3 ms·

> Cruelty is only cheap at the margin; the state provides a valuable service by making it illegal to externalize cruelty's costs. We have opposing views, and t

> Cruelty is only cheap at the margin; the state provides a valuable service by making it illegal to externalize cruelty's costs. We have opposing views, and that's okay. I believe that private charity should be the mechanism utilized to reduce the external costs of cruelty. It generates the most efficient solutions, and allows each person to maximize the utility of their givings. I believe the government mandated solution is inefficient and often robs people of their charitable purchasing power.

woodruffw 3y ago
Okay. We’re well off the topic at this point, so we can leave it at that.
jkubicek 3y ago
> It generates the most efficient solutions This feels obviously untrue to me, I'd love to hear your argument for why you think it's true. I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. If we decide, as a country, that it's important for our brothers and sisters to not starve to death, it seems to me that the most efficient system is one that's centralized, evidence-based, and supported by mandatory contributions.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > It generates the most efficient solutions >> I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. So we agree that you were able to increase the efficiency of your capital expenditure by not giving to charity. That is an increase in the efficiency of capital allocation over the taxation approach. > If we decide, as a country, that it's important for our brothers and sisters to not starve to death, it seems to me that the most efficient system is one that's centralized, evidence-based, and supported by mandatory contributions. Now you're contradicting the $0 charitable allocation. If you want to prevent starvation, then your optimal charitable contributions would be nonzero. All society does in your example is force everyone to give to a cause that not everyone may want to give to. You're able to lower your contribution to the cause by forcing your neighbor to give to it under threat of violence. This is the problem I have with welfare, and this situation is known as "tyranny of the majority," which is what the republic US system sought to avoid.

woodruffw 3y ago

Okay. We’re well off the topic at this point, so we can leave it at that.

jkubicek 3y ago

> It generates the most efficient solutions This feels obviously untrue to me, I'd love to hear your argument for why you think it's true. I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. If we decide, as a country, that it's important for our brothers and sisters to not starve to death, it seems to me that the most efficient system is one that's centralized, evidence-based, and supported by mandatory contributions.

hellojesus 3y ago
> It generates the most efficient solutions >> I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. So we agree that you were able to increase the efficiency of your capital expenditure by not giving to charity. That is an increase in the efficiency of capital allocation over the taxation approach. > If we decide, as a country, that it's important for our brothers and sisters to not starve to death, it seems to me that the most efficient system is one that's centralized, evidence-based, and supported by mandatory contributions. Now you're contradicting the $0 charitable allocation. If you want to prevent starvation, then your optimal charitable contributions would be nonzero. All society does in your example is force everyone to give to a cause that not everyone may want to give to. You're able to lower your contribution to the cause by forcing your neighbor to give to it under threat of violence. This is the problem I have with welfare, and this situation is known as "tyranny of the majority," which is what the republic US system sought to avoid.