4. We're all people. We aren't better because of where we are from, or what god we believe in. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion.
bugleyman, would you also include social coercion in this statement? I have seen many people who would completely agree with that statement as written, but would have no qualms resorting to mockery, ostracism, and smear tactics on opposing positions to "change" someone's mind.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
4. We're all people. We aren't better because of where we are from, or what god we believe in. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion.bugleyman, would you also include social coercion in this statement? I have seen many people who would completely agree with that statement as written, but would have no qualms resorting to mockery, ostracism, and smear tactics on opposing positions to "change" someone's mind.
Trying to change someone's mind by embarrassing them for holding certain beliefs is self-destructive. I don't just mean it fails to work and therefore is a waste of a person's time ... it's self-destructive because it allows a person to avoid engaging with both the other's ideas and his/her own.
For example, both labelling someone a racist for being opposed to affirmative action and/or labelling someone politically-correct for being in favor of affirmitive action allow you to get out of the discussion without having listened to someone whose views are different than yours. Never having listened, you deny yourself the chance to deepen and clarify your own beliefs.
In short, people who resort to "mockery, ostracism, and smear tactics" are morons.
4. We're all people. We aren't better because of where we are from, or what god we believe in. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion.
But, what about those who do believe they are better and do intend to use both military and economic coercion?
In your "world", are we allowed to oppose them with military and economic coercion?
To what extent, if any, are we allowed to oppose in such a manner and just exactly how do you (specifically bugleyman but also anyone in general...) determine what are the appropriate limitations?
If we are not allowed such specific opposition, just exactly how do you propose that such people be opposed?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
4. We're all people. We aren't better because of where we are from, or what god we believe in. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion.
But, what about those who do believe they are better and do intend to use both military and economic coercion?
In your "world", are we allowed to oppose them with military and economic coercion?
To what extent, if any, are we allowed to oppose in such a manner and just exactly how do you (specifically bugleyman but also anyone in general...) determine what are the appropriate limitations?
If we are not allowed such specific opposition, just exactly how do you propose that such people be opposed?
Are you asking if we are allowed to use force to defend ourselves from oppressors? I would give a big fat 'yes' to that but I've never claimed to be a pacifist.
Are you asking if we are allowed to use force to make those oppressive individuals change their way of thinking? I'd say that is a big waste of time and will likely backfire.
In short, people who resort to "mockery, ostracism, and smear tactics" are morons.
Tarren, I agree with you 100%, and yet I see these very tactics used by people (on both sides of the spectrum) who would otherwise consider themselves "enlightened." (I would also add 'public humiliation' to that list.)
I'm not speaking here only of the hubris of groupthink (Rush Limbaugh's followers or liberal media acting in concert, for example). I have seen this employed on an individual level, sometimes by an individual in a position of authority who theoretically should be intelligent enough to recognize and eliminate the behavior.
I understand having deeply held and cherished beliefs (I have a few myself). I even understand (but don't necessarily agree with) not wanting to question one's own deeply held and questioned beliefs, for whatever reason. But this kind of stuff, I don't get.
4. We're all people. We aren't better because of where we are from, or what god we believe in. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion.
But, what about those who do believe they are better and do intend to use both military and economic coercion?
In your "world", are we allowed to oppose them with military and economic coercion?
To what extent, if any, are we allowed to oppose in such a manner and just exactly how do you (specifically bugleyman but also anyone in general...) determine what are the appropriate limitations?
If we are not allowed such specific opposition, just exactly how do you propose that such people be opposed?
Are you asking if we are allowed to use force to defend ourselves from oppressors? I would give a big fat 'yes' to that but I've never claimed to be a pacifist.
Are you asking if we are allowed to use force to make those oppressive individuals change their way of thinking? I'd say that is a big waste of time and will likely backfire.
+1, as far as that line of reasoning goes. To take it one step further, is one justified in using force to make sure that oppressive individuals cease to oppress others? Does it make a difference if the original action against the oppressor was in one's own defense?
I realize that one may justifiably demand a definition of 'oppresion' before answering the question individually, but hopefully I've gotten the general concept across.
4. We're all people. We aren't better because of where we are from, or what god we believe in. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion.
