5 ms·

I don't disagree but it should proportional with strings attached. In a civilised society nobody should starve to death or die because they can't afford health

I don't disagree but it should proportional with strings attached. In a civilised society nobody should starve to death or die because they can't afford healthcare. But neither of these things should come without any strings. These people only exist because we fortunately live in a society where most of the rough edges are nerfed out. That doesn't mean we should be accepting or normalising this. It should be frowned upon and be something not to be proud of. Something like: You are poor. Your living off other people. You provide less than zero value to society. However, heres a path to redemption: If you commit to XYZ we will assist you in your journey to becoming worthy of participating in civilised society. If you chose to not commit then society reserves the right to forsake you. P.S. Lol I know this post is going to get downvoted to oblivion probably even flagged. Deep down you guys know I'm right but you'd rather live in a world with compounding dysfunction than accept uncomfortable truths.

hotpotamus 3y ago
Supposedly we live in a world of compounding wealth rather than dysfunction, or so I am told, though I agree it seems a bit hard to believe. If we want to be start talking about uncomfortable truths, then I always think of all the other "productive" work these people could do - robbing homes/cars, kidnapping peoples' children for ransom, selling black market goods/drugs, etc... The things I might be inclined to take up if I was repeatedly told I wasn't fit for society. The police sure don't seem all that interested in working anymore either, so it may be the case that crime does pay after all.
- dahfizz 3y ago
  So tired of this notion that poor people have no morals. Someone who is capable of kidnapping a child for ransom is seriously fucked up. Paying that person off with welfare so they don't "have" to resort to heinous crimes, as if that's the default, is unconscionable.
  - true_religion 3y ago
    The moral reasoning behind kidnapping is: no one gets hurt, these rich people just have to live in the same conditions we do everyday for a week or two, then their parents will pay out of pocket change more money than we can make in our entire lives. That logic isn’t really true, but it’s what kidnappers tell themselves. No one ever feels like they are truly immoral.
    - dahfizz 3y ago
      I'm not really concerned with what the criminal tells themself. I am concerned about society at large sympathizing and excusing criminal behavior because the criminal was poor.
      - pc_edwin 3y ago
        I'm sympathetic to your comment but I do think he has a point, it seems both of you guys are speaking past each other. I think modern society is quick to cast criminality as either circumstantial or biological. There is a non zero percentage of the population that are sociopaths and psychopaths with a top percentile disagreeableness trait yet most of these people are fully integrated functioning members of society. Although their might be predispositions, I think its moral narratives that turn an otherwise "normal" person into criminality. This goes back to your point, we should not be empathising of excusing those among us who have missed the mark with their moral narratives and downstream actions that follow.
- pc_edwin 3y ago
  It goes both ways.. How many more shop liftings, car thefts, sons/daughters killed over a wallet do you think it takes before these thugs get hunted and put down like rabid dogs? Beneath the thin layer of tolerance and civility lies a level of barbarity most of us can't even fathom. This is coming from somebody who studies this stuff (history) as a hobby and even I wont be able to make sense of it. For some reason, we are fed this idea of post history. The idea that, we are somehow fundamentally different to our ancestors who bashed peoples head in with a rock and called it a normal Tuesday. We are still the same, there is just a tiny little sliver of civility. If you want to take that away, be my guest. This is what I think about every time I see a video of a shop owner get beaten to an inch of his/her life or I see some crazy left leaning political thing. I don't fear that stuff, I fear the counter reaction. I fear what comes next, thats when things get really ugly, like the stuff you read in the history books.. Unrelated: Please don't ban-ish me señor Dang. While it may leave a bad taste in some peoples mouths, this comment offers very interesting philosophical and socio-economic insights that are directly related to their previous comment and the OP.
rascul 3y ago
SNAP is proportional with strings attached. Your household must meet certain requirements and the amount you get is based off certain things, up to a maximum.
korse 3y ago
You come across as a bit of a dick, but I do think you have a solid point. I'm glad you didn't get flagged. Someone else mentioned food stamps being 'this way' and I wanted to add an anecdote of my own. At one point in my life, I worked as mini-mart clerk. I was broke but not concerned about it enough to get benefits. I saw tons of people come in with EBT cards and buy products with minimal nutritional value, stuff that seemed like a 'splurge' to me. I was buying bags of potatoes supplemented with vegetables and crap cuts of meat. I still don't understand it. My dollar just went so much further with bags of produce that I couldn't understand why people kept at it. To this day, I don't know why they don't swap SNAP for some sort of government run food pantry that has bags of rice, potatoes, low tier cheese, frozen meat, frozen vegetables and basic hygiene supplies etc. Hell, put it on the open market. Government owns and operates the properties, supply is a low bid contract, but the winner gets a couple of years of guaranteed volume purchases assuming basic quality checks are passed. Not a great selection, but subsidized, solid nutrition, guaranteed availability etc. Your SNAP bucks are only redeemable on prem. and a portion of your balance can be spent for delivery once per week? You want crap calories or variety of diet, then you earn it yourself, but the basics are always covered. I'd vote for that and happily spend my tax dollars on it. I'd also be happy to rely on it if things ever came back to that.
