I have always been told that I should save my money and build a nest egg. That I should not stop until I have 6 months to a year of runway, and that once I get there, treat that money as if I don’t even have it. I have lived by this advice and I am grateful for receiving it early.
I am also wondering why I have to subsidize everyone else's kids while not being able to afford my own, since I have relatively high standards for what a stable financial situation should be before I have them. Charity is voluntary while taxation is not.
Why aren't you also wondering why you have to subsidize everyone else's police, firefighting, army, food and drug safety, environmental protections, transport safety, public education, libraries, ...
Edit:
Also, the reason you can't afford kids is precisely due to the US having the same mentality as yours. Because you have to worry about healthcare, or college, or not having enough vacations and sick days. Instead of, you know, not worrying about that.
And yet in most of the world it does scale and US has one of the worst health systems in the world. Easily the worst in “The West”
What is that headline that The Onion likes to use? “Nothing we can do about this, says only country in the world where this regularly happens”. Applies to healthcare too.
Everyone else has solved this. Americans don’t want to. That’s an okay and fine choice just don’t pretend it’s unsolvable. I live here in the US with a 6 figure salary and my greatest fear is ever needing a doctor for anything.
Back home it wasn’t even a consideration. Need doctor? Just go without a second thought.
How do public education or libraries scale well and medical care for all doesn't?
Also, of course medical care for all scales extremely well. You remove financial burden from people. You encourage them to start their own jobs, or switch to different/better jobs. You remove the burden of long untreated diseases. You get a happier more productive population.
Actually, medical care does scale a lot: many conditions are much easier and less expensive to treat if found early. An expensive system brings lots of people to postpone care and screening.
As you can't seem to afford your own children, presumably you are making less money than those who can. Thus, you pay less in taxes than they do, which means they're paying for your children rather than the other way around.
> presumably you are making less money than those who can.
That’s a bit of a stretch, especially considering that I have specifically mentioned the fact that a lot of people don’t seem to care about their financial situation when having children. And then apparently it is “humane” to take other peoples resources by force through government to pay for their expenses. Who need these barbaric consensual charities anyway.
Without taxation you would have none of these. You would be a surf or servant, or simply dead. Statistically it would be astonishingly unlikely you would be in the ruling class, and given that you are posting on HN you probably aren't a candidate.
You have standards, I respect that, but your community disagrees with you. Children are our future, they are ours - all of them - and we need to look after them. They should have food, shelter, healthcare and education. We should all give them that. If we do we can look each other in the eye and demand respect, dignity and community. If you are robbed or shamed they you have a right to be offended and outraged.
If we don't then you and I are wolves in the forest, with everyone else.
> Consider, you have a job, an apartment, dignity.
> Without taxation you would have none of these. You would be a surf or servant, or simply dead.
I do not agree with this premise, especially since you have provided no proof that it is based in reality. If you were to guess, what was the income tax in the US in 1900 and were everyone there a surf [sic], servant or dead?
I believe (from reading this article) that the people in it would not have been helped by having a 6 month or one year, or more of saving, because without the provision of sick leave they would have lost their health insurance and with it the ability to pay for the care of their baby.
So the state would cast them into destitution and kill their baby.
Also, imagine a situation where you suffer a misfortune and lose your nest egg. Perhaps an official, relative or adviser steals it from you, they are prosecuted and condemned but have spent the money on drugs - it's gone. Then you suffer another misfortune - you lose your job, or you suffer a non life threatening injury that prevents you from working. Now you are screwed.
This clearly isn't your fault. You saved, you worked, you are a victim. Now you are on the street.
And how does one accumulate a nest egg when every employer I have ever dealt with cannot afford (or outright refuses) to do better than paying late and/or less than agreed, if at all? Believe it or not, not everyone can live off their parents as adults.
People should not have to live or die depending repeated random acts of kindness from strangers.
