So sticking with the group project analogy: Pointing out that this percentage of group project bums receives a passing grade in the class, and that percentage of bums actually benefits educationally from the project even though they didn't contribute, is not going to make people feel better about, or want to start, being forced into helping the bums more.
Fair enough. But then, pointing out that most people are the bum on one project or another - sometimes because they injured themselves on the previous project, or caught a disease from someone else on another project maybe or maybe they are helping teach other people how to work on projects and have less time available to work on this particular project - maybe then they'd have a bit of empathy for the bums they encounter on the projects they are working on.
And maybe if we pointed out that there once was a time when only bums of a certain type, say those who liked certain fruits or a particular band were helped out by their project-mates and those who like that other fruit, or band, were shunned and had to drop out of education - even if they had worked on loads of projects before and now their life is screwed all because they didn't like NSYNC. And maybe if we reminded people from time to time that we can't always be sure what criteria our project-mates will use if and when we have to bum through a few projects for whatever reason, we might realize it is in our self-interest. Maybe then they'd understand that if we divest the decision making to a third party teacher - one that we all vote on to be head of bum-assistance, that might mitigate the arbitrary criteria problem - maybe then it wouldn't feel like being 'forced' but more like its a just a way of doing things that sometimes we don't like but on the whole is for the best. Especially if we remind people that if random events could mean anybody gets kicked out of school (including yourself and your family) that means less people are in school, which means less project-mates in the future which means more work to achieve the same results - which in practice leads to worse results...maybe they'd be less inclined to feel it was forcible.
A better approach for the use of force, in my opinion, is to realize the benefits that contributors will receive if they capitalize on the reward they'll get even despite the bum not doing anything. I guess; more carrot, less stick.
There's plenty of carrot in the tax system, it's just some people only think about the stick. And the 'force' is the same 'force' applied to people that are 'forced' to drive on the right side of the road, pass a test before being allowed to drive, restricting alcohol, tobacco and firearm distribution and so on.
Are you failing to recognize that, while capitalism doesn't drive public spending on welfare, that many capitalists do a lot privately to help a lot of people?
Taxpayers do a lot to help people too. You can have both!
Demonizing people with different opinions is pretty awful.
Well, we've seen what life is like with little to no state welfare - its hell for most people. Perhaps demons is an appropriate term for those that wish to return to it?
Talking about the cost of the average benefit per person does nothing to negate my experience with the guy I met who was selling stacks of food stamps outside the grocery store at half price so he could convert them into cash money.
Well actually it does, that's why averages are used, after all. To show the norm, not highlight the outliers. Is there something wrong about selling resources for liquid capital? I thought you were pro-capitalism?
Regarding the effectiveness of welfare, your argument assumes that if the government stopped providing assistance then people in need would receive absolutely no assistance at all. In reality, there are many non-government programs that provide assistance to poor people.
Sure, but many of those programs do get funding from governments from time to time - and there is clearly not enough of them to do the job. So while some people would be helped, either not everybody would or they would all be helped less.
Personally, I prefer to make my own decisions on how my money goes to help people, rather than throwing it into a tax-pool and letting other people decide how to use it.
Well yes, and that's kind of the problem. There are some groups who need help who aren't as popular as others. Relying on private crowd funding can result in groups who are forgotten, ignored or shunned landing in even more desperate situations. As has, historically, been the case and was the very reason welfare situations came into being.
I'm a capitalist who does like to help people, and I'm not pathological nor psychopathic.
Great. But you are human, and most humans are shitty in a number of ways - many of which they aren't even conscious of. Perhaps you are exceptional, but by definition most people aren't.
I try not to let my personal beliefs get in the way of business
I'm sure you aren't alone. But try as you might, the evidence suggests you do - and if you are exceptional, most are not.
but socially I'm very generous and considerate
That's great, though most people would say this, of course.
So let's say Federal tax was scrapped entirely and you earn $30,000.
How much would you give to social security charities every year? $200? $800? $2,000? This money goes towards the retired, the disabled, the children of the aforementioned etc.
How much money would give towards helping people in need of medical care? $200? $800? $2,000?
How much to the needy - the poor? $50? $300? $2,000?
What do you think the average would be?
If you were earning $60,000 would you give twice as much? Do you think people on average would?
How much time would you spend ensuring the charities you give to are spending effectively? How would you know? How would you be sure the people receiving your generosity truly deserved it and weren't just bumming off you? How much time would you spend ensuring your generosity was being evenly distributed amongst those that need it? How would you learn this? Would you give to many small charities which may be less efficient spending due to larger relative staff overheads, smaller negotiating power to get good deals - or would you go for larger groups who are less focussed but in some ways more efficient - increasing the chances of missing certain groups - but also losing some efficiency on increased fund-raising/marketing efforts to maintain their large size? How do you balance between them? How often would you review your charitable distributions?
™ Version 4.2