- pc_edwin 3y ago
  Its a little backhanded but I will take the compliment. :) I relate to your experience a lot, I've got so many similar stories! Funnily enough we have very similar ideas on how to handle welfare (atleast when it comes to food). I also just think the food should be prepared and distributed on prem via religious institutions. Thats the only model I've seen which is at least somewhat fraud resistant. For example, India is a notoriously low trust society where getting fast food is like rolling the dice with food poisoning but not with temples. You can get free healthy food from most religious institutions, nobody (ish) will mess god. Some of the best food I had during my time in India is from the church. I've never had food from hindu temples but I hear its the same. I know when travelling, the guides would always tell us to eat from brahmin (hindu version of orthodox jews) restaurants. I'm tempted to say this should be extended to non profits too but in my experience non profits are like an opposite perpetual motion device designed to increase accelerate world entropy. This is probably where our similarities end. I believe this model should apple to all forms of welfare and entitlements. All of it (incl Social Security & Medicare) should be scrapped and replaced with an essentials program. This is basically what I was suggesting in the OP with the "if you commit to xyz, we will assist you". I think we should get very creative with XYZ too. community services comes to top of mind. It all comes down to the basic idea that none of this is free so it shouldn't be free for the recipients either. Same goes for student loans, I think the program should be scrapped entirely and replaced with a different program where the money is a lump sum instead of a loan. The catch is military service or civil service. Maybe an reimagined form of USACE and a reimagined apprenticeship concept. P.S. The coming across as a dick part is because you guys (HN) are the most smug self righteous group of people I've ever interacted with (South Park Smug Alert) and it messes with my autism because you guys are smart so you do the 1+1=2 thing yet when it comes to certain areas you just choose to completely shut off that part. I mean we have service oriented architectures, separation of concerns, domain driven design, incentives, KPIs, resiliency, efficiency etc but when it comes to the real life (where it matters more since the non linear complexity) you guys are like lets scrap all of that and build the tower of babel, a big federal monolith which will be managed by either ladies/studs from HR/marketing (AOC, Greg Casar) or 80 year old MBA/Lawyer (Pelosi, Biden) types who are "not good with technology". Utopia Baby! I mean how can a city of the smartest people in the world also think legalising petty crime and enabling public degeneracy & indecency is a great idea.
myshpa 3y ago
Encouraging societal contributions is valid, but let's remember that poverty often results from systemic issues. Compassion and kindness are key. Having a job doesn't guarantee a positive contribution, even with a significant income. - Fossil fuel work worsens climate change and health issues. - Fast fashion exploits labor and creates pollution. - Tobacco jobs strain healthcare systems. - Planned obsolescence generates electronic waste. - Arms manufacturing can lead to conflicts. etc. etc. Your viewpoint appears to stem from a place of privilege and lacks consideration for the broader social and ethical responsibilities we all in the "civilized society" should share to be really civilized.
- pc_edwin 3y ago
  Yes having a job almost guarantees a positive contribution to society. Fossil fuels are the lifeblood of modern humanity, without it we'll still be share cropping for feudal lords (if we are lucky). Sweatshops pull millions out of dire poverty. Nobody willingly works at sweatshops out of an abundance of options. Tobacco hires millions of people and makes a huge impact to world wide productivity. Its an extremely powerful stimulant (& nootropic) that arguably fuelled the industrial revolution. Planned Obsolescence creates millions of jobs and increases product accessibility to the under privileged. Arms manufacturing prevents permanent global conflicts and bloodshed. You don't attack an adversary may be able put up a formidable defence. Pre 20th century world was full of permanent conflicts enabled by technology/weaponry asymmetry. Maybe you forgot include positive impacts of all these things before subtracting the negatives. It appears, every example you just gave is a net positive to society on balance.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    While some industries may create jobs initially, they often do so at the expense of exploiting vulnerable populations and perpetuating systemic poverty and inequality. Take planned obsolescence, for example. While products might be cheaper upfront, they break down quickly, costing consumers more in the long run and wasting resources. Fossil fuels and sweatshops might offer employment, but they frequently exploit workers and contribute to ongoing poverty. Additionally, the tobacco industry and arms manufacturing has caused countless deaths and health issues. None of those examples is a net positive to society. But you'll choose not to see that, I'm sure.

