Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (10688)	2/2/2006 9:12:18 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541857

The recipient of government benefits may find them to be a necessity, but than the tips may be a necessity to the waitress. (To be fair one particular tip or even tips from one particular customer are not likely to be a necessity.) But the issue wasn't the practical consequences, or even the morality of not tipping or not giving benefits. The consequences may be different. Arguably because of that the morality of the action may be different. But the actions themselves, while differing in degree, are essentially the same. Earlier I used an analogy of giving someone $10 a day, having them become dependent on the $10 and than ending the transfer. What if instead of a poor dependent person, the $10 a day was going to Bill Gates? How does the question of whether or not I am taking from someone depend on the wealth of the recipient of my money? It doesn't. Other things, maybe more important things might depend on the wealth of the recipient. You could argue that it would be wrong to suddenly cut of the dependent person, and not wrong to cut off Bill Gates, but in neither case am I taking anything from anyone. Tim

To: JohnM who wrote (10688)	2/2/2006 9:31:11 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541857

These are not "tips"; they are essential parts of simply getting by. First of all, tips are essential to the people who earn a living that way. But that's neither here nor there... Whether or not the money we give to others is essential to them or not, we are still giving them something for whatever reason we choose to give. It is ours to give. It's not theirs. Not giving it is not taking anything that is theirs. If you still think we are taking by not giving, please explain your definitions of "theirs" and "ours" and "give" and "take" because I can't make those words work your way. This is a very simple concept. We teach these four words and their associated concepts to very small children. I think you look at medicaid as something like a gratuity, a gift to a charity. Don't read too much into the tip example. I was merely trying to come up with a simple theirs/ours/give/take illustration. But I do think of welfare as a government imposed redistribution that formalizes and mandates charity. That's the key problem with welfare. Formalizing charity that way reframes it as an entitlement causing people to think that it's owed. helps others in difficulty and enhances our humanity. I'm all for helping others in difficulty and enhancing our humanity. I couldn't me more supportive of that. I just think that doing it the way we do it has produced a lot of costly intended consequences. Don't assume because I don't think that some people are entitled to the fruits of other people's labors doesn't mean I am opposed to providing for those who can't provide for themselves.