|
| Thread: Voluntary Charity vs Welfare |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 18, 2010 07:53 AM |
|
|
But suppose the farmer pays for farm subsidies but not police - why should he pay if others are going to be paying? He'll be getting protection anyway, right? Everyone will think along those lines, and essentially "vote" to subsidise themselves while not providing much by way of public goods.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 07:58 AM |
|
|
Do you really want to see everything swarmed with advertisement for this or that worthy endeavour to pay your tax dollars for?
Would you really want to end up with saying something like, heck, no money for prison maintainance, we have to let everyone starve in there?
Obviously, there is a difference in what people WANT to spend money for and what people NEED to spend money for - you will know that from your own personal budget -, and that's one of the reasons, why you have a government in the first place: to determine the NECESSARY stuff to spend money for. (Just to give you more thought: this includes laws forcing to individual to spend more money for something than the individual may find necessary: think for example about safety or hygienic stuff people are forced by law to observe, that add to the costs of doing something - basically the same thing.)
Not to mention the following: if you have a certain amount for, say, road building, who decides, WHICH roads are build, if the money raised isn't enough for all? And what happens with the surplus money, if there is more than necessary?
And if people give their tax money for SPECIFIC roads, you'll never get anything done in poor areas, since the people there won't ever create the necessary tax money, which would be counterproductive to a lot of things taxes are all about.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 09:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
and why do you think criminals rob, rape and pillage? because of the absence of police force? it will dissuade some of them, but it doesn't have much to do with the origin of the problem.
The origin is evil in the hearts of men. And yes, without the police the gangs would rule the street. Particularly drug gangs with automatic weapons.
Quote:
Quote:
The government taking my money and giving it to someone else benefits the other person and harms me.
That is incorrect;
Sorry, the government taking money from me and giving it to someone else harms me and benefits the person it was given to. But it gives the person who received the aid no motivation to do anything differently with his life. The person should seek aid from the private sector.
Quote:
I don't care about you, your family, or the poor people that were around you. I care about statistics. You're a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent.
Statistics don't show that most poor people are criminals. Poverty does not cause crime or else all poor people would be criminals.
Quote:
Quote:
On what basis do you have a right to an education and why does that trump my right to private property?
On what basis do you have a right to private property and why does that trump his right to an education?
I already stated the basis on which I have a right to private property. Perhaps you should go back and read my posts. And I deny that anyone has a natural right to higher education at my expense.
Quote:
Which is why this stuff should just have an opt out with people being able to choose where their tax dollars go while filling out their taxes each year.
Everyone benefits from things like the military, police, and roads. Only the people receiving welfare benefit from welfare. Taxation should be for the common good rahter than for discriminatory purposes that only benefit certain interest groups.
I would say that there could be a box to check that allows you to send a donation to a government run charity that operates solely on the donated funds. But it will be much less efficient than private charities. So if you really want to help people start in your local community where the charities likely have extremely low overhead and you can see where your money is going.
Quote:
One could also argue that the money being taken from some people to kill civilians in other countries through indiscriminate bombing harms the person who has their money taken as they feel their money is being used to murder people.
US tax money for the militry is certainly not for indiscriminate killing of civialians so I'm not sure what nation you are refering to. I guess one of the nations that sponsor Islamic terrorism since your statement focuses on the indiscriminate killing of civilians in other nations.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 09:52 AM |
|
|
Elodin: You might have worked your way through collage, but don't you think it would've been a lot easier if you didn't have to work through it? You'd be able to put more effort into school, learning and developing and then be a better employee after collage, rather than during collage and then a descent worker afterwards. If you didn't have to work you could've gotten better grades, and even if it worked for you that doesn't mean that it will for others. Let's for example say that you had a family member that was ill and all your money would have to go to the family. Would've you managed all through collage then?
Even if it possible to get through collage or university studies it will always be MUCH easier if you can get money from the taxes or if you have a wealthy, at least well off, family that can provide you with food. I know that I, in poor economy and high unemployment propably wouldn't even have the possibility to get a work here in Sweden. Especially if the employer knew that I'd have to put effort into studies as well. Besides, I'm studying computers. I wouldn't have had the possibility if I didn't get to make myself a computer in school. I do have one at home, but it is far inadequete.
____________
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 10:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But it gives the person who received the aid no motivation to do anything differently with his life.
How can you know that? You cannot see what people feel or think.
