Libertarian with rare kidney disease asks how people like him would pay for healthcare while being unable to work. A libertarian's response that charity would suffice is hotly disputed. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
95 ups - 0 downs = 95 votes
242 comments submitted at 11:47:58 on Jul 22, 2014 by sirboozebum
Charity, the magic solution to all of Libtopia's problems, funnily enough the people who brag about the ability of charity to adequately supplement the role of the government are the same people who despise the idea of even a cent of their money being taxed. If i didn't know any better i would assume these people have no desire to economically help the worse off, but are instead just greedy arseholes.
At Easter dinner, I was talking to my aunt about the wonderful ways of Norway and Sweden, and how university and healthcare is free. I supplemented that with, "And look, they get more vacation time. They're measurably happier. They have a higher standard of living."
She glared at me, shook her head, and said, "No, I think private charity will take care of our problems."
Like what the fuck. Yeah, they act like the real charity hasn't kicked in yet and will actually start once all government handouts end. Fucking liars.
Ha, my MIL's response to things like that are to point out higher taxes and higher suicide rates.
I don't even think the latter is true.
There are higher suicide rates in Greenland, as a beneficiary of Denmark, but I think that's the only place in Scandinavia with high suicide rates (and they've got a whole host of problems, too, so it's different from mainland Denmark/Sweden/Norway.)
That might have more to do with the fact that they get months of pure darkness. American suicide rates are highest in Alaska, and it's widely believed that the oppressive dark winters are a huge factor.
Either way, to say that higher taxes cause suicide is pretty ludicrous.
"The very idea that somewhere a child is eating food on my dime makes me want to eat a shotgun."
Environment is a pretty big deal. There's some town in Australia where it gets unbelievably, ridiculously, 'why the fuck did we make a town here' kind of hot during the summer, and apparently their suicide rates jump right up during this time.
Phoenix, where I live, is really high too. It's not all the heat, though. We're in the top four for firearms licensing, high up on the poverty and unemployment list, and low on the per capita doctor rate.
In Greenland it peaks during the summer. Most likely because of insomnia caused by the 24-hour daylight.
Yeah, I wasn't counting them because of lack of proximity and other issues. But like I said, facts just don't matter, she's definitely a "feelz and God only" kind of debater.
Well next time she gives you shit about how taxes are the Devil's work, remind her of what Jesus said: "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" (Mark 12:17) Ie., what would Jesus do? Jesus would pay his fucking taxes.
Trust me, there'll be some weasel out of that, something about healthcare paying for abortions or some shit like that. Trust me, she's like an emotional brickwall.
IIRC (I probably dont) Jesus did that because, for once, people were literally putting a gun (lance, gladius, whatevs) to his head.
They had no legal basis to arrest / kill him yet, so a roman sympathizer from the crowd asked the question of taxes because, either he told the crowd not to pay taxes and get arrested (thei'd Al Capone him, in other words), or he told them to pay and the followers would start doubting him. He said the sentence as a means to play both sides, saying "oh I pay ceasar, but I also pay the real man in power wink wink nudge nudge nowashamsayin?
That's an interesting reading, but I don't think it was necessarily about fear of death or appeasing Romans. here's the full interaction:
> And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, "Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?"
(The Herodians sycophantically commend Jesus on his lack of political affiliation, and try to trip him up in his words.)
> But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, "Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it." And they brought it. And he saith unto them, "whose is this image and superscription?" And they said unto him, "Caesar's."
(Jesus ain't no sucka.)
> And Jesus answering said unto them, 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marvelled at him.
My reading of that was: God created many things on earth, including human beings, but He did not create wealth-- that is a human invention and a political construct. Therefore, a person can serve God and Caesar simultaneously and be a traitor to neither, because God has dominion over his things and Caesar has a dominion to his things too. Also, pay your taxes. Also, don't fuck with Jesus because he is a sass master and will make you look like a fool in front of your friends.
