3 ms·

Yep. The flaws of that system are becoming clearer and clearer, not that you'd see it from the responses you're getting. "If people can't pay for housing, the

by kaitai 7y ago

Yep. The flaws of that system are becoming clearer and clearer, not that you'd see it from the responses you're getting. "If people can't pay for housing, they deserve to be homeless! If people can't pay for healthcare, they deserve to be sick and die! Without a profit motive, we cannot do anything for our fellow man! It would be immoral to serve without profit, or to look for the greater profit to society!" Housing first strategies in homelessness have been shown to save money on emergency services and healthcare, but we believe, in the US, that it's immoral to help people who can't pay up. We know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

sparkie 7y ago
Who is "we?" I have a question, if you don't mind answering. What are you doing personally to help the homeless and less fortunate than yourself? I get that it is easy to sit behind a keyboard and complain that other people aren't doing enough. The way to help people isn't to demand that other people pay more, but to use your own resources for the causes which are most important for you. Simply giving more money to the state solves nothing. It just makes the state bigger, more corrupt and less efficient. The resources get diverted to other goals which don't match up with your own. Perhaps it would be better to keep more of your hard earned money so that you can utilize it as you feel most appropriate? Relevant?: https://i.imgur.com/MogFw59.jpg https://i.imgur.com/MogFw59.jpg It seems to me that the flaws aren't with the system, but with people who idly sit and wait for things to improve at the cost of someone else (the "rich people" scapegoat). Your time is often more valuable than money to those in need. Why don't you give up more of your time to help people. Perhaps quit your job and become a full time altruist? Look, nobody "deserves to be homeless," but nor does anybody "deserve to be homed at the cost of somebody else's labour" Nobody "deserves to be sick," but also nobody "deserves to have healthcare given to them without compensating the healthcare giver for their time". It isn't "immoral to help people who can't pay" at all, but it isn't "moral to steal other people's property to pay to help others" either. You seem to have a cartoon world view in which everyone should be in prosperity by default - but the reality is that poverty is the default state of all of humanity, and the only way that humans have ever lifted themselves out of poverty is through productive labour and innovation. If you are not productive and you can't innovate, you are not entitled to the successes of those who are. This might seem a bit cold-hearted, but the people who are in the best position to help others are those who are not spending every hour of every day undergoing basic survival. People have a self-interest to look after themselves and their families first - and then once they've secured that goal, can begin to look how they can help others less close to them. The simple fact is that the vast majority of humans are in the category of figuring out how their own family is going to survive month to month, and the less fortunate are simply just that. You can't help everyone. You have limited capacity as a human, and the most effective way you can help anybody is to secure the well-being of yourself and your family so that you have excess resources and time to dedicate to helping others. If your economic output is limited, your time dedicated to helping people directly is infinitely more valuable than your time campaigning for more socialism.
- slfnflctd 7y ago
  You just wrote out this long, politically charged comment basically asserting your opinion as fact, which appears to boil down to "socialism bad". Don't you think most people here have made up their minds on that issue and are tired of watching endless fights about it? We aren't on slashdot. Also, this: > the only way that humans have ever lifted themselves out of poverty is through productive labour and innovation ...is utterly false. Maybe somewhat true in the general case (although less and less so even there in more recent history), but not at all for individuals. People and governments have helped other people and governments many times without asking for anything back.
  - sparkie 7y ago
    > You just wrote out this long, politically charged comment basically asserting your opinion as fact, which appears to boil down to "socialism bad". Well yes. Theft is bad, and socialism is theft. > Don't you think most people here have made up their minds on that issue and are tired of watching endless fights about it? We aren't on slashdot. I'm well aware of how far left most of HN leans. Sometimes I wonder if this place is an internal discussion forum for the CCP (There are certain moderators who bark when anything critical of China gets posted here). I have a posting limit of 5 posts every few hours because my views are "the wrong views." > ...is utterly false. Maybe somewhat true in the general case (although less and less so even there in more recent history), but not at all for individuals. People and governments have helped other people and governments many times without asking for anything back. I was referring to the general case. Ultimately, somebody must perform labour or somebody must perform invention for the standard of living of themselves or others to improve. The work won't do itself. The question is one of whether you are implicitly entitled to the results of other people's work and invention, which I refer to as theft, versus instead receiving charity out of other people's good nature. The capitalist is often described as "evil," yet many engage in voluntary charity, and the socialist deludes himself to be the moral arbiter of good, when in fact, he simply thinks stealing the fruits of others labour is the solution to problems.
- charlesu 7y ago
  You and the poster above you have fundamental differences in how you understand the world. He seems to believe in a world of abundance and you seem to believe in a world of scarcity, not simply limited resources but literal scarcity. Why do you take it as fact that there isn't enough to go around? Are you sure that's the case?
Kaiyou 7y ago
If you can't pay, you don't deserve to get things for free. What's so difficult about this concept? Maybe someone else is incentivized to pay for you. But if there isn't, you do not actually deserve anything costing money, without being able to pay that money. Morality has nothing to do with it.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  > If you can't pay, you don't deserve to get things for free. There's a lot of problems with this concept. We don't live in a meritocracy. Having money doesn't mean your life is more valuable then someone else's. A kid born to a billionaire has access to extreme wealth (and therefore economic power) without proving any merit for it. Humanity has tried monarchism already, and we've decided it's not the best way to run things. People shouldn't be given power just cause they are related to the last guy who had it. Hell, even if we did live in a meritocracy, is it moral to let people die because they lost the genetic roll of the dice? Somebody born with a disability should just die since they have less economic worth?
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    Actually, having more money means that your life is more valuable. Just like a sack full of gold is more valuable than a sack full of broken glass. It's just people get all emotional when applying the same concept to humans. Is it moral to replace broken things instead of trying to fix them, considering that fixing will be more expensive and the thing might just break down again after a while anyway? That's not a question about morality, is it? Except if you replace "things" with "humans". I personally do not understand why this difference exists, however. Why is it alright to abort babies that might get a disability, but it's completely out of the question to murder someone later in life for the same reason. It doesn't make sense to me. A persons life isn't inherently worth anything. If the economic output is negative and no one is willing to cover, why shouldn't that someone just die? It would be like saving money. There are probably good reasons that I just don't know, otherwise things wouldn't be the way they are or at least that's what I figure.
    - 7y ago

