Genuine Question for right-wing people regarding the handling of the poor that need food banks.

Author: RationalMadman
RM
Poverty
Capitalism
food banks
welfare

Posts

Total: 64
Topic's author
#1
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I am a huge supporter of food banks (I agree with the left-wing that in the ideal endgame they aren't needed but I am a fan of them for now in all societies that need them) and am curious about the core opposing stance that right-wingers have to everything from welfare through to charities like food banks.

If somebody is so poor they can't eat, they can't have the energy to do a good job at work, decreasing their productivity towards the nation's economy.

This means even a sheer sociopath should not mind people sparing some food and sanitary products to food-bank style charities to help out those with their backs against the wall, in particular in these times where even a commute can wreck their wealth.

This 'they are lazy' concept is bullshit. The vast majority of the severely poor are not lazy, they are perhaps ill-informed on money management that are now doomed due to that but they need help at times to even cope and have breathing room to feed themselves and/or families.

I ask to you, in your ideal solution to poverty without moving towards social democratic benefits, welfare etc how does the society eliminate brutally severe poverty where going severely hungry and without basic sanitary products is necessary for the poor to be able to afford their bills?

Food banks are supposed to cover when the welfare system is falling short on certain families, this question is about both and why the right-wing oppose them.
#2
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
I am a centrist (center right at the moment, but I fluctuate between left and right) but will answer with my thoughts. I do want to start by asking where you get the idea that people on the right are opposed to food banks though (as I have not heard of that accusation).

I'm not against charities that deal with food and water. I think that some level of government welfare can also be a good thing, but only on local levels.
Have it so that the taxes are collected and then awarded to charities in the local area based on how good of a job the charity did in the last year. If a charity does a great job they are given a better portion of the welfare money, if they do a poor job they are given a smaller portion.

By keeping it so the taxes are collected, controlled, and distributed on a more local level it allows it so that it is easier for voters to see how things are working and thus they can make more informed votes.
If money isn't being handled properly then the people will know exactly who is to blame and some of them may very well know said person on a personal level.

If there is welfare money going directly to the people at all then there needs to be strict monitoring on who is getting this money, how long they are on welfare, etc. There also needs to be a clearly defined cut-off point and loopholes and welfare abuse must be accounted for. This is easier to fix if things are more local as well. An example of this is that there is a charity around where I live that helps families get welfare they are entitled to. There is a family I know where a woman took maternity leave and, a result of this (due to socioeconomic status) was that she would get a certain amount of welfare. She desired to eventually go back to work but the charity in question tried to push her to instead have another child as how the welfare was set up it would be more economically viable for her to have one more child and remain unemployed than to go back to work and take care of her family and contribute to the economy. These types of situations should not be possible. Getting a job should always be the better option and the system should be set up for people to get off welfare, not stay on it.

I also think that fixing the foster home situation in the country is tied to this, but that is a different topic (that is much more controversial) for a different day.
#3
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,889
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
I don't oppose any charity, only theft. I don't believe any significant number of people oppose a purely voluntary welfare system.
Topic's author
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Oh, I see. So you are fine with others helping the poor but never yourself.
#5
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,889
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
That isn't even close to what I said. Whether or not I agree with a goal, or have personally acted towards it has nothing to do with whether I'll tolerate the use of force or fraud.

I don't have to hate cotton clothing to hate slave plantations.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,020
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
My state pays me 3800 dollars a year in food assistance. All I have to do is say I am poor.

Most of the voters and taxpayers in my state are Democrats, so it feels great to steal from them.
#7
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I remember u braggin bout ur retirement account... U must do a lotta scheming to cultivate both the higher an lower states of society
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,020
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
Yep. If you want to steal from me you better have a serious game plan.
Topic's author
#9
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That isn't even close to what I said. Whether or not I agree with a goal, or have personally acted towards it has nothing to do with whether I'll tolerate the use of force or fraud.
Force is necessary to enforce the will of the populace (in democracy) or leadership (in autocracy) upon those that wish to circumvent the rules of the system.

Fraud is committed by the rich to tax-evade severely, regularly and at large. The poor-welfare fraud is mainly being used out of desperation to cope better. So, which fraud disgusts you more?
Topic's author
#10
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't have to hate cotton clothing to hate slave plantations
You do have to hate a government that does not blackmail/force slavers to cease their enslavement if others, to hate slavery.

Nice try at the red herring analogy, I am just too adept to fall for such rhetoric, I saw the flaw instantly.
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,020
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
So, which fraud disgusts you more?
No reason why you can't do both. In fact, tax fraud makes welfare fraud a hell of a lot easier.
Topic's author
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Greyparrot
That failed to answer the question it replied to.
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,020
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Sure it does. Defrauding the government is a defense against force. And justifiable. Defrauding Democrat tax payers through welfare fraud is just a bonus.

There's no logical reason why only Politicians in DC are able to Defraud tax payers. Everyone can play the game if smart enough.
#14
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,889
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
[ADOL:]That isn't even close to what I said. Whether or not I agree with a goal, or have personally acted towards it has nothing to do with whether I'll tolerate the use of force or fraud.
[RationalMadman:] Force is necessary to enforce the will of the populace (in democracy) or leadership (in autocracy) upon those that wish to circumvent the rules of the system.
Yes it is, it's right there in the definition of "enforce". Regardless of who does or intends to use force or deception, the only moral reason to use force or deception is in the protection of objective rights, i.e. to prevent or discourage the initiation of force or deception, i.e. aggressive force.

I have just violated the CoC by promoting violence BTW.


