6 ms·

Charity is no substitute for humanity

104 points by smacktoward 8y ago

test6554 8y ago
I have always been told that I should save my money and build a nest egg. That I should not stop until I have 6 months to a year of runway, and that once I get there, treat that money as if I don’t even have it. I have lived by this advice and I am grateful for receiving it early.
- jedmeyers 8y ago
  I am also wondering why I have to subsidize everyone else's kids while not being able to afford my own, since I have relatively high standards for what a stable financial situation should be before I have them. Charity is voluntary while taxation is not.
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    Why aren't you also wondering why you have to subsidize everyone else's police, firefighting, army, food and drug safety, environmental protections, transport safety, public education, libraries, ... Edit: Also, the reason you can't afford kids is precisely due to the US having the same mentality as yours. Because you have to worry about healthcare, or college, or not having enough vacations and sick days. Instead of, you know, not worrying about that.
    - jedmeyers 8y ago
      Because most of those things scale very well for the amount of people that use them. Medical care on the other hand does not scale at all.
      - Swizec 8y ago
        And yet in most of the world it does scale and US has one of the worst health systems in the world. Easily the worst in “The West” What is that headline that The Onion likes to use? “Nothing we can do about this, says only country in the world where this regularly happens”. Applies to healthcare too. Everyone else has solved this. Americans don’t want to. That’s an okay and fine choice just don’t pretend it’s unsolvable. I live here in the US with a 6 figure salary and my greatest fear is ever needing a doctor for anything. Back home it wasn’t even a consideration. Need doctor? Just go without a second thought. And my income was a fraction of what it is now.
      - dmitriid 8y ago
        How do public education or libraries scale well and medical care for all doesn't? Also, of course medical care for all scales extremely well. You remove financial burden from people. You encourage them to start their own jobs, or switch to different/better jobs. You remove the burden of long untreated diseases. You get a happier more productive population.
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        Incorrect lol America is worst among the OECD along almost every major health axis. Somehow it scales for everyone else but it just won’t work here.
      - danmaz74 8y ago
        Actually, medical care does scale a lot: many conditions are much easier and less expensive to treat if found early. An expensive system brings lots of people to postpone care and screening.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    It's quite possible that other people are subsidizing your children more than you are theirs.
    - jedmeyers 8y ago
      I have yet to see the numbers that support this position.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        As you can't seem to afford your own children, presumably you are making less money than those who can. Thus, you pay less in taxes than they do, which means they're paying for your children rather than the other way around.
        jedmeyers 8y ago
        > presumably you are making less money than those who can. That’s a bit of a stretch, especially considering that I have specifically mentioned the fact that a lot of people don’t seem to care about their financial situation when having children. And then apparently it is “humane” to take other peoples resources by force through government to pay for their expenses. Who need these barbaric consensual charities anyway.
  - sgt101 8y ago
    Consider, you have a job, an apartment, dignity. Without taxation you would have none of these. You would be a surf or servant, or simply dead. Statistically it would be astonishingly unlikely you would be in the ruling class, and given that you are posting on HN you probably aren't a candidate. You have standards, I respect that, but your community disagrees with you. Children are our future, they are ours - all of them - and we need to look after them. They should have food, shelter, healthcare and education. We should all give them that. If we do we can look each other in the eye and demand respect, dignity and community. If you are robbed or shamed they you have a right to be offended and outraged. If we don't then you and I are wolves in the forest, with everyone else.
