation. So while I can see that I was born into bondage, I do not run, because I can only possibly run to another plantation, and they aren't as good as this one. There is nowhere to escape to. There is no place without this bondage, so just pick the plantation you like best, and go there.
I'm a nonbeliever, life is short, and thankfully I don't have to endure this forever.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Charity should be most effective at the local level, because you will be able to maximize the effectiveness of getting aid to those who need it. That's why I find it particularly disturbing that cities are taking matters into their own hands to stymie voluntary charities from being able to assist the poor. It doesn't just affect the local church by keeping them from feeding homeless on a Saturday afternoon. It also affects the random girl who has some compassion for a homeless guy while walking by him and offering him a snack or two.
Most of the laissez-faire era you talk about was actually full of crony capitalism and the Fed distorting the money supply. This is a common talking point that progressives make, especially when it comes to the Great Depression.
I understand there is no social system which will utterly eliminate evil. In a stateless society, there will still be rape, theft, murder and abuse. To be fair, just and reasonable, we must compare a stateless society not to some standard of otherworldly perfection, but rather to the world as it already is. The moral argument for a stateless society includes the reality that it will eliminate a large amount of institutionalized violence and abuse, not that it will result in a perfectly peaceful world, which of course is impossible. When I argue for defense of a free market approach to solving issues, I do it under the reasoning that it will provide better solutions and services than the state does, and not that it will be a panacea that will utterly erase every single problem society faces.
I do not buy for one second that cities are wanting to ban feeding homeless people as an attempt to make said cities have a better image by somehow eliminating the "look at all these poor people here" stigma. Many of the people who make and support these laws are career politicians who will do what it takes to keep themselves in power. Let's think about this for a second. As I mentioned in my previous post, if you ban people from feeding the homeless and/or doing anything else to help them out, those same homeless people are going to have no choice but to turn to the government for welfare. This sets up a trap, because those people will then become dependent on those programs and will become reluctant to vote away the benefits. This means they'll inevitably keep voting for the politicians that want to keep the welfare coming, creating a constant cycle that screws the taxpayer twice over (once from the money required to pay for welfare and again for the politician's salary + benefits + pension). Then like you said there's the money from businesses and special interest groups that lobby these same politicians into pushing for such laws.
It may sound crazy to you and for pretty much everyone else on this forum, but it's all about following the money. If you were someone who has been elected to work for the city as a public servant, you want to keep your job safe and your income to keep rolling in. If it means keeping people on welfare and preventing people from escaping the "welfare trap" so they keep voting for you as well as collecting oodles of money from your cronies, then so be it. That's the inevitable conclusion that will occur when we give power to the government to help the poor.
Then you're willfully blind - these bills have by and far in every single of dozens of cases I've looked up been promoted by businesses or by organizations that represent businesses.
Additionally, 19/30 that I've found on a quick search were even promoted by folks with an (R) after their name (likely not big welfare supporters due to party affiliation) and at least two blue dog (D)'s that want to scale back welfare in other public statements on the matter. The rest are I's and D's that I really don't have a good read on or that actually might fit your concept.
Even wikipedia says that the anti-homelessness laws make it HARDER FOR THEM TO GET WELFARE because of the fact that most of them will end up with a criminal record and criminal records restrict access to welfare programs much more harshly.
So yea, all in all a pretty weak argument that falls under conspiracy theory nonsense. Reality looks quite the opposite of it. Even just simple logic would deflect it. (How many businesses want homeless people bugging their clients? Zero - they want the cash from those clients and they don't want their clients feeling uncomfortable to come shopping there - as a soon to be business owner, I'd personally prefer an anti-homeless zone for my business area when I go shopping for locations since they'd turn off some number of potential customers)
http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20140508/NEWS/140509480/1040?p=1&tc=pg
More specifically:
"The citations and trespass warnings against Chico and Debbie Jimenez and their volunteers are part of an increased effort by the police to discourage Good Samaritans from steering homeless people away from the agencies set up to provide the same services. It's part of the city's and county's broader effort to eventually centralize homeless services."
In other words, the government doesn’t want private citizens providing charitable services to needy people because it lowers the number of people who might apply for welfare.
Is there also a vested interest for businesses to lobby to the state to ban feeding homeless people. Of course. I already acknowledged that in my previous post. But there is also a vested interest in the state to do that as well.