[RationalMadman:] Fraud is committed by the rich to tax-evade severely, regularly and at large. The poor-welfare fraud is mainly being used out of desperation to cope better. So, which fraud disgusts you more?
First, disgust is an emotion. Emotion belongs in the phase after fact-finding not before or during. Second, tax evasion is not fraud anymore than telling a mugger you forgot your wallet is fraud.


[ADOL:] I don't have to hate cotton clothing to hate slave plantations
[RationalMadman:] You do have to hate a government that does not blackmail/force slavers to cease their enslavement if others, to hate slavery.
Perhaps, but failure to prevent evil is not morally equivalent to evil.

[ADOL:] I don't have to hate cotton clothing to hate slave plantations
[RationalMadman:] Nice try at the red herring analogy, I am just too adept to fall for such rhetoric, I saw the flaw instantly.
Yes, perhaps you could use this as an example in your next lecture. Unfortunately the analogy is sound:

Person A: X is good, but using violence to achieve X is bad. [1]
Person B responds: Oh, I see. So you are fine with others pursuing X but never yourself. [2]

The only way the response is coherent is with the implicit assertion:
A person cannot value X unless they are willing to endorse using violence to achieve X. [3]

The counter-example for [3] is:
Here is X that we both value, but neither of us endorse using violence to get X.

In the original claim X is "helping the poor". The analogy replaces X with "cotton clothing", and plantations are an example of achieving cotton clothing through violence.

[Greyparrot:] Sure it does. Defrauding the government is a defense against force. And justifiable. Defrauding Democrat tax payers through welfare fraud is just a bonus.
I see you're violating the CoC provision against promoting criminal behavior, I'll join you and agree.
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,020
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I see you're violating the CoC provision against promoting criminal behavior, I'll join you and agree.
If a crime is committed in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it...
#16
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,731
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s not defrauding if the government is too moronic to close the loophole 
#17
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,731
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
I don’t know one person on the right who opposes the concept of Food Banks. I’ve volunteered at my Food Bank multiple times. 

Abusing the system though is inherently immoral. If you are capable of providing for yourself and choose not to, that’s harming other poor people.
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,020
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Working as intended.
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,020
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
If you are capable of providing for yourself and choose not to, that’s harming other poor people.
No poor people were harmed by me claiming to be a poor person. Poor people are a protected class, and I will adapt to survive.
Topic's author
#20
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
@TheMorningsStar
@ADreamOfLiberty
Okay, let me ask this differently since it seems the Right Wing members here do not oppose food banks.

In your ideal society, would welfare, taken from the most wealthy regardless of their greed and given the most desperate, be how the poor can eat and afford sanitary products or would food bank charities (taken from the most empathetic, regardless of wealth) be the way?

The left wing would prefer the former.
#21
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,731
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I think we’d support the 2nd. Currently, donating to charity brings you a tax break, so rich people do that anyways. It’s a far better strategy than forcing them to pay stuff.
Topic's author
#22
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
No, it isn't even close to being equal let alone better. They are a minority in votes.
#23
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
The second option would be ideal. Ideally, we shouldn't need almost any taxes for things, leaving it up to volunteerism and charities. One of the reasons I am centrist is because I don't hold to a strict ideal (which is why, as you will note, in my preferred system for the real world there are taxes for welfare).

I am still curious where you got the idea that the right was opposed to food banks though.
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,020
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
It's dehumanizing to tell poor people they are not a responsible member of the herd simply because they don't produce as much as wealthy people, everyone should be made to feel like they can contribute charity to the herd, even poor people.
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,020
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The left wing would prefer the former.
And this is why we are ruled by elites, because we have put the power and responsibility of charity into the hands of the elite rich.
#26
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
The left wing would prefer the former.
Can you explain your reasoning why?
What ethics/principles are behind the decision that in an ideal society the money for food banks would come from taxing the rich rather than through charitable donations?
Topic's author
#27
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Because that way the people prospering from/within the society are maintaining the poorest within it (who are working hard everyday for those rich people's corporate profit) are healthy and happy enough to keep working and living optimally.

The alternative is that the greediest leeches benefit from the society while the middle class end up having the lift the weight in the charities.
Topic's author
#28
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I am still curious where you got the idea that the right was opposed to food banks though.
Because the right-wing press that pushes the narrative that the poor are lazy, ungrateful welfare-grabbers is very easy to twist into an anti-foodbank narrative saying they are just enabling a parasitic lifestyle of the poor.

I have and do volunteer places and while Ilikepie says he's volunteered I can tell you that 4/5 workers in volunteering are heavily left-wing.
#29
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm sorry, but I don't see what principle(s) precisely you are holding to that guides your decision. You seem to have restated your position without going into the details of which principle(s) guide them.

Also, do you think that the volunteers in your area are mostly left-leaning due to location? I remember in a different thread just the other day I gave a link that showed that people in rural areas were more likely and consistently do volunteer work than people in urban areas. Combine that with studies that show that the most charitable people tend to be Republicans and it seems more like you are drawing a faulty conclusion due to your limited perspective.

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/resource/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/ (older study, I know, but still accurate from what I have seen)
"Republicans, in comparison, had comparatively few skinflints, and numerous serious donors—31 percent sharing at least $1,000 with charity, versus 17 percent among Democrats, and 20 percent among Independents."
#30
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,889
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
[RM:] In your ideal society, would welfare, taken from the most wealthy regardless of their greed and given the most desperate, be how the poor can eat and afford sanitary products or would food bank charities (taken from the most empathetic, regardless of wealth) be the way?
They wouldn't be taken, they would be given; and it would be predicted by empathy * wealth. Rich people do give more to charity because they have less quality of life to lose on account of it for any given level of empathy.