**No, I think it is worse than that. He would have nothing we believe mean anything unless a quorum of “society” agreed.
**
I agree, I just thought that a specific example would complement your more broad point.
2sense, the Founders believed in natural rights that no one could take away.
The Constitution can be changed, it just takes more than a simple majority. We also have other checks and balances within our system which effectively make it nearly impossible to do anything with a mere 51% majority. Filibusters are one example. Another is the fact that in the Senate each state gets the same representation.
Another drawback to your system is the rights of minorities in matters of race and religion. If there is no enumerated right to equal protection of the laws, white people could just say that black people pay 50% income tax while they pay 25%. Christians could declare the US a Christian nation subject to Biblical law.
Liberals depend on the Constitution even more than conservatives for this reason. Many liberal victories have been won through the court system, by challenging unconstitutional laws. Conservatives have had less success, although I certainly agree with their positions on things like limited government and the 2nd and 10th amendments.
Actually, what I was “whining” about was judging if someone cares or not by how that person spends other people’s money. I judge how much a person “cares” by how they spend their own money.
Now if you want to tell me I don’t own anything, then you cotradict your own argument. Our society has democratically decided that we have something called private property. As per your argument, if we’ve decided it, then it’s right. Right?
Well, there’s another factor you need to take into account: crime. A hungry bum can become a violent bum. Hell, if my children were starving, I might consider knocking over a 7-11.
Welfare is not all about compassion. There’s a bit of pragmatism stirred in, as well. Our welfare programs keep the poor from desperation. They may not be able to afford a new DVD player, and they may technically be in what we define as “poverty,” but they’re far better off than others in third-world nations.
In a sense, we are “paying” the poor not to revolt and take what belongs to the wealthy.
We are paying for a single mother to be able to stay at home and care for her children. Perhaps, with her loving care, they will grow up to be productive members of society. Without it, the children must essentially be raised by themselves or their peers, who do a notoriously bad job at instilling a sense of morals.
We are paying for a man who lost his job (or could never find one) to be able to keep a roof over his family’s head. Without it, he might have to sell drugs or rob in order to pay the rent and put food in his kids’ mouths.
Frankly, there just aren’t enough good-paying jobs for everyone. Some people are going to to have no real means of support, or bettering their families. Welfare helps those who would otherwise have nothing. In short, we are paying money in order to save people from resorting to becoming criminals just to survive, and saving others from the devastating effects of crime.
Lissa I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I am against all welfare or any kind of safety net at all. That is not what I am arguing. I am suggesting as John Mace put it more ellequently, that support for such a system is not a measure of compasion.
lfare is not all about compassion. There’s a bit of pragmatism stirred in, as well."
Unfortunately, the argument is almost always about compasion. If you do not support the latest increase in benefits then you don’t care about the poor. This whole line of reasoning is silly. Compasion is something you earn from another person. It is not owed to you simply because you exist. While you might be able to claim a certain amount of “benifit of the doubt” compassion from a stranger, this does not include a right to a living wage.
"In short, we are paying money in order to save people from resorting to becoming criminals just to survive, and saving others from the devastating effects of crime."
The problem is that I don’t think these sorts of payments work. This debate is not about the effectiveness of our current welfare program. It is about the idea of welfare in general. But suffice it to say that I disagree that welfare payments have helped very many people to “better themselves”. There are exceptions, of course. But in my opinion they simply prove the rule. We can agree to disagree on this point.
prevert, your insistance on falling back on this “right to a living wage”, “deserve a living wage”, “I don’t owe them anything” seems merely reactionary to the phrasing proponents of such systems use.
I’m not sure anyone could put forth a realistic argument that anyone has such a right, or that there is a blank check poor people have cashed out of others’ bank accounts.
But. (There’s always a ‘but’, isn’t there?)
But it is the case that many causes of poverty are not strictly a function of personal choice alone, and that without an economic floor, the inherently flat nature of necessities (compare the progressive nature of luxury) mean that it is quite easy to get into a position where one cannot get out of. For a simplistic example, consider that it takes a place to live to get a job, but it takes a job to get a place to live. That’s a damned vicious circle if one of the two fails, and the cause of failure is, again, not always (nor “mostly”) an obvious matter of personal mistakes and mismanagement.
