Page 1 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,787

01 Dec 2017, 9:35 pm

First, let's define as part of working being able to go through the process of finding work.   This includes job interviews, job searches, networking, etc, etc.

Now,  is one entitled to being provided a living if one is incapable of working to basic food, clothing, shelter to medical care?   Are they entitled to be given the necessary tools and teachings so they can be able to work?   What if no tool or teaching is possible to be provided?  Many people especially conservatives and libertarians would say no.  I've read their arguments and here is the main crux of their reasoning.    They call this and other things like this entitlements.   They perceive entitlements as slavery.  To break it down, Peter works making sprockets 8 hours per day 40 hours per week at $5.00 per hour.  X percentage of that is taken to spend on differing expenditures including what is called entitlement programs.   We will call the percentage spent on entitlements X1.   What conservatives and libertarians perceive is that forcing Peter to give his money to pay for Paul is legalized theft and slavery.

My counter argument is that this is false.   My argument is one is either entitled to being provided a living if one can't work or one is entitled to being provided the means and knowledge that one can provide oneself a living in a way one can grasp and understand.

Suicide is wrong and Immoral according to Pro-life Conservatives and Libertarians (Argument from Inalienable Rights)

My first rationale to my argument is this.   If one can't provide oneself a living and others won't provide it to you then I ask what is the logical consequence of this.  The consequence is that one will eventually die a slow death from starvation, dehydration, etc.

A quote from the Declaration of Independence says this "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."    These conservatives and libertarians would say that when I have the right to life all it says is that no one can take away my life and I'm not entitled to have happiness but only the right to pursue it.   Here is my question to this.  Am I allowed to give my life away?

In other words, am I allowed to kill myself or commit suicide?   If we go by the Oxford dictionary and if we go by historical precedent of the USA in various states I would say the answer is no.  In Florida especially, one would be Baker Acted.   Looking at a pro-life and anti-euthanasia sites such as this one would claim that the answer is no and these people and other pro-life websites base their reasoning on the constitution and morality and ethics of the Holy Bible.  I and everyone else is not allowed to commit suicide according to pro-life morality and ethos.  Now, if one can't work, others won't help him or show him how to get work and maintain the work and/or they won't provide them a living then are we not forcing this person into a form of slow suicide.   I would say the answer is yes.   This is a form of forced suicide and if suicide is wrong and immoral then are we not forcing someone who can't work to commit suicide and be immoral?   How is that pro-life?

Render Unto Caesar to what is Caesar's and Render Unto God to What is God's (Mark 12:17) (Arguement from the Bible)

If we go by the Bible which these pro-lifers go by which is what a number of traditionalists (conservatives) are then they're making the assumption that everything they have received through the sweat of their own brow is theirs to keep.   If we must accept the Bible as truth with no errors in it and is perfect and none of us are misinterpreting it then if we look at it this verse right here then not everything one earns is for one to keep.   Some of what you earn goes to Caesar and some goes to God.   Then it begs the question what is supposed go to Caesar and what goes to God?   No, according to the Bible not everything is yours.  It is Caesar's and God's money.  God's portion is supposed to go to those who are in need whether it is money, mental help, etc.  Again, not everything is yours to keep.   Even a portion of Caesar's revenue is supposed to go to God as well.

In fact, if we want to be truthfully technically coming from the Biblical world view nothing is really ours.  Everything belongs to God since he is the creator and manufactured existence itself.   What we really are is his tenants and his stewards.   He has laid down rules on how we as humankind are supposed to be good stewards of his creation.   Part of that is taking care of those who can't do for themselves such as myself which means that the money and resources you say is yours and you have earned is not yours.  It belongs to God and God told us how to partition these things out.

Habitable Space (Argument from a Secular Perspective)

There is only limited habitable space on our planet.  With this being said, those who are more established meaning they're old comers had more opportunity.   The new comers don't have as much opportunity since there is less and less habitable space for them to go.   Therefore, the old-comers have a lot more clout and more influence on public policy then those who are new and are trying to establish themselves.   We all have the right to pursue happiness according to our inalienable rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.

