[bubtubgub]

> That's just crushing for people that have done everything right and are trying to save for a downpayment on their first home, for some runway to do a startup, for their children's education, for their retirement, or to help take care of their aging parents. No thanks!

I don't think you really understand what 'crushing' means. A household of two-well employed adults each making, on average, much more than the median person, having to pay 15-20k more is not 'crushing'. A single mother working 2 minimum wage jobs, barely able to afford food, forget health insurance for herself, if she can get it for her children, while social support is being eroded - that's crushing. The millions of homeless people, including millions of children - that's crushing. The kind of ignorance and egoism that comes with living a cushy life, having no problem with walking over the people below you just so that the softness of your condition isn't threatened is amazing.

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of."

- Confucius

[maxharris]

You act as if I am responsible for creating those problems.

Did I tell the single mother to have kids? No! (In fact, I've given money recently to Planned Parenthood to preserve her right to choose a better life for herself.)

Half of people you label as "homeless" are in that state because of severe mental illnesses. Did I have _anything_ to do with causing anyone's schizophrenia? No! (In fact, I'm a tireless advocate for reforms to our mental health laws that will returns hundreds of thousands of people back to a state of safety and dignity.)

What about people that are "homeless" due to domestic violence, or bad luck? Nope, I didn't abuse anyone, and I've never caused anyone to have bad luck.

What I am against is a system where people that want to make a better life for themselves are blocked by unjust regulations. Think of someone whose passion is cooking, wants to start a new restaurant, but can't afford to buy $100,000 worth of commercial kitchen equipment required by today's laws. Or someone who wants to braid hair, but has to attend cosmetology school to learn to cut hair. Or someone that wants to work in software, but can't afford to live in the #1 city for it because NIMBYs have made it illegal to build new housing for decades.

All you want is to pile on more rules and schemes that already hold back people that want to make something more of their lives.

[bubtubgub]

> You act as if I am responsible for creating those problems.

You live in a (somewhat) democratic system, you pay taxes and vote. Yes, you absolutely share responsibility.

> Half of people you label as "homeless" are in that state because of severe mental illnesses. Did I have _anything_ to do with causing anyone's schizophrenia? No!

But here you are speaking against measures that could help them because it might cost you a little money.

> What about people that are "homeless" due to domestic violence, or bad luck? Nope, I didn't abuse anyone, and I've never caused anyone to have bad luck.

Again, raising your hands and saying 'I had nothing to do with this problem, just let me ignore it.' is just disgusting, yes you weren't directly involved in these events, but don't fellow humans deserve compassion and empathy?

> What I am against is a system where people that want to make a better life for themselves are blocked by unjust regulations. Think of someone whose passion is cooking, wants to start a new restaurant, but can't afford to buy $100,000 worth of commercial kitchen equipment required by today's laws. Or someone who wants to braid hair, but has to attend cosmetology school to learn to cut hair. Or someone that wants to work in software, but can't afford to live in the #1 city for it because NIMBYs have made it illegal to build new housing for decades.

So you are against a system where the fairly-well-off face minor inconveniences, but people starving on the streets is a-okay? And, yes I agree that there are many stupid regulations that should be eliminated or at least reviewed, but most of these are not major issues, and many regulations are very valuable.

[maxharris]

Mental illness is different because in many cases, the people in question are do not possess the faculties required to live normally, decently, or (in rare cases, peacefully) in society. They often end up in jail. A proud person's only choice here is institutionalization of some sort. The alternative is the status quo: the able suffer injuries to their own rights, the mentally ill suffer indignities they had no hand in creating, and the able end up paying just as much to keep them in jail anyway.

In a sense, I think the reason someone is poor is more important than the fact that they're poor at some given moment in time. I believe that a just system concerns itself with making it possible for those who desire more wealth and are able to earn it to do so, no matter what their present level of wealth is. For the remaining handful of people that don't fit into that category (and don't suffer from a grave mental illness)? Hey, no one is stopping you from helping them.

[bubtubgub]

> Mental illness is different because in many cases, the people in question are do not possess the faculties required to live normally, decently, or (in rare cases, peacefully) in society.

Mental health care facilities are a thing. Medication is a thing. Of course mentally ill homeless people cannot pay for these things themselves. This is where decent humans have to come together and help.

