Never give money to beggars on the side of the road...

[lucius]

this is why i never give money as a handout. if i see someone on the side of the road begging, i'll ask if they're hungry or something and get them a hamburger or drink or whatever. there is a homeless guy near my work with a dog who i pick up some dog food for from time to time. but i never give money. there are better ways to help.

I do this as well. I try not refuse, but I am doing it for self-serving interests, may be karmic redemption...don't know, but I carry a box of baby ruths to hand out.

 

[erowe1]

Oh yea, they need money - mostly because they aren't getting paid for what they are producing (and what stupid americans are buying).

They're getting paid what they agreed to work for, and they agree to work for that little because they need it that badly. If that amount is less than the value of what they produce (which I don't accept as a given, since, as you say, it's crap), then that's because there aren't enough factories competing for their labor, possibly in part because of some self-righteous American companies that have self-imposed bans on using Chinese sweatshops to make their goods. Without people buying those products, those poor people be worse off not better off. Those Americans are getting the products they agree to pay that amount of money for. It seems like a pretty good arrangement to me.

It would be a good thing for America if we got rid of our regulations so that those beggars by the sides of American roads could offer to work for below minimum wage pay in conditions that the nanny state thinks is too unsafe for them. Then, when we bought that cheap crap at Walmart it would go to those same people that we're not giving change to by the side of the road.

 

[RedStripe]

Giving money to people on the side of the road actually does not help them. All it does is teach them to keep begging. Giving them food if they are hungry is a step up. Giving them a job is really the only way to help them, but the vast majority of beggars literally do not want a job.

It sounds cruel but the facts are the facts. Charities, for the most part, do not work.

"Sorry, but if I gave you a dollar it would teach you to have your house burn down again or teach you to have your husband get cancer and die leaving you penniless due to medical bills and an inadequate education on finance."

"When I see those people in Pakistan, begging for food, all I can think of is how giving them food would only encourage them not to save up for their own personal helicopter that they could use to leave the area during the next monsoon season."

"Guys why does everyone think that libertarians are wackos?"

 

[RedStripe]

They're getting paid what they agreed to work for, and they agree to work for that little because they need it that badly. If that amount is less than the value of what they produce (which I don't accept as a given, since, as you say, it's crap), then that's because there aren't enough factories competing for their labor, possibly in part because of some self-righteous American companies that have self-imposed bans on using Chinese sweatshops to make their goods. Without people buying those products, those poor people be worse off not better off. Those Americans are getting the products they agree to pay that amount of money for. It seems like a pretty good arrangement to me.

It would be a good thing for America if we got rid of our regulations so that those beggars by the sides of American roads could offer to work for below minimum wage pay in conditions that the nanny state thinks is too unsafe for them. Then, when we bought that cheap crap at Walmart it would go to those same people that we're not giving change to by the side of the road.

I don't really feel like pointing out how this rationalization of quasi-slave labor falls apart when you look at how modern industrialization occurs in the third world, but I would like to talk about the fact that it is exploitation when you take advantage of someone's desperate condition in order to reap profit for yourself. It's common sense that such is exploitation, and it is deplored by most people. Right-wing libertarians like to come up with rationalizations for it, but that doesn't change what it is.

 

[teacherone]

Light a fire for a man, he'll be warm for an hour...

Light a man on fire, he'll be warm the rest of his life...

 

[erowe1]

I would like to talk about the fact that it is exploitation when you take advantage of someone's desperate condition in order to reap profit for yourself.

So would I. Exploitation is a good thing. Some of us call it having a job. When you offer your labor to someone else so that they can sell the product of your labor at a price higher than what they pay you (i.e. you give them an incentive to hire you by making it profitable to do so), that's exploitation by definition. We need to celebrate it, not castigate it. Hopefully if take on the misconceptions most people have about that, then we can make some headway so that it won't be so deplored anymore. The poor of the world will thank us. There are a lot of them out there who would love to offer their labor be exploited, but live in nanny states like ours where they're not allowed to do that. We should make it easier for them to be exploited, not harder.

 

[Danke]

I hand them promissory notes.

 

[YumYum]

While some beggars are legitimately down on there luck, most beggars are drug addicts/alcoholics. They want to stay homeless because the want to use and not get clean and sober. There are homeless shelters in most cities that help people, providing they stay clean. Many people will leave the homeless shelter to go on a bender, and when they are done getting trashed, they return to the homeless shelter. When I was at a light one night in Nashville (which is the beggar capital of the U.S.), this asshole came up to my car and asked for some money. I was looking for money in my ashtray, and he says "There's money right there man!", and he reaches in and grabs it. He's lucky I didn't break his neck. I used to give to beggars all the time, but no more.

