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

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio 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.

It's not that I missed the point, it's that I think you're using an irrelavent point to try to prove your argument. Do people make decisions based on social influences? Sure they do! ALL decisions are made by weighing a set of variables, inputs, and possible outputs. Social influences are most certainly a factor in everyone's thinking process (Probably a person stranded on a desert island will even make decisions weighing social consequences (even though there are none, since he is the only person there...but alas I digress)). Point being, at the end of the day, when a choice is made, it is the chooser who has taken action, knowing what the consequences of his/her actions may be.

What I believe you are suggesting is that people have no other choice, no other course of action--i.e. that their decision making process is essentially predetermined and they have no control over their actions. That is where I think we're losing touch.

I fully support your view that society can influence a person's decision making process, but I also support the idea that a person is completely responsible for his/her actions based on the right of free will.

"Society made me think McDonalds is good, therefore it's not my fault that I'm a fat slob, rather society made me do it. It has nothing to do with the fact that I've been eating fried potatoes and double-quarter-pounders with extra cheese for the last 15 years..."

I think a lot of it has to do with people who make the choice to take the easier path of less resistance vs. the often more difficult, more proper, more rewarding path.

Will there be exceptions to the rule? Of course--we don't live in a vacuum, but let's not give up too much in order to rationalize something we know to be wrong.

EDIT: One more late breaking thought: If everyone is subject to the 'social influences, etc.', then isn't government, by definition, also subject to the same cultural/social influences, and therefore prone to making the same bad decisions everyone else makes? Bottom line, all things being equal, I'm a whole lot more comfortable making decisions for myself than giving that power to an equally faulty (if not more so) organization to tell me what is or is not in my best interest.

your still not seeing the big picture. The point is not that you weigh societal influences among a variety of other factors when making a decision. The point is your thought processes are largely shaped by society. You at one point said something along the lines of, its your decision unless someone is holding a gun to your head. Social influences can first of all produce the same effect. But more importantly Ill go back to my first point and reiterate that its largely not a concious decision.

Theres a reason people do things, and people think in certain ways, and let me tell you its not completely free will.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio your still not seeing the big picture. The point is not that you weigh societal influences among a variety of other factors when making a decision. The point is your thought processes are largely shaped by society. You at one point said something along the lines of, its your decision unless someone is holding a gun to your head. Social influences can first of all produce the same effect. But more importantly Ill go back to my first point and reiterate that its largely not a concious decision. Theres a reason people do things, and people think in certain ways, and let me tell you its not completely free will.

I can see you don't think very highly of people in general. And regardless, it still isn't a justification of handing that decision making power over to someone who isn't necessarily any more competent to make the choice than you.

One thing I said a while back is that if you think the role of gov't is to take care of you and make decisions for you, then you should apply for a government job. You will have security, steady income, an HMO, and a pension. You will not, in all liklihood, end up successful or content by social standards. Why is it that so many "postal workers" have the reputation that they do, but software programmers, industrialists, etc. do not carry the same stigma?

Shakka:
You still miss the whole point. True, all people do make their own decisions, the only difference is that some people know what decisions are made and why they do them as they do. But some people do not REALLY choose, they doesn't think very long and they doesn't realize what significance a single decision can make or in what direction they should go to make them self a better life.

Is that cause they are born/raised wrong or is it because they don't want a better life?

And one of the main points with a welfare system is to make it easier for the people to choose right. Of course if you are smart like occrider you can go the long way around in a society like yours, but in a welfare society much more people choose the "good way" cause it isn't that tricky...

I'm not missing the point--I just don't believe that more government is better. 1) It is risky to assume that the government will make the best decisions for you based on it's own self-interest. Yes, government will not always act in your best interest--I think that is obvious. There are plenty of people and organizations that can help those who for some reason need help to make a good decision, but I don't think it's bigger government that is the answer.
2)Bigger and bigger government becomes a bigger and bigger drain on society as a whole as more tax dollars are needed to provide more programs that cost twice as much and help half as many people, until eventually the tax burden is so great and that so many individual voices go without being heard, that it is a big negative for society as a whole--revolutions and civil wars have ignited over less, but those are potential results of such a policy that gets out of hand, not to mention a plethora of others including lower standard of living, poor healthcare services on an even broader scale, lack of incentive to work, etc.

Edit: And St. Andrew--does it suddenly become my obligation to fix/take care of someone else's problem simply because they didn't think long and hard enough about the potential consequences???

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm not missing the point--I just don't believe that more government is better. 1) It is risky to assume that the government will make the best decisions for you based on it's own self-interest. Yes, government will not always act in your best interest--I think that is obvious. There are plenty of people and organizations that can help those who for some reason need help to make a good decision, but I don't think it's bigger government that is the answer. 2)Bigger and bigger government becomes a bigger and bigger drain on society as a whole as more tax dollars are needed to provide more programs that cost twice as much and help half as many people, until eventually the tax burden is so great and that so many individual voices go without being heard, that it is a big negative for society as a whole--revolutions and civil wars have ignited over less, but those are potential results of such a policy that gets out of hand, not to mention a plethora of others including lower standard of living, poor healthcare services on an even broader scale, lack of incentive to work, etc.

1. Of course the government will not act in _your_ best, it will act in the society's best (example: perhaps marijuana is fun for you but it's not good for society in whole, therefore it's illegal).
why don't you think government is the answer on that question? why should organizations help better?

2. Again, it doesn't have to be like that. Why do you think so? how can this kinds welfare systems actually work in some (more or less most European) countries? Haven't seen any civil war here for a loooong time btw

quote:

And St. Andrew--does it suddenly become my obligation to fix/take care of someone else's problem simply because they didn't think long and hard enough about the potential consequences???

Yes. as i see it, it isn't really their fault, they just can't think that long (especially when they are young).

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Yes. as i see it, it isn't really their fault, they just can't think that long (especially when they are young).

But why does society owe them something?

ok, this is turning into a sematics war which will never end...

basically there are differences of culture and opinion, but i think the main reason that there is confusion and no agreement is the fact that Sweden has a population of 9 mil people, the size of a US state.

its alot easier to reach a consensus and basic agreement on necessary things when you are dealing with 1/30 the size of a country.

__________________

tho, i DO think there are things that the govt can do to help society that cannot be screwed up or misrepresented for the most part. within services, many of these are already to some degree federalized: water, gas, elec.