All the scandinavian countries have relatively high suicide rates, but average when compared to other countries in the same latitude. Winter depression is a very real thing, and something I personally think we (scandinavians) should spread more awareness of.
Here in Canada, we have very high suicide rates in our northern territories (namely Nunavut) but that has largely been attributed to the high rates of substance abuse/poverty/sickness among people living in the very isolated high arctic. I'm not sure how the rest of Canada compares to Scandinavia, though-- here in Edmonton we get very little sunlight in the winter.
According to this Canada have about the same suicide rate as Denmark, which also happen to be at the same latitude. so I would say it syncs up pretty well. I'm surprised USA is so high up on the list though.
Is it weird that I'm generally happier in the winter?
Greenland is not a place in Scandinavia technically.
Northern Finland has really high suicide rates and Finland is 21st on this list when sorted by average suicides and 12th when sorted by male suicides. I know that Finland is only part of Fennoscandia, not Scandinavia, but we are evil socialist welfare-commies too!
There's probably some sort of correlation that someone decided was definitive proof of... something? As the saying goes, "correlation does not imply causation. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."
She's, uh, an interesting person to argue with.
And by interesting, I mean SO GODDAMN INFURIATING.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofcountriesbysuicide_rate
Sweden, Norway and Denmark have slightly lower rates than the US. Finland's is 25% higher. Suicide was more culturally acceptable over there historically. Or so I've read somewhere.
Oh heh, I responded to the one you deleted:
> Well there we go, but she's not a fan of facts.
[deleted]
Ah yes "private charity", or "These problems need to be fixed, but don't expect me to pay anything" excuse
"Private charity" or people I think deserve it because their lives mirror mine.
The ability to coerce underprivileged people into behaving in ways you think are acceptable so you'll give them charity rather than let them starve is really attractive to some people who'd like to enforce their values on society, but can't seem to get it done by democratic means.
So, basically, mission trips on steroids. "Sit down and listen to us bather about Jesus for two hours and we'll give you filtered water."
Sounds awesome.
Remember Bush's "faith-based initiative" program? Yeah, that worked out great for everyone.
My favorite part was when all the multimillion dollar megachurches got together and decided to pool their tithes to help children, minoroties and the mentally ill, thus bringing to an end all poverty and need for government-assisted healthcare! And it was so moving when Joel Osteen, Pat Robertson, and the entire staff of Focus on the Family decided that their tax-free billions rightfully belonged to the underfed and underprivileged in our ranks.
That was a good time. Conservatives really care about people!
edit: you know, Christians supposedly have a mandate from God his very own self to take care of the poor, and when they were asked by Bush to step up to the plate they sort of went, "Um, well, we didn't mean THOSE poor people. We meant Mrs. Jones, the sweet little old lady who used to be married to the vestry leader. Ever since he died we've been sending her a hot dish once a week and making sure her cats have food. Is that not enough? It's not? Oh well. Let's go protest birth control and abortion rights; that's something that'll help the poors! More babies!"
But we're supposed to believe that the average technocrat/oligarch/Koch disciple/Wall Street bro/silicon valley capitalist is going to be like "You know, poors are people too. I should really donate a third of my income to help with the mental illness crisis in America."
Why aren't you living in le sweeeden yet?
Because I'm a broke-ass college student ;)
shouldn't stop you from getting your atheism degree from Carl Sagan University :)
Oh, you're one of those people. No yeah, this Episcopalian is totally an atheist. I don't see how religion is relevant unless your whole idea was to try to make a stupid argument.
really?
Well let's see.
I'm progressive
I think Scandinavian countries have a pretty good setup
I made no mention of religion
Yep, must be all about religion, and I must be an atheist.
You are aware that your argument sounds like "haha stupid atheist getting an education at an university", right?
more like made up atheist university :)
Basically what they're saying is 'there are people in the world less selfish than me, they'll probably start shelling out when they see how much worse off most people are in my libertarian utopia. The suckers.'
