TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Some political differences
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by occrider First and foremost, welfare is not a right, it is a privelidge ... it is a privelidge granted to those who wish to engage in a contractual bargain of sorts with the government. The terms of the contract are as such ...

which right is more worth than others, to live a decent life or to have the right to spend money as you want? Imo welfare is more of an right than the spending your money how you want right. you don't really see the less intelligent people as much worth as the well educated don't you?

your system sure would be perfect is the case where that everyone can work and have the same opportunities. That is not the case, some are born smart and work willing, some are born stupid and almost without the ability to work etc. I once used to think like you did, that everyone can work, but i have now realized that that is not the case. some are born stupid and should not be punished to much for that. it's like with criminals it doesn't really matter how tough punishments there is, some people are just stupid and will murder anyway.

quote:

A)Once on welfare, there will be no excess in anything. I can't tell you how many times I go to the grocery store and see people who are on welfare get the fattiest foods and load up on shit like twinkies, ho-hos, cookies, cakes, etc., and they're the fattest slobs you've ever seen. I hate how americans are so goddamned weak-willed and fat. All those goods are luxury items and therefore not the basic necessities that one would expect someone on welfare to be purchasing. Secondly, people use welfare money to buy extraneous goods like tv's, fashionable clothing, basically stuff they don't NEED. It's not their money they're spending so they ONLY buy BASIC necessities. In order to manage such a system, perhaps a welfare credit card of sorts can be used to track all purchases ... nothing will be cash based. Therefore, if a welfare reciepient is alloted a certain amount of money to purchase school supplies and clothes for their kids they actually BUY school supplies and clothes for their kids. All their personal data can be entered into databases where queries will constantly track purchases and red flag any inappropriate items. Violators will receive one warning. Additional violations and they face expulsion from the welfare system.

hehe, and that is not a violation of your privacy right?

But i can see your point, this people cannot really handle money in a good way. Probably it is better to have some kind of system where they can be controlled by the government in some way. But i do think that they should be able to allow themself some good food, modern clothes etc, sometimes. They are also humans and this small things really can mean a lot!

quote:

B) The participant will do EVERYTHING possible to get off of welfare. The participant will do NOTHING that will increase their welfare. This means NO MORE KIDS. I cannot emphasize that point enough ... you do not have the right to gouge other people out of their money even more because you screwed up and accidentally had another kid. Also there are cases where welfare participants purposefully have more kids so they can get more welfare. As such, welfare participants have a mandatory obligation to take depo-provera treatment that temporarily sterilizes them for a 6-month period. As long as that individual is on welfare, they are sterilized. If they think it's an infringement upon their rights, they can always refuse to partake in the welfare system. That being said, in order to care for children, violators of the welfare system will automatically be red-flagged by social services. If they are unable to provide for their children, the children will be placed in temporary foster care until the parent is able to care for their children.

Rich peoples right to spend some of their money vs. unemployed peoples right to have children... hmmm =)

But i agree on that do everything to get off welfare thing... Maybe visit the unemployment office everyday to search for jobs, if they don't they haven't even tried and therefore should not get their funding.

quote:

C) You are given a grace period to escape welfare. Same jazz that goes on now, you work with job counselors to secure a job. After that grace period has expired, however, you will be considered an employee of the state, and therefore you are obligated to work for the state should the situation arise. Your amount of time work, shall not exceed your welfare benefit recieved at minimum wage. However, refusal to do said work can and will result in expulsion from the welfare system. A certain amount of time can be still be allocated to job searching functions uch as interviews, follow-ups, etc., as requested by the welfare recipient.

once upon a time i thought this was a good idea too, but then i thought a bit more. It's like slavery, the state will use this to get cheap labor. If they need to hire a new stuff and they knew they have 100 unemployed to use, they will of course hire one of them instead of one new other (who may have been one of that 100 anyway but now they get it much cheaper, get me?)

Perhaps this may work if they used the unemployment people for something they would never hire someone for anyway, but i am still doubting.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew which right is more worth than others, to live a decent life or to have the right to spend money as you want? Imo welfare is more of an right than the spending your money how you want right. you don't really see the less intelligent people as much worth as the well educated don't you?

I disagree. Where in the constitution does it ever mention the "right to a decent life"? I'm not sure I've ever seen that in any documents which were used to sculpt the U.S. You're saying right to equal outcome vs. right to equal opportunity. Last I checked, right to personal property is one of the tenets of the forming of the U.S.

To me, 'right to a decent life' would imply that you essentially think the role of gov't is to be your babysitter. If you want to give control of your life away to the government to control, don't expect to have any control over your life or property. What would you do if the government definition of "a decent life" was of lower standards than your personal definition for "a decent life". If the government is providing it, who are you to say what is and is not "decent". I keep telling you that it's a bad road to go down, but you don't seem to be willing to accept it. Do you actually prefer Communism?

quote:

your system sure would be perfect is the case where that everyone can work and have the same opportunities. That is not the case, some are born smart and work willing, some are born stupid and almost without the ability to work etc. I once used to think like you did, that everyone can work, but i have now realized that that is not the case. some are born stupid and should not be punished to much for that. it's like with criminals it doesn't really matter how tough punishments there is, some people are just stupid and will murder anyway.