But, what about those who do believe they are better and do intend to use both military and economic coercion?
In your "world", are we allowed to oppose them with military and economic coercion?
To what extent, if any, are we allowed to oppose in such a manner and just exactly how do you (specifically bugleyman but also anyone in general...) determine what are the appropriate limitations?
If we are not allowed such specific opposition, just exactly how do you propose that such people be opposed?
Are you asking if we are allowed to use force to defend ourselves from oppressors? I would give a big fat 'yes' to that but I've never claimed to be a pacifist.
Are you asking if we are allowed to use force to make those oppressive individuals change their way of thinking? I'd say that is a big waste of time and will likely backfire.
What about aiding others who are being attacked?
But, I was mainly pointing out how difficult it is to "label" such a thing. One person may think that an attack should receive a response. Others will argue that the response should be an "appropriately measured" response. But, any two people willl disagree on what that is.
Case in point:
Hezbollah held many seats in the federal government of Lebanon. Hezbollah was the entire government in southern lebanon.
Hezbollah preplans and executes a strike within Israel where they take hostages and lead Israeli forces back across the border into a staged ambush that secured their getaway while killing more soldiers.
That is an act of war committed by a party that controlled all of southern Lebanon as well as a significant portion of the federal government of Lebanon.
But, when Israel responded they were criticuzed for "over responding" and not correctly limiting their response. The majority of the world said they should have just made some sort of limited response causing only a score or so casualties and that trying to defeat Hezbollah was going farther than the attack warranted.
One side: the response caused too many casualties
Other side: we prefer that our enemy suffer more casualties than we do.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
4. We're all people. We aren't better because of where we are from, or what god we believe in. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion.
But, what about those who do believe they are better and do intend to use both military and economic coercion?
In your "world", are we allowed to oppose them with military and economic coercion?
To what extent, if any, are we allowed to oppose in such a manner and just exactly how do you (specifically bugleyman but also anyone in general...) determine what are the appropriate limitations?
If we are not allowed such specific opposition, just exactly how do you propose that such people be opposed?
Are you asking if we are allowed to use force to defend ourselves from oppressors? I would give a big fat 'yes' to that but I've never claimed to be a pacifist.
Are you asking if we are allowed to use force to make those oppressive individuals change their way of thinking? I'd say that is a big waste of time and will likely backfire.
What about aiding others who are being attacked?
But, I was mainly pointing out how difficult it is to "label" such a thing. One person may think that an attack should receive a response. Others will argue that the response should be an "appropriately measured" response. But, any two people willl disagree on what that is.
Case in point:
Hezbollah held many seats in the federal government of Lebanon. Hezbollah was the entire government in southern lebanon.
Hezbollah preplans and executes a strike within Israel where they take hostages and lead Israeli forces back across the border into a staged ambush that secured their getaway while killing more soldiers.
That is an act of war committed by a party that controlled all of southern Lebanon as well as a significant portion of the federal government of Lebanon.
But, when Israel responded they were...
The example you give does not strike me as being about the use of force to change how someone thinks. Unless I've misunderstood Bugleyman, I'd say it isn't relevant.
Personally, I believe in the judicious use of military force but I don't think that is what Bugleyman meant by, "We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion."
Edit: I surprised it is this particular issue that is generating the most responses. I'm kinda shocked at the number of people who seem to feel that death by starvation is an appropriate punishment for laziness...
They don't. It's just a reactionary response caused by someone's socio-political outlook painting them into a corner. Devoid of application to reality. If a person espousing that viewpoint found themselves in that position they'd be the first to cry "no fair". It's just a lack of empathy and ignorance of the conditions of the less-fortunate in our (or any) society. The fact is that there *are* people who starve to death, not due to laziness, but due to an exploitative economic situation that reduces someone's worth to society to the market value of their labor.
To those who do claim to support the "work or starve" viewpoint, I say come out here to Thailand. Go to Laos, Cambodia, and Burma. Here it truly is "work or starve" for many, and I would imagine the "work" to be a bit more than most Americans could handle. Unemployment insurance? LOL.
Zo
Edit: I surprised it is this particular issue that is generating the most responses. I'm kinda shocked at the number of people who seem to feel that death by starvation is an appropriate punishment for laziness...They don't.
