What Do We Owe to Others?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
202

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

Even other male lions in the pride, while not head lion, they still get to eat, and their lives are just as good as the leader. he may not get all the females, but im sure he gets some. There is no way there should be billionaires and homeless people in the same country. That is insane.
[/quote]

Yes there is, if people refuse to help themselves that is not the billionaires fault.

There are some people that will not stand on their own no matter how much opportunity you give them. You cannot steal from one group to give to these people just because they refuse to do it for themselves. I am not saying all are like that. But that is why it should voluntary not forced by the government.[/quote]

How about people that have it well off their whole lives, but say the husband loses his job and money in the stock market and now finds him and his family homeless. thats not right. these are the people that need help to get their house back and their money.

What do you think is going to happen, when families now find themselves homeless. Don’t you think they are going to get desparate and the crime rate will soar. [/quote]

While bad things can happen to good people, most of the homeless people I know are that way by choice and quite smug that they are better than you for it.

Poverty does not create crime. This is one of those urban myths that is used to justify all sorts of social programs. Try it this way, do you really think everyone living in rural Peru has to be a criminal because of their dire poverty? Are you because you are poorer than Warren Buffet? In this society there is no such thing as poverty but relative in-affluence. Mostly “poor” people are highly dysfunctional and simply cannot organize their lives. Subsidizing them to stay that way is the real crime.

Case study? My ex wife who is virtually destitute. She and her boyfriend go to various churches in the area for food regularly. She’ll probably lose her home soon too. So sad, isn’t it? Or is it? How did this happen? When we divorced I bought her a house. I also agreed to pay her the maximum by law (24% of my income, before taxes). She still gets the money and I know her total base operating expenses are just a couple hundred dollars a month. She smokes pot all the time, which is expensive, her boyfriend is an idiot with money and she has refused to get a job, giving mostly arguments about fighting “the system” from her anarchist brother. Oh she got a good education with good grades and has worked before professionally but found it “hard” – you know, showing up regularly and on time is oppression. Damnit, I am bleeding money still every month to her and she is still fucking it up. This is a more common occurrence than what you imagine. What makes you think she’ll be any better getting any more than what she gets now (and I make really good money)? The reason (among many) I gave her the boot was that she was so damn bad with money she was going to bankrupt me. That and the fact she didn’t want to be a mommy any more and was more than happy to dump the kids on me, take the money and run.

Most of her friends are just about like this and are loudly socialist too, as they collect welfare or disability and proclaim that the reason they are failures is the system or capitalism. Last I heard they were off to the local Occupy venue, trying to enact social change. The theorizing is just rationalizing and frankly I am sick of hearing them. They think I am a heartless slug because she could sure use (=spend) more money and I won’t give her more. Hell, I have to raise my kids still and that’s where the money goes. Yes I got my kids in the divorce and that’s really all that mattered to me. Paying her off to get custody was cheap. This is reality, not theory.

That there are good people someplace who have fallen on hard times is stirring, but all the examples I run into regularly are ninnies. Giving the idiots money in hopes of helping some people who may exist someplace is foolish.

– jj[/quote]

Wow, they still give alimony in this day and age. If i was you, id fight that.

205

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

Wow, they still give alimony in this day and age. If i was you, id fight that. [/quote]

Yes, Roguie, just like grizzly bear hunting is still allowed.

You really need to get out more.[/quote]

Maybe he is so progressive he already live in the future.

206

2365×854 566 KB

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

Wow, they still give alimony in this day and age. If i was you, id fight that. [/quote]

What mechanism do you propose to fight this injustice?[/quote]
This

208

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’m sorry, I worded that last post badly. It should say “then yes, providing fire service to everyone through taxation would remedy an inequality (caused by an inequality in wealth) among citizens.”[/quote]

But fire protection doesn’t have a policy mission of reducing the perceived income/wealth inequality.
[/quote]

Again, if we were talking about going from privatized fire service to tax payer funded fire service, then yes, the mission would be to reduce the perceived income/wealth inequality (the specific inequality being that rich people can afford fire service while poor people cannot).

