3 ms·

> 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 (

> 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
> We fix the incentives by making sure that everyone puts money into the pot. Forcing people to contribute money in taxes is not "fixing incentives". It's just brute force. The best way to increase people's incentive to help others would be to remove the illusion that they can outsource that task to the government.

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

> We fix the incentives by making sure that everyone puts money into the pot. Forcing people to contribute money in taxes is not "fixing incentives". It's just brute force. The best way to increase people's incentive to help others would be to remove the illusion that they can outsource that task to the government.