4 ms·

> no one gives fuck all about the poor. That's blatantly untrue. People care. Ask yourself; how many of your friends "don't give fuck all about the poor"? I fi

by rattray 12y ago

> no one gives fuck all about the poor. That's blatantly untrue. People care. Ask yourself; how many of your friends "don't give fuck all about the poor"? I find it hard to believe that a majority of people would not wish a better life on poor people. But solving their problems is intimidating, difficult, and probably unprofitable. If the true problem is that poor people are poor because they don't have any money, the obvious solution is to give them money (eg; EITC, UBI, free healthcare, free education etc). If all people have money -- and if you're correct that savviness doesn't really play into it -- all people will have companies trying to solve their problems. I think Silicon Valley needs to wake up to the fact that some problems aren't best solved through technology, or through "people caring", but simply through better governance.

cbd1984 12y ago
> some problems aren't best solved through technology, or through "people caring", but simply through better governance. And here you run up against a religious belief named "The Government Is The Problem", which is utterly intractable and ineradicable in someone with an advanced case, and will never die off because it's founded on either blatant self-interest (A regulatory body is harming my profits!) or soured optimism (I thought everything was perfect until the scales fell from my eyes! Now I think everything is perfectly horrible!). It's related to cynicism, which has posed as maturity for so long some people honestly cannot tell the difference.
- rattray 12y ago
  I can't tell if you're accusing me of this religious belief or not, since I framed this as "the government is (could be) the solution" - a rather opposite attitude to the one you described. There are many sorts of cynical, overly sour people. The kind you describe is certainly one of them. But I don't see the relevance of their existence?
  - sirsar 12y ago
    They are relevant because they control a large part of Congress.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  >It's related to cynicism, which has posed as maturity for so long some people honestly cannot tell the difference. It's worse than that: I often see paranoia and even outright malice posing as maturity, and it seems most people cannot actually tell the difference.
- innguest 12y ago
  I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). Keep in mind what you're doing with that message is trying to discredit a whole school of thought by throwing ad hominem arguments. You are saying those like me have an advanced case of a cultish disease, and that we are selfish and cynical. You're entitled to those opinions, but this strategy of trying to taint a philosophy by attacking its messengers does not work on free thinkers like me that actually try to focus on arguments. You're distracting and not helping the discussion. This is still an open discussion in philosophy and you're welcome to participate if you can argue with civility.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). So how does that work when the government is the one preventing people from hurting people and taking their stuff? How does that square with the fact you can hurt people and deprive them of things without doing the kind of stuff NAP fundamentalists rail against, if you've rigged the game in your favor? If I own the only employer in town, and I don't like your face, you're going to be pretty damned deprived unless you magically work up the wherewithal to move. > You're distracting and not helping the discussion. There is no discussion with the people I'm describing. They're utterly dogmatic and will ignore or twist anything you tell them so their worldview isn't challenged.
    - innguest 12y ago