But, what if one is limited in what one can do due to limited opportunity?   If there is limited opportunity due to one's condition or limited habitable space problem then how can one truthfully pursue happiness?   Can one produce habitable land space and/or any kind of space?   One can transfer dirt but can one really manufacture dirt and can one manufacture the physical space the dirt, raw materials, water, air, etc is in.   Can one manufacture existence.  No, they can't.  Is it moral to really claim ownership on something one never produced or is one just simply a tenant and steward of existence and reality?  Even the Constitution gives the US government the powers of eminent domain.   Does one really own land or space?  It would seem like eminent domain says no.

What if my Argument is fallacious?

If my argument that made just now is flawed and based in fallacious reasoning then they're going to have to accept that suicide is a valid and moral decision one can make.   Suicide ends up becoming a moral duty if one is not entitled to being provided a living or the means so one can provide oneself a living.  Suicide becomes a way to prevent enslavement of others through entitlements.

Conclusion:  If one truthfully is not entitled to being provided a living if one can't provide oneself a living then I argue one does not have the inalienable right to life at all.

Quote from Twilight Zone, The Obsolete Man.   "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete. A case to be filed under "M" for "Mankind" - in The Twilight Zone."



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

01 Dec 2017, 11:18 pm

People should be forced against their will to appease potential suicidal people?

Where does it end ... people should be forced to marry lonely people, because lonely people might suicide?


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,405
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

02 Dec 2017, 12:31 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
A quote from the Declaration of Independence says this "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."    These conservatives and libertarians would say that when I have the right to life all it says is that no one can take away my life and I'm not entitled to have happiness but only the right to pursue it.


Nobody can guarantee happiness. There are people who are very unhappy in every social class. Only a madman would guarantee happiness and he would be a liar.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,787

02 Dec 2017, 1:36 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
People should be forced against their will to appease potential suicidal people?

Where does it end ... people should be forced to marry lonely people, because lonely people might suicide?


Either

a. Others are obligated to provide those who can't provide themselves a living to keep them from violating their own right to life

or

b. Suicide is an inalienable right and a moral obligation to prevent one from violating the rights of others.

To accept a and b as false at the same time leads to a contradiction of morality, values and standards.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,787

02 Dec 2017, 1:37 am

kokopelli wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
A quote from the Declaration of Independence says this "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."    These conservatives and libertarians would say that when I have the right to life all it says is that no one can take away my life and I'm not entitled to have happiness but only the right to pursue it.


Nobody can guarantee happiness. There are people who are very unhappy in every social class. Only a madman would guarantee happiness and he would be a liar.


Can one guarantee oneself happiness?



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,405
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

02 Dec 2017, 1:57 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
A quote from the Declaration of Independence says this "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."    These conservatives and libertarians would say that when I have the right to life all it says is that no one can take away my life and I'm not entitled to have happiness but only the right to pursue it.


Nobody can guarantee happiness. There are people who are very unhappy in every social class. Only a madman would guarantee happiness and he would be a liar.


Can one guarantee oneself happiness?


Wouldn't the only ones who wouldn't be happy would be those who were happiest not being happy?



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,405
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

02 Dec 2017, 2:00 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
People should be forced against their will to appease potential suicidal people?

Where does it end ... people should be forced to marry lonely people, because lonely people might suicide?


Either

a. Others are obligated to provide those who can't provide themselves a living to keep them from violating their own right to life

or

b. Suicide is an inalienable right and a moral obligation to prevent one from violating the rights of others.

To accept a and b as false at the same time leads to a contradiction of morality, values and standards.


Just what do you mean by providing them a living? Is that basic necessities such as food and shelter or is for a luxurious living with most, if not, all wants provided for?



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,787

02 Dec 2017, 2:00 am

kokopelli wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
A quote from the Declaration of Independence says this "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."    These conservatives and libertarians would say that when I have the right to life all it says is that no one can take away my life and I'm not entitled to have happiness but only the right to pursue it.


