Political Compass #53: Charity is better than social security.

[SentientMeat]

@Shodan

Ok, then what is it about being in a democracy that means your property rights can be overruled

The more immediate human rights which your insistence on monopolistic use violates.

• but not from outside?

Hmm, I again have to say that we’re getting off the point here, but my description of the relationship between the democracy and the autocracy is that democracy is superior and may thus resist autocractic influence. If there are hungry people in an autocracy, my proposed course of action is for it to become a democracy by revolution rather than for it to bring down the democratic government of its neighbour by revolution.

And on what is that principle based?

I am suggesting that absence of democracy is itself a human rights violation.

You also seem to be moving between a standard of gross inadequacy, and one where anytime the government could do more, it has to, and to hell with those whose property gets ripped off. At what point do we call “Enough!”?

Yet again, I say it’s not their property, even if the taxation is so burdensome that progress is being gravely retarded (the “Enough!” point).

And, of course, why are we able to trust government so completely?

I am proposing that a true democratic government is the least untrustworty one.

How do we avoid confiscation based, not on noble ideas of equality, but simple greed for what he has and I want?

Yet again, I am saying that that democratically mandated portion is not “confiscated” because it’s not his. It is the rent he pays to be allowed to satisfy his own property fetish.

How, in other words, do you address the main problem of redistributive socialism - killing the goose that lays the golden eggs?

By proposing a portion whose size does not unduly retard progress. If the electorate thinks that my proposed portion will unduly retard progress, they’ll vote for a smaller one.

You want to grab what the rich have, and give it to the poor. But then you have no more rich to grab from - what do the poor do then?

No, I propose that some, not all, of what the rich accrue is used to address the immediate human rights of everyone. I agree that if all of what the rich accrued were so used, progress would be unduly retarded.

You don’t even have to do it all at once - the rich, who aren’t stupid, realize that they are going to go thru all the effort of amassing wealth, but then it will be taken and redistributed.

Yet again, it is not taken because it is not theirs, but, yet again, they get to “keep” most of it, not none.

then that you still haven’t eliminated poverty and inequality.

Listen to the words I do use, and which ones I don’t. I agree that there will always be a poorest fraction of the electorate, that inequality will always exist (until technology renders property irrelevant). I seek to address their plight, their suffering, their immediate human rights, by dropping property rights from what I consider unjustifiably elevated levels.

@Perv

A serf cannot leave the land or the service of his lord.

The medieval serf I spoke of could, and did (especially after the Black Death), but merely found the same deal wherever he went, but this is again rather a bifurcation. The coercion the serf experienced was in the fact that he depended for his very existence on what someone else owned: he had no democratic say in whether his lord could own that which he depended on.

Wage earners in the late 19th century had enough trouble without you confusing them with serfs.

Their trouble came from depending for their existence on what someone else “owned”.

The fact that some people end up in unfortunate circumstances does not mean that the system under which it happened is flawed.

If those “unfortunate circumstances” in which their immediate human rights are left unaddressed are preventable by welfare economics, I’d say the system was fatally flawed.

[Dangerosa]

@pervert

Oh. That argument I understand. I disagree, but I understand. I thought you said that you would somehow be disadvantaged by giving to a charity based social safety net if others did not.

You and I work in the same job at the same salary, live in the same neighborhood, have the same expenses. We both have a $5,000 surplus a year after our bills are paid. You are the generous sort and give your $5,000 surplus to charity. I’m selfish, and I put my $5,000 into investments. Ten years go by and we both get laid off. I have a tidy little nest egg to live off of. If you have saved something before contributing to charity, you have something, but it is, by definition, smaller than what I have - because we have the same expenses. Are you not now disadvantaged when it comes to paying your mortgage and being unemployed for an extended period of time compared to me?

We don’t get laid off, and twenty years go by. My child gets married. I’m able to put a large downpayment on their first home for them as a wedding gift - a loan I’ll set up to forgive without tax consequences. You give your child a toaster. Have I been able to give my child an advantage (a smaller housepayment - or the opportunity to own at home early at all) that you cannot give yours?

[John_Mace]

In what way can you call that “disadvantaged”. You made a conscious, uncoerced choice to give to charity. Clearly that had more value to you than saving for your child’s first house. You got what you wanted (helping strangers) and the other person got what he wanted (helping his kids).

[Dangerosa]

I have an advantage you don’t have in the end - money I haven’t given away. Yes, we’ve both made conscious choices, but your choices have left you (or your kids) at a disadvantage.

(and please note, you are the one giving to charity…I’m the one who can be out of work for a year and not suffer. Perspective is all important when talking about who has advantages).

If my choices are going to leave me at a disadvantage…why would I make those choices? Game theory, prisioners dilemma – I just think that if you don’t have some minimum level of “coerced” charity, their simply won’t be sufficient charity. I don’t want people to starve, but if you will be able to afford college for your kids because you don’t give, and I can’t because to avoid having people starve I’ve given my share and yours, I’m not giving my share.

[John_Mace]

Because you are defining “advantage” as materialistic gain. Different people have different goals. Many people would not consider themselves to be whole human beings unless they made an effort to help their fellow humans who are in need.

In a society based more on charity than on government aid, wouldn’t you also expect that a charity to look at the two cases, if both were down on their luck, and be more inclined to help the the person who had been more charitable? That’s a major difference bewteen private and public charities-- the private ones can be more selective in whom they help. I like to support several local charities because I know how they opperate.

[Shodan]

@SentientMeat

Ok, then what is it about being in a democracy that means your property rights can be overruled

The more immediate human rights which your insistence on monopolistic use violates.

