This test was developed by Europeans. That and the wording of the statement makes it unreasonable to assume that “social security” = The American Social Security System. The clear intent of the statement was to compare private charity with government run welfare or aid programs.
I really have to wonder at this sentiment. What is it about me giving to other charities or not giving to charities at all that disadvantages your gift?
I understand the idea that voluntary collections would not be enough to do the job. I disagree, but I understand it. I don’t, however, understand how my not giving to a charity disadvantages you if you did. Could one of you explain it to me?
I should probably e-mail them and suggest they rephrase that. In the US, most people associate “social security” with one specific program.
There would be a diminished incentive for me to donate, say, 40% of my income to charity in order to maintain a civil society, if I knew that many others were not donating any money at all. There is an inequity there between the donors and the non-donors which disadvantages the donors.
Note this is totaly different to giving a few dollars a week to charity.
But how is it different? Isn’t giving to charity all about doing what you can to do whatever it is the charity perports to work on? How exactly, is my being stingy disadvantaging you? Or is giving to charity about making sure that you get out of the charity more than you put into it? Isn’t that called an investment?
I’m not trying to be flippant. I really don’t understand this attitude.
Hmm, I get the feeling here that I’m having a Monty Python ‘argument’ in which I set forth my position in as much detail as I can only to be met with “No it isn’t”. Nevertheless:
I think you misunderstand moral relativism, which addresses the act irrespective of the actor, since all actors think they’re doing the right thing. I find the idea of upholding my property rights uber alles, including my very right to exist in a land of plenty, as an absurdly arbitrary elevation of one single kind of ‘right’. That is not moral relativism, however many “Yes it is” responses I receive.
You must own something before you can give it, yes?
And taxation is legitimate, even in your (highly flawed IMO) Constitution.
Social security taxation is as legitimate or illegitimate under the law of both of our lands as monopolistic use of property. Why ought one be called “theft” and the other not?
If I don’t consent to you “owning” so much, as enforced by a hugely expensive and interventionist property-rights apparatus, that another is economically coerced into effectively becoming your slave, I say you have no right to all of it. How do we decide which of our two “consent witholdings” trumps the other?
And I might not consent to you owning stuff outright: I might consent only to you effectively renting everything you think you “own” in return for taxation: You effectively rent your property off everyone else (the real “owners” - This is my summary of the current situation in both of our lands, incidentally.) Again, whose plan is the one which gets enacted? Perhaps we could put it to some kind of vote, say.
And I have consented to pay for social security via taxation, but not necessarily for other stuff. In a democracy, what is legitimate is what decision is returned by the electorate.
Then I would suggest that the only option open to you is what I would advocate if the capitalism became so tyrannical and coercive that the poor had nothing left to lose, which is revolution by force.
Your constitution is, ultimately, a piece of paper with stuff written on. I try to make these threads geopolitically neutral, to remove possible arguments ad antiquitatem and the like, and so focussing on one country’s document might be a little myopic here, but I’m happy to debate and question the US one if it’s relevant.
You know what I’ll say to that.
Your interpretation of that arbitrary document is clearly at odds with that of your government, then. I’d suggest that this is getting off the point. I’m asking you why you consent to compulsorily addressing some forms of disadvantage such as property rights violations and leaving other, surely more important forms of disadvantage which boil down to actual medical suffering, to voluntary sources. You say you want “limited government”, but yours seems such a perverse criterion by which to limit it, when people may be suffering and dying of conditions which would be preventable if they could only “afford” it.
Yes. And since I own it, no one can compel me to give it against my will.
Some taxation is legitimate.
Again, you are falling into the fallacy of the excluded middle. Some taxation is legitimate, if it is for strictly limited and delimited purposes. But not all taxation, and not unlimited taxation.
I do not accept your premise. Social security taxation is not a legitimate function of the federal government, if there is any possibility that the same social purposes can be brought about at a lower level of decision-making.
Well, no offense, but I don’t give a tin shit.
Property rights are inherent and unalienable, like the right to freedom of speech and religion and so forth.
Human rights are not subject to revocation after they exceed a certain level. I have the right to the exclusive control of whatever I have legitimately acquired.
The Constitution has already been ratified. If you want to amend to say, “Everybody owns whatever they own only as long as the federal government decides they can, and then the feds can grab it”, well, it is your right to try. I doubt you will get very far.
Not quite. We live in a Constitutional republic. The majority may not revoke fundamental rights without amending the Constitution. A bill revoking the right of a minority to petition for gay marriage or a flat tax would not be valid, for instance. Likewise, a bill stating that nobody really owns anything, they just rent it for as long as the feds don’t want it, would also not be valid.
This is another non sequitur. There are options besides supine submission to the end of liberty by the death of a thousand cuts, and armed revolution. And, frankly, your suggestion is pretty silly.
No, it is the foundational document of my republic, and embodies the position I am advocating.
As opposed to the notion that everything I “own” is fair game for a government grab? I kind of doubt that.
