4 ms·

> If you think everyone earning just enough to keep themselves physically alive is a sufficient standard to strive to for modern society, then I would question

> If you think everyone earning just enough to keep themselves physically alive is a sufficient standard to strive to for modern society, then I would question your ethics. And what are your ethics? And why are you so sure you've got them right? If people are living so poorly in New York, they are free to leave, and yet they choose to stay there. There is no "human right" to live in New York. I certainly don't want to live there, and cost of living is only one of many reasons. Most importantly, it is certainly neither compassionate, nor wise, nor good, to subsidize people living there with other people's money, or, even worse, money we have to print from scratch or borrow from others, further driving inflation and national debt, which consequences affect the future and security of everyone. Stop and consider that you may not be the compassionate hero you think you are. The great swindle of our times is to convince people to do very bad things in the name of empathy or compassion, all the while allowing them to feel good about themselves.

lucideer 4y ago
> it is certainly neither compassionate, nor wise, nor good, to subsidize people living there with other people's money If you genuinely believe this to be true, then I think we can be sure my ethics are not aligned with yours. Do you pay taxes? If you do, are you one of these folk that believes your contributions should only be spent on amenities for you to avail of, personally? God forbid any cent of what you "earn" should ever have any communal benefit for any of the other beings you share the planet with.
- mantas 4y ago
  Should people low-cost-of-life areas pay taxes to subsidise people in high-cost-of-life areas? If one area gets stupidly expensive to live at, maybe people should get their affairs in order accordingly?
- Pigalowda 4y ago
  Your ethics are weak! The ethical thing to do is take tax dollars from NYC and judiciously use these scarce resources to help even poorer populations elsewhere. Are you one of those people that think your tax dollars should only be spent where you are locally?
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  > Are you one of these folk that believes your contributions should only be spent on amenities for you to avail of, personally? I don't think I've ever met anyone personally that believes this, or even have encountered this position online throughout my entire life. Is this a freshly constructed straw man, or do you have a link to someone with actual influence who legitimately holds this idea? > God forbid any cent of what you "earn" should ever have any communal benefit for any of the other beings you share the planet with. I pay 10% of my pre-tax income voluntarily to my church, which uses some of its donations to help others with food, clothing, shelter, job/career training, and education. Some of it gets used to provide assistance across the planet. I have no issue with spending my money or my time for the benefit of others. You people really need to learn some humility. You're not the virtuous saint you might think you are, and the people who disagree with you are not the selfish, callous monsters you might make them out to be. It is interesting to note, for instance, that conservatives on average are far more likely to donate to charity than progressives, and far more likely to give service out of their own time: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-giving-than-liberals/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-... There are many differences between private and public charity: * One is done by compulsion and force of arms, the other voluntarily. * One is subject to marketplace forces and competition, while the other holds an unbreakable monopoly (unless you count moving out of the country, I guess?). * If a private organization does a bad job, it tends to die out. If a government organization does a bad job, it convinces us to double its budget and try harder. * private organizations tend to be far more efficient and innovative: https://digitalcommons.bridgewater.edu/honors_projects/140 https://digitalcommons.bridgewater.edu/honors_projects/140. The incentive structure in government bureaucracy could be described as antithetical to both! * If a private organization runs out of money, it can't print more money or go into as much debt as it likes, putting a cap on the level of irresponsibility it can engage in. * If a private organization fails, then the consequences are small. When governments fail under massive debt, inflation, price controls, and other poor decisions, everyone in the country suffers catastrophically. * Government charity provides the opportunity for one group to vote to take away the money of another group. The relationship between votes and government handouts is so dangerous to a functioning society and yet gets entirely ignored. There are so many pathologies to government wealth redistribution. On the whole, tremendous harm has been done and continues to be done through it. It's time to wake up and see that the other side not only doesn't have bad ethics, but, in fact, may hold a lot of wisdom that is so badly needed and sorely lacking in society today. Compassion is great, but compassionate foolishness ends up being about as disastrous as it sounds.

lucideer 4y ago

> it is certainly neither compassionate, nor wise, nor good, to subsidize people living there with other people's money If you genuinely believe this to be true, then I think we can be sure my ethics are not aligned with yours. Do you pay taxes? If you do, are you one of these folk that believes your contributions should only be spent on amenities for you to avail of, personally? God forbid any cent of what you "earn" should ever have any communal benefit for any of the other beings you share the planet with.

mantas 4y ago
Should people low-cost-of-life areas pay taxes to subsidise people in high-cost-of-life areas? If one area gets stupidly expensive to live at, maybe people should get their affairs in order accordingly?
Pigalowda 4y ago
Your ethics are weak! The ethical thing to do is take tax dollars from NYC and judiciously use these scarce resources to help even poorer populations elsewhere. Are you one of those people that think your tax dollars should only be spent where you are locally?
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> Are you one of these folk that believes your contributions should only be spent on amenities for you to avail of, personally? I don't think I've ever met anyone personally that believes this, or even have encountered this position online throughout my entire life. Is this a freshly constructed straw man, or do you have a link to someone with actual influence who legitimately holds this idea? > God forbid any cent of what you "earn" should ever have any communal benefit for any of the other beings you share the planet with. I pay 10% of my pre-tax income voluntarily to my church, which uses some of its donations to help others with food, clothing, shelter, job/career training, and education. Some of it gets used to provide assistance across the planet. I have no issue with spending my money or my time for the benefit of others. You people really need to learn some humility. You're not the virtuous saint you might think you are, and the people who disagree with you are not the selfish, callous monsters you might make them out to be. It is interesting to note, for instance, that conservatives on average are far more likely to donate to charity than progressives, and far more likely to give service out of their own time: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-giving-than-liberals/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-... There are many differences between private and public charity: * One is done by compulsion and force of arms, the other voluntarily. * One is subject to marketplace forces and competition, while the other holds an unbreakable monopoly (unless you count moving out of the country, I guess?). * If a private organization does a bad job, it tends to die out. If a government organization does a bad job, it convinces us to double its budget and try harder. * private organizations tend to be far more efficient and innovative: https://digitalcommons.bridgewater.edu/honors_projects/140 https://digitalcommons.bridgewater.edu/honors_projects/140. The incentive structure in government bureaucracy could be described as antithetical to both! * If a private organization runs out of money, it can't print more money or go into as much debt as it likes, putting a cap on the level of irresponsibility it can engage in. * If a private organization fails, then the consequences are small. When governments fail under massive debt, inflation, price controls, and other poor decisions, everyone in the country suffers catastrophically. * Government charity provides the opportunity for one group to vote to take away the money of another group. The relationship between votes and government handouts is so dangerous to a functioning society and yet gets entirely ignored. There are so many pathologies to government wealth redistribution. On the whole, tremendous harm has been done and continues to be done through it. It's time to wake up and see that the other side not only doesn't have bad ethics, but, in fact, may hold a lot of wisdom that is so badly needed and sorely lacking in society today. Compassion is great, but compassionate foolishness ends up being about as disastrous as it sounds.