Correct me if I am wrong:

Ah, so you and DanielLC define "paying people to be poor" to be when government incentives make it better for people with less normal income than for people with more normal income.

I was trying to say that we would still be paying people to be poor, just not enough to cancel out 100% the negative of being poor, so that making more money is still monotonic in increasing happiness.

I think my definition is more reasonable, but yours is also reasonable, as it seems to capture some extra connotations. I retract my complaint under your definition.

In the real world there are cases where a person with 0 income get's X support from the government. On the other hand there are people with income less than X who don't get government support.

That means there an incentive out there to have income 0. The phrase "paying for" suggests to me that you create a monetary incentive for something.

I think you dilute the value of the phrase "paying for" when you don't let it mean "create a monetary incentive for something".

Non-standard politics

by NancyLebovitz 1 min read24th Oct 2014235 comments


In the big survey, political views are divided into large categories so that statistics are possible. This article is an attempt to supply a text field so that we can get a little better view of the range of beliefs.

My political views aren't adequately expressed by "libertarian". I call myself a liberal-flavored libertarian, by which I mean that I want the government to hurt people less. The possibility that the government is giving too much to poor people is low on my list of concerns. I also believe that harm-causing processes should be shut down before support systems

So, what political beliefs do you have that don't match the usual meaning of your preferred label?