quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 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.

That was basically my story until I hit age 24. However, I seldom drink anymore and when I do it's in moderation. I was sufficiently skilled and resourceful enough to get a good job without even filling out an application... but I lay no claim to being 'normal' in the traditional sense of the word. I've been more than lucky.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka 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. ...

but choosing to put your personal freedom ahead of other possible goals may also inhibit the freedom of others, and because of this, you may indirectly violate 'the fundamental right to freedom' whether it be yours or someone elses...you certainly cant go around shooting people just because we should strive for 'freedom'.

oh, and Occrider, I never used the term 'right' in my original posts|

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

quote:

Originally posted by biznology but choosing to put your personal freedom ahead of other possible goals may also inhibit the freedom of others, and because of this, you may indirectly violate 'the fundamental right to freedom' whether it be yours or someone elses...you certainly cant go around shooting people just because we should strive for 'freedom'.

What's that saying ... "your rights end where mine begin"?

quote:

oh, and Occrider, I never used the term 'right' in my original posts|

That's true . However, you seemed to be advocating a distribution of wealth system or increased management of money by the government over the individual, and I guess i just got caught up in a tangeant argument. Sorry for implying that you were labelling it as a right.

___________________
Retro ...

i'm tierd and are going to sleep so i will not post a long answer (probably tomorrow).

the main problem though is that we think different, i (amongst others) think that everyone should have the same right to basic stuff, you on the other hand think that all the rich who have "earned" their money should have a better life and it's a right for them to waste their money the way they want...

I find this discussion of what fundamental freedoms are very interesting.

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.

For the purpose of the point Im going to illustrate Im going to use the U.S. constitution.

I think that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could easily be interpruted to mean that the state has a responcibility to ensure that people have the right to health care (Life), and I would argue that the pursuit of happiness means that the state has a responcibility to provide oppurtunity to you. Which I think means a good education system which is free of charge, including university. I would also argue it means that the state should provide housing for the homeless to get on their feet and pursue happiness, and that it means providing treatment programs for drug abusers, and so on and so forth.

So your argument violates peoples BASIC rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

___________________
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 St_Andrew i'm tierd and are going to sleep so i will not post a long answer (probably tomorrow). the main problem though is that we think different, i (amongst others) think that everyone should have the same right to basic stuff, you on the other hand think that all the rich who have "earned" their money should have a better life and it's a right for them to waste their money the way they want...

i agree with st andrew, and i am biased in his same direction. before learning about Sweden - a country that most people from the US know very little about - and living there, i gained a vastly different perspective on this matter. i didnt really benefit much from the welfare as i was just squatting as a student pretty much . but while i paid high taxes for for the food and goods i purchased - overall things were quite a bit cheaper than Ann Arbor (where i live now).

Rent was ~200 bucks a month for my own room.
Garbage collection was free (or included in taxes), and while my tuition here is 30k out of state, Swedes get loans in excess of 800USD per year to subsidize costs of living during school. (and the non personal costs of schooling are covered)

the odd thing is that many Swedes will never repay these loans even tho there is a steady amount taken from their paychecks over a lifetime. these loans just default at the end of their lifetime - hell by that time the original value will have been paid off many times over.

oh and another thing - there is a different idea of private property there...sure everyone has possessions, but no one owns land. Allemansratten - "All Man's Right" anyone can use any land in the country at any time, with a few small specifics applied (no camping for more than a few days, etc).

and thinking of hurting yourself on someone elses property (say getting gored by someones bull) - you cant sue as you were the dumbass that chose to put yourself in that situation.

that would solve SO many problems in the US|

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

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Their nemesis happens when some guys start breaking the rules of the game to get an unfair advantage. They team up secretly to get on top, easily defeating their rivals who try to go it alone. Then they use their wealth to elect politicians who'll make sure that the elite keeps on top forever.

That's what I'm currently afraid of.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

http://economist.com/books/displayS...tory_id=1875084

http://www.atimes.com/china/DC19Ad02.html

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/wha...tar_july18.html

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/64354.php

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cach...52885294304.htm

http://www.democrats.com/preview.cf...Carlyle%20Group

great thread guys, took me a while to read all those posts...

personally, i tend to side with occrider and shakka on this matter. They have brought up many points i side with and would be just redundant of me to say agian.

however, someone made the good point and said even though a national wide health care and education system might impede on someone's right it does serve for the 'greater good' of everyone living in that country. i am very machiavellian in my views in that as a country's leader my goal is to advance my society (or humanity in general) more supreme then any other. a healthy and educated society means that as a country we can advance and evolve better and more quickly. Sometimes it is worth doing an evil thing for the greater good. I dont agree with re-distribution of wealth but some national programs do have some merit to them because of its effect on the progress of humanity as a whole

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio I find this discussion of what fundamental freedoms are very interesting.

