Is the old adage that beggers can’t be choosers true?
Why or why not?
I suppose they could. The point of the saying is that if you’re desperate for something you won’t be picky when you get it.
A friend was on the subway in NYC awhile back when someone came through asking for food. Another passenger gave her a peach, which she took and then said, “Does anyone have any real breakfast food?”
So, short answer, she was choosy but in the end I don’t think she got a choice as she managed to alienate people who resented her not being grateful for one person’s generosity.
Kind of a flip story, but the issue does come in up social policy. While those seeking assistance aren’t beggars per se, taxpayers can be paternilistic about recipients’ use of assistance. Typically, some folks will be resentful of what people buy with their food stamps, for example. Economic theory says that utility is maximized when money (rather than specific goods) is given and the recipient can make his or her own choice of how to spend it.
It’s a delicate balance in community service work too. On one hand, there is respect to be given to the client regardless of his circumstances, and yet resentment may surface if they are too picky. “They’re getting it for free, how can they complain”, etc.
I’ll stop rambling now.
gigi -
Could you explain more of what you mean that “utility is maximized” by giving money?
I am not trying to attack your statement; I just don’t understand it yet.
Regards,
Shodan
Some people will like bread more, some rice. If we say that each person should get 1 loaf of bread and 1 kg of rice, they will not be as happy as when we give them $10 and tell them to buy bread/rice.
Different people have different needs/wants and money is a way for different people to recieve the same value of commodity but to maximise happiness.
If these particular recipients had the ability to manage their money, they wouldn’t need handouts. There is short term utility vs long term utility. A persons short term utility might be maximized by buying a bottle of booze, however in the long run, that money would be better spent on other things.
IMO every attempt to patronize the poor is an attack against their dignity as human beings, which is why I fully disagree with msmith537’s statement about those people being not capable of managing their own affairs. Having more money than them doesn’t make you a better person than them, nor does it give you the right to instruct them what to eat or not.
But when I am giving MY money to help someone, I should be able to instruct them that said money will ONLY be used for food, clothing (and no $200 sneakers!), or rent. Not for alchohol, narcotics, or other useless things.
You can’t have my money with no strings attached; You CAN, however, choose to not take my money, and not have to deal with the attached strings.
You say this as if it’s more than just an opinion; tell me, you give money to a poor person so that they can buy food - are they allowed to buy something that they really like, such as smoked salmon or fillet steak, or do you have yet more hoops through which you must make them jump?
What dignity? How much dignity does the guy outside of my appartment have with a garbage bag for a shoe, muttering to himself and his change cup?
Deciding what to do with one’s money is a right reserved for those who work for a living. It’s not an issue of who’s “better”. The issue is that if a person needs a handout in order survive, they are not expected to buy drugs, alchohol or luxaries with it. If that person wants to buy smoked salmon, that’s fine. Just don’t come around looking for more money after you used up you food budget.
So bums should be maintained in a upper-class lifestyle?
I would gladly give money to help a hard-working, industrious person or family that is not flamingly retarded with their expenses. If they are not bright enough to NOT waste what little they have on luxuries, then let them starve.
The question here, as I see it, is not can beggars be choosers, but should they be? or, rather, be allowed to?
I’ll be the first to say that there is no easy answer. We want to help people. And we are frustrated when our offers of assistance are not met with the respect we feel they deserve or are-to our minds-misused.
(I feel very conflicted about this, and I’m not sure I can express myself clearly, but I’m going to give it a try.)
I would make a distinction between government assistance and alms. As a society, we have decided that we need to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, because it is better for the group, as a whole, to do so. It seems logical to me that when this assistance comes from society-as-a-whole, when it is mandated, that it can be considered a benefit of choosing this society. By choosing to be a part of this group, you accept both the promise of help when needed and the responsibility to help others. As I see it, this also puts an onus on the recipient to make personal choices that benefit society-staying healthy, working toward self-sufficiency, etc.
Thus, we (as a society) decide what we will give to our members (and when and how it will be given) and we expect those members who avail themselves of that help to work toward freeing themselves of that need.
But, (and this is a big “but”) membership in this society is not forced, at least on those capable of making that decision. One can choose to live without its restictions and benefits. In such a case, one might appeal to individuals for help. Alms (charity)are help freely given. The giver of a gift has no right whatsoever to control how that gift is used. Once that control is assumed, it is no longer a gift.
The problem comes when we deal with those members of society who cannot actively make those choices. Children, for instance, have little control over these issues. This is the impetus behind such programs as WIC that severely control how its funds are used. And yes, WIC and programs like it are flawed, but I can’t see how that can be avoided. They can only help most of the people most of the time.
As to Brutus’ thoughts, surely I want people to make good choices when I offer a helping hand. But if conditions are attached, you can hardly call it a gift, can you? My suggestion to Brutus is to donate actual foodstuffs to your local pantry. That way, you will know that your donations, at least, are acceptable to you.
I quite often give money to strangers when asked. I hope that it is used well. But I also accept that I have (and cannot expect) any control over that.
