Obamacare
31 Oct 2013, 9:57 am
GoonSquad wrote:
adb wrote:
We all have hardship in life. Some of us more than others, but everyone struggles. At no point have I said that I don't think people should help each other. I think they should. But I despise being forced to do so.
I guess you don't remember posting this?
adb wrote:
I have no problem with your assessment of my position. If people can't get support outside of government programs (forced redistribution of wealth), I don't think their survival is merited.
Those statements are not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
We have a government administered social safetynet for TWO REASONS (one practical, the other moral):
1) Our economy produces enough excess wealth to finance it.
2) So that the most vulnerable among us are not at the mercy of Social Darwinists and sociopaths.
1) Our economy produces enough excess wealth to finance it.
2) So that the most vulnerable among us are not at the mercy of Social Darwinists and sociopaths.
Neither of these is an argument for government administration of social welfare.
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
31 Oct 2013, 10:12 am
adb wrote:
Quote:
We have a government administered social safetynet for TWO REASONS (one practical, the other moral):
1) Our economy produces enough excess wealth to finance it.
2) So that the most vulnerable among us are not at the mercy of Social Darwinists and sociopaths.
1) Our economy produces enough excess wealth to finance it.
2) So that the most vulnerable among us are not at the mercy of Social Darwinists and sociopaths.
Neither of these is an argument for government administration of social welfare.
Let me break it down for you.
WE CAN because 1)
WE SHOULD because 2)
The underlying assumption is that promoting the general welfare is good for the general welfare.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
31 Oct 2013, 10:20 am
adb wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
adb wrote:
We all have hardship in life. Some of us more than others, but everyone struggles. At no point have I said that I don't think people should help each other. I think they should. But I despise being forced to do so.
I guess you don't remember posting this?
adb wrote:
I have no problem with your assessment of my position. If people can't get support outside of government programs (forced redistribution of wealth), I don't think their survival is merited.
Those statements are not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
We have a government administered social safetynet for TWO REASONS (one practical, the other moral):
1) Our economy produces enough excess wealth to finance it.
2) So that the most vulnerable among us are not at the mercy of Social Darwinists and sociopaths.
1) Our economy produces enough excess wealth to finance it.
2) So that the most vulnerable among us are not at the mercy of Social Darwinists and sociopaths.
Neither of these is an argument for government administration of social welfare.
Well the best argument is the annual 2 trillion dollars that goes back in the economy..It is certainly no less effective than a 10 year unfunded tax cut..
Same exact thing..except in this case it is for basic subsistence..rather than just a little more money padded into a savings account or investment fund...
And the war in IRAQ was a multi billion dollar.. almost decade.. social welfare program to fund high paid government contractors...
The real thieves are at the top..not the bottom my friend...
At least this is what American History has proven out..in the last two decades...There is no question about that from a mathematical or economic perspective...
And the ethics are clear for anyone who has any ethics...
That's not a thing that can actually be enforced though..ethics are a voluntary attribute of human beings...
And that is why they got away with it..the lack of ethics and empathy for the fellow man is the real problem in this country...
Not your welfare fears..or yeah maybe it is your general welfare fears that is the problem for the folks that think they need more than they need...in life..tosimply be happy...They take it from the poor..to have some more fun...well It will not work if a society is going to continue to exist..with peace and without civil strife...
That is the whole issue about Somalia...there is no government there to protect the weak..so there is rape and pillage..that is all..for a country that has a poorly run cultural system for subsistence...The US can be a third world country too..It's simple just take away the social welfare programs and we will be there as a third world country almost immediately...It is the way all human cultures work..from the smallest to the largest..
Enforced social cooperation in sharing goods..is the only way humans survive in the long run...regardless of the sticks and carrots that get a society to a place of harmony and economic success...We are social animals period..and in a nomadic society there has to be enforced social welfare for it to work...there is no other way..that IT will work..period...
But again..that's just common sense..friend...
