Originally Posted by
Debaser11
Right. My argument was not so much appealing to legality as it is to a code of morality. I will not try to argue that income tax is illegal (though that can be done in the U.S. but that's for another thread) even if it is egregiously progressive and imposes a much steeper burden on those who earn more.
When it comes to national defense, roads, historical parks and even other resources like water, I have no problem with collecting (flat) taxes so that "the public" can own it. My issue is with the creation of a whole entitlement class that expects its own shortcomings in life to made up for by a total stranger.
Right, but I don't think it's fair to say that because someone keeps their money that they are screwing someone else by default. Again, I'll refer back to my previous argument. At what point does someone have "too much" and at what point does someone effectively start screwing other people other by holding onto money? There is no clear standard and what people consider to be extra money is basically relative. By those standards of morality, I'm screwing someone over too. Everyone who does more than drink water, eat the cheapest gruel and sleep in the most modest dwelling is. I reject such rigorous standards that try to connect altruism to morality in such a way.
No, but I have worked jobs in which many of the people (Mexicans) belonged to what we'd call the underclass. State-enforced altruism is still an affront to one's liberty regardless of how other people ended up poor. If a person is screwing someone for not giving a poor person in Canada extra money (for whatever reason) then you are basically saying that they are bad for not adapting a slavish mentality toward the poor. I have no inherent debt toward someone with less money than me. Yet the appeal for entitlement programs like healthcare says I do.
Right. I do this a bit. But "blaming the victim" is hardly central to my argument against such programs. I also reject the idea that they should be labeled as "victims." How we choose to frame this debate with language is half the battle. I mean, who is not a "victim" these days? Going by what the media tells me, middle class white men even though they disproportionately forfeit money they earn by working at jobs to other people.
Yes. There is a whole class of people we call "welfare queens" who do nothing but make babies to increase their "gubmint" checks. Their life might seem very hard to a normal person with sane priorities like yourself, but I do think many would honestly rather live in Section Eight housing with six or so screaming kids who they can drop off at the library while they find a way to cash their food stamps. I do believe there are no small numbers of people that allergic to work. I don't work in a welfare office, that's true. And I don't want to diminish your own experiences. But I've lived next to my share of poor people. I've observed underclass behavior and priorities. On the surface, many of them seem to live hard lives. But many of them have priorities that keep them down. Even a simple job at Jack-In-The Box can lead to a better standard of living than a lot of these people have if they simply managed their money better and had sensible priorities.
Many of them simply can't delay short-term pleasures in the interest of a long-term payoff.
They don't care that it's better to save in the long run than get drunk in the short term or that it's better to pay your electric bill than "bling" your rims. And perhaps worst of all, many could care less that it's better to abstain from sex or to at least use birth control rather than to bring another life kicking and screaming into the world when they can hardly take care of themselves. They don't call these tendencies "underclass behavior" for no reason. It's no wonder many of them can't make more than I made when I was in high school (working on the weekends). Many would never have the discipline to pay off an investment like a small business which can take years to do. I actually can't believe people are shocked about the sub-prime mortgage housing crisis (which resulted from our government forcing banks to lend to poor people) in the U.S.
My grandfather worked at a 7/11 in the heart of Houston's modern day ghetto and dealt with people using food stamps to buy malt liquor. He has been held up 3-4 times and taken hostage at least once. (One of his buddies who actually took his shift for him one night was actually killed. I would never kill someone like that regardless of how poor I became. And I think you're the same way. I doubt it's in your blood just like I doubt you'd buy lottery tickets with your cashed food stamps. I would starve to death before I'd kill an innocent person. Of course, the piece of trash who did the killing was hardly starving.) I've watched my old neighborhood become a ghetto as these people moved north. I've worked with and been around the underclass myself. But again, attacking the poor is not what holds up my argument.
So you don't think they are in dire straights because of poor personal decisions? It's just some force of nature that keeps some people in the gutter while others can crawl out? My ancestors came to the U.S. and went to work as poor, homeless sharecroppers right after they got off the boat. So did many other immigrants. These people were in dire straights if anyone ever was. They did work that even some of the blacks were too proud to do. There was literally nothing for them. No affirmative action, no welfare, and no Section Eight housing or school lunches let alone any school. How did they manage to pull themselves up and up and up while others maybe move up a small gradation and then stagnate? (I imagine that it's not unlikely that your family has a similar history as mine.) Now my father co-owns a small electrical business and pays for his children's college education.
And while it's uncomfortable for some to talk about, poverty and race are inextricably linked.
