5 ms·

> If local government can't use local taxes to provide shared toilet facilities to stop us all having to defecate in the streets then what are they (and taxes)

by adwn 10y ago

> If local government can't use local taxes to provide shared toilet facilities to stop us all having to defecate in the streets then what are they (and taxes) for? If local government can't use local taxes to provide free food to everyone to stop us all having to starve in the streets then what are they (and taxes) for? Is access to toilets a more fundamental human right than access to food? Edit: Stallman explicitly demands that public toilets should be free to everyone, independent of their financial situation. Using his logic, we should boycot food until food is available to everyone free of charge. Of course I'm not arguing against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general.

XorNot 10y ago
Actually I also definitely believe this. The homeless and hungry should be sheltered by the government and I'll pay the taxes for doing so. In lieu of that I donate to charity (though finding truly effective homeless charities is tricky).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
IanCal 10y ago
Providing food to those who would otherwise starve is an important use of taxes, and often a key part of welfare systems.
- adwn 10y ago
  Please note the clarification to my post above.
  - IanCal 10y ago
    > Edit: Stallman explicitly demands that public toilets should be free to everyone, independent of their financial situation. Using his logic, we should boycot food until food is available to everyone free of charge. Of course I'm not arguing against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general. Food is something we spend a significant amount of money on, and have wildly different preferences in purchasing. Toilets are something we spend very little on, and all are purchasing something extremely similar. Needing to prove you require hundreds of pounds of assistance for is different from having to prove you require a few quid occasionally to not have to go and shit in an alley. The key difference here is that to give free basic food to the wealthy would be wasteful (they don't need it and it's not what they might want) as well as expensive. Giving the wealthy access to a public toilet for free is not a huge incidental cost and is likely far cheaper and easier than any kind of tokens or voucher schemes (really, how well is that going to work for the homeless?). You also cannot boycott food. Boycotting paid for toilets means those who can go somewhere else, such as at home. Boycotting food means you die. The two are not comparable.
oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
If you accept that government letting people starve to death is ok, the only thing I have left to point out is that toilets tend to be more of an immediate need.
- adwn 10y ago
  > If you accept that government letting people starve to death is ok I really don't know what part of my post gave you this impression.
  - oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
    You appeared to be saying "government can't feed those in need, it shouldn't provide toilets for those in need either". Apologies for misreading you; I certainly wasn't the only one! Wrt your edit: as I mentioned in my original comment, going to the toilet is usually a much more pressing need. How would you efficiently ensure 'the right people' are using the free toilet? I would contend that it's better all round to just have a free toilet, paid for out of taxes, that anyone can use.
manarth 10y ago
That's the point of welfare programmes: to provide the basic life-sustaining means to those who don't have them. Food, housing, warmth, and sanitation. So yes, many societies do use taxes to provide free food (or food-stamps, or a welfare cheque) to those in need, to stop us having to starve in the streets.
Sir_Substance 10y ago
>Stallman explicitly demands that public toilets should be free to everyone, independent of their financial situation. Using his logic, we should boycot food until food is available to everyone free of charge. Of course I'm not arguing against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general. I actually don't see how you could unironically argue against providing essential foods (think bread, beans and chicken/fish[whichever is local]) free of charge, basic income style. If that's affordable, we should totally do it. Of course, affordability is a key part of the equation. I don't know if a basic sustenance program is affordable. I do know that basic sanitation is /totally/ affordable. Also, I feel compelled to point out that there's a public health interest in making sure everyone has a sanitary place to defecate. Societies that failed to provide this were regularly ravaged by cholera.
- diryawish 10y ago
  How do you know sanitation's affordable? How much do you have to pay workers to clean those public toilets?(anecdotally, these toilets have always been dirtier than the private ones I've used) Will those cleaners be unionized or require full-time benefits? How do you analyze toilet usage and concentrate cleaning resources on those toilets which are used more? How much funding do you dedicate to these analysts? How do you budget for future expenditures? Can you tell me how it is more efficient do this with a bureaucracy rather than a paid system? As for the public health interest - how many homeless/low income/cheap people will be forced to shit in the streets as a result of pay toilets? Will it realistically lead to cholera? It's completely reasonable to use pay toilets in some locales and public toilets in others. Believing in a definitive answer without analysis is not going to lead to good policy.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- adwn 10y ago
  > Also, I feel compelled to point out that there's a public health interest in making sure everyone has a sanitary place to defecate. Societies that failed to provide this were regularly ravaged by cholera. Here in Germany, there are very few free-of-charge, public toilets, and yet we aren't "ravaged by cholera", or anything close to it. In fact, there are very few public toilets, free or otherwise, and we don't drown in feces. Apparently public toilets are a nice thing to have, but not on the same level as not letting people starve.
Pica_soO 10y ago
>Of course I'm not arguing against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general. Of course you do. You just concat a nice relativizing clause to the end, to not feel like a monster. Sorry, but in a world where people are starving, because the likes of you want to shirk responsibilities, noone could ever be not on guard. What a nightmare. To constantly have to live with your back to the wall. And the irony, is that after you paid for the gated community guard, for the area to be exclusive, for the medicine and for the weapons- you paid more then European taxes for a "welfare" state - and got less.
- adwn 10y ago
  > Of course you do [argue against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general]. No, I really don't. > And the irony, is that after you paid for the gated community guard, for the area to be exclusive, for the medicine and for the weapons- you paid more then European taxes for a "welfare" state - and got less. You're incorrectly assuming that I'm not European. I'm also not living in a gated community, and there is no one guarding me personally. > [...] to not feel like a monster [...] the likes of you want to shirk responsibilities [...] What a nightmare [...] You're seriously overreacting, and you're making extreme, unfounded assumptions about my opinions and motivations. That's not the way to have a factual debate. I won't continue this discussion under these conditions.

by adwn 10y ago

XorNot 10y ago

Actually I also definitely believe this. The homeless and hungry should be sheltered by the government and I'll pay the taxes for doing so. In lieu of that I donate to charity (though finding truly effective homeless charities is tricky).

