What political party do you vote with?

Those who labor are paid, and in many if not most cases, quite well in relation to the labor they perform.

We haven't had a President right of center since Ronald Reagan, and he the most right of the entire 20th century.

 

spoken by one who is both retired and has emigrated

you need to find a more centered center . . .

 

Individual, I asked you some time ago to stop lying about Al Gore, but you haven't changed your signature. This looks to me as though you think lying to push a political point is OK.

 

Yes, I'm retired and although not wealthy, I was paid a satisfactory wage or salary when I was employed.

Emigrated yes, something I had planned to do long ago while in the military once I was able to retire, not to mention the obvious economic benefits.

Perhaps you have trouble determining Left from Right? Center is equidistant between Left and Right, not skewed to the Left nor absent the Right.

 

Do you ever get the feeling you're being ignored? or "If it's on the Internet it must be true." or "Turnabout is fair play."

Would you prefer one or both of these should I find time to make a change?

"The interior of the Earth is extremely hot, several million degrees." - Al Gore

or how about

"Every month we don't have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs." - Nancy Pelosi

 

Indie
To me the goal of every society should be to try and make that society fairer and better place 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 ask –

You seem to be arguing that you don’t want to live in a fairer or better society and you don’t care if its inhabitants have a healthy and fulfilled life and if potential is not realised is no concern of yours.

As I’ve show on more than one occasion your ideas would make a lot of people’s lives worse, creating more disadvantage and stifling potential.

I’ve asked several times why you would want that just you seem reluctant to say.

I know that you base your views on the idea of ‘individual determinism’ that the individual alone should be responsible for gaining a healthy and fulfilled life but as explained (above and below) that idea is doesn’t stand up under its own flaws.

So why?

 

Indie

But why did they fail? Has a child born into disadvantage failed? Or have they just been born into a position were success is harder to achieve.

I mean 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.

Is the child responsible for the act of being born? No, so you are basically saying the blameless child should carry what you see as the blame of others.

And once more we come back to 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.

Sorry but isn’t about emotion but pointing out the flaws in you theory of individual determinism.

 

Indie

Why Individual determinism is flawed

An individual is incapable of choosing to be born into advantage or disadvantage, so the chances of what level of provision they may be able to archive for themselves is in large part out of their hands.

But that is key statement “their irresponsibility” – not the child’s irresponsibility, the child couldn’t choose to be born to ‘responsible’ parents instead of ‘irresponsible’ ones.

*

Let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population* But nobody knows which half.

That is a societal problem.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

So again it is a societal problem.

The difference is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they don’t go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help’. It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

 

Indie

LOL this isn’t trivial bickering what I’ve been pointing out is the fundamental flaws in your ideas.

 

Basically ‘individual determinism’ is a variation on the ‘deserving and undeserving’ argument.

And that is only a variation on the older rationales the advantaged have tried to put forward to justify advantage.

- The religious argument was that god(s) choose where someone was to be born, be it slave peasant or noble, so it was divine will that people be in the position they were.

- Later the pseudoscientific argument was added – this claimed that social position was ‘natural’. That some races were inferior to others and so could be subjugated or enslaved - that this was part of the human ‘evolutionary’ process. In the same way advantage was a sign of evolutionary success and disadvantages a sign of evolutionary failure. And as such the disadvantaged, some argued, should be allowed (even assisted) to die ‘for the betterment of mankind’.

- And then there is the moral argument which claims that advantage comes about form ‘better behaviour’ that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they will be advantaged but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they will be disadvantaged.

None of these actually stands up to much scrutiny but they can be very seductive to those that are greedily or want to feel superior.

 

Do you interchange society with government as that's where we disagree most?

 

Ok lmma edjmacate yoo

The political center is not equidistant from left and right.

The political center is where the ideology of the majority (of people, not majority party) converge.

The center is actually skewed RIGHT by virtue of the fact that far-left liberals are a minority in the population.

 

We'll see come 2012.

 

indie

But you don’t seem to want a fairer or better society and don’t seem to want one where all the inhabitants have the possibility of having a healthy and fulfilled life and you certainly don’t seem to want a place were people can realise their potential.

With such a view as yours it doesn’t seem to matter what type of government you’d want in place?

 

I don't view a society which government redistributes from one group to another as being a fairer or better society. The possibility of having a healthy and fulfilled life should not be the responsibility of government, and realizing ones potential should require that individuals efforts. While some may have to work harder than others to achieve the same results, I don't consider that to be unfair or unjust, simply a fact of life.

There is no perfect form of government so no matter what form it takes we have to determine how to best protect ourselves from the excesses of that government.

 

Indie

I know that you base your views on the idea of ‘individual determinism’ that the individual alone should be responsible for gaining a healthy and fulfilled life but as explained (above) that idea seems to be deeply it not fatally flawed.

And you have not been able to address those flaws beyond saying – shit happens – life is unfair – and now that it is simply a fact of life.

None of which are rational or reasonable answers.

Can you actually address the flaws in a rational way or not?

 

I think I've made it clear that each individual is the primary source of responsibility for their own life, health and happiness. Others, by their own choice, have a right to assist or share responsibility if they so wish, for another or others as they see fit. In so doing they are committing acts of charity.
You fail to recognize the fact that the human population which exists on the Earth is not a single society, but a great number of societies which interact with one another in ways that they each individually consider to be both beneficial and equitable. The same is true of the many societies which exist within a single nation.
Sorry if I don't allow emotions to obscure rational and reasonable thought when talking about government.

 

Indie

You are just repeating not actually addressing the criticisms of your views.

I know that you base your views on the idea of ‘individual determinism’ that the individual alone should be responsible for gaining a healthy and fulfilled life but as explained (above) that idea seems to be deeply it not fatally flawed.

And you have not been able to address those flaws beyond saying – shit happens – life is unfair – and now that it is simply a fact of life.

None of which are rational or reasonable answers.

Can you actually address the flaws in a rational way or not?

*

I do understand that there are many societies among the human race. What is your point in the context of the discussion?

You seem to be trying to evade actually addressing what’s been levelled against your views.

 

I've not seen you point out any flaws, only relentless pandering to emotion.

 

Balbus:

You said:
" To clarify I’m not talking about inheritance from a will, such legacies can be given to anyone, a charity or even a favoured pet and may even exclude relatives.

No I’m talking about the advantages that come to someone through an accident of birth. And the point being that no one can choose to be born into such a gift, so are they justified in having it when someone else through no fault of their own is born disadvantaged."

I've answered that more than once, YES they are justified. Why should they not be?