16 ms·

> Rising utility bills have community advocates worried Instead of being worried, why don't they pay the utility bills of the people they're so concerned about

> Rising utility bills have community advocates worried Instead of being worried, why don't they pay the utility bills of the people they're so concerned about? Public utilities are a common good, and it is important that they be paid for so that they continue to be a common good.

worik 5y ago
The people with the least money are getting the most expensive power I do not think this should be called a "utility". The electricity itself is. But the system of paying for it is not. Surely we can build better societies than this?
- tomohawk 5y ago
  Societies are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, what people do constitutes society. If you want a better society, then act better. Do what you can. Do you care about the people affected by this? Can you do something about it? Then do so. Is there something preventing these advocates from paying the bills for the people they are concerned about?
  - worik 5y ago
    > If you want a better society, then act better. Do what you can. That is a cop out. The commanding heights of the economy are being controlled in this case by people who prioritise their own greed over a families welfare. What does: "act better" mean in this context?
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    > Do you care about the people affected by this? Can you do something about it? Then do so. That's what people are doing by advocating for a change in the system. > Is there something preventing these advocates from paying the bills for the people they are concerned about? Well yes, it would require an enormous amount of coordination to match up all individuals with money to match up with individuals with the need. It also isn't very fair to shoulder the burden of these payments on only those who go out of their way to make this effort. Hence why it is better to have the state step in and manage all this.
  - specialist 5y ago
    How so? The Bill of Rights is aspirational, not normative. (Am not familiar with Canada's system. So cannot compare.) Unless you're thinking of societies without any regard for personal rights?
eweise 5y ago
the public utility could just pass the costs onto the other customers.
- tomohawk 5y ago
  Which they likely do anyway, if the regulating commission allows it. How is it fair to require involuntary servitude on the part of paying customers to pay for what they did not use? Those who are actually concerned should pay the bill if it is important to them. Pushing the bill onto others while expressing concern is not real concern. Forcing one person to pay for what another person needs is involuntary servitude (slavery).
  - worik 5y ago
    It is not slavery. That is a silly exaggeration. People who have more should pay more so those who barely scrape by (and are looking after the next generation - this is a family) can survive and thrive. That is not slavery. I am a little bemused to be writing this.
    - tomohawk 5y ago
      So, it is OK to take money and other goods from people who have it and bestow it on other people who don't? If you're so concerned, then take the money out of your own pocket and use it to alleviate this problem. Dipping into someone else's pocket because you feel bad is not good behavior. It's theft. And, its involuntary servitude because the person you are taking this money from worked for it. Do you think they worked for it to benefit you? To benefit this person you are so concerned about? No. To the extent you are forcing them to work for your whims, to the direct benefit of someone else, to that extent they are made a slave.
      - worik 5y ago
        > So, it is OK to take money and other goods from people who have it and bestow it on other people who don't? Yes

worik 5y ago

The people with the least money are getting the most expensive power I do not think this should be called a "utility". The electricity itself is. But the system of paying for it is not. Surely we can build better societies than this?

tomohawk 5y ago
Societies are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, what people do constitutes society. If you want a better society, then act better. Do what you can. Do you care about the people affected by this? Can you do something about it? Then do so. Is there something preventing these advocates from paying the bills for the people they are concerned about?
- worik 5y ago
  > If you want a better society, then act better. Do what you can. That is a cop out. The commanding heights of the economy are being controlled in this case by people who prioritise their own greed over a families welfare. What does: "act better" mean in this context?
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > Do you care about the people affected by this? Can you do something about it? Then do so. That's what people are doing by advocating for a change in the system. > Is there something preventing these advocates from paying the bills for the people they are concerned about? Well yes, it would require an enormous amount of coordination to match up all individuals with money to match up with individuals with the need. It also isn't very fair to shoulder the burden of these payments on only those who go out of their way to make this effort. Hence why it is better to have the state step in and manage all this.
- specialist 5y ago
  How so? The Bill of Rights is aspirational, not normative. (Am not familiar with Canada's system. So cannot compare.) Unless you're thinking of societies without any regard for personal rights?

eweise 5y ago

the public utility could just pass the costs onto the other customers.

tomohawk 5y ago
Which they likely do anyway, if the regulating commission allows it. How is it fair to require involuntary servitude on the part of paying customers to pay for what they did not use? Those who are actually concerned should pay the bill if it is important to them. Pushing the bill onto others while expressing concern is not real concern. Forcing one person to pay for what another person needs is involuntary servitude (slavery).
- worik 5y ago
  It is not slavery. That is a silly exaggeration. People who have more should pay more so those who barely scrape by (and are looking after the next generation - this is a family) can survive and thrive. That is not slavery. I am a little bemused to be writing this.
  - tomohawk 5y ago
    So, it is OK to take money and other goods from people who have it and bestow it on other people who don't? If you're so concerned, then take the money out of your own pocket and use it to alleviate this problem. Dipping into someone else's pocket because you feel bad is not good behavior. It's theft. And, its involuntary servitude because the person you are taking this money from worked for it. Do you think they worked for it to benefit you? To benefit this person you are so concerned about? No. To the extent you are forcing them to work for your whims, to the direct benefit of someone else, to that extent they are made a slave.
    - worik 5y ago
      > So, it is OK to take money and other goods from people who have it and bestow it on other people who don't? Yes