Also, you obviously cannot see both sides of this as you only feel that the government is stealing from you. You don't know how it actually helps people. You have no means to know that without having actually been in a situation where it is your only option! If not for welfare money I wouldn't have managed, so I know the difference it makes. You, dear Elodin, don't know what the hell you are talking about.
____________
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 03:29 PM |
|
|
It appears to me that "how" money is spent is sort of left behind with the natural flow of this discussion focusing-on "what" it is spent on and that is ofc because the first requires "control".
I gave a real-tragedy example of "going to the private-sector". Now, the woman nor her children were abusing the system...and could NOT get help. It seems the "Free-givers" are overloaded already and unable to meet the demand.
So from the x-amount of $ the Gov. IS taking in taxes goes to the Hubble , Stealth bomb-load capacity, Mars, etc....whatever, could instead (if even for a brief-time) be focusing on need closer to home. This is my idea of people first.
I know that abuse is present. I've seen the video of a guy collecting Welfare and then hand-mixing a concrete sidewalk but <IMO> that is a "HOW" issue and should not be a "what". We may no longer have any easy solutions.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 03:30 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:31, 18 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
Poverty does not cause crime or else all poor people would be criminals.
Smoking does not cause cancer or else all people who smoke would have cancer.
LOGIC FAIL
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 03:41 PM |
|
|
@Elodin:
You didn't explain why you have an uncompromisable right to private property. You just pulled some quotes from the US Constitution. Of course, that's an attempt to make a legal argument, but I think it's assumed we're talking in a broader context than legality within the US.
Also, poor people do commit more crime than middle class people.
Thirdly, why are you insulted by the idea that poor people commit more crime, but then without hesitation, have no issue saying that poor people with welfare benefits will have no incentive to work? One trend is just as real as the other.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 03:54 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
If you claim each person is not born with the same rights then all rights come from the government. You then have no reason to complain if you live in a dictatorship where the dictator decides to rape you 5 times a day until he tires of you and then slowly tortures you to death. After all, in his nation there is no law that says you have a right to live or a right for him not to rape you. In fact, his law says that it is his right to do whatever he wants to do.
You are seeing this the wrong way.
Nature, animals and so on know nothing about rights and don't care about them. Rights are something exclusively between, for and from humans.
The foundation for all MODERN rights is the postulation that all people are in an abstract way EQUAL, which means, one isn't worth more than the other. From here on, if *I*, as a human, postulate the WILL to live and survive, based on the equality principle I have to concede this will to everyone else, and from here this multiple singular will is bundled into a right for the members of a community to live and so on.
Note, that this abstract equality is just an abstract postulation. We don't know whether all men are in fact created equal - and history is full of examples where peoples would deem themselves superior or chosen or would deem certain individuals superior.
If you look into things you will see that in dictatorships and so on it's not what is called the basic rights what is cut - it's the equality principle. Certain people are declared inferior or superior or both, and based on that rights are cut or privileges are granted.
Note, that it doesn't matter whether a god may say this or that; as long as a community declares all its members equal, certain rights follow automatically from that.
It is NOT the government who gives these rights, it's the individual in combination with the equality principle.
However, I don't see anywhere a natural right to individual property. "Ownership" doesn't mean anything as such - it's the rights or privileges that come with "ownership" that matter, that is, more or less exclusive usage rights. Note, that "ownership" does NOT automatically grant unlimited and total usage rights. For example, even if you own a park, you can't just go ahead and cut all the old trees, even though you own then.
In fact "ownership" is a very complicated concept that we do not have to discuss here, but INDIVIDUAL ownership is just a special case of that one.
A community is completely free to set rules concerning individual and collective ownership and property.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 06:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Elodin:
You didn't explain why you have an uncompromisable right to private property.
Yes I did. I based my argument on natural law. Go back and reread my posts.
Also, no one has explained to me why they have a right to higher educationa and why that alleged right trumps my private property rights.
Also, please prove that poverty causes crime.
Thirdly, why are you insulted by the idea that poor people commit more crime, but then without hesitation, have no issue saying that poor people with welfare benefits will have no incentive to work? One trend is just as real as the other.
I already addressed the reason that welfare leads to a lower incentive to work. You don't appear to be reading my posts very carefully.
Quote:
Note, that this abstract equality is just an abstract postulation. We don't know whether all men are in fact created equal
That is a rather sad statement. I have viewed all people as equals since I was a small child. That fact seemed self-evident to me. I don't care what a person's skin tone is, his economic status is, ect, he is my equal.