As do I

quote:

For the purpose of the point Im going to illustrate Im going to use the U.S. constitution. I think that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could easily be interpruted to mean that the state has a responcibility to ensure that people have the right to health care (Life), and I would argue that the pursuit of happiness means that the state has a responcibility to provide oppurtunity to you. Which I think means a good education system which is free of charge, including university. I would also argue it means that the state should provide housing for the homeless to get on their feet and pursue happiness, and that it means providing treatment programs for drug abusers, and so on and so forth. So your argument violates peoples BASIC rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Ok, personally I think that that is a bit of a stretch. Especially when you try to apply what the drafters of the constitution had in mind. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that our only inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights such as the right to privacy, free speech, etc., are rights granted under the subtext of liberty or the pursuit of happiness or life. Now, why are our only inalienable rights these three things? Why not make it a right to have to have food ... a house ... beer? Well I think that the commonality that you find between those three granted in the constitution is that they are rights to action, not rights to a reward from other people or the state. The mentality behind the constitution was not for the state to impose whatever obligations is so chooses upon its constituents but rather to enforce negative obligations to leave its citizens alone. Therefore you decide how you want to interact with society and live your life with the expectation that you have no authority to demand something of others and others have no authority to demand something from you.

Therefore, your right to life does not DEMAND others to sustain you in such a manner that they must clothe or feed you. You merely have the right to live your life as best you see fit without the state or others imposing or infringing upon your right to life. If you go by the logic that people everywhere have an absolute right to life such that it is an OBLIGATION to others, than why stop with the country you're in? If the right to life as defined by medical care is an inalienable HUMAN right, then state or nation boundaries should not limit that right. Therefore we all have an obligation to feed, house, and provide benefits to people EVERYWHERE in the world regardless of their motivation to benefit themselves. All those basic amenities you value in your lifestyle can now be reduced to nothing in order to accomadate the basic right to life we are OBLIGATED to provide to people everywhere. I don't think very many people would find this to be an attractive scenario.

Moving on ... now you mention the pursuit of happiness. I agree that we have a right to the pursuit of happines, however the right does not focus on the happiness part ... it focuses on the pursuit part. Therefore we have the right to perform actions that hopefully lead to happiness, however, there are no guarantees that other people are obligated to make you happy. Therefore, there are no obligations placed on others to educate you, there are only rights for you to educate yourself. Similarly, there are no obligations for society to give the homeless homes, they have the right to secure homes for themselves. Your "right" to happiness at the expense of others is an infringement on THEIR rights and their pursuit of happiness. The minute your "right" to anything is at the imposition of another's than that other person essentially becomes rightless and they become slaves to you. Think about it for a second ... if one person in a society works their ass off over the laziness of others and yet is obligated to provide basic necessities to the rest of society, regardless of how much effort he or they put in, who is really a slave to who?

Now just for purposes of clarification, I believe in everything I've said above. However, I choose not to live literally according to what my idealistic beliefs are. If I chose to do so, than I would regard all income taxes as being unfair and an infringement on my inalienable rights. And if I believed that strongly about it than they WOULD be an infringement upon my inalienable rights. At that point, if I truly felt that strongly about the issue, I could excercise my freedom to travel and escape such a system of governance. However, I choose to accept the concept of income taxes and the concept of welfare as a necessity/benefit of society that I'm willing to subsidize. As such, I willingly contribute and partake in society. However, it is not a demand that I do so. It is somethng that a society chooses to do, after which it is the decision of the individual to partake in.

Well, I've blabbed enough ... and I'm getting drunk. Dammit I keep putting off my opinion on what would be a good/fair welfare system. Blah ... if anyone's actually interested let me know, otherwise I dont' want to waste my breath and good server space.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Nov-06-2003 at 08:06

quote:

Originally posted by occrider if anyone's actually interested let me know, otherwise I dont' want to waste my breath and good server space.

i'm intersted of how to solve that without violate your "right to spend money however you want"

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i'm intersted of how to solve that without violate your "right to spend money however you want"

Well as I've said, I personally have no objections against welfare. I object to the classification of welfare as a right however, and I object to the idea that somebody owes something to anybody else. If society so chooses to instill a system of welfare/taxation for the betterment of society then it is not a violation of that individual's rights so long as that indivdual possesses the right to travel and escape such a system of governance should they so choose. That's why you don't see me screaming bloody murder about the government not having the right to tax my income . If I strongly object to it, than I can always exercise my right to leave. Now, here's what I envision to be a good welfare system that's fair to those on welfare and it's fair to those who have to pay for it, bear in mind it's a work in progress and it's not something I've really spent a lot of time thinking about :

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

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

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

Hmmmm what else what else what else .... ah ok.

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

As I said there are a lot of details that could be worked out ... for example if you HAVE a job yet you cannot support your already large family on that job alone, some concessions can be made to allow that family to purchase luxury items but each circumstance should have a different set of standards. Well anyway, that's my basic idea ... far from perfect but a good reform over the current system I believe. Yes you may think of it as overly harsh, but let's face it, welfare should be something that individuals should WANT to get off of. If you don't like the spartan lifestyle, then take it upon yourself to better yourself. There are a lot of opportunities out there ... there's a REASON why so many immigrants are flocking across the border ... they're taking the low-level jobs that nobody else wants to take. So let teh welfare people have a peice of that pie.

___________________
Retro ...