9 ms·

Your charity argument only validates the parent's comment. No healthy society should rely on private charitable as safety net for the less fortunates.

by dcarmo 6y ago

technobum 6y ago
Great to see HN keeping this level of aloofness in check
jonfw 6y ago
I don't understand why people have so many issues with charity... you want the government to forcibly take money from the rich and give it to the poor- but when they do that organically- it's somehow worse?
- Pils 6y ago
  Ultimately it boils down to an allocation problem. If you think that wealthy folks can better allocate surplus value into social programs than the government then you will support private donation schemes. If not, you support the "welfare state" and an expanded social safety net. This is a debate worth having, but I don't think HN is going to be a good venue for such a debate. "forcibly take money" I assume refers to levying taxes. I think you'll find that governments that don't levy taxes generally produce less liveable societies than those that do.
  - jonfw 6y ago
    I'm hearing an argument here that charitable giving is somehow inferior to taxation- or that amicably receiving charity is somehow less dignified than asking the government to take it for you through force. That's really what I'm responding to here... My belief is that forcing somebody to do anything against their will is inherently immoral. Taxation is included in that. It's not that simple of course- it's all relative, and sometimes taxation can do enough good to outweigh that morality.
    - ckosidows 6y ago
      > My belief is that forcing somebody to do anything against their will is inherently immoral What about enforcing traffic laws, or forcing children to attend school?
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      Lefties say "capitalism is theft" or "ownership is theft" or "property is theft". Righties say "taxes are theft". They're both rhetorical arguments with a core truth, but if you attempt to take them out of rhetoric they're both incredibly silly.
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      >My belief is that forcing somebody to do anything against their will is inherently immoral. Taxation is included in that. It's not that simple of course- it's all relative, and sometimes taxation can do enough good to outweigh that morality. The problem with this argument is that it can be used to shutdown any government service. I can easly say, I don't have kids so I won't support schools. Or I don't like police/firefighters so I won't pay for them. I don't like parks so I won't pay. I drink water so I won't pay. Any such society wouldn't survive. Either the next generation would simply be taken over by a competent government with an educated workforce and functioning social services. At some point you have to think beyond yourself ask what is needed to keep America alive.
    - Pils 6y ago
      I'm not sure that the person you are responding to is making a dignity argument on the topic of government assistance versus private giving. On this topic, I usually come across these arguments: 1) in an economic downturn, one would expect charitable givings to decrease due to economic contraction. I think the evidence from the 2008 recession is somewhat mixed on this topic. Most governments, not reliant on personal donations, do not face the same sort of budget issues (which is another debate). 2) Charities have the ability to discriminate. They can choose how to allocate donations in ways that can include or exclude certain segments. This is in some respects true as well for government spending, but once again boils down to the allocation problem. 3) economies of scale. Larger organizations are often less redundant than a group of smaller organizations, reducing overhead. > My belief is that forcing somebody to do anything against their will is inherently immoral. Taxation is included in that. It's not that simple of course- it's all relative, and sometimes taxation can do enough good to outweigh that morality. Since you are not fully opposed to taxation, would you accept a taxation scheme for a government program if an independent and well researched study showed that government spend outperformed private programs by 2.5x, 10x, etc.? Or is it more that any issue that could be addressed via private charitable organizations should be off-limits for the government?
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    While your last statement is true, it does not follow that maximizing taxation maximizes the desirability of living in that society.
    - Pils 6y ago
      The person I was responding to clarified his position on taxes. Maximizing taxation is reductio ad absurdum, whereas there are quite a few examples of countries that don't rely on tax income to maintain themselves. > "But the Saudi government—a highly autocratic regime—has historically resisted taxing its citizens for a reason: Taxes empower people to demand more from their government, and they can often be a trigger for democratization. “Taxation plays a profound role in the rise of democracy,” Sven Steinmo, a political-science professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told me."[0] [0]https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/saudi-arabia-taxes-coronavirus-pandemic/612493/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/sa...
- ckosidows 6y ago
  Tax-deductible charitable giving means that people get to decide where their money goes on their own. There's no democratic process in the appropriation of their money. This means the wealthier you are, the more say you have in appropriating what could be government money. If you make millions per year, you can potentially apportion more money than some citizens make in a decade. You effectively have more power in the government than many other citizens who should have the same capacity for change. It's a form of plutocracy.
  - jonfw 6y ago
    > you effectively have more power in the government than many other citizens Why would my charitable giving give me power in the government? > the more say you have in appropriating what could be government money. Everything could be government money, my house could be a government house, my wife could be a government woman, etc. Just because the government has the power to seize it doesn't mean they should or that it's theirs
    - ckosidows 6y ago
      > Why would my charitable giving give me power in the government? I feel like I already outlined this, but it bears repeating. Taxation gives money to the government and the government decides how to spend it. If the government spends it poorly we can vote out those who use it improperly. You can't vote Jeff Bezos out of the country. > Everything could be government money, my house could be a government house, my wife could be a government woman, etc. Technically a percentage of you house is claimed by the government through property tax and your wife isn't property and I hope you know that.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        I think GP was objecting to your somewhat casual "[that money] could be government money" and then drawing a link from there to "effectively have more power in the government" which isn't at all obvious to me nor the GP how charitable giving gives you that special government (monopoly on the use of force) power. It did not strike me that they lacked an understanding of the mechanics of taxation.
nickff 6y ago
You're question begging here: >"No healthy society should rely on private charitable as safety net for the less fortunates." Why?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Because a government can be held accountable to its voters, and laws about transparency and equal access whereas private charities can't. Given the option, people will chose to transfer their wealth to those in their own tribe, and not to those outside of it.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Government accountability is a tricky thing, as you have a limited number of choices, each of which has a basket of different positions on a very large number of issues. Since you can only make one (of a few) choice(s), voters each have a very limited ability to hold the government accountable on a few issues. Charities are held to account by a very different constituency (the donors), who are in a much more powerful position. I'm also not sure your assertion that "people will chose to transfer their wealth to those in their own tribe, and not to those outside of it" holds much water. I think donors often give to causes which affect people very different from themselves, and anyway, your state or nation is really just a different sort of tribe. Given some convincing evidence, I might believe that state-welfare programs are more equitable than private charities, but I have not seen such evidence.

