17 Jun 11
Before you even read this, I want to clarify that I intend this to be more of a “lead
in” question than a “bait” question (or rather, series of questions). I think people
build entire ideologies based on assumptions about other people’s qualities of life,
so I want to address the fundamentals of those social paradigms. Feel free to
keep the conversation within the context of poor people in the first-world or in the
third-world.
For the purpose of discussion, assume there are two types of poor people:
D=poor people whose circumstances in life are mostly a product of bad decision-making
E=poor people whose circumstances in life are mostly a product of external factors
Among poor people, what do you think the ratio is between D and E? Skewed in one
direction or roughly equal?
Does the potential provision of goods or services by the government to D
make said provisions unjustifiable for all poor people, including E? What
should be the extent of the government’s role in providing for poor people,
including those in both categories?
17 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaHow did they arrive at their bad situation?
Before you even read this, I want to clarify that I intend this to be more of a “lead
in” question than a “bait” question (or rather, series of questions). I think people
build entire ideologies based on assumptions about other people’s qualities of life,
so I want to address the fundamentals of those social paradigms. Feel free to
keep the conversa ...[text shortened]... tent of the government’s role in providing for poor people,
including those in both categories?
Unless it's by way of some freak natural disaster then the only other way is through bad decisions, and then there are only two alternatives;
Whether they themselves made bad desicsions or those that like to force their decisions on others made bad decisions. If they are in a bad situation as a result of their own bad decisions then they might appeal to voluntary charity but they have no 'right' to make others responsible for those decisions.
17 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonka... And then there are the Oompa-Loompas, who are poor because you are a tightwad. 😉
Before you even read this, I want to clarify that I intend this to be more of a “lead
in” question than a “bait” question (or rather, series of questions). I think people
build entire ideologies based on assumptions about other people’s qualities of life,
so I want to address the fundamentals of those social paradigms. Feel free to
keep the conversa ...[text shortened]... tent of the government’s role in providing for poor people,
including those in both categories?
Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me
What do you get from a bastardly boss?
Unpaid overtime mixing vats of brown dross.
Why do I not just quit and go home?
Because-the-boss-is-a-top-hat-wearing-capitalist-S.O.B.-who-owns-the-means-of-production-so-what-bloody-alternative-is-there!?
18 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaFirst I would say that in America and most other Western societies the poor is a fluid group. Most people poor ten years ago are no longer poor, but may be middle class or even very comfortable or wealthy.
Before you even read this, I want to clarify that I intend this to be more of a “lead
in” question than a “bait” question (or rather, series of questions). I think people
build entire ideologies based on assumptions about other people’s qualities of life,
so I want to address the fundamentals of those social paradigms. Feel free to
keep the conversa ...[text shortened]... tent of the government’s role in providing for poor people,
including those in both categories?
E May be a temporary condition. It can't be prolonged except by D.
Emergency provisions for Es is both understandable and desirable, although it is better provided by private charity than government.
D the longer it exists, the less the justifiable it is.
Governments have nothing they haven't take from individual people, people who have managed to take care of themselves. Is it moral to longterm take from them and give to the Ds? Is this even fair to the Ds, who are given no incentives to start making better decisions?
18 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaInteresting questions. I'm sure there are as many answers as there are those who choose to think about it.
Before you even read this, I want to clarify that I intend this to be more of a “lead
in” question than a “bait” question (or rather, series of questions). I think people
build entire ideologies based on assumptions about other people’s qualities of life,
so I want to address the fundamentals of those social paradigms. Feel free to
keep the conversa ...[text shortened]... tent of the government’s role in providing for poor people,
including those in both categories?
Originally posted by wittywonkaNow I'm ready for a somewhat serious response.
Before you even read this, I want to clarify that I intend this to be more of a “lead
in” question than a “bait” question (or rather, series of questions). I think people
build entire ideologies based on assumptions about other people’s qualities of life,
so I want to address the fundamentals of those social paradigms. Feel free to
keep the conversa ...[text shortened]... tent of the government’s role in providing for poor people,
including those in both categories?
The question you pose is one of those ideological Rohrschach tests that help parse "liberals" from "conservatives" -- and I put those terms in quotes because they're largely subjective self-designations.
The default position of conservatives is that people are inherently evil, and therefore all people must be judged to be guilty until proven innocent. And the thought that evil ones may prosper under certain contrived circumstances is one of the things that keep them up at night in a cold sweat, devising harsh laws to reign in whatever they see as decadence, immorality, permissiveness and undeserved individual freedoms. "Moochers" must be apprehended and extirpated, even if that means other honest and diligent people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own are also destroyed in the process. Thus, in social policy, we see conservatives time and again trying to tear down social welfare programs, cut off unemployment benefits, shutter community health clinics, and all the rest. They would rather reduce to zero the probability that a single "moocher" might get an undeserved free lunch than do something that is absolutely certain to help millions of innocent victims of the irrational cruelties of market capitalism.
