[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Philosophers will never be kings; and kings will never be philosophers. I’m not so sure I’d have it any othe way. If it were otherwise we could hand over our decisions (in the public square; in our own lives) to computational analysis.
[/quote]
I sometimes wonder if this wouldn’t be better after watching what has been going on in Washington my entire adult life.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Philosophers will never be kings; and kings will never be philosophers. I’m not so sure I’d have it any othe way. If it were otherwise we could hand over our decisions (in the public square; in our own lives) to computational analysis.
[/quote]
I sometimes wonder if this wouldn’t be better after watching what has been going on in Washington my entire adult life.
[/quote]
hah! Yeah, well, you know, there could be downsides Zeb.
Seriously, why shouldn’t a person have to pass a basic civics test? What business does a person have voting who doesn’t know, for example, that there are three branches of government, etc. ?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If our premise is that the person has to be productive, or at one time was productive over a period of years students cannot vote and those retired can. This shouldn’t matter much to most students as only about 25% of them vote in most cases anyway.
What do you think Matty?
[/quote]
Good point about the seniors, I spaced out and forgot(typical for my age group eh?) on your previous point about work history playing a key role. So agreed.
Well, as a student(I love learning and study on my own time when not in school and also will be starting in Sept>B.Sc>Medicine), I think one valid point for students voting would be that they are being productive, but in another way, they should be acquiring skills and knowledge to use in the future. I hear a lot about useless degrees, but I don’t know enough about which ones in particular, but liberal arts is coming to mind even tho I don’t know what that includes. If anyone would like to inform/correct me on this, it is welcome.
Another point (in favour if true) is that students, afaik, aren’t on gov’t assistance either. So they aren’t taking away from your plate.
I’m not a parent but I believe you’ve mentioned that you have kids(I’m not sure of the age), but would you consider them being in university or college as time spent being ‘unproductive’?
[quote]malonetd wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Here’s one that I’ve read on here before.
Give or take this is what it has sounded like
“People that receive money from the gov’t shouldn’t be allowed to vote”
Would this include SS pensions? unemployment? welfare? all of the above? some other area or combination that I don’t know of?
Logical? or not?
[/quote]
Interesting concept. If one does not contribute to society and never has perhaps they should have less rights in that society. Would this encourage them to stop living off the state? With some it wouldn’t make a difference as they do not vote anyway. However, it’s my guess that none of them were allowed to vote until they were productive members of society we may eventually have a different country, a better country.[/quote]
To continue with that, what if someone were to be laid off? injured? can’t find a job in their field? Do they not deserve to vote? It’s a touchy subject.[/quote]
I don’t mean to picking on you, so don’t take it that way, but you’re train of thought here is what’s part of the problem in this country in the first place. You’re automatically connecting someone who needs help to the government “helping.”
[/quote]
I wouldn’t have taken your comment as picking on me but thank you for being considerate.
I gave those as examples b/c (afaik) that is the current reality (in the US) of what may be labelled as being ‘non-productive’ and who is ‘dragging your country down’(unnecessarily).
I absolutely agree with you. For me, I save upwards of 75% of what I earn(I’m still with mom and dad :)). I save because I want to have a home someday and realize that ‘money talks, bullshit walks’ in this world. I save b/c I want to own my own home one day, and not get caught up in what I call ‘the renters trap’(as I see it). Paying off a home instead of ‘throwing money away’ with rent.
Getting away from my tangent, I can speak (a bit) about employment insurance in Canada. There is only so much EI that you can be entitled to. I got laid off recently, and with my work record, they’ve let me know that I’m entitled to receive my EI for 22 wks tops.
Reading from info on their site, it said that you have had to work a minimum of 900 hours for the year or you aren’t eligible should the time come(there are also other requirements but this is a ‘standout’ as I see it).
I’ve read/heard about people in the states being on ‘unemployment’ for years(is that true?) at a time.
IMO(if the above is true), that is quite ridiculous, and is a perfect example of the imperfect system that has been put in place in the US, and that helps me understand your frustrations better.
Katz is back.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Katz is back.[/quote]
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Philosophers will never be kings; and kings will never be philosophers. I’m not so sure I’d have it any othe way. If it were otherwise we could hand over our decisions (in the public square; in our own lives) to computational analysis.
[/quote]
I sometimes wonder if this wouldn’t be better after watching what has been going on in Washington my entire adult life.
[/quote]
hah! Yeah, well, you know, there could be downsides Zeb.
