4 ms·

> One downside is that it competes for the same “feel-good” feeling which much more effective charities compete for. [...] Later they walk by a food shelter in

> One downside is that it competes for the same “feel-good” feeling which much more effective charities compete for. [...] Later they walk by a food shelter in need of volunteers and thinks “I already did my part.” The exact same argument is made against government programs. And there's a long history of research showing just how much government grants crowd out charitable giving because tax payers feel like "I already did my part". But I don't see how you can consistently argue against Mr. Beast without also arguing against government funding, if crowding out is the issue you're concerned about.

memefrog 3y ago
That's not an argument in favour of Mr Beast. It's an argument against government programmes. And it is a good argument against government programmes.
- em-bee 3y ago
  no it's not a good argument against government programs. really the best way to improve everyones lives is by everyone paying their taxes and allow those taxes to be used to help anyone in need and fund infrastructure and improvements for everyone in society. if we pool our resources we can create a better life for everyone. charities that rely on donations can only go so far, and they allow people to opt out of contributing their share. the betterment of our lives is not the responsibility of individuals who feel inclined to donate, but they are the responsibility of all of us as a community. this is not about allowing people to say that by paying taxes they did their part and so they don't feel the need to donate, but rather, as a society it is our responsibility to ensure that everyones needs are met such that there is no need for any individual to keep making donations. if our social net relies on donations then we have a social net that is not properly funded.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure his needs are met. If he is incapable of doing so, then charity (collectively or individually) may be necessary. I am not opposed to a social safety net but what you propose and what we have (all over the Anglosphere) is a system where people are told and believe that they are entitled to have their lives funded by others with whom they have no personal connection. I don't see why someone living in eg. California should be funding the life of a family living in eg. one of the many Southern states that take more in federal funds than they put in. Funding certain services is obviously necessary, like insane asylums, prisons, courts, police, firemen and the army. It is a matter of debate whether healthcare should be. Schools definitely not. We have turned a system of helping those in need into a system for redistributing money from middle income people to the poor. We subsidise bad employers that don't pay market rates with things like in-work benefits.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      people are told and believe that they are entitled to have their lives funded by others with whom they have no personal connection if they are incapable of doing so on their own, then i very much believe that they are entitled to help. the reverse is the problem. people believing that they have no responsibility to help others who are not capable to support themselves. as a society we do have that responsibility. It is a matter of debate whether healthcare should be not where i come from. Schools definitely not education is a human right, and must be available to everyone regardless of their financial means.
      - memefrog 3y ago
        Nothing that needs to be provided to you by others can be a "human right". Human rights are inherent to being human, hence the name. You do not have a human right to every nice-to-have service that you think ought to be government-funded. You have a better argument in the US that you have a human right to be provided with a gun.
jerojero 3y ago
There's other arguments in favour of government programs though. For one, a lot of the wealth that's generated in a country is due to the collective historical effort of the people which is summed up in the state (for americans, the "government"). So taxation is simply the United States of America, or Norway, or Sweden, taking back some of the resources of the "now" that have been generated thanks to the collective effort of the "past". Also, there is actual research on the effectiveness of government programs (such as food stamps for example) in increasing quality of life of children who grow up on these; compared to those who grow up without those. In reality, children don't choose where they are born, and as much as it is the parent's job to raise them it is not the child's fault to not have gotten responsible parents. So, in reality, tax payers shouldn't be doing charity. Why would they? If charity is needed then the government is obviously not collecting enough or allocating resources efficiently. I would very much say that charity is a systemic failure, and philanthropy is usually spear headed by the very same people who argue against universalist measures such as higher taxation. Why would a billionaire know where resources are needed better than the government, who has much more data on people to properly know where money should go. So, in my opinion, it's really easy to argue against philanthropy and in favour of government programs. I mean, there's a lot of data out there.
pseudalopex 3y ago
> The exact same argument is made against government programs. And there's a long history of research showing just how much government grants crowd out charitable giving because tax payers feel like "I already did my part". How much? > But I don't see how you can consistently argue against Mr. Beast without also arguing against government funding, if crowding out is the issue you're concerned about. They could believe public programs and some charitable giving is more effective than no public programs and more charitable giving. Or someone who feels like a friend telling you you gave to charity affects charitable giving more.

