| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2003 : 08:52:26
|
Well, this is follow up on something mkingicus has written in a different forum, and I thought I'll say a word.
There is something very strange in the American ideology of Libertarianism. I don't think you have that anywhere else in the world. This hate of government is very strange for a people who have fashioned one of the world's best and most stable governmental system.
In short, I think we need governments, and that governments (and especially democratic goverments) are essentially good and beneficial. I think that for all the damage governments no doubt do, there is very little appreciation of the great good that they are responsible for - namely, preventing anarchy.
But I guess what bugs me most about Libertarian ideology is that it's anti-people. It essentially says "I should be free to do what I want and you should be free to starve".
OK, now unleash your typewriters, people :-) |
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 09:50:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Omer
This hate of government is very strange [snip] there is very little appreciation of the great good that they are responsible for - namely, preventing anarchy. [snip]
But I guess what bugs me most about Libertarian ideology is that it's anti-people. It essentially says "I should be free to do what I want and you should be free to starve".
Perhaps there can be some disagreement here regarding just what libertarianism entails. Libertarians accept that there should be some government, but they feel that government should be limited to defense and law enforcement, to include adjudication. I think it would be the anarchists who could be said to "hate" government. Further, most libertarians would resist being characterized as "anti-people". Instead, they would be expected to protest that they are the ones who are in fact "pro-people" in the sense that they are pro-liberty. They would argue that it is government as conceived as "servant" (read: "tyrant") that lacks trust and respect for people and feels it must decide for the "ignorant and incompetent people". Libertarians trust the people, as individuals, to decide and act for themselves, to include deciding to act charitably to alleviate the suffering of their fellows. Libertarians understand the individuals will not always make the best decisions but that if their mistakes are allowed to run their courses there will be proportionate consequences from which said individuals will learn to make better decisions the next time around. Libertarians trust that over the long-term this mechanism will result in better outcomes for both individuals and society than would governmental intervention in social processes, given that such interventions derive from distrust of individuals' motives and competencies. |
 |
|
|
theonecontender
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
565 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 09:57:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Omer
But I guess what bugs me most about Libertarian ideology is that it's anti-people. It essentially says "I should be free to do what I want and you should be free to starve".
I can respect your desire for a more active domestic role for your government. However, I think your logic is flawed in the aspect quoted above. Libertarian philosophy is the most pro-people ideology around. Think about it.. it respects every individual's personal beliefs and descisions. This is Libertarianism - a pro individual (read: people) perspective which argues that each man or woman is the best ones suited to determine their own fate. Socialism, on the other hand, argues that people are not that bright and need to be told by govenment what to do, what not to do, what to believe, how to grow a tomato, etc.. etc.. etc.. Of course, the debate between the two is endless and is ultimately a matter of personal choice.
1c
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
- Frédéric Bastiat, 1849
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/bastiat/index.html |
|
|
|
theonecontender
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
565 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 09:59:26
|
| Damn. Erebus and I made the same point at the same time. Great minds... |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 11:14:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by theonecontender
Of course, the debate between the two is endless and is ultimately a matter of personal choice.
Agreed in general, and with your observation that this is a matter of personal choice. However, when 50%+ vote for big government programs they force the rest to support the same goals, via taxes and behavior. Conversely, when 50%+ votes for more libertarian policies, the rest are still free to persue whatever goals they desire. They are still free to implement socialist solutions to perceived problems, albeit through non-governmental institutions. The libertarian conception of government leaves people free to pursue what they identify to be good. The socialist conception forces everyone to share their means and ends whether they like it or not. Hence my labelling this as "tyranny". |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 11:43:09
|
| How do you folks feel about proportional representation? |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 12:06:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
How do you folks feel about proportional representation?
One hundred percent of the representation should be by, for, and of human beings. No non-humans allowed. |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 13:48:29
|
Wow, I think I'm really a liberterian, because the descriptions provided gels with my beliefs. It's obvious that a government is needed to keep order, but when you overstep the bounds of keeping order and step into the area where you're telling people how to live their life, then that's fucked up. The other big point is the corruption within our own government. It obviously exists (see: Iraq uranium Africa claims)...it seems as if these people believe they're somehow superhuman, when in fact they're just as mortal as the rest of us. This post is very disjointed, I know...