Nobody can guarantee happiness. There are people who are very unhappy in every social class. Only a madman would guarantee happiness and he would be a liar.


Can one guarantee oneself happiness?


Wouldn't the only ones who wouldn't be happy would be those who were happiest not being happy?


It's a paradox. I guess happiness comes in many forms.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,787

02 Dec 2017, 2:01 am

kokopelli wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
People should be forced against their will to appease potential suicidal people?

Where does it end ... people should be forced to marry lonely people, because lonely people might suicide?


Either

a. Others are obligated to provide those who can't provide themselves a living to keep them from violating their own right to life

or

b. Suicide is an inalienable right and a moral obligation to prevent one from violating the rights of others.

To accept a and b as false at the same time leads to a contradiction of morality, values and standards.


Just what do you mean by providing them a living? Is that basic necessities such as food and shelter or is for a luxurious living with most, if not, all wants provided for?



Good question. Basics is the answer



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

02 Dec 2017, 5:02 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
People should be forced against their will to appease potential suicidal people?

Where does it end ... people should be forced to marry lonely people, because lonely people might suicide?


Either

a. Others are obligated to provide those who can't provide themselves a living to keep them from violating their own right to life

or

b. Suicide is an inalienable right and a moral obligation to prevent one from violating the rights of others.

To accept a and b as false at the same time leads to a contradiction of morality, values and standards.


Just what do you mean by providing them a living? Is that basic necessities such as food and shelter or is for a luxurious living with most, if not, all wants provided for?



Good question. Basics is the answer


What’s basics? A cardboard box, and two dishes of rice a day?
North Korea provides basics and their population is starving but alive and highly infected with parasites.
What’s so wrong with poor people having a decent life? No doubt middle class would take most my belongings away. I’m still way poorer then them even with my belongs. I don’t have a house, multiple cars. Freak them and their desire to have 10 $50,000+ cars and multip houses. They can spare some of their excess money to help others live a bareable life. I’ve met anti tax middle class people and they aren’t hurting a bit. They own out right multiple cars and one house. They have a huge savings. They have lots of nice things. They want mor cars more houses. Meh I don’t even have a car or a house.



hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,910
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

02 Dec 2017, 5:14 am

The USA really seems to have more of an issue with this than the UK. We find it puzzling that so many Americans don't care about the less advantaged.

I'm not saying we don't have any issues in the UK. I heard someone on the radio with a degenerative illness, think it was Parkinson's, saying he keeps getting reviewed for his eligibility to work. Um, he's not going to magically get better benefits assessors :roll:

Part of our wage in the UK goes towards National Insurance. Most of us accept that. It's a big pot we all pay into. If an accident happens I get free medical care and get put back together because I've been helping to pay into this pot. That happened. If I've never needed an operation at least my money goes to someone who does need to have an operation. I have no issue with that.

Same with unemployment. I didn't have a job for 2 months after leaving college. I received a benefit. Hopefully I won't be in that situation again. But should it arise I'm glad I've been paying NI and there will be a safety net.

Even if I never need a safety net again I don't mind that what I'm paying will go to helping someone less able to find employment than me.

I don't see the problem. Some people are just selfish and lack empathy. I find it bizarre just how much that lack of empathy is ingrained into American culture.

I will never ever ever live in America.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,787

02 Dec 2017, 11:47 am

sly279 wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
People should be forced against their will to appease potential suicidal people?

Where does it end ... people should be forced to marry lonely people, because lonely people might suicide?


Either

a. Others are obligated to provide those who can't provide themselves a living to keep them from violating their own right to life

or

b. Suicide is an inalienable right and a moral obligation to prevent one from violating the rights of others.

To accept a and b as false at the same time leads to a contradiction of morality, values and standards.


Just what do you mean by providing them a living? Is that basic necessities such as food and shelter or is for a luxurious living with most, if not, all wants provided for?



