8 ms·
It's not that clear cut. Your options are more like: 1) Trust your brother, feed him and let him crash. Costs you $50. 2) Don't trust your brother. Hire an in
by DougWebb 10y ago
It's not that clear cut. Your options are more like:
1) Trust your brother, feed him and let him crash. Costs you $50.
2) Don't trust your brother. Hire an investigator to determine if he bought weed. Most of the time nothing is found so you wind up helping him, which now cost $70. Occaaionally you discover something and choose not to help. Still costs you $20.
Is #2 worth it? That depends on how often the investigator finds a reason not to help.
- cloverich 10y agoAlso time -- the $50 option costs no time. I think your argument is important. We spend a ton of time debating and considering how to prevent freeloaders. I'm more inclined to just ignore them and see how it goes, then start adding checks into the system when (if?) its apparent the free-loaders are a legitimate threat to the system.
- jackcosgrove 10y agoThere's a third option which always costs $0.
- CPLX 10y agoThere's never an option costing zero as long as the brother in question has the ability to punch you in the face and take your food for leaving him to starve.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoSo we need a BI because the poor will spend all their money on drugs, and then engage in violence against peaceful citizens who don't feed them? That's an interesting view.
- alanwatts 10y ago>the poor will spend all their money on drugs, If and when attempting to formulate coherent arguments, avoid using such absolute statements.
- CPLX 10y agoIt's actually not a particularly interesting or unique view, it's obvious, and essentially the basis of civilization. Organisms that hoard resources have been targets of violence since we were all protozoa. A widely used basic definition of government is simply the group that has cornered the market on the recognized use of violence. Rich people have to do something to grapple with poverty or the poor people will kill them and eat their food. Same as it ever was, and its reality doesn't change in response to your moral judgement.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoSeems like effective policing and residential segregation will be a far more effective use of resources. Cops are cheap, welfare is expensive.
- CPLX 10y agoThat strategy is working great in Rio and Sao Paolo, perhaps you could visit and report back on their success.
- tw04 10y agoThe fact there's a section of the population who believes that poor people won't turn to crime before starving to death simply amazes me. You actually have 4 options: do nothing and then put people in jail. Which will cost you WAYYYYYY more per person, per year, than just giving them money directly to "freeload". Do nothing and wait for the mass revolt when half the population is starving to death when you've got someone like Martin Shkreli buying his fourth Ferrari "just because". If you think the masses will just roll over and die if they're starving to death, you're delusional (whether intentionally or not).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jimmyk 10y agoThe fact there's a section of the population who believes that poor people won't turn to crime before starving to death simply amazes me. Who believes this?
- gwright 10y agoI'm a bit dismayed at the lack of imagination in this thread. How about designing public policy that provide incentives to work rather than incentives not to work? (earned income tax credits) How about decreasing the cost of labor in order to increase employment while simultaneously providing programs that assist during periods of unemployment? (e.g., make it easier to hire and to fire and switch jobs while providing strong unemployment safety net, decouple health insurance from employment) How about setting expectations that people be self-sufficient and not dependent upon others? This is a more of a cultural problem then a policy problem.
- DougWebb 10y agoHow does an incentive to work accomplish anything if the only jobs that are available (if any for a given person's skillset) are ones that pay far too little to live on. ("decreasing the cost of labor" == "reduce or eliminate the minimum wage") Most poor people work very hard to earn enough to survive; much harder per $ earned than most people on this website. They don't need an incentive to work, they need jobs that pay better for each hour they work. Raising the minimum wage won't accomplish that by itself, because most companies would reduce the number of positions to keep their costs stable. We could raise the minimum wage and then provide tax credits to businesses to offset the additional labor cost, but that'd wind up complex to administer and there would probably be loopholes that allow companies to take tax credits and keep the cash to themselves instead of paying them through to employees. With Basic Income, we effectively raise the minimum wage by direct payments to the employee; their income per hour worked goes up. This is much simpler to administer: everyone gets the same amount, and it counts as taxable income.
- kamaal 10y agohttps://www.google.com/#safe=active&q=define+extortion https://www.google.com/#safe=active&q=define+extortion the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
- alanwatts 10y agoWhich one is that?
- wccrawford 10y agoLeave your brother to die on the street, cold and hungry and ignored. Of course.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoAfter sleeping on the street for one night, the brother might also choose to spend his money on rent rather than weed the next time around.
- dwaltrip 10y agoDo you have any evidence for that? I would wager it leans in the other direction: sleeping on the street leads to other negative behaviors, in aggregate.
- kamaal 10y agoIf a person is sleeping on streets and still hasn't learned the lesson that food/clothing/shelter is more important than weed. Something tells me the person deserves it.
- dpark 10y agoYou might want to check on the price of weed vs rent in a typical city. The brother is unlikely to forgo the weed if doing so just means he's sleeping in the streets sober instead of high.
- pnutjam 10y agoWhat if your brother has hungry kids? Moral superiority doesn't feed kids.