zlacker

Apathy is the only fair policy?

>>jimkle+(OP)
I am a bit apathetic towards giving generally wealthier people who made a bad financial choice a break, when weighed against all the different ways you could spend that money, yes.

>>jimkle+(OP)
Yes. For the government, apathy and inaction is always the best possible policy.

>>jimkle+(OP)
Maybe? That probably starts a definitional debate that isn't usually helpful. Is it apathetic to let nature, evolution, or markets do what they do best?

What is "fair" requires context. I could argue that nonintervention is fair or that a top-down, Marxist approach is fair depending on how "success" is defined.

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

>>nwiene+cd
> 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.

If you're saying all the different ways you could spend that money, then you're saying non-intervention for the wealthier people how made a bad financial choice, and yes-intervention for other ways in which the money could be spent, which again, is a decision on where to give limited resources.

I'm not saying I agree or don't agree with whether it would be more helpful to give it to those who have college debt or those in the US who are without a home or frankly those here in Kenya (where I am now) who if don't have money, might starve to death.

Moreover that each decision can be judged.

> 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.

If we approach it from this side, I agree. Non-intervention, or not giving any limited resources to anyone, is the most fair approach and then we can evaluate whether it's fair the position in which those people are. Yet I don't know how realistic this is, to withhold all resources from everyone.

>>golerg+vd
Have you lived in a country where the citizens believe that the government is overall apathetic to their situations? It often doesn't create a utopia, but rather a lot of cynicism and reliance on family support networks. I'm an American currently in East Africa and I imagine many if not most people here would say the government doesn't care about them and does very little for them. So what ends up happening is that since there is little government/social welfare programs, people rely on family welfare. And well, if you don't have a rich family, your life can be really really really hard, if you even survive.

Your family doesn't have money? No food. No service at the emergency room. Heck, even no water.

I think there's a balance and that people who want more apathy and inaction may not realize what it's like when that's actually the case.

>>_heimd+qF
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.

>>_heimd+cE
I personally don't like the word "fair" very much because of how context-dependent it is. It's often used in "that's unfair" by a person who feels attacked or aggrieved in some way. It seems to have such a subjective quality to it, and yet can be claimed to be objective.

It actually reminds me of an essay I wrote years ago called "The Subjective Adjective" [0] (wow, I wrote it 10 years ago!) The premise is that we take how we subjectively feel and then transform it into an objective statement on reality, overlooking how subjective it really is.

Anyways, I agree some of these conversations seem to devolve into definitional debates that may not get at the real point.

I think I also replied to a different comment thinking it was you—identity and conversational continuation, an aspect of context so often hidden/lacking on HN.

In general, I agree with you that a policy could be equal/fair as in giving everyone an equal amount of X, and that the unfair part is where people are in life. I actually liked the idea of charging a flat tax across the US and then having people voluntarily pay the tax for those who couldn't pay it, because I agree, I would see the tax as fair but the wealth inequality as unfair and one way to rectify that is for people to voluntarily rebalance the wealth. But yeah, I'm sure tons of people would see that as unfair.

I really don't know lol.

[0]: https://www.jimkleiber.com/the-subjective-adjective/

>>jimkle+Fp1
If we're considering tax changed, I'd love to see a government run like a kickstarter. Government departments' role should be designing programs, estimate costs, and pitching the program to the public.

For taxes, the government provides estimates or recommendations on what a household would owe but its voluntary. You throe your money into programs that you want to see funded.

It could go horribly wrong, but so can centralized planning. At least this way the people are responsible for it either way.

>>jimkle+mm1
> 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.