Canada does have it right in the fact that the govt opens certain *necessary* business ventures, oil, insurance, etc. so that prices are realistic and people have a reasonable choice rather than sheer competition - which in some cases drives prices higher than they prolly should AND provides services or necessary commodities that people need|

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew 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.

And I agree that people should give more to the poor. What I'm arguing is that one cannot forceably take that which is not theirs.

quote:

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

It's less smartness as it is taking personal responsibility in your life

quote:

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.

Why should society provide more than survival stuffs to those who are unwilling to make any effort at all to help themselves out of their existence of enjoying simple survival stuffs? If my system were in place, it would help those willing to help themselves. But it would under no circumstance tolerate laziness, inaction, and indifference. Furthermore, it would eliminate much abuse.

quote:

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.)

Ahhh it's greedy to enjoy the fruits of one's labor whereas it is not greedy to take that which is not yours? So why should you have the LUXURY of an expensive, higher education when people are starving from a lack of basic necessities such as food? You should be taught the basics of how to get by in life and the rest of the money you have shouldn't be wasted on such things as physics lessons and other "luxuries." Instead it should be used to help the needy lacking in the BASICS. As a matter of fact, it should provide even MORE than the basics! It should be used to equalize the disadvantegous starting positions of the stupid or genetically lazy. It should be used to provide a better than basic life to those who don't give two shits about making an effort to better themselves because, even with your sub par education, your generic brand shoes, your p3 500mHz computer, your economical sparse flat, even with all of this ... you are still economically a thousand/a million times better off than that person who doesn't give two shits.

quote:

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.

I respectfully disagree . By this line of reasoning, the rich never committ crimes. The poor are all stupid. And allll our mommy's and daddy's did a good job raising us whereas everyone who's a failure in life had parents who are fuckups. And similarly success dictates that your parents were all great. All those raggs to riches stories? All those non poor people who committ crimes? All those wealthy/middle class people who are stupid/fuckups? Mere anomolies ... it should be relatively easy to statistically prove all of this. Why I'll even be so gracious as to give you the latitutde of a 90% confidence interval! Just make sure you use a normally distributed random sample with an appropriate size of n .

quote:

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

Ahhh ok ... so once we've decided that society has the "right" to "take," the line stops where? What is rich? What defines rich? Everybody can be "rich" because it is a relative comparison. Oh sure ... right now you could say it's the 1% wealthiest component of society, but why stop there? What's stopping us ... or rather, WHY should we stop? At what point does "taking" that which is not ours go from being a morally righteous act to an amorally reprehensible act? Why should you have THREE times as much wealth as me??? It's not MY fault I'm the way that I am. I had bad parents. I was born stupid. I'm genetically lazy! I simply don't care ... but that's NOT my fault! Therefore you should only have twice as much as me! C'mon you're still RICH. You can afford DOUBLE of what I have!

quote:

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?

Because it is at the expense of others. They are living on borrowed money. They have a LIFE as a result of societal benevolence of which they should be grateful for and therefore capitalize on their second chance.

quote:

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

Keep everything except for the "decent" life part and I agree! And why can't a basic life be a decent life? Don't look the gift horse in the mouth!

quote:

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?

Let's sayyyy I broke both my legs preventing me from doing everyday activities. Going to the grocery store, cooking in the kitchen, washing myself, etc., I'm basically in a wheel chair. Now then, I'm clearly fucked! What do I do? How am I supposed to perform everyday activities? Ok, people SHOULD help me. My friends or family SHOULD give me a hand, but what if they don't? What if, instead, I FORCE you, to stop by my house to help me clean/cook/shop/etc.? Is this ok? Is it right for me to do this ... to force you? Now obviously those who have not broken their legs are in a more advantageous position, so does this mean it is ok to penalize them for my transgressions ... inadvertant or not? I don't think so ...

So what does this unlucky guy in your scenario do? He sucks it up. He takes it like a man and works his ass off. He takes one or two classes and graduates in 6 years. He gets his GED, he takes night classes for a job skill to better himself in life. He ASKS family or friends for help. He does not FORCE family or friends to help him because they are better off than him ... he does not rob a bank because they have tons of money. He takes the shitty hand that life dealt him and he makes the CHOICES in life that will turn that hand around.



Sorry if this thread was dying ... i didn't get my opinion in

Sorry for the late answer... have been a lot in school and so

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And I agree that people should give more to the poor. What I'm arguing is that one cannot forceably take that which is not theirs.

and what i argue about is that it doesn't help with volunteer help, you need to force people to get a good welfare society. the government "force" people to not murder, so why should the government not be able to force welfare? isn't that one of the main tasks of the government, to force people to do things that they perhaps shouldn't do otherwise...

quote:

Why should society provide more than survival stuffs to those who are unwilling to make any effort at all to help themselves out of their existence of enjoying simple survival stuffs? If my system were in place, it would help those willing to help themselves. But it would under no circumstance tolerate laziness, inaction, and indifference. Furthermore, it would eliminate much abuse.

yes i do agree with a part of your system and that is to force people to try to work to get welfare. But if they do try, they do try a lot but doesn't get any job or so, why shouldn't they get a decent life (decent life in this case is more money than just money for basics stuffs)? i should understand your argument if they could get a job but didn't take it because they didn't want to work.

quote:

I respectfully disagree . By this line of reasoning, the rich never committ crimes. The poor are all stupid. And allll our mommy's and daddy's did a good job raising us whereas everyone who's a failure in life had parents who are fuckups. And similarly success dictates that your parents were all great. All those raggs to riches stories? All those non poor people who committ crimes? All those wealthy/middle class people who are stupid/fuckups? Mere anomolies ... it should be relatively easy to statistically prove all of this. Why I'll even be so gracious as to give you the latitutde of a 90% confidence interval! Just make sure you use a normally distributed random sample with an appropriate size of n .

today my biology teacher told my class something really interesting. We where talking about DNA, RNA and genetics stuff, and he told us that scientists have proved that there IS a different pattern between top students' and prisoners' genes. So far they just don't know what the difference is. But this (imo) proves my arguments, people do not have such a big choice as you say they do.

of course you cannot blame everything on this, especially not specific events like one crime. but some people do not realize everything they do has consequences. call it stupidity or whatever but imo you can't really handle that if you are born/raised with the wrong abilities.

quote:

