You fabricated ludicrously engineered, utterly ridiculous black and white fantasies in some misguided attempt to create unimpeachable examples out of thin air.
We're on two pages of this now and you still have not one real world scenario to apply your Neo-Puritan, Capitalist ideology to.
So, just to be clear, you believe that the reasons why someone needs (insert finite resource here) and their history of irresponsibility regarding (insert finite resource here) should have zero impact on future granting of (insert finite resource here) to them?
Here is a reddit AMA that discusses fraud and abuse of the system. Issues such as reselling food stamps, underreporting income to get more benefits, etc. Do you agree with what the agent did in countering such fraud or do you continue to believe that as long as they have a stated need for the benefits they should just get them regardless.
Steve, try this. Instead of thinking about something as a "finite resource", think of it as "if everyone on earth consumed as much as humanly possible, we'd still have some left over".
You know, like oxygen now. It comes out like this:
You believe that the reasons why someone needs (something that if everyone on earth consumed as much as humanly possible, we'd still have some left over) and their history of irresponsibility regarding (something that if everyone on earth consumed as much as humanly possible, we'd still have some left over) should have zero impact on future granting of (something that if everyone on earth consumed as much as humanly possible, we'd still have some left over) to them?
This is the entire premise of a post-scarcity society. That's the entire point. The answer is yes. Someone should be granted as much air as they need. Someone should be granted as much food as they need. As more resources become non-scarce, insert more of them into your formula above.
We still should not waste things. Even with non-scarce resources there is no excuse for wasting them.
Clean drinking water is a non-scarce resource in the developed world while it is simultaneously a scarce resource in the undeveloped world. Is wasting clean drinking water in the undeveloped world equivalent to wasting it in the developed world because it is a non-scarce resource in part of the world? If we embark on a plan to bring clean drinking water systems to the undeveloped world should we distribute these systems regardless of the local sustainability of said systems? If we build these systems and the local populace actively works against them at what point do we throw up our hands and say, "I guess you people just don't want clean drinking water?"
Or we could change the question from individuals to governments. If we give a foreign country a ton of food and they turn around and sell it rather than use it to feed their hungry people at what point do we stop giving them free food?
That is my point, even if the resource is non-scarce at what point do we look at the waste and say "no more" to the waster?
As for a reddit AMA as an authoritative source of statistical data: LO-fucking-L.
I don't know if statistics on welfare fraud in the US have ever been comprehensively gathered, but I remember seeing a statistic for the UK of about 2%. Two percent. At that point it's more expensive to investigate than to just let them get away with it.
Which is what happened in Florida when they spent tens of millions on a new drug screening program for welfare recipients: they caught TWO PEOPLE. In the entire state. At a savings (by depriving two addicts of their benefits) of less than one percent of what they spent to catch those two people.
The problem I have with citing these real world examples is I never know which site to use when linking. I also prefer to keep the discussion meta to avoid charges of racism and classism.
Well OK no I wouldn't cite libertarian brain trusts.
The issues in Africa generally have to do with regional governmental corruption if I recall correctly. That's definitely an issue to be addressed but isn't really a very good excuse for throwing our hands up and saying aid isn't worth the effort. The types, volume, and implementation methodology of the aid given should also be up for discussion. We make a lot of extremely laser focused, sometimes half-hearted efforts I think.
What it comes down to is basically what Luke said. There is enough food in the world that every single person alive could eat more than their fill every day, and have more left over. It comes down to shipping logistics and bullshit cultural constructs (you call them markets) for the most part. Oxygen has the benefit of, you know, diffusing.
Nestle is doing a really good job of trying to stop the whole "free water from rain" problem with capitalizing on water. I'm sure they'll work on oxygen next.
Yes, logistics. While food is abundant on a global scale it is not always abundant at the local level. At the local level, is there a point where you turn away the waster?
The local food pantry has enough food for 200 families a week. They feed 180 families. Suddenly, a waster shows up and starts taking food equivalent to feed seven families. Do you cap them at one family worth of food or just keep giving them extra?
He's not asking about logistics. He's asking at what point does the political will and cultural focus say, like a bartender to an alcoholic, "I'm cutting you off?"
He's doing that coupled with absurd caricatures that don't exist in practical reality. Why establish policy for absurdly exaggerated scenarios pre-emptively?
I made the absurd caricatures because you refuse to answer the meta policy level version of the question. Policy is often discussed at the meta level, it is called planning. You know, have a plan ready before you need it so when the need arises you are ready.
You started out with absurdity. The governmental bodies who have taken the time to quantify welfare and food stamp fraud have found that IT BARELY EXISTS. The anecdotes you hear from disgruntled state workers are not statistics. This means your concerns about "wasters" are unsupported and founded in prejudice.
Now if you want to talk African warlords, that's one thing. What's our excuse in the US?
I think it comes down to how do you establish policy. Do you write laws first to punish those who waste their allotted food, or do you write them to feed the hungry, and then we either modify the law based on proven statistics and/or letting it be figured out more locally?
