4 ms·

The severely disabled, we should provide zero social supports for them and their families so? It's nobody's fault that they're garbage people. Luck of the lott

The severely disabled, we should provide zero social supports for them and their families so? It's nobody's fault that they're garbage people. Luck of the lottery.

logicchains 9y ago
>The severely disabled, we should provide zero social supports for them and their families so? If "we" want to provide support to any group, it can be done through charity. I'd argue this way is more moral: it's more of a good deed to be generous with one's own money than with other peoples', and it's not much of a good deed to give money if one's only doing so due to threat of imprisonment for failing to comply. There's also research suggesting that charitable behaviour makes the givers happier too: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-012.pdf http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-012.pdf.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >If "we" want to provide support to any group, it can be done through charity. Charity implies voluntarily providing support, leaving it to the benevolence (or lack thereof) of each individual. In the end, it teaches people that being uncharitable is OK and an acceptable trait, just like being charitable. I want a society that mandates that support -- and even more so, one where everybody is OK with that. In other words, instead of pushing out the disabled, in my society I'd rather push out (as useless scum) those that don't wont want society to help the disabled. >I'd argue this way is more moral: it's more of a good deed to be generous with one's own money than with other peoples' Then, since everybody will be using their own money to pay the "help the disabled" tax, it's a good deed to mandate by law that everybody has to fork out. >it's not much of a good deed to give money if one's only doing so due to threat of imprisonment for failing to comply. That would be irrelevant if the desired outcome is to effectively help the disabled, rather than to test honesty of people's charity.
  - igravious 9y ago
    > In other words, instead of pushing out the disabled, in my society I'd rather push out (as useless scum) those that don't wont want society to help the disabled. Amen to that. I was merely taking the original comment to one of its logical conclusion. Seems like there are those who would like to bring back charitable almshouses and asylums to replace state institutions, how quaint but also how despicable. After all: If you can't keep up (even if you're disabled), that's not other people's fault for being better than you.
  - logicchains 9y ago
    >Charity implies voluntarily providing support, leaving it to the benevolence (or lack thereof) of each individual. In the end, it teaches people that being uncharitable is OK and an acceptable trait, just like being charitable. Your use of "teaches" here implies that violence/imprisonment or the threat thereof teaches (if no mandatory charity teaches people that being uncharitable is okay, I assume you mean mandatory charity through taxation teaches people to be charitable?). That certainly isn't a given; how do you know whether people have been taught to be charitable by the threat of violence/imprisonment vs they're only paying taxes to avoid being imprisoned? If you beat a child for swearing, has the child learned that swearing is bad, or or has the child just learned to avoid swearing in front of the parent to avoid beating? I'd argue that one thing it definitely teaches is that violence is an acceptable means of making others do what you want, and to me a person who believes this is far more terrible than a person who's just too cheapskate to give charitably. Millions more people have been killed in the past century by people using violence to compel others and people supporting such ideas (e.g. Stalin, Mao, Hitler and their armies, even the politicians who forced people into the army via the draft) than have been killed from neglect (the 20th century war & genocide death toll far outstrips the death toll from starvation). >Then, since everybody will be using their own money to pay the "help the disabled" tax, it's a good deed to mandate by law that everybody has to fork out. Is a good deed a good deed if done unwillingly? >That would be irrelevant if the desired outcome is to effectively help the disabled, rather than to test honesty of people's charity. If people are free to donate as they choose and none chose to support the disabled, wouldn't that in fact show that society doesn't really care about helping the disabled anyway? In which case what's the justification for a law forcing something that few in society want? Conversely, given so many people do seem to care about the welfare of the disabled, why wouldn't they express this through charity?
- ue_ 9y ago
  >If "we" want to provide support to any group, it can be done through charity. It's funny. Propertiarians frequently use the argument against Socialism that it's "human nature" to be greedy, while simultaneously relegating social support to charity, supposedly out of the goodness of human hearts :)
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    It's worth noting that donating to charities usually includes tax benefits, since donations are tax-deductible. This provides a financial incentive for charity/philanthropy, thus exploiting human greed (or perhaps their disdain toward government taxation) for the betterment of humanity (at least in theory).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