So many American feel-good news stories are utterly dystopian, where some person completely fucked dry by the government or corporate interests have disaster temporarily staved off by friends or colleagues desperately sacrificing their time or money. Either that, or it's about some billionaire dropping pocket lint on a good cause.
> You ruled out everything we know/have tried, though. What is your idea?
I am not sure I understand. I ruled out only desperate random acts of charity. Surely other tried-and-tested working alternatives are well-known?
In other developed countries we do not consider starving children normal because we have a stronger and enforced minimum wage and people out of work get dependable welfare. We do not have thousands people dying from disease because they can't afford treatment, because it's handled by the government.
The government is not some unmovable entity. For the most part it follows the priorities of society. Just look around at the comments when people are not able to feed their kids, or get bankrupted by medical bills or all the other times when they have problems: "It's your fault to have kids if you cannot afford them", "the best medicine in the world has to be paid!!!" and so on.
Despite all the failings of the political system (and from my view as an outsider the US has many) for the most part what you get is a mirror of the American society. And that's something people don't want to hear, because then they have to accept a fundamental truth: They are the problem. Not some faceless government, that they can hold up and say "it is responsible. Not me. I'm a good person."
People of the US are scared of taxes for some reason, and they are scared of having a political spectrum. Does the 2 party system work? There is huge amount of people that it has failed. Very few which it has actually helped.
People of the US are scared to address how the vast majority of taxes paid are not going to the general population of the US, not infrastructure or anything else outside of the private coffers of the biggest con-artists alive today or the largest and most expensive enterprise in all of human history- the US military and its 900+ bases thrust around the globe to better serve those same con-artists.
If only someone could find out what it is! /sarcasm
Here are some pretty standard reasons why many Americans oppose ever expanding taxation and redistribution schemes:
- government redistribution schemes often create perverse incentives, even arguably perpetuating the very problems they were intended to solve
- government redistribution schemes are often inefficient and have significant administrative costs
- when a private charity is behaving badly, you can simply choose to send your money to a more effective charity. Cutting back failed redistribution schemes is all but unheard of.
- Lastly, we do technically have laws that restrict our government's ability to levy taxes. This is based on the very reasonable moral position that citizens should not be serfs, and that the government does not have an unlimited claim on the people's productive output (no matter how well intentioned the government is).
You may think those reasons are insufficient, but they are reasons nonetheless and it is not merely an outgrowth of fear.
- Private industry creates perverse incentives by allowing individuals with power and money more and better access to the law. This means that those who benefit most from a lack of proper taxation are those who already have the money.
- When a private company is behaving badly because of the power imbalance between you and a corporation that literally doesn't need to sleep your chances of getting any recourse are almost zero. You have no right to not have your water poisoned by a company and generally those companies will just declare bankruptcy if things get too expensive to avoid having to pay. No executives choosing to poison the water for profit will go to jail.
- Citation needed that somehow a single entity processing taxes versus literally hundreds of different charities is less efficient. When there's a natural disaster it's not your local charity you're calling, it's FEMA.
- We've literally had numerous tax cuts go through federal government. The idea that it doesn't happen is just plain false.
- How does a body of government made up of Representatives elected by it's constituents in any way relate to serfdom. The country literally had slaves at the founding. Your point is entirely invalidated. The idea that the government cannot compel someone to pay into a system that they use but that it was totally okay to literally own people falls flat on it's face.
> Private industry creates perverse incentives by allowing individuals with power and money more and better access to the law. This means that those who benefit most from a lack of proper taxation are those who already have the money.
> When a private company is behaving badly because of the power imbalance between you and a corporation that literally doesn't need to sleep your chances of getting any recourse are almost zero. You have no right to not have your water poisoned by a company and generally those companies will just declare bankruptcy if things get too expensive to avoid having to pay. No executives choosing to poison the water for profit will go to jail.
Non sequitor. We're talking about private charity vs. government redistribution. If you want to have a debate about moral legitimacy of for-profit corporations that's fine, but it's a different matter.
