The discussion should not be about wether it's ethical to receive free food while others pay for it but instead wether it's ethical to perpetuate a system of competiton en masse, and to profit from it, when, was it not for said competing, our current technology could automate the production of food and provide it free for everyone.
I believe this is more or less correct. Our global food production (even with the coming issues about to take place over the next decades due to climate change and unsustainable agricultural policies) is sufficient to feed everyone, much is thrown away due to distribution problems that essentially emerge from the competition effect described.
I'm going to raise goats and chickens starting in Spring and try to move towards food independence, I don't know if it will make any difference, but each meal it provides me is one less to buy.
Well what is your opinion on the topic?
I think most people here wouldn't mind taking money from the government, since they mostly have negative feelings towards the government, politicians, "the system". So you might aswell exploit it as much as you can and "fuck the system". The problem is that the government gets the money to pay the foodstamps from the tax paying citizens. I guess this is the obvious part. Now it would have been nice to get an argument from you for one or the other side to get the discussion started and have something to work with, but as we see the discussion also started without it. I guess the argument of people who oppose the usage of food stamps goes along the lines of "you shouldn't live of other peoples money/work (or not more than necessary)". This obviously raises the question "why" and has to be elaborated by opposers of food stamps. Depending on the elaborated argument I can see several ways to attack it. Things to consider are the question wether the tax paying citizens would actually have more money if people stopped (or even if only you stopped) using food stamps, the question wether the government would do more good with your saved food stamp money then you would if you used it to feed yourself, who is actually paying taxes, the voters paradox, the different valuation of money (Saint Petersburg paradox), the fact that the money at least partially returns to the tax paying citizens (and you can to a certain amount influence to which),...
As always when morals are discussed things also depend on what ethical and metaethical theories you consider to be true. If you are a classic utilitarian you only have to show that the utility of you taking food stamps is >= than you not taking food stamps, which shouldn't be too hard.
Maybe it's me, but everyone seems to be missing the point... Like someone said earlier, "they will eat no matter what, and eat well". Without these programs, people without jobs would be raising hell and rioting in the streets to find food... A decent honest man would beat, rob and steal if he were dying of hunger... These programs keep the peace and order on the streets... It becomes a matter of ethics when someone who is working and making money, supliments their income with food stamps, in order to spend their cash on other things... Now that's an entirely different, yet still debatable discussion to be had. If a guy did this to free up funds to be applied toward a necessity, video games, electronics, theme parks, fashion clothes, bike parts, ECT.... If your on food stamps, so you can afford extra curricular activities on your days off, you need a kick in the shin.
Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!
Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!
The real question at hand here is... Let's say a guy really wanted to save up for a vehicle, a down payment for his/her own place, a work trailer to grow or start a landscape business, ECT... Any big ticket item... And mentally constructed a financial plan to achieve this goal... Okay now let's say at this rate, considering bills, living cost, income, let's say we could only afford an extra $75-125 a month toward this goal. That means it will take anywhere from 4-6 years if everything goes perfect, and he can stay dedicated to this cause for that long... Well for the sake of debate, let's say he decides that for 2 years if he can get by on food stamps, which saves him $150-195 a month in food cost... We'll add that to what he planned to save before, and he could dedicate nearly $300 a month to this other cause... Which means that now his 4-6 year goal is a 2-3 year goal. It's starting to sound more manageable... It might even start to feel realistic... Okay so the question is this... Is it ethical to utilize the food stamp program, for this purpose?
Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!
Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!
doesnt matter because he cant. You can't make over about $1300 a month gross.
The average $10 hr job @ 40hrs a week gets you about $300 net pay. It disqualifies you for any kind of assistance unless you have a dependent to claim. Now you have to pay insurance out of pocket on that income too. And full utilities and full rent or mortgage interest rates.
If you only work say 24hrs a week on the hand you can get all kinds of assistance including medicaid. Utility subsidies, rent control/subsidies, food stamps, etc to the point you're better off or at least about the same working 3 days a week instead of 5.
I can make more money traveling and working seasonal jobs than I can working a 40hr week for general labor level pay. Working seasonally, especially when an full hook-up site is included, I qualify for unemployment, food stamps, medicaid, etc.
The average $10 hr job @ 40hrs a week gets you about $300 net pay. It disqualifies you for any kind of assistance unless you have a dependent to claim. Now you have to pay insurance out of pocket on that income too. And full utilities and full rent or mortgage interest rates.
