Read on Twitter
Edward Colston builds almhouses for the poor at considerable expense to himself, but he's evil.
Marcus Rashford writes a letter to the government to compel them to use everyone's tax money to help the poor but at an infinitesimally small expense to himself, yet he's a Saint.
Marcus Rashford writes a letter to the government to compel them to use everyone's tax money to help the poor but at an infinitesimally small expense to himself, yet he's a Saint.
If @MarcusRashford had got together with the rest of the premier league and said "you know what we're going to put together fellowship to use our own money to pay for free school dinners" that would have been better.
What he's actually done is virtual signal at no cost to him.
What he's actually done is virtual signal at no cost to him.
The goal here is to have no hungry children. We differ at how to get there. Actual charity is better than welfare through coercion but we are still not fixing the root cause. Why are some parents unable or unwilling to feed their kids. This is the problem with welfare.
All you are doing is applying plasters{bandaids} and not fixing the problem. Fixing the problem is much harder but everytime we make ourselves feel better by applying a bandaid we make the issue worse. Now there is no incentive for parents to do better. It's all okay, the state
will look after it with the money they take from the tax payer. All you do is sub contract your responsibility to the state and the state is rubbish at actually dealing with problems. Maybe it's a time preference issue which is a result of IQ. Lower IQ people on average
prefer immediate satisfaction, higher IQ people will defer satisfaction until a later date for a more satisfactory result. Hey a multi-millionaire footballer got the government to keep free meals for kids, whoopee! However the real problem still exists.
