you mean because better info gets to the market about what people want if they spend their luxury money on goods and services?
Conversation
Replying to
. No, because it frames redistribution as Randian burden freely borne rather than paying society back for use of shared resources
1
3
Replying to
no, that's what taxation is. Redistribution is very different. Charity to a hobo is not paying for use of shared resources like roads
1
Replying to
Nope, you're forgetting opportunity costs, social costs borne by others etc. Redistribution has a basis in payback as for roads
1
1
Replying to
you're really really going to have to start actually explaining what you mean here for me to believe it at all.
2
Replying to
like give me some actual examples of what you mean by philanthropy compared to the government interacting in the same field
1
2
Replying to
See Jacobin article I started with. Idea of universal healthcare being funded by charity. Godawful idea rife with moral hazard.
2
Replying to
as is universal health care funded by the government! Unless you suddenly think markets are evilz
2
Replying to
Yes, but it at least eliminates some kinship biases, tragedy of commons etc.
1
Replying to
yes government certainly never suffers from those issues
1
1