Define "Born smart". Isn't a person born knowing nothing accept what they learn? Is this going to turn into a big nature vs. nurture argument? Certainly some come into this world under better circumstances than others b/c their parents are better off financially, or they just happen to find their niche at an earlier age, but for the most part all babies are born with a clean slate, and no little, if anything at all about the world, IMO.

quote:

Rich peoples right to spend some of their money vs. unemployed peoples right to have children... hmmm =)

Again, if an unemployed person wants to have children, that is certainly their right, but it is also their RESPONSIBILITY. People have to be held accountable for their decisions. At what point does it suddenly become the duty/obligation of a rich person to raise/pay for the upbringing of said child when he had no choice in the decision to have the child in the first place?!

quote:

But i can see your point, this people cannot really handle money in a good way. Probably it is better to have some kind of system where they can be controlled by the government in some way. But i do think that they should be able to allow themself some good food, modern clothes etc, sometimes. They are also humans and this small things really can mean a lot!

Again--don't tell me that the government can spend my money better than I can. It's my choice how to dispose of it and just because it might benefit more people to strong-arm it away from me and buy a meal (On me), it's not their right to take something away from me by force if it's rightfully mine in the first place. You want to start a government agency that starts telling people how they should spend their own money and dispose of their own PERSONAL property? That's crazy. Communism again. Complete state control of private property, rather a complete lack of private property.


It's not that I don't appreciate your desire for everyone in society to be well off, but your proposed methodology is terribly destructive and evil. You want the people to be the sheep of the government and to not think for themselves. If you start doing that, you'll find that the most productive members of society will probably go on strike and abandon such a state to find a better place to live freely--unless you plan to pass a law that then says it's illegal to quit your job!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew which right is more worth than others, to live a decent life or to have the right to spend money as you want? Imo welfare is more of an right than the spending your money how you want right.

It's not about spending money. It's about your right to property. If you've toiled long and hard to accumulate a possession, nobody has the right to take that away from you. If someobody has built a house on their property, nobody has the right to put additional houses on your property or place boarders to room with you in your house. Our right to life is the right to live our own personal lives the way we choose free from intervention. It is not a right or a gauruntee to anything. If so, where's my right to a life of luxury? Where's my right to the best education money can buy? Where's my right to tutors, where's my right to filet mignon? Where's my right to a computer with ethernet connection? Just because I am poor, that does not give me the right to take or steal. Otherwise, I'm sure you wouldn't mind it if the government took all your possessions away from you to help the less fortunate across the globe.

quote:

you don't really see the less intelligent people as much worth as the well educated don't you?

Of course not ... I also don't think black people are worth as much as white people ... and the Chinese are about a 1/4 worth that since there are so many of them. Give me a break . Do not put words in my mouth in an attempt to villianize me, I never assigned a value of worth of one human being over another.

quote:

your system sure would be perfect is the case where that everyone can work and have the same opportunities. That is not the case, some are born smart and work willing, some are born stupid and almost without the ability to work etc. I once used to think like you did, that everyone can work, but i have now realized that that is not the case. some are born stupid and should not be punished to much for that. it's like with criminals it doesn't really matter how tough punishments there is, some people are just stupid and will murder anyway.

And therefore why reward intelligence, committment, hard work, and effort? We we're simply born that way right? Why reward those who are born with that mentality whereas the stupid and lazy have to suffer for simply being born stupid and lazy? Nevermind the fact that the choices they make in life are the reasons why they remain stupid and lazy. Man, and I used to think that unless we were born handicapped, each and every individual has the potential for personal accomplishment. I used to think that it is our innate ability to make CHOICES in life whether it be to take up crime, to study in school, to work hard, etc. What was I thinking?

quote:

hehe, and that is not a violation of your privacy right? But i can see your point, this people cannot really handle money in a good way. Probably it is better to have some kind of system where they can be controlled by the government in some way. But i do think that they should be able to allow themself some good food, modern clothes etc, sometimes. They are also humans and this small things really can mean a lot!

Why would it be a violation of privacy? The government is giving them the goods with which they need to survive. They can refuse these goods if they so choose in order to avoid any compromise of their privacy. If you're unemployed, you should make EVERY effort to get off welfare. This means no movies, no nikes, no olive garden, no nothing. You work your ass off to find a job where you have the luxury to enjoy nice things. Until then, you're a drain on society.

quote:

Rich peoples right to spend some of their money vs. unemployed peoples right to have children... hmmm =) But i agree on that do everything to get off welfare thing... Maybe visit the unemployment office everyday to search for jobs, if they don't they haven't even tried and therefore should not get their funding.

The unemployed still have the right to bear children . Remember, we rights to be free from, we don't have rights to entitlement. Therefore, if the unemployed have more desire to bear kids rather than to find a job and come off of welfare, than they can go ahead and do that. They simply won't be getting welfare .

quote:

once upon a time i thought this was a good idea too, but then i thought a bit more. It's like slavery, the state will use this to get cheap labor. If they need to hire a new stuff and they knew they have 100 unemployed to use, they will of course hire one of them instead of one new other (who may have been one of that 100 anyway but now they get it much cheaper, get me?) Perhaps this may work if they used the unemployment people for something they would never hire someone for anyway, but i am still doubting.

Yea, I kind of had a problem with my last point as well ... I didn't really want it to become a system of slavery which is why I put in two clauses: A) The unemployed will only work according to the amount of money they are paid ... therefore, if they receive $500 in welfare credit, they work no more than that $500 of credit they received. B) The unemployed are still given job seeking opportunities to escape welfare. Also, if they don't want to work, again they can opt to not receive welfare.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I disagree. Where in the constitution does it ever mention the "right to a decent life"? I'm not sure I've ever seen that in any documents which were used to sculpt the U.S. You're saying right to equal outcome vs. right to equal opportunity. Last I checked, right to personal property is one of the tenets of the forming of the U.S.

as far as i know it, it doesn't mention it anywhere, but since when is the US constitution the document that is right about everything!?

quote:

To me, 'right to a decent life' would imply that you essentially think the role of gov't is to be your babysitter. If you want to give control of your life away to the government to control, don't expect to have any control over your life or property. What would you do if the government definition of "a decent life" was of lower standards than your personal definition for "a decent life". If the government is providing it, who are you to say what is and is not "decent".

