4 ms·

If you're gonna force business owners to give to the poor, why not do it through an established and equitable mechanism like taxation/redistribution, instead of

If you're gonna force business owners to give to the poor, why not do it through an established and equitable mechanism like taxation/redistribution, instead of subjecting select types of business owners to the whims of a mostly subjective claim? Why force the burden on a bakery but not a tailor or a chocolatier? I can't help but be concerned about this growing trend of governments slowly pushing off the burden of general welfare onto businesses. You see it in the US with health care being the responsibility of the employer, affordable housing mandates on real estate developers, and minimum wage increases in expensive areas. All of these "solutions" to poverty have huge unintended consequences, even if they partially address the problem. The problem of poverty isn't solved by forcing businesses to be compassionate, it is solved by governments doing their fucking job and taxing everybody equitably to do so.

talmand 10y ago
Or even better, implement the system that is starting to decent success in many areas; mandate that stores hand over still edible foods they would normally throw away due to standard business practices.
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
Actually, when you think of it, maybe it's better to legalize stealing than establishing a government agency in charge of equitable redistribution. I would imagine stealing would work more efficiently and more fairly. (You see a problem and you say: Hey, let's establish a government agency to solve that problem. Now you have two problems.)
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Am I missing some sarcasm here? Legalising stealing is basically abolishing property rights.
  - avar 10y ago
    You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation. Additionally you'd create a pressure in society to increase wealth equality / charity and opportunities for the needy / poor, since nobody likes to be stolen from all the time. Right now the poor are an abstract problem for many, especially the rich, if you ran the risk of being stolen from directly maybe you'd have a stake in increasing wealth equality. Or maybe you'd just hire private security. It might actually be a better system, or it might not, who knows?
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      >You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation. Unless you're suggesting everyone be allowed to steal, you're going to spend as much effort (if not more) working out which thefts were legitimate as you are working out who is allowed welfare. Not to mention you're replacing a predictable system with ad hoc chaos. (Maybe insurance can smooth it a little, but then that's just further overhead.) >Or maybe you'd just hire private security. Private security is largely toothless if they can't hand people over to the police. Even if they throw you out, you can just come back the next day and try again.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    And just out of curiosity, how far exactly do you think property rights should go? Is your right to own something more important than another persons right to life? Property rights are a social construct granted to you by society at large, they don't have to be and are not absolute.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      Oh I absolutely agree. Indeed, I often make a point of arguing against libertarians who try to take property rights as a moral prior, and I'm highly amused that so many people are now making the same argument against me... But if we're going to limit property rights, we should do so systematically by redistribution, not by allowing ad hoc violations. Predictability is the most important economic benefit of the rule of law.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        OK, just curious what your view was, I don't disagree.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    No jurisdiction on earth enforce property rights as absolute and inviolable. There are tons of exceptions everywhere, because every society on earth recognizes that there are situations where the needs of individuals or society as a whole are more important than individual property rights. This is just one more exception. Further, it is an exception based on a principle that has historical roots that pre-dates every modern legal system. It is totally unsurprising that some of them have codified principles that can be used in this manner. Especially given that e.g. the principle of necessity in many jurisdictions can be used to justify far worse abrogations of property right than petty theft.
- gozur88 10y ago
  What happens in countries where the government doesn't or can't protect property rights is people with property protect their own rights. Sometimes very zealously. It's not hard to find videos on the web where a mob of shopkeepers beat the crap out of (or even shooting) someone caught shoplifting. We don't have cops to protect us from criminals. We have cops to protect people accused of crime from summary judgement.

talmand 10y ago

Or even better, implement the system that is starting to decent success in many areas; mandate that stores hand over still edible foods they would normally throw away due to standard business practices.

KKKKkkkk1 10y ago

Actually, when you think of it, maybe it's better to legalize stealing than establishing a government agency in charge of equitable redistribution. I would imagine stealing would work more efficiently and more fairly. (You see a problem and you say: Hey, let's establish a government agency to solve that problem. Now you have two problems.)

aninhumer 10y ago
Am I missing some sarcasm here? Legalising stealing is basically abolishing property rights.
- avar 10y ago
  You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation. Additionally you'd create a pressure in society to increase wealth equality / charity and opportunities for the needy / poor, since nobody likes to be stolen from all the time. Right now the poor are an abstract problem for many, especially the rich, if you ran the risk of being stolen from directly maybe you'd have a stake in increasing wealth equality. Or maybe you'd just hire private security. It might actually be a better system, or it might not, who knows?
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >You wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation. Unless you're suggesting everyone be allowed to steal, you're going to spend as much effort (if not more) working out which thefts were legitimate as you are working out who is allowed welfare. Not to mention you're replacing a predictable system with ad hoc chaos. (Maybe insurance can smooth it a little, but then that's just further overhead.) >Or maybe you'd just hire private security. Private security is largely toothless if they can't hand people over to the police. Even if they throw you out, you can just come back the next day and try again.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  And just out of curiosity, how far exactly do you think property rights should go? Is your right to own something more important than another persons right to life? Property rights are a social construct granted to you by society at large, they don't have to be and are not absolute.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Oh I absolutely agree. Indeed, I often make a point of arguing against libertarians who try to take property rights as a moral prior, and I'm highly amused that so many people are now making the same argument against me... But if we're going to limit property rights, we should do so systematically by redistribution, not by allowing ad hoc violations. Predictability is the most important economic benefit of the rule of law.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      OK, just curious what your view was, I don't disagree.
- vidarh 10y ago
  No jurisdiction on earth enforce property rights as absolute and inviolable. There are tons of exceptions everywhere, because every society on earth recognizes that there are situations where the needs of individuals or society as a whole are more important than individual property rights. This is just one more exception. Further, it is an exception based on a principle that has historical roots that pre-dates every modern legal system. It is totally unsurprising that some of them have codified principles that can be used in this manner. Especially given that e.g. the principle of necessity in many jurisdictions can be used to justify far worse abrogations of property right than petty theft.
gozur88 10y ago
What happens in countries where the government doesn't or can't protect property rights is people with property protect their own rights. Sometimes very zealously. It's not hard to find videos on the web where a mob of shopkeepers beat the crap out of (or even shooting) someone caught shoplifting. We don't have cops to protect us from criminals. We have cops to protect people accused of crime from summary judgement.