4 ms·

I suspect you and I are alien with respect to our views, so please don't take this as an attack. I was surprised to hear you describe people voting against con

I suspect you and I are alien with respect to our views, so please don't take this as an attack. I was surprised to hear you describe people voting against continued public service as 'selfish'. Why would you consider them selfish?

mirimir 9y ago
Maybe "selfish" isn't quite right. More like self-interested. Or not community-minded. I'm guessing that those opposed to public services would prefer private services. So perhaps a subscription-based library system. With free services for the poor, funded by donations. But would that provide as much social benefit as a public service? I tend to doubt it. Maybe libraries are a moot point, given the Internet. But the same issues come up for schools, police, fire, roads, bridges, etc. I mean, I have no children, so paying for schools seems like a rip-off sometimes. But on the other hand, I like living in a society that's at least somewhat literate.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Ignore the title, because the questioner is not Bernie Sanders. But this Milton Friedman response to this very question answers your question pretty succinctly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo
sundvor 9y ago
I define something that is public as being available to use regardless of your standing. If you have e.g. public health system, and public education, at high standards, your chance of success is to a vastly greater degree decoupled from the wealth of your family, or the suburb you live in. The benefit is that society as a whole gets richer, you reduce crime, etc etc. Basically what comes around goes around. To be opposed to having great public benefits e.g. just because you are from a family of great wealth and are unwilling to share some of that for the greater good is thus something I ultimately define as selfish. I also think it is short sighted, as no matter how well off you are the higher the chances you'll be affected by things like crime. Hopefully this explains my thinking.
- thescribe 9y ago
  It does, thank you very much.

mirimir 9y ago

Maybe "selfish" isn't quite right. More like self-interested. Or not community-minded. I'm guessing that those opposed to public services would prefer private services. So perhaps a subscription-based library system. With free services for the poor, funded by donations. But would that provide as much social benefit as a public service? I tend to doubt it. Maybe libraries are a moot point, given the Internet. But the same issues come up for schools, police, fire, roads, bridges, etc. I mean, I have no children, so paying for schools seems like a rip-off sometimes. But on the other hand, I like living in a society that's at least somewhat literate.

Consultant32452 9y ago
Ignore the title, because the questioner is not Bernie Sanders. But this Milton Friedman response to this very question answers your question pretty succinctly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo

sundvor 9y ago

I define something that is public as being available to use regardless of your standing. If you have e.g. public health system, and public education, at high standards, your chance of success is to a vastly greater degree decoupled from the wealth of your family, or the suburb you live in. The benefit is that society as a whole gets richer, you reduce crime, etc etc. Basically what comes around goes around. To be opposed to having great public benefits e.g. just because you are from a family of great wealth and are unwilling to share some of that for the greater good is thus something I ultimately define as selfish. I also think it is short sighted, as no matter how well off you are the higher the chances you'll be affected by things like crime. Hopefully this explains my thinking.

thescribe 9y ago
It does, thank you very much.