4 ms·

This is the dumbest and most dangerous idea I've heard in a while. Go ahead and vote me down, but I hope some on this site have the common sense to see how bad

This is the dumbest and most dangerous idea I've heard in a while. Go ahead and vote me down, but I hope some on this site have the common sense to see how bad this idea is. This is essentially welfare, and in the US, we've been down that road and we know exactly where it leads.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
I won't downvote you, could you explain why you think this is worse than the existing system?
- davidj 16y ago
  search for my comment and I explain why it is wrong. Thanks for asking:)
maxharris 16y ago
> common sense That's precisely the trouble here. Following today's common sense, this seems like a great idea. To argue against it in a meaningful way, you have to attack the ethical root beneath it: altruism. To this end, I recommend reading The Virtue of Selfishness (google for it, if you haven't heard of it already.)
orangecat 16y ago
This is essentially welfare Yes, and? The point is that we're already providing welfare, just often in a convoluted, inefficient, and counterproductive manner. The unfortunate fact is that some people can't provide for themselves. We can either ignore them, establish fifty government agencies to "help" them, or give them money. Option 1 isn't on the table, and 3 makes a lot more sense than 2.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
smhinsey 16y ago
Where does it lead? It seems to me that the only thing we can say for certain is that it leads to a lot of partisan hand wringing and rancor. That's a problem with our dysfunctional American system, not a universal constant.
pessimizer 16y ago
It'd be nice if you could fit an argument or non-vacuous statement between your insults, defiance, and vague innuendo. Things to try: 1) This idea is dumb because... 2) This idea is dangerous because... 3) Welfare leads to...
gorbachev 16y ago
You're not seeing the forest from the trees. I often wonder about the true motivation of some conservatives opposing any programs such as the one described in this article. If your agenda is to cut Government spending, shouldn't you think about ways to do that? It's well understood that preventive programs (such as the one described in the article) cost less than programs that deal with the consequences, e.g. prisons, hospitals to name two. So if your agenda is to cut Government spending, shouldn't you advocate for programs such as this? So when on the other hand these people speak about cutting spending, and then cutting every preventive program in the books, they're not only failing to achieve what they advocate for (in the long run), but also causing real harm for people affected by these program cuts. So to answer the comment I'm responding to. The goal of programs like this is not to "be nice", but to actually reduce to overall spending. I don't understand why it's dumb or dangerous at all.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

I won't downvote you, could you explain why you think this is worse than the existing system?

davidj 16y ago
search for my comment and I explain why it is wrong. Thanks for asking:)

maxharris 16y ago

> common sense That's precisely the trouble here. Following today's common sense, this seems like a great idea. To argue against it in a meaningful way, you have to attack the ethical root beneath it: altruism. To this end, I recommend reading The Virtue of Selfishness (google for it, if you haven't heard of it already.)

orangecat 16y ago

This is essentially welfare Yes, and? The point is that we're already providing welfare, just often in a convoluted, inefficient, and counterproductive manner. The unfortunate fact is that some people can't provide for themselves. We can either ignore them, establish fifty government agencies to "help" them, or give them money. Option 1 isn't on the table, and 3 makes a lot more sense than 2.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

smhinsey 16y ago

Where does it lead? It seems to me that the only thing we can say for certain is that it leads to a lot of partisan hand wringing and rancor. That's a problem with our dysfunctional American system, not a universal constant.

pessimizer 16y ago

It'd be nice if you could fit an argument or non-vacuous statement between your insults, defiance, and vague innuendo. Things to try: 1) This idea is dumb because... 2) This idea is dangerous because... 3) Welfare leads to...

gorbachev 16y ago

You're not seeing the forest from the trees. I often wonder about the true motivation of some conservatives opposing any programs such as the one described in this article. If your agenda is to cut Government spending, shouldn't you think about ways to do that? It's well understood that preventive programs (such as the one described in the article) cost less than programs that deal with the consequences, e.g. prisons, hospitals to name two. So if your agenda is to cut Government spending, shouldn't you advocate for programs such as this? So when on the other hand these people speak about cutting spending, and then cutting every preventive program in the books, they're not only failing to achieve what they advocate for (in the long run), but also causing real harm for people affected by these program cuts. So to answer the comment I'm responding to. The goal of programs like this is not to "be nice", but to actually reduce to overall spending. I don't understand why it's dumb or dangerous at all.