Your charity argument only validates the parent's comment. No healthy society should rely on private charitable as safety net for the less fortunates.

by dcarmo 6y ago

Your charity argument only validates the parent's comment. No healthy society should rely on private charitable as safety net for the less fortunates.

technobum 6y ago

Great to see HN keeping this level of aloofness in check

jonfw 6y ago

I don't understand why people have so many issues with charity... you want the government to forcibly take money from the rich and give it to the poor- but when they do that organically- it's somehow worse?

Pils 6y ago
Ultimately it boils down to an allocation problem. If you think that wealthy folks can better allocate surplus value into social programs than the government then you will support private donation schemes. If not, you support the "welfare state" and an expanded social safety net. This is a debate worth having, but I don't think HN is going to be a good venue for such a debate. "forcibly take money" I assume refers to levying taxes. I think you'll find that governments that don't levy taxes generally produce less liveable societies than those that do.
- jonfw 6y ago
  I'm hearing an argument here that charitable giving is somehow inferior to taxation- or that amicably receiving charity is somehow less dignified than asking the government to take it for you through force. That's really what I'm responding to here... My belief is that forcing somebody to do anything against their will is inherently immoral. Taxation is included in that. It's not that simple of course- it's all relative, and sometimes taxation can do enough good to outweigh that morality.
  - ckosidows 6y ago
    > My belief is that forcing somebody to do anything against their will is inherently immoral What about enforcing traffic laws, or forcing children to attend school?
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    Lefties say "capitalism is theft" or "ownership is theft" or "property is theft". Righties say "taxes are theft". They're both rhetorical arguments with a core truth, but if you attempt to take them out of rhetoric they're both incredibly silly.
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    >My belief is that forcing somebody to do anything against their will is inherently immoral. Taxation is included in that. It's not that simple of course- it's all relative, and sometimes taxation can do enough good to outweigh that morality. The problem with this argument is that it can be used to shutdown any government service. I can easly say, I don't have kids so I won't support schools. Or I don't like police/firefighters so I won't pay for them. I don't like parks so I won't pay. I drink water so I won't pay. Any such society wouldn't survive. Either the next generation would simply be taken over by a competent government with an educated workforce and functioning social services. At some point you have to think beyond yourself ask what is needed to keep America alive.
  - Pils 6y ago
    I'm not sure that the person you are responding to is making a dignity argument on the topic of government assistance versus private giving. On this topic, I usually come across these arguments: 1) in an economic downturn, one would expect charitable givings to decrease due to economic contraction. I think the evidence from the 2008 recession is somewhat mixed on this topic. Most governments, not reliant on personal donations, do not face the same sort of budget issues (which is another debate). 2) Charities have the ability to discriminate. They can choose how to allocate donations in ways that can include or exclude certain segments. This is in some respects true as well for government spending, but once again boils down to the allocation problem. 3) economies of scale. Larger organizations are often less redundant than a group of smaller organizations, reducing overhead. > My belief is that forcing somebody to do anything against their will is inherently immoral. Taxation is included in that. It's not that simple of course- it's all relative, and sometimes taxation can do enough good to outweigh that morality. Since you are not fully opposed to taxation, would you accept a taxation scheme for a government program if an independent and well researched study showed that government spend outperformed private programs by 2.5x, 10x, etc.? Or is it more that any issue that could be addressed via private charitable organizations should be off-limits for the government?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  While your last statement is true, it does not follow that maximizing taxation maximizes the desirability of living in that society.
