4 ms·

This is the root of a lot of problems. We spend far too much energy making sure "bad people" get what they "deserve" and don't get what they "don't deserve", an

This is the root of a lot of problems. We spend far too much energy making sure "bad people" get what they "deserve" and don't get what they "don't deserve", and put in too little of that same energy in the case of "all people".

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
And then when we don't spend that energy it's a huge scandal!
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean - I'm using quotes because of the dubious definition of justice in the context of shared welfare, but obviously there are plenty of scenarios where more direct consequences for being more directly "bad", for various definitions, makes sense, or is at least unavoidable in a human society.
mumblemumble 6y ago
This is a huge part of why, perhaps surprisingly, libertarian think tanks in the US have started pushing for universal basic income. The sheer weight of the bureaucracy that has accumulated due to this way of thinking means that replacing it with a straight-up program of unflinching wealth redistribution would actually make the government smaller. And also make markets freer. The amount of rent-seeking behavior around programs like WIC is just staggering. And it serves the interests of neither WIC recipients nor the general public; it's only there because pearl-clutching is easy to co-opt for financial gain.
- clairity 6y ago
  this is an ideological argument devoid of meaningful goals to help residents and create a strong economy. who cares, on the face of it, what size the government is? size is not the goal, it's at best a poor proxy metric for (in-)efficiency, which itself is a proxy metric for how much we help people via public goods (and thereby the whole economy). rent-seeking around wic is a rounding error next to property & capital rent-seeking overall. moreover, the right place to place blame (and seek redress) is with the rent-seekers themselves, not the assistance recipients (or the associated governmental programs) being exploited by them.
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    I'm not sure I see why killing the engine that fuels the rent-seeking gravy train, and, in the process of doing so, taking a huge monkey off the backs of people who are receiving assistance, would somehow misplace blame on those same people. It's simply suggesting that perhaps we should address a cause of the problem rather than only focusing on its symptoms. And the way in which the market gets freer, in this case, is by taking away unnecessary and paternalistic restrictions that WIC imposes on where recipients shop and what they're allowed to buy. Perhaps framing things in classical liberal terms feels like de-centering assistance recipients. I get that, but I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing, in this case. I can't imagine your average WIC participant actually wants to live under a microscope, regardless of the political leanings of the person who's looking through it.
    - clairity 6y ago
      you're mistakenly associating assistance programs with rent-seeking, and moreover focusing on an entirely irrelevant corner of it. rent-seeking will occur anywhere there is wealth to be extracted, which is basically everywhere else in the economy, so that association is unwarranted. you should be looking at where capital is concentrated and deployed if you're truly concerned about rent-seeking over "big government".
      - mumblemumble 6y ago
        It's not that assistance programs are rent seeking. It's that the assistance programs, as they're structured, are a honey pot for rent seeking. A program that micro-manages what people can put on their table at home invites lobbying to influence those rules for one's own financial gain. It's an example of how pearl-clutching attitudes - in this case, fears, based on deeply entrenched moralistic notions about less-wealthy people's ability to make decisions for themselves, that people might buy the wrong food - are easy to co-opt for mercenary purposes, to basically nobody's benefit.
        clairity 6y ago

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

And then when we don't spend that energy it's a huge scandal!

happytoexplain 6y ago
I'm not sure what you mean - I'm using quotes because of the dubious definition of justice in the context of shared welfare, but obviously there are plenty of scenarios where more direct consequences for being more directly "bad", for various definitions, makes sense, or is at least unavoidable in a human society.

mumblemumble 6y ago

This is a huge part of why, perhaps surprisingly, libertarian think tanks in the US have started pushing for universal basic income. The sheer weight of the bureaucracy that has accumulated due to this way of thinking means that replacing it with a straight-up program of unflinching wealth redistribution would actually make the government smaller. And also make markets freer. The amount of rent-seeking behavior around programs like WIC is just staggering. And it serves the interests of neither WIC recipients nor the general public; it's only there because pearl-clutching is easy to co-opt for financial gain.

clairity 6y ago
this is an ideological argument devoid of meaningful goals to help residents and create a strong economy. who cares, on the face of it, what size the government is? size is not the goal, it's at best a poor proxy metric for (in-)efficiency, which itself is a proxy metric for how much we help people via public goods (and thereby the whole economy). rent-seeking around wic is a rounding error next to property & capital rent-seeking overall. moreover, the right place to place blame (and seek redress) is with the rent-seekers themselves, not the assistance recipients (or the associated governmental programs) being exploited by them.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  I'm not sure I see why killing the engine that fuels the rent-seeking gravy train, and, in the process of doing so, taking a huge monkey off the backs of people who are receiving assistance, would somehow misplace blame on those same people. It's simply suggesting that perhaps we should address a cause of the problem rather than only focusing on its symptoms. And the way in which the market gets freer, in this case, is by taking away unnecessary and paternalistic restrictions that WIC imposes on where recipients shop and what they're allowed to buy. Perhaps framing things in classical liberal terms feels like de-centering assistance recipients. I get that, but I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing, in this case. I can't imagine your average WIC participant actually wants to live under a microscope, regardless of the political leanings of the person who's looking through it.
  - clairity 6y ago
    you're mistakenly associating assistance programs with rent-seeking, and moreover focusing on an entirely irrelevant corner of it. rent-seeking will occur anywhere there is wealth to be extracted, which is basically everywhere else in the economy, so that association is unwarranted. you should be looking at where capital is concentrated and deployed if you're truly concerned about rent-seeking over "big government".
    - mumblemumble 6y ago
      It's not that assistance programs are rent seeking. It's that the assistance programs, as they're structured, are a honey pot for rent seeking. A program that micro-manages what people can put on their table at home invites lobbying to influence those rules for one's own financial gain. It's an example of how pearl-clutching attitudes - in this case, fears, based on deeply entrenched moralistic notions about less-wealthy people's ability to make decisions for themselves, that people might buy the wrong food - are easy to co-opt for mercenary purposes, to basically nobody's benefit.
      - clairity 6y ago