22 Jun 11
Originally posted by Wajoma
[Poor people who made bad decisions] might appeal to charity but that is all they can do i.e. ask, not demand [...] there are people that have overcome monumental disabilities to become more productive, independent and wealthy [...] So this tiny number of truly helpless people will be covered by voluntary charity.
Again, I’m not saying that poor people should be able to demand a minimum standard of living; I’m arguing that as a society, we have a responsibility to provide one for those very people whom you acknowledge as potentially “helpless.” I don’t doubt for a second that outliers exist who have overcome incredible difficulties to succeed in one form or another, but I don’t understand why you assume that their circumstances are applicable in all scenarios. What about, as JS357 mentioned, the case of “the young children who might be classified as E, but not the mother who might be classified as D?”
Would you agree that currently, even with government involvement, there is a greater legitimate need among the poor (let’s shift this to a worldwide context, for now) for basic fundamentals of life than there is supply? Why do you assume, then, that without government involvement there will be enough supply to meet the demand? I think it's silly to assume that charities somehow are more capable of determining who is genuinely helpless and who isn't.
23 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaAnd again I assert that the number of truly helpless people is a tiny, tiny percentage, a percentage that can be easily cared for through voluntary charity.
Originally posted by Wajoma
[b]
Would you agree that currently, even with government involvement, there is a greater legitimate need among the poor (let’s shift this to a worldwide context, for now) for basic fundamentals of life than there is supply?
I concede that there are many millions of people living in a bad situation but the question is how did they arrive at that situation, it didn't happen overnight, they are doing something wrong or something wrong is being done to them. In the first case they need to start doing right things and in the second case they need to be free from those that are doing wrong things to them. In both cases the answer is not to perpetuate what is happening.
Don't keep throwing band aid on top of band aid, the affliction is something much worse. How did these people arrive at the situation they are in, and don't use the cop out "society did it to them", their society? our society? middle east society? the society of genealogists?
"Would you agree that currently, even with government involvement, there is a greater legitimate need among the poor (let’s shift this to a worldwide context, for now) for basic fundamentals of life than there is supply?"
If one person starves to death then obviously, that one persons demand has not been met, and many thousands starve now. Does that mean the person that lives in a 15 room mansion on a 12 acre property owes something to that starving person? No. Does that mean that if all the food in the world were divided evenly amongst 6500000000 people now, then next year there would be no starving people? No. IMO the situation would be much worse.
As for children, I don't know, they are truly innocent, but using the New Zealand experiment where each extra child 'earned' a solo parent more money, and the situation that has created where there has been a 1000% explosion in the number of solo parents and the conditions and lives many of those children suffer in a country of relative abundance, the 'cure' has created far more innocent (children)victims than anything that preceded it.
23 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaI would say that the vast majority of people who are both poor, and likely to remain so for the near future, fall into category E. The reason for people making bad decisions, or being unable to get out of being poor, is almost invariably a lack of education or a poor upbringing, both of which are external factors.
For the purpose of discussion, assume there are two types of poor people:
D=poor people whose circumstances in life are mostly a product of bad [b]decision-making
E=poor people whose circumstances in life are mostly a product of external factors
Among poor people, what do you think the ratio is between D and E? Skewed in one
direction or roughly equal?[/b]
Anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence, a good education and who is not on drugs, does not have a serious criminal record or a disability of some sort, can get a reasonable job and no-longer be poor.
Of course these comments may not take into account having a lot of dependants (sometimes due to bad decisions such as having too many children), being unable to control spending (I know plenty of educated intelligent people who should never be given a credit card).
And of course I am not saying everyone can be rich either.
23 Jun 11
Originally posted by Wajoma
And again I assert that the number of truly helpless people is a tiny, tiny percentage, a percentage that can be easily cared for through voluntary charity.
Even though I personally am under the assumption that (from the OP) E exceeds the proportion of D, I’ll go along with your assertion long enough to ask: why do you assume charities could do a better job of effectively distinguishing between D and E--to find out who should “deserve” their support--than the government could?
As for children...
You seemed eager to look at a specific example, so why don’t we. A quick check on Wikipedia reveals that typically, a child born from a mother with AIDS has a 1-in-4 risk of acquiring HIV. Does society owe nothing to those infected children? Or should they simply “rise to the occasion”?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaI'll have go at why private charity could do a better job of differentiating Ds from Es than public agencies -- the politics involved in the criteria would be more influential on a public agency. For example, congress members from poor districts would strive to have their districts labeled economically deprived, therefore getting a blanket "E" rating and public money for their constituents. Basically there would be a lot of pressure not to have your constituents labelled "D" types. There might also be lawsuits asserting racial discrimination and "profiling" people. A private charity could simply pick and choose who to help, and how to help them.
Originally posted by Wajoma
[b]And again I assert that the number of truly helpless people is a tiny, tiny percentage, a percentage that can be easily cared for through voluntary charity.
Even though I personally am under the assumption that (from the OP) E exceeds the proportion of D, I’ll go along with your assertion long ...[text shortened]... s society owe nothing to those infected children? Or should they simply “rise to the occasion”?[/b]
This is not to say that Ds would get more help under a private charity system. It is also not to say that a private charity WOULD differentiate Ds from Es. I am only suggesting a reason that private charities would be less likely to have their decision process politicized, if they chose to differentiate that way.