Quote:
Note, that it doesn't matter whether a god may say this or that; as long as a community declares all its members equal, certain rights follow automatically from that.
It is NOT the government who gives these rights, it's the individual in combination with the equality principle.
An abstract idea [that all mean are equal] that you say we don't even know is true can't give rights. And what individual gives the rights?
Could you elaborate please. Also, you appear to be saying that rights are not in fact absolute but just based on someone's ideas, is that correct? There is no such thing as human rights?
Quote:
However, I don't see anywhere a natural right to individual property.
As individuals, we each have a right to our own life and to the fruits of our life. Private property rights is just an extension of the right to life. I obtain private property through investing a portion of my life through work and various other things. I am the only one entitled to what my life produces. Private property rights are a basic human right and are vital to an individual's liberty. When you steal my food, clothing, shelter, ect, my right ot live is seriously jeprodized.
Present your argument as to why you have a right to my property and why your right to my property trumps my right to my property.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Note, that this abstract equality is just an abstract postulation. We don't know whether all men are in fact created equal
That is a rather sad statement. I have viewed all people as equals since I was a small child. That fact seemed self-evident to me. I don't care what a person's skin tone is, his economic status is, ect, he is my equal.
Understand me right. It's just an ASSUMPTION that all men are "of equal worth" - history is full of examples that this is not a matter of course. However, we have come to simply DECLARE that, and rightly so, I will add. But it's based on the abstract conclusion that indeed all men are fundamentally the same.
Quote:
Quote:
Note, that it doesn't matter whether a god may say this or that; as long as a community declares all its members equal, certain rights follow automatically from that.
It is NOT the government who gives these rights, it's the individual in combination with the equality principle.
An abstract idea [that all mean are equal] that you say we don't even know is true can't give rights. And what individual gives the rights?
Could you elaborate please. Also, you appear to be saying that rights are not in fact absolute but just based on someone's ideas, is that correct? There is no such thing as human rights?
Every human can only speak for him- or herself. *I* want to live, *I* want to pursue happiness, *I* consider this the basic foundation of my existance and therefore it is natural for me and should be my right.
Only with accepting the fundamental equality of all men, thereby being able to generalize for all men, going from the self to everyone, it is possible to formulate RIGHTS for all men. A basic right is a right that everyone has against everyone else because all men are fundamentally, that is, in their core that makes them human, equal.
Quote:
Quote:
However, I don't see anywhere a natural right to individual property.
As individuals, we each have a right to our own life and to the fruits of our life.
Except, that for example when you marry, your wife has the same right to the fruits of your individual property than you (provided you have no special contract). Quote:
Private property rights is just an extension of the right to life. I obtain private property through investing a portion of my life through work and various other things. I am the only one entitled to what my life produces.
See above. It's simply wrong. You would have a valid point, if you were ALONE, living completely isolated, not profiting in any way from anybody elses life or work. If you do, though - and you did; you went to school, for example - you OWE society which made that possible.
Quote:
Private property rights are a basic human right and are vital to an individual's liberty. When you steal my food, clothing, shelter, ect, my right ot live is seriously jeprodized.
Present your argument as to why you have a right to my property and why your right to my property trumps my right to my property.
I don't have a right to your property. But your wife has. And the whole of society has as well, since it GIVES or already GAVE you something for it.
Moreover society quite obviously has the right to make the rules for the accumulation of private property and the use of private property, AND society has the right to declare what CAN BE private property in the first place. There are many, for example, who would say that LAND should not be available as private property. Communists would not want the means of production to be private property, so you couldn't own a factory.
Every government collects taxes - the collective society demanding a tribute from everyone for the privilege to live within the comfort and shelter of the manifold.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 02:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
and why do you think criminals rob, rape and pillage? because of the absence of police force? it will dissuade some of them, but it doesn't have much to do with the origin of the problem.
The origin is evil in the hearts of men. And yes, without the police the gangs would rule the street. Particularly drug gangs with automatic weapons.
maybe some places would be ruled by gangs with automatic weapons yes. but maybe it's already the case, here the police is already afraid to face a band of youngs people throwing stones, so automatic guns, you imagine...
and what is the origin of evil in hearts of men? because saying people commit crimes because they are bad is quite an easy answer lol
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 04:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Except, that for example when you marry, your wife has the same right to the fruits of your individual property than you (provided you have no special contract).
Well, yes, as I have said before, my dependents can expect me to support them.