If you only work say 24hrs a week on the hand you can get all kinds of assistance including medicaid. Utility subsidies, rent control/subsidies, food stamps, etc to the point you're better off or at least about the same working 3 days a week instead of 5.
I can make more money traveling and working seasonal jobs than I can working a 40hr week for general labor level pay. Working seasonally, especially when an full hook-up site is included, I qualify for unemployment, food stamps, medicaid, etc.
Last edited:
Let's say he makes 1200. Just for laughs, let's say he makes $900 or $1000 a month, and all other conditions still apply...
Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!
Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!
Since we're on the topic of ethics... I'm simply trying to highlight the ethics portion of this question... Let's say he lives with relatives, and doesn't pay rent... He makes more than enough money to buy food, but really has his eye on a flatbed trailer because a trailer is tool he can use to make money in New ways... Is it still ethical???
Let's say this guy works 4 days a week and qualifies, but lives in a van... His overhead is low, he maintains a vehicle and insurance, and still has $600 to play with... Is it ethical for him to stash away $600 a month, and receive food stamps, or buy his own food, and only have $400 to work with...
Everything is a matter of perspective... Don't be quick to judge someone else's situation, because there's always something you don't understand about it... Even the most harmless of situations can be presented as imenant threats... And those who don't understand will believe.
Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!
Let's say this guy works 4 days a week and qualifies, but lives in a van... His overhead is low, he maintains a vehicle and insurance, and still has $600 to play with... Is it ethical for him to stash away $600 a month, and receive food stamps, or buy his own food, and only have $400 to work with...
Everything is a matter of perspective... Don't be quick to judge someone else's situation, because there's always something you don't understand about it... Even the most harmless of situations can be presented as imenant threats... And those who don't understand will believe.
Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!
To answer your question... No. I agree with you.
Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!
Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!
a millionaire can buy a yacht and use it as a second home tax deduction because it has a galley. So a guy who still has money leftover because he was clever enough to find a way to spend less by living in a van is not crossing an ethical barrier.
I still firmly stand by my original point that a country without a means for every citizen to provide for themselves by specifically producing their own food and shelter, and not by participation in a market economy or wage employment (because that is force), has an ethical obligation to provide basic essentials because it took it away from the individual in the first place.
I still firmly stand by my original point that a country without a means for every citizen to provide for themselves by specifically producing their own food and shelter, and not by participation in a market economy or wage employment (because that is force), has an ethical obligation to provide basic essentials because it took it away from the individual in the first place.
Last edited:
I wonder if anyone's ever done a study on how bonobos would react to a situation in which they would get a regular supply of food regardless, but would get treats such as grapes (which I'm to understand that they really enjoy) in exchange for completing tasks? More specifically, would the bonobos who do the tasks and get the grapes care if some bonobos chose to not do the tasks and not get grapes?
Ultimately, that's the situation that we face today with programs such as SNAP; some people do tasks in exchange for a medium that they can use to treat themselves, and those who choose to not complete tasks are given only basic food. But obviously with humans, there are those that feel that being rewarded for their behavior isn't enough, but rather they feel that those who don't complete tasks should be punished by means of starvation.
If I had to speculate, I'd bet that bonobos would act with more 'humanity' than humans do.
Ultimately, that's the situation that we face today with programs such as SNAP; some people do tasks in exchange for a medium that they can use to treat themselves, and those who choose to not complete tasks are given only basic food. But obviously with humans, there are those that feel that being rewarded for their behavior isn't enough, but rather they feel that those who don't complete tasks should be punished by means of starvation.
If I had to speculate, I'd bet that bonobos would act with more 'humanity' than humans do.
Latest Library Uploads
-
Book Capitalist Realism"It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism"
- 81285
- Updated:
-
Zine Waste Not Want Not! Dumpster DiaryPersonal diary recalling dumpster diving adventures.
- dumpsterjumper
- Updated:
-
Book Against CivilizationReadings and reflections on civilization from the perspective of the anarchist- JustAWanderer
- Updated:
-
Book harm reduction guide to coming off psychiatric drugs52-page illustrated guide to reducing or stopping psych meds
- sleepyjack
- Updated:
-
Zine mental health is a lawn, desire is a prairiemad liberation, critical psychiatry, destigmatize yr mental illness
- sleepyjack
- Updated: