5 ms·

I read this as follows: "I should force people, at the threat of violence, to give me 24 days of paid vacation." That's pretty much what you are saying. I agr

by cheez 15y ago

I read this as follows: "I should force people, at the threat of violence, to give me 24 days of paid vacation." That's pretty much what you are saying. I agree with you: the free market doesn't provide everything but that is what charity is for. Government is not charity. What kind of charity is it when they will send you to jail or bankrupt you for not tithing on time or enough?

jiggy2011 15y ago
The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate. So if a billionaire for example has a relative who suffers from a rare type of cancer for example they will be likely to donate a disproportionately massive amount of money to research and care for that particular type of cancer, or perhaps they find one particular endangered species particularly cute and will donate the money to the preservation of that particular species. They might also be opposed to environmentalists or hate gay people so will donate no money at all to environmental causes or treatment of aids victims. If their income is 1000x that of the average person they basically get 1000x the say in what is important (actually perhaps more since their cost of living will likely be lower as a % of income). This money might be used far more efficiently when some kind of justification is required in terms of providing the widest amount of help throughout society or the world as a whole. In addition allot of the "free market" type people that I know are quite opposed to the idea of charity anyway, although I think this may be somewhat different in the US.
- sp332 15y ago
  The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate. But the government just gets money from the people. Also, they get mandates from the people. So getting the government to tax you to pay for someone else's problem is exactly the same as paying for the problem yourself. Except now you've got a bunch of politicians involved. I don't see how that's supposed to make things better. If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that. I can't think of a case where people would rather be taxed by the government instead of giving money to charities.
  - jeltz 15y ago
    > If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that. In most countries people do not vote for individual laws. Instead we trust the politicians to write laws we like. This means the government being a single huge entity can have a more holistic plan where less obvious groups get left out in the cold. I for one have no idea what groups really need help in our society and do not want to spend time to figure it out so am very happy that I have a government doing that job for me. Sure they do it quite poorly but I am positive I would do a worse job.
  - shibboleth 15y ago
    Political scientist here. The United States has tried relying on charities in the past. Here's (partially) why it didn't work out: people are selective to the charities they donate to and charities are often selective to the people they choose to help (some charities target war veterans, some children, some minorities, some certain neighborhoods). This leave a large, noticeable gap of many people left ignored. It's not a matter of whether people wanting to be taxed or wanting to give to charities; of course no one wants to be taxed. The government took the responsibility from the church and various charities because they weren't providing enough help across the board to citizens in need. I'm not saying don't donate to charity or volunteer, you should, but I am arguing that government, albeit in need of improvements, is one of the best mechanisms for helping the needy.
    - cheez 15y ago
      I'd like to hear your response to Milton Friedman's view on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJEP1BzSeMQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJEP1BzSeMQ It's not about not wanting to be taxed, not at all. It's about removing the incentives to tie profit to violence.