Welfare

:confuse3: Jerrek, Then why do any of us deserve to have our rights protected by Armed forces. Why shouldn't we all have to do that ourselves. And why can't we just take whatever half of the road we want...I'll fight you for it. :D
 
Jerrek said:
I think we don't share that belief then... :) Because, I sure as hell don't believe that people have those "rights", nor did I ever sign such a document, and looking at the source, well, they are a joke anyways. The same organization that decided people have those "rights" also made Kadaffi the leader of the Human Rights comission.

In any case, those rights, suppose I just FLAT OUT REFUSE to do any work. Are you going to feed me, clothe me, and take care of me? I mean, I have that RIGHT, just like I have the RIGHT to free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion.

Excellent. An Ad Hominem in the first paragraph and a straw man in the second.

The article you posted was interesting, but i don't think it does sum up your beliefs.

jerreks article said:
It is a society based on opportunity and genuine compassion

As far as i can see, you have no compassion in this case.
 
nambit said:
it is my belief that every human on this planet has certain rights. basic, fundamental rights. here's a quote for you. Article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights:

How does one acquire the right to someone else's property? What is the moral basis of that right?

The right to property derives from the right to life. Because we have the right to life, we have the right to act to support our lives by the acquisition of property, and the right to keep it and use it once acquired.

Rights concern only actions, though. There's no such thing as the right to things per se, there's only the right to pursue, acquire and keep things. To say that one has the right to property doesn't mean that one has the right to force others to provide the property. It's simply a guarantee that one can acquire property without fear of the initiation of force by others.

Nambit said:
any argument i make is built upon this belief. if you don't share it, then we shall never come close to agreeing.

Then you're starting in the middle, or near the end. You require some moral justification for that right, an ethical argument for why some people have the right to other people's property. I don't expect to ever agree with you on the issue, but you could at least try to go a little deeper and defend the moral assumptions that you're relying on.
 
Ards, why is it ok to have laws to protect you from others acquiring your stuff by taking it. If we're going to remove the legal element, don't just take away the part that protects you from harm. If a person is stronger than you, instead of smarter, they should be allowed to take your stuff...and on and on till we're back to the survival of the fittest in its pure form....society, like politics, is a give and take...
 
Its supposed to ask why laws protecting the 'haves' are ok, but laws protecting the 'have nots' are bad. Especially when natural superiority would go to the stronger more often than the smarter...
 
squiggy said:
and on and on till we're back to the survival of the fittest in its pure form....
I think you hit the nail on the head ,without social programs and caring for those less fortunate we are no better than animals.I would rather have government making the decisions as to where the $$'s go then a Corporations ,whose only drive is the shareholders.Even non-profit organizations have paid managers ,that are more than willing to take their cut before the less fortunate see a penny.
 
Ards' point is that there really is no distinction between the laws protecting the "have's" and the "have not's."

The law (or, perhaps we should get back to calling it a "right") is that you can freely acquire property, use it, and keep it. This applies to both the poor and the rich. They are both afforded the protection to freely pursue the acquisition of property. You coud argue that under the current welfare system, the right to keep property once acquired is denied the rich but not the poor, but that is a grey area.

To go from "the right to live" to "the right to possess a minimum of property/resources in order to live" is walking a very precarious moral line. What quality of life? Just to "survive?" There are food kitchens that can do that. Is wandering the street mostly hungry satisfying "the right to live?"

Remember, the Constitution says the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." A hungry homeless man is alive, free, and is not denied the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution makes no guarantee of acheiving happiness. Perhaps though the inability to further his quality of life, due to his unfortunate circumstances, is enough to declare that his right of pursuit is denied. Again, walking the fine line. Who defines what standard of "living" is the minimum?

Don't take the above argument as me having a lack of compassion, as that's assuredly not the case. I think the needy do need help. Just sure as hell not under the current system. A completely privatatized system, IMO, would get the job done. On that point I agree with the libertarians (who, as it is, I often agree with).
 
A.B.Normal said:
I think you hit the nail on the head ,without social programs and caring for those less fortunate we are no better than animals.I would rather have government making the decisions as to where the $$'s go then a Corporations ,whose only drive is the shareholders.Even non-profit organizations have paid managers ,that are more than willing to take their cut before the less fortunate see a penny.
Yes, we need social programs, but not government ran and controlled programs. We don't need the state handling this for us... it has shown it's inability to handle many other industries, and I believe this is another good example.

Sure, in a privatized social care system, people will be in it to make money, just as they are in the non-profit organizations today. However, delve deeper into what woud happen if an organization became too "greedy." Under my proposed system, people would have to donate a fixed portion of their income. Information on how effective different charities are, how much their management make, how much goes to the needy, how much good they accomplish with that money (is it drugs or education they are purchasing) would all be available to the public, not the least of which would be the official governmental committee report on the situation.

If people didn't think they were getting "their money's worth" they would take their money elsewhere. This is what competition does. This is why capitalism works, and communism does not.
 
But why then , do the corporate welfare $$$ dwarf the regular welfare$$$? If a company is going to fail, let it fail. Then the 'little guy' has a chance. Instead we bail out large corporations whose execs are earning ludicrous amouts and then scream about the people trying to hold their lives annd families together.
 