A perspective that might soothe your mind would be to simply consider it a matter of social insurance. At any time, factors completely out of your control could yank your lifestyle out from under you. The “no one deserves anything” angle simply, then, assigns responsibility for being in such a state to the exact people that had no control over it in the first place.
I agree with both these points. I don’t think I ever said that most destitute people are so because of their own failings. And I understand that poverty is a vicious cycle. My only point up to now is that the needs of some do not constitute obligations on others. If someone is poor and wishes to apply for charity (by availing himself of the government programs curently in force, seeking out private charitable organizations, or even panhandling on the street) I have no problem with it. But as soon as he starts saying things like “The government ought to help me out.”, or “I’ll just turn to crime if I can’t get help.” (and of course when liberals start to say things like this for him) my hackles turn up a little.
I’m not sure I understood this. So I’m going to make an assumption here. Please feel free to ridicule it if I make the assumption in error.
I assume you mean by this that I am proposing to let destitute people be responsible for themselves. And that you are pointing out that if they could help themselves, they would not be destitute. Which by extension implies some sort of unfairness on my part.
My point being, that making me responsible for their state is even more unfair. Just because I have the ability to pay does not imply an obbligation to do so. “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need” is a flawed philosophy. Most support of welfare seems to rely on it.
Not on your part. You aren’t any more responsible for their destitution as you would be for their success in the opposite case. But because all the burden (consequences) of a choice they couldn’t make falls on them, that certainy matches any understanding of “responsible” I know; your position demands that only they should “have” to get them out of the hole. Thus, their position is their responsibility.
Actually, it is far less unfair. Why? The argument I will give will use handicap access as an example. First, no one chooses to be born without average mobility (eg, the use of a wheelchair). Second, it costs money to retrofit existing buildings to handle wheelchairs or other disabled-access equipment. Third, the “it isn’t my fault” factor means this will never be done unless the set of all handicapped people can pull together enough money to create the change themselves. Thus, again, a situation that was no one’s responsiblity has now become someone’s responsibility.
Yet, doesn’t it make more sense that if we are compelled to assign responsibility for something out of anyone’s control, that this burden should be spread out as much as possible?
No, you are not obligated to pay in a moral sense; as you note, it isn’t your fault or responsibility. The problem is, the people this happens to don’t have any fault or responsibility (necessarily) either, and yet you are perfectly happy with it falling on them anyway, thus concentrating responsibility on the very party least likely to be able to do anything about it.
Does that honestly make more sense than distributing responsibility among everyone? How? Again, try to avoid this “right to living wage” and “obligation” angle and just consider the matter as one of distributing risk rather than concentrating it.
Hopefully I have just indicated a way to view welfare that doesn’t hinge on that mentality at all, but rather the notion that “If it isn’t anyone’s fault, everyone should cover it.”
I think Reeder means that the true definition of a Liberal is someone who has built a towering edifice of virtue upon a foundation of straw men.
We have seemingly tossed out all the classical definitions long ago. Just looking at certain elements of present-day “conservatism”, we have insistence on centralized authority canceling out the right to local action (The “Defense of Marriage Act”), and massive federal spending with blithe unconcern about how to pay for it.
“John Mace wasn’t really complaining about having to give money to individuals…He is whining about taxes. Taxes go to support the society. No one is forcing him to pay to support our society. If he doesn’t like it he can always get out.”
And with the above statement, we have an apparent liberal adopting the “Love it or leave it” ethos beloved of hard-hat conservatives of the '60s.
[quote]
In fact, the other porposal that we simply need higher taxes may be said to be both. Given this “liberal” propensity to rely on taxes to the exclusion of everything else…
[quote]
Like what? You have to point to actual better solutions (and if they exist a true liberal would support them). The conservative approach is to squeeze the budget with the expectation that more effective solutions will automatically emerge–exactly how being someone else’s problem.