hotpotamus 3y ago

Supposedly we live in a world of compounding wealth rather than dysfunction, or so I am told, though I agree it seems a bit hard to believe. If we want to be start talking about uncomfortable truths, then I always think of all the other "productive" work these people could do - robbing homes/cars, kidnapping peoples' children for ransom, selling black market goods/drugs, etc... The things I might be inclined to take up if I was repeatedly told I wasn't fit for society. The police sure don't seem all that interested in working anymore either, so it may be the case that crime does pay after all.

dahfizz 3y ago
So tired of this notion that poor people have no morals. Someone who is capable of kidnapping a child for ransom is seriously fucked up. Paying that person off with welfare so they don't "have" to resort to heinous crimes, as if that's the default, is unconscionable.
- true_religion 3y ago
  The moral reasoning behind kidnapping is: no one gets hurt, these rich people just have to live in the same conditions we do everyday for a week or two, then their parents will pay out of pocket change more money than we can make in our entire lives. That logic isn’t really true, but it’s what kidnappers tell themselves. No one ever feels like they are truly immoral.
  - dahfizz 3y ago
    I'm not really concerned with what the criminal tells themself. I am concerned about society at large sympathizing and excusing criminal behavior because the criminal was poor.
    - pc_edwin 3y ago
      I'm sympathetic to your comment but I do think he has a point, it seems both of you guys are speaking past each other. I think modern society is quick to cast criminality as either circumstantial or biological. There is a non zero percentage of the population that are sociopaths and psychopaths with a top percentile disagreeableness trait yet most of these people are fully integrated functioning members of society. Although their might be predispositions, I think its moral narratives that turn an otherwise "normal" person into criminality. This goes back to your point, we should not be empathising of excusing those among us who have missed the mark with their moral narratives and downstream actions that follow.
pc_edwin 3y ago
It goes both ways.. How many more shop liftings, car thefts, sons/daughters killed over a wallet do you think it takes before these thugs get hunted and put down like rabid dogs? Beneath the thin layer of tolerance and civility lies a level of barbarity most of us can't even fathom. This is coming from somebody who studies this stuff (history) as a hobby and even I wont be able to make sense of it. For some reason, we are fed this idea of post history. The idea that, we are somehow fundamentally different to our ancestors who bashed peoples head in with a rock and called it a normal Tuesday. We are still the same, there is just a tiny little sliver of civility. If you want to take that away, be my guest. This is what I think about every time I see a video of a shop owner get beaten to an inch of his/her life or I see some crazy left leaning political thing. I don't fear that stuff, I fear the counter reaction. I fear what comes next, thats when things get really ugly, like the stuff you read in the history books.. Unrelated: Please don't ban-ish me señor Dang. While it may leave a bad taste in some peoples mouths, this comment offers very interesting philosophical and socio-economic insights that are directly related to their previous comment and the OP.

rascul 3y ago

SNAP is proportional with strings attached. Your household must meet certain requirements and the amount you get is based off certain things, up to a maximum.

korse 3y ago

You come across as a bit of a dick, but I do think you have a solid point. I'm glad you didn't get flagged. Someone else mentioned food stamps being 'this way' and I wanted to add an anecdote of my own. At one point in my life, I worked as mini-mart clerk. I was broke but not concerned about it enough to get benefits. I saw tons of people come in with EBT cards and buy products with minimal nutritional value, stuff that seemed like a 'splurge' to me. I was buying bags of potatoes supplemented with vegetables and crap cuts of meat. I still don't understand it. My dollar just went so much further with bags of produce that I couldn't understand why people kept at it. To this day, I don't know why they don't swap SNAP for some sort of government run food pantry that has bags of rice, potatoes, low tier cheese, frozen meat, frozen vegetables and basic hygiene supplies etc. Hell, put it on the open market. Government owns and operates the properties, supply is a low bid contract, but the winner gets a couple of years of guaranteed volume purchases assuming basic quality checks are passed. Not a great selection, but subsidized, solid nutrition, guaranteed availability etc. Your SNAP bucks are only redeemable on prem. and a portion of your balance can be spent for delivery once per week? You want crap calories or variety of diet, then you earn it yourself, but the basics are always covered. I'd vote for that and happily spend my tax dollars on it. I'd also be happy to rely on it if things ever came back to that.

