I'm not pretending people don't have their own lines, but I think they're fundamentally wrong to say the line exists within the space of "doing unequivocally good things for poor people [which admittedly may have negative downstream effects, as do all actions]"
> That's why it's an important thing to consider when the government promises to do something or provide a service. It can go away at any time, and people who became reliant on it will suffer it's loss.
Sure, it's something to think about, but it's not a realistic impediment to enacting a good policy. If the worst thing you can say about a policy is that "it might end, and that would be bad" you should do that policy. Besides, government programs tend to get institutionalized and are often much harder to undo than to do.
> That's why it's an important thing to consider when the government promises to do something or provide a service. It can go away at any time, and people who became reliant on it will suffer it's loss.
Sure, it's something to think about, but it's not a realistic impediment to enacting a good policy. If the worst thing you can say about a policy is that "it might end, and that would be bad" you should do that policy. Besides, government programs tend to get institutionalized and are often much harder to undo than to do.