Great Muppet except I don't care about welfare fraud. I am not interested in something that specific. I am interested in a meta level discussion dealing with finite aid resources and those who waste them. At what point do you shut them off or is there even a point where you would say enough waste, no more finite aid resource for you. Is there even a point where you don't shut them off but instead simply stick to their allotted ration of the finite resource? Force them to mend their wasteful ways by not replacing their wasted portion of the finite resource?
Steve, your questions and examples are mind-boggling.
If everyone had access to as much food as they needed on a daily basis, for free, how would a government start stockpiling food to sell elsewhere? It makes no sense. In a post-food-scarcity society, food is as cheap as air or water. There is no market for the freely available food when the effective cost and value is zero.
Actually, some companies bottle tap water and sell it, but that doesn't mean everyone else has less water. It just means the some people will pay extra for convenience. Drought situations are different, of course, but the new scarcity of water isn't caused by people wasting water, but by the lack of rain.
At least you admit we don't live in a post scarcity society.
I don't think I once claimed that we are currently in an implemented post scarcity culture, so... what?
Dude, you are fucking obtuse about this. Casually and arrogantly obtuse. It's actually disgraceful how you almost seem proud of your ignorance regarding this entire concept.
Comments
We're on two pages of this now and you still have not one real world scenario to apply your Neo-Puritan, Capitalist ideology to.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1c7h00/
You know, like oxygen now. It comes out like this:
You believe that the reasons why someone needs (something that if everyone on earth consumed as much as humanly possible, we'd still have some left over) and their history of irresponsibility regarding (something that if everyone on earth consumed as much as humanly possible, we'd still have some left over) should have zero impact on future granting of (something that if everyone on earth consumed as much as humanly possible, we'd still have some left over) to them?
This is the entire premise of a post-scarcity society. That's the entire point. The answer is yes. Someone should be granted as much air as they need. Someone should be granted as much food as they need. As more resources become non-scarce, insert more of them into your formula above.
Clean drinking water is a non-scarce resource in the developed world while it is simultaneously a scarce resource in the undeveloped world. Is wasting clean drinking water in the undeveloped world equivalent to wasting it in the developed world because it is a non-scarce resource in part of the world? If we embark on a plan to bring clean drinking water systems to the undeveloped world should we distribute these systems regardless of the local sustainability of said systems? If we build these systems and the local populace actively works against them at what point do we throw up our hands and say, "I guess you people just don't want clean drinking water?"
Or we could change the question from individuals to governments. If we give a foreign country a ton of food and they turn around and sell it rather than use it to feed their hungry people at what point do we stop giving them free food?
That is my point, even if the resource is non-scarce at what point do we look at the waste and say "no more" to the waster?
Not one.
I don't know if statistics on welfare fraud in the US have ever been comprehensively gathered, but I remember seeing a statistic for the UK of about 2%. Two percent. At that point it's more expensive to investigate than to just let them get away with it.
Which is what happened in Florida when they spent tens of millions on a new drug screening program for welfare recipients: they caught TWO PEOPLE. In the entire state. At a savings (by depriving two addicts of their benefits) of less than one percent of what they spent to catch those two people.
Here is another real world example: http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-sorry-record-of-foreign-aid-in-africa
The problem I have with citing these real world examples is I never know which site to use when linking. I also prefer to keep the discussion meta to avoid charges of racism and classism.
The issues in Africa generally have to do with regional governmental corruption if I recall correctly. That's definitely an issue to be addressed but isn't really a very good excuse for throwing our hands up and saying aid isn't worth the effort. The types, volume, and implementation methodology of the aid given should also be up for discussion. We make a lot of extremely laser focused, sometimes half-hearted efforts I think.
What it comes down to is basically what Luke said. There is enough food in the world that every single person alive could eat more than their fill every day, and have more left over. It comes down to shipping logistics and bullshit cultural constructs (you call them markets) for the most part. Oxygen has the benefit of, you know, diffusing.
Nestle is doing a really good job of trying to stop the whole "free water from rain" problem with capitalizing on water. I'm sure they'll work on oxygen next.
The local food pantry has enough food for 200 families a week. They feed 180 families. Suddenly, a waster shows up and starts taking food equivalent to feed seven families. Do you cap them at one family worth of food or just keep giving them extra?
Oh I forgot, 9/11.
Now if you want to talk African warlords, that's one thing. What's our excuse in the US?
If everyone had access to as much food as they needed on a daily basis, for free, how would a government start stockpiling food to sell elsewhere? It makes no sense. In a post-food-scarcity society, food is as cheap as air or water. There is no market for the freely available food when the effective cost and value is zero.
Actually, some companies bottle tap water and sell it, but that doesn't mean everyone else has less water. It just means the some people will pay extra for convenience. Drought situations are different, of course, but the new scarcity of water isn't caused by people wasting water, but by the lack of rain.
Dude, you are fucking obtuse about this. Casually and arrogantly obtuse. It's actually disgraceful how you almost seem proud of your ignorance regarding this entire concept.