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
31 Oct 2013, 10:38 am
adb wrote:
Let's say person A works hard and contributes $1000 to social welfare. He doesn't receive anything from social welfare system. Now, person B is disabled and can't contribute to social welfare. Instead, B takes $1000 from social welfare. Normally, person A is more than happy to help provide for person B. But if person B comes around and says "I earned that $1000", person A is going to feel resentment and hostility toward person B, since person A is who really did earn
Oh, if only it happened that cleanly. Actually it's a squad of bureaucrats who take that $1000 at gunpoint. They divide most of it amongst themselves, give some to their corporate cronies, use some to finance a war against some country which poses no actual threat to Person A. To Person B they give fifty dollars, and tell him to be sure and vote for them again, because Person A would never willingly give him that $50, but would leave him to starve in the gutter. Filtering charity money through a government bureaucracy is the most inefficient distribution method imaginable. You'd get better results driving through the poor part of town and throwing $20 bills out the car window in the hope that some would find their way to those most in need.
Americans are the most philanthropic people on Earth, something de Toqueville noted nearly two centuries ago. (And while I'm not a conservative, it amuses me to learn that conservatives give far more to charity than self-described liberals.) I find the claim that people would never voluntarily help the truly needy, but must be forced to do so at gunpoint, frankly ridiculous.
31 Oct 2013, 10:51 am
RandyG wrote:
adb wrote:
Let's say person A works hard and contributes $1000 to social welfare. He doesn't receive anything from social welfare system. Now, person B is disabled and can't contribute to social welfare. Instead, B takes $1000 from social welfare. Normally, person A is more than happy to help provide for person B. But if person B comes around and says "I earned that $1000", person A is going to feel resentment and hostility toward person B, since person A is who really did earn
Oh, if only it happened that cleanly. Actually it's a squad of bureaucrats who take that $1000 at gunpoint. They divide most of it amongst themselves, give some to their corporate cronies, use some to finance a war against some country which poses no actual threat to Person A. To Person B they give fifty dollars, and tell him to be sure and vote for them again, because Person A would never willingly give him that $50, but would leave him to starve in the gutter. Filtering charity money through a government bureaucracy is the most inefficient distribution method imaginable. You'd get better results driving through the poor part of town and throwing $20 bills out the car window in the hope that some would find their way to those most in need.
Americans are the most philanthropic people on Earth, something de Toqueville noted nearly two centuries ago. (And while I'm not a conservative, it amuses me to learn that conservatives give far more to charity than self-described liberals.) I find the claim that people would never voluntarily help the truly needy, but must be forced to do so at gunpoint, frankly ridiculous.
Charity works fine in an agricultural society..but this is no longer the case...
Humans now for the most part are in effect hunters and gatherers..moving toward a more nomadic way of life again...but the problem is there is rarely no guarantee of meat to hunt or berries to pick..
That is all up to someone else in total effect...so what this means is someone has to step in to make the whole thing work..
That thing is the government..and part of the requirement is a safety net..when there is no control over the meat and berries....
This is just common sense folks..I've got three degrees..but I do not need them to figure this out...
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
31 Oct 2013, 11:18 am
adb wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
adb wrote:
But social welfare, whether mandatory or not, is not something you earn. It's something you are given and should be appreciated.
I would just like to say that in my experience, very few people who require assistance think they have earned it. Most I have known actually feel varying amounts of guilt and shame that they need to help. I know that I appreciated the unemployment I received for several months. Without it, I would have likely been homeless and helpless.
In my experience, it's about 50/50. On this forum, a lot of people seem to think that they deserve assistance, which is equivalent to thinking they earned it.
I have always lived in poor neighborhoods. I have neighbors now where both parents work full time, have two children, receive food assistance (which has just gone down), and still have trouble making ends meet. Are they undeserving of assistance because they cannot make it on their own?
adb wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
I understand your perspective of not wanting it mandatory to help others. I really do. But in my opinion, every service that this country's government gives you is mandatory via your taxes. If I dislike the military, food safety inspections, or FEMA, should I be able to opt out of paying my taxes?
In my opinion, yes, you should. I don't think any function of the state should be mandatory. We'd find out pretty quick what people really want.
If there was no mandatory component, how long do you think this country would survive? With massive numbers of impoverished and desperate people, it seems unlikely that you, your business, and your possessions would be very safe. Hungry people are dangerous people. People with hungry children, doubly so.
You may be a generous person when it comes to charity. Many people are. Most either will not or cannot.
