Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker • Hacker News Board

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#331

Post by wbronitsky » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

hpoe wrote: post #311

blunte wrote: post #252

I find it fascinating that it seems so many people are against (sometimes vehemently) against others getting free food and shelter. There is no excuse for a modern civilization to not ensure that everyone has basic human needs met. Sure, we can argue some details like, "Is Netflix really a basic human need?"... joking aside, we as humans should endeavor to ensure that all people have their Maslow pyramid filled in.

I want to help other people I donate a decent chunk of my paycheck to humanitarian and other charitable efforts. I hate seeing people hungry, I grew up in a difficult situation and I hate seeing children go hungry. My problem isn't that I am against people getting free food and shelter I am opposed to being forced into charity at the point of gun by the state, and my liberties being eroded by moral busiebodies that f…

Equating banning plastic bags to feeding the hungry probably makes it harder for someone to not see you as an amoral monster.

And if we do believe you are an amoral monster, which I do not, what does that say about what we believe about people worse than you?

If you are near our best, which you probably are, how else can we hope to help people than by leveraging government? It should be quite clear to everyone that personal donations do not even come close to covering need.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#332

Post by hpoe » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

nexuist wrote: post #316

hpoe wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to help other people I donate a decent chunk of my paycheck to humanitarian and other charitable efforts. I hate seeing people hungry, I grew up in a difficult situation and I hate seeing children go hungry. My problem isn't that I am against people getting free food and shelter I am opposed to being forced into charity at the point of gun by the state, and my liberties being eroded by moral busiebodies that f…

> This same government with a 13% approval rating and that is universally despised in most everything they try and do. Because there are many in and out of government that don't want the government to do its job, so that they can point at ineffective government and say "look, a private company [like mine wink wink nudge nudge] could do so much better than that." Have you noticed that it is only American government (o…

I am not necessarily saying the government is doomed to failure, I just want to remind people that when they believe the govt. intervening will solve problems that they often are the cause of many problems as well.

As for your response that only the American government is highly despised by it is citizens I have to disagree with that, in fact the one universal feature I've found across all internet commentators, admittedly not a scientific survey, is that they all complain about their government, UK, Brazilians, Indians, in fact it often seems that the Chinese and the Russians are the people who love their government the most.

Beyond the internet you can also check out the riots and protests France had last year, generally not an example of people pleased with their government.

Ultimately however my argument against such was focused on a matter of principle and philosophy; however I am a pragmatic person and recognize I live in a real world and that compromise and discussion need to be had, I am cautioning against the simplistic thinking that "hey lets start doing x, y, or z to solve problem A, anyone who disagrees is a monster that hates people."

That kind of thinking leads to divisiveness, the Reds vs the Greens, shuts down discussion and leads to scorched earth tribalism.

Which that was what I was originally responding to, is the idea that because I have reservations around the idea of "just give everyone a house, food and healthcare" I am a miserly scrooge mcduck that hates poor people.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#333

Post by drak0n1c » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #242

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think SNAP is supposed to always cover 100% of food expenses. If you're near the cutoff point for benefits, you get some allowance, but you're expected to cover some of the food cost from your income. You would of course use your SNAP benefits first, since they are not fungible, so it is not surprising that you would run out before the end of the month. This does not mean that such households are unable to af…

Okay now try to eat like an actual human being and make it work for $500 over 30 days. The dollar amount itself is fine, but SNAP should be supplemented with basic commodities. Beans, rice, flour, sugar. The prices for these when purchased at the volume of the federal government drop to near nothing.

If you buy mainly beans, rice, flour, frozen chicken, etc for your monthly food you will be far under $500. It's all the other distracting items in the grocery store that add up.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#334

Post by iron0013 » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #73

smooth_remmy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing only the wealthiest americans could easily fund a UBI for everyone else. The middle class will not have to make any sacrifices

And do said wealthiest Americans get a say? They are going to be kicking and screaming (and rightfully so).

They should get one vote per person, the same as anyone else. That that puts them at a numerical disadvantage is their own fault for fostering economic inequality in the first place.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#335

Post by Havoc » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

That's a great initiative. Basic "you won't go to bed hungry" removes a major stress factor from people's lives who are down on their luck

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#336

Post by _lqaf » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #307

Justsignedup wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point. It should. If we remove the fear of starvation (we can afford to feed everyone twice and barely put a dent in our military budget) a lot of people will have a HUGE improvement in their day-to-day happiness. This is one of those obvious huge moral positives we can do. The only "down side" is there will never be fear of starvation. Edit: The one progress I can see in a society is when we can basically…

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that people should strive to be self-reliant. Not: "how can we meet people's needs?" but "how do we help people meet their own needs?". Like the old proverb about giving a man a fish vs. teaching a man to fish. Everyone always shuts down that second question with "they can't help themselves until their basic needs are met" which is incredibly hand wavy…

> If poor people are to become middle class people

If this is the goal, you need to be pushing to radically restructure the way society and the economy functions. You cannot have everyone employed at, say, $60K a year in the one we have.

