I have a question, if you don't mind answering. What are you doing personally to help the homeless and less fortunate than yourself?
I get that it is easy to sit behind a keyboard and complain that other people aren't doing enough. The way to help people isn't to demand that other people pay more, but to use your own resources for the causes which are most important for you.
Simply giving more money to the state solves nothing. It just makes the state bigger, more corrupt and less efficient. The resources get diverted to other goals which don't match up with your own. Perhaps it would be better to keep more of your hard earned money so that you can utilize it as you feel most appropriate?
It seems to me that the flaws aren't with the system, but with people who idly sit and wait for things to improve at the cost of someone else (the "rich people" scapegoat). Your time is often more valuable than money to those in need. Why don't you give up more of your time to help people. Perhaps quit your job and become a full time altruist?
Look, nobody "deserves to be homeless," but nor does anybody "deserve to be homed at the cost of somebody else's labour" Nobody "deserves to be sick," but also nobody "deserves to have healthcare given to them without compensating the healthcare giver for their time". It isn't "immoral to help people who can't pay" at all, but it isn't "moral to steal other people's property to pay to help others" either.
You seem to have a cartoon world view in which everyone should be in prosperity by default - but the reality is that poverty is the default state of all of humanity, and the only way that humans have ever lifted themselves out of poverty is through productive labour and innovation. If you are not productive and you can't innovate, you are not entitled to the successes of those who are.
This might seem a bit cold-hearted, but the people who are in the best position to help others are those who are not spending every hour of every day undergoing basic survival. People have a self-interest to look after themselves and their families first - and then once they've secured that goal, can begin to look how they can help others less close to them. The simple fact is that the vast majority of humans are in the category of figuring out how their own family is going to survive month to month, and the less fortunate are simply just that. You can't help everyone. You have limited capacity as a human, and the most effective way you can help anybody is to secure the well-being of yourself and your family so that you have excess resources and time to dedicate to helping others. If your economic output is limited, your time dedicated to helping people directly is infinitely more valuable than your time campaigning for more socialism.
You and the poster above you have fundamental differences in how you understand the world. He seems to believe in a world of abundance and you seem to believe in a world of scarcity, not simply limited resources but literal scarcity.
Why do you take it as fact that there isn't enough to go around? Are you sure that's the case?
I'm not talking about abundance versus scarcity. I believe that resources are abundant enough (we're a long way from "overpopulation"). I'm merely talking about how the resources are used: ie, who earns their keep and who expects to be kept through other people's hard work.
Ultimately, if you want food on the plate, you either need to grow the food, or you need to trade some of your time or other commodities with somebody who has already grown it. The food won't grow itself. (Well, some will naturally, but in very limited quantities compared to the harvests that can be made through deliberate labour).
Similarly, houses won't build themselves. Somebody needs to labour to take the raw materials gathered from the earth and turn them into shelter. If this isn't you, why would you think you "deserve" to be sheltered?
Nobody is entitled to other people's labour. If you consider the case where one person takes 100% of the proceeds of another person's labour, we can safely say that this relationship is one of a master and a slave. If this is the case, what percentage of another person's labour can be taken where they are no longer a slave? Is it 60%? 50%? 40%? Who knows - some arbitrary figure. Of course the correct answer is 0%. Only if you own the full reward of your own labour are you a free person.
The USDA’s Economic Research Service estimates that 31% of food is wasted[1] while 1 in 8 families are food insecure[2]. About half a million people are homeless any given night[3], while 16 million homes are vacant [4], many of them perfectly liveable. Where's the scarcity?
It's right there in what you have written yourself. 31% is a finite number, that means scarcity. 16 million homes is a finite number, that means scarcity.
In a world without scarcity you'd have infinite food and infinite houses. We do not live in such a world.
You don't give people without the ability to pay for things stuff for free because you don't want to absolutely wreck your economy. If I'd get food and housing for free, I'd be the first one to quit my job and just live the good life of not working ever again. I'm incentivized to work because that isn't the case. And also because it's such a stupid idea, that I can see that it would collapse fast.
"Scarcity is the limited availability of a commodity", emphasis on _limited_.
Scarcity does not mean shortage. It means you do not have infinite of something.
Scarcity: the state of being scarce or in short supply; shortage.
