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.

___________________
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 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.

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

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

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.

___________________
Retro ...

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|

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

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

___________________
Retro ...

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

___________________
Retro ...

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.