Seriously, why shouldn’t a person have to pass a basic civics test? What business does a person have voting who doesn’t know, for example, that there are three branches of government, etc. ?
[/quote]
Not only shouldn’t they it is only logical that they do. Logic demands that a citizen understand the basics before weighing in.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If our premise is that the person has to be productive, or at one time was productive over a period of years students cannot vote and those retired can. This shouldn’t matter much to most students as only about 25% of them vote in most cases anyway.
What do you think Matty?
[/quote]
Good point about the seniors, I spaced out and forgot(typical for my age group eh?) on your previous point about work history playing a key role. So agreed.
Well, as a student(I love learning and study on my own time when not in school and also will be starting in Sept>B.Sc>Medicine), I think one valid point for students voting would be that they are being productive, but in another way, they should be acquiring skills and knowledge to use in the future. I hear a lot about useless degrees, but I don’t know enough about which ones in particular, but liberal arts is coming to mind even tho I don’t know what that includes. If anyone would like to inform/correct me on this, it is welcome.
Another point (in favour if true) is that students, afaik, aren’t on gov’t assistance either. So they aren’t taking away from your plate.
I’m not a parent but I believe you’ve mentioned that you have kids(I’m not sure of the age), but would you consider them being in university or college as time spent being ‘unproductive’?[/quote]
Students are not hurting us but neither are they being productive members of society via adding to the economy. The potential is there but you know what they say about potential.
And welcome back Katz. In your absence there was a huge influx of atheist socialist foreign college kids. The insurgence was beaten back by myself, Trib, Chris, and many other loyalists. Nothing else of substance to report.
Serious questions, b/c I don’t know the answer
Continuing with your logic ZEB(not scrutinizing), is someone only productive when they add to the economy? is that the only measure that matters?
[quote]ZEB wrote:Not only shouldn’t they it is only logical that they do. Logic demands that a citizen understand the basics before weighing in.
[/quote]
Haha!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And welcome back Katz. In your absence there was a huge influx of atheist socialist foreign college kids. The insurgence was beaten back by myself, Trib, Chris, and many other loyalists. Nothing else of substance to report.
:)[/quote]
They shan’t prevail ZEB! Good man!
I was in London for most of December - I was thinking of you guys, and considering checking in to see whether you were discussing the “student” riots. i had many an encounter, in person, with “atheist socialist foriegn college kids” - they seem to be makin’ them in huge batches lately. Virtually impossible to have an actual conversation with them. Seriously misinformed, logically impaired, etc. LOL.
The truth is though: many of them are normal middle-class kids, but they’re being manipulated by older, atheist-socialist/anarchist radicals, who are very good at infiltrating and polarizing these kids until they end up in a kind of confused and vague anger. Once they step out of slogan mode they have no idea what to say. It’s really bizarre.
Sorry for the highjack - carry on good sirs!
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And welcome back Katz. In your absence there was a huge influx of atheist socialist foreign college kids. The insurgence was beaten back by myself, Trib, Chris, and many other loyalists. Nothing else of substance to report.
:)[/quote]
They shan’t prevail ZEB! Good man!
I was in London for most of December - I was thinking of you guys, and considering checking in to see whether you were discussing the “student” riots. i had many an encounter, in person, with “atheist socialist foriegn college kids” - they seem to be makin’ them in huge batches lately. Virtually impossible to have an actual conversation with them. Seriously misinformed, logically impaired, etc. LOL.
The truth is though: many of them are normal middle-class kids, but they’re being manipulated by older, atheist-socialist/anarchist radicals, who are very good at infiltrating and polarizing these kids until they end up in a kind of confused and vague anger. Once they step out of slogan mode they have no idea what to say. It’s really bizarre.
Sorry for the highjack - carry on good sirs!
[/quote]
No worries on the hijack my friend. One of the problems is that these kids grow up with no base. And with no base they can be pulled in any direction the manipulating socialists desire.
Anyway good to have you back.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying. The belief that people should or shouldn’t be required to help others is also a value statement.
Some people see helping the helpless as a moral obligation that is appropriately mandated by the government. Others think it should be individual and voluntary. Both are logical, it’s just a difference in values.
Personally, I have no problem with the government helping people that truly need the help. In some cases, if the government didn’t do it, nobody would, and I find that unacceptable.
That said, I don’t think people should be helped beyond what they truly need…and that line is itself a value judgment.[/quote]
I understand but the premise of our country was to protect individual rights, not moral obligations.
not saying this in a smartass way, but I thought you would be on board with that idea.