And you really believe that? It’s a lot easier to believe that conservatives just want more money for themselves.
emarkp:
Socially liberal means you’re not against civil rights, abortion, homosexuality, etc.
If we are talking simply about leveling of risks, then you are correct. When I buy insurance that is exactly what I am doing. The difference here is that we are talking about the government. It is not an insurance company. It is not capable of such “risk leveling” (no reason to level the risk because it has not profit motive) and it is not a voluntary association. I volunteer to pay insurance premiums. I do not volunteer to pay taxes. So, I’m not sure you can take the obligation angle out of it. Unless, of course, you are suggesting some other forms of charities. In which case I agree.
Unfortunately, unless you are suggesting some other method of providing for this largess than taxation, then you have not. Suggesting that I must pay for these programs implies that I have an obligation to do so. Suggesting that it is ok for destitute people to force me to pay (or allow the government to force me) implies that they have a right to such payments. And this is simply another way to say “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs”.
I’m not sure that’s the case. If a person proposes a law it is his obligation to show that such a law is justified and constitutional.
Like allowing the economy to create more jobs for instance. Like encouraging voluntary chariies through tax incentives. I think better solutions are out there for many problems. (and a tru scottsman would know how to play golf:))
Meanwhile, the liberal approach is to through money at a problem in the hopes that it will go away. Exactly how is all of our problem.
Yes, I do. I think it is much easier to believe that liberals are in power by keeping poor people dependant on them. Promising to “fight for them” is how they stay in power.
Well you’ll have to forgive the fundamental difference of opinion here. That you are compelled to contribute to generalized welfare demonstrates an obligation is far different than the sense of “obligaiton” I thought you were implying, which was personal responsibility, as if we said, “pervert, you are personally responsible for supporting these people!”
In what reality? No more than your position says they have an obligation to suffer; would you like it if we characterized it as such? I mean that’s just approaching a dangerous equivocation of the various meanings of “obligation”. Why delve into this sort of quibbling? You have no moral obligation, which is the more standard use of the term. But in order to avoid concentrating responsibility to pay on the parties least likely to be able to do anything about it when no one was causally responsible for the situation, the government distributes that.
Is federal relief acceptable when there’s a tornado or flood? Why or why not? How does this situation inherently differ from the small town that almost completely goes under because Ford packs up and moves somewhere else? In both cases, devestating economic events happened that were outside the control of the parties affected by it. I find that to be the primary and most significant criteria.
Of course, and if we were keen on making money off of poverty we’d just turn it over to private insurance. Perhaps you see why this isn’t a practical solution, and why the government is in a rather unique position here. Workers compensation, welfare, unemployment insurance, etc etc. There are a number of safeguards in place to try and stop people from slipping behind. Their moral standing has very little to do with who pays for them, as the fundamental principle behind all of them is simply that of distributing responsibility for cost in situations where no one is responsible for the consequence that costs so much.
Obligation(1): moral duty.
Obligation(2): legal compulsion.
Responsibility(1): causal link to an agent or agent’s action, i.e., a person has responsibility for what they caused.
Responsibility(2): burden of amending a situation.
In a perfect world, obligation (1) and (2) are the same (the government enforces what is right), and responsibility (1) and (2) are the same (the only person who has the burden of amending situations is the person that caused it). When responsibility (1) is absent, as is the case in a great deal of human activity, obligation (1) and (2) diverge to address the situation. This justification is essentially no different than protecting property rights, as well. For example, if a thief steals your car, you are not responsible (2) for its retrieval. The government is not an auto insurance company; this has little to do with its potential role as resolving issues where intuitive grasps of obligation and responsibility fail to hold, and what distinguishes law from morality.
I’m sorry, I was using obligation to mean both things. Can you tell me, what does it mean to have an Obligation(2) with no Obligation(1) behind it? What moral justification can the law which imposes Obligation(2) have in such a case?
Also, I should note that in the case of property rights, there is no differenciation between my Obligations. Nor between the thief’s, nor between the government’s. Specifically, when my car is stolen, the government does not force society at large to buy me a new one. So, I’m not really sure how it fits with what you were saying.