If all government assistance went away, do you really think that charities could keep up? Most are having trouble as it is.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
31 Oct 2013, 11:24 am
adb wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Rather than blame the president for insurance companies dropping customers, put the blame where it belongs - with the heartless insurance companies that have been taking people's money, then leaving them high and dry when they need help the most for years now.
What should a company have a heart? A company exists to make money, not to care about you outside of earning your business.
And that's the problem with American business today. We Americans say proudly we are culturally of the Abrahamic cultural tradition, but then business is allowed an exception for the sake of making money. It's love of material wealth at the expense of responsibility to their fellow Americans that is the cause of the rot in our country from the top down.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
31 Oct 2013, 11:25 am
adb wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
The underlying assumption is that promoting the general welfare is good for the general welfare.
I don't agree with the assumption that general welfare trumps individual autonomy.
Well then..maybe you are not a social animal..but that is what human beings are evolved for..we not me..
The me part..is a complete illusion fostered by collective intelligence..the by products of collective intelligence..and the illusion of independence from the accommodations that modern technology provides..
Put you out there with the chimpanzees in the forest and you will not last for many days..
In effect you find out you are disabled already as a domesticated physical human being...
They'll rip your face off...if they feel like...it..
That's the jungle friend..and as a combat veteran..it seems like you would know that..
The problem is there are no guns in the jungle..the real jungle that is..the one you still live in..whether or not you realize or not...
That jungle includes stuff like health problems you never knew existed until you are dying from them....
That's reality..and that is why there is no choice for the overall good of this great country..we have than to stand together and provide health care for our fellow citizens..
That's a hero dude..not a gun..love...for your fellow your citizens..under the flag..not by I'll do this if I feel like it...
Countries like that simply do not survive in the long run...
So I'll vote for the USA friend..not for myself...
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
31 Oct 2013, 11:46 am
adb wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
The underlying assumption is that promoting the general welfare is good for the general welfare.
I don't agree with the assumption that general welfare trumps individual autonomy.
Well, 2000 years of human moral and political philosophy disagrees with you.
PS
For example
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/#StaNat
Quote:
Hobbes invites us to consider what life would be like in a state of nature, that is, a condition without government. Perhaps we would imagine that people might fare best in such a state, where each decides for herself how to act, and is judge, jury and executioner in her own case whenever disputes arise—and that at any rate, this state is the appropriate baseline against which to judge the justifiability of political arrangements. Hobbes terms this situation “the condition of mere nature”, a state of perfectly private judgment, in which there is no agency with recognized authority to arbitrate disputes and effective power to enforce its decisions.
Hobbes's near descendant, John Locke, insisted in his Second Treatise of Government that the state of nature was indeed to be preferred to subjection to the arbitrary power of an absolute sovereign. But Hobbes famously argued that such a “dissolute condition of masterlesse men, without subjection to Lawes, and a coercive Power to tye their hands from rapine, and revenge” would make impossible all of the basic security upon which comfortable, sociable, civilized life depends. There would be “no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” If this is the state of nature, people have strong reasons to avoid it, which can be done only by submitting to some mutually recognized public authority, for “so long a man is in the condition of mere nature, (which is a condition of war,) as private appetite is the measure of good and evill.”
Hobbes's near descendant, John Locke, insisted in his Second Treatise of Government that the state of nature was indeed to be preferred to subjection to the arbitrary power of an absolute sovereign. But Hobbes famously argued that such a “dissolute condition of masterlesse men, without subjection to Lawes, and a coercive Power to tye their hands from rapine, and revenge” would make impossible all of the basic security upon which comfortable, sociable, civilized life depends. There would be “no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” If this is the state of nature, people have strong reasons to avoid it, which can be done only by submitting to some mutually recognized public authority, for “so long a man is in the condition of mere nature, (which is a condition of war,) as private appetite is the measure of good and evill.”
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
31 Oct 2013, 11:58 am
sonofghandi wrote:
I have always lived in poor neighborhoods. I have neighbors now where both parents work full time, have two children, receive food assistance (which has just gone down), and still have trouble making ends meet. Are they undeserving of assistance because they cannot make it on their own?
That's a subjective question. You may feel that they deserve assistance and be willing to contribute. I may feel they deserve assistance and be willing to contribute. But I think it's completely inappropriate to force other people to pay for our sympathies.