  - Pils 6y ago
    The person I was responding to clarified his position on taxes. Maximizing taxation is reductio ad absurdum, whereas there are quite a few examples of countries that don't rely on tax income to maintain themselves. > "But the Saudi government—a highly autocratic regime—has historically resisted taxing its citizens for a reason: Taxes empower people to demand more from their government, and they can often be a trigger for democratization. “Taxation plays a profound role in the rise of democracy,” Sven Steinmo, a political-science professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told me."[0] [0]https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/saudi-arabia-taxes-coronavirus-pandemic/612493/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/sa...
ckosidows 6y ago
Tax-deductible charitable giving means that people get to decide where their money goes on their own. There's no democratic process in the appropriation of their money. This means the wealthier you are, the more say you have in appropriating what could be government money. If you make millions per year, you can potentially apportion more money than some citizens make in a decade. You effectively have more power in the government than many other citizens who should have the same capacity for change. It's a form of plutocracy.
- jonfw 6y ago
  > you effectively have more power in the government than many other citizens Why would my charitable giving give me power in the government? > the more say you have in appropriating what could be government money. Everything could be government money, my house could be a government house, my wife could be a government woman, etc. Just because the government has the power to seize it doesn't mean they should or that it's theirs
  - ckosidows 6y ago
    > Why would my charitable giving give me power in the government? I feel like I already outlined this, but it bears repeating. Taxation gives money to the government and the government decides how to spend it. If the government spends it poorly we can vote out those who use it improperly. You can't vote Jeff Bezos out of the country. > Everything could be government money, my house could be a government house, my wife could be a government woman, etc. Technically a percentage of you house is claimed by the government through property tax and your wife isn't property and I hope you know that.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      I think GP was objecting to your somewhat casual "[that money] could be government money" and then drawing a link from there to "effectively have more power in the government" which isn't at all obvious to me nor the GP how charitable giving gives you that special government (monopoly on the use of force) power. It did not strike me that they lacked an understanding of the mechanics of taxation.

nickff 6y ago

You're question begging here: >"No healthy society should rely on private charitable as safety net for the less fortunates." Why?

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Because a government can be held accountable to its voters, and laws about transparency and equal access whereas private charities can't. Given the option, people will chose to transfer their wealth to those in their own tribe, and not to those outside of it.
- nickff 6y ago
  Government accountability is a tricky thing, as you have a limited number of choices, each of which has a basket of different positions on a very large number of issues. Since you can only make one (of a few) choice(s), voters each have a very limited ability to hold the government accountable on a few issues. Charities are held to account by a very different constituency (the donors), who are in a much more powerful position. I'm also not sure your assertion that "people will chose to transfer their wealth to those in their own tribe, and not to those outside of it" holds much water. I think donors often give to causes which affect people very different from themselves, and anyway, your state or nation is really just a different sort of tribe. Given some convincing evidence, I might believe that state-welfare programs are more equitable than private charities, but I have not seen such evidence.