**** Elections thread *****

[spoonitnow]

wut?

Slums happen BECAUSE there is no welfare. We don't have slums in the UK, and as best I know they don't exist in USA, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal... the list of countries with slums will be very similar to the list of countries that have no basic welfare, places like Mexico, Brazil, Kenya, Bangladesh, India... do you suppose this is a coincidence?

The only way to make a slum no longer a slum is to demolish it, and you can only do that when there's no people living there.

I don't know if that correlation would be meaningful in a regression (it probably wouldn't be), but I do know that economic theory describes why welfare is very unlikely to cause increasing prosperity.

I want to interject with the following:

There are are lot of different types of welfare, and there are lots of different types of incentives that can come along with those different types. A safety net for people who are in a shitty situation that's not necessarily (or completely) their own fault is one thing. Providing incentives for people to continue depending on welfare that are larger than the incentives to become a productive member of society is something different.

While I think that the former should be provided by charity instead of forced taxation, it's important to note the differences. Most people are much more okay with the former than the latter.

[wufwugy]

I want to interject with the following:

There are are lot of different types of welfare, and there are lots of different types of incentives that can come along with those different types. A safety net for people who are in a shitty situation that's not necessarily (or completely) their own fault is one thing. Providing incentives for people to continue depending on welfare that are larger than the incentives to become a productive member of society is something different.

While I think that the former should be provided by charity instead of forced taxation, it's important to note the differences. Most people are much more okay with the former than the latter.

We all say we want welfare for those who need it; what we get is welfare for those who don't need it.

As far as I can tell, charity has the same incentive problems as welfare except in that charities are freely chosen which makes them much more responsive to needed change. Even so, there are a lot of charity programs for people who use those programs to maintain the lifestyle that makes people want to help them in the first place.

Charity is probably good for children and the disabled. This can still create incentive problems, but it *might* be better than otherwise. I'm not sure. In my estimation, the problem faced by people like children neglected by their parents can't be solved with just good charity (or welfare, for those who like that idea). It would need a sufficiently decentralized government and sufficiently moral community where the neglectful parents could be deterred from their neglect without that causing systemic harm. Doing that type of thing with a powerful central government is a terrible idea because the people of a community then have very little say in what happens in that community, but it can be a good idea if the people of the community have enough say in what happens.

[wufwugy]

We all say we want welfare for those who need it; what we get is welfare for those who don't need it.

As far as I can tell, charity has the same incentive problems as welfare except in that charities are freely chosen which makes them much more responsive to needed change. Even so, there are a lot of charity programs for people who use those programs to maintain the lifestyle that makes people want to help them in the first place.

Charity is probably good for children and the disabled. This can still create incentive problems, but it *might* be better than otherwise. I'm not sure. In my estimation, the problem faced by people like children neglected by their parents can't be solved with just good charity (or welfare, for those who like that idea). It would need a sufficiently decentralized government and sufficiently moral community where the neglectful parents could be deterred from their neglect without that causing systemic harm. Doing that type of thing with a powerful central government is a terrible idea because the people of a community then have very little say in what happens in that community, but it can be a good idea if the people of the community have enough say in what happens.

I'll note that this flat out might not be possible given our level of technology. Centralization, totalitarianism, and a perpetual class of the fucked may be an inevitable consequence of enough technology.

[spoonitnow]

I'll note that this flat out might not be possible given our level of technology. Centralization, totalitarianism, and a perpetual class of the fucked may be an inevitable consequence of enough technology.

Along the lines of what you mentioned here, any ideal solution is largely outside of our grasp.

On a somewhat simpler point, I prefer the use of the charity model over taxation mainly because it isn't theft at gunpoint, but also because it creates something closer to a free market of charities where there is competition, etc., leading to an upward pressure of performance. This generally leads to less waste than government-managed funds, etc.