    - jedmeyers 8y ago
      > Consider, you have a job, an apartment, dignity. > Without taxation you would have none of these. You would be a surf or servant, or simply dead. I do not agree with this premise, especially since you have provided no proof that it is based in reality. If you were to guess, what was the income tax in the US in 1900 and were everyone there a surf [sic], servant or dead?
  - dusted 8y ago
    simplistic
- sgt101 8y ago
  I believe (from reading this article) that the people in it would not have been helped by having a 6 month or one year, or more of saving, because without the provision of sick leave they would have lost their health insurance and with it the ability to pay for the care of their baby. So the state would cast them into destitution and kill their baby. Also, imagine a situation where you suffer a misfortune and lose your nest egg. Perhaps an official, relative or adviser steals it from you, they are prosecuted and condemned but have spent the money on drugs - it's gone. Then you suffer another misfortune - you lose your job, or you suffer a non life threatening injury that prevents you from working. Now you are screwed. This clearly isn't your fault. You saved, you worked, you are a victim. Now you are on the street. Is this right?
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  What happens when you find you need 2 years of runway? Or 5, or 10, or 20? And, mind, you may not know the duration going in.
- nilskidoo 8y ago
  And how does one accumulate a nest egg when every employer I have ever dealt with cannot afford (or outright refuses) to do better than paying late and/or less than agreed, if at all? Believe it or not, not everyone can live off their parents as adults.
Deestan 8y ago
People should not have to live or die depending repeated random acts of kindness from strangers. So many American feel-good news stories are utterly dystopian, where some person completely fucked dry by the government or corporate interests have disaster temporarily staved off by friends or colleagues desperately sacrificing their time or money. Either that, or it's about some billionaire dropping pocket lint on a good cause. Sites like https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news just make me depressed: https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3283/Man-Shares-Chick-Fil-A-Employee-039-s-Quiet-Act-Of-Kindness https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3283/Man-Shares-Chick-Fi... - man starving on the streets gets one meal our of sheer luck https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3279/7-Eleven-Owner-Catches-Shoplifter-Instead-Of-Calling-911-He-Asks-Him-Why https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3279/7-Eleven-Owner-Catc... - starving children win the getting-fucked-for-life vs eating-a-meal lottery one single time. Thoughts and prayers go to their next 1000 times they need to play. https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3270/Unused-Cafeteria-Food-Is-Being-Turned-Into-Take-Home-Meals-For-Kids https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3270/Unused-Cafeteria-Fo... - starving children (Why is this even a thing anywhere?) are allowed to eat leftovers.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  You ruled out everything we know/have tried, though. What is your idea? IMHO we should improve technology in such ways to replace social security.
  - chottocharaii 8y ago
    The question is who owns the technology we are improving. For whose financial interests does that technology work?
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      Open source?
      - sgift 8y ago
amundsentb 8y ago
This article decries people the necessity of people banding together in tough times and want's more "humanity" meaning that expenses are automatically taken care of in bad times. The author knows nothing about humanity and what it entails. Humanity is not a robotic system where ants are ordered. Societies are built by people interacting and building trust and taking care of each other in bad times for their own self interest. Not by forcing people to act against their own judgment.
- mola 8y ago
