5 ms·

Why are social programs necessary?

jedberg 8y ago
Because not everyone is born into the privilege necessary to “pull up their own bootstraps”. In fact it was on college that I learned a lot about libertarianism, and was a strong believer in pure capitolisim. As I’ve aged I’ve realized that it just doesn’t work.
- Aloha 8y ago
  It's not privilege, privilege makes it easier, but it's certainly not impossible without it - unless you count things like intelligence and personality to be privilege. That said, a certain subset of the population doesn't have the wherewithal, drive or ability to do it - and for an even smaller, the best in life they can hope for is to perform some sort of manual labor. We mustn't forget about the self selection bias of being smart - we tend to only socialize and know other smart people - meaning, don't fall into the fallacy of assuming you're the median.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > It's not privilege, privilege makes it easier, but it's certainly not impossible without it. No, but it is much, much harder. Assuming all human beings are equal, how can you justify working a lot harder for the same outcome? As an example, we generally want to help the disabled, it is generally a good policy to remove barriers, install lifts etc. not for them to 'just learn to walk properly' or whatever.
    - Aloha 8y ago
      > No, but it is much, much harder. Assuming all human beings are equal, how can you justify working a lot harder for the same outcome? I can't, that's my point we need to provide good opportunities for people of all abilities, not just for the smartest, we're failing at this goal. I want a more just and equitable society not necessarily just an equal one.
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > I can't, that's my point we need to provide good opportunities for people of all abilities, not just for the smartest I agree, I was talking about affordability. You can be super smart, but if you're 2/3 as smart and also rich, you're still likely to do better in life than the smart, poor kid would.
        Aloha 8y ago
        I'd agree, I believe poverty is at the root of most of our social ills, and we need to make a serious effort to solve it. We can do it while trying to solve the other social ills, but without solving poverty, we won't fix the other issues.
Aloha 8y ago
Because everyone isn't as smart as you are, and with the elimination of many jobs at the bottom of the economy we no longer have a good way to ensure the pie of wealth us equitably divided.
- thegeomaster 8y ago
  But looking at it as a pie that needs to be divided is wrong. One of the core tenets of capitalism (well, in theory) is that wealth is created literally from nothing. It's not a zero-sum game. In practice, unfortunately, one needs certain prerequisites to be able to do this. So in my view, the problem is not that something is unequally divided, but that a class of people systematically aren't able to create enough wealth and so are stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty.
  - 8bitsrule 8y ago
    "wealth is created literally from nothing." Most of the real wealth I see being created has ultimately come from the exploitation of natural resources. Far from being 'nothing', most of these limited resources (which in another theory belong to all life on Earth) require underpaid 'human resources' to turn them into the highly-profitable 'nothing' of which you speak. Much of which winds up in the garbage. (E.g., here in the U.S. we build housing to last for maybe two generations.) If anything, much real wealth comes from turning valuable resources into nothing.
    - PeterisP 8y ago
      Primary extraction (mining, farming, forestry, fishing) is something like 6% of the global economy. On average, the things you or I use consist of 6% exploitation of natural resources and 94% of labor after that. Natural resources are important, but now (as opposed to 19th century) they are a tiny part of what we make and use, they are not the main part of wealth.
      - ergothus 8y ago
        How do you estimate the "consumption" of clean water and air? How much of the non extraction economy relies on the extraction happening? I cant imagine how to estimate those numbers, but I do imagine they'd be significant.
devxpy 8y ago
Its in my opinion that people don't use the computer properly. There's very little you gain from social programs that you can't gain if you watch the right kind of content, read the right kind of articles, and just talk to people. I've met far more smart people on the internet than I could ever meet in real life. In fact most people I meet in real life are stupid.
- oldboyFX 8y ago
  > In fact most people I meet in real life are stupid. I've also felt like this for a long time before I grew up.
  - devxpy 8y ago
    Maybe you have better peers than I do

Because not everyone is born into the privilege necessary to “pull up their own bootstraps”. In fact it was on college that I learned a lot about libertarianism, and was a strong believer in pure capitolisim. As I’ve aged I’ve realized that it just doesn’t work.

Aloha 8y ago
It's not privilege, privilege makes it easier, but it's certainly not impossible without it - unless you count things like intelligence and personality to be privilege. That said, a certain subset of the population doesn't have the wherewithal, drive or ability to do it - and for an even smaller, the best in life they can hope for is to perform some sort of manual labor. We mustn't forget about the self selection bias of being smart - we tend to only socialize and know other smart people - meaning, don't fall into the fallacy of assuming you're the median.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > It's not privilege, privilege makes it easier, but it's certainly not impossible without it. No, but it is much, much harder. Assuming all human beings are equal, how can you justify working a lot harder for the same outcome? As an example, we generally want to help the disabled, it is generally a good policy to remove barriers, install lifts etc. not for them to 'just learn to walk properly' or whatever.
  - Aloha 8y ago
    > No, but it is much, much harder. Assuming all human beings are equal, how can you justify working a lot harder for the same outcome? I can't, that's my point we need to provide good opportunities for people of all abilities, not just for the smartest, we're failing at this goal. I want a more just and equitable society not necessarily just an equal one.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > I can't, that's my point we need to provide good opportunities for people of all abilities, not just for the smartest I agree, I was talking about affordability. You can be super smart, but if you're 2/3 as smart and also rich, you're still likely to do better in life than the smart, poor kid would.
      - Aloha 8y ago
        I'd agree, I believe poverty is at the root of most of our social ills, and we need to make a serious effort to solve it. We can do it while trying to solve the other social ills, but without solving poverty, we won't fix the other issues.

Aloha 8y ago

Because everyone isn't as smart as you are, and with the elimination of many jobs at the bottom of the economy we no longer have a good way to ensure the pie of wealth us equitably divided.

thegeomaster 8y ago
But looking at it as a pie that needs to be divided is wrong. One of the core tenets of capitalism (well, in theory) is that wealth is created literally from nothing. It's not a zero-sum game. In practice, unfortunately, one needs certain prerequisites to be able to do this. So in my view, the problem is not that something is unequally divided, but that a class of people systematically aren't able to create enough wealth and so are stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty.
- 8bitsrule 8y ago
  "wealth is created literally from nothing." Most of the real wealth I see being created has ultimately come from the exploitation of natural resources. Far from being 'nothing', most of these limited resources (which in another theory belong to all life on Earth) require underpaid 'human resources' to turn them into the highly-profitable 'nothing' of which you speak. Much of which winds up in the garbage. (E.g., here in the U.S. we build housing to last for maybe two generations.) If anything, much real wealth comes from turning valuable resources into nothing.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    Primary extraction (mining, farming, forestry, fishing) is something like 6% of the global economy. On average, the things you or I use consist of 6% exploitation of natural resources and 94% of labor after that. Natural resources are important, but now (as opposed to 19th century) they are a tiny part of what we make and use, they are not the main part of wealth.
    - ergothus 8y ago
      How do you estimate the "consumption" of clean water and air? How much of the non extraction economy relies on the extraction happening? I cant imagine how to estimate those numbers, but I do imagine they'd be significant.

devxpy 8y ago

Its in my opinion that people don't use the computer properly. There's very little you gain from social programs that you can't gain if you watch the right kind of content, read the right kind of articles, and just talk to people. I've met far more smart people on the internet than I could ever meet in real life. In fact most people I meet in real life are stupid.

oldboyFX 8y ago
> In fact most people I meet in real life are stupid. I've also felt like this for a long time before I grew up.
- devxpy 8y ago
  Maybe you have better peers than I do