I call BS. Don't put words in my mouth.
"If a man shall not work neither shall he eat." I believe that with all the conviction possible. So don't you dare go saying I don't or that it's some kind of knee-jerk reaction, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Bugger off.
Edit: I surprised it is this particular issue that is generating the most responses. I'm kinda shocked at the number of people who seem to feel that death by starvation is an appropriate punishment for laziness...They don't.I call BS. Don't put words in my mouth.
"If a man shall not work neither shall he eat." I believe that with all the conviction possible. So don't you dare go saying I don't or that it's some kind of knee-jerk reaction, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Bugger off.
LOL. Defensive much?
Zo
Edit: I surprised it is this particular issue that is generating the most responses. I'm kinda shocked at the number of people who seem to feel that death by starvation is an appropriate punishment for laziness...They don't.I call BS. Don't put words in my mouth.
"If a man shall not work neither shall he eat." I believe that with all the conviction possible. So don't you dare go saying I don't or that it's some kind of knee-jerk reaction, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Bugger off.
LOL. Defensive much?
Zo
You basically accused me of lying. I live by a very strict personal code of conduct, and lying is near the very top of the "things I try really really hard to never do". So yes, I am a mite defensive about accusations of breaking that restriction. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from doing so in the future.
You basically accused me of lying. I live by a very strict personal code of conduct, and lying is near the very top of the "things I try really really hard to never do". So yes, I am a mite defensive about accusations of breaking that restriction. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from doing so in the future.Edit: I surprised it is this particular issue that is generating the most responses. I'm kinda shocked at the number of people who seem to feel that death by starvation is an appropriate punishment for laziness...They don't.I call BS. Don't put words in my mouth.
"If a man shall not work neither shall he eat." I believe that with all the conviction possible. So don't you dare go saying I don't or that it's some kind of knee-jerk reaction, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Bugger off.
LOL. Defensive much?
Zo
Ok, first of all, I never accused anyone of lying. Second, lying is verboten, but allowing "the least of us" to starve to death is ok? Is that an accurate interpretation? I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in a place where your personal code of conduct bites you in the posterior, but in the meantime, don't hold others up to your own shining example. We all can't be as moral as you. As this seems to be degenerating into flames very quickly, I'll add that I'm not going to respond further. You can have the last word. I sincerely hope that if you saw someone suffering due to the inability to find or hold a job you would do what you could to help them out. Sorry for any offense.
Zo
Ok, first of all, I never accused anyone of lying.
Actually, yes. You did. I quote:
They don't (feel that death by starvation is an appropriate punishment for laziness). It's just a reactionary response caused by someone's socio-political outlook painting them into a corner.
When I specifically stated that I felt otherwise (see my posts in the first third of the thread), you said this. That is essentially saying "No, he's lying".
Second, lying is verboten, but allowing "the least of us" to starve to death is ok? Is that an accurate interpretation?
Note the specification: "through choice". IE when they make no actions of their own to amend their situation. IE, Laziness. Note that in my earlier posts, I specifically said that I would be willing to offer aid and encouragement to anyone who at least put an effort towards correcting their situation, even if it failed. Only those who make no effort whatsoever are doomed to whatever fate befalls them.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in a place where your personal code of conduct bites you in the posterior
Have multiple times. It's something you have to grow used to.
but in the meantime, don't hold others up to your own shining example. We all can't be as moral as you.
When did I claim to be? On either account?
|
Um, I don't know about your state, but in Texas, the former employer pays unemployment insurance. I don't "pay in" to anything here.
Well, up here in Jersey and Pennsylvania we pay a token amount into the unemployment insurance fund and the state disability fund in addition to whatever the employer pays. From looking at my last stub before I was laid off for Christmas, it seems to be 1% of gross or a hair under that for both funds. Not sure what the employers contribution is.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The position is that those who are capable but refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement would NOT be serviced by others. You know kinda like a socially enforced slaves to the lazy?
In Canada, people who are capable of working but refuse to are called conservative party members.
The position is that those who are capable but refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement would NOT be serviced by others. You know kinda like a socially enforced slaves to the lazy?
