zlacker

>>tedsan+(OP)
This is so much money with which we could actually solve problems in the world. maybe even stop wars which break out because of scarcity issues.

maybe i am getting to old or to friendly to humans, but it's staggering to me how the priorities are for such things.

>>deknos+6a1
For less than this same price tag, we could’ve eliminated student loan debt for ~20 million Americans. It would in turn open a myriad number of opportunities, like owning a home and/or feeling more comfortable starting a family. It would stimulate the economy in predictable ways.

Instead we gave a small number of people all of this money for a moonshot in a state where they squabble over who’s allowed to use which bathroom and if I need an abortion I might die.

>>CSSer+xk1
The problem with allowing student debt to rack up to these levels and then cancelling it is that it would embolden universities to ask even higher tuition. A second problem is that not all students get the benefit, some already paid off their debts or a large part of it. It would be unfair to them.

>>visarg+YA1
Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair.

And there could be a change in the law that allows people to forgive student debt in personal bankruptcy, and that could make sure higher tuition doesnt happen.

>>jimkle+TC1
> Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair.

I don't think that holds for a policy of non-intervention. People usually don't like that solution, especially when considering welfare programs, but it is fair to give no one assistance in the sense that everyone was treated equally/fairly.

Now its a totally different question whether its fair that some people are in this position today. The answer is almost certainly no, but that doesn't have a direct impact on whether an intervention today is fair or not.

>>_heimd+WZ1
Apathy is the only fair policy?

>>jimkle+8W2
Yes. For the government, apathy and inaction is always the best possible policy.

>>golerg+D93
I wish more people still held this view. When in doubt a government should avoid acting for fear of unintended consequences.

>>_heimd+yB3
Government is just a collection of people, collection of unknown neighbors. Action can lead to unintended consequences, but so can inaction. Someone is bleeding on the street, do you help? If you help, you might get HIV, if they were attacked the attacker might come after you, the person might even attack you. If you don't help, they might bleed out on the street, they might have permanent damage, or something else.

Do you act or do you not act?

Both have unintended, often unpredictable consequences.

>>jimkle+ui4
> Government is just a collection of people, collection of unknown neighbors.

I don't think that's an accurate comparison. None of the politicians in Washington are my neighbors, the closes one lives about 300 miles away but he is never actually home. Those politicians have an extreme amount of control over my life, well beyond what seems reasonable given how disconnected we are.

> Do you act or do you not act?

That varies a lot, but context is everything. If I see someone bleeding out, yes I would help. I generally have basic first aid on me including a tourniquet and chest seals. If I have open cuts on my hands and no gloves I'd have to consider the risk of infection, but if someone is likely to die I think I would take the risk (you never know until you're in the situation though).

If someone is attacked on the street, again yes I'd likely act. Context still matters, if I'm 30 feet away and the person has a gun I'd be of no use unless I'm also armed, and even then I'd have to draw before they saw me. If someone is getting beat up, mugged, even stabbed, sure I'd jump in. I think of have a really hard time living with the knowledge that I watched someone get attacked or murdered and did nothing.