 

[YumYum]

I don't really feel like pointing out how this rationalization of quasi-slave labor falls apart when you look at how modern industrialization occurs in the third world, but I would like to talk about the fact that it is exploitation when you take advantage of someone's desperate condition in order to reap profit for yourself. It's common sense that such is exploitation, and it is deplored by most people. Right-wing libertarians like to come up with rationalizations for it, but that doesn't change what it is.

I agree. I don't buy this "They agree to work for low pay; they made the choice." In some cases people have no choice. Does an orphan child on the streets who hasn't eaten in a week have a choice not to blow some guy if it means not starving to death? During the Gilded Age, immigrant women had to sleep with their bosses to keep from getting fired'; otherwise their family would be out on the street. When capitalism becomes an excuse for exploitation, it loses its luster.

 

[MelissaWV]

"Sorry, but if I gave you a dollar it would teach you to have your house burn down again or teach you to have your husband get cancer and die leaving you penniless due to medical bills and an inadequate education on finance."

"When I see those people in Pakistan, begging for food, all I can think of is how giving them food would only encourage them not to save up for their own personal helicopter that they could use to leave the area during the next monsoon season."

"Guys why does everyone think that libertarians are wackos?"

People whose house burns down are generally not begging for money on the side of the road. They were either insured, had family, or have the power of the local media behind them. They are free to ask for help anyhow.

What I was talking about was the actual dangers of encouraging people to race into traffic for the promise of some change and small bills. If you want to do that to feel better about yourself, go for it. I'm not sure what it really helps, other than giving someone who has no place to stow cash a whole bunch of it. Robbery among the poor is ridiculously high, but almost never reported, and the items or amounts of cash stolen are "too petty" for the police to deal with anyhow.

When you see those people, in the situations you discussed, your real honest first reaction is to throw change at them?

Strange, when I read it my reaction was to figure out if I could help the person get a place to stay because their house burned down and they weren't insured, obviously, and have no family. Is there a motel nearby that would offer a room for a night or two? Are there charities in the area that provide that kind of assistance? There usually are.

When I read about the people in Pakistan, I wonder at what prevention could do in the future. Are these floods just a fluke, or is there something that can be done to prevent a fairly common problem? Instead of blindly giving money to organizations that will squander a great deal of it on "administrative costs," what can I do to provide concrete relief to people?

Oh, yeah, that's crazy talk. We're not supposed to put thought into things. We're supposed to just throw money at problems and let other people actually deal with them. To think about where the money might go, and what might be a better way, is just bonkers.

 

[ninepointfive]

So would I. Exploitation is a good thing. Some of us call it having a job. When you offer your labor to someone else so that they can sell the product of your labor at a price higher than what they pay you (i.e. you give them an incentive to hire you by making it profitable to do so), that's exploitation by definition. We need to celebrate it, not castigate it. Hopefully if take on the misconceptions most people have about that, then we can make some headway so that it won't be so deplored anymore. The poor of the world will thank us. There are a lot of them out there who would love to offer their labor be exploited, but live in nanny states like ours where they're not allowed to do that. We should make it easier for them to be exploited, not harder.

The term exploitation may carry two distinct meanings:

* The act of using something for any purpose. In this case, exploit is a synonym for use.
* The act of using something in an unjust or cruel manner. It is this meaning of exploitation which is discussed below.



I agree with you, but the term exploitation has a negative connotation. It's more like teamwork, because the worker and the salesperson understands their roles. They both work for a mutual benefit.

 

[erowe1]

I agree. I don't buy this "They agree to work for low pay; they made the choice." In some cases people have no choice. Does an orphan child on the streets who hasn't eaten in a week have a choice not to blow some guy if it means not starving to death? During the Gilded Age, immigrant women had to sleep with their bosses to keep from getting fired'; otherwise their family would be out on the street. When capitalism becomes an excuse for exploitation, it loses its luster.