Ahhh ok ... so once we've decided that society has the "right" to "take," the line stops where? What is rich? What defines rich? Everybody can be "rich" because it is a relative comparison. Oh sure ... right now you could say it's the 1% wealthiest component of society, but why stop there? What's stopping us ... or rather, WHY should we stop? At what point does "taking" that which is not ours go from being a morally righteous act to an amorally reprehensible act? Why should you have THREE times as much wealth as me??? It's not MY fault I'm the way that I am. I had bad parents. I was born stupid. I'm genetically lazy! I simply don't care ... but that's NOT my fault! Therefore you should only have twice as much as me! C'mon you're still RICH. You can afford DOUBLE of what I have!

the line stops where people get an okay life (and that definition will of course change if the society becomes better). they should not live in luxary, but they they should still have access to more things than the basics. and i can agree that this "line" is much a question of definition, but my definition is what i just said...

quote:

Because it is at the expense of others. They are living on borrowed money. They have a LIFE as a result of societal benevolence of which they should be grateful for and therefore capitalize on their second chance.

hmmm i can't really understand how you think here....

quote:

Let's sayyyy I broke both my legs preventing me from doing everyday activities. Going to the grocery store, cooking in the kitchen, washing myself, etc., I'm basically in a wheel chair. Now then, I'm clearly fucked! What do I do? How am I supposed to perform everyday activities? Ok, people SHOULD help me. My friends or family SHOULD give me a hand, but what if they don't? What if, instead, I FORCE you, to stop by my house to help me clean/cook/shop/etc.? Is this ok? Is it right for me to do this ... to force you? Now obviously those who have not broken their legs are in a more advantageous position, so does this mean it is ok to penalize them for my transgressions ... inadvertant or not? I don't think so ...

If they can't do it, no then you shouldn't force them (people with low salaries should first afford themself, then pay tax). If they have A LOT of free time and do nothing the whole days, then i think you could force them to help you sometimes (rich people can take some of their money and pay tax to help the more needing people),

quote:

So what does this unlucky guy in your scenario do? He sucks it up. He takes it like a man and works his ass off. He takes one or two classes and graduates in 6 years. He gets his GED, he takes night classes for a job skill to better himself in life. He ASKS family or friends for help. He does not FORCE family or friends to help him because they are better off than him ... he does not rob a bank because they have tons of money. He takes the shitty hand that life dealt him and he makes the CHOICES in life that will turn that hand around.

yes there is a lot of this guys, and they normally succeed in life. But what about those other?

quote:

Sorry if this thread was dying ... i didn't get my opinion in

lol...

Welcome back to the discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew and what i argue about is that it doesn't help with volunteer help, you need to force people to get a good welfare society. the government "force" people to not murder, so why should the government not be able to force welfare? isn't that one of the main tasks of the government, to force people to do things that they perhaps shouldn't do otherwise...

NO! The primary role of government is not to force people to do things that the shouldn't do otherwise. What are you talking about "forcing" people to not murder??? That's absurd! Go back and read what myself, Occrider, and a few others in this discussion have said about freedom, rights, and where they end. Murdering someone certainly violates their individual rights. It's not even a relavent argument to this thread. It honestly seems like you're failing to grasp what freedom actually means. Government exists to manage the people and to provide for the common defense, etc. Do you want the government telling you how to live every aspect of your life? they can suggest how you should act, but when you bring force into the equation, you're violating the fundamental definition of FREEDOM. Certainly it's not always so black and white, but you've taken this discussion in the wrong direction. Just because I have money, doesn't mean I'm obligated to give it away, and furthermore, it doesn't give you or anyone else the RIGHT to take it from me by force simply because you don't have as much as I do. Just as I have no RIGHT to take anything from you by force simply because you have something that I want or even NEED.

quote:

yes i do agree with a part of your system and that is to force people to try to work to get welfare. But if they do try, they do try a lot but doesn't get any job or so, why shouldn't they get a decent life (decent life in this case is more money than just money for basics stuffs)? i should understand your argument if they could get a job but didn't take it because they didn't want to work.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it. You can't dictate equality. Ever heard of the bell curve?

quote:

today my biology teacher told my class something really interesting. We where talking about DNA, RNA and genetics stuff, and he told us that scientists have proved that there IS a different pattern between top students' and prisoners' genes. So far they just don't know what the difference is. But this (imo) proves my arguments, people do not have such a big choice as you say they do.

OK, but where does this give anyone the RIGHT to forcibly take something from someone else who has EARNED it??? Some people are just less fortunate than others. It's a fact of life. Everybody in the world is unique (with the exception of some identical twins, I guess), everyone's DNA is different. I don't understand why that should dictate FORCED WELFARE

quote:

of course you cannot blame everything on this, especially not specific events like one crime. but some people do not realize everything they do has consequences. call it stupidity or whatever but imo you can't really handle that if you are born/raised with the wrong abilities.

But it suddenly becomes someone else's fault, and therefore their responsibility to fix your own inadequacies and shortcomings???

quote:

the line stops where people get an okay life (and that definition will of course change if the society becomes better). they should not live in luxary, but they they should still have access to more things than the basics. and i can agree that this "line" is much a question of definition, but my definition is what i just said...

What if the government has a different definition--what if their definition of decent is "just enough to clear the poverty line"? Where do you think the money comes from to pay for this stuff???

quote:

hmmm i can't really understand how you think here....

Likewise.

quote:

If they can't do it, no then you shouldn't force them (people with low salaries should first afford themself, then pay tax). If they have A LOT of free time and do nothing the whole days, then i think you could force them to help you sometimes (rich people can take some of their money and pay tax to help the more needing people),

Hell, they barely pay any taxes as it is!



If you can find a way to take FORCE out of your arguments, you might be able to make more sense, but I honestly don't believe that you can make your argument without grossly infringing on the rights of others.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Welcome back to the discussion. NO! The primary role of government is not to force people to do things that the shouldn't do otherwise. What are you talking about "forcing" people to not murder??? That's absurd! Go back and read what myself, Occrider, and a few others in this discussion have said about freedom, rights, and where they end. Murdering someone certainly violates their individual rights. It's not even a relavent argument to this thread. It honestly seems like you're failing to grasp what freedom actually means. Government exists to manage the people and to provide for the common defense, etc. Do you want the government telling you how to live every aspect of your life? they can suggest how you should act, but when you bring force into the equation, you're violating the fundamental definition of FREEDOM. Certainly it's not always so black and white, but you've taken this discussion in the wrong direction. Just because I have money, doesn't mean I'm obligated to give it away, and furthermore, it doesn't give you or anyone else the RIGHT to take it from me by force simply because you don't have as much as I do. Just as I have no RIGHT to take anything from you by force simply because you have something that I want or even NEED.