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

IanCal 10y ago

Providing food to those who would otherwise starve is an important use of taxes, and often a key part of welfare systems.

adwn 10y ago
Please note the clarification to my post above.
- IanCal 10y ago
  > Edit: Stallman explicitly demands that public toilets should be free to everyone, independent of their financial situation. Using his logic, we should boycot food until food is available to everyone free of charge. Of course I'm not arguing against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general. Food is something we spend a significant amount of money on, and have wildly different preferences in purchasing. Toilets are something we spend very little on, and all are purchasing something extremely similar. Needing to prove you require hundreds of pounds of assistance for is different from having to prove you require a few quid occasionally to not have to go and shit in an alley. The key difference here is that to give free basic food to the wealthy would be wasteful (they don't need it and it's not what they might want) as well as expensive. Giving the wealthy access to a public toilet for free is not a huge incidental cost and is likely far cheaper and easier than any kind of tokens or voucher schemes (really, how well is that going to work for the homeless?). You also cannot boycott food. Boycotting paid for toilets means those who can go somewhere else, such as at home. Boycotting food means you die. The two are not comparable.

oneeyedpigeon 10y ago

If you accept that government letting people starve to death is ok, the only thing I have left to point out is that toilets tend to be more of an immediate need.

adwn 10y ago
> If you accept that government letting people starve to death is ok I really don't know what part of my post gave you this impression.
- oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
  You appeared to be saying "government can't feed those in need, it shouldn't provide toilets for those in need either". Apologies for misreading you; I certainly wasn't the only one! Wrt your edit: as I mentioned in my original comment, going to the toilet is usually a much more pressing need. How would you efficiently ensure 'the right people' are using the free toilet? I would contend that it's better all round to just have a free toilet, paid for out of taxes, that anyone can use.

manarth 10y ago

That's the point of welfare programmes: to provide the basic life-sustaining means to those who don't have them. Food, housing, warmth, and sanitation. So yes, many societies do use taxes to provide free food (or food-stamps, or a welfare cheque) to those in need, to stop us having to starve in the streets.

Sir_Substance 10y ago

>Stallman explicitly demands that public toilets should be free to everyone, independent of their financial situation. Using his logic, we should boycot food until food is available to everyone free of charge. Of course I'm not arguing against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general. I actually don't see how you could unironically argue against providing essential foods (think bread, beans and chicken/fish[whichever is local]) free of charge, basic income style. If that's affordable, we should totally do it. Of course, affordability is a key part of the equation. I don't know if a basic sustenance program is affordable. I do know that basic sanitation is /totally/ affordable. Also, I feel compelled to point out that there's a public health interest in making sure everyone has a sanitary place to defecate. Societies that failed to provide this were regularly ravaged by cholera.

diryawish 10y ago
How do you know sanitation's affordable? How much do you have to pay workers to clean those public toilets?(anecdotally, these toilets have always been dirtier than the private ones I've used) Will those cleaners be unionized or require full-time benefits? How do you analyze toilet usage and concentrate cleaning resources on those toilets which are used more? How much funding do you dedicate to these analysts? How do you budget for future expenditures? Can you tell me how it is more efficient do this with a bureaucracy rather than a paid system? As for the public health interest - how many homeless/low income/cheap people will be forced to shit in the streets as a result of pay toilets? Will it realistically lead to cholera? It's completely reasonable to use pay toilets in some locales and public toilets in others. Believing in a definitive answer without analysis is not going to lead to good policy.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
adwn 10y ago
> Also, I feel compelled to point out that there's a public health interest in making sure everyone has a sanitary place to defecate. Societies that failed to provide this were regularly ravaged by cholera. Here in Germany, there are very few free-of-charge, public toilets, and yet we aren't "ravaged by cholera", or anything close to it. In fact, there are very few public toilets, free or otherwise, and we don't drown in feces. Apparently public toilets are a nice thing to have, but not on the same level as not letting people starve.

Pica_soO 10y ago

>Of course I'm not arguing against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general. Of course you do. You just concat a nice relativizing clause to the end, to not feel like a monster. Sorry, but in a world where people are starving, because the likes of you want to shirk responsibilities, noone could ever be not on guard. What a nightmare. To constantly have to live with your back to the wall. And the irony, is that after you paid for the gated community guard, for the area to be exclusive, for the medicine and for the weapons- you paid more then European taxes for a "welfare" state - and got less.

adwn 10y ago
> Of course you do [argue against feeding the needy, or against social nets in general]. No, I really don't. > And the irony, is that after you paid for the gated community guard, for the area to be exclusive, for the medicine and for the weapons- you paid more then European taxes for a "welfare" state - and got less. You're incorrectly assuming that I'm not European. I'm also not living in a gated community, and there is no one guarding me personally. > [...] to not feel like a monster [...] the likes of you want to shirk responsibilities [...] What a nightmare [...] You're seriously overreacting, and you're making extreme, unfounded assumptions about my opinions and motivations. That's not the way to have a factual debate. I won't continue this discussion under these conditions.