  The problem is that without the greed of a few most of these charity acts wouldn't need to exist. Healthcare is extremely expansive and inefficient in the US because of the greed of a few. This false dichotomy between a freedom crunching social regime against the freedom saving forces of market is a lie. Social democratic countries exist, the populus are not subjugadeted to an opressing regime nor are they left for the mercy of strangers for basic survival. On top of that, most systems there, even governmental ones are much more efficient than in the US. And still, there's a free economy, with plenty of chances for a decent life. On the other hand the US is controlled by the greed of a few huge corporation, the people are much less free. As I see it, human society tends to create hubs of power. The civilian powers are not less prone to oppression than the power of the state. In a democracy you at least have the moral grounds to fight corruption. But in a society obsessed with free markets and small government this power still ends up concentrated in places. But now you as opressed don't have a moral ground to fight abuses of power. This false dichotomy of freedom vs welfare means that standing up against the opressors is considerred bad morally, because it means you are against freedome. Anyway, because it seems that power have a tendency to concentrate. I'de rather have a moral system where abuses of power of any kind can be considered morally wrong.
spbaar 8y ago
I highly recommend Citations Needed's episode on Perseverance Porn. If you have ever been uneasy with stories about people walking 10+ miles to work or relying on charity just to survive a common misfortune, this will open your eyes to just how prevalent it is. https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-23-the-medias-grim-addiction-to-perseverance-porn https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-23-the-medias-gri... Beware, you'll see it everywhere after this.
ATsch 8y ago
I think another thing to think about with charity is control and agency. Charity is, I'd argue inherently extremely undemocratic. Most people will never be able to afford philanthropy in any meaningful way, so Charity means subjugating yourself to the control and decisions of richer and more powerful people. There are more and less extreme cases of this, of course. I vaguely remember a eugenics charity in the US that paid "lesser" people to sterilize themselves or perform abortions. However, even in less extreme cases, the top down control of charity is inherently oppressive. It allows rich people to "vote with their wallets" on the lives of the general population. Sure, everyone can technically vote, but some people have a million times more votes than others. Does this mean we should outlaw charities? I don't think so. This only becomes a problem in a country where there is extreme wealth inequality and the rights of the general populace are not guaranteed. Charity seems like a good way to stuff small holes in a general welfare system, but it shouldn't be the welfare system.
- Kaiyou 8y ago
  Can you answer why this is a problem in terms of costs and benefits presupposing that there is no inherent value to human life? If you argue with certain moral beliefs at your core your probably only reaching deaf ears from key figures that could help change things. Appealing to someone's self-interest is more efficient.
  - ATsch 8y ago
    > presupposing that there is no inherent value to human life I mean, you can argue anything if you make your assumptions ridiculous enough. If your approach is to let other people die because that's more efficient then sorry, I'm not very open to your arguments about self-interest. (I don't want to engage in too much character assassination but: There's this joke that within the first few pages of the comments of any Libertarian account, you will find them defending pedophilia in some way. I'm pleased to say that this rule still applies)
    - Kaiyou 8y ago
      Your problem seems to be, that you need arguments to convince someone to do something that you want him to do. I don't care if you're not convinced. I don't need you doing something for my benefit.
_lessthan0 8y ago
For me having a huge amount of charitable organizations mean that governments have failed. As a world.
- airstrike 8y ago
  Not to mention a lot of charitable organizations are created as a mean to evade taxes. > The IRS estimates that the charitable sector controls approximately USD 3 trillion (€2.36 trillion) in assets. https://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/42232037.pdf https://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/4223203...
dusted 8y ago
'murica