That it's very easy to come up with situations where doing so is overall beneficial, and maximizes overall happiness.
Let's not pretend that discussion of abstract concepts is possible without being able to entertain ideas.
Because these things only have an instrumental value in maximizing happiness. None of those things matter unless they contribute towards happiness. A system where everyone is unhappy but self-aware isn't particularly good one.
So you'd rather sign up for a easy job than a beneficial one?
I should also add that we do have the ability to collect data that does a decent job of measuring happiness. Some of your former suggestions such as "self-awareness" or "self-actualization" would be even harder to measure.
But this argument is worthless in exclusion. You need to prove that what you want is achievable in the first place. If the cure isn't possible, which is a possibility you're completely disregarding, treating symptoms is the optimal course of action. I want world peace and complete disarmament, and everyone being considerate of those around themselves, but I know it won't happen.
No idea, all I'm saying is that getting rid of welfare and expecting charity to fix it wouldn't work.
You're the one trying to replace the current system with something that would be better, so you need to show that the alternative system is possible.
Because such law would be impossible to supervise, and it's more pragmatic to just tax you more and redistribute your money.
And under a system where welfare would be abolished, you would continue to do so but those that currently avoid doing it wouldn't. They would benefit from not having to pay taxes, causing them to gain a competitive edge over yourself. This is the core issue with your assumption that charity can replace welfare: It assumes that people stop being selfish dicks at some point.
Vote the taxes back up. If you disagree with this being possible, we can get to an argument about how democracy isn't actually democratic, but I'm willing to bet we should start another thread for that mess.
And your claim is that such a situation is achievable?
----------
Let's make something clear here. I agree that such a situation would be ideal. I just do not see it happening. Not now, not in the future. Not as long as two sentient beings are still alive. Any system that relies on voluntary decision to help others will punish those compassionate, unless there is some method of rewarding them for their acts of kindness, at which point we can no longer talk about compassion but optimization, as self-sacrifice to help others is no longer self-sacrifice if it benefits the self.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Your argument in the thread has evolved to not hinging on this, but it still confuses me. You say supply will appear where there is demand. It will happen in every case. What if the business model doesn't work? What if the scale is unwieldy? What if the problem solving that needs to get done is complex and no one capable to do it is in the interest of that particular exploit? You say supply appears for demand. Why?
If people aren't prepared to have the compassion that ... supports the poor and underprivileged when they have the freedom of the free market, what is it about a welfare state that lets this same indifferent people, who rationalize, and who like to feel morally superior, do anything better for the poor? I mean actually explain it to me, if you would, get into it, like I know nothing, because I probably don't.
Now I tried multiquoting but it's another thing the forum software isn't doing correctly. Trying to get it to work gobbled up the time I wanted to spend here for now, so I'll be leaving it, but I certainly had more questions to ask.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Without conspiracy theory reasoning, there's nothing there that says that.
What the police are saying in the article as easily means "We want them to stay clear of this area for their panhandling - send them elsewhere" - just in a PC way that can't come back to bite them in the ass if they just said "Get those homeless the $%#@ out of here!" like the strict interpretation of the law actually means.
Believe it or not most police aren't just about the letter of the law, especially those that get up to Police Chief tiers - they actually care about helping people and directing them to services they need to get them along - that doesn't mean the laws that lead them to giving those suggestions are intended for those purposes, just the nature of the job.
[Same way that police that show up for domestic disturbance calls will often offer suggestions on counseling - it's not actually part of what they're required to do - they do it because they care]
In fact the only person actually making the quote that he states in the article was THE COUPLE THEMSELVES - that was the interpretation of two people - likely angry over being asked to disperse.
[And again note, Daytona Beach (convenient spot FYI, it's only one hour north of where I'm planning to open my shop (Brevard County, hopefully Meritt Island as that's where I'll be buying my home in a few) - so easy to tap information on from my business groups) started it's ordinance at the behest of the business groups and only applies to boardwalk and main street areas - literally they could set up the same thing in an alley area and they'd be fine with how the ordinance there is handled. (Haven't read it, but that's how it's enforced regardless of how it's written - out of sight of the major businesses is how it's enforced) - so evidence in this case seems quite against the interpretation you theorize]