3 ms·

> In other words yes, I agree with you - but think that picking up the slack is the job of charity, and shouldn't involve interference with the market just beca

by mcny 9y ago

> In other words yes, I agree with you - but think that picking up the slack is the job of charity, and shouldn't involve interference with the market just because it's giving you prices you don't like. This is fundamentally the reason I (cynically) cannot trust charities (especially religious charities) long-term. The charity machinery requires people to be poor and miserable. Poor and miserable people are the products a charity sells (to donors)! We are the product. A charity is a band-aid. It cannot be as long-term infrastructure. I agree that we should not prop up failing industries for fear of layoffs. That's just kicking the can down the road. However, I strongly believe a charity has no place in a functioning society.

duncan_bayne 9y ago
I don't understand your position here. If you're opposed to charity but also opposed to market manipulation, how do you propose to support people who can't support themselves? The only alternative is forcing people to do it.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  > The only alternative is forcing people to do it. Yes, this is a pretty common position: govt charity funded by taxes is precisely forced charity, which many people are in favor of (myself included).
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    Forced charity is an oxymoron. What you're talking about is socialism, which is not charity (at least, when practised at a scale above that of a family or voluntary commune).
    - wutbrodo 9y ago
      > Forced charity is an oxymoron Yes, I know. I thought my meaning was obvious, but I'll be clearer: "Forcing" people to provide an alternative to charity is simply called "taxation" (to the extent that taxes are spent on things whose benefits are not distributed in proportion to taxation). My point was that I don't understand your claim that you don't follow the GP comment's point, since you're surely aware that taxation and gov't spending are well within the Overton Window.
- mcny 9y ago
  I'm thinking a general increase in income tax (won't happen though sadly enough).

by mcny 9y ago

duncan_bayne 9y ago

I don't understand your position here. If you're opposed to charity but also opposed to market manipulation, how do you propose to support people who can't support themselves? The only alternative is forcing people to do it.

wutbrodo 9y ago
> The only alternative is forcing people to do it. Yes, this is a pretty common position: govt charity funded by taxes is precisely forced charity, which many people are in favor of (myself included).
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  Forced charity is an oxymoron. What you're talking about is socialism, which is not charity (at least, when practised at a scale above that of a family or voluntary commune).
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    > Forced charity is an oxymoron Yes, I know. I thought my meaning was obvious, but I'll be clearer: "Forcing" people to provide an alternative to charity is simply called "taxation" (to the extent that taxes are spent on things whose benefits are not distributed in proportion to taxation). My point was that I don't understand your claim that you don't follow the GP comment's point, since you're surely aware that taxation and gov't spending are well within the Overton Window.
mcny 9y ago
I'm thinking a general increase in income tax (won't happen though sadly enough).