Effort or Luck?

Just what is supposed to be your premise? That any advantage is unfair and must be made fair by government?

Would it be too much to ask the same of you?

What evidence might you provide that would show in this one case the person was NOT destined to end up a jobless, homeless drunk?

Who would be the best judge in the case of this one individual, who for the purpose of discussion we might say is a resident of a small town in Alabama? Would it be best determined by a Washington bureaucrat, or those in the town where he resides?

An excellent question, and who might ask it?

I usually expect an individual to exhibit some degree of their potential before I make a value judgment. While I may or may not find any value, it doesn't mean that some one else may or may not.

There's no single set of criteria that could be applied in each and every case.

I do so each and every day, but there is no one answer that can be applied as to how such a determination is achieved.

If I live on the East coast and someone needs help on the West coast, I think the decision to provide or not provide help should be made on the West coast and paid for by those who make the decision if help is provided.

Only when my choosing or refusing responsibility to help remains within the confines of the area in which I live and persons with whom I and others I know are familiar with.

I've not seen much evidence of a large number of casualties in the U.S.

I'm just saying that we should be left to provide aid to those we choose to help within our smaller areas of society as that is where we can best provide it rationally and reasonably, without the extra cost of involving Federal, State and local government who each takes a cut out of the money needed before it reaches those in need of help.

There may be some I would not want to help, perhaps those would be the ones you and others like you would target to help.

What about the crime of being rich?

 

would one of you be the better person and stop?

 

I don't really look at people as worthy or unworthy, but I do value some persons above others. Social classes don't bother me at all, and I have some very rich friends as well as many very poor friends who I value equally. I think it's irrational to believe that a society of "equals" even if could be created would remain so for very long. Just look at a unionized work force where many people are working earning the same wage scale. It's been my experience that even when paid the same amount some remain broke and in debt perpetually, while others might accrue large amounts of wealth, all due to how they use the money they earn. Should those who make better decisions be forced to share their success with those who perpetually make poor decisions?

 

Two wrongs don't make something right. What you propose is similar to how early civilizations worked. Two adjacent societies traded with one another until one no longer had anything of value to trade with, at which point the poorer society could be led to believe the richer society was evil, unfair or owed them something and war would be the answer in which would allow the poor society to once again become prosperous.
There will always be a portion of society that has much more than the majority of the society. A good basic education is the best thing that society can provide all at a reasonable cost. After that I place responsibility on the individual having reached adulthood to exercise the necessary effort to prosper and achieve whatever degree of success they can in life. Looking at the state of the education system in the U.S. the last several decades, I see it has crumbled to a state in which education seems to have taken a back seat and instead it has become a place to house kids and instill in them socialist propaganda.

 

Go easy on that skin lightener, you're beginning to look like Julian Assange.

And you're probably right, there's little to be gained here, so I'll allow Balbus to have the final derogatory post and allow this thread to dry up.

Go ahead Balbus, I've unsubscribed to "Effort or Luck?"

 

Indie

The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

Once more you are making a judgement from outcome, not potential.

*

So how do you judge what criteria do you use, I’ve asked you before and you don’t seem able to say?

In other words you still haven’t got a clue.

*

You’ve hinted that you ‘feel’ you can judge absolutely who is worthy and who not – so please do so.

If you do it every day then it should be easy for you to explain.

 

Indie

You seem to do so all the time, you do so just below.

You do it to the point that you seem to believe there are those you think should live and those you think should die.

*

To repeat, I’m not an absolutist like you so I don’t think in absolute terms as you do – so as I’ve said many times I don’t think that it is possible to have a society of equals, but I do think that some societies could be fairer and better places to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential.

You want to kill innocent people, because in your view they are of little or not value to society.

*

Again you are seeing outcome and making a judgement of who you think is worthy and who not, but as I’ve pointed out before you seem to be doing it without knowing all the reasons.

I mean a lot of people are in debt – it is called a mortgage, others have other investments that might mean they are sometimes short of cash (such as children).

Also it might not be the same all there lives, I’ve known young people that spent all their wages out partying but later on settled down got married saved, raised kids etc.

You see an outcome and think that was always going to be so and would always remain so.

It is the old con of the self serving argument of the deserving and undeserving poor. The deserving being 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 no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

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

And as I pointed out at the time this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.

As pointed out many times now – some people are in a better position to realise their potential and so to make “better decisions” and some are not.

 

I wish I’d seen Indie’s withdrawal before I posted yesterday, oh well.

I wonder if I’ll ever find out if he has any rational reasons for wanting to kill off those he considers of no value to society and it would be nice to know who he thinks they are – if anyone has some ideas please post.

Anyway I’d like to thank Indie for the entertaining and informative discussion, I learnt a lot. You can always gain from a debate if that’s what you set out to do, in researching for this thread I read two new books re-read sections of old ones as well as numerous articles and websites, things I may never have done if it hadn’t been for this debate.

Also thanks to everyone else for their patience

And finally I’d like to thank my parents for their love and care in bringing me up, my dog for its constant companionship as well as all those others for making this possible, my hairstylist, chiropodist, taxidermist……

 

the cure is worse than the disease. WHO should decide on that "better distribution" of wealth, hmm? YOU, right? Wrong.

 

The best answer is to best insulate yourself from the demands of others, live as best you can without harming others, and let it go at that. the Unibomber prooved that you can live in the US on $400 a year, altho that is $$1600 in today's money, since Gold has quadrupled in price since his day.