---------
FRANK BLACK SATAN WORKSHIP BLACK MASS |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 15:36:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErebusOne hundred percent of the representation should be by, for, and of human beings. No non-humans allowed.
This would lead me to think you don't know what i'm talking about.
I'd like to hear an explanation of whatever it is you're talking about.. |
|
|
|
Brackish Girl
~ Soul Eater ~
Ireland
1750 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 16:01:40
|
i'm so not getting involved in one of these agai-damn it!
bored of the little comments. i guess i'll just have an actual signature. much shorter.
-Jessie |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 16:05:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
quote:
Originally posted by ErebusOne hundred percent of the representation should be by, for, and of human beings. No non-humans allowed.
This would lead me to think you don't know what i'm talking about.
I'd like to hear an explanation of whatever it is you're talking about..
I assume you were referring to legislative representation proportioned on the basis of ethnicity, race, or something similar. I was "joking" that since we're all humans, and since we're supposedly trying to build societies that are "color blind" and similarly get beyond racial and ethnic distinctions, we don't need to, and shouldn't, base representation on such distinctions. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. However, if not, it seems to me that such proportional representation would involve institutionalization of the very discrimination we purport to wish to eliminate. Do I have the concept right? |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 19:05:11
|
I realised people would dislike my definition of Libertarian ideology as "Anti-People", but I'm willing to defend it.
In essence, I think Libertarian Ideology is a ruse to allow the rich and powerful to evade their moral responsibility towards the weak and the poor.
Some of the rich are I think unwilling to aknowledge even the existence of such responsibilty, and therefore they strongly underestimate the social and economic conditions that keep the poor poor, and overestimate the abilities of individuals to overcome their environments.
So, in essence, Livertarian ideology says "If you're poor, that's your own fault and I shouldn't do anything about it"
Notice, that I am not defending Socialism. Socialism wishes to enforce central planning and government control on the means of production. On the whole, with the exception of cases of Monopoly and externalities, I oppose government intervention in the market.
What I advocate is a moderate form of Social-Capitalism, which involves redistributing resources from the rich to the poor.
Ironically, I understand that Milton Freedman advocated something similar in "Freedom and Capitalism", but I haven't read that yet, so I may be mistaken.
|
|
|
|
NimrodsSon
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1938 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 19:48:47
|
In most cases, it is their own fault if they're poor. It's usually because they made some choice in their life, whether it be a crime or choosing to drop out of high school or any number of other things. It is not fair at all for those who have homes and work hard to make a living watch poor people live off of welfare and do absolutely no work at all. And it is definitely not fair for the rich/richER people to have to pay for that welfare in their taxes. It's one thing for rich people to choose to be kind and donate money to the poor, and it's another thing for them to be forced to give money to the poor. That's the sad thing with our government today. People get to be lazy and live off of someone else's money. If resources were distributed from the rich to poor, it would just make people more lazy because they know they can still make it if they sit on their asses all day. And sadly, THEY CAN!!!
|
|
|
|
mun chien andalusia
= Quote Accumulator =
Italy
2139 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 21:16:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by NimrodsSon
In most cases, it is their own fault if they're poor. It's usually because they made some choice in their life, whether it be a crime or choosing to drop out of high school or any number of other things. It is not fair at all for those who have homes and work hard to make a living watch poor people live off of welfare and do absolutely no work at all. And it is definitely not fair for the rich/richER people to have to pay for that welfare in their taxes. It's one thing for rich people to choose to be kind and donate money to the poor, and it's another thing for them to be forced to give money to the poor. That's the sad thing with our government today. People get to be lazy and live off of someone else's money. If resources were distributed from the rich to poor, it would just make people more lazy because they know they can still make it if they sit on their asses all day. And sadly, THEY CAN!!!