> Citation needed that somehow a single entity processing taxes versus literally hundreds of different charities is less efficient.
Having literally worked for a tax collecting government agency, I can assure that is the case. Many charities publish what percentage of their revenue goes to the intended recipient vs. administrative overhead.
> When there's a natural disaster it's not your local charity you're calling, it's FEMA.
That a government has more resources to bring to bear does not mean it is more efficient. Also, you don't need to call charities because they are usually already there.
> We've literally had numerous tax cuts go through federal government. The idea that it doesn't happen is just plain false.
Your not addressing my point. How often are redistribution schemes evaluated or rolled back? We can only cut taxes because the government borrows a lot of money to fund its programs.
> How does a body of government made up of Representatives elected by it's constituents in any way relate to serfdom.
Serfdom has less to do with the structure of the ruling authority and more more do with whether that ruling authority is constrained by the rights of its citizens. If the government (even one elected by popular consent) can arbitrarily deprive ordinary citizens of their liberty or property, then the people are serfs. There are plenty of historical examples of this exact thing happening.
> The country literally had slaves at the founding. Your point is entirely invalidated. The idea that the government cannot compel someone to pay into a system that they use but that it was totally okay to literally own people falls flat on it's face.
That slavery existed somehow invalidates the Taxing and Spending Clause, due process, or the 14th amendment?
What exactly is your argument here? Is it "because slavery was once practiced in this country, the government can and should impose arbitrary taxes on the people regardless of their property rights or the restrictions laid out in the constitution?" It may not be your intended point, but it follows logically from what you said.
What a ridiculous website. Never thought I’d see a front page with more clickbait than BuzzFeed. Out of all the stories of perseverance you could find, why did you link 4 articles from this website? Are you trying to help them with SEO?
None of the articles are sourced and it even looks like they’re taking videos from other news publications like ABC and playing their own 15 second ads over them.
I for one didn't click on any of the links, why would I.. and even if all of the 3 stories were fake, it wouldn't change the point -- which, as I see it, is about such things being considered "feel good" stories, as if we already accepted the background of suffering that makes them stand out. I know I see that stuff in the wild all the time. But I don't bookmark that stuff, and if I searched for, it I would probably end up on a "farm" for it, too.
> People should not have to live or die depending repeated random acts of kindness from strangers.
That is true, but the flip side is that people should not have to live or die depending on compelled acts of strangers either.
No ideological purity survives the myriad of real world circumstances; but the normal case should be that people don't need charity because when life hits them hard there are avenues where they can live a dignified life through their own hard work.
If all it took was hard work to live a dignified life there would already be plenty of dignity. The fact of the matter is the world doesn't work on dreams, hopes, and hard work. Silicon Valley had plenty of failed companies to prove this. It works on the fact that bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad people and the vast majority of your ability to deal with that comes from how much money your parents had, something over which you have no control. The fact that you have to pay dues in the form of taxes to be part of something like the United States shouldn't be a hard choice to make. We're all willing to pay for corporate welfare, military excess, public land give aways to private entities, but heaven forbid we give up a little bit of cash in the form of taxes to help our fellow citizen. If you look at the outrage on taxes it's always when it comes to helping other people. Access to healthcare shouldn't be a political issue. There is no liberty in a life where one must make the choice between certain death and loss of freedom. As a citizen you're also not compelled to stay in the United States. You can gain all the benefits of citizenship and live in another country. You can even choose to become a citizen of another country. This idea that you're forced to help your fellow citizens is plainly a falsehood. As soon as you become an adult you're free to leave the country. Compulsion is an illusion.
No, you are not free to leave because the supposed other country might not take you in and even if they do it is a big process, nor are the costs of travel negligible.
I think every country offers an immigration program of some kind. To get super pedantic you can show up in Svalbard and live there forever with no immigration process - you just get off the plane and tell the Norwegian governor you live there now. So there is always somewhere you can go. I think the travel costs are the smallest part of immigrating somewhere new (especially since most immigration programs are employment sponsored). That’s not to understate the scope of what you’re doing, it’s a big decision, though it definitely is an option. I guess I’m saying “yes and no.”
