4 ms·

> Why should some freeloader get a free place to live when I have to pay. You too can have this "free" housing; all it will cost is your choice of living locat

by mLuby 4y ago

> Why should some freeloader get a free place to live when I have to pay. You too can have this "free" housing; all it will cost is your choice of living location and proving that you're incredibly poor. If that sounds like a good deal, then this taxpayer is all for you mooching off the same system. But as with "I'm moving to Canada" I doubt we'll see significant movement. So this outrage is emotional bluster, like a child who never learned to share.

gruez 4y ago
>You too can have this "free" housing; all it will cost is your choice of living location and proving that you're incredibly poor. >So this outrage is emotional bluster, like a child who never learned to share. You're repeating the same mistake as the parent, by refusing to seriously engage with the opposition, instead arguing against a strawman version the opposition's argument, and then concluding that they must be insincere. If I had to steelman the opposition's positions, I would go with the following: 1. They think it's fundamentally not their responsibility to help society's downtrodden 2. They think think we have a responsibility to help society's downtrodden, but only the ones who physically can't support themselves. "free housing for everyone who's incredibly poor" wouldn't be compatible with this view, because it's possible for you to be be poor through laziness or whatever. "It's fair because you too can get free housing if you're poor" doesn't address either of these concerns. >like a child who never learned to share. Okay, and what if they actually don't want to share? This isn't kindergarten where you can appeal to the teacher to forcibly get them to share. This is the real world, which means you need to amass a coalition of supporters to back you. Name-calling your opponents isn't going to help do that.
- mLuby 4y ago
  The steelman arguments help, thanks for sharing those. > 1. Not society's responsibility to help the downtrodden Sadly, this fits the evidence. Thankfully most religions and ethical systems don't agree with it. This worldview is most common when a weakened population is under stress (e.g. scarcity, attack, change). > 2. Only help those who physically can't support themselves. Putting aside how many mental disabilities this rules out, I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't. Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home. > what if they don't want to share… can't appeal to a teacher A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >Putting aside how many mental disabilities this rules out "physical" was probably the wrong choice of words, but the general sense is basically people who couldn't support themselves, according to some arbitrary definition. People with mental illnesses might be included, but of course that's subject to debate. There's a spectrum between "you get free housing if you're even a little depressed" and "depression isn't real and people should just choose not to be sad". >I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't. I don't think this is true. There might not be universal support for giving quadriplegics some sort of financial assistance, but there should be enough support to comfortably get a ballot measure/bill passed. The problem comes down to politics. The side pushing for assistance doesn't want to be seen as weak and "settling" for only quadriplegics, and the side that doesn't want assistance doesn't want to start a slipper slope. In the end the question of "should we give assistance to quadriplegics" turns into a referendum on whether we should help people in general. >Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home. Right, you're not going to be prevent all the freeloaders, but at least with a physical disability requirement it would be unpleasant enough that nobody would seriously go through with it. The same applies for committing a crime just so you can get free housing + food + healthcare. Despite the scattered stories you hear about it in the media, it's just not really a common thing poor people do. >A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense. Right, but getting government to do something requires popular support, which clearly isn't present hence why people are on hacker news complaining about "outrage" is preventing their preferred policy from being implemented. The whole point of the kindergarten example is that the teacher can unilaterally do the "right" thing, without the need for popular support.

by mLuby 4y ago

gruez 4y ago

>You too can have this "free" housing; all it will cost is your choice of living location and proving that you're incredibly poor. >So this outrage is emotional bluster, like a child who never learned to share. You're repeating the same mistake as the parent, by refusing to seriously engage with the opposition, instead arguing against a strawman version the opposition's argument, and then concluding that they must be insincere. If I had to steelman the opposition's positions, I would go with the following: 1. They think it's fundamentally not their responsibility to help society's downtrodden 2. They think think we have a responsibility to help society's downtrodden, but only the ones who physically can't support themselves. "free housing for everyone who's incredibly poor" wouldn't be compatible with this view, because it's possible for you to be be poor through laziness or whatever. "It's fair because you too can get free housing if you're poor" doesn't address either of these concerns. >like a child who never learned to share. Okay, and what if they actually don't want to share? This isn't kindergarten where you can appeal to the teacher to forcibly get them to share. This is the real world, which means you need to amass a coalition of supporters to back you. Name-calling your opponents isn't going to help do that.

mLuby 4y ago
The steelman arguments help, thanks for sharing those. > 1. Not society's responsibility to help the downtrodden Sadly, this fits the evidence. Thankfully most religions and ethical systems don't agree with it. This worldview is most common when a weakened population is under stress (e.g. scarcity, attack, change). > 2. Only help those who physically can't support themselves. Putting aside how many mental disabilities this rules out, I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't. Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home. > what if they don't want to share… can't appeal to a teacher A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Putting aside how many mental disabilities this rules out "physical" was probably the wrong choice of words, but the general sense is basically people who couldn't support themselves, according to some arbitrary definition. People with mental illnesses might be included, but of course that's subject to debate. There's a spectrum between "you get free housing if you're even a little depressed" and "depression isn't real and people should just choose not to be sad". >I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't. I don't think this is true. There might not be universal support for giving quadriplegics some sort of financial assistance, but there should be enough support to comfortably get a ballot measure/bill passed. The problem comes down to politics. The side pushing for assistance doesn't want to be seen as weak and "settling" for only quadriplegics, and the side that doesn't want assistance doesn't want to start a slipper slope. In the end the question of "should we give assistance to quadriplegics" turns into a referendum on whether we should help people in general. >Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home. Right, you're not going to be prevent all the freeloaders, but at least with a physical disability requirement it would be unpleasant enough that nobody would seriously go through with it. The same applies for committing a crime just so you can get free housing + food + healthcare. Despite the scattered stories you hear about it in the media, it's just not really a common thing poor people do. >A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense. Right, but getting government to do something requires popular support, which clearly isn't present hence why people are on hacker news complaining about "outrage" is preventing their preferred policy from being implemented. The whole point of the kindergarten example is that the teacher can unilaterally do the "right" thing, without the need for popular support.