by kaitai 7y ago

sparkie 7y ago

Who is "we?" I have a question, if you don't mind answering. What are you doing personally to help the homeless and less fortunate than yourself? I get that it is easy to sit behind a keyboard and complain that other people aren't doing enough. The way to help people isn't to demand that other people pay more, but to use your own resources for the causes which are most important for you. Simply giving more money to the state solves nothing. It just makes the state bigger, more corrupt and less efficient. The resources get diverted to other goals which don't match up with your own. Perhaps it would be better to keep more of your hard earned money so that you can utilize it as you feel most appropriate? Relevant?: https://i.imgur.com/MogFw59.jpg https://i.imgur.com/MogFw59.jpg It seems to me that the flaws aren't with the system, but with people who idly sit and wait for things to improve at the cost of someone else (the "rich people" scapegoat). Your time is often more valuable than money to those in need. Why don't you give up more of your time to help people. Perhaps quit your job and become a full time altruist? Look, nobody "deserves to be homeless," but nor does anybody "deserve to be homed at the cost of somebody else's labour" Nobody "deserves to be sick," but also nobody "deserves to have healthcare given to them without compensating the healthcare giver for their time". It isn't "immoral to help people who can't pay" at all, but it isn't "moral to steal other people's property to pay to help others" either. You seem to have a cartoon world view in which everyone should be in prosperity by default - but the reality is that poverty is the default state of all of humanity, and the only way that humans have ever lifted themselves out of poverty is through productive labour and innovation. If you are not productive and you can't innovate, you are not entitled to the successes of those who are. This might seem a bit cold-hearted, but the people who are in the best position to help others are those who are not spending every hour of every day undergoing basic survival. People have a self-interest to look after themselves and their families first - and then once they've secured that goal, can begin to look how they can help others less close to them. The simple fact is that the vast majority of humans are in the category of figuring out how their own family is going to survive month to month, and the less fortunate are simply just that. You can't help everyone. You have limited capacity as a human, and the most effective way you can help anybody is to secure the well-being of yourself and your family so that you have excess resources and time to dedicate to helping others. If your economic output is limited, your time dedicated to helping people directly is infinitely more valuable than your time campaigning for more socialism.

