Question for ACists about charity/welfare

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post seems out of hand dismissive to me, it almost makes be believe that you do not care to contemplate how charity will work in AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would it work any differently than the present, sans a government? People are currently free to donate and will continue to be free to donate, and hell people will even have more money that could possibly be donated.

But say in a community of 10 people, $100 are taken in taxes from people to fund different charity efforts. Additionally, 5 people chose to donate another $10 directly to charity. Say under AC, Those 5 now donate $11, and 4 more people even start donating, $5/each. But 1 person doesn't donate at all.

The majority of people now donate, and even donate more than they used to under a government (which is generally the argument of ACists), but are the charities better off? More people are donating and are donating more than before, but the charities still have less money. Argue all you want about the legitimacy of taxation, but just saying that "people will have more money to donate" does not mean they will or that charity will somehow be taken care of.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you actually take any time to calculate, say... how long 75 billion in charity will last, or whatever 75billion turns into over decades when calculating for interest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't realize 75 billion dollars, while a large sum of money and will do lots of good, would sustain mankind forever.

[ QUOTE ]
And, um, who exactly do you claim does predict the future?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice strawman.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme). The problems with this should be self-evident. Your definition of "best" is not the same as someone else's. "best" is a value determination, and is purely subjective opinion.

Further, when you start worrying about aggregates, you ignore the impact on individuals who you've anonymized. If I build two houses, but in the process burn one family's residence to the ground, well, overall there's a +1 gain to "society"! Obviously, this is a postive outcome and should be encouraged!


-------------
Yes, it should. The displaced family can just move into one of the new houses you build, leaving a surplus of a whole house and hurting no one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me your trolling. Or at least kidding. When the house is burned down there are fewer resources for everyone- ie everyone suffers when things are destroyed for no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't what was being assumed in the example. Yes, if there is a net decrease in resources, then that is probably not a utilitarian gain. But my understanding of the example was that there was a total gain in wealth, but also a transfer, and it was the transfer that was being objected to.

[/ QUOTE ]

When a gain is less the the optimal possible gain it should be considered a loss. if two houses could be built at the same cost without having to burn down the third house , the that +1 is worse than the +2 that was possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, but I don't think that was an option contemplated in the original example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this humorous since this is precisely what's wrong with governments, and why people seem to think that governments do a "pretty good job" at certain services.
Knowing pvn's position on quite a few issues i feel confident he is taking this example in one of two directions.
1. The assumption that action A provides a "net gain" for society leads a person to believe action A is a desirable course of action is flawed because of the potential for other better actions.
2. These apparent net gains aren't gains in a real, measurable sense because there is no effort to quantify the impact that it has upon individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original example of "burn down 1 house, build 2", was proposed by an AC supporter. It would have been completely flip and non-responsive of me to dismiss the example by saying "just don't burn down the 1st house".

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme). The problems with this should be self-evident. Your definition of "best" is not the same as someone else's. "best" is a value determination, and is purely subjective opinion.

Further, when you start worrying about aggregates, you ignore the impact on individuals who you've anonymized. If I build two houses, but in the process burn one family's residence to the ground, well, overall there's a +1 gain to "society"! Obviously, this is a postive outcome and should be encouraged!


-------------
Yes, it should. The displaced family can just move into one of the new houses you build, leaving a surplus of a whole house and hurting no one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me your trolling. Or at least kidding. When the house is burned down there are fewer resources for everyone- ie everyone suffers when things are destroyed for no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't what was being assumed in the example. Yes, if there is a net decrease in resources, then that is probably not a utilitarian gain. But my understanding of the example was that there was a total gain in wealth, but also a transfer, and it was the transfer that was being objected to.

[/ QUOTE ]

When a gain is less the the optimal possible gain it should be considered a loss. if two houses could be built at the same cost without having to burn down the third house , the that +1 is worse than the +2 that was possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, but I don't think that was an option contemplated in the original example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this humorous since this is precisely what's wrong with governments, and why people seem to think that governments do a "pretty good job" at certain services.
Knowing pvn's position on quite a few issues i feel confident he is taking this example in one of two directions.
1. The assumption that action A provides a "net gain" for society leads a person to believe action A is a desirable course of action is flawed because of the potential for other better actions.
2. These apparent net gains aren't gains in a real, measurable sense because there is no effort to quantify the impact that it has upon individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original example of "burn down 1 house, build 2", was proposed by an AC supporter. It would have been completely flip and non-responsive of me to dismiss the example by saying "just don't burn down the 1st house".

[/ QUOTE ]

No flip and non responsive than

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, it should. The displaced family can just move into one of the new houses you build, leaving a surplus of a whole house and hurting no one.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are essentially the same response.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The original example of "burn down 1 house, build 2", was proposed by an AC supporter. It would have been completely flip and non-responsive of me to dismiss the example by saying "just don't burn down the 1st house".

