Hacker News Reader

Comment by gfodor | Hacker News Reader

COVID risk also would drop to the degree people become fit and healthy, among a million other potential benefits.

I’m not generally a socialist, but I would not be opposed to a monthly government payout to people who provide proof-of-workout.

Edit: the downvotes are confusing. I’ve noticed my comments are downvoted more these days on HN. Not sure if I’ve changed or HN has.

Edit2: oh perhaps some people are reacting to my use of the term socialist. Weird. I’m using the term fairly loosely here in the liberal not Internationalist tradition.

View on HN

> I’m not generally a socialist, but I would not be opposed to a monthly government payout to people who provide proof-of-workout.

Why do you think this is socialist?

Because it would be redistributive.

You seem to be suffering from a misconception. Redistributive policies are not inherently socialist. If you believe they are, then the US has had socialist policies for over 100 years, because progressive taxation is redistributive.

I assumed lower case socialist is the proper term to describe policies which trade individual agency for collective benefits, like publicly funded roads or fire stations. What is a better term?

I see. Programs that provide collective benefit, as long as you're a part of the group that benefits, generally aren't considered redistributive, either.

As far as the things you named, I would refer to those things generally as "social programs." Some of them might fall under the term "welfare programs," such as food stamps. Fire departments and roads, I wouldn't even classify as redistributive, for the simple fact that, although you pay for them, you also benefit from them.

Side note: I hate how the word "socialist" is a thought terminating cliche in the US. People should be more open minded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...

Thanks I’m aware of all these other terms but was looking for a term to describe situations where the government spends money on things that benefit society collectively by redeploying capital unevenly. For example, a government funded army vs private militias, or a private fire department vs a public one.

> If you believe they are, then the US has had socialist policies for over 100 years

The US has had socialist policies for over 100 years, and more intensely so since the mid-1900s; the modern US economic system (like the rest of the developed world) is a form of the “modern mixed economy”, a synthesis (largely ad hoc, rather than comprehensively, coherently planned) of classic capitalism of anti-capitalist alternatives, particularly socialism.

Which US policies involve workers owning the means of production? Because that's essentially the definition of socialism.

That would amount to a payout to people who already exercise (in one of the ways that you would accept as proof of exercise), but how much would it move on the margin?

Obesity is a much bigger health concern than COVID in the long term, but I don't think a payout like the one you proposed would do much, if anything, to actually deal with obesity, especially because the issue is that people eat too damn much (I know that is why I am fat).

I think payout is just one idea. The point I’m making is that I support the government incentivizing fitness through the levers it typically uses to incentivize behavior, like tax benefits, regulatory burden reduction, access to entitlement programs, etc. within reason of course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com