3 ms·
> "People in the cities" (who tend to be strongly left-leaning) literally want to give money to the less well-off people in rural areas to help support them. I
by wtbob 10y ago
> "People in the cities" (who tend to be strongly left-leaning) literally want to give money to the less well-off people in rural areas to help support them.
It's more accurate to say that they want to give other people's money to the less-well-off. I don't know that it's terribly empathetic to use violence to take someone else's wealth and give it to another in order to get warm fuzzies or votes.
Last night, I went to a banquet for an organisation which is (AFAIK) entirely funded voluntarily, and which helps folks in crises (natural and man-made disasters, e.g. hurricanes, earthquakes and wars) all over the world, regardless of creed. They only spend 8% of their revenue on fundraising, which I think is pretty good. I voluntarily wrote them a cheque, and was glad to do it.
The moral calculus would be completely different had I voted to send armed agents to raid your bank account and give those funds to the organisation.
- gipp 10y agoSo, I am not a libertarian, but I do think the libertarian wing of this country does sometimes have good points and provide a valuable alternative perspective on some issues. BUT, you guys have really got to stop this godawful stupid "point of a gun" rhetoric you're all cribbing directly from Atlas Shrugged. Yes, I understand the metaphor you are trying to make, but it is a profoundly terrible way to make that argument and needlessly escalates every discussion and alienates anyone not already on your side instantly.
- wtbob 10y ago> BUT, you guys have really got to stop this godawful stupid "point of a gun" rhetoric you're all cribbing directly from Atlas Shrugged. I've never read Atlas Shrugged. We pay our taxes because if we don't, armed men will try to arrest us, and if we resist them then they will kill us. Violence is the ultimate backstop of any law. That's fine: we need laws, and we need taxes. But let's try to ensure that we threaten & use violence as little as is reasonable. I think it was P.J. O'Rourke who suggested asking oneself, for any law, if one would wave a gun at one's grandmother to force her to comply. Laws against murder and theft? Sure, grandma had better not do that. Taxes to prevent people starving on the streets? Sure, grandma had better cough up. Laws against selling soup in one's home, or taxes to fund cowboy poetry festivals? Somehow I just can't see pointing a gun at grandma for that.
- dang 10y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13905286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13905286 and marked it off-topic.
- wtbob 10y agoI think it directly addressed the point re. empathy in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13905286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13905286, and was no more or less off-topic than that comment.
- dang 10y agoIt's the generic ideological talking point that's the problem. Those only ever lead to generic tangents, which are the wrong kind of tangent—plus usually flamewars.
- wtbob 10y agoThank you for responding; I do appreciate that. Isn't '"People in the cities" (who tend to be strongly left-leaning) literally want to give money to the less well-off people in rural areas to help support them. It's the right-leaning candidates who are opposed to wealth redistribution. Who is missing empathy for whom? From my perspective, the fiscal conservatives from the rural areas have relatively less empathy than vice versa.' exactly as much of an generic ideological talking point? It certainly led to a lot of heated discussion, e.g. the top-rated comment in that thread, which stated in part 'If anything I'd say there's a lot of disgust with how many rural Americans live off the system.'