In Canada, people who are capable of working but refuse to are called conservative party members.
And now you're going to have to give Stephen Harper a handout.
To those who do claim to support the "work or starve" viewpoint, I say come out here to Thailand. Go to Laos, Cambodia, and Burma. Here it truly is "work or starve" for many, and I would imagine the "work" to be a bit more than most Americans could handle. Unemployment insurance? LOL.
I've always avoided participation in any of the political discussions here at Paizo. But this statement made me perk up. Let me explain why.
My wife came from Laos. At age 4, her entire family had to relocate to a refugee camp in Thailand. So she's seen exactly what DigMarx is describing. She lived it for the next 6 years, trying to subsist in conditions that can only be described as abject poverty. Fortunately, a variety of Christian missionaries from the US and France helped minister to their people, providing food, clothes, shelter, schools, you-name-it...and when the Thai government grew exhausted hosting such an influx of refugees, the missionaires eventually worked with their respective governments to open a path for immigration into France or America.
So, in 1984, my wife came to the US. And, since then, she has never looked back, except to use her experiences as motivation to achieve a better life for herself and our children. She would be one of the very first to say that people should work for what they receive in life. She's not opposed to charity, though. Without the assistance of those Christian missionaries, she very well could have starved to death in that refugee camp. But, she's also very much opposed to the notion that a government can take from those who have worked hard to give to those who aren't even making an effort to work.
The bottom line difference here is that there are other vehicles (i.e., non-profit, non-government charities) that can see to ensuring people never starve. It isn't the government's role to do that, except in cases where people simply cannot work to provide for themselves due to health reasons or similar constraints.
I'll go back to lurking now, but I thought it might be interesting to widen the discussion on that element of the OP's point to include a "government vs. charitable organization" comparison on who's better-suited to minister to those living without the basic necessities of life. Not everyone in society wants their hard-earned gains to be redistributed to those who seemingly intend to live off such handouts rather than have the courage to work their way out of their lot in life. When governments force successful citizens to support such people (through taxation), that's what stirs up class warfare. On the flip side, though, charitable organizations take voluntary donations from those who have both the means and the will to give to these causes.
Incorrect. The position was not that people who are making effort would starve. The position is that those who are capable but refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement would NOT be serviced by others. You know kinda like a socially enforced slaves to the lazy?
We already have that situation; we refer to those who refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement the idle rich. I can assure you that they are most definitely serviced by others.
|
|
We already have that situation; we refer to those who refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement the idle rich. I can assure you that they are most definitely serviced by others.Incorrect. The position was not that people who are making effort would starve. The position is that those who are capable but refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement would NOT be serviced by others. You know kinda like a socially enforced slaves to the lazy?
But Paris Hilton doesn't count. :)
But, what about those who do believe they are better and do intend to use both military and economic coercion?In your "world", are we allowed to oppose them with military and economic coercion?
To what extent, if any, are we allowed to oppose in such a manner and just exactly how do you (specifically bugleyman but also anyone in general...) determine what are the appropriate limitations?
If we are not allowed such specific opposition, just exactly how do you propose that such people be opposed?
Self-defense is acceptable.
As for "exactly" what constitutes self-defense: I can't pretend to provide a set of comprehensive rules to cover every possible situation; indeed such a task is impossible, a fact that in no way undermines my position.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Many immigrants to Canada come here with a strong work ethic and are generally opposed to government handouts. Not having become accustomed to a belief that the government should provide for your every need, they are responsible for themselves. As a result, the percentage of immigrants receiving social assistance is no greater than the percentage of non-immigrants receiving social assistance.* This is despite the economic disruption, lack of recognition of credentials earned at foreign universities, and challenges that may be posed by a language barrier.
There remains in Canada, however, a strong public perception that immigrants are more likely to collect social assistance than non-immigrants. Is the same true of the United States?
* Refugee class immigrants -- for example, those who have been accepted to Canada due to fear of persecution in their home country -- have slightly higher rates of social assistance than non-immigrants.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Interesting post, Mr. Spicer.
It does have an impact on the 'work or starve' stories.
Two anecdotes:
(And if I offer to help and you turn me down, don't whine to me when your problem persists and you 'don't know what to do'.)