pc_edwin 3y ago
Its a little backhanded but I will take the compliment. :) I relate to your experience a lot, I've got so many similar stories! Funnily enough we have very similar ideas on how to handle welfare (atleast when it comes to food). I also just think the food should be prepared and distributed on prem via religious institutions. Thats the only model I've seen which is at least somewhat fraud resistant. For example, India is a notoriously low trust society where getting fast food is like rolling the dice with food poisoning but not with temples. You can get free healthy food from most religious institutions, nobody (ish) will mess god. Some of the best food I had during my time in India is from the church. I've never had food from hindu temples but I hear its the same. I know when travelling, the guides would always tell us to eat from brahmin (hindu version of orthodox jews) restaurants. I'm tempted to say this should be extended to non profits too but in my experience non profits are like an opposite perpetual motion device designed to increase accelerate world entropy. This is probably where our similarities end. I believe this model should apple to all forms of welfare and entitlements. All of it (incl Social Security & Medicare) should be scrapped and replaced with an essentials program. This is basically what I was suggesting in the OP with the "if you commit to xyz, we will assist you". I think we should get very creative with XYZ too. community services comes to top of mind. It all comes down to the basic idea that none of this is free so it shouldn't be free for the recipients either. Same goes for student loans, I think the program should be scrapped entirely and replaced with a different program where the money is a lump sum instead of a loan. The catch is military service or civil service. Maybe an reimagined form of USACE and a reimagined apprenticeship concept. P.S. The coming across as a dick part is because you guys (HN) are the most smug self righteous group of people I've ever interacted with (South Park Smug Alert) and it messes with my autism because you guys are smart so you do the 1+1=2 thing yet when it comes to certain areas you just choose to completely shut off that part. I mean we have service oriented architectures, separation of concerns, domain driven design, incentives, KPIs, resiliency, efficiency etc but when it comes to the real life (where it matters more since the non linear complexity) you guys are like lets scrap all of that and build the tower of babel, a big federal monolith which will be managed by either ladies/studs from HR/marketing (AOC, Greg Casar) or 80 year old MBA/Lawyer (Pelosi, Biden) types who are "not good with technology". Utopia Baby! I mean how can a city of the smartest people in the world also think legalising petty crime and enabling public degeneracy & indecency is a great idea.

myshpa 3y ago

Encouraging societal contributions is valid, but let's remember that poverty often results from systemic issues. Compassion and kindness are key. Having a job doesn't guarantee a positive contribution, even with a significant income. - Fossil fuel work worsens climate change and health issues. - Fast fashion exploits labor and creates pollution. - Tobacco jobs strain healthcare systems. - Planned obsolescence generates electronic waste. - Arms manufacturing can lead to conflicts. etc. etc. Your viewpoint appears to stem from a place of privilege and lacks consideration for the broader social and ethical responsibilities we all in the "civilized society" should share to be really civilized.

pc_edwin 3y ago
Yes having a job almost guarantees a positive contribution to society. Fossil fuels are the lifeblood of modern humanity, without it we'll still be share cropping for feudal lords (if we are lucky). Sweatshops pull millions out of dire poverty. Nobody willingly works at sweatshops out of an abundance of options. Tobacco hires millions of people and makes a huge impact to world wide productivity. Its an extremely powerful stimulant (& nootropic) that arguably fuelled the industrial revolution. Planned Obsolescence creates millions of jobs and increases product accessibility to the under privileged. Arms manufacturing prevents permanent global conflicts and bloodshed. You don't attack an adversary may be able put up a formidable defence. Pre 20th century world was full of permanent conflicts enabled by technology/weaponry asymmetry. Maybe you forgot include positive impacts of all these things before subtracting the negatives. It appears, every example you just gave is a net positive to society on balance.
- myshpa 3y ago
  While some industries may create jobs initially, they often do so at the expense of exploiting vulnerable populations and perpetuating systemic poverty and inequality. Take planned obsolescence, for example. While products might be cheaper upfront, they break down quickly, costing consumers more in the long run and wasting resources. Fossil fuels and sweatshops might offer employment, but they frequently exploit workers and contribute to ongoing poverty. Additionally, the tobacco industry and arms manufacturing has caused countless deaths and health issues. None of those examples is a net positive to society. But you'll choose not to see that, I'm sure.