> In a sense, I think the reason someone is poor is more important than the fact that they're poor at some given moment in time.

Of course, and one of the main reasons people are poor is because they were born into a poor family, or otherwise disenfranchised condition. Class mobility in the US is basically a myth, because the social welfare including everything from child subsidies, education, food, living, healthcare is quite terrible and getting worse.

> I believe that a just system concerns itself with making it possible for those who desire more wealth and are able to earn it to do so

And one of the main factors here is for people to have the ability to get a good education, get healthcare, stay away from crime and drugs, have a certain amount of social and financial security and stability, etc. All of these things is not something a person is born with, these things either come from a well-off family or from the society. Some people manage to break into the upper classes from the lower classes, but these are very few and are the exceptions, not the rule.

Also, I don't really see how you can equate 'justness' of a system to it being able to allow those who want more wealth to get that wealth. That's basically saying 'a just system is where the greediest get the most.' - it's pretty ridiculous.

A just system is where all humans have the same human rights and the same opportunities irregardless of greed.

> Hey, no one is stopping you from helping them.

This is so childish... I don't even.

[maxharris]

Class mobility in the US is basically a myth

True, it is much lower when compared to the 19th century, when the economy was much freer (this is true despite the era's widespread racism and lower level of economic and technological development which manifested in longer hours, and poorer working conditions than those we enjoy today).

it's pretty ridiculous

Taking a different view than one you're accustomed to hearing, labeling it "greed" and calling it "pretty ridiculous" is not much of an argument.

I'm advocating for, "You want a better life? Earn it. Don't lie, cheat, steal, because those aren't going to help you get ahead (and if you can't figure that out, people have the moral right to their own lives, which gives the government the power to stop you.) Rather than envying those with more, make your own! You'd be surprised how capable you are if you just try."

What (besides rare case of a random and tragic accident) can stop people with that attitude? These days, it's high taxes, innovation-stifling regulations, and restrictions on and against immigrants.

[bubtubgub]

> True, it is much lower when compared to the 19th century, when the economy was much freer.

Not sure what you are basing this on, I'm guessing on nothing.

> Taking a different view than one you're accustomed to hearing, labeling it "greed" and calling it "pretty ridiculous" is not much of an argument.

No ignoring my actual argument, and quoting 3 words from my conclusion is not much of an argument.

> You want a better life? Earn it... Rather than envying those with more, make your own!... You'd be surprised how capable you are if you just try.

I mean... this is so childishly naive and simplistic, a statement supporting a very unfair state of things - 'You want to have a better life? Go compete with that billionaire who has access to the highest levels of government, media, lobbying, etc.' It's like you didn't think about the socio-economic situation of the world at all.

> What (besides rare case of a random and tragic accident) can stop people with that attitude?

What about not being able to afford education? What about malnutrition? Not being treated for a debilitating disease or condition? Not having enough social and financial stability? Having to compete with people that do have all of these advantages? I already listed all of these things and you blissfully ignored them.

> These days, it's high taxes, innovation-stifling regulations, and restrictions on and against immigrants.

No, that's absolutely false, high taxes, 'innovation stifling regulations' whatever that means, and restrictions against immigrants have nothing to do with class mobility of lower class Americans. Absolutely nothing.

[maxharris]

A just system is where all humans have the same human rights and the same opportunities

No just system can be formed on such a principle. No two humans will ever have equal opportunities, without destroying all progress, individuality, and justice (it is unjust that one person should be held responsible for the choices of others).

I've come to think that equality of opportunity is wrong, and the alternative that we should fight for is equality before the law. We should also strive to treat people as they deserve, based on their character, choices and actions.

[bubtubgub]

> No two humans will ever have equal opportunities, without destroying all progress, individuality, and justice (it is unjust that one person should be held responsible for the choices of others).

Well, I mean you just said a bunch of things with no supporting arguments. And, since people affect those around them, including their choices, there absolutely is a share of responsibility for the choices of the people you affect such as your children.

> I've come to think that equality of opportunity is wrong

That happens when people try to justify why they deserve more than others based on nothing.

> and the alternative that we should fight for is equality before the law

That's not an alternative, that is something that is also required.

> We should also strive to treat people as they deserve, based on their character, choices and actions.

I guess you leave homeless people to die on the street because you intricately know their character, choices and actions, and based on those you decided that they deserve it?