Comment by crux_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by crux_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Right-o, to read between the lines here:

"Dysfunctional" people are poor because they deserve it, because they are dysfunctional and have not earned anything. "Functional" people are wealthy because they are functional and have earned their wealth.

Let's take a look at a time in one's life before anything can be earned or deserved: At birth, does one newborn somehow deserve better education, improved nutrition, and a life that will offer far more opportunities and fewer hardships than some other child?

No, of course not: By your own ethos, you only deserve what you have earned. There is no way to make a moral argument that newborns deserve anything other than equal circumstances to begin to create a life for themselves. (Unless you are the sort who believes you chose your parents well and deserve the just rewards of that choice....)

Even for the Ayn-Rand libertarian there's a pretty compelling case to be made for widespread welfare efforts: not for the poor, who may have earned their own hardships, but for their children who will suffer without having done a thing to deserve it.

Strawman. Sufficiently so that I won't comment further than to say that I was translating what I perceive them to believe--"them" being the class of people who thrive on dysfunctional populations.

crux_ makes a very strong argument that deserves to be addressed rather than dismissed without comment.

Still, crux_ is playing the straw man, and it's risky to legitimise such comments. He is twisting his parent through bad interpretation to be a comment about what people 'deserve', and then develops this theme. So let me attempt to deal with that idea of 'deserving'.

What people 'deserve' is arbitrary, and extremely position sensitive. For instance - what if you were to phrase the education issue in terms of "if somebody works part time and wants to pay to attend university to do extra subjects that are not provided under government university sponsorship, do they deserve to be allowed to do so?" Or "if somebody works hard and drives an old bomb of a car in order to save money to pay for a particular education for their children, do they deserve to be allowed to make that choice?" Or, "if somebody wants to spend five years sitting around smoking marijuana and collecting government benefits while failing to make any progress on the degree they're supposed to be doing, do they deserve government funding for this, when the opportunity cost for that choice hits poor people who have no interest in a university education but who can't get jobs due to the correspondingly higher levels of taxation required to fund such university places?"

The idea of what people 'deserve' is completely arbitrary. Ideas like 'deserve' and 'fairness' don't belong in public policy, except in reference to:

* direct application of the rule of law

* formation and honouring of private contracts

* ownership of private property (and that excludes anti-rights that are often mislabeled as property, such as "copyright")

These rules extend from the idea that you should be allowed to do what you like so long as you are not impinging on your neighbour. As 'mynameishere' says in the existing reply to this comment, the only way to guarantee other equality on other levels is to force some individuals to give up something for the benefit of expense of others.

And one of the side-effects of that sort of thinking is policy that acts against even the common interest. If you ban private schools so that everyone can be equal, that means people who would have put extra money into education (creating spaces in private schools and thereby removing demand form the public sector) instead spend it on improvements to their house or funding a more luxurious lifestyle. People who to improve education standards for poor people by abolishing private education need to think harder. And people who want to make everyone equal regardless of relative outcome need to have a look at Cambodia.

I'd like to return to another part of mynameishere's previous comment: "We want to pay right-thinking, liberal arts majors middle class salaries for them to administer money distributions from functional people to dysfunctional people". Governments tend to grow in a way that gives more work and power to the decision makers. This process is the enemy of individual freedom, and - as a general measure - fails on a utilitarian basis, also. If they don't have unambiguous facts to support what they're doing then they need to be blocked.

I agree that I was exaggerating things somewhat with usage of "deserve". But that is rather inessential to the core of my argument, which isn't so much about fairness or even public policy:

If it is wrong to force some individuals to give up opportunities and wealth in order to benefit others; is it not then also wrong for a child to be equally or more deprived by the circumstances of their birth?

The two are not identical but they have enough in common to make it a very valid question. Rephrased: An irresponsible parent is stealing their child's future away, just as the state might steal from you to pay for their meals. It is easy to agree that both are wrong... but I think it will take some fancy dancing to justify the second as wrong while the first is okay.

Both yourself and mynameishere have made the same leap of judgment to condemn one possible solution (widely applied), but that's missing the point: either deprivation due to circumstances of birth is wrong or it is not -- regardless of whether the possible solution of wealth distribution might be itself wrong.

I don't have a problem with debating these solutions -- I find estate taxes an elegant compromise, for example -- but what I do have a problem with is those who pretend that poverty & inequality as it exists today is a just part of the natural order and praise that all is as it ought to be: That is self-justifying sanctimonious BS of the first order.

  If it is wrong to force some individuals to give up
  opportunities and wealth in order to benefit others;
  is it not then also wrong for a child to be equally
  or more deprived by the circumstances of their birth?

In the situation of the former, an individual has had something and then that has been taken away from them. In the situation of the latter, it is a case of the child having not had something given to them that you judge to be fundamental.

