quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Wasn't that the short story about the kid who they equipped with all sorts of physical handicaps so that he would be no more able than anyone else? It sounds very familliar. In any event, I never realized it was a Vonnegut story. I'm sure there are more than a handful of novels and short stories which delve into what happens in said societies.

Yeah, that's it.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew no life is not fair, but i can't see why you shouldn't try to do it more fair.. the big difference with sweden and US is that in sweden everyone can go to the best schools, have good health care etc no matter how rich, how beautiful or whoever they are. it doesn't make all people fuck ups in high school, it just make life a bit easier for the people who wheren't born lucky (smart, rich etc). A welfare state do not make the poor rich, it just make their life a bit better...

beyond this, its just a matter of proof-based welfare. everyone in the US is so damn picky about THEIR money!

'I earned it so I should be able to use it however I want!'

most people take that paycheck and either waste it on luxury items or alcohol, or occasionally use it wisely (when necessary) - most often paying for utilities, rent, services that the government could subsidize with tax money, or at least make more affordable to everyone.

i hate how those against welfare in the States think if ANY social programs were run all 'their' money would go to some black, lesbian, crack addicted mother... its just bullshit.

Sweden may have a social democratic background, but they dont just dole money out. you have to prove employment, or that you are searching for work. its not free money.

the US is addicted to the idea that everyone should fend for themselves and push everyone else over to get where they need to be. why is it such a travesty to help other people once in awhile? you wont always be well off and without concern, and when that time comes help is welcome|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't buy into the "right to healthcare" that you're talking about. I dont see anyone arguing the "right to equal car insurance". Why is it someone else's responsibility, or moral duty to ensure that some other complete stranger makes the right decisions to take care of themselves. Bad things happen to good people all the time, but why does that make it the moral obligation of society to pick up the tab and make sure that person has health insurance. Since when is my life someone else's responsibility. I think there's a huge difference between same "rights" to basic services vs. same opportunity to access basic services. Again, I just don't buy the argument that the ends justify the means. If you break altruism down to the very core it basically says that it is a person's moral duty to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of someone else, but that it's wrong to ask someone else to sacrifice themselves for your benefit. It simply doesn't make sense. It is a philosohpy that dictates my death for the life of another with it not being my decision to make. I don't have a problem with charity or sharing, per se, however it is wrong for one person to give something to another if the cost is detrimental to the giver. I need to reference my philosophy books for better explanation, but at the core I simply can't allow myself to sell out. My goal while I am on this Earth is to do the best I possibly can and to be the best I can possibly be. The better I do for myself, the more likely the better those around me will be. Being the best I can be will make me the most productive, satisfied person I can possibly be. I alone am ultimately responsible for my own happiness and that is why I must live to be the best that I can be, for me.

The main problem I have with this argument is that its worded in such a way that I feel distorts what social welfare really does, and why it is essential. It makes it sound as if each individual in a society is complete seperate from everyone else, which is clearly not the case. Their are many ways that having a healthy and educated society benefit everyone, not just the people that otherwise couldnt afford such services. When everyone is healthy in a society the amount of diseases that are around dimish and you are less likely to get sick as a result. When everyone is educated in a society there will be more productive members and the society will advance more. Depending on whos theories on causes of crime you look at crime will go down either as a result of stronger social ties or less need. So tell me how are you not benefiting from all these things?

It also seems quite unreasonable to compare killing yourself for someone else to giving a portion of your income for everyone, including yourself.

A philosophy that advocates only personal responcibility and not responcibility to anyone else or society can lead to dangerous places. Envision a world where EVERYONE uncontrollaby only helps themselves. Is that somewhere you would want to live? Somewhere where everyones only concern is being the best they can be, and making the most they can, and fuck everyone else Im doing my own thing. That is a scary thought, and I know I wouldn't want to live there. Would you want to be born into that world blind? or deaf? or poor? or come there as a refugee? or any other group that is disadvantaged?