Because addressing some forms of disadvantage is a legitimate function of government, and others are not. This is based on my bias in favor of locating decision-making powers as close to the individual as possible.
This kind of emotive objection can’t really be addressed. I suppose it will have to suffice to say, I don’t think individual rights and freedom are perverse.
YMMV, of course.
Regards,
Shodan
If this is true, then this question is poorly worded indeed. If they meant “government run welfare or aid programs” then they should have said “government run welfare or aid programs”.
If a European hears the term “social security” do they really think all government welfare and aid? Most socialist leaning European countries have retirement/insurance programs for workers similar in nature to American Social Security. What do they call these programs?
They can and they do, because they don’t consider your property rights to trump the right of others not to be your slave under threat of starvation. And I applaud them, and advocate your imprisonment for tax evasion.
And we are exploring why you suggest that social security taxation is illegitimate, since clearly even your very own legislature doesn’t think so.
Then make your proposals, and if enacted by elected officials, then and only then will social security taxation be illegitimate.
Well, no offense either, but I care not one jot for your lack of consent regarding social security taxation, and will see you imprisoned for evading it.
And existence itself and so forth. So if your hoarding of property risks violating my right to exist in a land of plenty, sorry, mine trumps yours and I’ll see you in prison for tax evasion.
Utterly agreed. Existence rights trump property rights.
As does a democratic government, such as that portion of money you mistakenly and quaintly consider “yours”.
As far as you with your tax evasion?
Or interpreting it differently, as your government clearly does compared to you.
Well, good luck with them.
Like I said, I consider this to be circularly arguing ad antiquitatem.
And yet, you must still pay social security taxation or go to prison. That implies that whose interpretation is being utterly ignored, exactly?
This is more promising. You realise that the ultimate local decision-making system is one in which there is no enormous governmental property-rights enforcement apparatus? I must admit, I never had you down as an anarchist.
Me neither, especially the freedom not to suffer and die from a preventable condition in a land of plenty. If this is madness, or mileage, so be it.
Yes.
Pensions.
It doesn’t say to what extend social security and whom are to be covered.
I support public funded social security for the truly needing. I don’t support it for those that merely can’t be bothered to take the available low wage jobs, those who want to pursue some artistic profession which they can’t make a livelihood from or those with personal hobbies they want to spend time on instead, or those who think they’re entitled to go on pension at 55. And I think it’s fair that those who receive public funds and who are able to work, put in some work for their money.
Also state funded charity has a negative effect in outsourcers moral obligations, it robs people of their private initiative by furthers a culture where all help is supposed to come from the state and not private citizens and it makes those paying tax feel they already did their part and less willing to take on responsibility for those less fortunate than themselves. In effect making society less charitable & less humane. But it is a utopian (or dystopian) dream to think the state can solve all charitable problems. And by all account Americans are engaged in more private charity work and give more private donations than Europeans.
Here’s one I just stumbled over on the problems with integration in Denmark and the responsibility of private citizens to help:
(I pay considerable more than 60% tax. But I’ve had it with that and am calling quits)
JRDelirious, -3/-2.8, Disagree. But with reservations on both sides:
A:
Shodan, you are being a little bit too US-centric in your argument (though as has been mentioned many times before, the test itself is clearly Eurocentric, but that would be calling tu quoqe) and you risk creating a scenario that could be interpreted as “Charity is better than Welfare if you live under the American Constitution”. Which I don’t think is necessarily your point.
B:
Well, then that is just a matter of different priorities, and of the basic assumptions from which we start the argument, specially the assumptions regarding the role of the State. Trust me, I’m a “liberal” by American standards, but even I recognize that it is NOT blindingly self-evident that taking care of needs in the order of the Maslow Scale is perforce a mandatory function of the State.
It is, however, a right thing for the State to do, to step in when the society becomes so large and complex that old-style filial/tribal/congregational loyalty no longer suffices to save the disadvantaged from a life of misery. Why? Because otherwise the social stresses could potentially fracture and destabilize the social order, the protection of which IS the mission of the State, causing greater misery for a greater number. A certain level of Welfare-State services, and the consequent taxation, is a price I am willing to pay because (a) I consider it more cost-effective to provide the poor a basic standard of living than to raise armies to crush the revolution, and (b) Above a certain level of social complexity, I feel I cannot count on personal decency and sense of moral obligation to cover enough needs; my experience is that the “Good Samaritans” are outnumbered by the people who just walk by looking the other way.
Your insistence that elevating one moral right above other is arbitrary is definately an example of moral relativism.
Moral relativism is not the same as moral pluralism, which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but does not suggest that they are equally valid. Moral relativism, in contrast, contends that opposing moral positions have no truth value, and that there is no preferred standard of reference by which to judge them.
