4 ms·

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.

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.