3 ms·

Quite the opposite. Our instincts surrounding charity are to help when it won't directly hurt us -- but if everything is commoditized, all charity directly hurt

Quite the opposite. Our instincts surrounding charity are to help when it won't directly hurt us -- but if everything is commoditized, all charity directly hurts us. A dollar we give to the poor today is a dollar we can't use to shelter our family on a future rainy day. Directly incentivizing against individual action and then insisting on individual action as the only path forward is a guaranteed recipe for continued failure -- which is exactly what we observe. This is a collective problem and collective action is the only viable path to solving it.

pdonis 5y ago
> A dollar we give to the poor today is a dollar we can't use to shelter our family on a future rainy day So is a dollar you pay in taxes, ostensibly to help the poor but in reality it won't (see my post elsewhere in this thread on government bureaucracies). At least if you spend the dollar directly on a poor person, you know it's going directly to that poor person. > Directly incentivizing against individual action The only thing doing that is the government--by taking away our money in taxes, whether we agree with how it's spent or not, the government is preventing us from spending it on things we believe are justified, such as charity. > continued failure -- which is exactly what we observe We observe continued failure because people think that they have already paid to help the poor, by paying taxes, but most of that money doesn't actually help the poor. If people understood that either they have to help the poor directly or the poor won't get helped, you'd see many more people actually helping instead of punting it to the government in the mistaken belief that the government will take care of it. > This is a collective problem This is the excuse every collectivist uses to commandeer other people's resources and then squander them. Basically, what you're saying is that you don't want to do the work yourself of helping the poor, so you'll outsource it to government bureaucrats. Who are even less motivated to actually help people than you are.
- op00to 5y ago
  > government bureaucrats […] who are even less motivated to actually help people than you are Can you explain how those who work in government are less motivated to help others than those employed outside of government?
  - pdonis 5y ago
    Because the only way for the government to execute anything is to create a mindless, bureaucratic organization operating according to mindless, bureaucratic processes to do it. And the kind of person who will thrive in such an organization is not the kind of person who will be either good at helping others or motivated to do it. Only a private charity, answerable only to its owners and not to a fickle democratic process and a mindless bureaucracy, can exercise the kind of judgment required to find and keep the kind of people who are good at helping others and motivated to do it.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  > So is a dollar you pay in taxes, Nope. My neighbor has to pay it too, and it's my neighbor that I'm bidding against for assets. The world is full of zero (or negative) sum games that can be overcome through cooperation. > We observe continued failure because people think that they have already paid to help the poor Yes, my parents keep giving money to their church. I grew up there, I've seen what their charitable efforts look like. That's why I so strongly prefer programs like food stamps. > Basically, what you're saying is that you don't want to do the work yourself I already do -- but statistics are a thing, I know that I'm atypical. You know what sucks most about writing that big check to GiveWell every year? It's not the idea of devoting some of my work to a good cause -- that part feels good -- it's knowing that others won't, and that they will have an advantage over me as a result. Working harder for a good cause is one thing, getting a kick in the nuts on top of that is something else, defending the idea of rewarding charity with a kick in the nuts is something truly special, in the extra-chromosome sense of the word. I believe that incentives matter, and I believe that fixing incentives is how we get out of this. We fix the incentives by making sure that everyone puts money into the pot.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > My neighbor has to pay it too, and it's my neighbor that I'm bidding against for assets. No, you're not. You're bidding against the government and all of the contractors the government hires to do things. And the government can print money; you can't. > The world is full of zero (or negative) sum games that can be overcome through cooperation. Yes, and one of them is called "special interest politics". The way to overcome that through cooperation is for people to cooperatively agree to not give governments so much power. > my parents keep giving money to their church. I grew up there, I've seen what their charitable efforts look like. That's why I so strongly prefer programs like food stamps. So basically, you don't think private charities, or at least churches, or at least churches like the one you grew up in, do a good job of helping people, based on your personal experience. Fair enough. Next question: do you have personal experience with food stamp programs? > I already do -- but statistics are a thing, I know that I'm atypical. I'm not so sure, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you are. Then you have two choices: (1) Since our country is a democracy, and since the majority of people don't actually want to help others (according to your hypothesis that we've accepted for the sake of argument), then you (and my wife and I, since we are atypical the same way you are) are outvoted. If the majority doesn't actually want to help people, their will should prevail and the government should stop doing it. (2) If you want to argue that helping people is a good thing even if the majority doesn't want to do it, then you're admitting that you're willing to impose the will of a minority on the majority in a supposedly democratic country. In other words, you're basically saying that your will should prevail, on no other grounds than your personal opinion that helping people is a good thing. Which do you pick?

