there is a spectrum of how much comfort are you willing to give up to help others (including your future self). some people are against to give up even slight comforts in order to make things better (like, people visceral reactions to some “meatless mondays” proposals. or people being unwilling to reduce on-street parking even when by any meaningful metric it improves the quality of life for everyone)
Others are willing to give much more, but most people still have limits (for example, being willing to die for a cause is much rarer than people who are willing to go to a peaceful protest)
Others are willing to give much more, but most people still have limits (for example, being willing to die for a cause is much rarer than people who are willing to go to a peaceful protest)
right, but I’m saying this in the context of things that are literally more beneficial. Dying is not literally more beneficial.
Like it costs $3 to give someone a loaf of bread. It costs $10k or something to shove them in jail for theft.
To them it’s “unfair” that “I have to work and buy my own food, while you take my hard earned money and give it to someone who doesn’t work!” (Not my mentality, just providing their argument)
They don’t care about the cost to imprison because “they broke the law. If I break the law I go to jail.” at that point cost doesn’t matter to them.
I know that you’re explaining the argument and not actually endorsing it, so this isn’t directed at you:
You know that they just get given food at jail, right? And it’s still your money paying for that. And now those people are literally restricted from participating in society. If we fed them without jailing them, they could hold a job and spend money and provide to their community; instead we are paying for a punishment hotel to house and feed them in isolation. So if you subtract the cost of food from both sides since we’re feeding them either way, you just want to pay a lot of money to make them miserable, and also waive any benefit that society could recoup from having them be fed.
you just want to pay a lot of money to make them miserable, and also waive any benefit that society could recoup from having them be fed.
Pretty much what they want, but some are even worse. There is a phrase “3 hots and a cot” to mean 3 meals and a place to sleep. People like my uncle say it with disgust, as if they shouldn’t be fed, that they’re somehow on an enviable vacation being in prison… They’re so gross…
Yep, familiar with that phrase. I’ve also heard stories of people “robbing” banks for a dollar just so they could get put in jail for that bare minimum of food and shelter (and idk if it’s true but the unhesitating believability of it alone is a damning indictment). So really, by withholding food and shelter from free people, we’re incentivizing criminal activity.
Do these law & order, fiscal conservative republicans want to lower the crime rate and reduce spending or not?
For a lot of people, they feel better being able to put “those people in their place.” Sure it costs them more to throw these people in jail, but then they get to feel superior. This is Donald Trump’s main policy – you, a mediocre white man, can now look down on other people, which makes you feel better about yourself.
there is a spectrum of how much comfort are you willing to give up to help others (including your future self). some people are against to give up even slight comforts in order to make things better (like, people visceral reactions to some “meatless mondays” proposals. or people being unwilling to reduce on-street parking even when by any meaningful metric it improves the quality of life for everyone)
Others are willing to give much more, but most people still have limits (for example, being willing to die for a cause is much rarer than people who are willing to go to a peaceful protest)
right, but I’m saying this in the context of things that are literally more beneficial. Dying is not literally more beneficial.
Like it costs $3 to give someone a loaf of bread. It costs $10k or something to shove them in jail for theft.
The problem is how these people view “fairness.”
To them it’s “unfair” that “I have to work and buy my own food, while you take my hard earned money and give it to someone who doesn’t work!” (Not my mentality, just providing their argument)
They don’t care about the cost to imprison because “they broke the law. If I break the law I go to jail.” at that point cost doesn’t matter to them.
I know that you’re explaining the argument and not actually endorsing it, so this isn’t directed at you:
You know that they just get given food at jail, right? And it’s still your money paying for that. And now those people are literally restricted from participating in society. If we fed them without jailing them, they could hold a job and spend money and provide to their community; instead we are paying for a punishment hotel to house and feed them in isolation. So if you subtract the cost of food from both sides since we’re feeding them either way, you just want to pay a lot of money to make them miserable, and also waive any benefit that society could recoup from having them be fed.
Pretty much what they want, but some are even worse. There is a phrase “3 hots and a cot” to mean 3 meals and a place to sleep. People like my uncle say it with disgust, as if they shouldn’t be fed, that they’re somehow on an enviable vacation being in prison… They’re so gross…
Yep, familiar with that phrase. I’ve also heard stories of people “robbing” banks for a dollar just so they could get put in jail for that bare minimum of food and shelter (and idk if it’s true but the unhesitating believability of it alone is a damning indictment). So really, by withholding food and shelter from free people, we’re incentivizing criminal activity.
Do these law & order, fiscal conservative republicans want to lower the crime rate and reduce spending or not?
Unfortunately I think a lot of these people are like that fox news host… “Just kill em all.” :(
For a lot of people, they feel better being able to put “those people in their place.” Sure it costs them more to throw these people in jail, but then they get to feel superior. This is Donald Trump’s main policy – you, a mediocre white man, can now look down on other people, which makes you feel better about yourself.
Yes but then i wouldn’t get to punish anyone, which would make me sad. You didnt consider my feelings as worth more than 3$?