This conception of morals and laws is very similar to how many conservative think. If morals and laws have no relationship, and more specifically, if there is no such thing as a “morallity of law”, then any idea which is popular is ok to make legal. School prayer, for instance, or abortion bans.
One more question. If the primary criteria for government largess is a lack of fault, why don’t we have responsibility tests for welfare recipients? Why is it assumed that a person is destitute without fault?
We pay for its recovery, and the investigation into its theft. How is that our fault? I didn’t tell you to buy a car!
None at all. Why would they need to? It is an organizational matter. What morally compells you to drive on the right side of the road? Or to buy insurance for that matter? —yet many state legislatures are happy to compel you to provide insurance for your vehicle. This is an organizational matter: ensuring risk is distributed so faultless parties are not necessarily held solely or completely accountable for things they aren’t responsible for. Another advantage of insurance is to make sure that damages are covered when the chances that the damages exceed what any average person could cover are great (i.e., most people don’t have $300K sitting around on the off chance they cause an accident and put someone in the hospitol). As you can see, welfare programs can cover both the faultless agency and vicious circle of an inability to meet ends. Forced insurance (like car or house insurance) usually only concerns itself with the latter, with the small bit of protecting against uninsured motorists tossed in for faultlessness (try getting insurance against all acts of nature, though, on your house!). Social insurance programs would provide for both. Ultimately we don’t want people abusing the system. Such abuse existing, however, does not undermine its need.
There is a relationship between many laws and many moral choices; however, the whole of law is not morally motivated. Much of the government’s function is to provide a backdrop in which moral choices can operate, as well as asserting which morals are operating (such as assigning responsibility to a motorist [moral choice] who was driving on the wrong side of the road [arbitrary backdrop]).
For me, the issue is mostly that we face diminished returns. Welfare isn’t a prince’s life, and using excessive resources to eliminate waste in welfare is likely to cost more than we save. But! This is not to say there is no investigations into fraudulent activites like hiding income, or in the case of workers comp determining if the person was lying, and so on. Essentially we would strike a balance between letting some slide and finding others so that if we let more slide, or if we investigated more, we’d end up spending more money either way. Really, though, this is nitpicking the implimentation. We “lose” far more to rebuilding roads and airports as a society than we do to a few thousand people slumming it on the public’s dime. By which I mean, none of which we’re responsible for as well. It ain’t my fault roads have holes in them, or traffic is congested, or that airlines are losing money left and right.
Let’s back up a hair here and work out why it cannot be a moral issue from the “typical conservative” angle.
We’ll begin by stating the obvious. (1), that every situation has its costs. (2), that every cost must be paid by someone. (3), the default person or people to pay for a situation are those who it is happening to, in absence of any other compulsion (moral or otherwise). (4), that situations exist which no one is ultimately responsible for.
I trust those are sufficiently obvious. Now we’ll add the moral component in by stating: no one should be compelled to be fiscally responsible (that is, pay) for that which they are not causally responsible for.
As we can see, given our assumptions, this is impossible, for even causeless situations have a cost that someone must pay (lest they further increase the problem by avoidance, e.g., pollution created before we understood its composition and effects). But this contradicts the moral component we’d hope to add, which was that no one should be fiscally responsible for something they weren’t causally responsible for.
So we’ve reached a contradiction. Something must give. IMO, the only room for flexibility is in the moral component since the rest are true by definition or observation. It must be altered or removed. I suggest a simple removal and shift to discuss such programs as a matter of the organization of our society, viz. how it is defined or characterized. Of course, some do consider welfare programs a moral situation, though why I don’t know.
Right and wrong is for the individual decide. It shouldn’t be imposed on someone.
** Fallacious appeals to authority won’t convince me. Particularly that authority. I’m Antifederal. As I just said yesterday in another thread, just because some Dead White Guys agree with you doesn’t make you right. If you want me to believe in natural rights then explain to me how it is beneficial to view the world in this way. Again, it seems to me that the whole idea is simply a clever version of the standard argument of a 2 year old, “I’m right so there!”