Your insistence that opposing moral positions are equally valid (or more accurately are equally unlikely to be supior to one another) is precisely what moral relativism is all about. The trap is that this allows one to postulate all sorts of “nonsense” and simply assert that my insistence on “sense” is arbitrary. To wit your suggestion above that your right to exist might not be elevated above my right to a stick of gum. 
…OTOH, I must clarify, I do agree with Rune that the welfare-state benefits should not be in such a scale that a large part of the population comes to expect they’re entitled to be supported by the State in everything, or that the government will take care of any and all problems exist.
I do not insist so, I argue so, this being a debate. We are all, ultimately, causing pixels to appear on screens - there’s very little which is non-arbitrary about that. I am asking the question why this elevation of one single kind of right above others which seem to me so much more visceral, immediate and essential to humans who are not dead?
Come come, let us not flee the arena. I set forth an OP which described my position in this issue as best I could, and set forth elements of the opposing position which I find absurd, vacuous or intellectualy immature. Others reply, and I reply further. This is anything but relative (moral or otherwise): it is saying I think my position is right and the opposing one is not, for these reasons and inviting criticism thereof. If you feel I have transgressed the rules of this Debates forum, please tell me how so and I will endeavour to correct matters.
Well, sort of. “Charity is better than welfare, because charity is uncoerced and does not violate property rights” might be a better statement, if that helps.
But I am an American citizen, and the USA is a constitutional republic. I consider this the best form of government, and most respectful of human rights, including the right of private property which some posters seem eager to deny. So that is the position I propose.
People who live in other countries could be considered as having consenting to different principles. Maybe it is OK with citizens of the former USSR or Sweden to consider all their possessions as subject to confiscation by the government - I don’t know. Part of that might be due, in the case of Sweden, to being a small country, such that the federal government is closer in decision-making level to a US state than to the US federal government.
If the principle proposed, however, is “the government can grab anything they like, and you can’t complain because you support military spending”, that’s frankly pretty stupid. And SentientMeat’s uncharacteristically moronic accusations that I am a tax cheat or should be advocating the violent overthrow of the government are too ridiculous to sustain interest in the thread.
As I said, that kind of emotive argument cannot be logically refuted. I wouldn’t have said it had any place in GD, but then again IANAM.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not to sure that I was that far off with the terminology.
Encylopedia.com seems to define Social Security in other countries as simply their versions of what America calls “Social Security”.
Wilkepedia has a definition that is closer to SentientMeat’s.
So, I’d continue to argue that the question (the way it is worded) is asking the reader to compare “Social Security” to charity. Social Security being defined as the retirement/income protection variety such as the American Social Security system. If they indeed did not mean this, then the question was extremely poorly worded, which would not surprise me given the other badly worded questions on the compass test.
Not deny, merely balance.
But you are not a tax cheat, clearly. I am saying that your government disagrees with you that social security taxation is illegitimate. Clearly, on the contrary, it is witholding it that is illegitimate, as you would find if you tried it.
As I told perv, I apologise unreservedly if you perceive my mien here to be in any way disrespectful or evasive: I assure you that, as ever, I’m genuinely trying to debate the real meat of the issue earnestly. But this point does crop up in such discussions regularly. Is an appeal to the welfare, the suffering, the plight of our fellows “emotive” by default and , therefore, less worthy of serious consideration?
I need to address this first.
I absolutely do not feel you have violated any rules, crossed any proprietary lines, nor that you have behaved in any way inappropriately. IT does not get said enough, but you have performed a great service to these boards by continuing these sets of threads. I know many people here appreciate it. I am among them.
Perhaps I do not understand the way in which you are using the word arbitrary.
Well, now you are. Before you were simply asserting that any such raising is arbitrary. The answer, in full, is probably beyone the scope of this thread. However, I can give it a try.
The basic idea is that you cannot increase the amount of freedom in a society by curtailing the freedom of a subset of that society and then claim that freedom has only been increased. Couple this with a realization that earned wealth is a manifistation of the actions, the life if you will, of the individual who earned it, and you have a set of principles which would view forced taxation as theft.
Nothing of the sort, old bean.
Quite.
Ah, but there is nothing in moral relativism which does not allow you to assert your position as superior to mine. It simply states that there is no other way (besides assertion) to asertain which one of us is correct (again, more accurately, it asserts that neither of us can be “correct” in the sense that either moral position is superior to the other). What you have done by asserting that the elevation of property rights above the collective right of siezure is arbitrary, is to fall into the trap of relativism. That is, if there is no way to assertain whether a certain right is more important than another, then any and all decisions are equally valid.
For instance. You keep suggesting that democracy or democratic processes provide a moral foundation to support taxation. But why is this elevation of democratic principles above individual principles any less arbitrary than the decisions you “find absurd, vacuous or intellectualy immature”? We could just as easily turn your argument around against you and say that elevating democratic government above tyranny is arbitrary.
I want to reiterate this because it is very important. I absolutely do not feel that you have violated any rule of debate here. I am arguing against what I percieve to be one of the foundations of your position on this issue.