Then i would disagree with the government, so what? The point is that i want the government to think like me, so if they don't ohh then we got a problem, like we do today....

quote:

I keep telling you that it's a bad road to go down, but you don't seem to be willing to accept it. Do you actually prefer Communism?

No it's not communism, you can combine a socialist system with a liberalism system, without any big problems. And you don't seem to be willing to see that your system may be wrong? As long as you cannot show any proof that your way of society is better than ours, i will rather think of everyone then only on the rich.

quote:

Define "Born smart". Isn't a person born knowing nothing accept what they learn? Is this going to turn into a big nature vs. nurture argument? Certainly some come into this world under better circumstances than others b/c their parents are better off financially, or they just happen to find their niche at an earlier age, but for the most part all babies are born with a clean slate, and no little, if anything at all about the world, IMO.

Some people are born with the skill "easy to learn", some with the skill "work hard and learn" some just don't fix that cause they are born with a lack of all that skills. So this people don't have the same chance (if they don't live in the US with rich parents ). IMO a bit too much is already "settled" (in lack of better word, sorry) when you'r born. and i don't say it is impossible to change this, but almost.

quote:

Again, if an unemployed person wants to have children, that is certainly their right, but it is also their RESPONSIBILITY. People have to be held accountable for their decisions. At what point does it suddenly become the duty/obligation of a rich person to raise/pay for the upbringing of said child when he had no choice in the decision to have the child in the first place?!

When welfare is what i want it to be, honestly it isn't really much money we are speaking about, how greedy can you get?

quote:

Again--don't tell me that the government can spend my money better than I can. It's my choice how to dispose of it and just because it might benefit more people to strong-arm it away from me and buy a meal (On me), it's not their right to take something away from me by force if it's rightfully mine in the first place. You want to start a government agency that starts telling people how they should spend their own money and dispose of their own PERSONAL property? That's crazy. Communism again. Complete state control of private property, rather a complete lack of private property.

This was occriders idea, and it was for the unemployments, not for you. I can't see how your point of view can conflict with that, probably you just misread my post?

quote:

It's not that I don't appreciate your desire for everyone in society to be well off, but your proposed methodology is terribly destructive and evil. You want the people to be the sheep of the government and to not think for themselves. If you start doing that, you'll find that the most productive members of society will probably go on strike and abandon such a state to find a better place to live freely--unless you plan to pass a law that then says it's illegal to quit your job!

This system i'm speaking about is somewhat similar to the one we have in scandinavia/sweden, you should come visit here, and as far as i know, there is not more strikes here than anywhere else...

Btw, something along the lines of the welfare system I described, and I would be willing to provide something like that to all people, even with health care benefits as I believe people should all have access to health care ... even the poor who cannot afford it. However, I'll still argue the issue of "rights" and obligations any day of the week

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It's not about spending money. It's about your right to property. If you've toiled long and hard to accumulate a possession, nobody has the right to take that away from you. If someobody has built a house on their property, nobody has the right to put additional houses on your property or place boarders to room with you in your house. Our right to life is the right to live our own personal lives the way we choose free from intervention. It is not a right or a gauruntee to anything. If so, where's my right to a life of luxury? Where's my right to the best education money can buy? Where's my right to tutors, where's my right to filet mignon? Where's my right to a computer with ethernet connection? Just because I am poor, that does not give me the right to take or steal. Otherwise, I'm sure you wouldn't mind it if the government took all your possessions away from you to help the less fortunate across the globe.

True, if you buy something you should get that, BUT as you do today you pay a fee to the government called tax or VAT (lol you probably knew that ), the only difference is that with a better welfare system you do pay a bit more (as it sounds from you it sounds like the rich will get as poor as the poor ones, and that is NOT the case...). So with your way of thinking the government is already breaking your rights? So your only reason to go to good schools and get a well paid job is to get better healthcare that everyone else, send you kids to better schools than anyone else etc? if everyone could go to that good schools, would you give up your well paid job? Of course you wouldn't! There is sooooo much more in life than just this basic stuffs!

Again i will take sweden as an example (even though it's not perfect it is a good example of a working welfare society). Here EVERYONE gets access to health care, schools etc. And it's not like it's bad either, in all invastigations i have seen the swedish health care/schools are much better than the good american ones (of course not as good as the super duper clinics only bill gates can afford).

quote:

Of course not ... I also don't think black people are worth as much as white people ... and the Chinese are about a 1/4 worth that since there are so many of them. Give me a break . Do not put words in my mouth in an attempt to villianize me, I never assigned a value of worth of one human being over another.

So why do you think that greedy rich people who have as much as they need will have their right more worth than the poor's right to live a decent life?

quote:

And therefore why reward intelligence, committment, hard work, and effort? We we're simply born that way right? Why reward those who are born with that mentality whereas the stupid and lazy have to suffer for simply being born stupid and lazy? Nevermind the fact that the choices they make in life are the reasons why they remain stupid and lazy. Man, and I used to think that unless we were born handicapped, each and every individual has the potential for personal accomplishment. I used to think that it is our innate ability to make CHOICES in life whether it be to take up crime, to study in school, to work hard, etc. What was I thinking?

