Re: The Education Function

KPJ (kpj@sics.se)
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:40:23 +0100

KPJ [kpj@sics.se] wrote:
|I for one have never donated one single monetary unit. And nobody I
|know do.
|(Where are these great spenders? I would like a donation. :)

<mark@unicorn.com>:
|Isn't it interesting that the people least likely to donate to charity are
|the "caring" lefties? They "care" too little to actually hand over their
|hard earned money, but instead want the rest of us to hand ours over.

It appears as if you assume I belong the "caring lefties". If you do, you are in error. I belong to neither cathegory.

|This isn't the first time someone has come up with this "but if the
|government didn't force me to I wouldn't get around to donating money to
|all the causes I care so much about" argument on the Net, because it seems
|to be one of the few half-rational arguments these people can come up with.

It is irrelevant that that question had appeared before.

The question *I* raised was another (albeit related) one:

"If the govt did not take money from the population and give part of that money to a handicapped person, then how would ve get the money to dehandicap verself?"

Postulates:

  1. I do not give money to beggars ("causes") today.
  2. If the State stopped taxing, (a) would still hold.
  3. People in general tend to be slow to change. Conclusion: IF people in general react as I do THEN (1) ve would get less resources ELSE (2) ve would not get less resources. Take (c) into the computation, and I conclude that (1) is the more probable outcome of the change.

Those who feel that situation (1) does not match their ethics might wish to address it. I have no opinion on that matter.

|Of course there's no rational argument for extending taxation to the rest
|of us just because they want Big Brother to come around and beat them up
|if they can't be bothered to hand over money.

It may be true, but the statement is not relevant to the current issue.