2 ms·
The leading assumption of this book review (and many articles like it) is that it's hypocritical for poor people to both accept government assistance and be in
by gok 10y ago
The leading assumption of this book review (and many articles like it) is that it's hypocritical for poor people to both accept government assistance and be in favor of reducing it in general.
What a crock of shit.
Notice we never see headlines asking…
- Why Do Tech Workers Who Need Software Patents Hate Them So Much?
- Why Do Billionaires Who Need Tax Breaks Hate Them So Much?
- Why Do Tenants Who Need Rent Control Hate It So Much?
…because it goes without saying that those people are smart enough to vote outside of their short term economic interest. Anyone accepting a food stamp, though, how dare they vote for anything except more food stamps!?
I consider myself pretty progressive, but come on. How would you feel about being told you "need" any law which happens to benefit your bottom line and being treated like an idiot for opposing it?
- someguydave 10y agoYour point is well taken. But how can the state redistribute wealth to the needy without paternalism?
- ivcha 10y agoThis is arguably one of the main points of UBI, which should, by construction, solve paternalism. One of the main points is changing people's view on income.