I actually think that you are wrong. Of course most people can work themself up, but not everyone can. More or less some people are born to be criminals etc. It's not a coincidence that the same people over and over again get into prison, there is something wrong with them (not in every case i know but in far too many cases).

quote:

Why would it be a violation of privacy? The government is giving them the goods with which they need to survive. They can refuse these goods if they so choose in order to avoid any compromise of their privacy.

I was kind of not serious with that, what i meant is that all rights should not be applied all the times, and i actually agreed with you on some things in that paragraph =)

quote:

If you're unemployed, you should make EVERY effort to get off welfare. This means no movies, no nikes, no olive garden, no nothing. You work your ass off to find a job where you have the luxury to enjoy nice things. Until then, you're a drain on society.

What if you can't get out of unemployment? should you not be able to live a decent life anyway? but yes i somewhat i agree with you, they should search for jobs to get welfare, but they should still live with some "luxuries".

quote:

The unemployed still have the right to bear children . Remember, we rights to be free from, we don't have rights to entitlement. Therefore, if the unemployed have more desire to bear kids rather than to find a job and come off of welfare, than they can go ahead and do that. They simply won't be getting welfare .

Disagree, they should still have the right to have a children.

Kind of off topic question: If one born children in US, would you still get your job left and how much would you be paid?

quote:

Yea, I kind of had a problem with my last point as well ... I didn't really want it to become a system of slavery which is why I put in two clauses: A) The unemployed will only work according to the amount of money they are paid ... therefore, if they receive $500 in welfare credit, they work no more than that $500 of credit they received. B) The unemployed are still given job seeking opportunities to escape welfare. Also, if they don't want to work, again they can opt to not receive welfare.

Somewhat i also think this idea is good, need to be worked on though

gtg and eat now so i will not post more on that for now...

So you basically want bigger government, despite the fact that government is inherently not trustworthy? It still hinges around the belief that some beaurocrat can make decisions for you, better than you can make on your own. You're basically handing more of your life over to someone else and saying "Here, I can't think for myself, can you think for me?". How can you ever expect success when you are not in control of your destiny? You can only ever expect to be on par with the rest of society, while those power hungry government decision makers have vastly more power and wealth than the sheep that they're pushing around, making decisions for.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So you basically want bigger government, despite the fact that government is inherently not trustworthy? It still hinges around the belief that some beaurocrat can make decisions for you, better than you can make on your own. You're basically handing more of your life over to someone else and saying "Here, I can't think for myself, can you think for me?". How can you ever expect success when you are not in control of your destiny? You can only ever expect to be on par with the rest of society, while those power hungry government decision makers have vastly more power and wealth than the sheep that they're pushing around, making decisions for.

yes i do want a big powerful government in many ways. Though it shouldn't really care about things that is out of their business, but i can't see why welfare would be out of their business, in my opinion welfare is one of their biggest tasks to do for the government...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew yes i do want a big powerful government in many ways. Though it shouldn't really care about things that is out of their business, but i can't see why welfare would be out of their business, in my opinion welfare is one of their biggest tasks to do for the government...

I see. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think too much government is a very, VERY bad thing. With my tax rate already over 35%, I can't imagine government laying an arbitrary claim to more than 1/3 of my own hard work and production, but it's something I live with. I can't imagine them taking more, it's painful enough when I have enough to worry about already. Less government would be better for all of us, IMHO.


Suggested Readings:

Brave New World
1984
Atlas Shrugged
Animal Farm
Fountainhead

ok fuck all this

What do you think is more important, you buying a big screen tv or someone on the street having food to eat? who cares who has what rights, it all comes down to interpretation and we can argue about it to the ends of the world without getting anywhere. The big question is would you rather live somewhere where no one died of starvation, pneumonia or other poverty related diseases and problems. Or somewhere where you can waste your money on whatever the fuck you want?

theres a reason why the U.S. isnt the best place to live in the world. Hell its not even in the top 5.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio theres a reason why the U.S. isnt the best place to live in the world. Hell its not even in the top 5.

Which is of course based on opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. I'd love to live in various different places (Amsterdam and French Polynesia included) for various reasons, but it's all a matter of preference and opinion in the end.

I was actually basing it on the UN report that listed the best places to live in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio I was actually basing it on the UN report that listed the best places to live in the world.

Ah, what the fuck do they know? They have different priorities.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew True, if you buy something you should get that, BUT as you do today you pay a fee to the government called tax or VAT (lol you probably knew that ), the only difference is that with a better welfare system you do pay a bit more (as it sounds from you it sounds like the rich will get as poor as the poor ones, and that is NOT the case...). So with your way of thinking the government is already breaking your rights?

Now you're getting the idea . Taxes are inherentely against your rights should you happen to take offense to them. They are merely a societal obligation that you take on when you accept the pros and cons of participating in a society. Nobody can force upon you the services they provide regardless of their perception of your needs. If you own a shop shall I force you to pay for my protection because I say you NEED it? Hmmm reminds me of the mob if you ask me ... so at any rate, nobody has the right to TAKE from you. If you object to societal demands than you have the ability to leave society, however, there is no obligation on the part of society to take from some and give to others. As I stated before, YOUR rights end where MINE begin.

quote:

So your only reason to go to good schools and get a well paid job is to get better healthcare that everyone else, send you kids to better schools than anyone else etc? if everyone could go to that good schools, would you give up your well paid job? Of course you wouldn't! There is sooooo much more in life than just this basic stuffs!