No, see, because people would give oodles to private charity as long as they get to choose where the money goes. It's not like there was a time before SSDI, and we know exactly how relying on private charity went.
> funnily enough the people who brag about the ability of charity to adequately supplement the role of the government are the same people who despise the idea of even a cent of their money being taxed.
Taxation is involuntary - charity is voluntary. That's a pretty big deal in libertarian circles.
The libertarian argument is that if the poor are not cared for through charity - then people simply don't really care about the poor. So, the answer to the question "how will the chronically ill be taken care of in a libertarian society" is "however other people choose for them to be."
So... the strong shall lord over the weak? Even if the genetic lottery made them weak and no act of free will?
The best part is that all these people implicitly assume they will be part of the strong, simply because they are relatively successful in the society they want to abolish. I mean, if you're slightly above the middle in our cushy, easy society, why the hell do you think you'll be on top in a dog eat dog world?
The funnier part is how fully functioning Libertarianism isn't going to start looking like Feudalism in a decade.
It's funny how most people that succeed despite overwhelming odds, typically because they belong to some much-derided minority, turn out to be liberals and progressives. Meanwhile, people that succeed because daddy and mommy were rich are nearly always Republicans or libertarians.
Yeah, I'm guessing they're not going to be the ubermensch in the new "merit only" world order. You'd think you'd want to put your eggs in the basket that preserves all the advantages you enjoyed, but that would actually require acknowledgement of the idea that sometimes, life outcomes are determined by design and luck, not the hard work you think you did that you didn't.
Yep. Libertarianism in a nutshell right there.
So if they'd rather die, they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population, eh?
Sounds fair to me.
I got it.
> So... the strong shall lord over the weak?
No. The strong shall do as they choose to do. The weak shall also do as they choose to do.
If the able choose not to help the disabled, what right do you have to force them to?
What if the strong choose to consolodate their power by organizing into a group that makes decisions for the land they occupy, enforced with violence?
You know, like they always have?
Libertarians are deluded in the sense that they don't realize they are the weak in most modern societies. They only advance these shitty views from the POV of them being 'the strong' in a system that, by and large, exists only in their minds.
Libertarianism has always been a politics of the loser. It's an escapist fantasy about how awesome life would be if all these rules that kept them from ruling the world weren't in place. Libertarians can't accept that they're not in charge now and would be even more fucked if their dream came true.
Generally, now and then some of the strong further their own goals by utilizing the combined strength of the weak in exchange for some more rights and freedoms, until the Free Market™ produces something along the lines of a modern society.
You see, we all have been living in a libertarian utopia all this time (also in an anarchist utopia), some people just don't quite realize it.
Bah. Just because the same trends have occurred over and over again throughout history means nothing.
This time will be different. Because stuff.
It's funny because libertarians don't care about history.
This is what what I've always wondered. A libertarian society works only if everyone follows the non-aggression principle. However, all of human history and even a passing knowledge of human nature would disprove this.
People are always assholes. Dropping them into a stateless society would be a terrible idea.
One of my favourite ironies is how Libertarianism and Communism share the same basic failing: On paper and out of context they seem like obvious ways to improve society, but they both make naive assumptions about human nature that cause the entire concept to fall apart.
Not just that, but desperate people are... well... desperate.
Most social good is designed to keep basically good people from becoming desperate muggers, highwaymen and criminals.
Empathy, which seems to be a four letter word to libertarians.
Yep. One day, they're going to need somebody else to wipe their ass, feed them, and get their meds for them, too. I sure hope they have a fuckload of cash saved up to make sure that person doesn't find it easier to just let the free market determine whether or not the Alzheimer's patient should be allowed to wander the streets.
> what right do you have to force them to
The right to live in a decent world. You libertarians seem to always forget that when we use government as a tool to create a more just and equitable life for everyone, we are in fact exercising our rights.