I think this line of reasoning misses the basic point. Your freedom is to leave if you don't like it. Your freedom is that if you don't want to pay taxes to the government then you can leave this country and go somewhere where you dont have to. Freedom is not in the way we are discussing it an inate thing, it is socially constructed. You cannot say that what freedom means is that you are free to do anything aslong as it doesn't violate someone else's freedom. In Western society the freedom that we have constructed cleraly believes that people also have the right to be free in the sense that they have the freedom to be educated, and to live in an at least in some way reasonable way.

quote:

Life isn't fair. Deal with it. You can't dictate equality. Ever heard of the bell curve?

As the rich gets smaller and the middle class becomes poorer one can clearly see that the curve is becoming very positively skewed. So really this isnt much of an argument.

quote:

OK, but where does this give anyone the RIGHT to forcibly take something from someone else who has EARNED it??? Some people are just less fortunate than others. It's a fact of life. Everybody in the world is unique (with the exception of some identical twins, I guess), everyone's DNA is different. I don't understand why that should dictate FORCED WELFARE

I would very much disagree with whomever found that. Believe it or not successful rich people commit a lot of crime, there just not caught very often. However I do see St Andrews argument. The basic logic is that you don't have the right to that money because it's not necessarely rigtfully yours. You only have it because of conditions beyond your control (who your parents are, ethnicity, where you were born, etc.) and they only don't have it for the same reasons. As so what is reasonable is to try and level out those difference by equalizing it and making it so what you have is truly a matter of how hard you work and such.

quote:

What if the government has a different definition--what if their definition of decent is "just enough to clear the poverty line"? Where do you think the money comes from to pay for this stuff???

Cleraly it comes from taxation. And the definition clearly is going to differ from person to person, but this is a completelly different discussion.

quote:

If you can find a way to take FORCE out of your arguments, you might be able to make more sense, but I honestly don't believe that you can make your argument without grossly infringing on the rights of others.

And I don't think you can make your arguments without grossely infringing on the rights of others. However there is no force. It is true that you have a right to live where you were born (on the whole), however if you want to use that right then you have to agree to take on the responcibility that comes with, ie paying taxes. However if you dont want to be forced to do this you can leave.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio And I don't think you can make your arguments without grossely infringing on the rights of others. However there is no force. It is true that you have a right to live where you were born (on the whole), however if you want to use that right then you have to agree to take on the responcibility that comes with, ie paying taxes. However if you dont want to be forced to do this you can leave.

How have I ever infringed on anyone else's rights in my arguments, when the foundation of everything I've said is based on individual freedom? You're clearly making up "rights" that don't exist anywhere on a government document.

Right to an education? That's a choice, not a right, and it's not someone else's RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that you pay attention in school and recieve a good education. It's YOUR choice to make the right decisions and to educate yourself. Lucky for you there are public school systems provided by the government to help you out here, but ultimately the responsibility lies in the hands of the person wanting the education. It's not my neighbors duty to make me do my homework, now is it? This is more of a parenting issue than anything, which is an entirely different discussion.

The only rights I'm concerned with are the rights to life, liberty, and personal property. Everything else will fall under that umbrella where appropriate.

You guys clearly don't get it.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka How have I ever infringed on anyone else's rights in my arguments, when the foundation of everything I've said is based on individual freedom? You're clearly making up "rights" that don't exist anywhere on a government document.

You've infringed on the rights of some to life, and to true freedom. Contrary to what some might believe freedom does not only rest in not being stopped from doing things. It also takes up a fundamental base in having opputunities provided to do things. Positive freedom is essential to be free. And we have the right to be free.

quote:

Right to an education? That's a choice, not a right, and it's not someone else's RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that you pay attention in school and recieve a good education. It's YOUR choice to make the right decisions and to educate yourself. Lucky for you there are public school systems provided by the government to help you out here, but ultimately the responsibility lies in the hands of the person wanting the education. It's not my neighbors duty to make me do my homework, now is it? This is more of a parenting issue than anything, which is an entirely different discussion.

Actually the right to education in Canada is implied in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so it is actually a clear right on paper. I don't know about the U.S. though.

quote:

The only rights I'm concerned with are the rights to life, liberty, and personal property. Everything else will fall under that umbrella where appropriate. You guys clearly don't get it.

I think we do get it. It is you who are clearly missing the point. More then just negative freedom is essential to be free. Once you realize that then you will understand our argument.

And on a side note in the U.S. constitution part of the preamble does state the goal is to promote the general welfare and as so that can be quite easily taken to support a welfare state.

Just to add a little bit to shakka's points ...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Sorry for the late answer... have been a lot in school and so and what i argue about is that it doesn't help with volunteer help, you need to force people to get a good welfare society. the government "force" people to not murder, so why should the government not be able to force welfare? isn't that one of the main tasks of the government, to force people to do things that they perhaps shouldn't do otherwise...

Couldn't agree with Shakka more on this issue ... and to some degree dj adagnitio. Government does not have an inherent right to force you to do anything. Society can CHOOSE to adopt certain policies that require you to make committments, taxation for example, however, you have the right to look upon that as a violation of your rights and refuse to partake in such a society/system by moving to a state that doesn't have an income tax (oregon I believe) or move to a different country. However, if a society chooses to NOT tax its citizens or provide welfare benefits, it is entirely within its right to do so and it cannot be FORCED to do otherwise.

quote:

yes i do agree with a part of your system and that is to force people to try to work to get welfare. But if they do try, they do try a lot but doesn't get any job or so, why shouldn't they get a decent life (decent life in this case is more money than just money for basics stuffs)? i should understand your argument if they could get a job but didn't take it because they didn't want to work.

To give them incentive to get off the dole where they have a decent life while doing nothing. Like I stated initially, if a person is stuck in a menial job with a family and other such obligations whereby they cannot better themselves to get a higher paying job, then I would possibly make exceptions to give them some amenities ... other than that however, no dice.

quote:

today my biology teacher told my class something really interesting. We where talking about DNA, RNA and genetics stuff, and he told us that scientists have proved that there IS a different pattern between top students' and prisoners' genes. So far they just don't know what the difference is. But this (imo) proves my arguments, people do not have such a big choice as you say they do. of course you cannot blame everything on this, especially not specific events like one crime. but some people do not realize everything they do has consequences. call it stupidity or whatever but imo you can't really handle that if you are born/raised with the wrong abilities.