Currently, rich people can afford medical care while poor people cannot.

209

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Again, if we were talking about going from privatized fire service to tax payer funded fire service, then yes, the mission would be to reduce the perceived income/wealth inequality (the specific inequality being that rich people can afford fire service while poor people cannot).[/quote]

Well, be we aren’t, just like our post office wasn’t mandated by the Constitution to remedy the inequality between poor and rich people being able to transmit letters.

Well, you’re making my argument for me - provision of health care in this context is to (try to) engineer a equal material result with respect to consumption of health care resources. It’s a kind of transfer payment - give money from the rich to the poor so they can consume health care resources they otherwise don’t have the income to purchase. That is mission-specific to eliminating a perceived material wealth inequality.

It isn’t complicated - but it has to be repeated quite a bit to dismiss the argument that “nationalized health care = police force”. It just ain’t so.

210

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Again, if we were talking about going from privatized fire service to tax payer funded fire service, then yes, the mission would be to reduce the perceived income/wealth inequality (the specific inequality being that rich people can afford fire service while poor people cannot).[/quote]

Well, be we aren’t, just like our post office wasn’t mandated by the Constitution to remedy the inequality between poor and rich people being able to transmit letters.

Well, you’re making my argument for me - provision of health care in this context is to (try to) engineer a equal material result with respect to consumption of health care resources. It’s a kind of transfer payment - give money from the rich to the poor so they can consume health care resources they otherwise don’t have the income to purchase. That is mission-specific to eliminating a perceived material wealth inequality.

It isn’t complicated - but it has to be repeated quite a bit to dismiss the argument that “nationalized health care = police force”. It just ain’t so.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, I just don’t see your arugment against saying “Give money from the rich to the poor so they can consume fire service resources” or “Give money from the rich to the poor so they can consume police protection resources”.

Imagine that you live in a society where only those who can afford fire service get it, and only those who can afford police service get it. Make a case as to why those things should be funded by taxes, or defend the policies as they are.

211

That there are good people someplace who have fallen on hard times is stirring, but all the examples I run into regularly are ninnies. Giving the idiots money in hopes of helping some people who may exist someplace is foolish.

– jj[/quote]

JJ, I agree. I’m NOT saying we have a moral duty to people who won’t help themselves. It’s people who can’t for various reasons, not the lazy people who want to claim they’re socialist which really means lazy to them. These people are the freeriders, and they’re the reason socialism doesn’t work often I guess. Well, I’m not saying we should give anything to the freerider.

212

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
That there are good people someplace who have fallen on hard times is stirring, but all the examples I run into regularly are ninnies. Giving the idiots money in hopes of helping some people who may exist someplace is foolish.

– jj[/quote]

JJ, I agree. I’m NOT saying we have a moral duty to people who won’t help themselves. It’s people who can’t for various reasons, not the lazy people who want to claim they’re socialist which really means lazy to them. These people are the freeriders, and they’re the reason socialism doesn’t work often I guess. Well, I’m not saying we should give anything to the freerider. [/quote]

“Social parasites” as they were officially termed in the communist countries (started in the Soviet Union) was a term of absolute derision and at times was virtually a death sentence. They took your thinking to heart that one reason Socialism wasn’t working was because of such people – not because of foolish central planning schemes. Later they found the really nifty use that since everyone worked for the state if they didn’t like you they could fire you then send you to prison for being a parasite, saving court costs.

But that’s the rub – Socialism is nothing more than a moral position that we help those less fortunate and turns over morality to the state to make these decisions. As I stated, there can be no half measures. Once the state gets to determine what is important, it must start doing so for everything (again, historical examples are what I cite here. The Soviet Union started setting prices on a few things and ended up officially regulating 20 million items and their economy was a crippled mess compared to ours. This is one well documented example of how a bit of planning cannot be stopped once it starts unless the mandate is very narrowly scoped indeed.) Unless you can explicitly tell us all how to determine is someone is worthy, you will just recreate a complete social mess.

