You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

5
-2

[–] rwbj 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Without approving of what the guy is doing, I think being upset at him is pretty silly. He's older and probably has minimal to no skills. Instead of earning $7.50 an hour and living in poverty he's doing something legal that actually helps him provide for himself. Isn't the whole point of capitalism and free market that people are free to do what makes them the most money?

Just pointing out the irony as I'm sure the guy upset considers himself a true advocate of the free market... when that is exactly what this is. When begging gets you more money than low skill jobs - you get beggars.


Since this is the sort of comment that's likely to get downvote brigaded on Voat for wrongthink, I'm going to dump all replies in a single post.



Response to Broc_Lia's comment

The irony was not in what he was doing but why he was doing it. He's essentially jealous that somebody is making money begging than doing "honest" work. He's not upset at the fact that he gets paid scraps for "honest" work, but the fact that our socioeconomic system holds there to be more value in sitting down with your hands out than "honest" work. In laissez faire economics the natural equilibrium there would be reached not by somebody getting all emotional on a youtube video, but by this person realizing "wow, he makes more than I do by doing something I think is easier - let me do that." The increase in begging would reach a saturation point at which begging would become less productive than "honest" work. But, as usual, laissez faire works out in reality about as well as hunting trips for unicorns.

Another thing is that it's also not necessarily true that the individual here doesn't need charity to sustain himself. It may be that he is genuinely incapable of earning money in any productive fashion and begging is all he is capable of effectively doing - and the market overvalues 'charity' over the compensation of "honest" labor.

Finally let us not even get into the weasel word of value. It's invariably used in no way concrete way but simply to try to sound logical while arbitrarily defining it to whatever makes your argument go from illogical to logical. So for instance: The individuals donating to him see value in personal charity and displays of their religiosity. By facilitating this action he is providing a service of value. It's a terrible argument, yet no worse than any other than invokes "value."



Response to GumbyTM's comment

The reason citizen charity fails is because of this. The "real" person that needs, in general, isn't going to conveniently appear in front of your church. They're going to be in corners the people giving charity would never approach or in a hovel somewhere just trying to get by. This is exactly why systems like welfare and unemployment exist. Average people can't be expected to vet every person they want to donate to. And while government programs are also susceptible to abuse, they do an infinitely better job of it than you or I would. There's some irony in that churches tend to be politically in favor of parties that fundamentally oppose such systems, in favor of private charity which is frequently almost entirely wasted particularly at the individual level

Interestingly enough on the topic of zero sum game and charity inefficiency, the first numbers I found indicate that in 2015 Americans gave about $115 billion to religious groups. That would have been enough to provide a year of budget housing ($800/month) to 12 million people. The number of homeless in America is estimated at 1.5 million...

Response to GumbyTM's comment

You're ignoring all context and speaking in false dichotomies. One of the biggest differences between now and days past is simple population and urbanization. The vast majority of the country lives in ever more populated regions. In small towns people tend to do a much better job of working together and taking care of each other. As more and more people come together, this communal concern tends to fade. In large cities with ineffective governments you don't see people suddenly looking out for each other living happily every after - they tend to be crime and povery ridden shambles. As for government charities - I think one regulations requiring all individuals be granted emergency care at public hospitals, regardless of ability to pay, is one of the most effective forms of "charity" there is.

The point of the numbers I gave in the last response was in response to your assertion that charity is zero sum. The real problem is people being reckless with their charity. Whether they give it to the guy who conveniently begging outside the church or the guy preaching inside the church, very little of that money will ever go to people of substantial need.

0
5

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Instead of earning $7.50 an hour and living in poverty he's doing something legal that actually helps him provide for himself.

He's not providing for himself. Providing for yourself is when you create more value than you consume. This guy isn't creating any value, he's fooling people into thinking that he has no assets and needs help.

Isn't the whole point of capitalism and free market that people are free to do what makes them the most money?

Yes. And one very important market function is communicating information about fraud. Like, for example, following a "homeless" guy with a camera and discovering that he's actually pretty well off and doesn't need charity.

Just pointing out the irony as I'm sure the guy upset considers himself a true advocate of the free market... when that is exactly what this is. When begging gets you more money than low skill jobs - you get beggars.

No irony. He's correcting the imbalance by making people more wary of beggars.

0
1

[–] GumbyTM 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Assume this is true. You're still dead wrong.

When those that can, don't, they are taking resources from those that truly can not. So long as need outweighs resources, this is a zero sum game.

Under your scenario this man is taking money from good citizens who would probably choose to give to someone more needy had they been informed of his true economic status.

Thus, this man places his comfort above the basic needs of others. And when people like you repeat this drivel you help victimize those that are in real need.

So with that in mind, fuck you.

Also, since you're in such a hurry to be a martyr, please be aware, you weren't worth down voting.

0
0

[–] GumbyTM ago 

Re: Paragraph one.

Utter drivel and nonsense based on nothing but fees and the .gov narrative.

Charity existed long before it was co opted by the government which gave people a moral out about caring for their fellow mankind. (This is the most insidious aspect of .gov 'charity' which is never discussed.)

On efficiency and waste, go ahead and name a government 'charity' that is more efficient than the Mormon food bank. I'll wait.

Re Paragraph 2:

Aren't you a good little statist determining what is a legitimate destination for people's charity all while bitching they don't give enough.

Also, stop trying to shift your feeble argument to religion now.

And regarding the little PM you sent me where you whine about the lack intelligent debate and how no one here adds to the discussion, all while decrying how you aren't trying to be a martyr..... fuck you still.

And finally, I'm now up voting you because you because it appears your purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.