3 ms·

>We'd be so much better off as a society if we could at least keep our people fed. this is not a statement you can make without qualifying. it is either a usel

>We'd be so much better off as a society if we could at least keep our people fed. this is not a statement you can make without qualifying. it is either a useless tautology (society would be better if society were better), or an actual argument about policy and procedures (if wealthier people paid more taxes, we could feed poorer people and society would be better). of course, no one says the second thing when that's what they mean because it is not self-evidently true. the core issue is complex and then the second- and third- order consequences are even more complex. this is to say nothing about which morals you presuppose about what a "better" society would be. > I wish could out last this virus. I have been wishing the opposite. my greatest fear is that the virus and soon-to-be depression will be used to push through some extreme political policy that will reshape America in a near-uncontrolled way.

JSavageOne 7y ago
If you're going to make a rebuttal, then make a rebuttal. So far you haven't really said anything to refute his statement that society would be better off if everyone was guaranteed 3 meals per day.
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  I rebut that it is ok to offer "society would be better" as an argument. its an emotion, not a debatable proposition. here, let me take your side: "given that good nutrition and a lack of stress from worrying about food allows people to develop more intellectually, raising taxes to pay for food welfare will actually raise money by introducing more workforce" there are principles you can attack (good nutrition aids brain development, less stress aids brain development), an action to attack (raising taxes), and projected results to attack (better brain development yields higher workforce participation, higher workforce participation will raise more money). this is an argument, something to be debated. "we'd be better if less people were hungry" is a useless platitude.
  - JSavageOne 7y ago
    Sure if one is attempting to write an academic paper or PhD thesis, then "society would be better off" is indeed not rigorous enough, I'll give you that.
john_fushi 7y ago
Yeah, you're right. The USA right now is in a good state on the matter of social policy, and I don't see any way it could be improved. Especially if it takes taxing the "rich" more. Imagine the chaos that would ensue... In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the current problem in the USA is that market is not free enough. Trump should definitely lower taxes on higher incomes and cut services. This can only push innovation! Think about how quick this whole "crisis" would be solved if it weren't for government intervention! That would certainly make for a better society!
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  youre really showing your true stripes here. >Especially if it takes taxing the "rich" more. im not sure why you put rich in quotes since that's not what I said. however, the majority of tax revenue already comes from businesses and high-income tax brackets. what do you think is a "fair" share, since theyre already footing the bill? > Imagine the chaos that would ensue... youre being sarcastic, but im not sure why. American capitalism has helped catapult the world into a standard of living previously unimagined. most socialist experiments have ended with millions of dead, and the current socialist successes are either brutally authoritarian and/or 1/100 the size of USA. > This can only push innovation! if you want to stop using technology that was gained in some part by the "needless" (whatever that means) suffering of others, then good luck; you've got quite the task ahead of you. > That would certainly make for a better society! im making good-faith arguments including first-principles. you respond with false dichotomys, straw men, putting words in my mouth, sarcasm, and generally being a piece of shit.
risaacs99 7y ago
On the other hand, the second and third order consequences to providing a stronger social safety net to people might be highly beneficial. We can apply creativity to solving the world's problems without resorting to the slippery slope fallacy of the abandonment of capitalism completely. Not every social experiment is a one-way door that cannot be tweaked, improved or abandoned. We need to be less cynical and be willing to experiment more without so much fear.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > On the other hand, the second and third order consequences to providing a stronger social safety net to people might be highly beneficial. Possibly, but not necessarily. I'm in Germany. We have UBI for all intents and purposes, you get an apartment, utilities, TV, a washing machine etc, health insurance and money for food and stuff. Yes, you are expected to take a job if you can find one, but you're not pushed too hard if you half-ass it and don't find any. We're still looking for those highly beneficial consequences. We have plenty of intergenerational poverty and our social mobility is worse than in the US. It's apparently not that simple, unfortunately. > Not every social experiment is a one-way door that cannot be tweaked, improved or abandoned. It pretty much is though. It's very, very, very hard to turn back the clock on benefits once people have gotten used to it.
unethical_ban 7y ago
In all of your discussion, you never actually took a policy position. It's clear the OP is advocating for a public program to ensure no one in NYC/the US goes hungry, and that the government is the responsible party in that obligation.