Well then we should immediately remove all their rights and operate under the assumption that their fates and their actions are genetically predetermined. Does that sound like a good alternative? Look, I don't care WHAT your genetics are. Yes some people may be more predisposed towards certain tendencies but we're all the same in that A) We can distinguish between right and wrong, and B) We make a choice to do something with the knowledge of A. If that's not the case, then a person is mentally insane and therefore not accountable for their actions. The day when society allow defendants to enter a plea of not guilty to a crime by reason of genetic makeup is the day when society can plead not guilty to being fucked up by reason of insanity.

quote:

the line stops where people get an okay life (and that definition will of course change if the society becomes better). they should not live in luxary, but they they should still have access to more things than the basics. and i can agree that this "line" is much a question of definition, but my definition is what i just said...

Well then if we have a right to take, then my line is that everybody should be equal ... why would my "line" be any more wrong than yours? I am of the opinion that the concept of a line itself is wrong.

quote:

hmmm i can't really understand how you think here....

They are being fed, clothed, and housed. They are not working or making any contribution to anybody. They could be starving, they could be homeless, and they could be diseased. I would say that that is a fairly decent life considering their circumstances.

quote:

If they can't do it, no then you shouldn't force them (people with low salaries should first afford themself, then pay tax). If they have A LOT of free time and do nothing the whole days, then i think you could force them to help you sometimes (rich people can take some of their money and pay tax to help the more needing people),

Well if I ever break my legs, I'm going to be joyously call you up and force you to come over here to take care of me . Then I'm going to gloat at my power over you as you do my dishes and cook me dinner. I've never had more of an urge to jump out the window ...

quote:

yes there is a lot of this guys, and they normally succeed in life. But what about those other?

Simple, they suffer in life economically because they are unwilling to make the effort to provide a better life for themselves. The state ceases to become your mommy when you turn 18. Hell, your actual mom isn't obligated to care for you once you turn 18.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio [quote]Actually the right to education in Canada is implied in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so it is actually a clear right on paper. I don't know about the U.S. though.

And like I said, there are plenty of free, public schools in the U.S., however it is the individuals choice whether or not to take advantage of that.

quote:

I think we do get it. It is you who are clearly missing the point. More then just negative freedom is essential to be free. Once you realize that then you will understand our argument.

What am I missing? That you prefer communism/socialism to individual rights? That you would rather place your life in the hands of an all powerful government instead of making your own decisions and living a free life?

quote:

And on a side note in the U.S. constitution part of the preamble does state the goal is to promote the general welfare and as so that can be quite easily taken to support a welfare state.

Sure. Promoting and FORCING are two entirely different concepts. Promoting means encourage, FORCING means to infringe on the rights of some for the exclusive benefit of others. Public schools promote the general welfare, but don't force anyone to go. The common defense certainly PROMOTES general welfare, however you'll notice that the U.S. military is a VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION. There are plenty of ways to promote the general welfare without infringing on individual rights and freedoms.

okay, i see that we aren't coming any further on the personal right part, and that is probably the problem for both of us. but as soon as my busy school period is finished i will write a new thread about that, cause it is somewhat interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well then we should immediately remove all their rights and operate under the assumption that their fates and their actions are genetically predetermined. Does that sound like a good alternative? Look, I don't care WHAT your genetics are. Yes some people may be more predisposed towards certain tendencies but we're all the same in that A) We can distinguish between right and wrong, and B) We make a choice to do something with the knowledge of A. If that's not the case, then a person is mentally insane and therefore not accountable for their actions. The day when society allow defendants to enter a plea of not guilty to a crime by reason of genetic makeup is the day when society can plead not guilty to being fucked up by reason of insanity.

A) okay then, pleeeeease tell me, what is right and what is wrong? isn't that a highly philosophical question? sure everyone can tell the different, but who is right and who is wrong?

put it the other way around, have you EVER considered being a criminal or a unemployment? Probably (hopefully) not, so why is that? no, you are smart, and you are raised (and the environment) that you will do good in life if you hafe good education not breaking laws etc etc. Now think the other way around, you are not born smart enough to make own conclusions, and you grow up in a "bad" environment and you see that the best way to succeed in life is to be criminal or whatever, you don't understand better.

Of course if you are smart and grow up in a "bad" environment you can still succeed in life, and vice versa if some stupid grow up in a rich/"good" family/environment you can still become a criminal!

But the thing is that almost all your opinions (which will make the choices for you) are formed by your environment. If not, you are probably smart, and therefore have good genes. So it's either the genes or the environment.

So why is a welfare society better on this points? First of all, it makes it easier for people to take the "good" way (yes this is kind of brainwashing cause nobody can know what the good way is, but i believe in the good way as you and i define it, and i also think sociaty should make people think like this, cause i believe that's what's best for society in the long run), second, why should people who are raised wrong / born with wrong genes be treated so much worse than people with good genes / good grow up environment? i don't think everyone should be treated exactly the same, but i do think that they should be treated with some respect and you should give them a chance and a good life, because that is a basic of what society is all about, to give everyone a good life.

quote:

Well then if we have a right to take, then my line is that everybody should be equal ... why would my "line" be any more wrong than yours? I am of the opinion that the concept of a line itself is wrong.

i don't say that my line _IS_ more right than yours, i only say what i think and what my opinion is. No one can know what's wrong and what's bad...

quote:

They are being fed, clothed, and housed. They are not working or making any contribution to anybody. They could be starving, they could be homeless, and they could be diseased. I would say that that is a fairly decent life considering their circumstances.

considering that some people in the same country can afford to have 167 ferraris, houses you can get lost in etc etc. No under that circumstances being fed, clothed and housed is not a decent life.

quote:

Well if I ever break my legs, I'm going to be joyously call you up and force you to come over here to take care of me . Then I'm going to gloat at my power over you as you do my dishes and cook me dinner. I've never had more of an urge to jump out the window ...

don't forget, if you jump out of the window by own will, then you did choose to get on welfare and therefore i will not help you, otherwise, just call me

hey St Andrew...im sorry for your confusion, as I know you face it head on...

the thing is, Americans value individualism and competition above all else, and dont see much beyond that.

and within that context its not that that is wholly wrong or bad - just that it seems right overall. plus socialism = the evils of communism for the most part.

and the fact that english is not your first language harms you in this debate!