23 Jun 11
Originally posted by JS357Maybe, but I don't see how the private sector could guarantee that in "picking and choosing" they would still provide support for all in group E that needed it.
I am only suggesting a reason that private charities would be less likely to have their decision process politicized, if they chose to differentiate that way.
But, no doubt, politics plays a role in the current system.
28 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonka...part of the reason would be that benevolence goes back to where it belongs, back to communities and families and friends, not a great seething buratcracy. It's local, and this is how those that are riding it are weeded out from the genuinely needy. When receiving charity is seen as a right, a weekly cheque from a faceless buratcracy, rather than from a neighbour it is devalued, for the receiver and for those forced to support people that can be seen to be making no effort.
Even though I personally am under the assumption that (from the OP) E exceeds the proportion of D, I’ll go along with your assertion long enough to ask: why do you assume charities could do a better job of effectively distinguishing between D and E--to find out who should “deserve” their support--than the government could?
A ...[text shortened]... s society owe nothing to those infected children? Or should they simply “rise to the occasion”?
Second question:
If paying women to have children out of relationships increases the incidence of precisley that behaviour then surely the answer is not to invest in more of the same?
28 Jun 11
Originally posted by Wajoma1) That still doesn't answer the question of how charities would do a better job of determining who among the poor "actually needs" support and who "doesn't actually need" it.
...part of the reason would be that benevolence goes back to where it belongs, back to communities and families and friends, not a great seething buratcracy. It's local, and this is how those that are riding it are weeded out from the genuinely needy. When receiving charity is seen as a right, a weekly cheque from a faceless buratcracy, rather than from a n ...[text shortened]... idence of precisley that behaviour then surely the answer is not to invest in more of the same?
I would also be willing to bet that not a small number of charities have bigger administrative fees (as a percentage of revenues) than do government social programs. I certainly would imagine that charities on the whole wouldn't have smaller administrative costs than the government.
2) Where have you heard of HIV-positive women being paid (by the government?) to have children? Not being paid only enough to treat their own HIV or their children's HIV, but being paid to have more children?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
28 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaWho actually needs and who actually doesn't need support, are different categories from the original D and E categories of who made bad decisions and who got screwed by factors they had no choice about. The D and E categories attempt to differentiate on the basic of who is deserving, not who is in need.
1) That still doesn't answer the question of how charities would do a better job of determining who among the poor "actually needs" support and who "doesn't actually need" it.
I would also be willing to bet that not a small number of charities have bigger administrative fees (as a percentage of revenues) than do government social programs. I certainly ...[text shortened]... gh to treat their own HIV or their children's HIV, but being paid to have more children?
28 Jun 11
Originally posted by WajomaNothing amplifies bad decision-making in the face of natural disasters like "government assistance". Whether it is building homes on the outer banks in the yearly hurricane path or in fire-swept, mudslide-ridden Southern California, or in the flood plains of the Mississippi -- the more "assistance" is offered, the more people will make bad decisions.
As I have already said witty I see people in bad situations as being divided into three groups.
Those that have made bad decisions themselves. This group need to take responsibility for the decisions they have made (maybe they got all trained up for a career that there is no demand for), they might appeal to charity but that is all they can do i.e. ask, n ...[text shortened]... able to make them, that's simple logic, they can no longer be said to be caring or benevolent.
It is much the same story with unemployment and a lot of other social benefits. You don't help people long term by making them dependent.
28 Jun 11
Originally posted by spruce112358Apparently you help them long term by letting them die.
Nothing amplifies bad decision-making in the face of natural disasters like "government assistance". Whether it is building homes on the outer banks in the yearly hurricane path or in fire-swept, mudslide-ridden Southern California, or in the flood plains of the Mississippi -- the more "assistance" is offered, the more people will make bad decisions.
...[text shortened]... d a lot of other social benefits. You don't help people long term by making them dependent.
28 Jun 11
Originally posted by JS357My impression was that Wajoma equated E with those who "actually" need support, and D with those who "actually" don't need it.
Who actually needs and who actually doesn't need support, are different categories from the original D and E categories of who made bad decisions and who got screwed by factors they had no choice about. The D and E categories attempt to differentiate on the basic of who is deserving, not who is in need.
( "Need" being defined as "being worthy of" )
28 Jun 11
Originally posted by spruce112358Are you suggesting that the government literally should do nothing to help victims of natural disasters? If not, what do you see as the extent of the "proper" role the government should play in such cases?
Nothing amplifies bad decision-making in the face of natural disasters like "government assistance". Whether it is building homes on the outer banks in the yearly hurricane path or in fire-swept, mudslide-ridden Southern California, or in the flood plains of the Mississippi -- the more "assistance" is offered, the more people will make bad decisions.
...[text shortened]... d a lot of other social benefits. You don't help people long term by making them dependent.
Going back to some of the OP questions-
Do you think there are ever people whose situations in life are largely the products of external factors? In general, what should be the extent of the government's involvement in helping poor people (including type-E people)? Do you think that a government attempt to reduce its social support of poor people, with the intent of reducing support of D, is worth the potential cost of reducing support of E?