What you’re describing is what we call “society.” In a society we compel acts from others as they compel ours and in exchange we’re all better off for it. The whole “you can’t make me” argument in the face of death and suffering evokes a screaming match between a 10 year old and their parent over cleaning their room. It’s not a good look.
The fact is an individual in America who “made it all by themselves” was the beneficiary of myriad social service: public education, roads, water, rail, police, fire, the courts, the army, the regulators and the agencies like the EPA. Drawing the line at healthcare, sick time, and paid leave rules is just a truly arbitrary line in the face of all this.
> No ideological purity survives the myriad of real world circumstances...
Well said. In my opinion the default should be that you can live a comfortable life, and if you are successful you should be rewarded with outsize returns. In part because we as a society can afford to treat everyone well, and also because a baseline of comfort frees you to take risks. It’s how people who do well at a startup suddenly have money, and many more of them on average go on to start their own.
This is possibly my favourite ever HN comment. When people talk about how terrible social media echo chambers are they're often overlooking the fact that they're living in one of a much larger scale. I find it utterly baffling that the people of the United States aren't at the gates of the Whitehouse with pitchforks over even just the healthcare issue.
I think it proves most Americans are either ignorant or villainous. Or both. Which sounds smarmy but then, what other explanation might there possibly be?
We help the most when we elect to do so ourselves, not when we leave the options to be considered by those with more resources to spare. If they entertained any inclination of helping those outside their own closed circuits they’d never have accumulated and stockpiled such resources to begin with. I explain this further over here: https://nilskidoo.blackblogs.org/lady-windermeres-fanzine/
But if you'd prefer to restrain all preaching to the choir, to persist with fantasy, then by all means rub your mighty ban-hammer.
This article decries people the necessity of people banding together in tough times and want's more "humanity" meaning that expenses are automatically taken care of in bad times. The author knows nothing about humanity and what it entails. Humanity is not a robotic system where ants are ordered.
Societies are built by people interacting and building trust and taking care of each other in bad times for their own self interest. Not by forcing people to act against their own judgment.
The problem is that without the greed of a few most of these charity acts wouldn't need to exist.
Healthcare is extremely expansive and inefficient in the US because of the greed of a few.
This false dichotomy between a freedom crunching social regime against the freedom saving forces of market is a lie.
Social democratic countries exist, the populus are not subjugadeted to an opressing regime nor are they left for the mercy of strangers for basic survival.
On top of that, most systems there, even governmental ones are much more efficient than in the US. And still, there's a free economy, with plenty of chances for a decent life.
On the other hand the US is controlled by the greed of a few huge corporation, the people are much less free.
As I see it, human society tends to create hubs of power. The civilian powers are not less prone to oppression than the power of the state.
In a democracy you at least have the moral grounds to fight corruption. But in a society obsessed with free markets and small government this power still ends up concentrated in places.
But now you as opressed don't have a moral ground to fight abuses of power. This false dichotomy of freedom vs welfare means that standing up against the opressors is considerred bad morally, because it means you are against freedome.
Anyway, because it seems that power have a tendency to concentrate. I'de rather have a moral system where abuses of power of any kind can be considered morally wrong.
I highly recommend Citations Needed's episode on Perseverance Porn. If you have ever been uneasy with stories about people walking 10+ miles to work or relying on charity just to survive a common misfortune, this will open your eyes to just how prevalent it is.
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-23-the-medias-gri...
I think another thing to think about with charity is control and agency. Charity is, I'd argue inherently extremely undemocratic. Most people will never be able to afford philanthropy in any meaningful way, so Charity means subjugating yourself to the control and decisions of richer and more powerful people. There are more and less extreme cases of this, of course. I vaguely remember a eugenics charity in the US that paid "lesser" people to sterilize themselves or perform abortions. However, even in less extreme cases, the top down control of charity is inherently oppressive. It allows rich people to "vote with their wallets" on the lives of the general population. Sure, everyone can technically vote, but some people have a million times more votes than others.