> You libertarians seem to always forget that when we use government as a tool to create a more just and equitable life for everyone, we are in fact exercising our rights.
By that logic, no government action could violate anyone's individual rights - an absurd idea.
But the weak must rely on the charity of the strong if incapable of self-reliance, it seems.
And by what right do they get opt-out of societal obligations if they choose to be a part of a society that has voted, by majority, to tax them?
Why not go start their own little John Galt society if they think they can get by without the weak?
> The strong shall do as they choose to do. The weak shall also do as they choose to do.
Well, we are just gonna choose to continue this democracy then. You still don't get it, you are not 'the strong' here; we are. You are wannabe libertarians. The ultimate libertarians are those that have co-opted you into a system that works best for them individually, while you are limited to a bunch of forums on the internet. Oh, that and Somalia. You know, because that is what we've chosen to do as a society.
... So basicaly yeah, the strong shall lord over the weak.
So why put people who have no control over their condition at the mercy of "well let's just hope that someone who was luckier gives some money to you"? Especially when we have numerous examples (like OP's Norway) of it working with a better system? Libertarians seem content to let people's livelihoods be decided by the luck of the draw
They feel they've won that lottery already. Classic "fuck yours, I got mine."
> So why put people who have no control over their condition at the mercy of "well let's just hope that someone who was luckier gives some money to you"?
Because libertarians, for the most part, do not believe it is morally justifiable to force charity on people.
> Especially when we have numerous examples (like OP's Norway) of it working with a better system?
The idea that Norway's economic model can be copy/pasted onto the United States is not warranted. Norway is a very small, homogenous, oil rich country. It's a nation of 5 million.
Taking ideas from Norway, is like the New York City Police Department taking lessons on fighting crime from some suburbs neighborhood watch.
> Libertarians seem content to let people's livelihoods be decided by the luck of the draw
Libertarians are unwilling to use force to correct bad luck.
Obviously no one is arguing to "copy and paste" Norway, or any other country's system into the US. What people are suggesting is that we take note of functioning systems elsewhere, as in the US we've managed to totally fuck up the healthcare system on our own. We pay vastly more and receive much poorer quality results, while a multitude of examples of better ways to do it exist all over the world. It gets to a point where you have to say "wow, not only is our life expectancy lower and illness rate higher but people are actually dying from lack of adequate healthcare, maybe instead of turning political discourse into a toddler tantrum of 'but paying for other people isn't FAIR!' Like we're all still 6, we should take a page out of another country's book who solved this problem YEARS ago, and did so at a lower cost, and actually maybe stop our citizens from dying".
> as in the US we've managed to totally fuck up the healthcare system on our own. We pay vastly more and receive much poorer quality results, while a multitude of examples of better ways to do it exist all over the world.
I don't think we have much poorer quality results. If you look at a lot of the rankings, they take "universal coverage" into account, and also take a lot of miscellaneous things into account under "health care" (like number of smokers, etc.)
If you look at both cancer survival and heart attack survival rates, we rank near the top of the world.
But we do pay more than anyone else, which indicates that we do need health care reform. I would argue for a more free market oriented reform.
If you look at government intervention in our health care market over the last 50 - 70 years, our government has done virtually everything in its power to fuck over the individual consumer. The Affordable Care Act is the latest in a long line of ill conceived interventions.
We have a higher infant mortality rate than Slovenia.
Guess how their healthcare system works?
As a Slovenian, I am greatly offended by you choosing us as your "even this shitty country you've never heard of is better than us at this" example.
Not cool, man :((
That's a fair point, and I'm sorry to have used it that way.
I was playing into a stereotype of ex-Yugoslav nations that exists in the American mid.
I'm just kidding bro, it's all good :D
Just had to respond cause I never see us getting mentioned on reddit.
holy shit, a solvenian
Many countries do not count babies that do not survive 24 hours in that metric - and also do not count babies born under a certain weight - they count them as miscarriages.
