I strongly agree that lawn care is a terrible use of water when there’s a limited supply, but the way we figure such things out in a sane world is we charge more money for water and if desired or needed give people a credit to avoid distributional concerns. Yes, I know, don’t make you tap the sign, go write on the blackboard, etc etc.
In a sane world, people voluntarily help each other, especially during emergencies. Charging more for basic necessities hurts the most vulnerable.
OK...but I don’t see how that helps. It might be Zian’s idea that poor people obviously do or should get water vouchers...but is it Zvi’s idea? Zvi brief statement sounded like pure pay-or-go-to-the-wall libertarianism. Perhaps that was only because it was brief, perhaps not.
Helps with what? It’s relevant in that when you asked Zian “do you mean that when you said...”, Zian had not said that thing. It seemed to me that you were talking to Zian under the impression that they were Zvi, and this seemed worth pointing out. It seemed like it might help avoid people talking past each other, for example.
It might be Zian’s idea that poor people obviously do or should get water vouchers...but is it Zvi’s idea? Zvi brief statement sounded like pure pay-or-go-to-the-wall libertarianism.
I don’t claim to know exactly what Zvi thinks, and I don’t feel like getting into the weeds on this any more than it seems he does. But...
You’ve made three comments in this thread so far, and in not one of them have you acknowledged that Zvi included the phrase “if desired or needed give people a credit to avoid distributional concerns”.
I feel like that phrase is obviously relevant to your concern, even if you don’t know exactly what he means by it and/or what you think he means doesn’t fully address your concern. And I think failing to acknowledge it reflects poorly.
(I would say that Zvi spends 18 words on libertarian content, “the way … for water”, and 12 on addressing a possible failure mode of the libertarian content, “if desired … distributional concerns”. It seems to me that calling this “pure pay-or-go-to-the-wall libertarianism” is frankly ridiculous.)
In a sane world, people voluntarily help each other, especially during emergencies. Charging more for basic necessities hurts the most vulnerable.
Do you mean that if I give you a perpetual $20 coupon to buy bottles of water and then increase the price by $20 you have lost something?
Do you mean that when you said “charge more for water” you meant “charge more for water , but some people also get their water free”?
If you didn’t make libertarian- sounding sideswipes at all, and it would also help if your turned them into nuanced arguments.
(Note that the user you’re replying to is not Zvi.)
OK...but I don’t see how that helps. It might be Zian’s idea that poor people obviously do or should get water vouchers...but is it Zvi’s idea? Zvi brief statement sounded like pure pay-or-go-to-the-wall libertarianism. Perhaps that was only because it was brief, perhaps not.
Helps with what? It’s relevant in that when you asked Zian “do you mean that when you said...”, Zian had not said that thing. It seemed to me that you were talking to Zian under the impression that they were Zvi, and this seemed worth pointing out. It seemed like it might help avoid people talking past each other, for example.
I don’t claim to know exactly what Zvi thinks, and I don’t feel like getting into the weeds on this any more than it seems he does. But...
You’ve made three comments in this thread so far, and in not one of them have you acknowledged that Zvi included the phrase “if desired or needed give people a credit to avoid distributional concerns”.
I feel like that phrase is obviously relevant to your concern, even if you don’t know exactly what he means by it and/or what you think he means doesn’t fully address your concern. And I think failing to acknowledge it reflects poorly.
(I would say that Zvi spends 18 words on libertarian content, “the way … for water”, and 12 on addressing a possible failure mode of the libertarian content, “if desired … distributional concerns”. It seems to me that calling this “pure pay-or-go-to-the-wall libertarianism” is frankly ridiculous.)