Second one
Mom: I don't understand some of my welfare clients here in Ohio
Me: Why's that?
Mom: Well, they're disabled, but they wouldn't be in Florida. So they get assistance here, but they could work.
Me: Ok, so they don't have to work.
Mom: Right, but they can.
Me: So they don't have to work, but are able to. So they choose not to work.
Mom: And I don't understand why they don't work.
Me: *slowly bangs head against desk as mom fails again to make the leap.*
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
We already have that situation; we refer to those who refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement the idle rich. I can assure you that they are most definitely serviced by others.Incorrect. The position was not that people who are making effort would starve. The position is that those who are capable but refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement would NOT be serviced by others. You know kinda like a socially enforced slaves to the lazy?
The idle rich are living off the work they've accumulated, either by their efforts or the efforts of their families to provide for them. They're still spending capital of their own will.
Look at Gaming. I spend easily $100 a month on gaming stuff. I'm not 'idle rich' by any means. But I am spending captial on things that have no intrinsic value beyond the value assigned by the creators and that I'm willing to pay for it. If I want to give my gaming books as an inheritance to my kids, why shouldn't I? If I hit the lotto tomorrow, and get 80 bajillion dollars, why shouldn't my hypothetical kids and grandkids live off the result of my winnings? If I make the next Monopoly game, same thing?
I'll go back to lurking now, but I thought it might be interesting to widen the discussion on that element of the OP's point to include a "government vs. charitable organization" comparison on who's better-suited to minister to those living without the basic necessities of life. Not everyone in society wants their hard-earned gains in life to be redistributed to those who seemingly intend to live off such handouts rather than have the courage to work their way out of their lot in life. When governments force successful citizens to support such people (through taxation), that's what stirs up class warfare. On the flip side, though, charitable organizations take voluntary donations from those who have both the means and the will to give to these causes.
To me, the crux of the conflict is the belief that poor people "intend to live off such handouts rather than have the courage to work their way out of their lot in life." Of course, anyone who has actually been in this situation knows better.
I grew up extremely poor. My family collected food stamps, I ate government surplus cheese and rice. There were times when I would have gone hungry without such programs, and yet my family wasn't lazy. They made some bad choices, but they worked A LOT. Poor people who choose to remain poor out of laziness might exist, but I've never met them. Instead, I've met a lot of people born into particularly bad circumstances, treated unfairly, and just plain exploited for the benefit of people thousands of times as wealthy.
A tiny sliver of us are so fantastically rich that we could never, ever spend our wealth, while others live on the verge of starvation. Most of us muddle on in between. This is not a new situation. What is new is that the fantastically rich have somehow managed to convince a good chunk of the working class that the real enemy is the extremely poor group at the bottom! "Get mad at that guy over there, who is "leeching" off you with his $200 a month food stamp benefit, but don't pay attention to the guy over there who inherited 18 BILLION dollars, but has never worked a day in his life." Huh. Good trick, that.
Many immigrants to Canada come here with a strong work ethic and are generally opposed to government handouts. Not having become accustomed to a belief that the government should provide for your every need, they are responsible for themselves. As a result, the percentage of immigrants receiving social assistance is no greater than the percentage of non-immigrants receiving social assistance.* This is despite the economic disruption, lack of recognition of credentials earned at foreign universities, and challenges that may be posed by a language barrier.
There remains in Canada, however, a strong public perception that immigrants are more likely to collect social assistance than non-immigrants. Is the same true of the United States?
* Refugee class immigrants -- for example, those who have been accepted to Canada due to fear of persecution in their home country -- have slightly higher rates of social assistance than non-immigrants.
From what I've read, Tamils in Canada highlight your last point, and they also seem to be the focus for many complaints about people living off of the government.
I think the perception is the same in the US, but a lot of that stems from bigotry more than anything else. My experience has been that many first-generation immigrants work exceptionally hard to make a better life for themselves and their children.
Is the same true of the United States?
