Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 155 posts

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#131

Post by lapcat »

tharmas wrote: post #130
lapcat wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The generation is often defined as people born from 1946 to 1964" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers In the 1980 Presidential election, won by Reagan with 51% of the vote, the oldest Boomers were 34 years old, the youngest 16, and thus not even eligible to vote. According to the linked document, Carter slightly won voters under 30, whereas Reagan won voters 30+ with 55%. It's unclear how exactly 30-44 broke…

I know that Clinton watered down the anti-monopoly laws but wasn't sure if Reagan had watered down them considerably more than Clinton. Why the confrontational tone? If you think I'm wrong couldn't you have stated so in a more gracious tone? Does all discourse on the internet where you don't like what the person is saying have to be hostile sounding in tone?

> Why the confrontational tone?

Your own original comment was confrontational and hostile: "The most egregious thing the Boomers did", "Either way it was the Boomers."

It's not even a question of what the Reagan and/or Clinton administrations did. The problem with your comment was the absurdity of throwing around the "Boomers" stereotype.

I think it's silly to blame everything on Boomers, a totally arbitrary slice of the population, who are in fact as demographically and politically diverse as any other age group. Moreover, it has now become commonplace for younger people to call everyone who is older them a "Boomer", regardless of whether that term is accurate, in a kind of willful ignorance.

No, not all Boomers are the same, and no, they don't control the world.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#132

Post by hellojesus »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #128
hellojesus wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am the original commentor. My intention was to form an assertion that could be disproved via a counterexample. Let me try again: Why should citizen A have to involuntarily transfer their private property gained through voluntary economic transactions to citizen B?

Why should citizen B defend citizen's A extreme wealth in a state of war? Citizen A's property ceases to be private without a maintained defense.

National defense is a public good. It is permissible to tax for public goods (nonrivalous, nonexcludable).

Welfare ia decidely not a public good. Apples to oranges.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#133

Post by tenebrisalietum »

hellojesus wrote: post #132
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should citizen B defend citizen's A extreme wealth in a state of war? Citizen A's property ceases to be private without a maintained defense.

National defense is a public good. It is permissible to tax for public goods (nonrivalous, nonexcludable). Welfare ia decidely not a public good. Apples to oranges.

National defense protects the public against external threats.

Welfare protects the public againt poverty.

Both benefit the public.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#134

Post by tenebrisalietum »

hellojesus wrote: post #126
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working parents transfer (some) wealth to non-working children so they can survive. Is that unfair?

Not unfair. That is a voluntary transaction.

I don't think it is, because if you don't feed your children, you'll probably be charged with a crime.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#135

Post by _nalply »

cenazoic wrote: post #19
_nalply wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to disagree, but I don't think it is hatred and it is not a war. I think it is indifference mixed with selfishness and a collection of many little or perhaps not so little power grabs. One example might be that poor people can't rent a flat somewhere they can have a good life, because everybody else is already there and this is expressed in a rent poor people can't afford. Another little power grab: Call a taxi…

I understand what you’re saying, but I would suggest this is exactly the ‘banality of evil’ Hannah Arendt wrote about.

True. It's banally evil, but real war is just a lot worse.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#136

Post by Wieldable4640 »

lapcat wrote: post #62
FredPret wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think lots of conservatives desperately want to help the poor, just not in ways that might seem kind & empathetic to you. Don’t confuse tough love with no love - many people simply don’t think welfare is going to actually help.

> Don’t confuse tough love with no love The attitude that poor people need "tough love" is extremely condescending, so yes, it's difficult to distinguish tough love from no love. > many people simply don’t think welfare is going to actually help. The article argues that this belief is not based on the empirical evidence. I suspect that this belief is actually the result of a condescending attitude toward poor people…

It seems to flow from the idea that “might makes right”, but you replace might with money.

If you make money you’re doing well. That idea can be extended to imply that being poor means you’ve done something wrong.