___________________
If anyone can get me the following records please contact me:

DJ Tiesto - Battleship Grey (Miro remix)
Tilt - Invisible (Tilt's human mix)

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Laissez-Faire "In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve." - Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia, 1782

but Laissez-Faire is a utopian ideal!

you cant honestly say that LF is the goal of the US govt?! even while our market is *open* it is NOT completely free. the size of our government and the ability of it as a whole to dole out farming subsidies and billions in Iraq (guess which amount is bigger) keeps the market from being truly open, among thousands of other regulations.

has 'welfare' been Communism-ized?|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio A philosophy that advocates only personal responcibility and not responcibility to anyone else or society can lead to dangerous places. Envision a world where EVERYONE uncontrollaby only helps themselves. Is that somewhere you would want to live? Somewhere where everyones only concern is being the best they can be, and making the most they can, and fuck everyone else Im doing my own thing. That is a scary thought, and I know I wouldn't want to live there. Would you want to be born into that world blind? or deaf? or poor? or come there as a refugee? or any other group that is disadvantaged?

Well, one of the major points in my philosophical argument which has been pointed out several times in this thread is that no man is entitled to more than he or she produces, and should expect no more of anyone else. That is what was meant by the phrase "eating your cake, and having it too". So there is no "uncontrollable taking" that you're describing, rather everyone lives accoring to their ability, which is the virtue that makes them strive to be better and more productive, which in turn ultimately benefits society. That is liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, too many people today have slipped into the 'entitlement mentality' that they somehow have a right to partake in something that someone else has produced or provided, without an equal exchange of value in return.

The philosophy I refer to most actually assumes that the person is born into the world figuratively blind, deaf, dumb, and oblivious, and therefore must make the choices that best benefit them based on the knowledge they are able to acquire and process by virtue of their own mind and mental capacity. This is the only type of society that I would want to live in.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology but Laissez-Faire is a utopian ideal! you cant honestly say that LF is the goal of the US govt?! even while our market is *open* it is NOT completely free. the size of our government and the ability of it as a whole to dole out farming subsidies and billions in Iraq (guess which amount is bigger) keeps the market from being truly open, among thousands of other regulations. has 'welfare' been Communism-ized?|

No, LF is not the goal of the US gov't. Nobody said it was. It sure would be nice if markets functioned in a more LF fasion. The obvious downside is that less government intervention can ultimately make way for corrupt people to attempt to take advantage of the system. It's a thin line and a tricky balance. If there were no corruption, I believe LF would be an easy system to have as less corruption would require less regulation/gov't control.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology but Laissez-Faire is a utopian ideal!

as is 'liberty and justice for all'

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well, one of the major points in my philosophical argument which has been pointed out several times in this thread is that no man is entitled to more than he or she produces, and should expect no more of anyone else. That is what was meant by the phrase "eating your cake, and having it too". So there is no "uncontrollable taking" that you're describing, rather everyone lives accoring to their ability, which is the virtue that makes them strive to be better and more productive, which in turn ultimately benefits society. That is liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, too many people today have slipped into the 'entitlement mentality' that they somehow have a right to partake in something that someone else has produced or provided, without an equal exchange of value in return. The philosophy I refer to most actually assumes that the person is born into the world figuratively blind, deaf, dumb, and oblivious, and therefore must make the choices that best benefit them based on the knowledge they are able to acquire and process by virtue of their own mind and mental capacity. This is the only type of society that I would want to live in.

I think you missed the point of my argument. Not everyone is in a position to produce the same. You can't simply look at numbers of how much a person produces, because people are doing things that aernt measurable in the same way. And more to the point how much money someone earns absolutelly DOES NOT reflect how much they produce. If you can explain to me how someone who plays professional basketball (one of the highest paying incomes) produces more then someone who works in a factory then please do. The argument your making is so out of context with the reality of how our society actually is it is not applicable.

And what of the argument that giving the people at the bottom more then they have produced will benefit society in the long run? Isn't it worth giving to those for the good of yourself and everyone else in the future?

Are you going to try and tell me that a place like America that subscribes more to your beliefs, is a better place to live then somewhere like Sweden? that people are on average more intellegent there? or better off in any way?

___________________
If anyone can get me the following records please contact me:

DJ Tiesto - Battleship Grey (Miro remix)
Tilt - Invisible (Tilt's human mix)

quote:

Originally posted by biznology beyond this, its just a matter of proof-based welfare. everyone in the US is so damn picky about THEIR money! 'I earned it so I should be able to use it however I want!'