Quote:
If there was no mandatory component, how long do you think this country would survive? With massive numbers of impoverished and desperate people, it seems unlikely that you, your business, and your possessions would be very safe. Hungry people are dangerous people. People with hungry children, doubly so.
I think it would survive fine, like it did before we had welfare systems. Hungry people become productive unless people condition them to think they deserve to get free handouts.
Quote:
You may be a generous person when it comes to charity. Many people are. Most either will not or cannot.
If all government assistance went away, do you really think that charities could keep up? Most are having trouble as it is.
If all government assistance went away, do you really think that charities could keep up? Most are having trouble as it is.
I think a lot of people would be having much less difficulty without government intervention. When the government takes money from producers in order to support consumers, the producers pass that difference on to the consumer.
I'm experiencing this very directly right now with the health care changes coming in 2014. I have to pay more for health coverage, which I have to pass on to my customers/employees or I go out of business. Consequently, my customers/employees are going to struggle more to survive. And I'm going to struggle more to survive.
31 Oct 2013, 11:59 am
GoonSquad wrote:
adb wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
The underlying assumption is that promoting the general welfare is good for the general welfare.
I don't agree with the assumption that general welfare trumps individual autonomy.
Well, 2000 years of human moral and political philosophy disagrees with you.
PS
For example
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/#StaNat
Quote:
Hobbes invites us to consider what life would be like in a state of nature, that is, a condition without government. Perhaps we would imagine that people might fare best in such a state, where each decides for herself how to act, and is judge, jury and executioner in her own case whenever disputes arise—and that at any rate, this state is the appropriate baseline against which to judge the justifiability of political arrangements. Hobbes terms this situation “the condition of mere nature”, a state of perfectly private judgment, in which there is no agency with recognized authority to arbitrate disputes and effective power to enforce its decisions.
Hobbes's near descendant, John Locke, insisted in his Second Treatise of Government that the state of nature was indeed to be preferred to subjection to the arbitrary power of an absolute sovereign. But Hobbes famously argued that such a “dissolute condition of masterlesse men, without subjection to Lawes, and a coercive Power to tye their hands from rapine, and revenge” would make impossible all of the basic security upon which comfortable, sociable, civilized life depends. There would be “no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” If this is the state of nature, people have strong reasons to avoid it, which can be done only by submitting to some mutually recognized public authority, for “so long a man is in the condition of mere nature, (which is a condition of war,) as private appetite is the measure of good and evill.”
Hobbes's near descendant, John Locke, insisted in his Second Treatise of Government that the state of nature was indeed to be preferred to subjection to the arbitrary power of an absolute sovereign. But Hobbes famously argued that such a “dissolute condition of masterlesse men, without subjection to Lawes, and a coercive Power to tye their hands from rapine, and revenge” would make impossible all of the basic security upon which comfortable, sociable, civilized life depends. There would be “no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” If this is the state of nature, people have strong reasons to avoid it, which can be done only by submitting to some mutually recognized public authority, for “so long a man is in the condition of mere nature, (which is a condition of war,) as private appetite is the measure of good and evill.”
You know that is the real problem in the US..the breakdown of ethics...
It has to come from somewhere..it is learned..not a given...
But what is the incentive..
Are people intelligent enough to understand the importance of ethics..
I suppose we will find out soon enough...
Meanwhile religions that do support real ethics..are filling an extremely vital need in the country...
The problem is many don't support real ethics..as the ones that make a real healthy society..
Like Northern European countries..who take care of each other..understanding that they all share the same genetics...
Unfortunately Heterogenous cultures do not seem to do as well on this issue as homogenous cultures..like Scandinavian countries...
And of course that is changing too...
With immigration...
Ethics..we need ethics..to survive..civilization...
Why can't that be a political agenda..ethics..ethics..ethics..
If only it can be separated from religion and effectively seen as science..human science that is....or the science of being human....
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
31 Oct 2013, 12:02 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
And that's the problem with American business today. We Americans say proudly we are culturally of the Abrahamic cultural tradition, but then business is allowed an exception for the sake of making money. It's love of material wealth at the expense of responsibility to their fellow Americans that is the cause of the rot in our country from the top down.
I don't believe in God or objective morality.
In my opinion, the rot in our country is the entitlement attitude that our culture has developed (at the top and at the bottom).
