Instead of being worried, why don't they pay the utility bills of the people they're so concerned about?
Public utilities are a common good, and it is important that they be paid for so that they continue to be a common good.
I do not think this should be called a "utility". The electricity itself is. But the system of paying for it is not.
Surely we can build better societies than this?
That is, what people do constitutes society.
If you want a better society, then act better. Do what you can.
Do you care about the people affected by this? Can you do something about it? Then do so.
Is there something preventing these advocates from paying the bills for the people they are concerned about?
That is a cop out. The commanding heights of the economy are being controlled in this case by people who prioritise their own greed over a families welfare.
What does: "act better" mean in this context?
That's what people are doing by advocating for a change in the system.
> Is there something preventing these advocates from paying the bills for the people they are concerned about?
Well yes, it would require an enormous amount of coordination to match up all individuals with money to match up with individuals with the need. It also isn't very fair to shoulder the burden of these payments on only those who go out of their way to make this effort. Hence why it is better to have the state step in and manage all this.
Unless you're thinking of societies without any regard for personal rights?
How is it fair to require involuntary servitude on the part of paying customers to pay for what they did not use?
Those who are actually concerned should pay the bill if it is important to them. Pushing the bill onto others while expressing concern is not real concern. Forcing one person to pay for what another person needs is involuntary servitude (slavery).
People who have more should pay more so those who barely scrape by (and are looking after the next generation - this is a family) can survive and thrive.
That is not slavery.
I am a little bemused to be writing this.
If you're so concerned, then take the money out of your own pocket and use it to alleviate this problem. Dipping into someone else's pocket because you feel bad is not good behavior. It's theft.
And, its involuntary servitude because the person you are taking this money from worked for it. Do you think they worked for it to benefit you? To benefit this person you are so concerned about? No.
To the extent you are forcing them to work for your whims, to the direct benefit of someone else, to that extent they are made a slave.
Yes
I blame the gradual watering down of the word "slavery" from "actual slavery" to "any economic arrangement that is unfair".
Many times, businesses pass costs onto customers for things they don’t use. My college charged me a “sports fee” for games I never went to. My health insurance will charge me my premiums when I don’t get sick. I will share the cost of peaker plants even if I don’t use electricity during peak hours.
If the utility covered some of these costs, people who didn’t like the resulting rate hike could buy solar panels or a generator.
In contrast, the word “slavery” refers to a practice where someone is kidnapped and forced to perform actions (labor, sex acts, etc.), often under the threat of having “the shit beat out of them,” to use a colloquialism.
This is a lot different than paying the amortized/allocated cost of utility and all that is needed to run the utility. Paying people's bills for them when they do not pay is not necessary to run the utility. It generates no utility (in this case, electricity). A peaker plant generates utility, and it has associated costs.
Businesses often pass on the costs of dealing with people who don't pay because it is efficient, not because it is right.