Why are so many people with European backgrounds able to do move up to high levels while Latinos move up a bit but considerably less and why do blacks ALWAYS stay at the bottom no matter where they live in the world? Did my ancestors have the "white privilege" communist race-baiters like Tim Wise talk about? Do you think mass discrimination still exists despite the fact that every institution imaginable (including my father's own private business) is DESPERATE to fill racial quotas to avoid stupid lawsuits. And even without racial quotas, why is it the responsibility of Europeans to hire blacks onto their businesses? Because of slavery? No one handed the Europeans anything and many of them were slaves at one point but there is no one for them to complain to. The blacks can't build up their own wealth but have to be incorporated into white wealth or else they are entitled to taxpayer money? You don't think the fact that whites have their wealth could have something to do with the values these European-descended peoples brought with them that are so derided as being "Euro-centric" these days? (Could you imagine a Jewish intellectual going to Japan and telling people there that their values are so "Japocentric"?)
So would nearly everyone, I'd imagine.
Except you probably don't have a poverty mentality. I'd imagine if you went on welfare, you wouldn't be the lifer that many of the people that are on it are. I would actually have much less of a problem paying you if you went on welfare, but the system of welfare promotes a poverty mentality to spread. For many people, there is no incentive to get off of it. Though their lives LOOK hard (due to their rough exterior), I believe many of them are willing to settle for less than the average respectable person (which can extend into areas of personal hygiene) and some actually take delight in using this to play to your sense of guilt. Such a system which gives incentive to underclass behavior in my view cannot be good.
No, that's not necessarily true that I don't want to share. (In fact, I tip pretty big and I do give money to bums sometimes (but not as much as I used to)). A lot of liberals assume the worst about people's own personal lives who make such arguments and often seem to think such people are motivated by greed. (I know to a certain degree because I used to be a big lefty.) But focusing on what I do with my own money misses the point, I think.
My views would not keep anyone from sharing. If you want people to play with your toys too, go right ahead. But I don't think it's my decision (or anyone else's) to make whether or not Johnny has to share his toys. In fact, if someone else made that decision for Johnny, he wouldn't be "sharing" his toys. I can't very be said to be sharing something I gave no permission for someone to have in the place.
Well, share your bounty. What gives other people the right to decide what I or the guy next door does with his bounty when it was legitimately attained in the first place?
Wait. Are you actually worried that a private organization (in which people could chose to donate to or not donate to for various reasons) would be MORE susceptible to fraud and waste than the government who doesn't have to compete for anyone's money? The same government that charges 700 bones for a toilet seat (at least in the U.S.)? I'd much rather take my chances with the private entity which has to be efficient or face extinction.
They are. But let's not confuse democracy with morality. Legislators pass unjust laws all the time. What's legal and what's not legal is hardly my moral compass.
Yes, they do. But I think that majority can be mistaken. A majority of legislators gave Bush the power to go to war with Iraq. I would not say that they were right by any stretch.
See above. I may live in a republic, but that doesn't mean the government is capable of being as responsive to my wants as you're making it sound.
Exactly. There is no way any system cannot have imposed values. I just happen to like ones that lean towards personal liberty (and by default personal responsibility) over ones that say I have an obligation to the lowest common denominator of society simply because they were born. That may sound even more harsh. But I'm only trying to be truthful. And I think more people feel that way and just don't always realize it. When something like government is involved, people often make the issue into a larger abstraction than what it really is.
I like community. I just don't think that community can be legislated or made into a government program. Community has to be built from the values and culture of the people making up a geographical space. Government can promote certain values and reinforce them but it can't just make them out of thin air. They have to be rooted in the culture in some way. I think communal values are declining because, culturally, we laud diversity and individuality. It's only when this individualism is applied to economic matters that it gets a negative connotation in our liberal Marxist media. But I think without the cultural foundation, attempts by the government to create communal feelings are in vain. You'll simply be redistributing people's money. Some of my tax dollars already go to help people "less privileged" (gotta love that liberal language) than me. Yet I'll bet if I go to the poor areas, I won't receive any gratitude for being a taxpayer nor will I share any communal feelings with these people.
I think it's good to help them too. I just don't think I'm morally responsible to help them. Is everyone who is better off morally responsible to help everyone else who isn't? If your answer is "yes," how is that not a slavish system?
I reject this system of morality. It would be nice if I helped him, yes. But I don't have any moral obligation to help such a kid. Think about any frivolity you've spent your cash on. I could use this exact logic to say you could have used those "extra bucks" to help kid X (because there will always be such a kid). I don't think the fact that you spent those dollars on yourself makes you a worse person because kid X was never your responsibility to begin with.
Sure, but this moral reasoning that tells people what they should give up to help has no bottom except for the bare essentials. Is that how all of us "privileged" people should be living our lives?
No problem. I enjoyed it. Good to talk to you again, Aemma. Take care!
Canada
Reply With Quote
But we live, have relationships, have kids even, and grow and rethink and reassess. It's all good.
Props for calling me the Seal Lady! 
Bookmarks