104 points by smacktoward 8y ago

I have always been told that I should save my money and build a nest egg. That I should not stop until I have 6 months to a year of runway, and that once I get there, treat that money as if I don’t even have it. I have lived by this advice and I am grateful for receiving it early.

jedmeyers 8y ago
I am also wondering why I have to subsidize everyone else's kids while not being able to afford my own, since I have relatively high standards for what a stable financial situation should be before I have them. Charity is voluntary while taxation is not.
- dmitriid 8y ago
  Why aren't you also wondering why you have to subsidize everyone else's police, firefighting, army, food and drug safety, environmental protections, transport safety, public education, libraries, ... Edit: Also, the reason you can't afford kids is precisely due to the US having the same mentality as yours. Because you have to worry about healthcare, or college, or not having enough vacations and sick days. Instead of, you know, not worrying about that.
  - jedmeyers 8y ago
    Because most of those things scale very well for the amount of people that use them. Medical care on the other hand does not scale at all.
    - Swizec 8y ago
      And yet in most of the world it does scale and US has one of the worst health systems in the world. Easily the worst in “The West” What is that headline that The Onion likes to use? “Nothing we can do about this, says only country in the world where this regularly happens”. Applies to healthcare too. Everyone else has solved this. Americans don’t want to. That’s an okay and fine choice just don’t pretend it’s unsolvable. I live here in the US with a 6 figure salary and my greatest fear is ever needing a doctor for anything. Back home it wasn’t even a consideration. Need doctor? Just go without a second thought. And my income was a fraction of what it is now.
    - dmitriid 8y ago
      How do public education or libraries scale well and medical care for all doesn't? Also, of course medical care for all scales extremely well. You remove financial burden from people. You encourage them to start their own jobs, or switch to different/better jobs. You remove the burden of long untreated diseases. You get a happier more productive population.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      Incorrect lol America is worst among the OECD along almost every major health axis. Somehow it scales for everyone else but it just won’t work here.
    - danmaz74 8y ago
      Actually, medical care does scale a lot: many conditions are much easier and less expensive to treat if found early. An expensive system brings lots of people to postpone care and screening.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  It's quite possible that other people are subsidizing your children more than you are theirs.
  - jedmeyers 8y ago
    I have yet to see the numbers that support this position.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      As you can't seem to afford your own children, presumably you are making less money than those who can. Thus, you pay less in taxes than they do, which means they're paying for your children rather than the other way around.
      - jedmeyers 8y ago
        > presumably you are making less money than those who can. That’s a bit of a stretch, especially considering that I have specifically mentioned the fact that a lot of people don’t seem to care about their financial situation when having children. And then apparently it is “humane” to take other peoples resources by force through government to pay for their expenses. Who need these barbaric consensual charities anyway.
- sgt101 8y ago
  Consider, you have a job, an apartment, dignity. Without taxation you would have none of these. You would be a surf or servant, or simply dead. Statistically it would be astonishingly unlikely you would be in the ruling class, and given that you are posting on HN you probably aren't a candidate. You have standards, I respect that, but your community disagrees with you. Children are our future, they are ours - all of them - and we need to look after them. They should have food, shelter, healthcare and education. We should all give them that. If we do we can look each other in the eye and demand respect, dignity and community. If you are robbed or shamed they you have a right to be offended and outraged. If we don't then you and I are wolves in the forest, with everyone else.
  - jedmeyers 8y ago
    > Consider, you have a job, an apartment, dignity. > Without taxation you would have none of these. You would be a surf or servant, or simply dead. I do not agree with this premise, especially since you have provided no proof that it is based in reality. If you were to guess, what was the income tax in the US in 1900 and were everyone there a surf [sic], servant or dead?
- dusted 8y ago
  simplistic
sgt101 8y ago
I believe (from reading this article) that the people in it would not have been helped by having a 6 month or one year, or more of saving, because without the provision of sick leave they would have lost their health insurance and with it the ability to pay for the care of their baby. So the state would cast them into destitution and kill their baby. Also, imagine a situation where you suffer a misfortune and lose your nest egg. Perhaps an official, relative or adviser steals it from you, they are prosecuted and condemned but have spent the money on drugs - it's gone. Then you suffer another misfortune - you lose your job, or you suffer a non life threatening injury that prevents you from working. Now you are screwed. This clearly isn't your fault. You saved, you worked, you are a victim. Now you are on the street. Is this right?
dredmorbius 8y ago
What happens when you find you need 2 years of runway? Or 5, or 10, or 20? And, mind, you may not know the duration going in.
nilskidoo 8y ago
And how does one accumulate a nest egg when every employer I have ever dealt with cannot afford (or outright refuses) to do better than paying late and/or less than agreed, if at all? Believe it or not, not everyone can live off their parents as adults.

Deestan 8y ago

People should not have to live or die depending repeated random acts of kindness from strangers. So many American feel-good news stories are utterly dystopian, where some person completely fucked dry by the government or corporate interests have disaster temporarily staved off by friends or colleagues desperately sacrificing their time or money. Either that, or it's about some billionaire dropping pocket lint on a good cause. Sites like https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news just make me depressed: https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3283/Man-Shares-Chick-Fil-A-Employee-039-s-Quiet-Act-Of-Kindness https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3283/Man-Shares-Chick-Fi... - man starving on the streets gets one meal our of sheer luck https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3279/7-Eleven-Owner-Catches-Shoplifter-Instead-Of-Calling-911-He-Asks-Him-Why https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3279/7-Eleven-Owner-Catc... - starving children win the getting-fucked-for-life vs eating-a-meal lottery one single time. Thoughts and prayers go to their next 1000 times they need to play. https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3270/Unused-Cafeteria-Food-Is-Being-Turned-Into-Take-Home-Meals-For-Kids https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3270/Unused-Cafeteria-Fo... - starving children (Why is this even a thing anywhere?) are allowed to eat leftovers.

