[masterzora]

I think you should read the names of posters, but I am more than happy to take the position you stated so we'll call it good.

I think what you are leaving out of your analysis is that, in this scenario, there is no compulsion to help the beggars. Thus, if everyone actually is helping they are doing for their own reasons: that it is good, that it is right, that they want to help. I find it hard to imagine that a significant number doing so would then take advantage of the same system in the manner that you describe.

"But", you say "it is ridiculous to even assume that everyone is going to willfully give as such in the first place." This much is obvious, so trying to comment on the above utopian ideal has its limits. I am inclined to believe, however, that if everyone who actually would be willing to help beggars of their own accord to make things better did help that it is likely that this would only be done in such numbers that the beggars could be helped but not such that it would become such a lucrative market as posters have described.

[kstenerud]

If you look at the top comment, I was originally responding to "Would it be possible to be a beggar if everyone who passed you on the street did their utmost to help you out?", and the answer is clearly "yes". Furthermore, if everyone who passed a beggar on the street did their utmost to help out, there would be an explosion of beggars, as I demonstrated in my previous comment.

Also, it does not require everyone to think the same way for this to happen; in fact, very few people have to think this way. Therefore, in response to your first post, I am not making the common mistake of assuming that everyone else thinks the same way I do.

I don't mind other people giving to beggars, but one thing I have noticed is that beggar-friendly cities tend to attract far more beggars (San Francisco and Vancouver are two that come to mind).

[masterzora]

If you look at the top comment, I was originally responding to "Would it be possible to be a beggar if everyone who passed you on the street did their utmost to help you out?", and the answer is clearly "yes". Furthermore, if everyone who passed a beggar on the street did their utmost to help out, there would be an explosion of beggars, as I demonstrated in my previous comment.

I still fail to see how you demonstrated that. You have failed to take into consideration important variables that I have attempted to address. In particular, you have applied a type of thinking that some people have today to a situation that would necessarily require them to have a different type of thinking. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to simply transfer it over as such. Granted, we don't have a whole lot of experience with a society where everybody is individually motivated to help, but I think you'll find at the very least that the people who are altruistically inclined to help the homeless or what have you these days don't really decide to swindle everyone.

Also, it does not require everyone to think the same way for this to happen; in fact, very few people have to think this way.

I'm not sure I agree that 1 in 100 is "very few", but point taken.

I don't mind other people giving to beggars, but one thing I have noticed is that beggar-friendly cities tend to attract far more beggars (San Francisco and Vancouver are two that come to mind).

This point is simply irrelevant unless you mean to suggest that the increase is due to people trying to take advantage of the lucrative beggar market rather than working.

[kstenerud]

"In particular, you have applied a type of thinking that some people have today to a situation that would necessarily require them to have a different type of thinking."

… Which would require everyone to think the same way, which doesn't happen in reality, which is why I've deliberately ignored the absolute extreme. The OP was referring at worst to a utopia, at best (and most likely) to a "near utopia" using imperfect language to communicate such, while I was bringing that utopia down to earth by showing that it only takes 0.25% of the population taking advantage of kindness in order for the problem to become worse than it already is. We already know that all people do NOT think exactly the same, and so arguing with absolutes is pointless.

"This point is simply irrelevant unless you mean to suggest that the increase is due to people trying to take advantage of the lucrative beggar market rather than working."

That is precisely what I suggest. Any time a power efficiency is discovered, people move in to take advantage of it. This has been happening since the dawn of life. In this case, it is an efficiency for acquiring money. The more people give to beggars, the easier it will be to live off the proceeds of begging, the more people will consider it a better use of their time compared to what they're doing now. Quite obviously, efficiency won't be the only factor in the decision (other factors, such as pride, come into play as well), but each factor will be weighted differently by different people. It is often said, every man has his price. And though that statement is technically absolute, I do not believe it absolutely, nor is it meant to be taken that way.

[masterzora]

which is why I've deliberately ignored the absolute extreme

You are a confusing individual. I try to discuss moving away from the extreme and you insist you were commenting on the extreme. I try to meet you there and discuss the extreme and you insist you are avoiding the extreme. If you're going to keep pushing the goal posts back and forth like that I don't know why we're bothering to discuss anything at all.

That is precisely what I suggest.

I won't deny that a few people are likely taking advantage of the situation, but you need to drop the notion that anything resembling a significant fraction of beggars are doing so by choice. Said notion is disgusting, offensive, and untrue.

[kstenerud]

We're talking across each other now.

My discussions of the extreme have always revolved around the pointlessness of arguing that way. The OP MAY have been serious in taking the extreme, but it's far more likely that he was using a what-if line of thought to guide his thinking in a less perfect world. However, that what-if scenario lacks reality guards in that it requires that everyone think the same way, which does not happen.

My responses have been designed to push away from the extreme and inject some reality into the discussion. The reality is that some people DO take advantage of kindness. Some people really ARE lazy. Some people ARE con men. So the absolute is disproven by default, which means all that is left is to assume the other person really meant "what if if a lot more people thought this way...". Otherwise the conversation is over already.

"but you need to drop the notion that anything resembling a significant fraction of beggars are doing so by choice. Said notion is disgusting, offensive, and untrue."

No such notion was intended. As I said before, many different factors come into play when deciding whether to beg or not. My point is that making begging more lucrative will make the decision easier for more people. If the returns for begging were to surpass low wage jobs, for example, we'd see a critical tipping point emerge. The end result of more giving to beggars (on a larger scale) is more beggars. The current equilibrium exists as a result of the diversity of the population (both on the potential beggar side and the potential giver side).

My personal belief is that a significant increase in giving to beggars is likely to cause more harm than good. The current equilibrium seems adequate for taking care of most of the truly hopeless who aren't wards of the state.