JSavageOne 7y ago

If you're going to make a rebuttal, then make a rebuttal. So far you haven't really said anything to refute his statement that society would be better off if everyone was guaranteed 3 meals per day.

kryogen1c 7y ago
I rebut that it is ok to offer "society would be better" as an argument. its an emotion, not a debatable proposition. here, let me take your side: "given that good nutrition and a lack of stress from worrying about food allows people to develop more intellectually, raising taxes to pay for food welfare will actually raise money by introducing more workforce" there are principles you can attack (good nutrition aids brain development, less stress aids brain development), an action to attack (raising taxes), and projected results to attack (better brain development yields higher workforce participation, higher workforce participation will raise more money). this is an argument, something to be debated. "we'd be better if less people were hungry" is a useless platitude.
- JSavageOne 7y ago
  Sure if one is attempting to write an academic paper or PhD thesis, then "society would be better off" is indeed not rigorous enough, I'll give you that.

john_fushi 7y ago

Yeah, you're right. The USA right now is in a good state on the matter of social policy, and I don't see any way it could be improved. Especially if it takes taxing the "rich" more. Imagine the chaos that would ensue... In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the current problem in the USA is that market is not free enough. Trump should definitely lower taxes on higher incomes and cut services. This can only push innovation! Think about how quick this whole "crisis" would be solved if it weren't for government intervention! That would certainly make for a better society!

kryogen1c 7y ago
youre really showing your true stripes here. >Especially if it takes taxing the "rich" more. im not sure why you put rich in quotes since that's not what I said. however, the majority of tax revenue already comes from businesses and high-income tax brackets. what do you think is a "fair" share, since theyre already footing the bill? > Imagine the chaos that would ensue... youre being sarcastic, but im not sure why. American capitalism has helped catapult the world into a standard of living previously unimagined. most socialist experiments have ended with millions of dead, and the current socialist successes are either brutally authoritarian and/or 1/100 the size of USA. > This can only push innovation! if you want to stop using technology that was gained in some part by the "needless" (whatever that means) suffering of others, then good luck; you've got quite the task ahead of you. > That would certainly make for a better society! im making good-faith arguments including first-principles. you respond with false dichotomys, straw men, putting words in my mouth, sarcasm, and generally being a piece of shit.

risaacs99 7y ago

On the other hand, the second and third order consequences to providing a stronger social safety net to people might be highly beneficial. We can apply creativity to solving the world's problems without resorting to the slippery slope fallacy of the abandonment of capitalism completely. Not every social experiment is a one-way door that cannot be tweaked, improved or abandoned. We need to be less cynical and be willing to experiment more without so much fear.

luckylion 7y ago
> On the other hand, the second and third order consequences to providing a stronger social safety net to people might be highly beneficial. Possibly, but not necessarily. I'm in Germany. We have UBI for all intents and purposes, you get an apartment, utilities, TV, a washing machine etc, health insurance and money for food and stuff. Yes, you are expected to take a job if you can find one, but you're not pushed too hard if you half-ass it and don't find any. We're still looking for those highly beneficial consequences. We have plenty of intergenerational poverty and our social mobility is worse than in the US. It's apparently not that simple, unfortunately. > Not every social experiment is a one-way door that cannot be tweaked, improved or abandoned. It pretty much is though. It's very, very, very hard to turn back the clock on benefits once people have gotten used to it.

unethical_ban 7y ago

In all of your discussion, you never actually took a policy position. It's clear the OP is advocating for a public program to ensure no one in NYC/the US goes hungry, and that the government is the responsible party in that obligation.