31 Oct 2013, 12:07 pm
adb wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
I have always lived in poor neighborhoods. I have neighbors now where both parents work full time, have two children, receive food assistance (which has just gone down), and still have trouble making ends meet. Are they undeserving of assistance because they cannot make it on their own?
That's a subjective question. You may feel that they deserve assistance and be willing to contribute. I may feel they deserve assistance and be willing to contribute. But I think it's completely inappropriate to force other people to pay for our sympathies.
Quote:
If there was no mandatory component, how long do you think this country would survive? With massive numbers of impoverished and desperate people, it seems unlikely that you, your business, and your possessions would be very safe. Hungry people are dangerous people. People with hungry children, doubly so.
I think it would survive fine, like it did before we had welfare systems. Hungry people become productive unless people condition them to think they deserve to get free handouts.
Quote:
You may be a generous person when it comes to charity. Many people are. Most either will not or cannot.
If all government assistance went away, do you really think that charities could keep up? Most are having trouble as it is.
If all government assistance went away, do you really think that charities could keep up? Most are having trouble as it is.
I think a lot of people would be having much less difficulty without government intervention. When the government takes money from producers in order to support consumers, the producers pass that difference on to the consumer.
I'm experiencing this very directly right now with the health care changes coming in 2014. I have to pay more for health coverage, which I have to pass on to my customers/employees or I go out of business. Consequently, my customers/employees are going to struggle more to survive. And I'm going to struggle more to survive.
It appears you are still not seeing the big picture..
Your nest is feathered and you want to keep it that way..the truth comes out..that's cool..
But the reality is ..it's not all about your needs..you live in a society..not in your own corporate..bubble...
The issue with society..is..IT IS changing increasingly fast..There is no longer the opportunities for basic job opportunities that once existed...
IN effect this is driving a more nomadic society..
The bottom line is..IT simply will not work without government intervention..
IN fact it is already not working with the government intervention that is currently applied as iS..
And the government knows this..and this is why Obamacare is a done deal..There is nothing you can say or do that will change that..
So get used to IT..more to come if the US survives...
Your business will not look very good..without a country...
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
31 Oct 2013, 12:12 pm
adb wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
And that's the problem with American business today. We Americans say proudly we are culturally of the Abrahamic cultural tradition, but then business is allowed an exception for the sake of making money. It's love of material wealth at the expense of responsibility to their fellow Americans that is the cause of the rot in our country from the top down.
I don't believe in God or objective morality.
In my opinion, the rot in our country is the entitlement attitude that our culture has developed (at the top and at the bottom).
Everyday a customer on any type of government assistance pays to use your business..You are also receiving these so called entitlements..
Do the math..It's simple..It's part of your income already...
Without that social welfare there is less money in your bank period..or your pocket...
So shoot yourself in your foot..But wait..the government will not let that happen they are protecting your interests..and/or investments..
Even if you are not aware of them...
So it seems.. you are already extremely fortunate to already be in Obama's care...and the government the United States government that is..In general...effect...
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
31 Oct 2013, 12:12 pm
aghogday wrote:
You know that is the real problem in the US..the breakdown of ethics...
It has to come from somewhere..it is learned..not a given...
But what is the incentive..
Are people intelligent enough to understand the importance of ethics..
I suppose we will find out soon enough...
Meanwhile religions that do support real ethics..are filling an extremely vital need in the country...
The problem is many don't support real ethics..as the ones that make a real healthy society..
Like Northern European countries..who take care of each other..understanding that they all share the same genetics...
Unfortunately Heterogenous cultures do not seem to do as well on this issue as homogenous cultures..like Scandinavian countries...
Yes. And it has EVERYTHING to do with perceived differences.
Quote:
And of course that is changing too...
With immigration...
Ethics..we need ethics..to survive..civilization...
Why can't that be a political agenda..ethics..ethics..ethics..
If only it can be separated from religion and effectively seen as science..human science that is....or the science of being human....
With immigration...
Ethics..we need ethics..to survive..civilization...
Why can't that be a political agenda..ethics..ethics..ethics..
If only it can be separated from religion and effectively seen as science..human science that is....or the science of being human....
In the past it was. You can thank our debased educational system for losing that science.
American society would be much better off if we still taught classical moral philosophy and the history of the Roman Republic (not empire).
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