pdonis 5y ago

> A dollar we give to the poor today is a dollar we can't use to shelter our family on a future rainy day So is a dollar you pay in taxes, ostensibly to help the poor but in reality it won't (see my post elsewhere in this thread on government bureaucracies). At least if you spend the dollar directly on a poor person, you know it's going directly to that poor person. > Directly incentivizing against individual action The only thing doing that is the government--by taking away our money in taxes, whether we agree with how it's spent or not, the government is preventing us from spending it on things we believe are justified, such as charity. > continued failure -- which is exactly what we observe We observe continued failure because people think that they have already paid to help the poor, by paying taxes, but most of that money doesn't actually help the poor. If people understood that either they have to help the poor directly or the poor won't get helped, you'd see many more people actually helping instead of punting it to the government in the mistaken belief that the government will take care of it. > This is a collective problem This is the excuse every collectivist uses to commandeer other people's resources and then squander them. Basically, what you're saying is that you don't want to do the work yourself of helping the poor, so you'll outsource it to government bureaucrats. Who are even less motivated to actually help people than you are.

op00to 5y ago
> government bureaucrats […] who are even less motivated to actually help people than you are Can you explain how those who work in government are less motivated to help others than those employed outside of government?
- pdonis 5y ago
  Because the only way for the government to execute anything is to create a mindless, bureaucratic organization operating according to mindless, bureaucratic processes to do it. And the kind of person who will thrive in such an organization is not the kind of person who will be either good at helping others or motivated to do it. Only a private charity, answerable only to its owners and not to a fickle democratic process and a mindless bureaucracy, can exercise the kind of judgment required to find and keep the kind of people who are good at helping others and motivated to do it.
jjoonathan 5y ago
> So is a dollar you pay in taxes, Nope. My neighbor has to pay it too, and it's my neighbor that I'm bidding against for assets. The world is full of zero (or negative) sum games that can be overcome through cooperation. > We observe continued failure because people think that they have already paid to help the poor Yes, my parents keep giving money to their church. I grew up there, I've seen what their charitable efforts look like. That's why I so strongly prefer programs like food stamps. > Basically, what you're saying is that you don't want to do the work yourself I already do -- but statistics are a thing, I know that I'm atypical. You know what sucks most about writing that big check to GiveWell every year? It's not the idea of devoting some of my work to a good cause -- that part feels good -- it's knowing that others won't, and that they will have an advantage over me as a result. Working harder for a good cause is one thing, getting a kick in the nuts on top of that is something else, defending the idea of rewarding charity with a kick in the nuts is something truly special, in the extra-chromosome sense of the word. I believe that incentives matter, and I believe that fixing incentives is how we get out of this. We fix the incentives by making sure that everyone puts money into the pot.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > My neighbor has to pay it too, and it's my neighbor that I'm bidding against for assets. No, you're not. You're bidding against the government and all of the contractors the government hires to do things. And the government can print money; you can't. > The world is full of zero (or negative) sum games that can be overcome through cooperation. Yes, and one of them is called "special interest politics". The way to overcome that through cooperation is for people to cooperatively agree to not give governments so much power. > my parents keep giving money to their church. I grew up there, I've seen what their charitable efforts look like. That's why I so strongly prefer programs like food stamps. So basically, you don't think private charities, or at least churches, or at least churches like the one you grew up in, do a good job of helping people, based on your personal experience. Fair enough. Next question: do you have personal experience with food stamp programs? > I already do -- but statistics are a thing, I know that I'm atypical. I'm not so sure, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you are. Then you have two choices: (1) Since our country is a democracy, and since the majority of people don't actually want to help others (according to your hypothesis that we've accepted for the sake of argument), then you (and my wife and I, since we are atypical the same way you are) are outvoted. If the majority doesn't actually want to help people, their will should prevail and the government should stop doing it. (2) If you want to argue that helping people is a good thing even if the majority doesn't want to do it, then you're admitting that you're willing to impose the will of a minority on the majority in a supposedly democratic country. In other words, you're basically saying that your will should prevail, on no other grounds than your personal opinion that helping people is a good thing. Which do you pick?