Effort or Luck?

The question I would ask is WHO is actually making the child suffer, and then I would ask, "is the child really suffering?" and I might then decide if there was some way I could help which would actually benefit the child.

If a child, or any innocent person is being made to suffer, I would first look to see is the individual(s) charged with caring for the child or person suffering.

Perhaps you should then increase your charitable donations.

That's laudable, but in addition you wish to impose your desires as a responsibility upon others with or without their consent.

No one has said the child is responsible, but you seem to ignore who it is that is relevantly irresponsible.

 

some of us prefer to believe that we are each responsible for each other

your worldview creeps me out a bit . . .

 

That's a choice you should be free to make for yourself.

And your world view does the same for me.

 

so you want to pay to punish people, but as you have made clear, you do not want to pay to educate them - so that they might not make mistakes when raising children - nor are you interested in helping the victims of bad parenting

am i correct in my understanding of this?

 

In what way have I said I want to pay to punish people?
I've not said I don't want to pay to educate them, I believe school taxes provide a benefit for all, and each child should receive a "basic" education, although I don't think the school system has the effect of eliminating or reducing mistakes when raising children. The best method of helping the victims of bad parenting would be to remove the victim either permanently or until the parent(s) could prove themselves capable of being responsible for both themselves and the child.

Does that help you understand me more closely?

 

Indie

Why, is the question?

My viewpoint is based on the ideas of making societies that are fairer and better for all to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity to all the habitants of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a worse society or promote a movement toward a worse society.

And that is why I can’t understand your thinking, because you do seem to want to create a worse society and I wonder why.

*

For me a democratic government should be of the people, by the people and for the people, charged with the responsibility to bring about a fairer and better society for all.

But why are you opposed to having a fairer and better society for all?

*

You seem more inclined toward some type of wealth based oligarchy, since you clearly want to give more power and influence to wealth and give it extra voting power so it can block the influence of the people.

That doesn’t seem to fit in with what you’ve said - yes you attack government but all you’ve ever done is promote moves toward increasing the influence of wealth.

Sorry but just saying something doesn’t make it true, so please back up your assertion that you’d want to see the influence of wealth reduced – and don’t give us the guff about a weak government weakening wealth we have been through that before and it doesn’t stand up, a weak government can only increases the influence of wealth.

*

 

Indie

So if people hadn’t the personal resources and found themselves in needed of help they would have to look for assistance from such things as charity. And all and any social programme would also have to rely on charitable donations to exist.

The thing is that the reason why many social programmes became in some way sponsored by government is that they couldn’t survive on charity alone. The question is would the loss of such programmes make society a better or worse place for people to live in?

Also who decides which people get assistance and which do not? Because in the past there is the problem that the self serving idea of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ crept into peoples thinking on the matter.

This is the idea that the deserving are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any and the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was little or no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these disadvantaged people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

It is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make the right choices they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make bad choices they’re feckless and don’t deserve assistance.

 

Indie

Who would determine these things and in what way and by what criteria? I mean we have been through this before in the Small government thread and you didn’t really seem to have an answer then have you got one now?

Although you have recently said that you would forcibly remove children from parents you deemed ‘irresponsible’. How would that work and how would it be paid for?

As I said – “Both advantaged and disadvantaged children can have loving, caring parents but access to advantage is likely to bring about an advantage, I would like to release the potential of those that through no fault of their own are disadvantaged”.

My point being that a child’s potential could suffer because the parents hadn’t the resources that would give the child the possibilities of fulfilling its potential. Are you arguing that you would also remove forcibly such children from their parents?

To me your thinking seems confused and ill thought through.

 

Years ago in a college philosophy class the first question we were asked was "Is man basically good or bad?" It would appear that part of the answer to your question to me of "Why?" arises in the answer we might each pose to that question. I might add that we never found an answer to which all could agree. Based upon that rather simple question, we can look at fellow humans who make up a society and arrive at answers of how we would like our government to work. If man is basically good he should be free with little need of government control, while if man is basically bad then we have a need for greater government rule, assuming the government itself is made up of good men, and in the case of a democracy those who determine what government should or should not do are made up of a majority consisting primarily of good men. I tend to prefer the greatest freedom possible, with the least government imposition of rules, imposing an appropriate amount of punishment for those who do harm to others, and bringing about positive changes in society by choice rather than government imposition.

We probably could agree on much except for the means by which things should be accomplished, force or choice.

I don't find a society in which force is a means of accomplishing social goals to be a better society.

If I haven't answered that above, then I doubt I will ever be able to provide you with an answer you find satisfactory.

I wouldn't like a government charged with responsibilities that I feel belong to the governed.

I'm only opposed to force, except when applied on an individual basis of law under which the application is applied equally to the society as a whole.

It depends upon what people are trying to influence.

When government has the power to do things which can increase or decrease ones wealth or profits it becomes a target to be controlled.

On the other hand show me how a strong government reduces the wealth of the wealthy.

 

Charity will work if given a chance.

 

Who makes the determination now?

We have adoption agencies, and the cost burden would be placed upon the couple who have proven their ability to be responsible custodians of the cild.

I grew up quite poor, but didn't consider it to be a disadvantage.

If the child is being mistreated, remove it. I don't see potential so tightly bound to resources as you do.

Not at all confused, just reasonable and rational, and well thought through.

