Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Yakk · 08-29-2005, 01:58 PM

Because if people cannot get some things (house, food, etc), people tend to stop valueing traditional social mores, like private property and the sanctity of life. And really, at a certain level, they are right in their shift of views.

I don't like living near people who don't value private property and the sanctity of life. I also don't like having people slide into that kind of depths.

This is known as "positive externalities". There are significant positive externatlities to flattening the quality of life gradient in a society. And upping the quality of life of the poorest is quite cheap.

If Charities delt with inequity well enough, then those who did not give to Charity would be getting a free ride. They'd have the benefits of a more equitable society, without paying any of the cost.

Secondly, the capitalist system is just a system. One negative consequence of the capitalist system, compared to alternatives, is that it makes more people starve to death than other systems might. One patch on the capitalist system is to provide, at a trivial cost, the minimium support required to feed, clothe, house and care for those in the system.

I won't support a system that generates optimal growth and wealth for the successful on the backs of starvation, death and sickness.

If someone took Capitalism as holy writ, they might view this differently, and consider any lives ruined by it to be justly ruined. I view it as just another choice. And if you can make it a better choice with a bit of social assistance, to smooth over the rought edges, all the better.

Thirdly, bloody revolution. If the government won't feed the masses, it quite often finds that the masses proceed to destroy the government. It has happened. Admittedly, America hasn't seen much in the way of revolution -- the underclasses in America have never revolted against an entrenched nobility -- but it does happen when inequity gets bad enough. The closest the USA has had, in my recollection, is labour strikes and government/corp crackdowns on labour movements.

This isn't a huge factor, but it should be considered as well as the above.

As for the example of the federal disaster assistance program -- following the "no assistance" mantra, shouldn't people who live in hurricane areas know that hurricanes show up, and have sufficient insurance to cover for any costs? I mean, they shouldn't live there if they aren't ready for the consequences.

I cannot see the difference between someone who gets knocked up at 16 without someone to support her, and someone who chooses to live on a flood plain on the gulf of hurricane without being able to pay for private hurricane insurance.

Well, actually, the 16 year old has the possible excuse that she was young and stupid.

08-29-2005, 01:58 PM	#55 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Because if people cannot get some things (house, food, etc), people tend to stop valueing traditional social mores, like private property and the sanctity of life. And really, at a certain level, they are right in their shift of views. I don't like living near people who don't value private property and the sanctity of life. I also don't like having people slide into that kind of depths. This is known as "positive externalities". There are significant positive externatlities to flattening the quality of life gradient in a society. And upping the quality of life of the poorest is quite cheap. If Charities delt with inequity well enough, then those who did not give to Charity would be getting a free ride. They'd have the benefits of a more equitable society, without paying any of the cost. Secondly, the capitalist system is just a system. One negative consequence of the capitalist system, compared to alternatives, is that it makes more people starve to death than other systems might. One patch on the capitalist system is to provide, at a trivial cost, the minimium support required to feed, clothe, house and care for those in the system. I won't support a system that generates optimal growth and wealth for the successful on the backs of starvation, death and sickness. If someone took Capitalism as holy writ, they might view this differently, and consider any lives ruined by it to be justly ruined. I view it as just another choice. And if you can make it a better choice with a bit of social assistance, to smooth over the rought edges, all the better. Thirdly, bloody revolution. If the government won't feed the masses, it quite often finds that the masses proceed to destroy the government. It has happened. Admittedly, America hasn't seen much in the way of revolution -- the underclasses in America have never revolted against an entrenched nobility -- but it does happen when inequity gets bad enough. The closest the USA has had, in my recollection, is labour strikes and government/corp crackdowns on labour movements. This isn't a huge factor, but it should be considered as well as the above. As for the example of the federal disaster assistance program -- following the "no assistance" mantra, shouldn't people who live in hurricane areas know that hurricanes show up, and have sufficient insurance to cover for any costs? I mean, they shouldn't live there if they aren't ready for the consequences. I cannot see the difference between someone who gets knocked up at 16 without someone to support her, and someone who chooses to live on a flood plain on the gulf of hurricane without being able to pay for private hurricane insurance. Well, actually, the 16 year old has the possible excuse that she was young and stupid. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.