Does this mean we should outlaw charities? I don't think so. This only becomes a problem in a country where there is extreme wealth inequality and the rights of the general populace are not guaranteed. Charity seems like a good way to stuff small holes in a general welfare system, but it shouldn't be the welfare system.
Can you answer why this is a problem in terms of costs and benefits presupposing that there is no inherent value to human life? If you argue with certain moral beliefs at your core your probably only reaching deaf ears from key figures that could help change things. Appealing to someone's self-interest is more efficient.
> presupposing that there is no inherent value to human life
I mean, you can argue anything if you make your assumptions ridiculous enough.
If your approach is to let other people die because that's more efficient then sorry, I'm not very open to your arguments about self-interest.
(I don't want to engage in too much character assassination but: There's this joke that within the first few pages of the comments of any Libertarian account, you will find them defending pedophilia in some way. I'm pleased to say that this rule still applies)
Your problem seems to be, that you need arguments to convince someone to do something that you want him to do. I don't care if you're not convinced. I don't need you doing something for my benefit.
As a former bell-ringer for the SalArmy across two time zones, the people who give the most are always the ones who look like they need it the most. No different from how the biggest tippers always themselves work in the service industry. The lower class isn't surviving because of WIC or unemployment insurance, or from the .ooooo9% billionaires part with in exchange for additional tax breaks, but from others out here in the streets.
59 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 95.6 ms ] threadEdit:
Also, the reason you can't afford kids is precisely due to the US having the same mentality as yours. Because you have to worry about healthcare, or college, or not having enough vacations and sick days. Instead of, you know, not worrying about that.
What is that headline that The Onion likes to use? “Nothing we can do about this, says only country in the world where this regularly happens”. Applies to healthcare too.
Everyone else has solved this. Americans don’t want to. That’s an okay and fine choice just don’t pretend it’s unsolvable. I live here in the US with a 6 figure salary and my greatest fear is ever needing a doctor for anything.
Back home it wasn’t even a consideration. Need doctor? Just go without a second thought.
And my income was a fraction of what it is now.
Also, of course medical care for all scales extremely well. You remove financial burden from people. You encourage them to start their own jobs, or switch to different/better jobs. You remove the burden of long untreated diseases. You get a happier more productive population.
That’s a bit of a stretch, especially considering that I have specifically mentioned the fact that a lot of people don’t seem to care about their financial situation when having children. And then apparently it is “humane” to take other peoples resources by force through government to pay for their expenses. Who need these barbaric consensual charities anyway.
Without taxation you would have none of these. You would be a surf or servant, or simply dead. Statistically it would be astonishingly unlikely you would be in the ruling class, and given that you are posting on HN you probably aren't a candidate.
You have standards, I respect that, but your community disagrees with you. Children are our future, they are ours - all of them - and we need to look after them. They should have food, shelter, healthcare and education. We should all give them that. If we do we can look each other in the eye and demand respect, dignity and community. If you are robbed or shamed they you have a right to be offended and outraged.
If we don't then you and I are wolves in the forest, with everyone else.
> Without taxation you would have none of these. You would be a surf or servant, or simply dead.
I do not agree with this premise, especially since you have provided no proof that it is based in reality. If you were to guess, what was the income tax in the US in 1900 and were everyone there a surf [sic], servant or dead?
So the state would cast them into destitution and kill their baby.
Also, imagine a situation where you suffer a misfortune and lose your nest egg. Perhaps an official, relative or adviser steals it from you, they are prosecuted and condemned but have spent the money on drugs - it's gone. Then you suffer another misfortune - you lose your job, or you suffer a non life threatening injury that prevents you from working. Now you are screwed.
This clearly isn't your fault. You saved, you worked, you are a victim. Now you are on the street.
Is this right?
Or 5, or 10, or 20?