The severely disabled, we should provide zero social supports for them and their families so? It's nobody's fault that they're garbage people. Luck of the lottery.

logicchains 9y ago

>The severely disabled, we should provide zero social supports for them and their families so? If "we" want to provide support to any group, it can be done through charity. I'd argue this way is more moral: it's more of a good deed to be generous with one's own money than with other peoples', and it's not much of a good deed to give money if one's only doing so due to threat of imprisonment for failing to comply. There's also research suggesting that charitable behaviour makes the givers happier too: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-012.pdf http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-012.pdf.

coldtea 9y ago
>If "we" want to provide support to any group, it can be done through charity. Charity implies voluntarily providing support, leaving it to the benevolence (or lack thereof) of each individual. In the end, it teaches people that being uncharitable is OK and an acceptable trait, just like being charitable. I want a society that mandates that support -- and even more so, one where everybody is OK with that. In other words, instead of pushing out the disabled, in my society I'd rather push out (as useless scum) those that don't wont want society to help the disabled. >I'd argue this way is more moral: it's more of a good deed to be generous with one's own money than with other peoples' Then, since everybody will be using their own money to pay the "help the disabled" tax, it's a good deed to mandate by law that everybody has to fork out. >it's not much of a good deed to give money if one's only doing so due to threat of imprisonment for failing to comply. That would be irrelevant if the desired outcome is to effectively help the disabled, rather than to test honesty of people's charity.
- igravious 9y ago
  > In other words, instead of pushing out the disabled, in my society I'd rather push out (as useless scum) those that don't wont want society to help the disabled. Amen to that. I was merely taking the original comment to one of its logical conclusion. Seems like there are those who would like to bring back charitable almshouses and asylums to replace state institutions, how quaint but also how despicable. After all: If you can't keep up (even if you're disabled), that's not other people's fault for being better than you.
- logicchains 9y ago
  >Charity implies voluntarily providing support, leaving it to the benevolence (or lack thereof) of each individual. In the end, it teaches people that being uncharitable is OK and an acceptable trait, just like being charitable. Your use of "teaches" here implies that violence/imprisonment or the threat thereof teaches (if no mandatory charity teaches people that being uncharitable is okay, I assume you mean mandatory charity through taxation teaches people to be charitable?). That certainly isn't a given; how do you know whether people have been taught to be charitable by the threat of violence/imprisonment vs they're only paying taxes to avoid being imprisoned? If you beat a child for swearing, has the child learned that swearing is bad, or or has the child just learned to avoid swearing in front of the parent to avoid beating? I'd argue that one thing it definitely teaches is that violence is an acceptable means of making others do what you want, and to me a person who believes this is far more terrible than a person who's just too cheapskate to give charitably. Millions more people have been killed in the past century by people using violence to compel others and people supporting such ideas (e.g. Stalin, Mao, Hitler and their armies, even the politicians who forced people into the army via the draft) than have been killed from neglect (the 20th century war & genocide death toll far outstrips the death toll from starvation). >Then, since everybody will be using their own money to pay the "help the disabled" tax, it's a good deed to mandate by law that everybody has to fork out. Is a good deed a good deed if done unwillingly? >That would be irrelevant if the desired outcome is to effectively help the disabled, rather than to test honesty of people's charity. If people are free to donate as they choose and none chose to support the disabled, wouldn't that in fact show that society doesn't really care about helping the disabled anyway? In which case what's the justification for a law forcing something that few in society want? Conversely, given so many people do seem to care about the welfare of the disabled, why wouldn't they express this through charity?
ue_ 9y ago
>If "we" want to provide support to any group, it can be done through charity. It's funny. Propertiarians frequently use the argument against Socialism that it's "human nature" to be greedy, while simultaneously relegating social support to charity, supposedly out of the goodness of human hearts :)
- yellowapple 9y ago
  It's worth noting that donating to charities usually includes tax benefits, since donations are tax-deductible. This provides a financial incentive for charity/philanthropy, thus exploiting human greed (or perhaps their disdain toward government taxation) for the betterment of humanity (at least in theory).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]