We, the United States, count them.
If you read a lot of the reports on this issue - you will see that researchers point to the cause being lower birth weights and shorter gestation periods in the United States. That's almost certainly a creature of the data set because other countries simply aren't counting premature births of small babies as "births."
>Because libertarians, for the most part, do not believe it is morally justifiable to force charity on people.
Well, you've got two moral values to weigh against eachother when you decide whether or not to have a public healthcare system. On one hand, you have the principle that people should be able to do what they want with their money, and socialized healthcare requires that some proportion of people's money is taken from them to fund it. On the other hand, we also want to minimize suffering in humans, and socialized healthcare has been empirically shown to provide a better standard of treatment to a larger number of people than non-socialized systems.
>The idea that Norway's economic model can be copy/pasted onto the United States is not warranted. Norway is a very small, homogenous, oil rich country. It's a nation of 5 million.
>Taking ideas from Norway, is like the New York City Police Department taking lessons on fighting crime from some suburbs neighborhood watch.
How about you take ideas from Australia (23 Million), the UK (65 Million), France (66 Million) or Japan (126 Million)? They've all got largely government-funded healthcare systems, have longer life expectancies, and spend substantially less per capita on healthcare than the US - Australia spends 8.5% of GDP on healthcare, and live 3 years longer than the US, which spends 16% of GDP on healthcare.
>Libertarians are unwilling to use force to correct bad luck.
Libertarians are unwilling to use force to save someone's life, but don't mind at all the extent of force required to maintain a system of private property ownership.
> On the other hand, we also want to minimize suffering in humans, and socialized healthcare has been empirically shown to provide a better standard of treatment to a larger number of people than non-socialized systems.
There is no "free market health care" alternative currently being tried to weigh "socialized medicine" against.
The closest is probably our system. But, basic economic theory would suggest that our patchwork of subsidies and government programs is custom-built to increase prices.
> How about you take ideas from Australia (23 Million), the UK (65 Million), France (66 Million) or Japan (126 Million)?
I think that implementing those ideas might work better than our current system - but I think free market reform would work better than that.
> Libertarians are unwilling to use force to save someone's life, but don't mind at all the extent of force required to maintain a system of private property ownership.
Correct. Because there is an individual right to private property and to contract.
Also - the libertarian belief is that the free market also leads to better results.
For example, look at the countries where the poor are best off, and you almost always find a history of free markets and free trade. Look at the places where the poor are worst off, and you will find the opposite. That is why the whole "libertarians hate the poor!" thing has always confused me.
Hey, somalia has a completely unregulated, free trade market. It is working great!
Most libertarians recognize the need for the State to protect private property rights to prevent situations like you have in Somalia.
It's generally pretty tough to find any type of working economic model when there's a lot of war in an area.
> For example, look at the countries where the poor are best off, and you almost always find a history of free markets and free trade. Look at the places where the poor are worst off, and you will find the opposite. That is why the whole "libertarians hate the poor!" thing has always confused me.
I assume you have some great in-depth examples of this, right?
Of course.
I would point to the United States as a good example. Why are the poor in the United States better off than the poor in China?
I would point to Hong Kong. I would point to the Irish Miracle.
The most destitute parts of the globe - (parts of South America, Southeast Asia, and the former Soviet Union) are all places where the socialist experiment took place.
So, I can give you plenty of examples.
There is no example where the masses escaped poverty without relatively free markets and relatively free trade. It just hasn't happened.
First of all, I'd really like you to define what you think a "free market" is and what "free trade" is.
Free market = a market where prices for goods and services are set without government control, and people are free to engage in economic transactions free from government coercion.
Free trade = an international trade policy free from government tariffs, quotas, etc.
Is your next argument going to be "no country has ever been 100% free market and free trade!!!" - because that is where it seems like you are going. And that's why I used the term "relatively" in my last post.