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that. To take an extreme example. Let's say that as a society we decide that young children living homeless on the street is a bad thing and that some provision should be provided for this. However let's say you have a handful of people who are the owners of the owners & directors of huge monopoly companies, their personal income put together might be comparable to the rest of the population (basically the 1%/99% thing). Now if these guys decide that they don't really care about homeless children because they all follow a religion which tells them that children are evil. Now the people who want to do something about the homeless children problem have a much more restricted amount of money with which to do that. What this really implies is that if you have more money available to donate then you have a better understanding of what is important in society. So yes, if the government comes in and forces the rich guys to hand over some of their money to solve the problem they are going to be pissed but if not then countless more people would be at least equally pissed that nothing can be done about a massive problem facing society.
toyg 15y ago
There is no threat of violence, workers' rights are a civil matter, penalties are financial. So yeah, society should force wealthy people, at the threat of financial ruin, to give their workers a decent lifestyle, to compensate for the unfair advantage they enjoyed (in terms of education and family networks as well as purely financial) and to basically let them call the shots on everything else. Obviously, as a social-democratic position, this moves from an implicit critical view of original capitalism, i.e. rich people exploiting the poor for financial gain, as observed through post-XVII-century history (more so in Europe than in the US, I guess, which might explain why it's not as widely accepted a concept over there). Times when Charity was widely praised and practice, but clearly was never enough. Obviously, if all economic disparity was eliminated overnight, things would be different. I look forward to the 1% renouncing their fortunes in order to establish a free-market utopia where such laws wouldn't be necessary.
- losvedir 15y ago
  > There is no threat of violence, workers' rights are a civil matter, penalties are financial. And if you don't pay the financial penalties? You go to jail... Ultimately, the government derives all its power from having a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
  - toyg 15y ago
    If you don't pay the financial penalties your assets are seized and you go bankrupt... or not even that, in most cases, thanks to the concept of LLC. People don't go to jail for breaking workers' rights like holiday entitlements, let's not make it more dramatic than it is.
    - cheez 15y ago
      Holiday entitlements, probably not. However, in each country where there are things like corporations, directors can go to jail for stuff like nonpayment.
    - cheez 15y ago
      Actually, it slipped my first reading of this and probably yours too. The wording is so 'big government' that we don't even see it: If you don't pay the financial penalties your assets are seized and you go bankrupt. Seizure of assets is violence. You can be sure I would not like my assets to be seized because I have to follow some dumb, overreaching law. But I don't have the guns.
notahacker 15y ago
Most Europeans also find the fringe libertarian argument that government collecting and distributing rent is morally wrong because of the use of "coercion" a little odd. There's no more or less coercion when the government (or private individuals) enforce particular rules essential to the function of the market system US property-rights libertarians hold so sacrosanct: namely property and contract enforcement. Both have a high degree of social acceptance generally ensuring people will comply, but both are ultimately preserved by implied violence, be that legislative or physical. So when it comes down to it, all property rights libertarians tacitly acknowledge the use of implied violence to collect rent is acceptable and sometimes necessary. If any corporation has a right to force me to pay to live on land they acquired through some historical sleight of business, and then dispose of the collected rent how they see fit, why exactly is it morally objectionable for the government to do the same thing? It's a more constructive debate when you start analysing on utilitarian terms whether there's any practical benefit to having 24 hour weeks, whether the market tends to underprovide them and whether regulation is the optimal solution.
- cheez 15y ago
  There is a difference between using violence to protect my home and using violence to get myself a little more "me" time or literally more cash. Most libertarians don't advocate for no government, they advocate for as little as possible to maintain order and preserve freedom.