(Given all this, it's not surprising that conservatives tend to be highly religious, because the idea of an omnipotent authority figure such as God provides certitude of punishment for the evildoers, along with an absolute frame of reference to resolve questions of morality which a decidedly relativistic universe so far has refused to grant.)
As for myself, the answer to the question is clear: people are innocent until proven guilty, and so help should be granted to all the poor as can be helped, both D and E, because at the outset we cannot presume to know who is which. The social and economic cost of "accidentally" helping D is, at any rate, quite minimal and runs no risk of transferring shares from E to D (the quaint old "well if you help one bum then everyone will become a bum" argument). This position, of course, is in harmony with the workings of our justice system, and also in harmony with the Christian concepts of helping the weak and vulnerable which, ironically, many self-proclaimed "Christian" conservatives have long since forgotten except perhaps for one hour on Sundays.
Some may say that the charity espoused in the bible was meant to be voluntary, and therefore tax-payer subsidized welfare programs are not charity and even unjust; but fortunately the bible is not the U.S. Constitution or the constitution of most other democracies. If you live in a country, you live by its rules. If you don't like paying taxes for welfare programs and such, then leave. Go to another country, because a crab cannot swim with a school of fish. Besides, isn't that what apologists for capitalism are always saying? "If you don't like the dictatorial hierarchy of the corporate life, then quit your job and become your own boss." Well, I'm turning that around on you. Think of a country as a corporation, and apply your own arguments. I hear Afghanistan is hiring.
I, for one, want to live in a country that has a social "safety net," and I expect to be helped by society if I should fall on hard times through no fault of my own. You cannot take that away from me and then say I'm subsequently more "free" -- because it doesn't feel like freedom to have to worry about whether I'll have any access to health care should I lose my job. It feels like slavery, and it feels like terror. I very much doubt that if I were to walk to the church down the road with a pink slip in my hand, the congregation's charity would extend so far as to pay for a surgery I might need.
Aid for all who need it, I say. You'll waste more money trying to identify and weed out the moochers than you would if you simply stopped obsessing about them.
18 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenign
First I would say that in America and most other Western societies the poor is a fluid group. Most people poor ten years ago are no longer poor, but may be middle class or even very comfortable or wealthy.
E May be a temporary condition. It can't be prolonged except by D.
Emergency provisions for Es is both understandable and desirable, although i ? Is this even fair to the Ds, who are given no incentives to start making better decisions?
First I would say that in America and most other Western societies the poor is a fluid group. Most people poor ten years ago are no longer poor, but may be middle class or even very comfortable or wealthy.
I don't think we're talking about the "can't yet afford the townhouse" crowd, but rather genuine destitution.
E May be a temporary condition. It can't be prolonged except by D.
It may not be if a disability is involved, whether physical or mental.
Emergency provisions for Es is both understandable and desirable, although it is better provided by private charity than government.
Charity comes and goes, and generally it is directly proportional to the health of the economy. That is to say, at times when charity is most needed (times of recession and high unemployment), it becomes least available. Hardly a working model under any circumstance I can envision.
19 Jun 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Soothfast"Now I'm ready for a somewhat serious response."
Now I'm ready for a somewhat serious response.
The question you pose is one of those ideological Rohrschach tests that help parse "liberals" from "conservatives" -- and I put those terms in quotes because they're largely subjective self-designations.
The default position of conservatives is that people are inherently evil, and therefore all people mu chers than you would if you simply stopped obsessing about them.
You then proceed with a joke post.
"The question you pose is one of those ideological Rohrschach tests that help parse "liberals" from "conservatives" -- and I put those terms in quotes because they're largely subjective self-designations."
You then proceed to make a sweeping hyper-emotive judgment on what you feel constitutes a "conservative".
"The default position of conservatives...cold sweat blah...some blah about freedom (of which you have no idea)...to help millions of innocent victims of the irrational cruelties of market capitalism.
It is the default position of all control freaks left, right, conservative, liberal, watermelon, etc that people cannot be trusted with their own lives, they cannot be trusted to be benevolent, they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, they need more qualified life managers to run their lives for them, you see yourself as one of these extra-qualified humans...
...you're not.
"As for myself...(as for yourself? this really is one of the funniest parts, you claim to be speaking for yourself but you want to force your ideas on other people?) ...to the question is clear: people are innocent until proven guilty..(rant against religion which doesn't belong on this board)"...one hour on Sundays."
As previously posted people come to be in a bad situation by three routes:
A: Some natural anomaly, either personal or of the physical world eg. earthquake.
B: Some bad decision by themself, in which case they have no right to make other people responsible for their own bad choices.
C: A bad decision made by those that force what they decide on others, you are clearly one of those people, unfortunately when things do go wrong your solution is to force more of your ideas on others.