You need to remove that chip off your shoulder, and quit using wealth or income as a determination of good and bad. You are aware, I suppose, that most of the wealthiest persons tend to be Liberals, and they aren't becoming poorer by supporting more government spending on social programs.

 

Indie

That was the first question they asked you, truly? Where was this college, what course was it basic philosophy, beginners guide to political philosophy, political thought for dummies…what? Because to me it seems a rather silly, simplistic and vague question, are you sure this was college level?

The immediate problem with it of course is the ‘or’, there is a big problem with ‘either/or’ viewpoints because very few things in life are absolutes. Only the simplistic or those that only look at the surface think things are or can be just black or white.

The thing is most humans are not absolutes they are not wholly ‘good’ nor wholly ‘bad’ and time, place, circumstance and viewpoint would all have an effect on the barometer. When this is realised the very concepts of absolute ‘good’ and ‘bad’ become somewhat untenable. This for me was well established by the time I left secondary education, and born out by subsequent experience.

So even for first year philosophy students this should have been obvious (or after a moment’s thought) that it was a flawed question and someone should have pointed that out. I’m not sure what your teacher was thinking, but if that reply hadn’t been forthcoming they should have steered you to it or explained it so you could move on - they should not (as seems to have happened) let you mull it over for a long time or worse let you think that there was some answer and I’m surprised that subsequent experience of the world hadn’t knocked that notion out of your head.

Anyway if you are basing your ideas on this flawed question it’s not surprising that your thinking also seems flawed on other matters.

 

Indie

As pointed out your approach is flawed as you are seeing it from the viewpoint of either/or and good or bad.

It also seems to indicate how this flawed approach has coloured your view of yourself and the world –

You seem to think ‘good’ people don’t need rules or regulations but ‘bad’ people do.
So people who don’t need government are good and people that do are bad.

People that don’t need government assistance are ‘good people’ those that do need or want government assistance are ‘bad people’.

The advantaged are ‘good’ the disadvantaged ‘bad’.

So people like you who don’t think government are needed much are ‘good’ and those that promote the virtues of government are ‘bad’.

But as I’ve said this is all seems based on a flawed premise.

PS - This could explain the venom you often seem to show when talking about left wing views it is not just a rational debate over differing arguments to you but a emotive fight between right wing ‘good’ and left wing ‘evil’.

 

Indie

Well you seem to want a society that does.

You would have a system of laws and enforcement agents to impose order, the most obvious signs of social unrest often manifest themselves in what many states see as ‘criminal’ activity (especially to those advantaged by the established order).

Basically you would be using these methods to enforce social order.
It is not what I would see as ‘a better society’ but it would be the use of force to accomplishing a social goal.

Please back that up?

I mean history doesn’t seem to indicate that so why do you think it could work in your model of society.

Also if you have such faith in the principle of donation why do you not extend it to the finance of law and order and defence?

 

Indie
Who would determine these things and in what way and by what criteria? I mean we have been through this before in the Small government thread and you didn’t really seem to have an answer then have you got one now?

LOL if you don’t have an answer why not admit it.
I’m not asking about now, I’m asking how you envision it would take place within you model of society.

Rather simplistic – first you don’t seem to know why or how why such action would be determined – but when it was - you would forcibly take the child from its family and then sell it to other people?

In the past such children were often treated like slaves or servants, also what happens to those children that aren’t or can’t be sold?

Fine, but once more that does highlight your ‘I’m alright jack’ attitude and I get the feeling you are making that ‘good/bad’ judgement again – as in you made it and you are ‘good’ and so other ‘good’ people would make it and if they didn’t make it they must be ‘bad’ and so in you viewpoint don’t deserve help.

Why not?

 

Indie

As I’ve said many times, saying something doesn’t make it so, just saying your views are rationally based doesn’t make them rational, you need to put rational arguments forward and that so far is what’s been lacking.

And its not that I just don’t accept your arguments as rational - I have explained why they don’t seem rational and you seem unable to address those criticisms.

As I pointed out above you seem to be basing your views on an irrational and flawed premise and it may be time to re-evaluate your viewpoint in the light of that.

Again we get the flawed ‘good/bad’ viewpoint – I try not to see things in such a rigid way because I see it as a block to understanding. I don’t see wealth or income as a determination of good and bad because I don’t see thing in those terms - but you seem to - and as I’ve indicated above you do seem to see advantage as a determination of people’s worth.

Once again you sound like a conspiracy theorist, could you please present rational argument rather than unsubstantiated innuendo.

 

You seem to habitually complain about anything and everything.

The key word is "basically" NOT or.

You seem to feel that "your" views equate to absolute answers.

You miss the point of the question entirely.

You just have difficulty accepting the fact that there are those of us who do not wish to live as you would like us to live.

There's some truth in that, and you would recognize it if you would think about what you have printed.

I don't feel that government exists to provide assistance and good and bad people are not determined by their needs, but instead by their actions.

Just because you feel the advantaged are 'bad' and the disadvantaged are 'good' does not mean that I take the opposite view, when in fact I don't see any relation at all between advantaged or disadvantaged and good or bad.

Isn't this essentially asking the same question repetitiously?

[/QUOTE]

I think the 'left wing' has proven itself to be more destructive economically and socially, and this is not supportive of the Republican party over the Democratic party as both parties have become more leftist over the last century.

That could be done, and was done in the past quite often.

 

holy fucking crap

 

Just pointing out the difference between left (dependent on government) and right (independent from government).

 

Like who?