2 ms·
Your reply demonstrates perfectly why in-kind benefits are politically superior to cash. You've now demanded that specific goods be added to the list and we can
by yummyfajitas 11y ago
Your reply demonstrates perfectly why in-kind benefits are politically superior to cash. You've now demanded that specific goods be added to the list and we can explicitly have a debate on the merits of those goods.
I've lived in housing far worse, in terms of material living conditions, than what I'm proposing. I'll happily do it again, most likely next Jan.
The main problem you describe (people committing gang rapes) is a problem with the people rather than the environment. Folks aren't materially deprived, they are just bad people. Now consider these folks: http://www.zostel.com/media/photo/Jaipur_Zostel_Common_Room_Travellers_Fun16.jpg http://www.zostel.com/media/photo/Jaipur_Zostel_Common_Room_... Suddenly, materially worse living conditions don't seem so bad. Instead of "gray government housing devoid of life or joy", it's a fun youth hostel.
(In contrast, my experience staying in real poverty (aka a nice building in an average Maharashtran village) was far less fun. The lack of mosquito netting, power, internet and running water made life quite unpleasant.)
- ta0967 11y agoYour reply demonstrates perfectly why in-kind benefits are politically superior to cash. Pardon me, but you remind me of the "What have Romans ever done for us?" scene from the Life of Brian.
- peteretep 11y ago> You've now demand that specific goods be added to the list In fact, the opposite: >> It turns out that, in practice, parents do a better >> job of assigning resources to their children's welfare >> than governments do.
- kragen 11y agoI am disappointed that you think that I was "demand[ing] that specific goods be added to the list", and given that level of incomprehension, I don't think engaging further with you on this will be productive.
- barrkel 11y agoThe only way many people can stay mentally coherent to ideological positions is if they don't read dissenting positions too closely. They try to slot opposing opinions into pre-formed straw-man arguments, then they reiterate their pre-fabricated counter-arguments. It's a pattern you see almost universally in the user comment sections of political journalism. People who want to think find the comment section's tone hostile, because it's filled with ideologues with Pavlovian responses and pre-canned arguments. The ideologues don't need to read what the other side's ideologues have written - they just need a few key words and they're salivating. Political comment sections are a write-only platform. I don't think this phenomenon is specific to any political ideology, mind. I think it's fairly universal.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoI honestly don't know whether to upvote you for describing an important phenomenon or to downvote you for semi-implicit accusation of intellectual dishonesty towards a long-time HN user. Personally, I disagree with 'yummyfajitas conclusions, but I wouldn't go as far as to imply motivated reasoning.
- kragen 11y agoAgreed. Thank you. Surely none of us is without sin when it comes to intellectual dishonesty.
- makomk 11y agoPlenty of long-time HN users engage in motivated reasoning and intellectual dishonesty for ideological reasons. At times, it's positively predictable.
- barrkel 11y agoYF's post: a rose by any other name, etc. YF may not have been dishonest, but the post was also not worth engaging.