Yes ... that's called your individual right to property.

quote:

most people take that paycheck and either waste it on luxury items or alcohol, or occasionally use it wisely (when necessary) - most often paying for utilities, rent, services that the government could subsidize with tax money, or at least make more affordable to everyone.

Those people who spend their money unwisely or waste it on luxury items are fools. However, despite that mental defficiency they still possess an inherent right to dispose of their property as they see fit. YOu know, all that jazz about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that's their happiness and that's how they wish to dispose of their property then who are you or I to say no and force them to do differentely? These principles are pretty much the FUNDAMENTAL principles that the founders had in mind. Shall we set up a government commission to control how people spend their money?

quote:

i hate how those against welfare in the States think if ANY social programs were run all 'their' money would go to some black, lesbian, crack addicted mother... its just bullshit. Sweden may have a social democratic background, but they dont just dole money out. you have to prove employment, or that you are searching for work. its not free money.

Bullshit or not, individuals do not have the right to take from others because they are have-nots. Welfare is an institution GRANTED by society, it is not a fundamental right.

quote:

the US is addicted to the idea that everyone should fend for themselves and push everyone else over to get where they need to be. why is it such a travesty to help other people once in awhile? you wont always be well off and without concern, and when that time comes help is welcome|

Well certainly it's not a bad thing to help people once in a while. But making the choice to help others out by giving is not the same as realising you need help and DEMANDING/TAKING.

quote:

We hear so much about "rights" -- a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food and a decent job, and more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it. At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from? If you said "From some other American," go to the head of the class. Your right to decent housing and medical care requires that some other American have less of something else, namely diminished rights to his earnings. Let's apply this bogus concept of rights to free speech and the right to travel freely. If we were to apply it to my right to free speech, my free speech rights would confer financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel freely would require that others provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, "Williams, yes you have rights to free speech and travel rights, but I'm not obligated to pay for them!" As human beings, we all have certain unalienable rights. Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us." By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government. If I did take your earnings for housing and medical services, it would rightfully be described as an act of theft. When government does it, it's still theft -- the only difference is that it's legalized theft sanctioned by a majority vote. Decent housing, good medical care and decent jobs are not rights at all, at least not in a free society -- they're wishes. As such, I'd agree with most Americans because I also wish that everyone had decent housing, a high paying job and good medical care.

That being said, I would not want to live in a state without welfare. I would prefer to live in a compassionate state that opts to provide welfare to its citizens, albeit in a strictly regulated manner. However, it's important to not confuse matters such as welfare as a RIGHT.

quote:

but Laissez-Faire is a utopian ideal! you cant honestly say that LF is the goal of the US govt?! even while our market is *open* it is NOT completely free. the size of our government and the ability of it as a whole to dole out farming subsidies and billions in Iraq (guess which amount is bigger) keeps the market from being truly open, among thousands of other regulations.

The goal of the government should be to attain the closest form of laissez-faire markets as it possibly can, while regulating when recquired to correct for market externalities.

quote:

has 'welfare' been Communism-ized?|

___________________
Retro ...

God damn! Amen Occrider.

Demanding that someone provide for the benefit of others by force violates the fundamental right to freedom in every definition of the word.

As Occrider has said, there is nothing wrong with helping someone out if that is your choice. If you want to be a 'selfish-dickhead' that is also your right, and nobody should criticize you for how you choose to distribute the fruits of your work. So someone else has more than you...so what?!? I hate the "keeping up with the Jones' mentality".

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Demanding that someone provide for the benefit of others by force violates the fundamental right to freedom in every definition of the word.

Like in Iraq?

I must disagree with you guys. Your stance would be correct if people were born as adult individuals with set standards and goals. Unfortunately (or fortunately), that is not the case. A young child from a disfunctional or abusive family has a great chance to be depressive or rebellious early in life. By the time such a person reaches mature age, lot of damage has been done. And if the society doesn't act to help such an individual, that person is surely going to turn into an alcoholic bum.

___________________
1+1=10