Squiggy said:
Its supposed to ask why laws protecting the 'haves' are ok, but laws protecting the 'have nots' are bad. Especially when natural superiority would go to the stronger more often than the smarter...

Laws protecting property are there to protect everyone. I don't see why you think they only protect the "haves". The poor need protection for their property just as much as the rich, if not more.

I also don't understand why you think that laws that allow the government to loot the working class for the benefit of those who don't work amounts to protection for the poor. For one thing, stealing for someone isn't the same thing as protecting them. For another, welfare has been a scourge on the poor. It undermines morality by encouraging people not to work, and it finances self-destructive behavior like teen pregnancy and drug abuse.
 
Ardsgaine said:
Then you're starting in the middle, or near the end. You require some moral justification for that right, an ethical argument for why some people have the right to other people's property. I don't expect to ever agree with you on the issue, but you could at least try to go a little deeper and defend the moral assumptions that you're relying on.

i requote:

Artice 25 said:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

You are saying that you would deny someone a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family?

There is no more basic. I feel absolutly no need to defend my morality as far as that goes. The burden of proof is on your side; it's up to you to convince me that people don't nessasarily deserve a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.

"Stealing" as you term it is irrelevant. How the right is achieved is irrelevant. FWIW OLI has been very persuasive, and I can see valid arguments in what he says. I have no special affinity for the US welfare system - I have no idea how it differs from the UK one, and even that I don't have amazing insight into. However, I stand by Article 25 wholeheartedly.
 
Squiggy said:
But why then , do the corporate welfare $$$ dwarf the regular welfare$$$? If a company is going to fail, let it fail. Then the 'little guy' has a chance. Instead we bail out large corporations whose execs are earning ludicrous amouts and then scream about the people trying to hold their lives annd families together.

Now you've gone and found something we agree on. My position is no welfare for anyone... rich or poor. :headbang:
 
nambit said:
You are saying that you would deny someone a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family?

No, I'm saying that I'm not morally obligated to provide it.

nambit said:
I feel absolutly no need to defend my morality as far as that goes.

Of course you don't. I'm sure you don't have a clue where you got it from. You inhaled it in the air you breathed, sucked it from your mother's teat, drank it in the water... it's never occurred to you to question it. It's self-evident, like the existence of God to a 13th Century English peasant. Everyone knows that morality consists of self sacrifice and the purpose of our existence is to serve others, just like everyone knew that the sun moves round the Earth. :shrug:
 
Ardsgaine said:
nambit said:
I feel absolutly no need to defend my morality as far as that goes.

Of course you don't. I'm sure you don't have a clue where you got it from. You inhaled it in the air you breathed, sucked it from your mother's teat, drank it in the water... it's never occurred to you to question it. It's self-evident, like the existence of God to a 13th Century English peasant. Everyone knows that morality consists of self sacrifice and the purpose of our existence is to serve others, just like everyone knew that the sun moves round the Earth. :shrug:

there really isn't any need to make personal attacks against me, even quite poetic personal attacks like that one. :)

i do find it self evident, and i'm very happy about that. i'm amazingly glad that i don't share your views, and i stand by my statement that the burden of proof here is on your side.
 
nambit said:
there really isn't any need to make personal attacks against me, even quite poetic personal attacks like that one.

:rofl:

I'm glad you were able to appreciate it. I felt like I needed a little extra something to get my point across. :)

nambit said:
i do find it self evident, and i'm very happy about that. i'm amazingly glad that i don't share your views, and i stand by my statement that the burden of proof here is on your side.

Why do you say that the burden of proof is on me? I'm not the one advocating the use of force against people to confiscate their wealth and give it to someone else. If anything, I would think that the burden of proof rests on the person advocating such force.

At any rate, I don't have time for it tonight. I'm trying to get to bed early for a change. Maybe tomorrow, if I'm stupid enough to venture back into the Real World. :)
 
Someday, when I'm REALLY bored, I'll actually read all of this, I think there's some great points made up there, but I'm currently working on reading a novel.
 
Ardsgaine said:
Jerrek said:
Selfish? I don't think of myself as selfish.

* Ardsgaine is selfish because he places his own happiness first.

welcome to the club.how long have you been a member? just joined well then welcome to the human race. ards this isnt a shot at you so please dont take it as such. all humans are selfish. we all put our own happiness before all others.
 
Squiggy said:
:confuse3: Guess we should snip deadbeat dads too....

Yeah, squig...snip less than one percent (.3%) of all divorced fathers, et al, who do not support their children. If we go that way, we should also sterilize deadbeat moms. :rolleyes:

How about this...two kids without criminal charges being filed, and you're on your own? That would stem the flow of cash to the irresponsible...
 
Why do you say that the burden of proof is on me? I'm not the one advocating the use of force against people to confiscate their wealth and give it to someone else. If anything, I would think that the burden of proof rests on the person advocating such force.

So I think your wording of the situation is ridiculous. Use of force? You make it sound like the military comes in your house and takes your money when in fact you are simply paying taxes.

Taxes which go towards social programs, but also towards elected officials salaries, roads, and things that protect you like health inspections and such.

Many of these things benefit you as well. You have recourse though, you can get in a situation like Jerrek and not pay taxes but still get all the benefits from the tax funded programs.
 
Back
Top