      "The government is preventing people from hurting people" is not a binary assertion, but a spectrum. An agency can have a success rate of 20% at preventing violence (in which case they are lousy at it) or they can have a 70% or 80% rate or higher and so on. So sure, the government is preventing people from hurting people at some particular rate. Your question is, how can we make sure people don't hurt other people if there's no government. Well, let's say we all live in this city. Do we want a police force? If we do, we can fund one and have it. Then it will protect us. Same as current taxes for police forces, only at local level. It's no different than having tinier countries. Switzerland is tiny and peaceful and they have a police force but they also have everyone armed and so everyone can help protect others that may be being harmed. And in general you will see less people being harmed if everyone is able to help. Now on to your example. You're the only employer in town. Maybe you even own the land where people live, just to make it more challenging. Now you can "exploit" people all you want by choosing not to employ someone you think is ugly or annoying, let's say. Well, let's say I'm ugly and you don't employ me. I'm ugly but I have friends. People know me and because I'm a nice guy they like me and are willing to help me. Several things can come from this. If everyone likes me then now we're all the more empowered as a town to go on strike and advocate that the company change their hiring policy. But let's say the town hates me, I'm a terrible person. I can try to redeem myself in the eyes of my town by providing services to my townsfolk, slowly building up enough savings to perhaps move out of town. I've tried my best to honestly answer your questions. If I haven't addressed your core concerns I invite you to rephrase and we can try again. :)
IkmoIkmo 12y ago
> how many of your friends "don't give fuck all about the poor"? Almost all of my friends. And I'm from Amsterdam, the Netherlands, generally considered a pretty open-minded, progressive, tolerant and caring place. My friends are educated, middle-class. They're caring and generous to friends and family and have disposable income. But they're extremely hesitant to something even like Kiva - a charity which allows you to lend money to business projects, and actually get your money back. I've lent thousands and got all of it back and relent it over and over again. Worst case is you miss out on $0.10 a month in interest while putting $100 to work charitably, infinitely, in a way that can't in any way be described a handout, as going to corrupt governors, as creating a relationship of dependence or be used to buy drugs. But they really don't give a fuck. Trust me. May not be the case for everyone, buy my very generous friends are only generous to the people they know and love. Outside of that, they don't give a shit. > That's blatantly untrue. I disagree. The numbers are clear. About 5 thousand people die each day from preventable causes, such as a lack of clean drinking water. That's 9/11 every single day, completely preventable, mostly children. On that statistic, here's a quote > It is estimated that it would cost about US$ 23 billion per year to achieve the international development target of halving the percentage of people unserved with improved water sources globally (currently at 18%) and improved sanitation services (currently at 40%) by the year 2015. But governments presently spend US$ 16 billion a year in building new infrastructure. The additional US$ 7 billion a year needed to supply good water and sanitation to some who lack it is less than one tenth of what Europe spends on alcoholic drinks each year, about the same as Europe spends on ice cream and half of what the United States spends each year on pet food. Compared to what governments expend on military weapons, the cost of providing people with the means to improve their health is small. Yes, one country spends twice as much on our pets than is necessary to spend to worldwide solve one of the biggest tragedies the world knows, that kids die each day from entirely preventable trivial issues like diarrhea. That's why the whole ice bucket challenge rubbed some people the wrong way, because it was one big tragic joke that was hard to criticize because at the end of the day, it did raise money that wouldn't otherwise be raised. These quick notes are but the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot of data and we can do a lot more with very little, but people don't care, and don't seem to care enough to know or consider to change their mind, either.
- 12y ago