"Some may say that the charity espoused in the bible...Afghanistan is hiring."
That charity can only ever be voluntary does not rely on the bible, it is the very definition of the word and forced charity is not charity at all, it's just people responding to threats of force the way a donkey does when you whip it.
When you sign on with a company, as a shareholder, employee even as an employer you sign a contract, I don't remember signing a contract that gave you the right to make decisions for me, produce that contract and I will consider leaving whichever country you are staking such a claim on.
"I, for one, want to live in a country that has a social "safety net," and I expect to be helped by society if I should fall on hard times through no fault of my own. You cannot take that away from me and then say I'm subsequently more "free" -- because it doesn't feel like freedom to have to worry about whether I'll have any access to health care should I lose my job. It feels like slavery, and it feels like terror. I very much doubt that if I were to walk to the church down the road with a pink slip in my hand, the congregation's charity would extend so far as to pay for a surgery I might need."
Then get with like minded folk and contribute to a "safety net" just forget about forcing those ideas on others.
"Aid for all who need it, I say. You'll waste more money trying to identify and weed out the moochers than you would if you simply stopped obsessing about them."
When the DPB (Domestic Purposes Benefit, a social welfare benefit for solo parents) was introduced in New Zealand there were about 400 solo parents most of them mothers, a noble cause? That number is now around 110 000, parents that is, children living in these types of homes are a far greater number because the more kids a woman can pump out the more money she gets. "Societies' duty this"," societies duty' that" you rant on, this is what your policies bring down on society, some of these families are moving into 3rd and 4th generation life time benficiaries, let's throw some more money at it.
19 Jun 11
Originally posted by WajomaWhat you consistently fail to acknowledge is that a democratic society depends on an amalgamation of majority rule and rights of the minority. You go all the way to one extreme, time and again: the supreme, actually Divine right of the individual as a sovereign God unto himself. Absolute base egoism, presumption beyond redemption, and a sure path to dystopian disaster that would leave the luckless, elderly and infirm -- anyone not favored by the fickle finger of fate -- to rot in gutters, or perhaps be sold as soylent green or mulch to turn a profit for some enterprising entrepreneur. The burden of proof, and convincing, really lies with your lot, because you're more a vacuum of ideas, really, than a source of them. You can't really explain how your society would "work," once you've thrown off all the shackles of government, regulation, and related safeguards.
"Now I'm ready for a somewhat serious response."
You then proceed with a joke post.
"The question you pose is one of those ideological Rohrschach tests that help parse "liberals" from "conservatives" -- and I put those terms in quotes because they're largely subjective self-designations."
You then proceed to make a sweeping hyper-emot ...[text shortened]... ime benficiaries, let's throw some more money at it.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaI'd say E outnumbers D, though I can't begin to guess at by what ratio.
Before you even read this, I want to clarify that I intend this to be more of a “lead
in” question than a “bait” question (or rather, series of questions). I think people
build entire ideologies based on assumptions about other people’s qualities of life,
so I want to address the fundamentals of those social paradigms. Feel free to
keep the conversa ...[text shortened]... tent of the government’s role in providing for poor people,
including those in both categories?
There's no need to cut aid to everyone to avoid giving aid to D. Well written and well enforced policies can pressure D to make better decisions while supporting E.
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaThis obviously leads to the questions:
D=poor people whose circumstances in life are mostly a product of bad [b]decision-making[/b]
- Why are they making bad decisions?
- How come the decisions they are making are classified as bad?
- Who determines the fact they must decide?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
20 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaI'll speak about the first-world situation as I see it.
Before you even read this, I want to clarify that I intend this to be more of a “lead
in” question than a “bait” question (or rather, series of questions). I think people
build entire ideologies based on assumptions about other people’s qualities of life,
so I want to address the fundamentals of those social paradigms. Feel free to
keep the conversa ...[text shortened]... tent of the government’s role in providing for poor people,
including those in both categories?
Help consists of more than help with food and shelter. Education, training, employment and other counseling, tax incentives for businesses locating in economically impacted areas, etc., are ways that we get poor people off the welfare lines and keep them off.
For purely practical reasons, I doubt that the various agencies involved could fairly and uniformly decide whether a person's economic condition is due mostly to their own decisions (what you call D types) or external circumstances (E types).
I also doubt that we could keep the system "clean" when there are so many impoverished families, especially single-mother families. How do we help the young children who might be classified as E, but not the mother who might be classified as D? Put them in foster homes? Among creating other problems, that would be very costly.
I do agree that the people who want to spend tax dollars on these things should first look to what they can do personally within the private sector. But simply put, there aren't enough people that will do that. So unless we want to turn a first world poverty situation into a third world situation, there needs to be some "non-voluntary" contributions i.e., taxes, to provide a some minimal degree of safety net.