[/quote]
Like I said though, it’s rarely black and white.
Individual rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe the government has the moral responsibility to provide those rights to its citizens, even if it requires taxation to do so. You might argue that taxes infringe on your own rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to some extent you would be right. But sometimes ensuring those rights for some requires at least partially sacrificing those rights for others.
Most people agree that taxes are necessary, to some extent. This disagreement is more around what is and is not acceptable to support through taxes. It’s a very gray area, and is ultimately driven by your core values and by your prioritization of those values.[/quote]
But this is only true if you believe the government gives you rights, if you believe you were endowed with those rights by a creator.
I understand what you are getting at, and I can respect the civility in which it is presented, but given the construct of our country in the intent as which it was founded, this does not generally hold weight.
In the constitution the idea of taxation was only supported if it would provide back directly to that individual something that could be construed to be of equal value. It has morphed over the years and opens up to many slippery slopes, giving the government that power over your rights.
The role of the government is to protect your natural rights, not provide or take away arbitrary rights, or to give you wages, or to provide health care, or anything else of that nature. Now as a free person in a free society if you wish to do so you can do so through voluntary interactions.
It would be a different story if we talking about any other nation, but this was the way in which our nation was established. It is what has proved to yield the best results, and moving away from this model had put us in debt, created and dependent serf class, robbed us of many rights, and stifled the innovative thinkers of this country.
I see it everyday in our company, this so called progress is demotivating the employees that are motivated and rewarding mediocracy.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying. The belief that people should or shouldn’t be required to help others is also a value statement.
Some people see helping the helpless as a moral obligation that is appropriately mandated by the government. Others think it should be individual and voluntary. Both are logical, it’s just a difference in values.
Personally, I have no problem with the government helping people that truly need the help. In some cases, if the government didn’t do it, nobody would, and I find that unacceptable.
That said, I don’t think people should be helped beyond what they truly need…and that line is itself a value judgment.[/quote]
I understand but the premise of our country was to protect individual rights, not moral obligations.
not saying this in a smartass way, but I thought you would be on board with that idea.
[/quote]
Like I said though, it’s rarely black and white.
Individual rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe the government has the moral responsibility to provide those rights to its citizens, even if it requires taxation to do so. You might argue that taxes infringe on your own rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to some extent you would be right. But sometimes ensuring those rights for some requires at least partially sacrificing those rights for others.
Most people agree that taxes are necessary, to some extent. This disagreement is more around what is and is not acceptable to support through taxes. It’s a very gray area, and is ultimately driven by your core values and by your prioritization of those values.[/quote]
But this is only true if you believe the government gives you rights, if you believe you were endowed with those rights by a creator.
I understand what you are getting at, and I can respect the civility in which it is presented, but given the construct of our country in the intent as which it was founded, this does not generally hold weight.
In the constitution the idea of taxation was only supported if it would provide back directly to that individual something that could be construed to be of equal value. It has morphed over the years and opens up to many slippery slopes, giving the government that power over your rights.
The role of the government is to protect your natural rights, not provide or take away arbitrary rights, or to give you wages, or to provide health care, or anything else of that nature. Now as a free person in a free society if you wish to do so you can do so through voluntary interactions.
It would be a different story if we talking about any other nation, but this was the way in which our nation was established. It is what has proved to yield the best results, and moving away from this model had put us in debt, created and dependent serf class, robbed us of many rights, and stifled the innovative thinkers of this country.
I see it everyday in our company, this so called progress is demotivating the employees that are motivated and rewarding mediocracy.[/quote]
Very well said.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying. The belief that people should or shouldn’t be required to help others is also a value statement.
Some people see helping the helpless as a moral obligation that is appropriately mandated by the government. Others think it should be individual and voluntary. Both are logical, it’s just a difference in values.
Personally, I have no problem with the government helping people that truly need the help. In some cases, if the government didn’t do it, nobody would, and I find that unacceptable.
That said, I don’t think people should be helped beyond what they truly need…and that line is itself a value judgment.[/quote]
I understand but the premise of our country was to protect individual rights, not moral obligations.
not saying this in a smartass way, but I thought you would be on board with that idea.
[/quote]
Like I said though, it’s rarely black and white.
Individual rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe the government has the moral responsibility to provide those rights to its citizens, even if it requires taxation to do so. You might argue that taxes infringe on your own rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to some extent you would be right. But sometimes ensuring those rights for some requires at least partially sacrificing those rights for others.