[/ QUOTE ]

No flip and non responsive than

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, it should. The displaced family can just move into one of the new houses you build, leaving a surplus of a whole house and hurting no one.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are essentially the same response.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they are not. My response does not negate the underlying assumptions of the question.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
The initial assertion (that majority rule gets it right most of the time) is not an assumption.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't it an assumption?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The original example of "burn down 1 house, build 2", was proposed by an AC supporter. It would have been completely flip and non-responsive of me to dismiss the example by saying "just don't burn down the 1st house".

[/ QUOTE ]

No flip and non responsive than

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, it should. The displaced family can just move into one of the new houses you build, leaving a surplus of a whole house and hurting no one.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are essentially the same response.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they are not. My response does not negate the underlying assumptions of the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of the post was about making proper economic evaluations, responding that 2>1 = 2>1 added no information, insight or reason to the discussion. In fact subverting the example and asking weather or not you were abel to build 2 houses wihtou burning one down would have shown an understanding of the underlying concept.

[Vagos]

I know you've ignored more than half my posts in this thread, but anyways...

[ QUOTE ]
What if, in AC society, I want to "live in peace" on land that you claim is yours? How do you determine who gets to "live in peace" without making some underlying assumption about property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is his claim to the land? Did he voluntarily aquire it from someone else and you are trying to interact with him without his consent? If so, you are not "living in peace" at all, you are trying to initiate force on this person.

[ QUOTE ]
But it seems like whenever anyone asks something like: "Would poor children be provided with an education under AC?", all the ACists answer, "I have no idea, and why should I care?"

Any attempt to actually figure out the answer is dismissed as impossibly hypothetical. How do you expect anyone to ever give serious consideration to your system when you respond this way?

[/ QUOTE ]

We expect it, and it happens, because some people have a crazy notion that individuals should be sovereign and free. They then consider AC and they accept it. Amazing, huh?

[ QUOTE ]
- AC rejects transactions that are of net benefit if they are not beneficial to one of the parties with a property interest.

- AC accepts transactions that are a net loss if those experiencing the net loss have no property interest in the transaction.

Your definition of voluntary and involuntary transactions depends largely on a rather arbitrary definition of property.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it arbitrary? Unless you don't make a distinction between voluntarily and involuntarily?

Also, where is hmkpoker, our resident utilitarian AC'er?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your post seems out of hand dismissive to me, it almost makes be believe that you do not care to contemplate how charity will work in AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would it work any differently than the present, sans a government? People are currently free to donate and will continue to be free to donate, and hell people will even have more money that could possibly be donated.

But say in a community of 10 people, $100 are taken in taxes from people to fund different charity efforts. Additionally, 5 people chose to donate another $10 directly to charity. Say under AC, Those 5 now donate $11, and 4 more people even start donating, $5/each. But 1 person doesn't donate at all.

The majority of people now donate, and even donate more than they used to under a government (which is generally the argument of ACists), but are the charities better off? More people are donating and are donating more than before, but the charities still have less money. Argue all you want about the legitimacy of taxation, but just saying that "people will have more money to donate" does not mean they will or that charity will somehow be taken care of.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you actually take any time to calculate, say... how long 75 billion in charity will last, or whatever 75billion turns into over decades when calculating for interest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't realize 75 billion dollars, while a large sum of money and will do lots of good, would sustain mankind forever.

[ QUOTE ]
And, um, who exactly do you claim does predict the future?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice strawman.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is what you said but conveniently snipped it from your reply:

Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett have done is excellent and worthy of praise, but it is in no way indicative that in the future such giving will be replicated.
---------------
You are casting doubt that this charity will be replicated. The same doubt exists for just about everything.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]


Didn't realize 75 billion dollars, while a large sum of money and will do lots of good, would sustain mankind forever.



[/ QUOTE ]
So because I can not prove that charity under AC will not sustain mankind forever this means what exactly?

Do you have a proposal that will 'sustain mankind forever' or are you still taking cheap shots?


[/ QUOTE ]

[lehighguy]

What if our political process isn't that good or fair?

What if the entire system is set up wrong?

People are willing to accept things as long as they think others are going to pay for it, but does that mean that those things, even if supported by a majority, are right or just. A majority of idiots support alot of retarded things, and they have used the political process to get what they want, right or wrong.

People like yourself believe that our system only needs a few of the right people in power, a few tweaks, and magically things will be all good.

ACist believe governmental violence itself leads to a bad system of government. Either through a moral argument that violence is wrong, or a utility argument based on logic, economics, and reason.

If people aren't willing to pay for something, and they only way to get them to do it is through violence, then maybe the thing you want really isn't "worth it".