Another example is equality. Communist countries were obsessed with it. What happened was that since there are inequalities, people must be treated differently in order to achieve equality of results. (So rich people, e.g. pay more, smart people have to go work on farms) The practical effect is that the state gets a mandate to dispose of due process of law. In order to make such determinations, a whole bureaucracy arose. This meant, in practice, the aim of making society more equal destroyed any legal framework for treating citizens equitably and created a monstrous aristocracy (the Party’s political officers) whose job was to rule by decree on what it meant to be fair. Look at North Korea which is a typical example. The citizens live in abject terror of being labeled anything other than peasants and you so do not want to end up on trial there. This is a very, very typical outcome of an earnest attempt at Socialism.

Utopian aims are nice, but can be deadly. You must always look for historical examples of why such things didn’t work and understand why they failed. If it really happened, you must also explain how your idea will be the exception to this result. Remember that social problems invariably boil down to an observed difference between theory and practice. That so many people find such problems is more often a testament to the number of goofy theories they have more than anything else.

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj

213

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’m sorry, I just don’t see your arugment against saying “Give money from the rich to the poor so they can consume fire service resources” or “Give money from the rich to the poor so they can consume police protection resources”.

Imagine that you live in a society where only those who can afford fire service get it, and only those who can afford police service get it. Make a case as to why those things should be funded by taxes, or defend the policies as they are.[/quote]

Well, that would be easy - fire protection and police protection are in the public interest independent of the desire to remedy perceived wealth inequality problems. I mean, this is elementary civics - this is why these services have been around long before socialist ideas about redistributing wealth were birthed.

And, let me understand you right - based on your rationale (I think), every government program/policy is an expression of some form of “socialism” because, at bottom, every public program that provides some benefit or service independent of a person’s ability to pay a fee for it is remedying wealth inequality at some level. Is that right?

So, the Founding Fathers of the United States were “socialists” then, since they provided for a government-operated post office as opposed to a private mial service? Thomas Jefferson was a “socialist”?

214

@thunderbolt23 : Thank you.

You’re one of the very few people here who seem to actually know what “socialism” means.

Most people here use this word in the same way the far left use the word “fascism” : as a boogeyman.
the equation “public policy = statism = socialism” is a pure fallacy.

“socialism = USSR” is another one, but i won’t steal florelius’s job.

215

JJ, few things: One - you seem very smart, what did you/did you study in school? And where?

Also, I’m not too proud to admit that I’m wrong sometimes. I’m glad you wrote that last response. That makes sense, about how the government can just call you a freerider if they don’t like you and then you’re screwed. I guess that’s the logical endgame of socialism sometimes, because people in power tend to be greedy and do stuff like that.

What do you think needs to be done in this country to help those in need (those in true need, not homeless junkies or lazy ppl who CHOOSE not to fix their problems)? I’m curious to see what you think could help out?

Also, what do you think about altruism from a philosophical standpoint? I uused to quote Rand and think it was awful, but I’ve since changed my opinions drastically. I think this world NEEDS altruism, and I guess that ties into my point/supports my argument that we have the moral duty to help others.

Lastly, if you did agree with me that we do have a moral duty to help others, what would you do to implement such a system? Everybody here says it’s implausible, but I want to see what you think.

216

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, that would be easy - fire protection and police protection are in the public interest independent of the desire to remedy perceived wealth inequality problems. [/quote]

But if poor people didnt get fire or police service, they would BE “perceived wealth inequality problems”, no?

218

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, that would be easy - fire protection and police protection are in the public interest independent of the desire to remedy perceived wealth inequality problems. [/quote]

But if poor people didnt get fire or police service, they would BE “perceived wealth inequality problems”, no?[/quote]

Got damn dude, how thick are you?

THAT IS NOT THERE PURPOSE

219

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

Wow, they still give alimony in this day and age. If i was you, id fight that. [/quote]

What mechanism do you propose to fight this injustice?[/quote]

lol he might have you on ignore