Homeless man wins lottery, but wants to stay in his tent

If you want to look beyond the single transaction, anyone gambling is probably immoral, and, imo, the government encouraging and profiting from gambling certainly is. I'm not sure why this homeless guy in Bloomington is liable for all that though.

If you want to discuss the morality of it, I think it's immoral that we as a society tolerate (and some even justify) the persistence of poverty like this man lives in when we have millionaires indulging in their $200k cars and multi-million dollar homes. I see this man using potentially-tax-sourced funds to win a small lottery stake as a tiny manifestation of social justice in a sea of injustice. And you want to call that -- a man that's been homeless for over 30 years getting some needed dental work, visiting his son, and giving of his own money to other people in actual need -- immoral. We don't know where this guy got his money from, whether it was charity or it was government assistance, but I hope it was just to stick it to people that'd rather see the afflicted starve to death than let them be any sort of obstacle to their own maximization of wealth.

From my experience, the people who are closest to homelessness themselves are the most charitable with what they have -- which can be frustrating, because you know they don't really have the margin for that.

Tallanvor's initial response made me think of that too.

 

Really?

Let's see:

This man lives off the generosity of others and gambles with that generosity. It makes him an inconsiderate *******.

...

He is 'being dumb' with others' money. That makes him an *******

...

MY anger is justified as someone is wasting money I worked for

...

An ******* to who? It is my earned money. The homeless man lives off money earned by others


Where are the 'almost definitely's in these statements?

 

That is all I have ever discussed.

Not gonna debate Communism with you

Him gambling with money earned by others' is social justice? Some of that money is mine (I pay taxes and donate to charities for the homeless). How is that justice to me?

I never said how he spent his winnings was immoral. I said buying the ticket (actually it sounds like he buys tons of tickets) was immoral.

 

What are you asking?

He has been homeless since 1978 and is 59 years old. Do you think this man who has been homeless since he was 24 has paid much taxes?

 

The same thing I've mentioned several times. You have no idea the source of his income. For all you know, he's gainfully employed and supports himself. You have no idea if he gets money from welfare (or other taxpayer sources).

 

I don't think this was brought up in that thread. But I have a hunch.


I think that person sold their food stamps to someone. I've seen/heard people sell it for .30 cents.

.30 cents!!!

I'd go for .50 cents.

 

If this man who has been homeless since he was 24 and can't afford dental work or a new tent or to visit his son ends up having consistent employment (minimum wage is $8.25 an hour) and being an income tax payer, then I will gladly retract my statement. How likely you think that is?

 

This seems to be a recurring problem for you (and a bit of a theme, generally, among many right-leaning people). When you pay taxes and when you give your money to charity, it isn't yours anymore. No more than when you give your money to the Audi dealership. It doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government and to the charitable organizations that control it. You have a little say in how it's used, but only a little, and that is done through representatives you help to choose. And for government agencies, your say is exactly equal (ideally) to that of people who've never given a nickel. That's democracy. That the money was sourced from you is completely irrelevant. Just like the owner of the Audi dealership doesn't have to ask before blowing his cash on drugs and hookers.

Incidentally, you also don't seem to know what communism is, so I'll be happy to not have to discuss that with you. Nobody even brought that up.

 

You didn't answer my question (any of them)? You just went on some condescending rant. How is it social justice for this guy to gamble with money I earned? Whether the law recognizes it as his money to do with as he pleases is irrelevant since we aren't talking about law. We are talking morality.

 

I thought I did answer it. You've spent the money. It doesn't belong to you any longer. The money you earned that he's gambled is an empty set. it doesn't exist. He has no obligation to you to use the money in his possession in any particular way because he's made you no promises and you have no control, legal or moral, on how that money can be used because you already spent it. If you'd like to demonstrate positively how you still have ownership over this tax money that allegedly came from you and he allegedly spent on a lottery ticket, I'd like to hear it. Does that sufficiently answer the question? I think the other questions were directed at Major, so I'll let him address those.

 

I am not talking legality. It is still the money I earned.

false.

He has a moral obligation since the money came from my hard work and others.

For the millionth time, the law is irrelevant as we are talking about morals. Of course I no longer own the money, but it was earned by me and gambled by him.

 

I thought about this over lunch. I don't mean to be condescending. But, I do feel indignant at your morality, which strikes me as exceptionally immoral, and that may have expressed itself in condescension. Maybe it is condescension to tell someone their morality is immoral.

I'm not talking about the law either. You want to say he has some personal moral indebtedness to you (and I suppose every tax-paying American). And I'm saying he has no debt to you because he got no money from you. What money he has that he hasn't 'earned' he's gotten from charity or government or individuals, none of whom are you because you surrendered ownership of that money long before it arrived in his pocket. I can see saying (assuming this was government's money) that he had a moral debt to the government, but not every tax-payer on the planet. Given the fungibility of cash, you could expand that idea to anyone who reaped a benefit from government and you soon have everyone indebted to everyone else, and it would be impossible for anyone to ever fully settle up.

 

If he is getting ownership of money he didn't earn then he has a moral obligation to those who did earn it to spend that money on necessities. In this case the persons who earned the money is me and every other tax payer. The government did not earn the money (they take it by force). It comes from the tax payer's sweat.

I pay more then my part in taxes. This is to make-up for those who can't pay their part in taxes (this is not a complaint). I have no obligation to spend my money in any certain manner because I do not live off the tax payer. The homeless man who doesn't pay taxes most certainly does. Obviously everyone can't 'reap a benefit from the government'. Some must be on the losing end to compensate for those who are reaping benefits.

 

I gotta step off this treadmill. The source of our disagreement is axiomatic, not logic. You've got some meta-ledger in the sky to track who is ahead and who is behind -- the givers and the takers. I think it's a fiction. And, I think the paradigm that what a person commands in a free market is 'earned' is a fiction. Any conclusions that hinge on that idea we're bound to disagree upon.

 

The more money spent on housing and such is less money to spend on booze. He wants this party to last.