I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. Yes my goal in life is to provide a better future for myself and my children. Is there any problem with this? Is there any reason why myself or my children should be penalized for the lack of priorities in others? Remember, all I ask is for simple, basic opportunities to be provided to everyone. If they fail to capitalize on such opportunities through ineffort than I'm sorry, their actions have consequences.

quote:

Again i will take sweden as an example (even though it's not perfect it is a good example of a working welfare society). Here EVERYONE gets access to health care, schools etc. And it's not like it's bad either, in all invastigations i have seen the swedish health care/schools are much better than the good american ones (of course not as good as the super duper clinics only bill gates can afford).

Fine, I see nothing wrong with increasing health care and education to BASIC levels to be provided to everyone. And to a large degree, education IS provided to most who have the desire to seek it. I'll use myself as an example ... my family have nowhere near the required funds for myself to attend a private school for 4 years. What did I do? I didn't dick around in high school. I knew exactly what I wanted, did well, and got a scholarship. That covered approximately half the cost of schooling ... what did I do then? I took out loans to cover the OTHER half of college tuition. Look, I'm not expecting anything of anybody ... I'm banking on my ability to sell myself in the future to attain the necessary salary to pay off my investment in myself ... personal responsibility.

quote:

So why do you think that greedy rich people who have as much as they need will have their right more worth than the poor's right to live a decent life?

Let's not try to taint the issue by labelling one side as the "greedy, rich, and immoral" while labelling the otherside as the "poor and rigtheous". The issue is about what YOUR rights are concerning YOUR Earnings YOU worked for vs. the rights that others have to YOUR earnings. What right do you have to a computer/luxuriously spaced dorm room/fine foods/CD player/etc./etc./etc. against a poor African's lack of anything? Why should you even have access to an EXPENSIVE, LUXURIOUS, education (C'mon it's not a basic NECESSITY is it?) when that cost can be used to pay for food that many around the world need?

quote:

I actually think that you are wrong. Of course most people can work themself up, but not everyone can. More or less some people are born to be criminals etc. It's not a coincidence that the same people over and over again get into prison, there is something wrong with them (not in every case i know but in far too many cases).

So let me ask you something ... if I continually embezzle money out of my company, and I do so again and again and again, is it MY own PERSONAL fault, or can I blame it on genetics? I was bred to steal so to speak so I'm innocent! ... well what if I was born to rob quicke marts? Let's say I was born with an inherent laziness to not work and in order to satisfy my "needs" I possessed the unique lack of laziness to rob quickemarts. Therefore it's not my fault ... right? Well look, here's what you have to ask yourself, are we ANIMALS or are we HUMANS. If we're humans than we respect our rights to choice such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And additionally, we punish those who make the illegal CHOICES that they do. If we're animals than we ignore our natural rights since they are instinctual at best and we simply put to SLEEP the murdering "dogs" since our actions are unchanging and uncontrollable at best.

quote:

I was kind of not serious with that, what i meant is that all rights should not be applied all the times, and i actually agreed with you on some things in that paragraph =)

I'm telling you, it makes sense! And all rights would be adhered to! Anybody in America would agree that the biggest problem with welfare is its abuse. If this were to be taken care of, not nearly half the people would be objectionable to providing "basic" necessities to those who are actually in need!

quote:

What if you can't get out of unemployment? should you not be able to live a decent life anyway? but yes i somewhat i agree with you, they should search for jobs to get welfare, but they should still live with some "luxuries".

No . If you lack the movtivation to find work and contribute towards society than tough shit. YOu only receive enough from society to live. However, I did state that if you DID work and you needed more money to subsist off of, than you could be elligeble for additional funds that would grant "luxuries". That way those who actually make contributions wouldnt be subjected to the same standards as those who contribute nothing to society.

quote:

Disagree, they should still have the right to have a children. Kind of off topic question: If one born children in US, would you still get your job left and how much would you be paid?

Ummmm I'm pretty sure maternity leave is granted.

quote:

Somewhat i also think this idea is good, need to be worked on though gtg and eat now so i will not post more on that for now...

I know! It needs a lot of work, but it's not bad for something I thought of over a few beers! I'm telling you, I admire most aspects of European social welfare systems but I think it would fail to complete abuse here in the US. My ideal system is this: If you are willing to make the effort to help yourself and WORK than the state will help you. If you don't care or are unwilling to put in the effort to help yourself than you're fucked. That's what would happen in my perfect world.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio ok fuck all this What do you think is more important, you buying a big screen tv or someone on the street having food to eat? who cares who has what rights, it all comes down to interpretation and we can argue about it to the ends of the world without getting anywhere. The big question is would you rather live somewhere where no one died of starvation, pneumonia or other poverty related diseases and problems. Or somewhere where you can waste your money on whatever the fuck you want?

Ok, what's more important, the ability of your government to spy on you in order to determine whether you pose a terrorist threat or your rights to privacy? Would you rather live somewhere where somebody had the ability to committ a crime of mass murder against you or would you rather have the ability to have the privacy to do whatever the fuck you want?

quote:

theres a reason why the U.S. isnt the best place to live in the world. Hell its not even in the top 5.

Sorry to burst your bubble on the UN report, however, the US (7th) came in before Canada (8th).

http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/pdf/hdr03_HDI.pdf

I really dont see the relevence of that example? and I never brought canada into it. I merely pointed out that if the American system was so good, and social welfare so bad then why was America not number 1?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. Yes my goal in life is to provide a better future for myself and my children. Is there any problem with this? Is there any reason why myself or my children should be penalized for the lack of priorities in others? Remember, all I ask is for simple, basic opportunities to be provided to everyone. If they fail to capitalize on such opportunities through ineffort than I'm sorry, their actions have consequences.

what i meant is that you will not give up everything because poor people have access to the same heath care / schools etc as you. There is so much more in life worth fighting for than that.