Most people agree that taxes are necessary, to some extent. This disagreement is more around what is and is not acceptable to support through taxes. It’s a very gray area, and is ultimately driven by your core values and by your prioritization of those values.[/quote]
But this is only true if you believe the government gives you rights, if you believe you were endowed with those rights by a creator.
I understand what you are getting at, and I can respect the civility in which it is presented, but given the construct of our country in the intent as which it was founded, this does not generally hold weight.
In the constitution the idea of taxation was only supported if it would provide back directly to that individual something that could be construed to be of equal value. It has morphed over the years and opens up to many slippery slopes, giving the government that power over your rights.
The role of the government is to protect your natural rights, not provide or take away arbitrary rights, or to give you wages, or to provide health care, or anything else of that nature. Now as a free person in a free society if you wish to do so you can do so through voluntary interactions.
It would be a different story if we talking about any other nation, but this was the way in which our nation was established. It is what has proved to yield the best results, and moving away from this model had put us in debt, created and dependent serf class, robbed us of many rights, and stifled the innovative thinkers of this country.
I see it everyday in our company, this so called progress is demotivating the employees that are motivated and rewarding mediocracy.[/quote]
Very well said.
[/quote]
X6
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I see what you’re saying. The belief that people should or shouldn’t be required to help others is also a value statement.
Some people see helping the helpless as a moral obligation that is appropriately mandated by the government. Others think it should be individual and voluntary. Both are logical, it’s just a difference in values.
Personally, I have no problem with the government helping people that truly need the help. In some cases, if the government didn’t do it, nobody would, and I find that unacceptable.
That said, I don’t think people should be helped beyond what they truly need…and that line is itself a value judgment.[/quote]
I understand but the premise of our country was to protect individual rights, not moral obligations.
not saying this in a smartass way, but I thought you would be on board with that idea.
[/quote]
Like I said though, it’s rarely black and white.
Individual rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe the government has the moral responsibility to provide those rights to its citizens, even if it requires taxation to do so. You might argue that taxes infringe on your own rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to some extent you would be right. But sometimes ensuring those rights for some requires at least partially sacrificing those rights for others.
Most people agree that taxes are necessary, to some extent. This disagreement is more around what is and is not acceptable to support through taxes. It’s a very gray area, and is ultimately driven by your core values and by your prioritization of those values.[/quote]
But this is only true if you believe the government gives you rights, if you believe you were endowed with those rights by a creator.
I understand what you are getting at, and I can respect the civility in which it is presented, but given the construct of our country in the intent as which it was founded, this does not generally hold weight.
In the constitution the idea of taxation was only supported if it would provide back directly to that individual something that could be construed to be of equal value. It has morphed over the years and opens up to many slippery slopes, giving the government that power over your rights.
The role of the government is to protect your natural rights, not provide or take away arbitrary rights, or to give you wages, or to provide health care, or anything else of that nature. Now as a free person in a free society if you wish to do so you can do so through voluntary interactions.
It would be a different story if we talking about any other nation, but this was the way in which our nation was established. It is what has proved to yield the best results, and moving away from this model had put us in debt, created and dependent serf class, robbed us of many rights, and stifled the innovative thinkers of this country.
I see it everyday in our company, this so called progress is demotivating the employees that are motivated and rewarding mediocracy.[/quote]
What if the government taxes you to protect the natural rights of others, without directly returning to you something of “equal value”?
Again, I understand where you’re coming from on the role of government. My point is that your view of the role of government is based on your own set of values. Others may have a different set of values, or may have the same values but prioritize them differently. One could argue whether or not those values were shared by the founders, but the requirement that they be shared and that they can never be changed from the original founders’ intent is also a value statement.
One position is no more or less logical than the other. It’s about what you value, and in a democracy those values shared by the majority will ultimately drive our laws and policies.
[quote]forlife wrote:
What if the government taxes you to protect the natural rights of others, without directly returning to you something of “equal value”?
Again, I understand where you’re coming from on the role of government. My point is that your view of the role of government is based on your own set of values. Others may have a different set of values, or may have the same values but prioritize them differently. One could argue whether or not those values were shared by the founders, but the requirement that they be shared and that they can never be changed from the original founders’ intent is also a value statement.
One position is no more or less logical than the other. It’s about what you value, and in a democracy those values shared by the majority will ultimately drive our laws and policies.[/quote]
LOL…
So, people with a level “0” on this website, because they don’t add to the “economy” of Biotest, should not be allowed to post their opinion/preference, or “vote”?
Just kidding, keep up the discussion, it is interesting.