Now that's a fucking sick and stupid argument...How about those who cannot afford highschool at all cause their parents are poor(even if they "deserve it".What did the kids do to deserve poverty?)?.And how about those who saw their pensions money stolen by some asshole manager?And war veterans,single mothers,handicaped people,teenage mothers,dismised workers?They are lazy human garbage?You do actually believe that the fact that 50% of the world's wealth is concetrated in the hands of few thousand people is right?And Bill Gates actually works harder than a worker that lost his job?Your line of thought suggests that it would be sufficient to kill the poor and unemployed and in general all those who do not cope with your way of seeing the world and all problems of the society will be solved.Welfare is Not a forced charity but the base of any civil society that takes care of its less fortunate members not leting them to their own fate.You can argue on how your tax money is spent but not on the necessity of a good welfare system...
www.munchienandalusia.too.it |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 23:51:54
|
Um..no erebus..
I was taken aback because i'm a vegan activist, and the rights of non-humans is very high on my priority list..so it looked like you might have been taking a stab at me.
Proportional Representation (PR) is a very legitimate form of democracy that's used in several European countries, and is much better suited to represent people.
It's not 'perfect' of course, but it addresses and solves many problems that occur in the US's version of democracy. It allows for more than a binary system, and better representation for 'fringe' groups.
I'm not really that informed (which is why i asked), but here's a good place to start reading:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/whatispr.htm
Hopefully some Euro-folks can chip in with first-hand info. |
|
|
|
Cartland
- FB Fan -
Iceland
78 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 06:52:08
|
| I'm touched to see that there are fellow libertarians here. |
|
|
|
NimrodsSon
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1938 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 08:43:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by mun chien andalusia
quote:
Originally posted by NimrodsSon
In most cases, it is their own fault if they're poor. It's usually because they made some choice in their life, whether it be a crime or choosing to drop out of high school or any number of other things. It is not fair at all for those who have homes and work hard to make a living watch poor people live off of welfare and do absolutely no work at all. And it is definitely not fair for the rich/richER people to have to pay for that welfare in their taxes. It's one thing for rich people to choose to be kind and donate money to the poor, and it's another thing for them to be forced to give money to the poor. That's the sad thing with our government today. People get to be lazy and live off of someone else's money. If resources were distributed from the rich to poor, it would just make people more lazy because they know they can still make it if they sit on their asses all day. And sadly, THEY CAN!!!
Now that's a fucking sick and stupid argument...How about those who cannot afford highschool at all cause their parents are poor(even if they "deserve it".What did the kids do to deserve poverty?)?.And how about those who saw their pensions money stolen by some asshole manager?And war veterans,single mothers,handicaped people,teenage mothers,dismised workers?They are lazy human garbage?You do actually believe that the fact that 50% of the world's wealth is concetrated in the hands of few thousand people is right?And Bill Gates actually works harder than a worker that lost his job?Your line of thought suggests that it would be sufficient to kill the poor and unemployed and in general all those who do not cope with your way of seeing the world and all problems of the society will be solved.Welfare is Not a forced charity but the base of any civil society that takes care of its less fortunate members not leting them to their own fate.You can argue on how your tax money is spent but not on the necessity of a good welfare system...
www.munchienandalusia.too.it
I'm not saying that everyone who is poor or homeless deserves to be, I'm saying that the MAJORITY (not all) of poor people made some choice that made them poor. I also never said that because you live off welfare, you are lazy. I said that welfare teaches a lot of people to be lazy because they know they can get by with it. Most of the people you described could get a job. That's one thing that's great about America, just about anyone can get a job! And I would have to say that work is a much better way to make money than a check from the government that is paid for by people who work hard to make a living. Of course I know that many single mothers can't work because of their kids. I'm not totally positive what the solution to this should be, but I do know that there are daycare centers where the children can be kept while mom is at work. My point is, there is ALWAYS a better way to deal with something than a government program. There are also shelters out there that are paid for by charity. There are plenty of ways to help homeless people other than government programs |
|
|
|
Scarla O
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
947 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 08:51:01
|
Some of you talk about socialism as though it is a homogenous monolith - this is not the case.
Your assumption that socialism is defined by the desire to centrally control economies is I believe mistaken. Left-wing libertarian philosophy of the likes of anarcho-syndicalism is about devolving responsibility to people, giving them the power to make the choices that affect them (especially in relation to the workplace). For example in Glasgow the local bus system was being sold off and the employees stumped up the cash, bought it and operated it as a collective (think how much more interested you would be in the state of your 'company' if your owned a share of it...
|
|
|
|
NimrodsSon
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1938 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 08:54:59
|
| umm, I know it has nothing to do with what you just said (well kind-of), but libertarianism is about as far right-wing as it gets |
|
|
|
Scarla O
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
947 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 08:58:28
|
No it's not...you get left and right-wing libertarianism - only the right wing libertarianism is alot better known and has alot more adherents. |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 09:39:28
|
It is interesting that Nimrod's Son perfectly illustrates my points about Libertarianism.