And again, all i ask for is to give the poor a better life not to give them everything.

quote:

Fine, I see nothing wrong with increasing health care and education to BASIC levels to be provided to everyone. And to a large degree, education IS provided to most who have the desire to seek it. I'll use myself as an example ... my family have nowhere near the required funds for myself to attend a private school for 4 years. What did I do? I didn't dick around in high school. I knew exactly what I wanted, did well, and got a scholarship. That covered approximately half the cost of schooling ... what did I do then? I took out loans to cover the OTHER half of college tuition. Look, I'm not expecting anything of anybody ... I'm banking on my ability to sell myself in the future to attain the necessary salary to pay off my investment in myself ... personal responsibility.

and you are a smart guy, you benefit from this kinds of societies.

quote:

Let's not try to taint the issue by labelling one side as the "greedy, rich, and immoral" while labelling the otherside as the "poor and rigtheous". The issue is about what YOUR rights are concerning YOUR Earnings YOU worked for vs. the rights that others have to YOUR earnings. What right do you have to a computer/luxuriously spaced dorm room/fine foods/CD player/etc./etc./etc. against a poor African's lack of anything? Why should you even have access to an EXPENSIVE, LUXURIOUS, education (C'mon it's not a basic NECESSITY is it?) when that cost can be used to pay for food that many around the world need?

I think there is big a difference between your domestic problems and world wide problems. When you are a rich country even the poor people should have a good life, and if you see to how rich US is, the poor should have access to more things than just survival stuff.

About the rich being greedy, they really are sometimes. This time i can take my family as an example, my parents pay like 100 000$ in tax (around 50%) every year (you can add 10-25% VAT to that too and you see that they pay the government a LOT of their earned money) and i can't see how we have a bad life cause of that (nor how our rights are violated). Sure we could get a lot more if we didn't "waste" so much money on the poor in this country, BUT ffs we got what we (my family) need and sooo much more, and richer people have more money sure they can pay this without feeling to bad, so i think it's greedy whining about your right to spend money when you have such much! (and yes there are a lot of rich people in this country whining about high taxes, although it's only one of seven major political parties in this country who advocate lower taxes.)

quote:

So let me ask you something ... if I continually embezzle money out of my company, and I do so again and again and again, is it MY own PERSONAL fault, or can I blame it on genetics? I was bred to steal so to speak so I'm innocent! ... well what if I was born to rob quicke marts? Let's say I was born with an inherent laziness to not work and in order to satisfy my "needs" I possessed the unique lack of laziness to rob quickemarts. Therefore it's not my fault ... right? Well look, here's what you have to ask yourself, are we ANIMALS or are we HUMANS. If we're humans than we respect our rights to choice such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And additionally, we punish those who make the illegal CHOICES that they do. If we're animals than we ignore our natural rights since they are instinctual at best and we simply put to SLEEP the murdering "dogs" since our actions are unchanging and uncontrollable at best.

you did exaggerate a bit, but basically yes

of course we are not doomed the day we are born on how are life should be, BUT ask this to yourself: Why do people choose to rob a bank or murder someone instead of getting a well paid job? (did they actively choose that, yes they did choose that indirect buy they had no clue about it, why? cause they are born stupid ) Could you murder a man? (no you wouldn't cause you are raised good and know that you don't do that (and you are smart (born)) Did the poor choose to be poor and unemployed? (sure they did in a way but they did never realized it, why? cause they where born/raised thinking wrong)
So imo a lot of people (not all) don't choose as much as you are trying to make it sound like.

quote:

I'm telling you, it makes sense! And all rights would be adhered to! Anybody in America would agree that the biggest problem with welfare is its abuse. If this were to be taken care of, not nearly half the people would be objectionable to providing "basic" necessities to those who are actually in need!

No but you can't make a welfare system without taking from the rich, and as i said before, this "right" is just greedy.

quote:

No . If you lack the movtivation to find work and contribute towards society than tough shit. YOu only receive enough from society to live. However, I did state that if you DID work and you needed more money to subsist off of, than you could be elligeble for additional funds that would grant "luxuries". That way those who actually make contributions wouldnt be subjected to the same standards as those who contribute nothing to society.

If you do force them (the unemployed) to search for job everyday or even force them to work for their money, then they for sure isn't being uneployed for fun, then they are on welfare cause they need it, so why then don't give them a decent life?

quote:

I know! It needs a lot of work, but it's not bad for something I thought of over a few beers! I'm telling you, I admire most aspects of European social welfare systems but I think it would fail to complete abuse here in the US. My ideal system is this: If you are willing to make the effort to help yourself and WORK than the state will help you. If you don't care or are unwilling to put in the effort to help yourself than you're fucked. That's what would happen in my perfect world.

Yes i do agree with that, mostly. So my idea is give everyone exactly the same opportunities to health care, school etc, and in return they have to work / try to get a work / educate themself. They have to do something, and they get money for that, and not just basic stuff, but a decent life

quote:

of course we are not doomed the day we are born on how are life should be, BUT ask this to yourself: Why do people choose to rob a bank or murder someone instead of getting a well paid job? (did they actively choose that, yes they did choose that indirect buy they had no clue about it, why? cause they are born stupid ) Could you murder a man? (no you wouldn't cause you are raised good and know that you don't do that (and you are smart (born)) Did the poor choose to be poor and unemployed? (sure they did in a way but they did never realized it, why? cause they where born/raised thinking wrong) So imo a lot of people (not all) don't choose as much as you are trying to make it sound like.