And they assume people will just go die somewhere, but they won't. Perhaps they would understand socialism better if it was explained as: wealthy people paying the poor not to lynch them (which is actually a fair deal).
> funnily enough the people who brag about the ability of charity to adequately supplement the role of the government are the same people who despise the idea of even a cent of their money being taxed.
Playing devil's advocate, couldn't you argue that if less of your money was going to taxes then more of it could go to charity?
If less of my money went to taxes then that would mean more of it went to me. Depending on the type of person i am some more may go to charity. But the type of people who would take their extra 25-40% and give it to public works and charity are the type of people who dont mind that it happens already, so really youre absolving all of the asses of any helpful input into society.
Pretty much. I give my time and money to charity and am perfectly fine with taxes. Heck, I'd unashamedly admit that I'd probably give less to charity than I give to taxes if given the chance.
> If less of my money went to taxes then that would mean more of it went to me.
Depends on where your income comes from. Work at a company that has contracts with the State and you may get more. Work at a bank that manages the earnings of government employees and you get more.
I'm one of those people who hates to pay taxes. Hate it.
I make a comfortable living - I'm able to pay my bills, have fun, and save a little money each month but while I'm comfortable it doesn't leave a lot of room for charity, other than making the occasional donation to local animal rescue organizations.
If I paid less taxes I can almost guarantee that some of that money would go to charity. Sure, some of it is going to go back into my pocket but at the same time my charitable giving would also increase.
But would you give 20-40% of your income to charity? Cause your charitable donation would increase but your overall contribution to the public good would decrease most likely.
Cause /u/themanwhoknowsnothin's point is not that people would just not give to charity entirely, it's that they won't give as much as they would in taxes therefore public works and public charities and public welfare would decrease.
His entire point is that some of the money he would keep would go to charity, not all of it. That means without taxes, less money would be going towards social good. Which is kind of the argument for taxes.
> But would you give 20-40% of your income to charity?
I could lie and say yes but the truth is there's no way I'd give 20-40% to charity because I know I'm a greedy bastard.
My original post was just me playing devil's advocate to get the type of responses that I got, which in turn caused me to think about the situation from a different perspective.
As much as I hate taxes the do serve a vital purpose that can most likely never be replaced by other means.
> there's no way I'd give 20-40% to charity because I know I'm a greedy bastard
And so now you understand why government exists, to protect the rest of the country from people like yourself.
> If I paid less taxes I can almost guarantee that some of that money would go to charity
Your comfortable life has come to you ready-made at the expense of others, and for them your "almost guarantee" isn't fucking good enough.
> Your comfortable life has come to you ready-made at the expense of others
No, not at all. My comfortable life came to me because of my own hard work and dedication.
How about we stop you off in Somalia and you can use that dedication and hard work to pull yourself up by your bootstrap. Because obviously you did it all on your own and it has nothing to do with living in a functional society. It was all you man. I say go Galt. Get all these freeloaders off your back.
First, it's funny that you think I'm a Libratarian, when the only reason I'm in this discussion was to ask questions and reinforce my opinions.
Secondly,
>How about we stop you off in Somalia and you can use that dedication and hard work to pull yourself up by your bootstrap.
You act as though this never happens. That people from horribly disadvantaged circumstances don't succeed only because of their own hard work all of the time.
I pulled myself out from poverty by bootstraps. It took Herculean effort on the part of me and my parents and sacrifice and tears that nearly tore me apart.
It also took medicare, medicaid, food stamps, government funded food programs, public schools, federal aid for college, charities after charities after philanthropy from other schools. All was needed to make sure 1. I had the schooling needed and 2. To make sure I survive and didn't die from any number of illnesses I caught as a kid. and 3. To make sure I had enough food to survive to adulthood.
I acknowledge that it can be done. I also acknowledge that not everyone can do it and I also acknowledge that without government support charities and government funded programs, I would probably be waiting tables or working cashiers or much more likely dead.