Quote:
I don't have a right to your property. But your wife has. And the whole of society has as well, since it GIVES or already GAVE you something for it.
Nah. As I said, I am not opposed to all taxation. I support legitimate taxation for such things as the military, police force, roads and such. Things that benefit everyone.
I don't support discriminatory taxes that transfer wealth from one person to another based on level of wealth, race, gender, ect. That is robbery.
Quote:
Moreover society quite obviously has the right to make the rules for the accumulation of private property and the use of private property, AND society has the right to declare what CAN BE private property in the first place.
It is not obvious to me that society can tell me that I can't own private property or that I can only have so much private property. Private property is the result of me living my life and I am entitled to the fruit of my life. Private property is necessary in order for me to live and is one of the most basic human rights because of that fact.
As far as use of private property I would agree that society can forbid me from doing such things as making my property a toxic waste dump in the middle of a residential area because that would be an imposition on the rights of those around me.
Quote:
maybe some places would be ruled by gangs with automatic weapons yes. but maybe it's already the case, here the police is already afraid to face a band of youngs people throwing stones, so automatic guns, you imagine...
and what is the origin of evil in hearts of men? because saying people commit crimes because they are bad is quite an easy answer lol
There is no maybe about it. You can look at Mexico for instance and see it has been dominated by drug cartels for quite some time because of an ineffective police force. I am glad to see they are finally fighting back.
And yes, a good man will be good regardless of what situation he finds himself in. And evil man will be evil regardless of what situation he finds himself in.
It just so happens that I just saw this on CNN about a college studen who had lost a backpack with a laptop and $3000 in it. A homeless man found it and turned it in. Although the man was in deep poverty he did the right thing because he was not a thief.
Clicky
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 04:54 AM |
|
|
It is not being a thief if you keep a bag with 3300$ a distracted student lost. Thievery is when you attempt to others wealth and break the law to appropriate it. Now I could understand someone who returns you some things as papers or personal objects which could not be replaced, but returning the money you stupidly lost is weird. And he walked with 3300$ in a bag, not even in his pockets? He deserved to lose them.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 19, 2010 12:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes I did. I based my argument on natural law.
 Which means you have no actual basis to base your argument on.
Natural law is based on the idea of that there is laws that apply to everyone, granted by nature(which later on got interprented as granted by God).
From a empire or grand nations point of view, having the same laws apply to everyone is mostly good, but there is usually exceptions. Such as marked regulations, whoever fails to properly enforce their dam is forced to pay for the damage the flood causes, etc.
When going down and writing laws, their actual basis should be based on "what do we want to happen in this society?" and not the entire mess of "God says so, and thus it must be so". Which makes natural laws a faulty idea, even if the core is good.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 12:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And yes, a good man will be good regardless of what situation he finds himself in. And evil man will be evil regardless of what situation he finds himself in.
I don't believe in that
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 01:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And yes, a good man will be good regardless of what situation he finds himself in. And evil man will be evil regardless of what situation he finds himself in.
And then there are most people, who are in between and whose actions do depend on their situation.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 03:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes I did. I based my argument on natural law.
Which means you have no actual basis to base your argument on.
Natural law is based on the idea of that there is laws that apply to everyone, granted by nature(which later on got interprented as granted by God).
From a empire or grand nations point of view, having the same laws apply to everyone is mostly good, but there is usually exceptions. Such as marked regulations, whoever fails to properly enforce their dam is forced to pay for the damage the flood causes, etc.
When going down and writing laws, their actual basis should be based on "what do we want to happen in this society?" and not the entire mess of "God says so, and thus it must be so". Which makes natural laws a faulty idea, even if the core is good.
Actually, you are incorrect on several things.
First, you have not proved natural law is invalid but just declare it to be faulty with no proof. Second your claim that the philosophy of natural law came before the idea that rights come from God is ludicrous. The book of Genesis came long before the development of the natural law philosophy and the idea of God-granted rights was already in existence when the book of Genesis was penned. It was in exitence even furthur back, before the time of Abraham. It is written of Abraham that he followed Laws and statutes of God and that was long before the Mosaic Law was given.
In the very first chapter of the book of Genesis the concept of man's dignity is based on the fact that he was created in the image of God. He is a being worthy of respect and of great value because of his nature.
The right of a man to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness is indeed self-evident. At least to most people. It is self-evident that I have a right to live and a right to what my life produces. You have no right to what I own.
