5 ms·

I hope mine is not a political argument, but a rational argument instead. I'm not actually sure what would be the definition of a political argument. Nearly any

I hope mine is not a political argument, but a rational argument instead. I'm not actually sure what would be the definition of a political argument. Nearly anything involving the government ends up being unreasonable and illogical. It's not free, someone has to pay for it. The method is taxes, backed up by government violence if you don't pay. The government never pays for anything, in fact. You do. And I do. So if 'government' pays for kids meals, OTHER PEOPLE who may have decided to not even have kids are now partly responsible for your decision to have kids. In what universe is this even remotely ethical OR rational? Good on you for deciding to 'help others', but not everyone wants to or necessarily can do that, and why should you be the arbiter of what is right wrt someone else's money? Forcefully taking someone's money through government taxation is theft through threat of violence. This kind of program would be incentivizing people who apparently already can't care for the children they have to have more children.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
> So if 'government' pays for kids meals, OTHER PEOPLE who may have decided to not even have kids are now partly responsible for your decision to have kids. In what universe is this even remotely ethical OR rational? My life will directly benefit by the wellbeing of the humans around me. Less children stealing for food means less criminals on my streets and in my neighbourhood. Kids who aren't hungry will act out less and can learn better. Well-educated next generation will pay for me when I'm retired. It's a simple investment in my opinion.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > In what universe is this even remotely ethical OR rational? I have to pay taxes for the maintenance of the road network. I don't own a car. I have to pay taxes to bail out corrupt bankers, to rescue the economy they crashed. I have no mortgage. I have to pay taxes to subsidize farmers. I am not a farmer. I have to pay taxes for expensive cancer treatments. I don't have cancer. You seem to be arguing that there should be no public provision of anything, that should be private companies, and taxes should be abolished. That's some kind of insane Ayn Rand-style philosophy. It's obvious to me that any kind of public expenditure paid for from taxes is going to annoy someone; and some of the expenditure is either going to benefit me, or will be expenditure that I approve of. You win some, you lose some.
ljf 4y ago
Well fed, well educated kids will one day be looking after you or the services in your community. Kids with a poor upbringing may well be a further cost on your community now and in the future. Don't you want to spend a little now for a better society tomorrow?
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Don't you want to spend a little now for a better society tomorrow?" This is definitely a fallacy. Everyone will agree, but it's vague. Of course we would pay more if it meant a better society. How much is "more"? What is "better"? Is the money actually going to the cause or just supporting the administrative bureaucracy around it? Are there better alternatives? This is common in politics - make a commonsense or emotional statement that is vague. Yes, people agree with the sentiment or idea, but the implementations can vary wildly and find only partisan support.
  - ljf 4y ago
    OK, do you agree (or disagree) that kids poorly fed and poorly supported today, are likely to be a bigger cost/lower economic benefit to society in the future? All other things being equal.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Now you've changed the context from the original comment, and still have injected more ambiguity as to what "support" is. At the conceptual level, I agree. That was also true at the last conceptual-level question. Again, it comes down to the actual implementation details.
andrekandre 4y ago
> Forcefully taking someone's money through government taxation is theft through threat of violence. theft is a legal construct defined (and punished by)... the govt... > but not everyone wants to or necessarily can do that, and why should you be the arbiter of what is right wrt someone else's money? do you use public roads? who pays for that?

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

> So if 'government' pays for kids meals, OTHER PEOPLE who may have decided to not even have kids are now partly responsible for your decision to have kids. In what universe is this even remotely ethical OR rational? My life will directly benefit by the wellbeing of the humans around me. Less children stealing for food means less criminals on my streets and in my neighbourhood. Kids who aren't hungry will act out less and can learn better. Well-educated next generation will pay for me when I'm retired. It's a simple investment in my opinion.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
denton-scratch 4y ago
> In what universe is this even remotely ethical OR rational? I have to pay taxes for the maintenance of the road network. I don't own a car. I have to pay taxes to bail out corrupt bankers, to rescue the economy they crashed. I have no mortgage. I have to pay taxes to subsidize farmers. I am not a farmer. I have to pay taxes for expensive cancer treatments. I don't have cancer. You seem to be arguing that there should be no public provision of anything, that should be private companies, and taxes should be abolished. That's some kind of insane Ayn Rand-style philosophy. It's obvious to me that any kind of public expenditure paid for from taxes is going to annoy someone; and some of the expenditure is either going to benefit me, or will be expenditure that I approve of. You win some, you lose some.

ljf 4y ago

Well fed, well educated kids will one day be looking after you or the services in your community. Kids with a poor upbringing may well be a further cost on your community now and in the future. Don't you want to spend a little now for a better society tomorrow?

giantg2 4y ago
"Don't you want to spend a little now for a better society tomorrow?" This is definitely a fallacy. Everyone will agree, but it's vague. Of course we would pay more if it meant a better society. How much is "more"? What is "better"? Is the money actually going to the cause or just supporting the administrative bureaucracy around it? Are there better alternatives? This is common in politics - make a commonsense or emotional statement that is vague. Yes, people agree with the sentiment or idea, but the implementations can vary wildly and find only partisan support.
- ljf 4y ago
  OK, do you agree (or disagree) that kids poorly fed and poorly supported today, are likely to be a bigger cost/lower economic benefit to society in the future? All other things being equal.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Now you've changed the context from the original comment, and still have injected more ambiguity as to what "support" is. At the conceptual level, I agree. That was also true at the last conceptual-level question. Again, it comes down to the actual implementation details.

andrekandre 4y ago

> Forcefully taking someone's money through government taxation is theft through threat of violence. theft is a legal construct defined (and punished by)... the govt... > but not everyone wants to or necessarily can do that, and why should you be the arbiter of what is right wrt someone else's money? do you use public roads? who pays for that?