"In most cases, it is their own fault if they're poor. It's usually because they made some choice in their life, whether it be a crime or choosing to drop out of high school or any number of other things"
OK, here's information from The Elusive Quest for Growth, by economist and then member of the World Bank William Easterly:
Within the US, there are five well defined poverty clusters: (1) inner-city blacks, (2) rural blacks in the mississippi delta (3) Native Americans in the west (4) Hispanics in the Southwest and (5) Whites in Southeastern Kentucky.
Even if you're racist enough to believe that blacks, native Americans and Hispanics are naturally lazy or stupid or incompetent -
"The Southeastern Kentucky cluster is interesting because it shows poverty traps [can be extremely] localised... eighteen of the twenty poorest all-white counties in the United States are in Southeastern Kentucky."
(pages 163 and 164 - btw, I strongly recommand this book to anyone interested in questions of wealth and poverty and the third world)
Can anyone seriously suggest that Southeast Kentuckians(is that a word?) are vastly more lazy or incompetente then Southwestern Kentuckians?
It seems clear that the most important reason for wealth or poverty is your environment. If you're born in a rich area in a rich country, you'll most likely be rich. If you're born in a poor area in a poor country, you'll be poor.
So, yeah, I think it is the OBLIGATION of those of us who are fortunate enough to be rich to help those of us who are poor, and if some people are unwilling to do so, they should be forced.
Nimrod's Son keeps on:
"there is ALWAYS a better way to deal with something than a government program. There are also shelters out there that are paid for by charity. There are plenty of ways to help homeless people other than government programs"
Hmmm. The US has much less public support for the poor then Sweden. By this logic, the US should have much less poverty then Sweden, because charities do this instead of governments. Of course, it isn't so, and Sweden's poor are much less numerous (and much better off) then their American counterparts, without any noticeable effect on the Swedesh Economy.
This is not to say the Government policies should not be reviewed to make sure that, as far as possible, they do not give people incentives NOT to work - but it does mean that we shouldn't cut government spending all together.
Regarding the debate about representitive governments, I'm all for the American and British systems. They lower the number of political parties, and help bring stable governments, especially in ethnically divided countries.
|
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 11:21:16
|
"I said that welfare teaches a lot of people to be lazy because they know they can get by with it."
The flip side of this is you get people who are obsessed with working, and *this* becomes 'life' as well. (Anyone familiar with countries with high suicide rates because people can't live up to their own expectations of work?)
Regardless, i don't think a single-parent should have to work 40+hrs a week in order to live a modestly comfortable life.
Any system that leaves the 'family' at a disadvantage is going to self-destruct. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 12:30:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Omer
It is interesting that Nimrod's Son perfectly illustrates my points about Libertarianism.
Hmmm. The US has much less public support for the poor then Sweden. By this logic, the US should have much less poverty then Sweden, because charities do this instead of governments. Of course, it isn't so, and Sweden's poor are much less numerous (and much better off) then their American counterparts, without any noticeable effect on the Swedesh Economy.
Not that I'm against the policies of socialist states or anything (Sweden is regularly up there with Canada as one of the best places to live in the world), but to be fair, they do have some of the highest tax rates in the world to support their programs, and there's no way that's good for the economy.
Still, they probably can save a lot of police/rehab/penal systems as a result of a little compassion. |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 13:24:16
|
Cult of Frank-
yeah, Sweden has a very high tax rate. But it seems to be doing just fine, economically AND socially speaking. As far as I know, there is not any study that correlates lower taxation with faster growth.
|
|
|
|
evilheat
- FB Fan -
12 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 13:37:30
|
Dean, who cares what's good for the economy if the people are happy, employed, fed and sheltered.
