The point is that such intermediaries are irrelevant. To say that on is acting immorally is to say that they are causing net hurt, not that they are causing net benefit, but they could cause a greater net benefit if they wanted to.
[quote]
To me, this seems unfair to the child getting only 2 even if he is better off than if he had gotten none. [/qoute]
Why?
Yes. Because those decisions don’t violate anyone’s rights.
I did not find that convincing the first time, nor do I now. (BTW, do you not find any irony in claiming that the opinions of the rich are given too much weight in our society, while presenting the opinions of the rich as if they are more important than opinions in general?)
The Ryan, well it is late and I don’t think most of what you posted really needs much of a reply. It basically boils down to bizarre word nitpicking (“You said ‘earn’ and therefore it must means it’s all mine”) and you saying, “Everything that I think is correct I define as a right and everything that you think is correct I define as a violation of that right.” But I will respond to this last point…
Indeed, I do see the irony in it in a certain way; it is the sort of nice rich irony that I enjoy. But in a more serious sense, the point is that if you think that these policies are vindictive against a certain group of people, why is it that some prominent members of this group of people who should feel victimized do not feel so in any way whatsoever? This is despite the fact that it is in their own economic self interest to agree with you and despite the fact, that I doubt you will disagree with, that most people tend to overestimate rather than underestimate the extent to which policies might be unfair to them.
That’s not nitpicking. That’s what the word “earn” means.
You have it backwards. It is not “I consider it a right because I think it is correct” but “I thinks it’s correct because it’s a right”. Your implication that the correspondence between what I think is correct and what I think is a right is suspicious is odd.
Yes, most people. And some won’t. So just what does the fact that some people have opinions against their self interests prove?
For the most part I agree with Hazel’s assessment of the advantages of a wealthy (or even middle class) upbringing over a poor upbringing. Generally speaking it’s fairly difficult for people to move up in their socio-economic class (i.e. the poor have a very difficult time becoming middle class, the middle class have a difficult time becoming wealthy). I believe a number of cultural factors are responsible for this phenomenon. IMHO people are typically socialized to behave and think in a manner consistent with the socio-economic class in which they are brought up. This tends to make poor people act in a manner that generally keeps them poor. The same with middle class people. This very issue has been studied by sociologists. People who come from a middle class background, even if temporarily “poor”, are much more likely than the working poor to become middle class earners.
So what’s the solution? How do we give the poor an opportunity to improve their lot? I say opportunity because IMHO systematic reward without effort (or with very little effort) produces some negative results. Why do the majority of lottery winners seem to wind up back where they started within 10 years? I believe it’s because they simply don’t have the skills or knowledge to maintain that level of wealth. I don’t believe that higher taxes for the rich and more programs for the poor is necessarily the solution. For a government program (or combination of government programs) for the poor to be effective it should markedly increase the rate at which the poor transition to the middle class.
Does an effective program as I’ve described it exist in the U.S.? This may be cynical of me but I don’t think so. Is it possible to create such a hypothetical effective program? Maybe, but unlikely. To successfully change the thought patterns and behaviors of a class of people such that they are more likely to succeed economically is a difficult proposition at best. Let’s take the same poor adult and put them through two different hypothetical timelines.
Timeline 1: Removed from his neighborhood at 21 he lives with, eats with, plays with, works with, etc. and learns with a middle class family for 5 years.
Timeline 2: Continues living in his lower class neighbourhood, continues to work his near minimum wage job, and continues to socialize with people who he works and lives with (who more or less share the same views and have similar backgrounds) for the next 5 years. This person is eligible for a number of government programs which will help pay for medical expenses as well as a large portion of his college education should he choose to attend.
IMHO the chances are substantially better that the adult in the first timeline will change enough to allow them to progress well on their own then the adult in the second timeline. The best we can do is try various solutions until we have one which sucks less then the others. The important thing, IMHO, is to work towards programs which promote skills, knowledge and an attitude which facilitates the move to a better financial state.
“Perhaps you think the poor may have their part?
Bond damns the poor and hates them from his heart.
The grave Sir Gilbert holds it for a rule
That every man in want is knave or fool. God cannot love, says Blunt, with tearless eyes, The wretch he starves, and piously denies.
But the good Bishop, with a meeker air,
Admits, and leaves them Providence`s care.”