TomMarius 8y ago
You ruled out everything we know/have tried, though. What is your idea? IMHO we should improve technology in such ways to replace social security.
- chottocharaii 8y ago
  The question is who owns the technology we are improving. For whose financial interests does that technology work?
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    Open source?
    - sgift 8y ago

amundsentb 8y ago

This article decries people the necessity of people banding together in tough times and want's more "humanity" meaning that expenses are automatically taken care of in bad times. The author knows nothing about humanity and what it entails. Humanity is not a robotic system where ants are ordered. Societies are built by people interacting and building trust and taking care of each other in bad times for their own self interest. Not by forcing people to act against their own judgment.

mola 8y ago
The problem is that without the greed of a few most of these charity acts wouldn't need to exist. Healthcare is extremely expansive and inefficient in the US because of the greed of a few. This false dichotomy between a freedom crunching social regime against the freedom saving forces of market is a lie. Social democratic countries exist, the populus are not subjugadeted to an opressing regime nor are they left for the mercy of strangers for basic survival. On top of that, most systems there, even governmental ones are much more efficient than in the US. And still, there's a free economy, with plenty of chances for a decent life. On the other hand the US is controlled by the greed of a few huge corporation, the people are much less free. As I see it, human society tends to create hubs of power. The civilian powers are not less prone to oppression than the power of the state. In a democracy you at least have the moral grounds to fight corruption. But in a society obsessed with free markets and small government this power still ends up concentrated in places. But now you as opressed don't have a moral ground to fight abuses of power. This false dichotomy of freedom vs welfare means that standing up against the opressors is considerred bad morally, because it means you are against freedome. Anyway, because it seems that power have a tendency to concentrate. I'de rather have a moral system where abuses of power of any kind can be considered morally wrong.

spbaar 8y ago

I highly recommend Citations Needed's episode on Perseverance Porn. If you have ever been uneasy with stories about people walking 10+ miles to work or relying on charity just to survive a common misfortune, this will open your eyes to just how prevalent it is. https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-23-the-medias-grim-addiction-to-perseverance-porn https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-23-the-medias-gri... Beware, you'll see it everywhere after this.

ATsch 8y ago

I think another thing to think about with charity is control and agency. Charity is, I'd argue inherently extremely undemocratic. Most people will never be able to afford philanthropy in any meaningful way, so Charity means subjugating yourself to the control and decisions of richer and more powerful people. There are more and less extreme cases of this, of course. I vaguely remember a eugenics charity in the US that paid "lesser" people to sterilize themselves or perform abortions. However, even in less extreme cases, the top down control of charity is inherently oppressive. It allows rich people to "vote with their wallets" on the lives of the general population. Sure, everyone can technically vote, but some people have a million times more votes than others. Does this mean we should outlaw charities? I don't think so. This only becomes a problem in a country where there is extreme wealth inequality and the rights of the general populace are not guaranteed. Charity seems like a good way to stuff small holes in a general welfare system, but it shouldn't be the welfare system.

Kaiyou 8y ago
Can you answer why this is a problem in terms of costs and benefits presupposing that there is no inherent value to human life? If you argue with certain moral beliefs at your core your probably only reaching deaf ears from key figures that could help change things. Appealing to someone's self-interest is more efficient.
- ATsch 8y ago
  > presupposing that there is no inherent value to human life I mean, you can argue anything if you make your assumptions ridiculous enough. If your approach is to let other people die because that's more efficient then sorry, I'm not very open to your arguments about self-interest. (I don't want to engage in too much character assassination but: There's this joke that within the first few pages of the comments of any Libertarian account, you will find them defending pedophilia in some way. I'm pleased to say that this rule still applies)
  - Kaiyou 8y ago
    Your problem seems to be, that you need arguments to convince someone to do something that you want him to do. I don't care if you're not convinced. I don't need you doing something for my benefit.

_lessthan0 8y ago

For me having a huge amount of charitable organizations mean that governments have failed. As a world.

airstrike 8y ago
Not to mention a lot of charitable organizations are created as a mean to evade taxes. > The IRS estimates that the charitable sector controls approximately USD 3 trillion (€2.36 trillion) in assets. https://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/42232037.pdf https://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/4223203...

dusted 8y ago

'murica