That's the common definition. There's also an economic definition having something to do with limited supply and limitless wants. I'll leave that to the academics. My argument is that there is enough food to feed the hungry and enough shelter to house the poor in the US. If someone has evidence to show otherwise, I'm open to it.
What I'm saying is that it would be self-destructive behavior to give people things for free. It is much better to let people starve in the streets, then to give them both food and housing for free. You'd completely destroy the entire country by facilitating this.
You can give them your own money if it pleases you.
You just wrote out this long, politically charged comment basically asserting your opinion as fact, which appears to boil down to "socialism bad". Don't you think most people here have made up their minds on that issue and are tired of watching endless fights about it? We aren't on slashdot.
Also, this:
> the only way that humans have ever lifted themselves out of poverty is through productive labour and innovation
...is utterly false. Maybe somewhat true in the general case (although less and less so even there in more recent history), but not at all for individuals. People and governments have helped other people and governments many times without asking for anything back.
> You just wrote out this long, politically charged comment basically asserting your opinion as fact, which appears to boil down to "socialism bad".
Well yes. Theft is bad, and socialism is theft.
> Don't you think most people here have made up their minds on that issue and are tired of watching endless fights about it? We aren't on slashdot.
I'm well aware of how far left most of HN leans. Sometimes I wonder if this place is an internal discussion forum for the CCP (There are certain moderators who bark when anything critical of China gets posted here). I have a posting limit of 5 posts every few hours because my views are "the wrong views."
> ...is utterly false. Maybe somewhat true in the general case (although less and less so even there in more recent history), but not at all for individuals. People and governments have helped other people and governments many times without asking for anything back.
I was referring to the general case. Ultimately, somebody must perform labour or somebody must perform invention for the standard of living of themselves or others to improve. The work won't do itself.
The question is one of whether you are implicitly entitled to the results of other people's work and invention, which I refer to as theft, versus instead receiving charity out of other people's good nature.
The capitalist is often described as "evil," yet many engage in voluntary charity, and the socialist deludes himself to be the moral arbiter of good, when in fact, he simply thinks stealing the fruits of others labour is the solution to problems.
I have a question, if you don't mind answering. What are you doing personally to help the homeless and less fortunate than yourself?
I get that it is easy to sit behind a keyboard and complain that other people aren't doing enough. The way to help people isn't to demand that other people pay more, but to use your own resources for the causes which are most important for you.
Simply giving more money to the state solves nothing. It just makes the state bigger, more corrupt and less efficient. The resources get diverted to other goals which don't match up with your own. Perhaps it would be better to keep more of your hard earned money so that you can utilize it as you feel most appropriate?
Relevant?: https://i.imgur.com/MogFw59.jpg
It seems to me that the flaws aren't with the system, but with people who idly sit and wait for things to improve at the cost of someone else (the "rich people" scapegoat). Your time is often more valuable than money to those in need. Why don't you give up more of your time to help people. Perhaps quit your job and become a full time altruist?
Look, nobody "deserves to be homeless," but nor does anybody "deserve to be homed at the cost of somebody else's labour" Nobody "deserves to be sick," but also nobody "deserves to have healthcare given to them without compensating the healthcare giver for their time". It isn't "immoral to help people who can't pay" at all, but it isn't "moral to steal other people's property to pay to help others" either.
You seem to have a cartoon world view in which everyone should be in prosperity by default - but the reality is that poverty is the default state of all of humanity, and the only way that humans have ever lifted themselves out of poverty is through productive labour and innovation. If you are not productive and you can't innovate, you are not entitled to the successes of those who are.
This might seem a bit cold-hearted, but the people who are in the best position to help others are those who are not spending every hour of every day undergoing basic survival. People have a self-interest to look after themselves and their families first - and then once they've secured that goal, can begin to look how they can help others less close to them. The simple fact is that the vast majority of humans are in the category of figuring out how their own family is going to survive month to month, and the less fortunate are simply just that. You can't help everyone. You have limited capacity as a human, and the most effective way you can help anybody is to secure the well-being of yourself and your family so that you have excess resources and time to dedicate to helping others. If your economic output is limited, your time dedicated to helping people directly is infinitely more valuable than your time campaigning for more socialism.