Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ecurb]

The country is not a collective, and whatever wealth may be found in it does not belong to any collective. It belongs to the persons who created it.

A "share" is an individual portion of the cost or yield of some collectively owned good. Since personal problems are not collective problems (by definition), no one has any "share" in it except the person whose problem it is.

Well, of course you are, as is every robber, thief and mugger walking the streets.


As I said, I'm happy to pay my share of the costs of government services from which I benefit. I have no "share" in any other endeavors the government may undertake.

Waaah! Poor GE has to pay for some services from which he does not persanally benefit! How horribly oppressive!?

The government is a large enterprise. Of course they are going to spend some money on causes of which we disapprove. Perhaps I don't want to spend money on wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Too bad! The voters have decided that my tax dollars will be spent there.

Perhaps I have no children and object to spending money on public education. Too bad. The tax-paying public has decided to spend money on public schools.

Perhaps I want to defund the police (that way all the muggers that are exactly like IRS agents could make a better living). Too bad. I don't get the ultimate say in the matter.

The basic notion is that we all benefit from a nation secure from terrorist attacks, from an educated public that drives the economy, from elderly people that aren't starving because they get Social Security, and from policing which protects the very capitalist system which GE supports.

GE claims that we are not a "collective" -- but how are we going to decide to spend tax dollars except collectively? We could defund the police, or public education, but only if we make a collective decision to do so. I can only hope that no such collective decision will be forthcoming, and that GE Morton will decide that paying for other parents' children's education DOES benefit him, and everyone else in society.

[GE Morton]

The government shouldn’t. The individual should. Government is thievery.

Are you suggesting that government may not rob people, but individuals may?

???

[GE Morton]

I don't see that a line is crossed. It's all about deciding what is fair. It seems you have no problem paying taxes to fund a fire station. In a sense, this could be said to be unfair to someone who prefers to keep the tax money and take the risk of losing their house in a fire. But, we decide that the risk of fire is rather random. It could happen to anyone, so we should protect everyone. When a fire occurs, we don't stop to decide if the owner took proper precautions to prevent the fire before deicing to put it out. May I assume you don't believe fire protection is unfair?

When someone is homeless, though, you (evidently) presume that this is a reflection of poor character and that they are a victim of their own laziness. I submit that homelessness could happen to anyone. Just as the fire may be more like based on the actions of the homeowner, so homelessness can be a greater risk based on the choices and behavior of the individual. But either way, trouble can find you. You can be hit with a mental or physical illness or lose your job unexpectedly. Just as we don't stop to judge the actions of the homeowner before putting out the fire, so we should not try to judge the homeless man before acting to end the problem of his being homeless.

Sorry, but that analogy doesn't work. The benefits of a fire department are public, not private. People benefit from fire departments even if they never have a fire, by reducing their risk of fire --- by extinguishing a fire in my neighbor's house before it can spread to mine. Usually, firefighters can rarely save a burning house from serious damage (that's why we carry fire insurance), but they can prevent the fire from spreading. Similarly with police departments --- though you may never need to call a cop, your risks of becoming a crime victim are substantially reduced if the criminal justice system effectively removes criminals from the streets (which it does not, in many US cities these days).

That my neighbor becomes homeless, on the other hand, does not in the least increase my risks of becoming homeless, and providing him with a house does not in the least reduce that risk.

Fire protection, police services, national defense, and a few others are "public goods." Housing, health care, etc., are private goods.

[AverageBozo]

The government shouldn’t. The individual should. Government is thievery.

Are you suggesting that government may not rob people, but individuals may?

???

No.

I’m saying that what should or shouldn’t happen to avoid an existing problem is just pie in the sky. It solves nothing. Re-read my questions and take another stab at it.

[GE Morton]

The government is a large enterprise. Of course they are going to spend some money on causes of which we disapprove. Perhaps I don't want to spend money on wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Too bad! The voters have decided that my tax dollars will be spent there.

Perhaps I have no children and object to spending money on public education. Too bad. The tax-paying public has decided to spend money on public schools.

Perhaps I want to defund the police (that way all the muggers that are exactly like IRS agents could make a better living). Too bad. I don't get the ultimate say in the matter.

You seem to have a hard time distinguishing moral arguments from legal ones, and are apparently unaware of the ad populum fallacy.

The basic notion is that we all benefit from a nation secure from terrorist attacks, from an educated public that drives the economy, from elderly people that aren't starving because they get Social Security, and from policing which protects the very capitalist system which GE supports.

You're also ignoring the distinction between public goods (e.g., national defense, criminal justice systems) and private goods (food, clothing, housing, transportation, health care, etc.).