And, mind, you may not know the duration going in.
So many American feel-good news stories are utterly dystopian, where some person completely fucked dry by the government or corporate interests have disaster temporarily staved off by friends or colleagues desperately sacrificing their time or money. Either that, or it's about some billionaire dropping pocket lint on a good cause.
Sites like https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news just make me depressed:
https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3283/Man-Shares-Chick-Fi... - man starving on the streets gets one meal our of sheer luck
https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3279/7-Eleven-Owner-Catc... - starving children win the getting-fucked-for-life vs eating-a-meal lottery one single time. Thoughts and prayers go to their next 1000 times they need to play.
https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/3270/Unused-Cafeteria-Fo... - starving children (Why is this even a thing anywhere?) are allowed to eat leftovers.
IMHO we should improve technology in such ways to replace social security.
I am not sure I understand. I ruled out only desperate random acts of charity. Surely other tried-and-tested working alternatives are well-known?
In other developed countries we do not consider starving children normal because we have a stronger and enforced minimum wage and people out of work get dependable welfare. We do not have thousands people dying from disease because they can't afford treatment, because it's handled by the government.
Do you expect that same government to help or what other option is there?
Despite all the failings of the political system (and from my view as an outsider the US has many) for the most part what you get is a mirror of the American society. And that's something people don't want to hear, because then they have to accept a fundamental truth: They are the problem. Not some faceless government, that they can hold up and say "it is responsible. Not me. I'm a good person."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
As long as everybody has a price, the solution will never be a new flavor of party, but a new government from the ground up.
A mind reader, are we?
> for some reason
If only someone could find out what it is! /sarcasm
Here are some pretty standard reasons why many Americans oppose ever expanding taxation and redistribution schemes:
- government redistribution schemes often create perverse incentives, even arguably perpetuating the very problems they were intended to solve
- government redistribution schemes are often inefficient and have significant administrative costs
- when a private charity is behaving badly, you can simply choose to send your money to a more effective charity. Cutting back failed redistribution schemes is all but unheard of.
- Lastly, we do technically have laws that restrict our government's ability to levy taxes. This is based on the very reasonable moral position that citizens should not be serfs, and that the government does not have an unlimited claim on the people's productive output (no matter how well intentioned the government is).
You may think those reasons are insufficient, but they are reasons nonetheless and it is not merely an outgrowth of fear.
- When a private company is behaving badly because of the power imbalance between you and a corporation that literally doesn't need to sleep your chances of getting any recourse are almost zero. You have no right to not have your water poisoned by a company and generally those companies will just declare bankruptcy if things get too expensive to avoid having to pay. No executives choosing to poison the water for profit will go to jail.
- Citation needed that somehow a single entity processing taxes versus literally hundreds of different charities is less efficient. When there's a natural disaster it's not your local charity you're calling, it's FEMA.
- We've literally had numerous tax cuts go through federal government. The idea that it doesn't happen is just plain false.
- How does a body of government made up of Representatives elected by it's constituents in any way relate to serfdom. The country literally had slaves at the founding. Your point is entirely invalidated. The idea that the government cannot compel someone to pay into a system that they use but that it was totally okay to literally own people falls flat on it's face.
> When a private company is behaving badly because of the power imbalance between you and a corporation that literally doesn't need to sleep your chances of getting any recourse are almost zero. You have no right to not have your water poisoned by a company and generally those companies will just declare bankruptcy if things get too expensive to avoid having to pay. No executives choosing to poison the water for profit will go to jail.
Non sequitor. We're talking about private charity vs. government redistribution. If you want to have a debate about moral legitimacy of for-profit corporations that's fine, but it's a different matter.
> Citation needed that somehow a single entity processing taxes versus literally hundreds of different charities is less efficient.
Having literally worked for a tax collecting government agency, I can assure that is the case. Many charities publish what percentage of their revenue goes to the intended recipient vs. administrative overhead.
> When there's a natural disaster it's not your local charity you're calling, it's FEMA.