Interesting question, Trevor. As in most things, the answer is, "It depends." :-)
Lately, discussing immigrants to the US opens up the can of worms involving "illegal immigration"...specifically, the influx of Latino workers across the Mexican border. That situation most certainly colors public perception regarding immigration and government handouts. The amnesty bill, for instance, could be viewed as a government handout of full citizenship. But even without that bill's passage, a number of illegal immigrants take advantage of government-provided services here in America...and, if they're not paying taxes (some do, some don't), that further enflames the issue.
With regards to refugee immigrants, there's certainly an amount of ongoing government sponsorship (i.e., handouts, if you want to describe them that way) that goes on. But it's always limited. My wife's family, for instance, didn't have to pay taxes for a certain number of years when they first arrived. This was done to allow her people to settle here, learn the language, adjust to the culture, and otherwise establish themselves before expecting them to become full contributing members to the tax rolls.
Other than those two big elements, I don't think the established US population views social assistance as being any more highly directed at immigrants than any other needy component of society. We're such a melting pot to begin with...and the core underpinning of America revolves around immigrants coming to America, integrating, and the contributing their sub-culture and talents to the greater whole.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
The idle rich are living off the work they've accumulated, either by their efforts or the efforts of their families to provide for them. They're still spending capital of their own will.
Look at Gaming. I spend easily $100 a month on gaming stuff. I'm not 'idle rich' by any means. But I am spending captial on things that have no intrinsic value beyond the value assigned by the creators and that I'm willing to pay for it. If I want to give my gaming books as an inheritance to my kids, why shouldn't I? If I hit the lotto tomorrow, and get 80 bajillion dollars, why shouldn't my hypothetical kids and grandkids live off the result of my winnings? If I make the next Monopoly game, same thing?
How about because they've never contributed anything to the economy, or to society? If you're going to argue that we have a meritocracy (which I don't believe, but let's suppose), you're still hard-pressed to explain to me why someone's descendants, who may have no merit of their own, should be allowed to literally be supported by the labor of others. The whole idea of a market economy is to reward the clever, the risk takers, those who contribute to the greatest efficiency for everyone. Suppose their offspring do not meet this criteria (because if they did, presumably they'd accumulate their own fortunes).
What is the benefit to society?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ah, Immigration.
I can sum up my feelings on that pretty simply.
I have a friend who emigrated to the UK, because her husband to be couldn't immigrate here. (stupid, since he's actually skilled and tech savy) I have another friend who immigrated here from the Phillipines and had to get the work visa, go through all the hoops and finally got her citizenship approved 5 years later. Why should they have to go through all the hoops and everything, and someone who was born on the other side of the border walk across (breaking a law) and then be rewarded for it? Aren't we punishing honesty then?
And Bugley? Why should I "pay attention to the guy over there who inherited 18 BILLION dollars, but has never worked a day in his life?" His family did well, good for him. I may envy him, but I don't feel the need to punish him with a higher tax rate or hold him in contempt. Hells, I want my kids to be like him. My dad sent me to college for the shot of my kids being like him, and not busting their backs in a warehouse for 30 years like my dad did.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
How about because they've never contributed anything to the economy, or to society? <snip>
Who are we to decide? If I take my 80 bajillion dollars and spend it on cars boats and yachts, well I've contributed by providing a market for cars, boats, and yachts.
Or to put it another way...
<Margaret Sanger> Why not steralize the poor and the under-achievers? They'll contribute less to society than they consume, resulting in a net loss</Margaret Sanger>.
If you're arguing we should penalize people because of the success of their parents, then where do we stop?
And Bugley? Why should I "pay attention to the guy over there who inherited 18 BILLION dollars, but has never worked a day in his life?" His family did well, good for him. I may envy him, but I don't feel the need to punish him with a higher tax rate or hold him in contempt. Hells, I want my kids to be like him. My dad sent me to college for the shot of my kids being like him, and not busting their backs in a warehouse for 30 years like my dad did.
So, is it fair to say that you hold a lazy man from a rich family in high regard, but you find a lazy man from a poor family contemptible?
|
And Bugley? Why should I "pay attention to the guy over there who inherited 18 BILLION dollars, but has never worked a day in his life?" His family did well, good for him. I may envy him, but I don't feel the need to punish him with a higher tax rate or hold him in contempt. Hells, I want my kids to be like him. My dad sent me to college for the shot of my kids being like him, and not busting their backs in a warehouse for 30 years like my dad did.So, is it fair to say that you hold a lazy man from a rich family in high regard, but you find a lazy man from a poor family contemptible?
