[totony]

>Does this reflect genuine concern for the poor, or is it a bad faith tactic to try to shoot down a policy for other

Does it matter?

>Especially with something like vaccine passports, any special issue the poor disproportionally experience is probably better dealt with through some kind of mitigation (e.g. make vaccines free, arrange free transportation or mobile clinics, mandate paid recovery days) than by scrapping the idea entirely.

Most policies aimed at helping poor people usually are usually either counterproductive or poorly done.

[tablespoon]

>> Does this reflect genuine concern for the poor, or is it a bad faith tactic to try to shoot down a policy for other

> Does it matter?

Yes. For instance: does it matter if someone makes a convincing argument to lure you into a trap? Focusing on the argument in isolation can make you a fool. Motives matter.

> Most policies aimed at helping poor people usually are usually either counterproductive or poorly done.

Eh, I'm skeptical. That's the kind of statement usually made by people who are philosophically opposed to helping poor people or to government action in general.

And even if (say) historical anti-poverty programs did not help the poor, that's irrelevant to mitigations to make a vaccine passport policy work better for poor people.

[totony]

The way to help poor people is the put the least roadblocks in their way. Government policies that assume that they work only aggravate the issue for the people for whom it doesn't work (creating outcasts).

EDIT: E.g. give everyone 500$ but hike up the price, what about the people that weren't eligible for some bureaucratic dumb reason?

A logical argument does not depend on the person that makes it (which is why its logical). Heuristically you can use the locutor to save you the trouble of analyzing it but you have to realize it's a heuristic and the argument might still be right.

[tablespoon]

> The way to help poor people is the put the least roadblocks in their way.

That's little more than ideology.

> Government policies that assume that they work only aggravate the issue for the people for whom it doesn't work (creating outcasts).

> EDIT: E.g. give everyone 500$ but hike up the price, what about the people that weren't eligible for some bureaucratic dumb reason?

You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, perhaps as an excuse for an ideology that advocates inaction.

> A logical argument does not depend on the person that makes it (which is why its logical). Heuristically you can use the locutor to save you the trouble of analyzing it but you have to realize it's a heuristic and the argument might still be right.

Yes, in an ivory tower that's sufficient, but in the real world it isn't. For instance, you will never have all the information. If you try to act like a logical robot, you can be tricked by with a logical argument that passes all your checks but is contradicted by facts you don't know or aren't attending to.

[totony]

>perhaps as an excuse for an ideology that advocates inaction.

You assume my motives a lot. I advocate positive action, aka give 500$ to everyone but don't hike up the price. Or in other words, mandate paid sick days whether or not there are passports (and don't use the fact that there are sick days to justify implementing them).

The passport is a disincentive to not getting the vaccine, how about we incentive people to get it instead?

[tablespoon]

> You assume my motives a lot.

No, I speculated. There's a difference.