That a government has more resources to bring to bear does not mean it is more efficient. Also, you don't need to call charities because they are usually already there.
> We've literally had numerous tax cuts go through federal government. The idea that it doesn't happen is just plain false.
Your not addressing my point. How often are redistribution schemes evaluated or rolled back? We can only cut taxes because the government borrows a lot of money to fund its programs.
> How does a body of government made up of Representatives elected by it's constituents in any way relate to serfdom.
Serfdom has less to do with the structure of the ruling authority and more more do with whether that ruling authority is constrained by the rights of its citizens. If the government (even one elected by popular consent) can arbitrarily deprive ordinary citizens of their liberty or property, then the people are serfs. There are plenty of historical examples of this exact thing happening.
> The country literally had slaves at the founding. Your point is entirely invalidated. The idea that the government cannot compel someone to pay into a system that they use but that it was totally okay to literally own people falls flat on it's face.
That slavery existed somehow invalidates the Taxing and Spending Clause, due process, or the 14th amendment?
What exactly is your argument here? Is it "because slavery was once practiced in this country, the government can and should impose arbitrary taxes on the people regardless of their property rights or the restrictions laid out in the constitution?" It may not be your intended point, but it follows logically from what you said.
None of the articles are sourced and it even looks like they’re taking videos from other news publications like ABC and playing their own 15 second ads over them.
That is true, but the flip side is that people should not have to live or die depending on compelled acts of strangers either.
No ideological purity survives the myriad of real world circumstances; but the normal case should be that people don't need charity because when life hits them hard there are avenues where they can live a dignified life through their own hard work.
Just wanted to praise the way you've been able to summarise something I find so true.
The fact is an individual in America who “made it all by themselves” was the beneficiary of myriad social service: public education, roads, water, rail, police, fire, the courts, the army, the regulators and the agencies like the EPA. Drawing the line at healthcare, sick time, and paid leave rules is just a truly arbitrary line in the face of all this.
> No ideological purity survives the myriad of real world circumstances...
Well said. In my opinion the default should be that you can live a comfortable life, and if you are successful you should be rewarded with outsize returns. In part because we as a society can afford to treat everyone well, and also because a baseline of comfort frees you to take risks. It’s how people who do well at a startup suddenly have money, and many more of them on average go on to start their own.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But if you'd prefer to restrain all preaching to the choir, to persist with fantasy, then by all means rub your mighty ban-hammer.
Societies are built by people interacting and building trust and taking care of each other in bad times for their own self interest. Not by forcing people to act against their own judgment.
On the other hand the US is controlled by the greed of a few huge corporation, the people are much less free. As I see it, human society tends to create hubs of power. The civilian powers are not less prone to oppression than the power of the state. In a democracy you at least have the moral grounds to fight corruption. But in a society obsessed with free markets and small government this power still ends up concentrated in places. But now you as opressed don't have a moral ground to fight abuses of power. This false dichotomy of freedom vs welfare means that standing up against the opressors is considerred bad morally, because it means you are against freedome. Anyway, because it seems that power have a tendency to concentrate. I'de rather have a moral system where abuses of power of any kind can be considered morally wrong.
Beware, you'll see it everywhere after this.
Does this mean we should outlaw charities? I don't think so. This only becomes a problem in a country where there is extreme wealth inequality and the rights of the general populace are not guaranteed. Charity seems like a good way to stuff small holes in a general welfare system, but it shouldn't be the welfare system.
I mean, you can argue anything if you make your assumptions ridiculous enough.
If your approach is to let other people die because that's more efficient then sorry, I'm not very open to your arguments about self-interest.
(I don't want to engage in too much character assassination but: There's this joke that within the first few pages of the comments of any Libertarian account, you will find them defending pedophilia in some way. I'm pleased to say that this rule still applies)
> The IRS estimates that the charitable sector controls approximately USD 3 trillion (€2.36 trillion) in assets.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/4223203...