4 ms·

This is such an odd question with an obvious answer. Same reason we give food stamps to people that can't afford food instead of pay for Michelin star dinners f

by s0rce 3y ago

This is such an odd question with an obvious answer. Same reason we give food stamps to people that can't afford food instead of pay for Michelin star dinners for the middle class.

nh23423fefe 3y ago
so its about efficiency and waste? are you making a utilitarian argument about the relative utility gain of middleclass(michelin) vs poor(food stamps) why cant i just define a problem, "mansionlessness." This isn't a problem but really just a vehicle for a "solution to mansionlessness" which is just a transfer of wealth in one direction. the crux of your argument seems to be "the middle class are undeserving of this assistance" but that's relative to the homeless. but i dont think that comparison makes sense. why can't i do the reverse instead and find a group, "more deserving" than the homeless and use their "plight" to block homeless aid. if i were to respond, "the homeless dont deserved this assistance" which mirrors your "the middle class dont deserve this assistance" you would probably call me cruel. i think the argument "Y-less dont have Y so give Y" is some weird ouroboros logic failure.
- freen 3y ago
  Yes, if someone is dying of thirst, why do we give them water? It’s like giving the champagne-less champagne. One of these things is not like the other. The law, in its great equanimity, forbids both the rich and poor from sleeping under bridges. There is only one trick in the history of humanity that has consistently improved a lot of every citizen in a society, and that is to dedicate a portion of the private surplus public good.
- s0rce 3y ago
  I didn't say the middleclass is undeserving of assistance. As you said this is about marginal utility. Giving a starving man food saves his life. Giving a middle class person fancy food marginally improves their happiness momentarily and there is an argument that cheap food (ex. tacos) is just as delicious.

by s0rce 3y ago

This is such an odd question with an obvious answer. Same reason we give food stamps to people that can't afford food instead of pay for Michelin star dinners for the middle class.

nh23423fefe 3y ago

so its about efficiency and waste? are you making a utilitarian argument about the relative utility gain of middleclass(michelin) vs poor(food stamps) why cant i just define a problem, "mansionlessness." This isn't a problem but really just a vehicle for a "solution to mansionlessness" which is just a transfer of wealth in one direction. the crux of your argument seems to be "the middle class are undeserving of this assistance" but that's relative to the homeless. but i dont think that comparison makes sense. why can't i do the reverse instead and find a group, "more deserving" than the homeless and use their "plight" to block homeless aid. if i were to respond, "the homeless dont deserved this assistance" which mirrors your "the middle class dont deserve this assistance" you would probably call me cruel. i think the argument "Y-less dont have Y so give Y" is some weird ouroboros logic failure.

freen 3y ago
Yes, if someone is dying of thirst, why do we give them water? It’s like giving the champagne-less champagne. One of these things is not like the other. The law, in its great equanimity, forbids both the rich and poor from sleeping under bridges. There is only one trick in the history of humanity that has consistently improved a lot of every citizen in a society, and that is to dedicate a portion of the private surplus public good.
s0rce 3y ago
I didn't say the middleclass is undeserving of assistance. As you said this is about marginal utility. Giving a starving man food saves his life. Giving a middle class person fancy food marginally improves their happiness momentarily and there is an argument that cheap food (ex. tacos) is just as delicious.