Most of the time when people say this, they prefer to focus on individuals rather than systemic issues - "this one person pulled them self up by their own bootstraps - surely others can, too. And "others" can, and do. That leaves people who can't. Now what?

> I think it's better if we strive for a minimalistic government

The problem is capabilities. Libertarian fantasy-states work in frontiers and sometimes in low-population, high-homogeneity areas. As population increases, many public goods need management[1] and public management means the state necessarily takes on more functions. So you need to work on your plan to massively reduce population or get yourself a new planet if this is your goal.

Your desire to drive self-sufficiency by intentionally depriving those in need cannot work in our current world and simply results in performative cruelty.

> Half of being poor is in the mind

Have you been poor? I have have been very poor. I grew up that way. I know what you're talking about, and I suspect you honestly don't understand how condescending and insulting it is.

[1] Growing up in a very rural town in Tennessee, people used to routinely burn their trash. Try that in San Francisco.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#337

Post by hpoe » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

wbronitsky wrote: post #331

hpoe wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to help other people I donate a decent chunk of my paycheck to humanitarian and other charitable efforts. I hate seeing people hungry, I grew up in a difficult situation and I hate seeing children go hungry. My problem isn't that I am against people getting free food and shelter I am opposed to being forced into charity at the point of gun by the state, and my liberties being eroded by moral busiebodies that f…

Equating banning plastic bags to feeding the hungry probably makes it harder for someone to not see you as an amoral monster. And if we do believe you are an amoral monster, which I do not, what does that say about what we believe about people worse than you? If you are near our best, which you probably are, how else can we hope to help people than by leveraging government? It should be quite clear to everyone that p…

I apologize if my point on that was misstated. I was using that to illustrate that when California banned plastic bags they actually saw an increase in the amount of plastic and waste generated because there were many things the grocery plastic bags were being used for that people didn't think of.

I was illustrating the idea that just because something sounds like a simple and easy idea there is often a lot of nuance and complexity and that is involved that isn't being considered.

In general I'd say the more simplistic an issue appears to be, the more obvious the solution and the more villainous the other side seems, the less of a grasp an individual actually has on really understanding an issue.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#338

Post by golergka » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

tren-hard wrote: post #18

One of those things I wish could out last this virus. We'd be so much better off as a society if we could at least keep our people fed. The comments in here seem a little negative currently but this is great news. Think of all the people in NYC who didn't have access to clean and regular food before the virus.

It's good that society is able of achieving that.

It's very, very bad that it's achieved through the mechanism of central government, which uses coercion and a giant monopolic beurocracy apparatus in order to implement that.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#339

Post by im3w1l » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #308

koheripbal wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and hello infection increases as people line up for them.

It's no different from lining up at the supermarket. In theory everyone's supposed to be lining up 6 feet apart. In practice... well, NYC grocery store aisles are some of the narrowest corridors you'll ever encounter in your life, and there often isn't even space to line up for a cashier. So social distancing in supermarkets is a total joke. But the alternative is starving to death, since the grocery delivery service…

Exposed every day picking up meals vs exposed every other week in the supermarket.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#340

Post by wbronitsky » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

hpoe wrote: post #337

wbronitsky wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equating banning plastic bags to feeding the hungry probably makes it harder for someone to not see you as an amoral monster. And if we do believe you are an amoral monster, which I do not, what does that say about what we believe about people worse than you? If you are near our best, which you probably are, how else can we hope to help people than by leveraging government? It should be quite clear to everyone that p…

I apologize if my point on that was misstated. I was using that to illustrate that when California banned plastic bags they actually saw an increase in the amount of plastic and waste generated because there were many things the grocery plastic bags were being used for that people didn't think of. I was illustrating the idea that just because something sounds like a simple and easy idea there is often a lot of nuance…

My point is that there is no comparison to feeding the hungry, and we have all the proof we need that your and everyone else's private donations are not enough.

So, is there a solution in there that doesn't leverage government, or are we going to continue to complain about the baldly positive sides of government because "government bad, situation too complex"?

I very much agree, we don't have a complex understanding of the issue here, so maybe we should stop attacking it.