Sweden and Norway generally rank as being the best place to live and the highest standard of living, they have very low unemployement, very high demographic indicators (literacy, health, etc.)....and pretty kickin' music scene.
Though the 'health of the economy' is important, the obssesion with it above the health of people is kindof silly. Think about this my bro just moved to Alberta, land of low taxes etc. etc. great economy, he can barely afford to get by as an accountant. He previously paid $500 a year to license his car, now it'll cost $3000. Great for the economy, but I'm really not sure who this economy person is, 'cause he's certainly screwing over alot of people. I'm completely blown away by Alberta's ideological obsession with the economy and small gov't etc, when it like 6 times as expensive to license a car (now my bro's car payment's are $240 a month, and license payments $260).
Taxes can be great, the utilize economies of scale. So if people are happy and what cheap access to alot of things, and a slightly lower take home pay, then their wonderful, if people are obssessed with the 'freedom to choose' even though it costs a lot more to live, then find, but recognize that taxes aren't some eternally evil monster in the closet....roads can be nice as are parks, but it'd be a pain in the ass to pass through a toll booth ever day and waste time and money for a quick walk/drive. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 14:27:28
|
Wasn't trying to say that the country was worse off for it or whatever, but just pointing out that high-taxation IS an adverse effect of social spending. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done (come on, I live in Saskatchewan, we have more social programs, corps, etc, than anywhere in Canada and are neighbours with Alberta which is the extreme opposite as you pointed out (as well as the US, which is not that much different in a lot of ways), but I'm still here), but I was pointing out that in the interest of good debate, it's unfair to say that Sweden has no disadvantage whatsoever. Personally, I agree with you, as long as there is balance. Too much socialistic policy tends to lead to everyone being poor, and too much capitalistic policy eventually does the same thing, though through a different and longer road. There needs to be balance. The right facilities publically owned and of course other things suffer from any sort of public interference.
Taxes are necessary, and no, nobody likes to pay them, but who is going to pay for the road to get home from work, or the plow to clear the highways, or the lights to keep the streets safe, or... yes, a lot of the tax money is wasted, but there's no denying that they are needed. If we lived in a state without tax, communities would instead pool their money together for a road or whatever, and what would the difference be? |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 14:31:46
|
| Oh, and there've also been no conclusive studies that prove that eggs can boost cholesterol, and for a long time there were no studies that linked cancer and smoking, but it is common sense. Likewise, the lack of a study is probably because it's quite likely that everyone already knows and accepts the fact that when you have high taxes, you discourage the people with money who would start businesses in these countries from doing so. How many businesses have moved from Saskatchewan to Alberta or the US? How many people have likewise had to leave to keep their job or found themselves unemployed? A lot. And there's no way that either of those inevitabilities can be construed as positive for the economy, even if we discount the whole 'reduced potential investment' scenarios. |
|
|
|
evilheat
- FB Fan -
12 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 14:41:13
|
I just get annoyed with people saying something is bad 'cause it's bad for the economy, but the still you high-taxation is an adverse effect of spending, then it's the same as saying high-costs are are adverse effect of buying stuff or eating. Ya things do cost money, it's whether you get value for your money or not.....so the question of taxation is irrelevant in the case of sweden or alberta, it's are people get value for the money the spend (whether weighted more heavily to purchasing gov't provided services or private corporate services)
So it's not a question of tax or costs, it's value for work done (generally sumed by money spent individually or taxed collectively).
Who's getting the better value? Sask or Alberta
Sweden or the U.S.
It's pretty easy to generalize and say sweden is better off than the U.S. based on demographic indicators and expenses per citizen, it might be less obvious with Sask and Alta, but the it generally costs less to live in saskatchewan (sum total of tax/private costs).......but it's individual preference on which is a better place to live/which is better for 'the people'.
Libertarianism is a simply ideological response, any governing/econonic/social system can't be generalized as best or as most free or as most pro-people/anti-people, and anyone that does is deluding themselves.
Except that capitlist economies allow for abuse of environmental/social external costs (those not counted in the free market --> pollution etc) to skew things in favor of those who can afford to abuse them. ie. rich car drivers having more costs ie. asthma etc. to poorer people than the poor get benefits from them ;) |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 17:32:10
|
I'd prolly gamble on the concept that money problems are more likely to lead to a social collapse than social programs.
