1) Being a foster parent to even just one child is a worthwhile act 2) If you are concerned that there are other children who also need foster parents, you can encourage/persuade/help more people to become foster parents
So when someone says they don't want to do it because it "doesn't scale", what are they saying?
They can't be saying that foster care isn't a solution for all the kids who need temporary parents, because, obviously, it is if you have enough parents (see 1 and 2 above). 3/
I've noticed this difference too, but from the other side. It seems like what @Aella_Girl identifies as "good thinking" is what people would call executive dysfunction.
E.g. the brilliant Fields Medalist who could not/would not buy a blanket.
There have been a number of good responses to this thread, but far too many responses were knee-jerk critiques of critique. I think there's an interesting point here. Let's dig in:
First thing, Chaum's DigiCash was heavily patented. There was a version called MagicMoney that got around the patents but only for experimental use. I have no idea what the current state of the patents is, but it's definitely something to look into if this is a serious suggestion
Second, DigiCash required that users rely on a single authority (I'm not going to use the words "central" or "decentralized", because I think people are very confused regarding those terms). The authority is the single source of truth of whether a "coin" has been spent.
Are we too fond of governance? Do we confuse group decision-making with justice and fairness?
Here's why that's the wrong approach, and we should consider the entire spectrum of possible solutions instead:
I'll use two examples of great organizations that I actively participate in. As a participant, I have ZERO participation in group decision-making for these organizations. This is a really important distinction!
The first is an organization called Lasagna Love: home chefs bake lasagnas and give them to people in their local community for free. lasagnalove.org
It's really disappointing to realize that hardly anyone can distinguish Trump from Amy Coney Barrett. The political machinery moves on, regardless, even though they could not be more different. By all accounts, Barrett is a brilliant person of character.
Take a look at this letter, written a few years ago, in which all of the Supreme Court clerks who worked with her when she was also a clerk, unanimously said she would be an excellent justice to a high court. law.nd.edu/assets/253073/…
Or this piece by Noah Feldman, who is a Harvard Law Professor:
The state, money, and private property are all social technologies which have made life much better than before. Arguments against them (and I include my own here, especially against the state) should not only touch on the morality of them, but also consider the tech.
I was talking to someone about a utopian community in which people would earn community points for doing certain tasks. The question came up: who decides what tasks are worthy of doing? A committee? Is it voted upon?
This is what the social technology of money solves.
If someone consents to pay for something (caveats such as addiction and lack of alternatives aside) you know they find the task worthy of doing to that extent. It doesn't take a committee; it doesn't take some complicated political structure. It's incredible technology.