(if any of these are wrong tell me!)


as for this discussion, ive joined late, but it is like so many others on this forum. i fully understand the Swede, but that is because i have some background.

i find it interesting how the Americans often equate socialism with fascism yet when in Miami there are peaceful protests that get put down in 'overkill' protection measures.

i dont want to get dragged in with the genetic discussion, but still i wonder why education is a personal choice in the US, yet when other cultures like Muslim Taliban, et al, choose not to allow women education then it is a matter of international importance - when we apparently shouldnt worry about it at home. or the fact that *our* welfare system keeps people fed, clothed, etc - when i think that is a stretch and far from general civil liberties...

anyone have more ideas? i do, but rather than post something that is likely to get labeled as 'wrong' ill wait|

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew A) okay then, pleeeeease tell me, what is right and what is wrong? isn't that a highly philosophical question? sure everyone can tell the different, but who is right and who is wrong?

Well it only becomes philosophical when you bring in moral rights and wrongs, however, concerning this scenario the only right and wrongs that pertain to this situation are those established by law. Once again, if an individual chooses to be a part of an established society, they must adhere to the laws set by society.

quote:

put it the other way around, have you EVER considered being a criminal or a unemployment? Probably (hopefully) not, so why is that? no, you are smart, and you are raised (and the environment) that you will do good in life if you hafe good education not breaking laws etc etc. Now think the other way around, you are not born smart enough to make own conclusions, and you grow up in a "bad" environment and you see that the best way to succeed in life is to be criminal or whatever, you don't understand better.

As long as an individual is of sound mind to be able to distinguish what is legal and what is illegal, and they realise the repurcussions of their actions, they are held accountable for their actions. If for example, I was born stupid, and I grew up in a "bad" environment and I chose a life of crime as an "easy way out" of my predicament instead of working hard, then I am still responsible for my actions. A poor person who steals because they don't want to work hard is no different than a middle class person who steals because they don't want to work hard. They committ the same crime on different economic scales, and they should be treated the same.

quote:

But the thing is that almost all your opinions (which will make the choices for you) are formed by your environment. If not, you are probably smart, and therefore have good genes. So it's either the genes or the environment.

Then by this standard of values, the poor will always be more morally bankrupt than those who are wealthier. That's simply discrimination by social class. If your environment/upbringing dictates the choices you make in life, then one can extrapolate that those with poor environments/upbringings will statistically make the wrong choices in life. If that is the case than why do we not operate under the assumption that "we"/the government know more than they do and know what's good for them regardless of their choices or their beliefs of what is good for them? It all comes down to the simple argument about whether we as humans have free choice. If we have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and make choices independant from outside factors than we should have the ability to make the choices we want to about our lives. If we are simply animals so to speak whereby our actions are instinctual at best than we should NOT have the ability to make choices about our lives since we do not have free choice. In as much as there is an asylum for the insane since they lack the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and make informed choices in life, shall we establish an asylum for the poor whereby the government/ "elite" make their choices for them? Either we are individuals that have the ability to make free choices, or we are products of animalistic instincts. Therefore do you afford humans the RIGHT to choose or not?

quote:

So why is a welfare society better on this points? First of all, it makes it easier for people to take the "good" way (yes this is kind of brainwashing cause nobody can know what the good way is, but i believe in the good way as you and i define it, and i also think sociaty should make people think like this, cause i believe that's what's best for society in the long run), second, why should people who are raised wrong / born with wrong genes be treated so much worse than people with good genes / good grow up environment? i don't think everyone should be treated exactly the same, but i do think that they should be treated with some respect and you should give them a chance and a good life, because that is a basic of what society is all about, to give everyone a good life.

At the expense of others in society. And this all leads back to my arguments about personal rights ... so I'm afraid we've reached an impasse once again.

quote:

i don't say that my line _IS_ more right than yours, i only say what i think and what my opinion is. No one can know what's wrong and what's bad...

Agreed. I'm not saying my system is the right system either. It all boils down to a difference of opinions and philosophy. I'm more of a libertarian and you're more of a socialist .

quote:

considering that some people in the same country can afford to have 167 ferraris, houses you can get lost in etc etc. No under that circumstances being fed, clothed and housed is not a decent life.

Well you have a fast, state of the art computer, fine foods, a spacious apartment, a monthly budget of X amount of kroner (?),a gaming system perhaps? Is being fed, clothed, and housed not a decent life under these circumstances? These are all luxury goods ...

quote:

don't forget, if you jump out of the window by own will, then you did choose to get on welfare and therefore i will not help you, otherwise, just call me

But I didn't jump out the window by my own will. It was a product of my genetics and my environment ... I didn't have a choice

quote:

Originally posted by biznology hey St Andrew...im sorry for your confusion, as I know you face it head on... the thing is, Americans value individualism and competition above all else, and dont see much beyond that. and within that context its not that that is wholly wrong or bad - just that it seems right overall. plus socialism = the evils of communism for the most part.

That is mostly true, but I would say that this spirit of individualism goes back long before communism. The roots to European socialism probably (somoene correct me if I'm blowing smoke up all your asses) resides in the fact that their governments were always top to bottom forms of government. Many were decendants of strong central monarchies whereby power resided with the state. I think that many of the democratic decendants of these governments retained that strong centralist mentality whereby the state maintained that fatherly figure. The drafters of the US constitution and the government had a bottom up system in mind. They wanted to emphasize the individual over the government and as a result, for its time, America was revolutionary in granting sweeping indivdual rights to its citizens and limiting the power of its government. I think this trend has continued to this day whereby the indivdual and their freedom to live their life independantly of government, for better or for worse, has been manifested in society.

quote:

i find it interesting how the Americans often equate socialism with fascism yet when in Miami there are peaceful protests that get put down in 'overkill' protection measures.

You mean communism?

quote:

i dont want to get dragged in with the genetic discussion, but still i wonder why education is a personal choice in the US, yet when other cultures like Muslim Taliban, et al, choose not to allow women education then it is a matter of international importance - when we apparently shouldnt worry about it at home. or the fact that *our* welfare system keeps people fed, clothed, etc - when i think that is a stretch and far from general civil liberties...