=P |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 21:02:46
|
Cult of Frank - yeah, the notion that high income taxes reduce growth does seem to be obvious from a common sense POV (especialy if you believe in Reganomics :-), but as the saying goes: common sense ain't that common.
If high income taxes would be bad for the economy, you should find statistical correlation between high taxes and bad economic performence. I'm gonna quote Easterly again:
"one government policy that has been conspiciously missing from my short list of ways to kill growth: tax rates on income... surprisingly, there is no evidence that higher EXPLICIT [italics in the original] tax rates lower growth... the Unites States kept growing at the same rate after the income tax was introduced in 1913 and after it increased sharply in the 1940s... there is no statistical association between the statuatory tax rate and economic growth, either across time in the US or across countries in the world"
(The Elusive Quest for Growth, pp. 234-235)
|
|
|
|
mun chien andalusia
= Quote Accumulator =
Italy
2139 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 21:49:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by NimrodsSon
quote:
Originally posted by mun chien andalusia
quote:
Originally posted by NimrodsSon
In most cases, it is their own fault if they're poor. It's usually because they made some choice in their life, whether it be a crime or choosing to drop out of high school or any number of other things. It is not fair at all for those who have homes and work hard to make a living watch poor people live off of welfare and do absolutely no work at all. And it is definitely not fair for the rich/richER people to have to pay for that welfare in their taxes. It's one thing for rich people to choose to be kind and donate money to the poor, and it's another thing for them to be forced to give money to the poor. That's the sad thing with our government today. People get to be lazy and live off of someone else's money. If resources were distributed from the rich to poor, it would just make people more lazy because they know they can still make it if they sit on their asses all day. And sadly, THEY CAN!!!
Now that's a fucking sick and stupid argument...How about those who cannot afford highschool at all cause their parents are poor(even if they "deserve it".What did the kids do to deserve poverty?)?.And how about those who saw their pensions money stolen by some asshole manager?And war veterans,single mothers,handicaped people,teenage mothers,dismised workers?They are lazy human garbage?You do actually believe that the fact that 50% of the world's wealth is concetrated in the hands of few thousand people is right?And Bill Gates actually works harder than a worker that lost his job?Your line of thought suggests that it would be sufficient to kill the poor and unemployed and in general all those who do not cope with your way of seeing the world and all problems of the society will be solved.Welfare is Not a forced charity but the base of any civil society that takes care of its less fortunate members not leting them to their own fate.You can argue on how your tax money is spent but not on the necessity of a good welfare system...
www.munchienandalusia.too.it
I'm not saying that everyone who is poor or homeless deserves to be, I'm saying that the MAJORITY (not all) of poor people made some choice that made them poor. I also never said that because you live off welfare, you are lazy. I said that welfare teaches a lot of people to be lazy because they know they can get by with it. Most of the people you described could get a job. That's one thing that's great about America, just about anyone can get a job! And I would have to say that work is a much better way to make money than a check from the government that is paid for by people who work hard to make a living. Of course I know that many single mothers can't work because of their kids. I'm not totally positive what the solution to this should be, but I do know that there are daycare centers where the children can be kept while mom is at work. My point is, there is ALWAYS a better way to deal with something than a government program. There are also shelters out there that are paid for by charity. There are plenty of ways to help homeless people other than government programs
If it is THAT easy find a job in the US how come there are so many unemployed people?I'm sure that most people prefer to work and have a decent life rather than depend completely on others.
You seem to think that charity is the answer to all unemployent and welfare problems.Well it is not for several reasons.
First because charity is an act of pitty and an unemployed person is not searching for pitty but for a job.You cannot step on his dignity calling him a beggar...
Second charity is not obbligatory and you can't count on it to cover all welfare problems(hospitals,unemployment,pensions).
Last but not least charity is administrated mostly by religious movements christian,muslim or whatever...That means that it is given only to those who make part of a certain religion and not to everyone who needs it,and what's worse it's accompanied with religious indoctrination.An example:After the war in Bosnia Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries started a charity program that built schools and hospitals in order to help their "brothers".In school it was offered lunch so many people started to send their kids there just to eat.Problem is that the teachers in that schools were priests(Imam) that filled the kids' with religious crap.After few years we saw the results.Teenager Mujahedins from Bosnia in Russia,Afganistan,Iraq...
www.munchienandalusia.too.it |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 21:52:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
I'd prolly gamble on the concept that money problems are more likely to lead to a social collapse than social programs.
