5 ms·

Maimonides was a smart dude, but I must say I don't understand the highest level here: do you have to know they are about to be impoverished? If so, don't you k

Maimonides was a smart dude, but I must say I don't understand the highest level here: do you have to know they are about to be impoverished? If so, don't you know their identity to give them a job, a loan, or a gift? Payday lenders might qualify? Maybe I need to consult a rabbi.

sjtindell 6y ago
I would guess a loan is extended mostly so the one taking it can save face. Some people would choose to live on the streets rather than take a handout and a loan makes it palatable. There’s a (possibly apocryphal) story about George Clooney offering 15 friends $1,000,000 but only if they all take it, so that the friends who would say no out of pride could justify it.
phs318u 6y ago
This is sincerely meant, but if you consider 2 and 1, isn't that a description of progressive taxation in the modern, regulated-capitalist, social-democratic welfare state? (btw, I made that description up to try and describe the kinds of states I'm referring to. e.g. the USA once was in that category and no longer is in my view, while many European countries probably are in that category). EDIT: I'd like to point out, I'm assuming no/little corruption. i.e. the theoretical view of such a state.
- hansvm 6y ago
  Not really; taxation is compulsory. If you steal everything I own and distribute it to try to improve other people's lives, I don't suddenly have any kind of charitable moral high ground because of where my money went, and neither would I be complicit if it were used to hire puppy hitmen or whatever evildoers like to do these days. The end effect is similar, but intent matters.
  - phs318u 6y ago
    I agree that intent matters, but insofar as a state governs with the consent of a majority (leaving aside questions of whether that consent is real), then taxation (incl. the level of taxation and its distribution e.g. welfare vs warfare) represents a broadly agreed mechanism of the state to provide the kind of safety net that OP described as levels 2 and 1. Personally, I live in such a state (not the US), that has a safety net, and am happy to contribute via taxation. Not all my fellow citizens are happy to contribute and I accept that. I earn a decent wage and don't jump through hoops to minimise my tax. At the end of the day, people vote for governments that are more or less taxing.
    - hansvm 6y ago
      IMO then the people happy to contribute to such a system would mostly fall under 1/2 (under the assumption that one's motivations are altruistic and not centered on the communal benefits they also receive), but the people who aren't happy to contribute would not qualify (at least, not via their taxes alone -- there might be other reasons for rejecting taxes, and they might contribute elsewhere in a way that still puts them in the 1/2 category).
benchaney 6y ago
The idea is that helping people become self sufficient is more important than the concerns about who knows what. Even if both parties know who the other is, it is still the highest form of charity. Though probably it is possible to do both. I suspect there are many modern charities that help people become self sufficient where neither the donors not the recipients know who each other are. Disclaimer: IANAR (I am not a Rabbi)
vxNsr 6y ago
> Payday lenders might qualify? Jewish law prohibits lending with interest. There are many ways around that but Maimonides here is referring to a basic non-interest loan
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

sjtindell 6y ago

I would guess a loan is extended mostly so the one taking it can save face. Some people would choose to live on the streets rather than take a handout and a loan makes it palatable. There’s a (possibly apocryphal) story about George Clooney offering 15 friends $1,000,000 but only if they all take it, so that the friends who would say no out of pride could justify it.

phs318u 6y ago

This is sincerely meant, but if you consider 2 and 1, isn't that a description of progressive taxation in the modern, regulated-capitalist, social-democratic welfare state? (btw, I made that description up to try and describe the kinds of states I'm referring to. e.g. the USA once was in that category and no longer is in my view, while many European countries probably are in that category). EDIT: I'd like to point out, I'm assuming no/little corruption. i.e. the theoretical view of such a state.

hansvm 6y ago
Not really; taxation is compulsory. If you steal everything I own and distribute it to try to improve other people's lives, I don't suddenly have any kind of charitable moral high ground because of where my money went, and neither would I be complicit if it were used to hire puppy hitmen or whatever evildoers like to do these days. The end effect is similar, but intent matters.
- phs318u 6y ago
  I agree that intent matters, but insofar as a state governs with the consent of a majority (leaving aside questions of whether that consent is real), then taxation (incl. the level of taxation and its distribution e.g. welfare vs warfare) represents a broadly agreed mechanism of the state to provide the kind of safety net that OP described as levels 2 and 1. Personally, I live in such a state (not the US), that has a safety net, and am happy to contribute via taxation. Not all my fellow citizens are happy to contribute and I accept that. I earn a decent wage and don't jump through hoops to minimise my tax. At the end of the day, people vote for governments that are more or less taxing.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    IMO then the people happy to contribute to such a system would mostly fall under 1/2 (under the assumption that one's motivations are altruistic and not centered on the communal benefits they also receive), but the people who aren't happy to contribute would not qualify (at least, not via their taxes alone -- there might be other reasons for rejecting taxes, and they might contribute elsewhere in a way that still puts them in the 1/2 category).

benchaney 6y ago

The idea is that helping people become self sufficient is more important than the concerns about who knows what. Even if both parties know who the other is, it is still the highest form of charity. Though probably it is possible to do both. I suspect there are many modern charities that help people become self sufficient where neither the donors not the recipients know who each other are. Disclaimer: IANAR (I am not a Rabbi)

vxNsr 6y ago

> Payday lenders might qualify? Jewish law prohibits lending with interest. There are many ways around that but Maimonides here is referring to a basic non-interest loan

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]