Question for ACists about charity/welfare

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?
Can you explain why "hookers and blow" is morally distinct from "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans" without resorting to appeals to emotion?

Use whatever you want. Hookers and blow, free ponies, sugar subsidies, methadone, food stamps. Somebody wants something and wants someone else to pay for it, and is willing to use violence to make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the question I was supposed to be answering?

If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow". If they can't understand the inherent moral distinction that the overwhelming majority of people see here, there is no possibility that they will ever win more than a tiny minority of people to their cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people think that charities that give condoms to teenagers are morally reprehensible a lot of people think that charities that give clean needles to heroin addicts are evil. Are these charities more evil or less evil than free hookers and blow? Is it only the things you agree with that you think should be funded through force?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What was the question I was supposed to be answering?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you're going to send me my check.

[ QUOTE ]
If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow". If they can't understand the inherent moral distinction that the overwhelming majority of people see here, there is no possibility that they will ever win more than a tiny minority of people to their cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain this inherent moral distinction, please. BTW, I'm not interested in any "forcing me to pay for your hookers and blow is theft" arguments, I just want to know who's going to pay for my hookers and blow. I'm really jonesing here.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow".

[/ QUOTE ]

We've been doing that for the past year and it's been working pretty well here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

ACists are kind of in a "you can't please everyone" situation here. Most people are more persuaded by appeals to emotion and authority than by logic (look at any successful government campaign), so in theory that's what we should be doing. However, when we do that the more intelligent persons on the forum look at this like it's dogmatic nonsense and dismiss it.

[NickMPK]

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

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?
Can you explain why "hookers and blow" is morally distinct from "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans" without resorting to appeals to emotion?

Use whatever you want. Hookers and blow, free ponies, sugar subsidies, methadone, food stamps. Somebody wants something and wants someone else to pay for it, and is willing to use violence to make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the question I was supposed to be answering?

If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow". If they can't understand the inherent moral distinction that the overwhelming majority of people see here, there is no possibility that they will ever win more than a tiny minority of people to their cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people think that charities that give condoms to teenagers are morally reprehensible a lot of people think that charities that give clean needles to heroin addicts are evil. Are these charities more evil or less evil than free hookers and blow? Is it only the things you agree with that you think should be funded through force?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that things should be funded by force if they are supported by the consensus of society through the democratic process.

There are a lot of things that I personally think should be funded by the government that are not currently, but I respect that unless I am able to convince a lot of other people to also support these things, it would be inappropriate for the government to fund them. For these things, I can give to private charity.

[tomdemaine]

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

OK, if ACists morally equate "hookers and blow" with "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans", then I suppose your rephrasing is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer the question?
Can you explain why "hookers and blow" is morally distinct from "charitable assistance to the helpless orphans" without resorting to appeals to emotion?

Use whatever you want. Hookers and blow, free ponies, sugar subsidies, methadone, food stamps. Somebody wants something and wants someone else to pay for it, and is willing to use violence to make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the question I was supposed to be answering?

If ACists actually want to convince people that AC is a desireable system, then they can't just wildly equate charity with "hookers and blow". If they can't understand the inherent moral distinction that the overwhelming majority of people see here, there is no possibility that they will ever win more than a tiny minority of people to their cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people think that charities that give condoms to teenagers are morally reprehensible a lot of people think that charities that give clean needles to heroin addicts are evil. Are these charities more evil or less evil than free hookers and blow? Is it only the things you agree with that you think should be funded through force?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that things should be funded by force if they are supported by the consensus of society through the democratic process.

There are a lot of things that I personally think should be funded by the government that are not currently, but I respect that unless I am able to convince a lot of other people to also support these things, it would be inappropriate for the government to fund them. For these things, I can give to private charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if 51% of the voting population wanted to give PVN free hookers and blow you'd have no problem with forcing people to pay for it?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that things should be funded by force if they are supported by the consensus of society through the democratic process.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are so wildly popular, then those people who support them should easily be capable of funding them themselves.

Coke is supported by more people than Pepsi. Should Pepsi be outlawed and Coke consumption made mandatory?

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of things that I personally think should be funded by the government that are not currently, but I respect that unless I am able to convince a lot of other people to also support these things, it would be inappropriate for the government to fund them. For these things, I can give to private charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can convince a lot of other people to support those things, then those people who you convince can pay for it.

What magically happens when you get "a consensus of society" (please define this) that gives you license to start violently coercing other people to go along with you? Might makes right?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think poor people need help?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

Will you help poor people if nobody forces you to?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not to extent that I think is desireable,

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you're not going to put your money where your mouth is. You say you value something at $X, but when the chips are down, you only value it at $Y, where Y<X.

[ QUOTE ]
because my lone contribution would be solely to ease my conscience and not because I think it would do any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does giving less than you think you should help your conscience?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not giving less "than I should".

Let's say that a charity or government organization X provides me with some indirect utility. For instance, for every $100 that this charity receives, I get $2 worth of utility.

Obviously, I would not voluntarily give $100, because I would be losing $98 in utility. But if a law were proposed that said "You and 99 other people have to give $100 to X," I would gladly support it, because this law would cost me $100, but generate $10,000 for X, which provide me with U=$200, for a net gain of U=$100.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]


So if 51% of the voting population wanted to give PVN free hookers and blow you'd have no problem with forcing people to pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, our laws are not made by referendum, so I don't think something should necessarily be government policy simply because it is supported by a majority. We have a constitutional process of checks and balances designed to shield us from ephemeral trends in public opinion.

Second, if such a policy were approved through our policital process, of course I would have a problem with it. And I would try to use the political process to convince people that this was poor use of resources. But I wouldn't refuse to pay.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are you asserting that the poor would not be helped in an AC society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think poor people need help?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

Will you help poor people if nobody forces you to?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not to extent that I think is desireable,

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you're not going to put your money where your mouth is. You say you value something at $X, but when the chips are down, you only value it at $Y, where Y<X.

[ QUOTE ]
because my lone contribution would be solely to ease my conscience and not because I think it would do any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does giving less than you think you should help your conscience?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not giving less "than I should".

Let's say that a charity or government organization X provides me with some indirect utility. For instance, for every $100 that this charity receives, I get $2 worth of utility.

Obviously, I would not voluntarily give $100, because I would be losing $98 in utility. But if a law were proposed that said "You and 99 other people have to give $100 to X," I would gladly support it, because this law would cost me $100, but generate $10,000 for X, which provide me with U=$200, for a net gain of U=$100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just force the other 99 people to give the money and not give anything. Then you're getting a net gain of U = $198. Man I've just doubled your utility right there. I'm awesome!

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not giving less "than I should".

Let's say that a charity or government organization X provides me with some indirect utility. For instance, for every $100 that this charity receives, I get $2 worth of utility.

Obviously, I would not voluntarily give $100, because I would be losing $98 in utility. But if a law were proposed that said "You and 99 other people have to give $100 to X," I would gladly support it, because this law would cost me $100, but generate $10,000 for X, which provide me with U=$200, for a net gain of U=$100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just force the other 99 people to give the money and not give anything. Then you're getting a net gain of U = $198. Man I've just doubled your utility right there. I'm awesome!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't have the power to do this, because other people would never accept a state in which I am allowed to do this.