slfnflctd 7y ago
You just wrote out this long, politically charged comment basically asserting your opinion as fact, which appears to boil down to "socialism bad". Don't you think most people here have made up their minds on that issue and are tired of watching endless fights about it? We aren't on slashdot. Also, this: > the only way that humans have ever lifted themselves out of poverty is through productive labour and innovation ...is utterly false. Maybe somewhat true in the general case (although less and less so even there in more recent history), but not at all for individuals. People and governments have helped other people and governments many times without asking for anything back.
- sparkie 7y ago
  > You just wrote out this long, politically charged comment basically asserting your opinion as fact, which appears to boil down to "socialism bad". Well yes. Theft is bad, and socialism is theft. > Don't you think most people here have made up their minds on that issue and are tired of watching endless fights about it? We aren't on slashdot. I'm well aware of how far left most of HN leans. Sometimes I wonder if this place is an internal discussion forum for the CCP (There are certain moderators who bark when anything critical of China gets posted here). I have a posting limit of 5 posts every few hours because my views are "the wrong views." > ...is utterly false. Maybe somewhat true in the general case (although less and less so even there in more recent history), but not at all for individuals. People and governments have helped other people and governments many times without asking for anything back. I was referring to the general case. Ultimately, somebody must perform labour or somebody must perform invention for the standard of living of themselves or others to improve. The work won't do itself. The question is one of whether you are implicitly entitled to the results of other people's work and invention, which I refer to as theft, versus instead receiving charity out of other people's good nature. The capitalist is often described as "evil," yet many engage in voluntary charity, and the socialist deludes himself to be the moral arbiter of good, when in fact, he simply thinks stealing the fruits of others labour is the solution to problems.
charlesu 7y ago
You and the poster above you have fundamental differences in how you understand the world. He seems to believe in a world of abundance and you seem to believe in a world of scarcity, not simply limited resources but literal scarcity. Why do you take it as fact that there isn't enough to go around? Are you sure that's the case?

Kaiyou 7y ago

If you can't pay, you don't deserve to get things for free. What's so difficult about this concept? Maybe someone else is incentivized to pay for you. But if there isn't, you do not actually deserve anything costing money, without being able to pay that money. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Miner49er 7y ago
> If you can't pay, you don't deserve to get things for free. There's a lot of problems with this concept. We don't live in a meritocracy. Having money doesn't mean your life is more valuable then someone else's. A kid born to a billionaire has access to extreme wealth (and therefore economic power) without proving any merit for it. Humanity has tried monarchism already, and we've decided it's not the best way to run things. People shouldn't be given power just cause they are related to the last guy who had it. Hell, even if we did live in a meritocracy, is it moral to let people die because they lost the genetic roll of the dice? Somebody born with a disability should just die since they have less economic worth?
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  Actually, having more money means that your life is more valuable. Just like a sack full of gold is more valuable than a sack full of broken glass. It's just people get all emotional when applying the same concept to humans. Is it moral to replace broken things instead of trying to fix them, considering that fixing will be more expensive and the thing might just break down again after a while anyway? That's not a question about morality, is it? Except if you replace "things" with "humans". I personally do not understand why this difference exists, however. Why is it alright to abort babies that might get a disability, but it's completely out of the question to murder someone later in life for the same reason. It doesn't make sense to me. A persons life isn't inherently worth anything. If the economic output is negative and no one is willing to cover, why shouldn't that someone just die? It would be like saving money. There are probably good reasons that I just don't know, otherwise things wouldn't be the way they are or at least that's what I figure.
  - 7y ago