=P
... and yet we have examples like the Soviet Union as an example of what happens if you go too far in that direction. I think it's really a poor choice to be really extreme in one sense or the other. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 21:57:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Omer
Cult of Frank - yeah, the notion that high income taxes reduce growth does seem to be obvious from a common sense POV (especialy if you believe in Reganomics :-), but as the saying goes: common sense ain't that common.
If high income taxes would be bad for the economy, you should find statistical correlation between high taxes and bad economic performence. I'm gonna quote Easterly again:
"one government policy that has been conspiciously missing from my short list of ways to kill growth: tax rates on income... surprisingly, there is no evidence that higher EXPLICIT [italics in the original] tax rates lower growth... the Unites States kept growing at the same rate after the income tax was introduced in 1913 and after it increased sharply in the 1940s... there is no statistical association between the statuatory tax rate and economic growth, either across time in the US or across countries in the world"
(The Elusive Quest for Growth, pp. 234-235)
That's an interesting point, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) didn't the whole world pretty much introduce income tax within a few years of the US, meaning that the US is suddenly no longer at a disadvantage for this income tax introduction?
As for statistical correlation, you are right, there should be a correlation. I can't say I've looked at stats on such things, and I'm certainly no economist, but I've seen time and again, businesses looking to move to Canada pass up our province for Alberta largely due to tax reasons, not necessarily income tax, but business/new venture tax breaks. And I've seen them move. I stay here because I believe that we have a better life, and I've known people who've moved to Calgary for more money and found themselves more broke than ever. So it seems that there is some hurt to the economy, although you're probably right that it's not as much as people say. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 23:55:33
|
Dean - i'd agree with the extremes.
MCA - well said on the charities. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 03:45:16
|
I can say this (as someone from scandinavia) : taxes (or money) does not solve social problems. Socialists and right-wingers have at least one thing in common; an obsession with money. "We'll reform this and reform that and we have no problems.". Most people forget that the wonderfull and healing powers of love and care is the foundation of a well-functioning society. This is not hippy-svada, but close to an empirical fact. Children are neglected, abused, forgotten - and generally avoided by adults. We put them into small camps we call kindergarten and hope they will be taken care of (ok - i know there's plenty of goodness in kindergartens, but there are also some problematic issues). Western society is designed so that we don't have to be with our kids. Ok, for some kids - this is good, because they need to be away from an unhealthy environment - but generally, they learn that it is the government that actually do the caring.
The notion that people make choices that leave them "outside of society" (turbonegro) - may be partially correct - but one can hardly say they had an actual choice. Abuse and neglect will, for many, cause or contribute in the formation of psychiatric disorders, homelessness, substance abuse, abusive behavior, retraumatization - all of which are associated with low income. That is not to say that all all poor people have terrible childhoods, but lack of love and care have collossal economic consequences. And even with all our social-programs in scandinavia, more and more people are falling "outside of society". Drug abuse is increasing, more experience psychiatric problems, violence is on the rise. Money has nothing, or very little, to do with it - in the end.
Socialists have never had a good solution to this problem. One cannot make a law that says that you are loved (ok, maybe they could. According to a friend, the cuban parliament decided that there was no incidences of aids in cuba - because it was a good socialist nation). Here socialists are redefining the problem - they claim that it is "relative" poverty that counts - you are poor compared to your fellow countrymen. Most people ignore the fact that if you are treated with love and respect - most will be o.k. - if not, many will suffer - and they'll end up poor AND unhappy.
|
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 03:56:29
|
A related point : libertarianism want to trust people to take care of them selves and make their own choices. It is an ideology i like. However, there is one major problem: it assumes that people are not only grown-ups in a physical sense - but also mentally. Today, significant portions of physical grown-ups do not have the mental capacity to take care of themselves, or others, in a way that is health-promoting. These people also have children, perhaps even more children than people that do take care of themselves. Thus, leaving these people without government programs will doom them. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