> It also took medicare, medicaid, food stamps, government funded food programs, public schools, federal aid for college, charities after charities after philanthropy from other schools. All was needed to make sure 1. I had the schooling needed and 2. To make sure I survive and didn't die from any number of illnesses I caught as a kid. and 3. To make sure I had enough food to survive to adulthood.
Of course, all of those are vital programs.
I've never actually said that I wanted to defund them or replace them with charity. If anything, I've admitted to hating paying taxes (who doesn't?) but they are a necessary evil. I was just trying to get some insight on the taxes vs. charity debate.
>I pulled myself out from poverty by bootstraps. It took Herculean effort on the part of me and my parents and sacrifice and tears that nearly tore me apart.
Good job. Seriously. I've seen people slip through the cracks and end up waiting tables, etc... not because help wasn't available but because they were too lazy/afraid/unwilling to put in the work and effort required to make their and their families life better.
More Comments - Click Here
This shit drives me bonkers. Wealth=/=effort. Society did absolutely nothing for you, huh?
You've never used a public road? Used public transportation. Been protected by a public police force? Used a hospital that's been partially funded by government funds?
I take it you've never gone to school. You certainly didn't go to elementary or middle or high school. You didn't go to college either I guess, since they all take government funds to one degree or another. You paid full tuition for your college education (if you did go) and didn't get a FAFSA loan or a Pell grant?
You've never used a public library? Never used electricity? Never used the phone? Never taken any medicine or seen a doctor?
I take it you pay more than $1000 a month for your health insurance?
You've never once filed for unemployment benefits?
Anybody who says they did it all on their own is a fool.
> No, not at all. My comfortable life came to me because of my own hard work and dedication.
Found the ~~narcissist~~ libertarian.
> Found the narcissist libertarian.
Nope. Nope. and Nope.
"Charity" can mean lots of things. It can mean donations to your church, or alma mater, or an art museum, or a political campaign, or your (relatively) well-off neighbor's insured child with cancer, or to a charitable organization that has good marketing and ostensibly supports good causes, but is horribly inefficient and misleading about how its donations are spent. Plus, philanthropy is cyclical when it needs to be countercyclical -- donations drop when the economy drops, but that's precisely when more people are in need. There are just a whole lot of reasons why private charity will never be close to sufficient.
You could argue that, but historical data wouldn't support that argument. Also somehow I doubt that people who spend their time complaining about taxes and moochers are going to be rushing to give their hard-earned money directly to poor people.
Maybe, but the other side of that argument is that even if your money wasn't going to taxes, a substantial percentage of it would still be spent on private versions of services your taxes currently pay for (things like roads, fire protection, enforcement of contracts and property rights, etc.).
> If i didn't know any better i would assume these people have no desire to economically help the worse off, but are instead just greedy arseholes.
Part of the partisan problem in the US is presumptions like this, people on all sides presume bad faith on the part of everyone else and instead of focusing on areas of common interest focus on why the other person is an evil scumbag. If you picked up a random socialist, social-democrat, moderate, conservative and libertarian from the street you would find the outcomes they seek are nearly identical but they simply misunderstand policy as outcome so support a specific policy in the belief that it achieves an outcome.
Objectively its generally very easy to find the right policy to achieve an outcome (and generally its not one that anyone is talking about) but confined in their little confirmation-bias shelters people are unwilling to consider empiricism but instead only their ideologically biased position.
To some extent, but not entirely, because people's core values differ. There are outcomes everyone agrees are good, but there are other concerns where outcomes aren't the only thing that matters. If you're a libertarian, you may believe that taxation is immoral even if it leads to better consequences. In these cases, better evidence won't change people's minds, because backwards-reasoning is a symptom and not a cause of their ideological commitments.
Also keep in mind that everyone is biased, yourself included. It's impossible not to be, and calling yourself an independent or an empiricist only hides this fact under the illusion of objectivity.
> If you're a libertarian, you may believe that taxation is immoral even if it leads to better consequences.