Both of those examples are great pictures of how bad a situation can be for someone. But if you mean to say that the people in those situations had no choice in the sense that they would literally starve if they didn't do those things, then it's hard for me to see how it would be an act of kindness to them to remove those options and tell them that we have already chosen for them that those things are worse than starvation and we'd rather they just die. Yes, those situations you described are terrible. But if people choose them because they look at their own dire straights (which they know better than anyone else does) and determine that the alternative is even worse, then it's impossible for me to say that their real problem is the exploitation itself, rather than the poverty that they have decided is even worse. In fact, if people really are in such desperate situations, it may very well be the case that they result from too few opportunities in the way of non-sexual jobs that cost employers very little, such as the sweatshops Redstripe opposes.

This reasoning is even more obvious to me in the case of less sensationalistic things. My sister is developmentally disabled. I have no doubt in my mind, and can point to multiple examples over the years to back it up, that she would benefit from being permitted to offer her labor at below minimum wage. My wife came to America from Vietnam when she was 14, and her family had nothing. They couldn't fathom why the government would not allow her to get a job here to help them. Neither can I. Such laws make sexual exploitation and other black market activities more likely, not less likely.

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

Light a fire for a man, he'll be warm for an hour...

Light a man on fire, he'll be warm the rest of his life...

You made me laugh out loud like an idiot at work

 

[WaltM]

I hand them promissory notes.

ditch your sovereignty jargon already

what do have promissory notes for? what do you use as money?

 

[noxagol]

YouTube - ABC 20/20 Freeloaders - Creating Dependency Segment

 

[Brian4Liberty]

YouTube - ABC 20/20 Freeloaders - Creating Dependency Segment

Good segment. The guy at 6:00 minutes is very common. People like this spend every day working on the next scam. The effort they put into it is incredible. How to get money out of family, friends, strangers and the government. They are very knowledgeable about the free-market in barter and returns. They will ask for very specific things, with the barter value in mind, and it makes stories more believable. "I don't need any money, just a widget." Then they are off to exchange, return or barter the item.

 

[andrewh817]

I never see signs held up saying, "Will work for money" or "Will provide services for money."

Maybe the prostitution laws prevent that......

 

[Bruno]

I never see signs held up saying, "Will work for money" or "Will provide services for money."

Maybe the prostitution laws prevent that......

A guy was a church right across from my grandpa's house years ago with a Will work for food sign. I gave him $10 and asked him to go across the street and ask my grandpa if there was anything he could do to help out, and that his grandson had paid him for some work.

Grandpa said the guy never came over. No surprise, I guess. I don't give $$ anymore except rare occasions.

Local TV crew followed some of them a few years ago, as they were loaded into a van at the end of their shift. It was totally organized.

 

[Fredom101]

"Sorry, but if I gave you a dollar it would teach you to have your house burn down again or teach you to have your husband get cancer and die leaving you penniless due to medical bills and an inadequate education on finance."

"When I see those people in Pakistan, begging for food, all I can think of is how giving them food would only encourage them not to save up for their own personal helicopter that they could use to leave the area during the next monsoon season."

"Guys why does everyone think that libertarians are wackos?"

These comments do nothing to prove your point.
Charities simply are ineffective at best in most cases, and many are downright corrupt. Africa has been getting massive amounts of donations and charity for a century. How much has Africa progressed?

Show me some empirical evidence and I may agree with you, but until then I'm going with the facts.

 

[Fredom101]

people whose house burns down are generally not begging for money on the side of the road. They were either insured, had family, or have the power of the local media behind them. They are free to ask for help anyhow.

What i was talking about was the actual dangers of encouraging people to race into traffic for the promise of some change and small bills. If you want to do that to feel better about yourself, go for it. I'm not sure what it really helps, other than giving someone who has no place to stow cash a whole bunch of it. Robbery among the poor is ridiculously high, but almost never reported, and the items or amounts of cash stolen are "too petty" for the police to deal with anyhow.

When you see those people, in the situations you discussed, your real honest first reaction is to throw change at them?

Strange, when i read it my reaction was to figure out if i could help the person get a place to stay because their house burned down and they weren't insured, obviously, and have no family. Is there a motel nearby that would offer a room for a night or two? Are there charities in the area that provide that kind of assistance? There usually are.

When i read about the people in pakistan, i wonder at what prevention could do in the future. Are these floods just a fluke, or is there something that can be done to prevent a fairly common problem? Instead of blindly giving money to organizations that will squander a great deal of it on "administrative costs," what can i do to provide concrete relief to people?

Oh, yeah, that's crazy talk. We're not supposed to put thought into things. We're supposed to just throw money at problems and let other people actually deal with them. To think about where the money might go, and what might be a better way, is just bonkers.

qft