I think the key here is to point out the each person in your example made a choice. A concientous decision to perform an action. The beauty of it is that each person had the option of choice. That's freedom--freedom to make up your mind, to make your future. Everyone makes choices, and there are always consequences (positive/negative), but that's the beauty of the whole thing. Give government your right of choice and free will and ultimately you are handing your mind over on a silver platter to be a slave of the system.

quote:

Fine, I see nothing wrong with increasing health care and education to BASIC levels to be provided to everyone. And to a large degree, education IS provided to most who have the desire to seek it. I'll use myself as an example ... my family have nowhere near the required funds for myself to attend a private school for 4 years. What did I do? I didn't dick around in high school. I knew exactly what I wanted, did well, and got a scholarship. That covered approximately half the cost of schooling ... what did I do then? I took out loans to cover the OTHER half of college tuition. Look, I'm not expecting anything of anybody ... I'm banking on my ability to sell myself in the future to attain the necessary salary to pay off my investment in myself ... personal responsibility.

Its good to hear that you were able to do that. But I think you are still in an advantaged position. If you had to work 30 hours a week to help support your family when you were in school, do you think you still would have the time to work enough to get that scholorship?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I think the key here is to point out the each person in your example made a choice. A concientous decision to perform an action. The beauty of it is that each person had the option of choice. That's freedom--freedom to make up your mind, to make your future. Everyone makes choices, and there are always consequences (positive/negative), but that's the beauty of the whole thing. Give government your right of choice and free will and ultimately you are handing your mind over on a silver platter to be a slave of the system.

If I am brainwashed from birth to hail Hitler, is it my choice when I do? If I am raised in an environment where to survive I have to sell drugs, is it my fault if I do? If Im addicted to drugs and to support my addiction I rob banks is that my fault?

You must realize that no decision is made completely independly of society and situation. People are conditioned to act in certain ways, and this is not their fault. When you look at what happened at columbine high school do you think about how awful the children who killed all those other people were? Do we as a society blame them? Or do we instead blame a culture that glorifies and perpetuates violence, the accessibility of guns and a society that made it so hard for them to be accepted that they were pushed over the line.

What you want to think is clearly your perogative, but to believe that freedom exists in the way you are presenting it in that quote is to live in another world.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio Its good to hear that you were able to do that. But I think you are still in an advantaged position. If you had to work 30 hours a week to help support your family when you were in school, do you think you still would have the time to work enough to get that scholorship? If I am brainwashed from birth to hail Hitler, is it my choice when I do? If I am raised in an environment where to survive I have to sell drugs, is it my fault if I do? If Im addicted to drugs and to support my addiction I rob banks is that my fault? You must realize that no decision is made completely independly of society and situation. People are conditioned to act in certain ways, and this is not their fault. When you look at what happened at columbine high school do you think about how awful the children who killed all those other people were? Do we as a society blame them? Or do we instead blame a culture that glorifies and perpetuates violence, the accessibility of guns and a society that made it so hard for them to be accepted that they were pushed over the line. What you want to think is clearly your perogative, but to believe that freedom exists in the way you are presenting it in that quote is to live in another world.

I believe that what you have just said is pure, unadulterated bullshit. No offense, I'm not trying to flame you or offend you, but you're showing what I hate the most about the liberal mindset: That everyone is a victim of society and has no control over their own decision making process. Of course people wiegh their actions based on their cognizence of their surroundings, but to say that society conditioned those kids to shoot up their highschool is BS. You make it sound like they had no other choice. And if they had no other choice, then what they did is perfectly acceptible, right? I mean who are we to blame them for forcefully violating the rights of other people? Why should anyone be held responsible for anything they do?

Therefore, you can no longer blame George Bush for any of his policies that you don't like--for he's just doing what society has conditioned him to do. You can't hold all of the corporate vandals (Kozlowski, Skilling, Lay, et al) responsible for looting their companies, as they were only doing what "Society made them do". That is absolutely rediculous. You do not possess a free thinking mind if this is what you believe. That is such a defeatist attitude.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I believe that what you have just said is pure, unadulterated bullshit. No offense, I'm not trying to flame you or offend you, but you're showing what I hate the most about the liberal mindset: That everyone is a victim of society and has no control over their own decision making process. Of course people wiegh their actions based on their cognizence of their surroundings, but to say that society conditioned those kids to shoot up their highschool is BS. You make it sound like they had no other choice. And if they had no other choice, then what they did is perfectly acceptible, right? I mean who are we to blame them for forcefully violating the rights of other people? Why should anyone be held responsible for anything they do? Therefore, you can no longer blame George Bush for any of his policies that you don't like--for he's just doing what society has conditioned him to do. You can't hold all of the corporate vandals (Kozlowski, Skilling, Lay, et al) responsible for looting their companies, as they were only doing what "Society made them do". That is absolutely rediculous. You do not possess a free thinking mind if this is what you believe. That is such a defeatist attitude.

No, I think your missing the point. Not every decision that everyone makes is a result of societal preassure, etc. However a lot of the time things are. People are and should be responcible for their actions up to a point. However conditioning shapes who you are as a person, and societal preassures can force you to act in certain ways. Ill use the examples I used before to try and illustrate my point

If the nazis had won the war and I was brought up in a nazi training camp by nazi soldiers and all I had learned and all I knew was nazi rhetoric, would it then be my choice when I hieled Hitler? when I saw him as my god? It is who I am, but I am not responcible for that. I have not had the benefit of a society that allows me to shape who I am. Should I still be responcible for being that way? should I be blamed? after all theres nothing I could really do.