To me it echoes feudalist ideas like divine rule. The king deserved to be king, otherwise God would not have allowed him to be king. Therefore the king must be good.

In my opinion this way of thinking is formed by looking at existing hierarchies and retroactively defining morality based on those hierarchies. Which then leads to the idea that poor people must be poor because of something they did, how could the hierarchy exist otherwise?

This line of thinking also leads to the opinion that rich people do better, which does not consider that poor people might be doing the best they can under their circumstances, even if it is not the optimal strategy.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#137

Post by malfist »

FredPret wrote: post #64
maedayx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But as we've seen time and again, those people are wrong. Giving people money helps, period. So either these people are simply ignoring facts, or they are not participating in good faith.

…or they disagree with you. Only in a bubble can complex facts seem so clear-cut. I, for one, don’t agree that “we’ve seen time and time again” that cash handouts help.

You're welcome to disagree, but that doesn't change the facts.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#138

Post by FredPret »

malfist wrote: post #137
FredPret wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…or they disagree with you. Only in a bubble can complex facts seem so clear-cut. I, for one, don’t agree that “we’ve seen time and time again” that cash handouts help.

You're welcome to disagree, but that doesn't change the facts.

I could say the same to you.

Political progress can be made only through meeting in the middle and negotiation, not by finger-pointing and accusing the opposition of being wrong. There's a reason millions of reasonable adults disagree with you (and who agree with you) - the truth is not clear-cut and complex and presents many seemingly contrary facts.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#139

Post by shuntress »

endisneigh wrote: post #120
shuntress wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"enough money every month to fully cover basic food, basic shelter, and basic expenses"

The fact that you can’t put a number is why it’ll never happen, you expect people to agree with an undefined amount of money given?

I'm not sure why you are ignoring what I'm saying. I assumed "enough money every month to fully cover basic food, basic shelter, and basic expenses" was very clear.

I can try to make it simpler for you.

"Every Month" means monthly. So, twelve times per year.

"Basic Food" means things like rice, bread, carrot, celery, onion, potato or raw meat. Obviously this can vary slightly per person but in general enough for a month will mean five to ten pounds of each of those, so called, "staple" foods.

"Basic Shelter" means walls and roof that contain a bed, bathroom, kitchen, and heating. In practice, this is just called "rent". Like with the food, what this specifically looks like in any given place will vary.

Finally, "Basic Expenses". This means things like clothes, phone & electric bills (though, it's not too unreasonable to consider electric as part of your 'shelter' as well), travel expenses (gas, train tickets, bus fare), simple repairs, batteries, light bulbs, etc.

I'm sorry this has been so confusing for you but it does get just a little bit more complicated. You see, the actual cost of these things may vary depending on what they are and where they are from. For example, in New Mexico we may consider cornmeal and green chili peppers to be necessary inclusions as staple foods. Air conditioning may also be considered a housing necessity. Compare this to, for example, Maine, where air conditioning may not be considered a necessity and cornmeal and green chili peppers would likely not be considered a staple food and other foods would be considered instead.

Re: Anti-poverty programs should be unconditional

#140

Post by shuntress »

hellojesus wrote: post #115
shuntress wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reorganizing the same systems under the control the church by dissolving the state is not an appropriate way to maintain a system of self-governance.

Not everything has to be under a chrurch. It was just the classic example. Plus it's not the reorganization of the same systems. I propose a completely voluntary system. It is more economically efficient than thr state run system.

Yes, of course! A system of voluntary cooperation! We can work together as a community to decide how we use our resources in the most economically efficient way!

Obviously people are busy so we can't expect every single person to work directly on every single decision so probably the first thing we would need is a way to, lets say, "elect" specific individuals who can be entrusted to make decisions on everyone's behalf. Then those people can decide how much money we all contribute and how to spend that money in the most economically efficient way.

You are right, this is such a good idea! Why aren't we already doing it that way ... ?

Post reply on HN