by cheez 15y ago

jiggy2011 15y ago

The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate. So if a billionaire for example has a relative who suffers from a rare type of cancer for example they will be likely to donate a disproportionately massive amount of money to research and care for that particular type of cancer, or perhaps they find one particular endangered species particularly cute and will donate the money to the preservation of that particular species. They might also be opposed to environmentalists or hate gay people so will donate no money at all to environmental causes or treatment of aids victims. If their income is 1000x that of the average person they basically get 1000x the say in what is important (actually perhaps more since their cost of living will likely be lower as a % of income). This money might be used far more efficiently when some kind of justification is required in terms of providing the widest amount of help throughout society or the world as a whole. In addition allot of the "free market" type people that I know are quite opposed to the idea of charity anyway, although I think this may be somewhat different in the US.

sp332 15y ago
The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate. But the government just gets money from the people. Also, they get mandates from the people. So getting the government to tax you to pay for someone else's problem is exactly the same as paying for the problem yourself. Except now you've got a bunch of politicians involved. I don't see how that's supposed to make things better. If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that. I can't think of a case where people would rather be taxed by the government instead of giving money to charities.
- jeltz 15y ago
  > If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that. In most countries people do not vote for individual laws. Instead we trust the politicians to write laws we like. This means the government being a single huge entity can have a more holistic plan where less obvious groups get left out in the cold. I for one have no idea what groups really need help in our society and do not want to spend time to figure it out so am very happy that I have a government doing that job for me. Sure they do it quite poorly but I am positive I would do a worse job.
- shibboleth 15y ago
  Political scientist here. The United States has tried relying on charities in the past. Here's (partially) why it didn't work out: people are selective to the charities they donate to and charities are often selective to the people they choose to help (some charities target war veterans, some children, some minorities, some certain neighborhoods). This leave a large, noticeable gap of many people left ignored. It's not a matter of whether people wanting to be taxed or wanting to give to charities; of course no one wants to be taxed. The government took the responsibility from the church and various charities because they weren't providing enough help across the board to citizens in need. I'm not saying don't donate to charity or volunteer, you should, but I am arguing that government, albeit in need of improvements, is one of the best mechanisms for helping the needy.
  - cheez 15y ago
    I'd like to hear your response to Milton Friedman's view on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJEP1BzSeMQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJEP1BzSeMQ It's not about not wanting to be taxed, not at all. It's about removing the incentives to tie profit to violence.
jiggy2011 15y ago
If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that. To take an extreme example. Let's say that as a society we decide that young children living homeless on the street is a bad thing and that some provision should be provided for this. However let's say you have a handful of people who are the owners of the owners & directors of huge monopoly companies, their personal income put together might be comparable to the rest of the population (basically the 1%/99% thing). Now if these guys decide that they don't really care about homeless children because they all follow a religion which tells them that children are evil. Now the people who want to do something about the homeless children problem have a much more restricted amount of money with which to do that. What this really implies is that if you have more money available to donate then you have a better understanding of what is important in society. So yes, if the government comes in and forces the rich guys to hand over some of their money to solve the problem they are going to be pissed but if not then countless more people would be at least equally pissed that nothing can be done about a massive problem facing society.

toyg 15y ago

There is no threat of violence, workers' rights are a civil matter, penalties are financial. So yeah, society should force wealthy people, at the threat of financial ruin, to give their workers a decent lifestyle, to compensate for the unfair advantage they enjoyed (in terms of education and family networks as well as purely financial) and to basically let them call the shots on everything else. Obviously, as a social-democratic position, this moves from an implicit critical view of original capitalism, i.e. rich people exploiting the poor for financial gain, as observed through post-XVII-century history (more so in Europe than in the US, I guess, which might explain why it's not as widely accepted a concept over there). Times when Charity was widely praised and practice, but clearly was never enough. Obviously, if all economic disparity was eliminated overnight, things would be different. I look forward to the 1% renouncing their fortunes in order to establish a free-market utopia where such laws wouldn't be necessary.

losvedir 15y ago
> There is no threat of violence, workers' rights are a civil matter, penalties are financial. And if you don't pay the financial penalties? You go to jail... Ultimately, the government derives all its power from having a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
- toyg 15y ago
  If you don't pay the financial penalties your assets are seized and you go bankrupt... or not even that, in most cases, thanks to the concept of LLC. People don't go to jail for breaking workers' rights like holiday entitlements, let's not make it more dramatic than it is.
  - cheez 15y ago
    Holiday entitlements, probably not. However, in each country where there are things like corporations, directors can go to jail for stuff like nonpayment.
  - cheez 15y ago
    Actually, it slipped my first reading of this and probably yours too. The wording is so 'big government' that we don't even see it: If you don't pay the financial penalties your assets are seized and you go bankrupt. Seizure of assets is violence. You can be sure I would not like my assets to be seized because I have to follow some dumb, overreaching law. But I don't have the guns.

notahacker 15y ago

Most Europeans also find the fringe libertarian argument that government collecting and distributing rent is morally wrong because of the use of "coercion" a little odd. There's no more or less coercion when the government (or private individuals) enforce particular rules essential to the function of the market system US property-rights libertarians hold so sacrosanct: namely property and contract enforcement. Both have a high degree of social acceptance generally ensuring people will comply, but both are ultimately preserved by implied violence, be that legislative or physical. So when it comes down to it, all property rights libertarians tacitly acknowledge the use of implied violence to collect rent is acceptable and sometimes necessary. If any corporation has a right to force me to pay to live on land they acquired through some historical sleight of business, and then dispose of the collected rent how they see fit, why exactly is it morally objectionable for the government to do the same thing? It's a more constructive debate when you start analysing on utilitarian terms whether there's any practical benefit to having 24 hour weeks, whether the market tends to underprovide them and whether regulation is the optimal solution.

cheez 15y ago
There is a difference between using violence to protect my home and using violence to get myself a little more "me" time or literally more cash. Most libertarians don't advocate for no government, they advocate for as little as possible to maintain order and preserve freedom.