Non-responsive. Why do rights not exist if you are in a democracy?

@SentientMeat

Hmm, I again have to say that we’re getting off the point here, but my description of the relationship between the democracy and the autocracy is that democracy is superior and may thus resist autocractic influence. If there are hungry people in an autocracy, my proposed course of action is for it to become a democracy by revolution rather than for it to bring down the democratic government of its neighbour by revolution.

No. I ask again, what is the principle on which you base your desire to outlaw invasions from without but not takings from within?

You posit that the simple presence of a certain level of immediate need outweighs the right to property. Why does this need never cross borders? North Koreans are starving, thus those with more than they have lose the right to retain what they have. Why do the South Koreans retain that right? Why is it OK to take only from your own country men?

@SentientMeat

I am proposing that a true democratic government is the least untrustworty one.

Sorry, this is again an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are options besides confiscation by autocracy and confiscation by democracy. Which would be no confiscation by government at all, except for the limited purposes put forth in the constitution.

@SentientMeat

Yet again, I am saying that that democratically mandated portion is not “confiscated” because it’s not his. It is the rent he pays to be allowed to satisfy his own property fetish.

This is what I mean by an “emotive” argument. You are trying to define a problem away, and by referring to those who object to outright confiscation of what they own based on promises from federal bureaucrats as a “fetish”.

@SentientMeat

By proposing a portion whose size does not unduly retard progress. If the electorate thinks that my proposed portion will unduly retard progress, they’ll vote for a smaller one.

Or simply grab it anyway, out of greed and stupidity.

What do you do after you have executed the kulaks as a class?

Regards,
Shodan

[Dangerosa]

@John Mace

Because you are defining “advantage” as materialistic gain. Different people have different goals. Many people would not consider themselves to be whole human beings unless they made an effort to help their fellow humans who are in need.

In a society based more on charity than on government aid, wouldn’t you also expect that a charity to look at the two cases, if both were down on their luck, and be more inclined to help the the person who had been more charitable? That’s a major difference bewteen private and public charities-- the private ones can be more selective in whom they help. I like to support several local charities because I know how they opperate.

I’d actually expect the charities to help those most like themselves. The Salvation Army doesn’t seem to be real big on helping homosexuals. The Boy Scouts don’t like teaching atheist boys how to camp - regardless of how much money their parents may donate. (And there are plenty of charities that are much more generous - but we all tend to support the ones we have an emotional connection to - my charitible dollars end up in an orphanage in South Korea). And I hope that charities don’t “means test” based on how much you’ve been able to give in the past…not everyone is so fortunate to start with something to give.

And yes, I’m defining advantage as financial. After all, people who don’t think the government should do charity don’t apparently get the advantage of warm fuzzies from their “enforced charity” when they send in their checks to the IRS.

[SentientMeat]

Non-responsive. Why do rights not exist if you are in a democracy?

Both immediate human rights and abstract property rights “exist” in a democracy. I contend that the latter not be elevated above the former.

I ask again, what is the principle on which you base your desire to outlaw invasions from without but not takings from within?

I say again, “takings” does not describe what is not owned in the first place, and my desire to outlaw invasions is based on the priciple of democratic government being superior to other kinds.

You posit that the simple presence of a certain level of immediate need outweighs the right to property. Why does this need never cross borders?

Because my sphere of democratic influence does not cross those borders. It is up to that electorate to decide the level of immediate need which trumps property rights. Again, if the elections were flawed or non-existent I could only advocate that that be remedied.

North Koreans are starving, thus those with more than they have lose the right to retain what they have.

In the worldwide democracy I advocate, I would agree. That absent, I can only propose the most democratic means of addressing that hunger, which is a NK revolution rather than a SK invasion.

Why is it OK to take only from your own country men?

Once again, I disagree that anything is being “taken”.

There are options besides confiscation by autocracy and confiscation by democracy.

I say what you do not own cannot be confiscated.

You are trying to define a problem away, and by referring to those who object to outright confiscation of what they own based on promises from federal bureaucrats as a “fetish”.

I am saying where I disagree with you. I disagree that they own that portion in the first place.

Or simply grab it anyway, out of greed and stupidity.

The electorate can get it wrong, sure. Unsurprising given that almost half of them are of below average intelligence.

What do you do after you have executed the kulaks as a class?

Again, I politely request that you do not misrepresent my position. I do not advocate anyone’s execution.

[John_Mace]

@Dangerosa

I’d actually expect the charities to help those most like themselves.

Charities are often set up to support the needy, period.

The Salvation Army doesn’t seem to be real big on helping homosexuals.

Cite that homosexuals have been denied aid from the S. A.?

The Boy Scouts don’t like teaching atheist boys how to camp - regardless of how much money their parents may donate.

The Boy Scouts are not a charity.

(And there are plenty of charities that are much more generous - but we all tend to support the ones we have an emotional connection to - my charitible dollars end up in an orphanage in South Korea). And I hope that charities don’t “means test” based on how much you’ve been able to give in the past…not everyone is so fortunate to start with something to give.

Ah, but now you’ve moved the goal posts from the scenario where two people had equal circumstances. Given limited resources, I would fully expect a charity to look into the backgrounds of the people it helps. If family A is down on its luck having given significant donations in the past, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be ahead of family B, who were equally able but gave nothing in the past, when it comes to GETTING aid.

And yes, I’m defining advantage as financial. After all, people who don’t think the government should do charity don’t apparently get the advantage of warm fuzzies from their “enforced charity” when they send in their checks to the IRS.

Huh? That simply doesn’t make any sense.