True. It burns me up inside that we live under such an unjust system but there is no denying the truth of it.
Freedom has a price. If people are free they are free to do bad things. Does that mean no one should be free? Should everyone be treated like a child? I think not. Similarly democratic freedom can be dangerous. Bad laws might, hell- will be passed. Does that mean we should restrict the majority? Again I say no. Who is the government to say, “This is OK to legislate on but this over here isn’t.”? Is the government our parents? Are we to be as children who can’t decide for ourselves? Again, no. The government shouldn’t be biased in any way. It should be a neutral arbiter and leave decisions up to its boss, the people.
Bad things happen anyways. We ratified an amendment calling for freedom of the press. Did that stop the federal government a few years later from throwing opposition newspaper editors in jail or running them out of town under the Alien and Sedition Acts? No. After the Civil War we ratified an amendment making it unconstitutional to disenfranchise blacks. Did blacks keep the vote? No. Bad things happen anyway so the question is, “Do you want to live in a nation of adults or a country of children?” For me, I would rather stand up and be a man.
And what if tyranny is easy to enact? It is just as easy to unenact. Lots of people think that laws against flag burning are a good idea but we can’t pass any because our “betters” have decided we can’t decide that for ourselves. If we actually had laws against flag burning then people would realize how stupid they are. Harsh penalties for peaceful protestors is good for their cause. It makes them more sympathetic and gains them support. The harsher the penalty the better. Make a few flag burning martyrs and the laws would quickly be repealed or left unenforced. But we aren’t allowed to make our own mistakes. Is it any wonder we often act like a nation of sheltered, spoiled brats? We are denied the opportunity to act like adults. The way to teach a child responsibility is by giving them some responsibility.
I depend on the Constitution for nothing but heartache. I would happily trade in all the liberal victories by lawyers for the chance to gain them and others on our own. I have faith in people. Living people I mean not dead ones.
Yet you say that society has the right to impose a regime of theft for purposes of a specific morality. This is a contradiction.
Or wrong. Yet you claim that there are no particular standards of right or wrong, so how can you distinguish particular circumstances in this regard? This is a contradiction.
The idea is not that people have a natural right to interfere with one another, but that they have a natural right to be free of such interference. Justice is therefore the regime that dispels unjust interferences. You can read this in the various posts that you have responded to, but you insist on misrepresenting the argument as a straw man.
Incidentally, you claim that there is no standard of right and wrong, but here you are saying that your own proposed system does not sufficiently separate the two. This is a contradiction.
You misrepresent the argument for freedom again. In addition, you have claimed that there is no distinction between right and wrong, but here you say that some acts can be wrong. This is a contradiction. (Get the picture yet?)
** Where did I ever say this? As I have tried to explain I believe that since there is no absolute right or wrong the only fair way for a government to decide policy is based upon the will of the majority. In that way everyone has an equal say.
Where did I ever claim this? There are many standards of morality just as there are many standards of knowledge. The epistemology I use for the latter is logic. Logically adaher’s knowledge was incorrect so for me it was incorrect. Him too unless he has abandoned logic. I generally find it safe to assume that other posters believe in logic even if their posts aren’t completely logical. Don’t you?
You have missed the point. My complaint against the idea of natural rights is that they are arbitrary. One can claim any natural rights one wishes. I don’t believe I have commented upon any particular set of natural rights but rather rejected the notion entirely. I am not asking for an explanation of those natural rights you, or anyone else, believe in. Instead I wonder what value there is in the very idea itself. Why assume you have any natural right, other than to make yourself feel better about your particular worldview? What purpose is there in believing in these natural rights in the first place?
As I hope I have made clear, I do have a personal standard of right and wrong. I don’t understand what you mean by “here you are saying that your own proposed system does not sufficiently separate the two.”
The quote this is in reply to contains no summary of the argument for freedom so it can’t misrepresent any such argument. Since basically everyone is in favor of ( their idea of ) freedom I don’t see the need to explain why I should want to be free. The quote just means what it says: freedom has risks but I accept them. What are you trying to say?