GE claims that we are not a "collective" -- but how are we going to decide to spend tax dollars except collectively?

You have the cart before the horse. First we decide what is the proper --- feasible and morally defensible --- role of government. Then we decide how to pay for it. Delivering free lunches to everyone who has a vote and has his hand out is not among the former.

[Gertie]

Let’s say I cannot afford to buy milk for my children; if I leave the supermarket with milk, thanks to the services of a government program, how will I be able to pay taxes in the amount of the milk-service I received? How does the milk program not go broke?

The government has no business supplying anyone with milk, or any other private good, precisely because it can only do so by taking the money by force from the people who earned it --- i.e., stealing it.

If you can't afford milk for your children you should:

1. Not bring children into the world unless you can support them;

2. Improve your skills so you can start a business or earn a salary that will enable you to support them;

3. Appeal to family, friends, or charities for assistance. If you are seen as deserving someone will help you.

Robbing someone at gunpoint, or having the government do it, is not a morally acceptable solution to your problem.

Listen to yourself GE. You're a smart bloke, but if this is where your moral theory gets you, you've gone horribly wrong somewhere.

[Ecurb]

You seem to have a hard time distinguishing moral arguments from legal ones, and are apparently unaware of the ad populum fallacy.


You're also ignoring the distinction between public goods (e.g., national defense, criminal justice systems) and private goods (food, clothing, housing, transportation, health care, etc.).



You have the cart before the horse. First we decide what is the proper --- feasible and morally defensible --- role of government. Then we decide how to pay for it. Delivering free lunches to everyone who has a vote and has his hand out is not among the former.

Your distinction between "private goods" and "public goods" is mere prevarication. Is education a "private good" or a "public good"? I't's hard to say. I'd suggest it's both. How about housing (the subject of this thread). Homelessness creates public problems, including (but not limited to): pollution (proper bathroom and washing facilities are unavailable), litter, dangerous areas of town, etc. Surely it is a public good to reduce homelessness, and thus clean up our rivers and streets. How do you propose we work for this public good?

How about health care? Surely (given the pandemic) vaccinating everyone and thus creating a herd immunity is a public good as well as a private one.

You are the one putting the cart before the horse. You have decided the proper role of government, and don't want to pay for anything outside its aegis. I've also decided what is the proper role of government and want to pay (as well as wanting you to pay) for anything I decide is within its proper aegis. You want to pay for National Defense; I want to pay for Medicare and Social Security. Either can be considered a "public good". Your distinction is simply a red herring.

[AverageBozo]

Fire protection, police services, national defense, and a few others are "public goods." Housing, health care, etc., are private goods.

Housing and healthcare are public goods.

Lack of housing predisposes a person to poor health. Poor health makes a person more susceptible to Covid as well as many other diseases. The healthcare of others is important to me because I want to be surrounded by healthy people with healthy immune systems who got their vaccinations for communicable diseases.

[GE Morton]

Your distinction between "private goods" and "public goods" is mere prevarication.

You seem fond of that word, yet don't know it's meaning.

"Public goods" and "private goods" are well-defined and ubiquitous in economics. A "public good" is one which is non-excludable (non-payers cannot be prevented from using it) and non-rivalrous (use by one person doesn't reduce its utility for others). Goods which do not satisfy those criteria are private goods.

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html

Is education a "private good" or a "public good"? I't's hard to say. I'd suggest it's both.

I agree. Education yields both public and private benefits. But the lion's share of the benefits are private and thus should be born by the beneficiaries (primarily the person educated and employers who need workers with particular skills). The classical argument for universal public education (championed by Madison, Jefferson, and many others following the American Revolution) was that democracies require an educated citizenry --- people cannot wisely govern themselves if they are ignorant. Unfortunately, despite spending 12 years or more in government schools at enormous cost to the public, many of them remain ignorant.

How about housing (the subject of this thread). Homelessness creates public problems, including (but not limited to): pollution (proper bathroom and washing facilities are unavailable), litter, dangerous areas of town, etc. Surely it is a public good to reduce homelessness, and thus clean up our rivers and streets. How do you propose we work for this public good?

No, "homelessness" doesn't create any of those problems. Some homeless people may create some of them, but they would create them even if they were not homeless, and housed people create them also. Being homeless should not be a crime, but neither should it be accepted as an excuse for crime.