If I am raised on the streets of Los Angeles by gangs who teach me from a very young age that the ONLY way to survive is violence and selling drugs and I do become a drug dealer to survive should I be held accountable? should I be blamed? Did I have a choice? I mean if all I grew up knowing was anger and violence do you think I could get a legitimate job somewhere? do you think I would know how to deal with people in the way required to? whos to blame then, me who had no choice or the society that creates those gangs?

If I am terribly addicted to heroin and to support that addiction I have to mug people is it my fault? remember addiction is a disease, it is not someones choice. To take another example along the same lines, if I was schizophrenic and I assaulted someone because I thought they were trying to kill me, should I be held responcible for it? is it my fault that Im mentally ill?

As far as Columbine goes, I want to ask you, do you think rational reasonable people go on killing sprees? do you think people with no other influence aside from themselves deside to go on murderous rampages? Theirs a reason that that massacre happened, and to say that its because of two bitter teenagers who were simply pisssed is to not give any dignity to what happened and to perpetuate events such as this. To attempt to end events like this its import that as a society we look at what causes things like this and try to use that knowledge to prevent them.

I am not by any means excusing the behaviour of everyone for everything they do. However to say that everyone has only themselves to blame for their situation is ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio No, I think your missing the point. Not every decision that everyone makes is a result of societal preassure, etc. However a lot of the time things are. People are and should be responcible for their actions up to a point. However conditioning shapes who you are as a person, and societal preassures can force you to act in certain ways. Ill use the examples I used before to try and illustrate my point If the nazis had won the war and I was brought up in a nazi training camp by nazi soldiers and all I had learned and all I knew was nazi rhetoric, would it then be my choice when I hieled Hitler? when I saw him as my god? It is who I am, but I am not responcible for that. I have not had the benefit of a society that allows me to shape who I am. Should I still be responcible for being that way? should I be blamed? after all theres nothing I could really do. If I am raised on the streets of Los Angeles by gangs who teach me from a very young age that the ONLY way to survive is violence and selling drugs and I do become a drug dealer to survive should I be held accountable? should I be blamed? Did I have a choice? I mean if all I grew up knowing was anger and violence do you think I could get a legitimate job somewhere? do you think I would know how to deal with people in the way required to? whos to blame then, me who had no choice or the society that creates those gangs? If I am terribly addicted to heroin and to support that addiction I have to mug people is it my fault? remember addiction is a disease, it is not someones choice. To take another example along the same lines, if I was schizophrenic and I assaulted someone because I thought they were trying to kill me, should I be held responcible for it? is it my fault that Im mentally ill? As far as Columbine goes, I want to ask you, do you think rational reasonable people go on killing sprees? do you think people with no other influence aside from themselves deside to go on murderous rampages? Theirs a reason that that massacre happened, and to say that its because of two bitter teenagers who were simply pisssed is to not give any dignity to what happened and to perpetuate events such as this. To attempt to end events like this its import that as a society we look at what causes things like this and try to use that knowledge to prevent them. I am not by any means excusing the behaviour of everyone for everything they do. However to say that everyone has only themselves to blame for their situation is ridiculous.

Why? In every example you give, the person still has the opportunity to make the choice, right? Unless they are being held at the point of a gun, there is no reason why they cannot make better choices. That they choose to do something voluntarily is what it is to have free will. People rise above dire, extreme circumstances like you have used in your examples ALL THE TIME. Now how about looking at the vast majority of humanity and don't try to create isolated examples of extreme circumstances that might produce the resulting forumla you want to apply to all of society. I can accept that a few people may somehow grow up under such EXTREME circumstances that their perception of reality, right and wrong can become skewed--but even then, if they have the capacity of choice, then all choices have implications. To try to apply a blanket statement that people are simply victims of societal influence and cannot think for themselves is what I find ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Why? In every example you give, the person still has the opportunity to make the choice, right? Unless they are being held at the point of a gun, there is no reason why they cannot make better choices. That they choose to do something voluntarily is what it is to have free will. People rise above dire, extreme circumstances like you have used in your examples ALL THE TIME. Now how about looking at the vast majority of humanity and don't try to create isolated examples of extreme circumstances that might produce the resulting forumla you want to apply to all of society. I can accept that a few people may somehow grow up under such EXTREME circumstances that their perception of reality, right and wrong can become skewed--but even then, if they have the capacity of choice, then all choices have implications. To try to apply a blanket statement that people are simply victims of societal influence and cannot think for themselves is what I find ridiculous.

To use general blanket statements to refute his arguement and claim that people never react to their surroundings is just as rediculous.

I believe both qualities play a part in what people do and react to - but people are influenced by how and where they grew up|

(just like all us market oriented Westerners arguing on the internet)

Again you missed my point. I clearly said that it is not true in every instance. That not every single decision everyone always makes is only the result of society. However to argue that people are not influenced, affected and coerced by society and their socialization is not only ridiculous but has also been largely proven not to be true. Their is a great body of work dealing with this and it is generaly believed in sociology that what Im saying is right, and that people do do things for reasons other then their own free will.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology I believe both qualities play a part in what people do and react to - but people are influenced by how and where they grew up|

To what extent our decisions are influenced by intrinsic versus extrinsic factors is largely irrelevant - one still must bear sole responsibility for those decisions.

I do not see how any vestige of personal responsibility might otherwise be maintained. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.