**What dignity? How much dignity does the guy outside of my appartment have **with a garbage bag for a shoe, muttering to himself and his change cup? **
I was working an extra job on weekends and one very very cold and slow Sunday morning this guy came in the store. He was thrilled that he had found a package of popcorn in the dumpster outside. He asked if he could use the microwave. I allowed and pitched in for a coke. He then popped his popcorn and told his story. He had been classified as mentally disabled and was eligible for Social Security Disability. He had at one point collected disability payments. Something happened, I think with the law, and he ended up homeless. He did not have an address or a bank account so he did not get his checks. This sounded like a vicious cycle. I think most people on the streets are mentally ill. There are probably substantial numbers that are just lazy. However, I suspect that more than 50% of these people are suffering from some sort of mental illness and their families lack the patience or resources to deal with them. Who would choose that kind of lifestyle? Yet we, myself included, ignore this problem whenever possible. Does this kind of thinking and this kind of behavior fall into the category of “dignified”?
On some occasions I have handed street people money. And yep, I am pretty sure this money went for booze. But, if I were in their shoes and somebody gave me three or four bucks, I would go buy a quart and find some shade.
Since it is very doubtful that a one-off handout is going to make any lasting difference to the long-term situation of a homeless/poor person, I would much rather they spent my money on whatever they really want.
**
**Did I suggest that?
Smoked salmon is more expensive than fillet steak
fillet steak is more expensive than corned beef
corned beef is more expensive than cheese
cheese is more expensive than bread
bread is more expensive than plain boiled rice.
So, Brutus; you’re not letting them waste their money on cheese sandwiches are you? :eek: the excess!
Of course they’re not supposed to live in luxury, but I think they still do have dignity as human beings, and if you give money to them under conditions made by you, it is humiliating to them; I pretty much agree with robinh’s statement that it’s not a gift any more once you attach conditions to it.
I myself sometimes feel cheated if they spend their “income” on alcohol, tobacco or whatever, but OTOH I can understand they do so. I wouldn’t tell them what to buy with money I give them, and above all, I can’t stand this “people who are working for their money” crap. I just don’t believe a well-paid upper-class guy works really as much harder than a beggar as he earns more. IMO, a poor person is not always to be blamed for their poverty, they might just as well simply have been unlucky.
I think it’s a little narrowminded to presume that the only needs a poor/homeless person has are nutritional; happiness and hope are also very important; if someone spends the money I gave them on a radio, for example, it may well have a more positive and lasting effect on their general situation than if they had bought a hamburger; if they spend the money on a packet of cigarettes (much as I personally detest smoking) I think I have to concede that they could achieve more percieved benefit (and consequently perhaps a little more contentment) than if I’d insisted that they buy a sandwich.
Of course they might be neglecting their nutrition in favour of feeding a habit, so why not give them a meal and some money?
Why is that humiliating? Because that person wants to live under the illusion that they are a productive member of society? Here is the reality: For whatever reason, that person is unable to support themselves. They are living on the street and are dependent on the charity of strangers for their livelyhood. For that person to turn around and say “I want some real food” or “I don’t like that” shows ingratitude. If you are turning down free food, you haven’t been homeless long enough.
You have never worked in an white collar job, have you?
**
You’re a cynic. I don’t know what job you’re in, but your reference to the white collar jobs (nope, I haven’t been in one of them, I’m only 19) makes me suppose you’re in one of them.
I personally believe that many of the white collar jobs are amongst the least productive profession for society as a whole (even if they make plenty of cash), but that’s not the point, and it’s certainly beyond the scope of this thread.
To me it seems humiliating simply because it appears as if you’re exploiting your strong position (strong because you have the money) as a means of setting prescriptions to another individual, equipped with rights. To you, that bill you’re giving the beggar isn’t worth mentioning, but to the beggar it’s maybe not a fortune either, but still much more than to you. And it’s not a gift any more.
For an individual giving a dollar to a homeless guy, this discussion is meaningless. Even if I attach conditions to my generous donation, I am not going to enforce them.
From a philosophical point of view, I think the government has every right to limit what people can and cannot spend their welfare checks on. It is morally reprehensible to take money that is supposed to be used for food and clothing for your kids and then turn around and use it for alchohol or luxaries. Welfare is not really a “gift”. It is an opportunity to not starve on the street. It is not a substitute for working unless you are physically or mentally unable to perform any job. And “lazy” is not considered a mental disorder.
I am all for “safty nets” like unemployment and other benefits that provide a temporary source of income so people do not starve on the streets or lose their homes. I am also in favor of having taxpayer money go to support people who are physically disabled or mentally incompetant. I am not in favor of having my hard earned money go to supporting people who just don’t feel like working.
How about this situation:
A woman goes to a grocery and loads up her cart with junk food. All coke, potato chips, donuts etc.
She pays with food stamps.
She is on public assistance, does she have the right to buy only junk with it? Or should there be stricter rules that only reasonably healthy foods can be purchased with public funds?