I think he's saying he doesn't care as long as he isn't required to pay for either.
Who are we to decide? If I take my 80 bajillion dollars and spend it on cars boats and yachts, well I've contributed by providing a market for cars, boats, and yachts.Or to put it another way...
<Margaret Sanger> Why not steralize the poor and the under-achievers? They'll contribute less to society than they consume, resulting in a net loss</Margaret Sanger>.
We don't have to decide; the much-vaunted market that produced the ultra-rich family in the first place will surely reward our hypothetical scion on his own merits, will it not?
If you're arguing we should penalize people because of the success of their parents, then where do we stop?
I'm not. I'm arguing we judge everyone on their own merits.
I think he's saying he doesn't care as long as he isn't required to pay for either.And Bugley? Why should I "pay attention to the guy over there who inherited 18 BILLION dollars, but has never worked a day in his life?" His family did well, good for him. I may envy him, but I don't feel the need to punish him with a higher tax rate or hold him in contempt. Hells, I want my kids to be like him. My dad sent me to college for the shot of my kids being like him, and not busting their backs in a warehouse for 30 years like my dad did.So, is it fair to say that you hold a lazy man from a rich family in high regard, but you find a lazy man from a poor family contemptible?
No, he specifically expressed contempt for those too lazy to provide for themselves earlier in the thread.
And as it turns out, we all have to pay for both. One just costs a LOT more than the other.
The point is that we can have two people, equally lazy, and one is lauded and worthy of envy, while the other is reviled and worthy of contempt. Unless you believe you somehow choose your ancestors, there is no difference at all in the behavior or work ethic of these hypothetical individuals.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think he's saying he doesn't care as long as he isn't required to pay for either.And Bugley? Why should I "pay attention to the guy over there who inherited 18 BILLION dollars, but has never worked a day in his life?" His family did well, good for him. I may envy him, but I don't feel the need to punish him with a higher tax rate or hold him in contempt. Hells, I want my kids to be like him. My dad sent me to college for the shot of my kids being like him, and not busting their backs in a warehouse for 30 years like my dad did.So, is it fair to say that you hold a lazy man from a rich family in high regard, but you find a lazy man from a poor family contemptible?
No, he specifically expressed contempt for those too lazy to provide for themselves earlier in the thread.
And as it turns out, we all have to pay for both. One just costs a LOT more than the other...
Where did I express contempt? And why do I have to pay for your billionare? And why do you hate the billionare but not the lazy poor guy?
How about because they've never contributed anything to the economy, or to society? If you're going to argue that we have a meritocracy (which I don't believe, but let's suppose), you're still hard-pressed to explain to me why someone's descendants, who may have no merit of their own, should be allowed to literally be supported by the labor of others. The whole idea of a market economy is to reward the clever, the risk takers, those who contribute to the greatest efficiency for everyone. Suppose their offspring do not meet this criteria (because if they did, presumably they'd accumulate their own fortunes).
What is the benefit to society?
Please.
If I strike it rich one day and end up with more money than I can spend in my lifetime I fully intend to leave it to my children so they can enjoy life more than I did. Of course having money doesn't guarantee happiness but it sure makes for one less thing to worry about. Coming from having very little to having a medium amount, I dream that one day I will be comfortable, able to afford to buy toys that I enjoy, whether those toys be $2000 off-road vehicles, an extensive library of gaming materials, or a $1 million yacht. If I earn the money somehow you have no right to tell me how I can spend it. If I want to blow it all on crack and hookers go F yourself, its my money, I earned it, I'll either blow it or invest it however I like. If I lose it all in a casino, my bad. If I invest it and it grows over time such that I have a lot left over after I kick off and I grant it to my descendants, so be it. If my kids live 100% of their lives off of the money I earned, so be it. Its not like they are living off of you, or your charity, they are living off of me and my good fortune (or good smarts, one or the other).