The word 'deprived' is interesting. "Lacking in advantage, opportunity or experience." The child is deprived because they have not been given one of those three things.

Thus, these scenarios do not correspond.

  The two are not identical but they have enough in common
  to make it a very valid question.

They're fundamentally different. The uncomfortable feeling you got that caused you to write the above sentence might have been used to better effect.

  An irresponsible parent is stealing their child's
  future away

You're deliberately being sloppy with the language to further a broken conclusion. Stealing implies property that has been taken away. That's not what's happening here.

The dancing is all yours, and this is the second post in a row where. Semantic tricks do not thrust an argument beyond logical barriers.

  either deprivation due to circumstances of birth is
  wrong or it is not -- regardless of whether the
  possible solution of wealth distribution might be
  itself wrong

  I don't have a problem with debating these
  solutions -- I find estate taxes an elegant
  compromise

No. It is not your place to steal from people, nor to get the government to do it on your behalf and then pretend it's any different.

  That is self-justifying sanctimonious BS of the first
  order.

It's very easy to throw nasty names around.

Your frustration at seeing potential gain go to waste (the child) and consequential suffering on the part of that person is clear. Please - try to see where I'm coming from.

I want a situation where as many people get good education, health care and moral guidance. However, government is a mechanism that is both poor and dangerous when it is given charge of these things. Poor because it is not subject to the brutal honesty of market forces to keep it in check, and dangerous because it uses every bit of power that it is granted to (in some measure) line the pockets of the people involved in its running and self-perpetuate at the expense of our freedoms.

Government creates dependance on itself, steals our liberty, and poisons minds such that when good people identify a problem they wrong assume that it's the government's responsibility to fix it rather than their own. It's not.

If you want to improve the lot of a particular grouping of people, then there are things you can do like finding ways to sponsor people, finding charities that actually make a difference in things and supporting them, or getting involved in things that make a difference yourself.

But actually, in order to do good you don't even need to go that far. If we go out into the world, be effective in our careers, have a family and raise them well enough that we are improving on the contribution of ourselves and our spouses, that will actually make a positive difference because we'll be growing a better next generation and creating opportunities for others through our economic activity.

Powerful government is the enemy. It is wasteful, inherently corrupt and hampers the ability of honest people to do what I describe in the above paragraph.

  In the situation of the former, an individual has had something
  and then that has been taken away from them. In the situation of
  the latter, it is a case of the child having not had something given
  to them that you judge to be fundamental.

Let me see if I have your logic correct here by extending it a bit into hypothetical-land. Suppose you have blue eyes, and suppose further that the culture of the world is such that those with blue eyes are never chosen for white-collar jobs: only for lower paying blue-collar ones. There is nothing intrinsic about blue-eyed people that makes them poorer workers -- with the proper training and experience they would do equally as well as their hazel-eyed brothers and sisters; that they are never trained and chosen for the good jobs is just how the world happens to be.

This situation is morally acceptable because nothing has been forcibly taken away from them. If we were running around stealing food from the mouths of those with blue eyes, then it would be wrong because it would be violating their property. However, as they never had a good job in the first place, there is nothing wrong with a world that denies them the opportunity to aspire to one.

Do I have that right? (I'm pretty sure I do, as you can substitute "poor parents" for "blue eyes" above, and my second paragraph is a very close paraphrase of your counterargument.) If so it's an odd place for a line in the sand: Taking what you have now is morally wrong, yet arbitrarily* removing opportunities for what you may have in the future is perfectly acceptable. (* Arbitrarily as in: without regard to your capabilities or to your past choices.)

You have a very long and loud argument against government, largely on moral grounds... But I'm not talking about government, I'm talking about the morality of poverty itself, specifically in children who have no responsibility for their situation.

It is perfectly possible talk about whether their situation is just or not without invoking government: Suppose you had access to a magic button, and pressing it will -- at no cost to anyone -- give every child a fair start, where their life's success will solely be the product of the wisdom of their choices. Is there a moral imperative to press that button? Would it be wrong, in the way that theft is wrong, to turn your back on it?

If yes, then what we end up with is a debate along utilitarian lines: At what cost must we address the wrongs done to those born into poverty?

If no, well, that is where I throw the 'nasty names' around.

p.s. : A total side issue, but I don't see that taking stuff off a dead person is "stealing" from anyone. ;)

The original situation we're discussing is straight-forward and there's no need to delve into bizarre hypotheticals and risk confusing things further.

   yet arbitrarily* removing opportunities for what you may
   have in the future is perfectly acceptable

You talk about removing opportunities from people and this is mistaken. In the child situation, nobody has removed opportunity from the child. You have again tried to twist things so as to describe the natural order as being one where all charity options available to help a poor person realise all opportunities are exhausted. You then use the word 'stealing' to describe failure to reach that point. It's flawed and you don't win points for being original in trying it on. [1]

    I'm not talking about government, I'm talking about
    the morality of poverty itself, specifically in
    children who have no responsibility for their situation.

