4 ms·

How is this charity? Isn't "the poorest among us have some basic level of livelihood" exactly justice, and exactly the job of a government? Please don't use th

How is this charity? Isn't "the poorest among us have some basic level of livelihood" exactly justice, and exactly the job of a government? Please don't use this kind of argument to turn HN into reddit.

grondilu 9y ago
In my humble opinion, the job of the government is absolutely not to give money to the poorest people, not even to maintain a "basic level of livelyhood". I'm also fairly certain this has nothing to do with the concept of justice.
- rco8786 9y ago
  What's so bad about needing help? And what's so bad about society helping it's neediest maintain a basic level of existence?
  - chii 9y ago
    Overwhelmingly large number of people in society are selfish. They say that social welfare is good, but when time comes to increase taxes to fund it, either they oppose, or build in clever loopholes to work around it (the rich do anyway). What's left is the middle to lower class getting the burden, and that causes them to also reject tax increases.
- ZeroCool2u 9y ago
  Then what is the role of government, in your opinion?
  - andrepd 9y ago
    Probably anything that is needed to ensure and maintain his status, such as property laws and protection against bodily harm, and not any thing else.
- halfteatree 9y ago
  Not believing in basic human rights isn't exactly what I would call a "humble" opinion. Words have meanings.
  - mitchty 9y ago
    You could argue rights as being in the welfare category. But in all reality this centers on first agreeing to basic definitions of terms. Words do have meanings, but the most frustrating thing about our "post truth" world is everyone wants to define words in a personal level. It makes any sort of debate or discussion next to impossible.
- dagss 9y ago
  "Justice" means upholding laws? Most of the world has signed conventions that makes basic livelihood a right -- and puts it on the state to ensure this. Perhaps you don't agree with these laws and conventions. But please consider that the very concept of "ownership" and "property" is also something that is only upheld by laws. Also on a pragmatic level, why should those without property acknowledge and support a state which doesn't look out for their basic livelihood? A state that does not at least try to make sure everyone has a livelihood is a sure path to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well. You should turn around and ask: Why should people support the notion of property? Property is part of the social contract in much the same way that human rights (everyone having a livelihood) is part of the social contract.
  - grondilu 9y ago
    > to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well. Some problems for sure, but it's probably manageable. Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime. Rich people can build as many prisons as necessary.
    - halfteatree 9y ago
      That went pretty well in venezuela.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      How can you possibly believe that a society where a large percent of people are in prison is a healthy society?
      - grondilu 9y ago
        If they committed crime, they should be in prison, regardless of how numerous they are.
        kelnos 9y ago
        How is that even remotely the point? If you have a huge prison population, your society is unhealthy. Full stop. Even if those people "deserve" to be in prison. If they do, that's the society's failing in successfully educating and raising people to be productive members of that society. It's rotten to the core.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  Ah then you must also believe that the government should not be giving money to corporations, and special breaks to the rich; breaks that make it so the poor have a harder time escaping poverty?? They do, because the laws are bought by the rich.
  - andrenth 9y ago
    The way to fix this is by design: to have a government small enough that buying it wouldn’t bring you advantages comparable to succeeding in the free market. Most people disagree with that and seem to think it’s possible to have angels from heaven running the government machine. The thing is that even if you manage that, it’s bound to go wrong at some future election.
    - SubiculumCode 9y ago
      The problem will always be that the profit motive is an engine that chews up the weak and the helpless, and as a moral society we want to limit these kind of behaviors, both by local gangs, and by massive corporations. Government is one way to do this. I agree that government should be more limited in some way. I think that the solution will be to empower local government, and the yoke the power of the federal fiat currency to local authority.
- andrepd 9y ago
  Two things: it relieves me to see that you are in the minority with that kind of repellent thought. Second, I'm almost 100% sure that you would sing a very different tune if you had drawn the short stick in the birth lottery.

grondilu 9y ago

In my humble opinion, the job of the government is absolutely not to give money to the poorest people, not even to maintain a "basic level of livelyhood". I'm also fairly certain this has nothing to do with the concept of justice.

rco8786 9y ago
What's so bad about needing help? And what's so bad about society helping it's neediest maintain a basic level of existence?
- chii 9y ago
  Overwhelmingly large number of people in society are selfish. They say that social welfare is good, but when time comes to increase taxes to fund it, either they oppose, or build in clever loopholes to work around it (the rich do anyway). What's left is the middle to lower class getting the burden, and that causes them to also reject tax increases.
ZeroCool2u 9y ago
Then what is the role of government, in your opinion?
- andrepd 9y ago
  Probably anything that is needed to ensure and maintain his status, such as property laws and protection against bodily harm, and not any thing else.
halfteatree 9y ago
Not believing in basic human rights isn't exactly what I would call a "humble" opinion. Words have meanings.
- mitchty 9y ago
  You could argue rights as being in the welfare category. But in all reality this centers on first agreeing to basic definitions of terms. Words do have meanings, but the most frustrating thing about our "post truth" world is everyone wants to define words in a personal level. It makes any sort of debate or discussion next to impossible.
dagss 9y ago
"Justice" means upholding laws? Most of the world has signed conventions that makes basic livelihood a right -- and puts it on the state to ensure this. Perhaps you don't agree with these laws and conventions. But please consider that the very concept of "ownership" and "property" is also something that is only upheld by laws. Also on a pragmatic level, why should those without property acknowledge and support a state which doesn't look out for their basic livelihood? A state that does not at least try to make sure everyone has a livelihood is a sure path to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well. You should turn around and ask: Why should people support the notion of property? Property is part of the social contract in much the same way that human rights (everyone having a livelihood) is part of the social contract.
- grondilu 9y ago
  > to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well. Some problems for sure, but it's probably manageable. Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime. Rich people can build as many prisons as necessary.
  - halfteatree 9y ago
    That went pretty well in venezuela.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    How can you possibly believe that a society where a large percent of people are in prison is a healthy society?
    - grondilu 9y ago
      If they committed crime, they should be in prison, regardless of how numerous they are.
      - kelnos 9y ago
        How is that even remotely the point? If you have a huge prison population, your society is unhealthy. Full stop. Even if those people "deserve" to be in prison. If they do, that's the society's failing in successfully educating and raising people to be productive members of that society. It's rotten to the core.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
Ah then you must also believe that the government should not be giving money to corporations, and special breaks to the rich; breaks that make it so the poor have a harder time escaping poverty?? They do, because the laws are bought by the rich.
- andrenth 9y ago
  The way to fix this is by design: to have a government small enough that buying it wouldn’t bring you advantages comparable to succeeding in the free market. Most people disagree with that and seem to think it’s possible to have angels from heaven running the government machine. The thing is that even if you manage that, it’s bound to go wrong at some future election.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    The problem will always be that the profit motive is an engine that chews up the weak and the helpless, and as a moral society we want to limit these kind of behaviors, both by local gangs, and by massive corporations. Government is one way to do this. I agree that government should be more limited in some way. I think that the solution will be to empower local government, and the yoke the power of the federal fiat currency to local authority.
andrepd 9y ago
Two things: it relieves me to see that you are in the minority with that kind of repellent thought. Second, I'm almost 100% sure that you would sing a very different tune if you had drawn the short stick in the birth lottery.