Good question. Basics is the answer


What’s basics? A cardboard box, and two dishes of rice a day?
North Korea provides basics and their population is starving but alive and highly infected with parasites.
What’s so wrong with poor people having a decent life? No doubt middle class would take most my belongings away. I’m still way poorer then them even with my belongs. I don’t have a house, multiple cars. Freak them and their desire to have 10 $50,000+ cars and multip houses. They can spare some of their excess money to help others live a bareable life. I’ve met anti tax middle class people and they aren’t hurting a bit. They own out right multiple cars and one house. They have a huge savings. They have lots of nice things. They want mor cars more houses. Meh I don’t even have a car or a house.


Being able to afford the cost of living including medical expenses. And, if possible help them to s point where they can do it themselves.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

02 Dec 2017, 1:49 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
sly279 wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
People should be forced against their will to appease potential suicidal people?

Where does it end ... people should be forced to marry lonely people, because lonely people might suicide?


Either

a. Others are obligated to provide those who can't provide themselves a living to keep them from violating their own right to life

or

b. Suicide is an inalienable right and a moral obligation to prevent one from violating the rights of others.

To accept a and b as false at the same time leads to a contradiction of morality, values and standards.


Just what do you mean by providing them a living? Is that basic necessities such as food and shelter or is for a luxurious living with most, if not, all wants provided for?



Good question. Basics is the answer


What’s basics? A cardboard box, and two dishes of rice a day?
North Korea provides basics and their population is starving but alive and highly infected with parasites.
What’s so wrong with poor people having a decent life? No doubt middle class would take most my belongings away. I’m still way poorer then them even with my belongs. I don’t have a house, multiple cars. Freak them and their desire to have 10 $50,000+ cars and multip houses. They can spare some of their excess money to help others live a bareable life. I’ve met anti tax middle class people and they aren’t hurting a bit. They own out right multiple cars and one house. They have a huge savings. They have lots of nice things. They want mor cars more houses. Meh I don’t even have a car or a house.


Being able to afford the cost of living including medical expenses. And, if possible help them to s point where they can do it themselves.

I can tell you right now that the anti welfare people don’t think medical expenses are part of the basics. They’d give you a carbonara box or mud hut to love in and the crapist food they can find, they want people on welfare to suffer and have horrible lives that barely live. Just enough food to keep alive so probly 500-1000 calories a day. They’d rather welfare people either die or get jobs like them. But there’s not enough of their jobs for 200 million people. I always tell them if it’s so easy then you’ll have no problem give your job to someone else and finding a new one. Non will do that.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

02 Dec 2017, 1:56 pm

hurtloam wrote:
The USA really seems to have more of an issue with this than the UK. We find it puzzling that so many Americans don't care about the less advantaged.

I'm not saying we don't have any issues in the UK. I heard someone on the radio with a degenerative illness, think it was Parkinson's, saying he keeps getting reviewed for his eligibility to work. Um, he's not going to magically get better benefits assessors :roll:

Part of our wage in the UK goes towards National Insurance. Most of us accept that. It's a big pot we all pay into. If an accident happens I get free medical care and get put back together because I've been helping to pay into this pot. That happened. If I've never needed an operation at least my money goes to someone who does need to have an operation. I have no issue with that.

Same with unemployment. I didn't have a job for 2 months after leaving college. I received a benefit. Hopefully I won't be in that situation again. But should it arise I'm glad I've been paying NI and there will be a safety net.

Even if I never need a safety net again I don't mind that what I'm paying will go to helping someone less able to find employment than me.

I don't see the problem. Some people are just selfish and lack empathy. I find it bizarre just how much that lack of empathy is ingrained into American culture.

I will never ever ever live in America.

Aspergers doesn’t go away either. Permanently disabled is reviewed every 5+ years. They review me every 4 years and 11 months, to avoid saying I’m permanently disabled though they know I am. They’d suppose to review me every 3 years.

As for people. They just greeedy, they want more more more money. Some make millions of excess money but claim hardship from taxes :roll:
If you have a house and two cars and bunch of fancy stuff, take vacations to Europe, your not having any hardship from taxes. So if they didn’t pay taxes they could buy another car boo hoo.