Well education is not a personal choice in the US until you graduate from secondary education/turn 16 or whatever the age is. I believe most other countries follow similar standards

It seems to me that some people in this debate feel that the role of government is to be the solution to their problems, but fail to realize that such a role equates to giving up individual freedom and rights. I will simply leave it at that, as we keep coming back to the same disagreements. I do not expect the government to be my babysitter, I prefer to retain the power of choice. I think it's great that some tax dollars are spent providing aid to those who truly cannot help themselves, however there is a very thin line that I am not willing to cross, which I think I've been quite clear about.

I've read through most of this thread, and I think I need to say a few things.

Firstly, society must recognise that it is comprised of individuals and individuals must recognise that they are a part of society. No society can succeed without individuals, no individuals can succeed without society. It all boils down to striking an appropriate balance between freedom and responsibility: laissez-faire capitalism preaches freedom without responsibility, communism preaches responsibility without freedom. The key, then, is to find the right balance between these two extremes.

The reason why I support capitalism is because it allows the individual to define himself and this, ultimately, is the real definition of "freedom": self-actualisation. It should be the ultimate goal of society to create an environment for the individual congenial to this "self-growth", but this is where a lot of the hardcore capitalists miss the point. This "freedom" is not acheived or sustained by propping up individuals to the exclusion of the society around them, it is achieved by creating a society congenial to the growth of the individual: no individual can self-actualize, afterall, in a society antithetical to this doctrine of "freedom". The almost uniform propogation of wealth (or lack thereof) and the political power wielded by the ultra-rich does not in any way constitute "freedom". The situation we find in many western nations is not that of capitalism, it that of aristocracy: where the rich wield all the power, stay rich, and the poor stay poor. There are exceptions, of course, but this is the basic rule. Capitalism can only be morally advocated if it truly rewards effort and ingenuity rather than the mere propogation of privelege, otherewise we are, ultimately, bound to the chains we were born into: like I said, this in no way constitutes freedom.

However, once we secure this mode of societal freedom, then the basic tennets of capitalism kick in. The more free we can make each individual (that is, the less they are tied to the situation they are born into) then the more responsible the become for their choices. Once again, it all comes back to the commensurability or freedom and responsibility. If an individuals failings are no fault of his own (disability, race, born into poverty etc.) then yes, he should be able to expect compensation from those who have benefitted most from the current societal system. However, if we all begin at a level playing field - where each man is equally free to choose - then no man should expect to benefit from poor choices. If one's failings are through one's own choice - for which he alone is solely responsible - then it is unfair and unrealistic for that individual to transfer the the responsibility of the consequences of those actions onto the society that has done everything to ensure that those choices were there for he - and he alone - to make.

Capitalism in its current state, however, is not congenial to these ideals. People are more likely to succeed by mere virtue of being born into the right household than through effort or ingenuity. George Bush is stupid, lazy and has made a number of poor decisions in his life, yet he is president of the United States. What does this say about the current state of capitalism to the individual born into a poor household, who has tried to make everything he can out of his life, yet has been prevented by a series of factors beyond his control including, but not limited to, a lack of access to a quality education, quality contacts (which limit the good jobs, largely, to those who "know the right people") and a starting state of poverty which, right from the outset, limits his scope of "choice"? It is a myth that capitalism, in its current guise, propogates economic freedom any more than the aristocricies of 17th-19th century England did. Everyone is, ultimately, a victim of circumstance. There are avenues out of these circumstances, true, but these avenues are determined by luck as much as - if not more than - aptitude.

This is what it all boils down to: everyone, at the beginning of their lives, should have an equal spectrum of choices to make. This can be made attainable by equal access to a quality education for all and adequate child-support payments to ensure that the child does not suffer for the situation it is born into. From here, an individual should be able to benefit by making the right choices and doing the right things. The individual should not expect society to bear the brunt of the consequences when poor choices and actions are committed to. When you have choices you - and you alone - are responsible for them. When you do not have these choices, society should be doing all it can to make sure that you do.

Under the current system, wealth begats choice and wealth, poverty begats bondage and yet more poverty. Until this aristocracy is overturned, "true capitalism" is unattainable and nothing any of you say about freedom or responsibility means a damn thing.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well it only becomes philosophical when you bring in moral rights and wrongs, however, concerning this scenario the only right and wrongs that pertain to this situation are those established by law. Once again, if an individual chooses to be a part of an established society, they must adhere to the laws set by society.

i would say that this is highly moral. in fact, isn't it all about morals? you may be aware of that you doesn't follow the law, but still you doesn't necessarily think that it is wrong. then they break the law, but doesn't do anything wrong (in their opinion). so who is wrong and who is right?

quote:

As long as an individual is of sound mind to be able to distinguish what is legal and what is illegal, and they realise the repurcussions of their actions, they are held accountable for their actions. If for example, I was born stupid, and I grew up in a "bad" environment and I chose a life of crime as an "easy way out" of my predicament instead of working hard, then I am still responsible for my actions. A poor person who steals because they don't want to work hard is no different than a middle class person who steals because they don't want to work hard. They commit the same crime on different economic scales, and they should be treated the same.

so why are you lazy? why are some not lazy? why are some very ambitious? why do some people get out of the bad life, some not? do you decide to be lazy or are you lazy? yes in some way you decide to be lazy, but then you have to ask, why do you decide to be lazy?

yes you make you own decisions but, on what grounds do people make their decisions? how are your mind formed? sure it isn't formed by itself, you either think like you environment or you are smart.

as i can see it, there is no way you can make "own" decisions if you are not smart, and still if you are smart, you are influenced a lot by your environment.

individuals choices are highly overrated imo!

quote:

Then by this standard of values, the poor will always be more morally bankrupt than those who are wealthier. That's simply discrimination by social class.

yes it is, therefore you should make their environments as good as possible and you should make their choices easier to take, and therefore the poor will not be as morally bankrupt.

quote:

If your environment/upbringing dictates the choices you make in life, then one can extrapolate that those with poor environments/upbringings will statistically make the wrong choices in life. If that is the case than why do we not operate under the assumption that "we"/the government know more than they do and know what's good for them regardless of their choices or their beliefs of what is good for them? It all comes down to the simple argument about whether we as humans have free choice.