But you are, because you're talking about rights, and the idea of a right that cannot be realised is invalid. There are some philosophers who are of the opinion that there is such a thing as a right but where there is no moral obligation upon anything else to guarantee that right. For example - the right to work. In contrast, my opinion is that if philosophers want to masturbate then they should do so in the privacy of their own home and avoid staining their work with it. If there is a right, then it is to be enforced, and if something should not be defended then it is not a right.

    Suppose you had access to a magic button, and
    pressing it will -- at no cost to anyone -- give
    every child a fair start, where their life's success
    will solely be the product of the wisdom of their
    choices. Is there a moral imperative to press that
    button? Would it be wrong, in the way that theft is
    wrong, to turn your back on it?

What you're generally asking is an interesting question, but it's not pertinent to this discussion for these reasons:

* You've used the word 'fair' and I've already explained that as a worse-than-useless word in a conversation about public policy.

* You've mentioned "at no cost to anyone" and that's not what we're talking about here and it is a crucial part of the discussion.

    If yes, then what we end up with is a debate along
    utilitarian lines: At what cost must we address the
    wrongs done to those born into poverty?

Sure enough - after having claimed that you're not talking about the bridge into coercion through government - you come clean and admit that actually that's exactly what you're doing.

    If no, well, that is where I throw the 'nasty names'
    around.

I suspect that this conversation will end in value incompatibility which is a shame, because I suspect if it does then at least one of us is not being entirely honest with self - we seem to both be broadly utilitarian. I think nasty names (which I fall to sometimes as well) are a temptation in two scenarios:

* Value clash with the other person, you make a last ditch effort to shame them into converting to your values.

* Situation in which you feel yourself having cause to abandon something you hold dearly due to internal incompatibility (e.g. someone who is a both religious and a white supremacist is having trouble reconciling parts of the bible's teaching with the fulfilling feelings they associate with Friday night ceremonies), and you want to pretend that there's a value clash to allow for an easy exit out of the conversation and being able to escape the need to reconcile the incompatibility.

    p.s. : A total side issue, but I don't see that
    taking stuff off a dead person is "stealing" from
    anyone. ;)

The property belongs to them. They leave instructions on what is to be done with it. It is not unowned property, nor is there any doubt about the wishes of the owner in the presence of a will. Therefore doing other with it is stealing. In the absence of a will - well - that's up for debate, but it's not particularly significant in the grand scheme of this discussion.

[1] See Hayek's _The Road To Serfdom_. Chapter 2 is particularly useful for exploring this "characteristic confusion of freedom with power".

Well, crux_ misrepresented my views, and that's that.

But fine:

At birth, does one newborn somehow deserve better education, improved nutrition, and a life that will offer far more opportunities and fewer hardships than some other child?

In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. The only way to force equality is just that: To force it. People who are careful with their finances, with their vocations, with their reproductive activity inevitably wind up supporting other people's children. Think what you will about that. To me, it is disgustingly criminal.

In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact.

That doesn't sound like a "cold, hard fact" to me. It sounds like an opinion on the best way to structure responsibility within a society.

Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? If so, why do you specifically exclude children?

Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large?

Yes: To not force others to raise my children.

That’s not a responsibility to society. That’s a rejection of society. Which is to say, in your eagerness to repeat your previous point again, you’re deliberately avoiding the question asked of you. If the answer is “no”, you shouldn’t be afraid to say so.

> inevitably wind up supporting other people's children. Think what you will about that. To me, it is disgustingly criminal.

Leaving those children hanging out to dry would be what I'd consider disgustingly criminal. I'm not sure I can get my bile to rise to that level for helping them.

Being taxed to help children is about the last thing I'd fight against, as a matter of priority. First I'd go after the actual wasting of tax dollars, which helping children certainly is not. In fact, it's essential if you care about society even from a _self-interested_ standpoint.

It's similar to health insurance. Is it "fair" that if you don't need to use it, you end up paying for other people who aren't so fortunate? If you live long enough, the probability approaches 1 that you'll need it. And it may cover more in hospital bills for you than you paid into the system.

I think the essential basis of your objection is that life is a competition and that if you're winning, you should be able to press your advantage instead of having your lead reduced by outside interference.

By contrast, those of us in the "cooperation" camp think instead of fighting over who gets the bigger piece of a smaller pie, we can make the whole pie bigger. And taking a broader view, even eliminate competition altogether by providing computational resources to each individual that will maximize hir experience of life (via completely convincing VR), given what our limited brains are even capable of and how it pales in comparison to the possibilities of nonbiological intelligence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com