A year or so ago a US Federal Appeals Court ruled that cities could not enforce ordinances prohibiting camping or sleeping on public property unless the city provided some other place the homeless could "legally be." "Sleeping is a biological necessity," the court said. The US Supreme Court declined to review that ruling. Most cities have interpreted the ruling to mean that cities must provide enough shelter beds to accommodate their homeless before they can enforce anti-camping ordinances. But the ruling does not explicitly require that; cities could satisfy the ruling by providing a tract of undeveloped land (which most larger cities will already own), supply it with water and porta-potties, and allow unrestricted public camping thereon; thereby providing a place the homeless can "legally be." Charities concerned with the problems of the homeless could set up booths or portable buildings and offer their services to those interested. Such a solution would be cheaper than subsidizing shelter beds, and far cheaper than building "free" housing for anyone who becomes homeless (especially with the "moral hazard" that would invite).

How about health care? Surely (given the pandemic) vaccinating everyone and thus creating a herd immunity is a public good as well as a private one.

I agree. But there is a difference between public health and private health. The former term originally denoted communicable diseases, particularly those vectored through public media, such as public water supplies and the air (cholera, malaria, yellow fever, etc.). The US Public Health Service was established in 1912 to deal with those diseases, and was a true public good. The term "public health" has now been broadened to embrace virtually all ailments and injuries, most of which are strictly private, affecting no one but the patient.

You are the one putting the cart before the horse. You have decided the proper role of government, and don't want to pay for anything outside its aegis. I've also decided what is the proper role of government and want to pay (as well as wanting you to pay) for anything I decide is within its proper aegis. You want to pay for National Defense; I want to pay for Medicare and Social Security. Either can be considered a "public good". Your distinction is simply a red herring.

"Putting the cart before the horse" is assuming a certain level and reach of taxes, then deciding upon what to spend it. You decide the latter first, then decide how much tax is needed and who should pay it.

And, no, Medicare and Social Security are not public goods, whatever you may "consider" them to be. They don't satisfy the definition. On the other hand, those programs are not free lunches, either --- they are insurance programs pre-paid by workers and their employers (though Medicare is mostly a free lunch --- payroll taxes and premiums cover only about 40% of the costs). Defense is a public good.

[GE Morton]

Housing and healthcare are public goods.

Sorry:

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html

[GE Morton]

Robbing someone at gunpoint, or having the government do it, is not a morally acceptable solution to your problem.

Listen to yourself GE. You're a smart bloke, but if this is where your moral theory gets you, you've gone horribly wrong somewhere.

Well, some moral arguments against that statement of mine would be welcome, Gertie.

[AverageBozo]

Housing and healthcare are public goods.

Sorry:

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html

I was not following the specific definition posited by economists. Mea culpa.

[Belindi]

I would be a criminal if that was the only way I could feed and house myself and my family.

[GE Morton]

I would be a criminal if that was the only way I could feed and house myself and my family.

That would never be the "only way" you could feed yourself & family.

[Ecurb]

Your distinction between "private goods" and "public goods" is mere prevarication.

You seem fond of that word, yet don't know it's meaning.

"Public goods" and "private goods" are well-defined and ubiquitous in economics. A "public good" is one which is non-excludable (non-payers cannot be prevented from using it) and non-rivalrous (use by one person doesn't reduce its utility for others). Goods which do not satisfy those criteria are private goods.

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html

.

I know what prevarication means. So do you, apparently, since you constantly prevaricate. One example is your link defining public and private goods, from the dubiously entitled "Library of Economics and Liberty". Less biased websites offer less biased definitions. Here's one: https://theinvestorsbook.com/public-goo ... goods.html

According to this website, public goods include those provided by the government -- which would include both defense and medicare.

YOu prevaricate because the distinction between public and private goods is NOT clearly delineated, as I argued regarding homelessness. The public good of clean rivers is compromised when homeless people camp along the river and use it as a sewer. But what else can they do? They don't have any proper bathroom facilities. It would be silly to call normal bodily funtions a "crime" given the inevitable circumstance of homelessness. Like sleeping, defecating is a biological necessity.

"Putting the cart before the horse" is assuming a certain level and reach of taxes, then deciding upon what to spend it. You decide the latter first, then decide how much tax is needed and who should pay it.

And, no, Medicare and Social Security are not public goods, whatever you may "consider" them to be. They don't satisfy the definition. On the other hand, those programs are not free lunches, either --- they are insurance programs pre-paid by workers and their employers (though Medicare is mostly a free lunch --- payroll taxes and premiums cover only about 40% of the costs). Defense is a public good.

Defense may or may not be a "public good". How much good did our Afghani excursion do us? How about Viet Nam? On the other hand, medicare (most people think) does us a lot of good -- it provides decent medical care to the elderly. Of course both are defined as "public goods" by the website to which I linked, however much GE or the "Library of Economics and Liberty" may disagree.