4 ms·

> ideologically opposed to social programs It's hard to judge someones true intent, but I don't know that I've ever met a person that opposes benevolent progra

by toolz 3y ago

> ideologically opposed to social programs It's hard to judge someones true intent, but I don't know that I've ever met a person that opposes benevolent programs of any sort if they aren't associated with costs. So if people truly do oppose social programs based only on the cost (both direct and indirect) I do believe that's an ethically defensible position. It's hard for me to imagine a person who doesn't want programs that help people, though and only uses cost as a way to shroud their ill-intent. I hope you're wrong about these people existing.

maxbond 3y ago
You've never heard someone say something like, "handouts make people dependent on the government" or "the government shouldn't have a say in our healthcare" or "the government shouldn't decide whether my child learns about X"? Because I've heard each of these ideological arguments used against social programs. I think the confusion here may be that you're seeing things through your own ideological lens (as we all do) and so you've classified these as "not truly benevolent?" (I don't mean that as a criticism, just a shot in the dark.)
- toolz 3y ago
  I've heard people say all of these things, but I don't think that saying these things has any bearing on whether those people disagree with programs that help people. > handouts make people dependent on the government This is a judgement based on cost - you or I may disagree with the value of the cost, but it is a centralization cost which increases risk. Playing devils advocate, but if your livelihood becomes dependent on a government program and you also watch government programs risking collapse (such as US social security) then the risk becomes obvious that it exists (and each individual will decide for themselves how likely this risk is to manifest) > the government shouldn't have a say in our healthcare I think this statement doesn't really fall into the category of things we're talking about. There's nothing about governments involvement in healthcare that means the program is better or worse or more/less benevolent. It would depend on the government and their involvement. > the government shouldn't decide whether my child learns about X I would a similar argument as the previous for this.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    > I've heard people say all of these things, but I don't think that saying these things has any bearing on whether those people disagree with programs that help people. This is what I meant about "not truly benevolent," it certainly is the case that these are arguments that the social programs don't help people. All well and good, but my claim was that they were ideologically opposed to social programs, not anything about whether they were opposed to people being helped or something. I never said that at all. > This is a judgement based on cost But it isn't. It's a view about outcome, not cost. If we reduced the cost to zero somehow (obviously impossible but bare with me), their objection wouldn't disappear because it hadn't been addressed. > I think this statement doesn't really fall into the category of things we're talking about. There's nothing about governments involvement in healthcare that means the program is better or worse or more/less benevolent. It would depend on the government and their involvement. I'm not making a statement about being more out less benevolent, I'm saying this is an ideological statement, which it transparently is. "The government shouldn't have a say in healthcare/education" isn't any kind of factual claim. It's a claim about how the world ought to work.

by toolz 3y ago

maxbond 3y ago

You've never heard someone say something like, "handouts make people dependent on the government" or "the government shouldn't have a say in our healthcare" or "the government shouldn't decide whether my child learns about X"? Because I've heard each of these ideological arguments used against social programs. I think the confusion here may be that you're seeing things through your own ideological lens (as we all do) and so you've classified these as "not truly benevolent?" (I don't mean that as a criticism, just a shot in the dark.)

toolz 3y ago
I've heard people say all of these things, but I don't think that saying these things has any bearing on whether those people disagree with programs that help people. > handouts make people dependent on the government This is a judgement based on cost - you or I may disagree with the value of the cost, but it is a centralization cost which increases risk. Playing devils advocate, but if your livelihood becomes dependent on a government program and you also watch government programs risking collapse (such as US social security) then the risk becomes obvious that it exists (and each individual will decide for themselves how likely this risk is to manifest) > the government shouldn't have a say in our healthcare I think this statement doesn't really fall into the category of things we're talking about. There's nothing about governments involvement in healthcare that means the program is better or worse or more/less benevolent. It would depend on the government and their involvement. > the government shouldn't decide whether my child learns about X I would a similar argument as the previous for this.
- maxbond 3y ago
  > I've heard people say all of these things, but I don't think that saying these things has any bearing on whether those people disagree with programs that help people. This is what I meant about "not truly benevolent," it certainly is the case that these are arguments that the social programs don't help people. All well and good, but my claim was that they were ideologically opposed to social programs, not anything about whether they were opposed to people being helped or something. I never said that at all. > This is a judgement based on cost But it isn't. It's a view about outcome, not cost. If we reduced the cost to zero somehow (obviously impossible but bare with me), their objection wouldn't disappear because it hadn't been addressed. > I think this statement doesn't really fall into the category of things we're talking about. There's nothing about governments involvement in healthcare that means the program is better or worse or more/less benevolent. It would depend on the government and their involvement. I'm not making a statement about being more out less benevolent, I'm saying this is an ideological statement, which it transparently is. "The government shouldn't have a say in healthcare/education" isn't any kind of factual claim. It's a claim about how the world ought to work.