Why appealing to the poor refutes itself

[brian0918]

In Stefan's latest video he makes an interesting argument that I haven't heard before, namely that folks who use the poor in their appeals for more government power and entitlements only do so because they know it will resonate with the public, which shows that the public, if left free, would be very charitable to the impoverished. And we can see that even in our current society, charity is commonplace.

 

I like to think that if you examine even the simplest of (bad) arguments, you should be able to find a self-refuting premise (i.e. a contradiction), and that's what I always try to look for. So this struck me as a powerful rebuttal. Are there any podcasts or essays that elaborate on this specific point in more detail?

[MysterionMuffles]

It's a self defeating argument because the fact that the welfare state even exists is PROOF that people want to take care of the poor. Hence people voted for the representative that has the system of welfare in place. Unless of course every party promotes it then Im talking out of my ass. If not though, that is proof. But if you provide that proof to someone, they'll then say "oh so see the government IS good to have." Not neccessarily. Welfare creates that permanent under class because people just suck up the money of all the other harder working citizens. If there were to be a voluntary welfare (it'll probably have a different name of course), it would be in a more concentrated area. A charity can ask people in a certain area to help out the less fortunate IF they want, but most people won't give that much charity for too long because the whole point of doing it in a free society, as I would guess, is to support the poor WHILE they improve their skills and find work.

[LibFedDemRepCon]

It's a self defeating argument because the fact that the welfare state even exists is PROOF that people want to take care of the poor. Hence people voted for the representative that has the system of welfare in place. 

 

Watch this. If someone was arguing that "people know they will not help the poor themselves and thus the government is the best way to assist them" they can use the exact same argument as you. In fact I'll keep the words almost the same.

 

Here's what they'll say

 

It's a self defeating argument because the fact that the welfare system even exists is PROOF that people know they themselves won't help the poor and that the government is the best way to assist the poor. Hence people voted for the representative that has the system of welfare in place. 

[MysterionMuffles]

Then I would argue back that they can't claim for me not to care about the poor if that's my worldview. It is in fact them who absolve themselves the responsibility of giving to the poor by voting someone in and not at all because they care. It might be a wild assertion to pull this card out especially if it's early in the debate, but I would say that when people talk about politics and social justice, they're only really talking about themselves. When they say "people" they just mean themselves and are unafraid of being honest in expressing their own individual concerns, or lacktherof, for the poor.

 

But I feel like that's falling under ad hominem territory.

 

Care to help me refute that claim that "people know they themselves won't help the poor--" in a way that isn't a definition of character/personal attack?

[LovePrevails]

Stef's argument is true, but it fails to anticipate the two main counter-arguents from liberal-minded people, and thus fails to appeal to the left.

 

"This is a straw man because it completely misses the point of the argument for taxation which is that:

1) everyone should pay their share otherwise it is unfair - that's why it is mandatory,

2a) everyone should pay their fair share, ie. relative to their means

2b) Rich people should pay more than poor people. You and I don’t have the same disposable income as Maxamillion Buxdude, so if lots of us are paying but he and his buddies Ivor Welltheo, Aristo Crat, and Topiv Tehchain aren’t putting in it stunts our efforts.

(possible 2c) Plus the rich are less likely to pay their share because of the kind of personalities that people who tend to get rich have."

 

I don’t think this argument should be made without addressing these two objections because it is so transparent that these are the responses that will be received.