by rattray 12y ago

cbd1984 12y ago

> some problems aren't best solved through technology, or through "people caring", but simply through better governance. And here you run up against a religious belief named "The Government Is The Problem", which is utterly intractable and ineradicable in someone with an advanced case, and will never die off because it's founded on either blatant self-interest (A regulatory body is harming my profits!) or soured optimism (I thought everything was perfect until the scales fell from my eyes! Now I think everything is perfectly horrible!). It's related to cynicism, which has posed as maturity for so long some people honestly cannot tell the difference.

rattray 12y ago
I can't tell if you're accusing me of this religious belief or not, since I framed this as "the government is (could be) the solution" - a rather opposite attitude to the one you described. There are many sorts of cynical, overly sour people. The kind you describe is certainly one of them. But I don't see the relevance of their existence?
- sirsar 12y ago
  They are relevant because they control a large part of Congress.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>It's related to cynicism, which has posed as maturity for so long some people honestly cannot tell the difference. It's worse than that: I often see paranoia and even outright malice posing as maturity, and it seems most people cannot actually tell the difference.
innguest 12y ago
I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). Keep in mind what you're doing with that message is trying to discredit a whole school of thought by throwing ad hominem arguments. You are saying those like me have an advanced case of a cultish disease, and that we are selfish and cynical. You're entitled to those opinions, but this strategy of trying to taint a philosophy by attacking its messengers does not work on free thinkers like me that actually try to focus on arguments. You're distracting and not helping the discussion. This is still an open discussion in philosophy and you're welcome to participate if you can argue with civility.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > I'm a "believer" in TGITP as you say it. It is not based on "blatant self-interest" but on moral principles (don't harm people, don't take their stuff, etc). So how does that work when the government is the one preventing people from hurting people and taking their stuff? How does that square with the fact you can hurt people and deprive them of things without doing the kind of stuff NAP fundamentalists rail against, if you've rigged the game in your favor? If I own the only employer in town, and I don't like your face, you're going to be pretty damned deprived unless you magically work up the wherewithal to move. > You're distracting and not helping the discussion. There is no discussion with the people I'm describing. They're utterly dogmatic and will ignore or twist anything you tell them so their worldview isn't challenged.
  - innguest 12y ago
    "The government is preventing people from hurting people" is not a binary assertion, but a spectrum. An agency can have a success rate of 20% at preventing violence (in which case they are lousy at it) or they can have a 70% or 80% rate or higher and so on. So sure, the government is preventing people from hurting people at some particular rate. Your question is, how can we make sure people don't hurt other people if there's no government. Well, let's say we all live in this city. Do we want a police force? If we do, we can fund one and have it. Then it will protect us. Same as current taxes for police forces, only at local level. It's no different than having tinier countries. Switzerland is tiny and peaceful and they have a police force but they also have everyone armed and so everyone can help protect others that may be being harmed. And in general you will see less people being harmed if everyone is able to help. Now on to your example. You're the only employer in town. Maybe you even own the land where people live, just to make it more challenging. Now you can "exploit" people all you want by choosing not to employ someone you think is ugly or annoying, let's say. Well, let's say I'm ugly and you don't employ me. I'm ugly but I have friends. People know me and because I'm a nice guy they like me and are willing to help me. Several things can come from this. If everyone likes me then now we're all the more empowered as a town to go on strike and advocate that the company change their hiring policy. But let's say the town hates me, I'm a terrible person. I can try to redeem myself in the eyes of my town by providing services to my townsfolk, slowly building up enough savings to perhaps move out of town. I've tried my best to honestly answer your questions. If I haven't addressed your core concerns I invite you to rephrase and we can try again. :)

IkmoIkmo 12y ago

> how many of your friends "don't give fuck all about the poor"? Almost all of my friends. And I'm from Amsterdam, the Netherlands, generally considered a pretty open-minded, progressive, tolerant and caring place. My friends are educated, middle-class. They're caring and generous to friends and family and have disposable income. But they're extremely hesitant to something even like Kiva - a charity which allows you to lend money to business projects, and actually get your money back. I've lent thousands and got all of it back and relent it over and over again. Worst case is you miss out on $0.10 a month in interest while putting $100 to work charitably, infinitely, in a way that can't in any way be described a handout, as going to corrupt governors, as creating a relationship of dependence or be used to buy drugs. But they really don't give a fuck. Trust me. May not be the case for everyone, buy my very generous friends are only generous to the people they know and love. Outside of that, they don't give a shit. > That's blatantly untrue. I disagree. The numbers are clear. About 5 thousand people die each day from preventable causes, such as a lack of clean drinking water. That's 9/11 every single day, completely preventable, mostly children. On that statistic, here's a quote > It is estimated that it would cost about US$ 23 billion per year to achieve the international development target of halving the percentage of people unserved with improved water sources globally (currently at 18%) and improved sanitation services (currently at 40%) by the year 2015. But governments presently spend US$ 16 billion a year in building new infrastructure. The additional US$ 7 billion a year needed to supply good water and sanitation to some who lack it is less than one tenth of what Europe spends on alcoholic drinks each year, about the same as Europe spends on ice cream and half of what the United States spends each year on pet food. Compared to what governments expend on military weapons, the cost of providing people with the means to improve their health is small. Yes, one country spends twice as much on our pets than is necessary to spend to worldwide solve one of the biggest tragedies the world knows, that kids die each day from entirely preventable trivial issues like diarrhea. That's why the whole ice bucket challenge rubbed some people the wrong way, because it was one big tragic joke that was hard to criticize because at the end of the day, it did raise money that wouldn't otherwise be raised. These quick notes are but the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot of data and we can do a lot more with very little, but people don't care, and don't seem to care enough to know or consider to change their mind, either.

12y ago