And it is no coincidene that the nation that rose to the greatest degree for freedom man has ever known in recorded history based its laws on the concept that all mean are created equal. Invoking divine law. And that some truths such as the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to persue your dreams is self-evident [natural law.] That nation hs helped to spread freedom and inspired others to struggle for freedom around the world. Atheistic nations such as the old USSR that deny that man has a natural dignity and corresponding rights have done nothing but suppress human rights.
Quote:
And then there are most people, who are in between and whose actions do depend on their situation.
So your claim is that most people are subject to becoming rapists, murders, robbers, child molesters, ect?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 03:47 AM |
|
|
|
even the dalai lama or sister emmanuelle say they could have become criminals if they were born in the wrong place.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 11:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes I did. I based my argument on natural law.
Which means you have no actual basis to base your argument on.
Natural law is based on the idea of that there is laws that apply to everyone, granted by nature(which later on got interprented as granted by God).
From a empire or grand nations point of view, having the same laws apply to everyone is mostly good, but there is usually exceptions. Such as marked regulations, whoever fails to properly enforce their dam is forced to pay for the damage the flood causes, etc.
When going down and writing laws, their actual basis should be based on "what do we want to happen in this society?" and not the entire mess of "God says so, and thus it must be so". Which makes natural laws a faulty idea, even if the core is good.
Actually, you are incorrect on several things.
First, you have not proved natural law is invalid but just declare it to be faulty with no proof. Second your claim that the philosophy of natural law came before the idea that rights come from God is ludicrous. The book of Genesis came long before the development of the natural law philosophy and the idea of God-granted rights was already in existence when the book of Genesis was penned. It was in exitence even furthur back, before the time of Abraham. It is written of Abraham that he followed Laws and statutes of God and that was long before the Mosaic Law was given.
In the very first chapter of the book of Genesis the concept of man's dignity is based on the fact that he was created in the image of God. He is a being worthy of respect and of great value because of his nature.
The right of a man to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness is indeed self-evident. At least to most people. It is self-evident that I have a right to live and a right to what my life produces. You have no right to what I own.
And it is no coincidene that the nation that rose to the greatest degree for freedom man has ever known in recorded history based its laws on the concept that all mean are created equal. Invoking divine law. And that some truths such as the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to persue your dreams is self-evident [natural law.] That nation hs helped to spread freedom and inspired others to struggle for freedom around the world. Atheistic nations such as the old USSR that deny that man has a natural dignity and corresponding rights have done nothing but suppress human rights.
Quote:
And then there are most people, who are in between and whose actions do depend on their situation.
So your claim is that most people are subject to becoming rapists, murders, robbers, child molesters, ect?
Elodin, you are uncorrect in so many ways. I remind you that God's chosen people had SLAVES. Now EITHER those slaves were not considered human beings OR they didn't consider them equal and granted with god-given rights.
Anyway. The idea that humans would have natural, god-given rights is in it's core just an expression of helplessness - people had to base their ideas on SOMEthing, and since times were different they called on god and nature for want of something better.
RIGHTS is, as I said, an exclusively HUMAN concept. Nature knows no RIGHTS, grants none and accepts none. If you ask nature, no living being can claim any right on anything - not to be born, not to live on, once born, not to savour even ONE moment of peace, joy, pleasure or anything else. The only rule is, that you have to FIGHT for your survival - you get nothing gift-wrapped.
A RIGHT is something you can have only AGAINST others (I don't know whether "against" is the correct preposition. If there are no "others" "rights" make no sense.
Which means, that rights are something by which humans regulate their living with each other.
It is QUITE obviously not self-evident that every human has a RIGHT to live - it can only be granted by humans to THEMSELVES and comes only from accepting the idea of equality. It goes:
SINCE I AM (LIVING), I WANT TO LIVE ON. I DON'T CARE WHETHER I HAVE A RIGHT TO IT OR NOT, I JUST WANT IT.
This is the most basic desire. With everyyone being equal, the conclusion is that EVERYONE has the same basic desire. With everyone having the same basic desire it becomes right to have it for all humans and being right it's only a small step to become a RIGHT for everyone. It means that the desire to live is simply right for everyone.
At this point I ask a question:
Is it an acknowledged human right to pursue the goal of multiplication - having children, plant the seed and so on?
Is it maybe too self-evident to mention this as a right? Which is strange, because not all people had this right in all times.
What do you think why that is so?
|
| |
|
|