no this is the tricky part, what is really a good society and what is a bad? who live happier, the poor or the richer? i believe in a society with a high standard and good economy and a happy people. i also think that it is the government's task to fulfill that, and therefore also the government should try to "take the right decisions for the people". imo well educated people know better than poor/uneducated, so why should they not push to make people think "right"?

quote:

If we have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and make choices independant from outside factors than we should have the ability to make the choices we want to about our lives. If we are simply animals so to speak whereby our actions are instinctual at best than we should NOT have the ability to make choices about our lives since we do not have free choice. In as much as there is an asylum for the insane since they lack the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and make informed choices in life, shall we establish an asylum for the poor whereby the government/ "elite" make their choices for them? Either we are individuals that have the ability to make free choices, or we are products of animalistic instincts. Therefore do you afford humans the RIGHT to choose or not?

i have to admit i didn't think this extreme before, but the more i think of it the more i realize how little we really have of a free choice. we are much like animals, yes. we have the choice but the question is more why do we take the decisions we do?

but i do still believe in personal choice just that i have now realized how little we affect our own choices.

quote:

Well you have a fast, state of the art computer, fine foods, a spacious apartment, a monthly budget of X amount of kroner (?),a gaming system perhaps? Is being fed, clothed, and housed not a decent life under these circumstances? These are all luxury goods ...

200 years ago, being fed, clothed and housed was luxury, today it's not. the line is moving forward, considering how much money some people have; being fed, clothed and housed is not a decent life.

quote:

But I didn't jump out the window by my own will. It was a product of my genetics and my environment ... I didn't have a choice

that has to be a strange environment you have lived in, were people jump out of their windows

Renegade: Your doubts about the full-proofness of capitalism mirror my own. I don't maintain any pretenses at all that capitalism is the epitome of all that is right. Much of what I have argued have been from an abstract standpoint of rights and responsibilities laying forth the groundwork for a capitalistic society. However, for the exact reasons that a communist utopia is unattainable, I recognize that a utopian capitalistic society is unattainable in its present form. Therefore, I realise that society exists to better individuals and that individuals should provide some contribution to society. For those reasons, I am FOR welfare. I am for assistance to the mentally/physically disabled, and I am for a bigger government role than what I would necessarily envision in a libertarion idealistic society. One should attempt to provide opportunities to everyone in society.

However, one problem I have with your arguments are with entitlements. You seem to imply (and correct me if I'm wrong) that a problem with capitalism is that the playing field is not COMPLETELY level for all individuals. Specifically, some are born into easier lifestyles than others. While I understand the necessity of the state to provide a certain level of competance to attain accomplishments in life, I believe I would balk at limiting the means with which others devote towards making their offspring better candidates. For example, if you're a wealthy person, why should you NOT have the ability to send your children to good schools? Why should you not have the ability to tutor them and have them excel in life? As it is your right to be successful in life, reap the benefits of your labor, isn't it your right to pass those benefits off to your children to succeed in life?

Essentially, my question is, is at what point do we limit personal accomplishment in order to "level" the playing field?


St. Andrew, I haven't forgotten you ... I'll address your arguments next free chance I get over thanksgiving

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i would say that this is highly moral. in fact, isn't it all about morals? you may be aware of that you doesn't follow the law, but still you doesn't necessarily think that it is wrong. then they break the law, but doesn't do anything wrong (in their opinion). so who is wrong and who is right?

Hmmm, I'm not sure I quite understand what you are trying to say. I believe that damned language barrier is at fault! Although I do respect you making the effort to argue in my primary language .

quote:

so why are you lazy? why are some not lazy? why are some very ambitious? why do some people get out of the bad life, some not? do you decide to be lazy or are you lazy? yes in some way you decide to be lazy, but then you have to ask, why do you decide to be lazy?

I am lazy because I choose to be. There have been many a time when there have been no otgher reasons for me to not do work other than me not feeling to do work. Genetics or upbringing do not play a role. There are plenty of lower class people who choose to work 50/60 hours a week in order to make ends meet. By the same set of standards, there are plenty of people who earn a lot of money who work 60/70 hours a week to make ends meet. Regardless of our socio-economic situation, we all make decisions about how much we want to work.

quote:

yes you make you own decisions but, on what grounds do people make their decisions? how are your mind formed? sure it isn't formed by itself, you either think like you environment or you are smart. as i can see it, there is no way you can make "own" decisions if you are not smart, and still if you are smart, you are influenced a lot by your environment. individuals choices are highly overrated imo!

Well then this is where we disagree. I am of the opinion that we as humans, are at a higher level of competance/understnading than animals. I like to believe that we have the ability to distinguish right from wrong and make correct choices in life regardless of our upbringing/environment. Do I know what is good for a mother of 4 who is getting less than 30,000 a year? No SHE does.

quote:

yes it is, therefore you should make their environments as good as possible and you should make their choices easier to take, and therefore the poor will not be as morally bankrupt.

What? That's elitism at its purest. The poor make unethical, ammoral, stupid decisions at best therefore THEY are better off when WE make decisions for them ...

quote:

no this is the tricky part, what is really a good society and what is a bad? who live happier, the poor or the richer? i believe in a society with a high standard and good economy and a happy people. i also think that it is the government's task to fulfill that, and therefore also the government should try to "take the right decisions for the people". imo well educated people know better than poor/uneducated, so why should they not push to make people think "right"?

So why do we not place a weight on individuals who went to college? Any person that went to college automatically receives 2.5 times the vote of a person who did not go to college. They are "smarter" right? Therefore they would know better how to run the country ... The "stupid" don't know how to govern themselves. It's fun seeing how the the "intelligentsia" works

quote:

i have to admit i didn't think this extreme before, but the more i think of it the more i realize how little we really have of a free choice. we are much like animals, yes. we have the choice but the question is more why do we take the decisions we do? but i do still believe in personal choice just that i have now realized how little we affect our own choices.

So which is it? Do we have free choice or are we products of our environment? They are antagonistic of each other.

quote:

200 years ago, being fed, clothed and housed was luxury, today it's not. the line is moving forward, considering how much money some people have; being fed, clothed and housed is not a decent life.

Exactly, so in light of all the luxuries that you possess, why are people still poor around you?

quote:

that has to be a strange environment you have lived in, were people jump out of their windows

No not everybody jumps out of their windows ... but I don't want to work such that I can take care of myself. I would much rathter YOU take care of me, becaues I was raised this way.

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