A libertarian can be sold on elements of taxes when the argument is structured correctly just as a social democrat can be sold on elements of market-based solutions when the argument is structured correctly. To a libertarian it may be true taxes==theft but you can make a counter argument without violation the axiomatic basis they will not drop.
> In these cases, better evidence won't change people's minds, because backwards-reasoning is a symptom and not a cause of their ideological commitments.
I entirely accept its a symptom of their ideological biases but I would suggest their ideological bias is not one of politics. People are not ideologically democrat or republican but simply support whichever party they believe best meets the axiomatic basis of their ideology.
Better evidence won't change that axiomatic basis but it will change the policy solution they seek to meet that axiom. An individual doesn't support unemployment insurance, they support the idea that someone shouldn't be destitute when they loose their jobs.
> Also keep in mind that everyone is biased, yourself included.
I don't disagree.
> and calling yourself an independent or an empiricist
I called myself neither. I stated that people are unwilling to consider empiricism.
For most areas of policy objective empiricism is indeed possible; we already do this with monetary policy, Germany does it with much of fiscal policy etc. Faced with a policy its entirely possible to decide if it is "correct" or not without referencing ideology at all and how extreme cognitive dissonance is will determine if people do this or not.
Even better lets form policy by stating an outcome and then forming the policy which best achieves that outcome instead of forming a policy and then figuring out what outcomes we are going to erroneously claim it will meet.
Of course almost everyone is going to agree on an ideal outcome. A happier, wealthier, healthier, smarter, etc population.
The outcome isn't what anyone is arguing about, its how to get there. Glossing over the how to get there part as you are is a sure sign of naive, immature thinking.
> Glossing over the how to get there part as you are is a sure sign of naive, immature thinking.
I'm not "glossing over it", I am stating that most people presume bad faith on the part of others in that they do not consider the opposing side to support the same outcomes. OP expressed this directly in their post so accusing me of being naive for commenting on something that was expressed is absurd. Have you never heard people of different ideological positions argue?
Nice strawman claiming I was glossing over it BTW.
Edit: There is another post below expressing the same thing, so much for naive huh?
I simply don't believe they're all working for the same goal. It's like saying feminists and MRAs want the same thing. The fact is one side wants a world that is harmful to a lot of people. They just don't care because they think it will put them in a better position.
> It's like saying feminists and MRAs want the same thing.
Equality.
> The fact is one side wants a world that is harmful to a lot of people.
No, you characterize it as such. They believe charity will be sufficient, you believe you need government. The objective remains the same, its only the policy which differs.
They're literally saying in the OP that a person with disabilities is shit out of luck. They say something vague about charity paying for it in their imagined society, but fuck you if they're going to pay for any of it.
> They're literally saying in the OP that a person with disabilities is shit out of luck.
No, they are saying that private charity would suffice. You are characterizing what they are saying as meaning they are shit out of luck for precisely the reason I stated, you are presuming bad-faith on their part.
They say magic charity will solve all. Unicorns and fairy farts are not a substitute for policy.
The whole thing about charity is just a way to excuse their myopic philosophy. They don't really care about what happens to anyone less fortunate because they think they will be on top. This is not the same goals as other political philosophies.
Thanks for proving my point.
Dude people are disagreeing with you. No one is proving your point; they are disproving it.
Learn to read.
I said:
> Part of the partisan problem in the US is presumptions like this, people on all sides presume bad faith on the part of everyone else and instead of focusing on areas of common interest focus on why the other person is an evil scumbag.
SRS douche said:
> I simply don't believe they're all working for the same goal. It's like saying feminists and MRAs want the same thing. The fact is one side wants a world that is harmful to a lot of people. They just don't care because they think it will put them in a better position.
That is pretty much the very definition of the presumption of bad faith, it is presuming that the other side wants a world that is harmful to others.
It's not an assumption when their bad faith is both directly stated and clearly codified in their philosophy.