memefrog 3y ago

That's not an argument in favour of Mr Beast. It's an argument against government programmes. And it is a good argument against government programmes.

em-bee 3y ago
no it's not a good argument against government programs. really the best way to improve everyones lives is by everyone paying their taxes and allow those taxes to be used to help anyone in need and fund infrastructure and improvements for everyone in society. if we pool our resources we can create a better life for everyone. charities that rely on donations can only go so far, and they allow people to opt out of contributing their share. the betterment of our lives is not the responsibility of individuals who feel inclined to donate, but they are the responsibility of all of us as a community. this is not about allowing people to say that by paying taxes they did their part and so they don't feel the need to donate, but rather, as a society it is our responsibility to ensure that everyones needs are met such that there is no need for any individual to keep making donations. if our social net relies on donations then we have a social net that is not properly funded.
- memefrog 3y ago
  It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure his needs are met. If he is incapable of doing so, then charity (collectively or individually) may be necessary. I am not opposed to a social safety net but what you propose and what we have (all over the Anglosphere) is a system where people are told and believe that they are entitled to have their lives funded by others with whom they have no personal connection. I don't see why someone living in eg. California should be funding the life of a family living in eg. one of the many Southern states that take more in federal funds than they put in. Funding certain services is obviously necessary, like insane asylums, prisons, courts, police, firemen and the army. It is a matter of debate whether healthcare should be. Schools definitely not. We have turned a system of helping those in need into a system for redistributing money from middle income people to the poor. We subsidise bad employers that don't pay market rates with things like in-work benefits.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    people are told and believe that they are entitled to have their lives funded by others with whom they have no personal connection if they are incapable of doing so on their own, then i very much believe that they are entitled to help. the reverse is the problem. people believing that they have no responsibility to help others who are not capable to support themselves. as a society we do have that responsibility. It is a matter of debate whether healthcare should be not where i come from. Schools definitely not education is a human right, and must be available to everyone regardless of their financial means.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      Nothing that needs to be provided to you by others can be a "human right". Human rights are inherent to being human, hence the name. You do not have a human right to every nice-to-have service that you think ought to be government-funded. You have a better argument in the US that you have a human right to be provided with a gun.

jerojero 3y ago

There's other arguments in favour of government programs though. For one, a lot of the wealth that's generated in a country is due to the collective historical effort of the people which is summed up in the state (for americans, the "government"). So taxation is simply the United States of America, or Norway, or Sweden, taking back some of the resources of the "now" that have been generated thanks to the collective effort of the "past". Also, there is actual research on the effectiveness of government programs (such as food stamps for example) in increasing quality of life of children who grow up on these; compared to those who grow up without those. In reality, children don't choose where they are born, and as much as it is the parent's job to raise them it is not the child's fault to not have gotten responsible parents. So, in reality, tax payers shouldn't be doing charity. Why would they? If charity is needed then the government is obviously not collecting enough or allocating resources efficiently. I would very much say that charity is a systemic failure, and philanthropy is usually spear headed by the very same people who argue against universalist measures such as higher taxation. Why would a billionaire know where resources are needed better than the government, who has much more data on people to properly know where money should go. So, in my opinion, it's really easy to argue against philanthropy and in favour of government programs. I mean, there's a lot of data out there.

pseudalopex 3y ago

> The exact same argument is made against government programs. And there's a long history of research showing just how much government grants crowd out charitable giving because tax payers feel like "I already did my part". How much? > But I don't see how you can consistently argue against Mr. Beast without also arguing against government funding, if crowding out is the issue you're concerned about. They could believe public programs and some charitable giving is more effective than no public programs and more charitable giving. Or someone who feels like a friend telling you you gave to charity affects charitable giving more.