I bet your(UK) rich class at least looks down on poor in Uk. Gosh knows your middle class has some of the same feelings ours does, atleast about immigration.

Richer hate poor but love to use them. It’s been this way for thousands of years, the haves and the have nots. They turn the middle class against the poor as a scapegoat. So the middle class won’t notice the rich robbing them of all their money until it’s too late.
“Don’t notice me taking multi billion dollar bailouts and tax cuts, that poor person getting $750 a month is stealing your money though”



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,787

02 Dec 2017, 3:35 pm

sly279 wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
sly279 wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
People should be forced against their will to appease potential suicidal people?

Where does it end ... people should be forced to marry lonely people, because lonely people might suicide?


Either

a. Others are obligated to provide those who can't provide themselves a living to keep them from violating their own right to life

or

b. Suicide is an inalienable right and a moral obligation to prevent one from violating the rights of others.

To accept a and b as false at the same time leads to a contradiction of morality, values and standards.


Just what do you mean by providing them a living? Is that basic necessities such as food and shelter or is for a luxurious living with most, if not, all wants provided for?



Good question. Basics is the answer


What’s basics? A cardboard box, and two dishes of rice a day?
North Korea provides basics and their population is starving but alive and highly infected with parasites.
What’s so wrong with poor people having a decent life? No doubt middle class would take most my belongings away. I’m still way poorer then them even with my belongs. I don’t have a house, multiple cars. Freak them and their desire to have 10 $50,000+ cars and multip houses. They can spare some of their excess money to help others live a bareable life. I’ve met anti tax middle class people and they aren’t hurting a bit. They own out right multiple cars and one house. They have a huge savings. They have lots of nice things. They want mor cars more houses. Meh I don’t even have a car or a house.


Being able to afford the cost of living including medical expenses. And, if possible help them to s point where they can do it themselves.

I can tell you right now that the anti welfare people don’t think medical expenses are part of the basics. They’d give you a carbonara box or mud hut to love in and the crapist food they can find, they want people on welfare to suffer and have horrible lives that barely live. Just enough food to keep alive so probly 500-1000 calories a day. They’d rather welfare people either die or get jobs like them. But there’s not enough of their jobs for 200 million people. I always tell them if it’s so easy then you’ll have no problem give your job to someone else and finding a new one. Non will do that.


Thing is sly, they need to be forced to justify their morals, ethics, values and beliefs. My argument is to the Ben Shapiro's of the world. Those like Ben Shapiro need to be forced to justify what they say is true. He has a saying that facts don't care about one's feelings. Well, facts should apply to him and those like him as well.

They should be able to prove that God of Abraham and Moses exist.

Prove that the Bible is the valid word of God.

Prove that their interpretation of the Bible is correct and they're the true prophets of this God. They should be able to explain their interpretation and how they got their step by step and be ready for scrutiny.

Prove that their actions and policies align with the correct interpretation of God's desires and wishes if God exists.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,571
Location: Reading, England

02 Dec 2017, 3:50 pm

Everyone should be provided a living, even if they can work. Work should be something you choose to do in order to pass the time and get luxuries, not something that you have to do to survive. This would also allow for the minimum wage to be scrapped, creating jobs, and would add demand to the economy, creating even more jobs, and would increase leisure time, creating even more jobs.

hurtloam wrote:
The USA really seems to have more of an issue with this than the UK. We find it puzzling that so many Americans don't care about the less advantaged.

I think you'd be surprised. Certainly at government level, we seem to be worse than the Americans. Sly would be found "fit to work" here and have all his benefits taken away.

I think there are a few important differences. Firstly, our governments tend to dress cuts up as unfortunate but necessary and a good way to help disabled people (their logic is never quite explained). Republicans are often much more strident, appealing to their base rather than caring what the opposition think.

I can't remember what my second point was going to be, but I think perhaps we forget just how popular "scrounger" rhetoric is, particularly among working class conservatives.