There doesn't always have to be a benefit to society. To me each person has a responsibility to themselves to ensure that at the end of their days they look back and can say honestly to themselves, "it was worth it" or "I had a good ride". If that means sitting on your ass all day doing heroine with the money I granted you in my will... if that's what gives you that "it was all worth it" moment at the end, then good deal. All each person can do is try to make sure their own life was an overall positive experience (while also trying not to reduce the chances of others being able to say the same thing). Sure this may sound like hedonism, and maybe it is, but as I grow older I become more confident of that philosophy. After all, I do not comfort myself with thoughts of an afterlife so I tell myself to make sure to get the most out of this life... I get only one, I better not waste it.
And by the way, while some of the above may sound hostile, its not directed at anyone in particular, more just in general.
So, is it fair to say that you hold a lazy man from a rich family in high regard, but you find a lazy man from a poor family contemptible?
While I will not speak for the person you are replying to, I will state my opinion (FWIW).
If there is a lazy man from a rich family, living off the charity of his ancestors, he is not living off of me. He is not taking anything from me. I hold him in neutral regard.
If there is a lazy man from a poor family, living off the charity of society, then he is living off of me, and in some respects reducing my own quality of life due to his own laziness. He is stealing from me. I hold him in negative regard.
To me, the crux of the conflict is the belief that poor people "intend to live off such handouts rather than have the courage to work their way out of their lot in life." Of course, anyone who has actually been in this situation knows better.
I came from a pretty poor family as well. Today, I'm much better off than my parents, and they're very happy about that, because it's exactly what they wanted for me. But the "before and after" of my life absolutely pales in comparison to my wife. Even the poorest person in America has no idea what it's like to live for 6 years in a refugee camp in Southeast Asia after being displaced by the ravages of the Vietnam War.
And yet, both she and I question how much government assistance poor people in America seem to require. Is it about providing them the necessities of life (i.e., food, clothing, shelter)? Or is it about subsidizing those things for them so they can spend their own remaining money on the "luxuries" society offers? I'm not questioning your experience, bugleyman. I get what you're describing. But there are examples (even brought up in this thread) about people who abuse the system in this manner.
If someone who is poor throws away money on drugs or a luxury car or expensive cellphones or music or games, and so on...all while the government picks up the tab on the other stuff...are we really achieving the end-goal of giving them a "hand up" in society? My wife and I would say, "Probably not." Because that incents them to live off the government for the basics...which really translates to living off everyone else, because it's the tax dollars of those who work that get used to support them in that way.
Now, if you juxtapose that with the government only assisting those facing real hardships (i.e., the previously mentioned health issues and other factors that truly prevent some from working)...while also letting churches and charities assist the poor with food banks, soup kitchens, Toys-for-Tots programs at Christmas, and so on...that makes sure tax dollars get used for those who really need it...and it allows the voluntary donations of the "wealthy" (some of whom aren't that wealthy but still want to contribute) to pick up those other families who might have the basics covered but could use some additional assistance in climbing higher than the basic poverty line.
Where did I express contempt? And why do I have to pay for your billionare? And why do you hate the billionare but not the lazy poor guy?
Explicitly? No where. I was confusing you with Orthos. My bad.
As for who I hate, or don't, it is beside the point, but for the record, I don't hate either.
You have to pay for billionaires because they're consuming resources while producing none, just like the poor guy. Only by arbitrary accounting is one more of a burden on society than the other. By tacit agreement we decide that one starts with a pile of resources, while the other does not. After all, money has no * intrinsic* value.
Please.If I strike it rich one day and end up with more money than I can spend in my lifetime I fully intend to leave it to my children so they can enjoy life more than I did. Of course having money doesn't guarantee happiness but it sure makes for one less thing to worry about. Coming from having very little to having a medium amount, I dream that one day I will be comfortable, able to afford to buy toys that I enjoy, whether those toys be $2000 off-road vehicles, an extensive library of gaming materials, or a $1 million yacht. If I earn the money somehow you have no right to tell me how I can spend it. If I want to blow it all on crack and hookers go F yourself, its my money, I earned it, I'll either blow it or invest it however I like. If I lose it all in a casino, my bad. If I invest it and it grows over time such that I have a lot left over after I kick off and I grant it to my descendants, so be it. If my kids live 100% of their lives off of the money I earned, so be it. Its not like they are living off of you, or your charity, they are living off of me and my good fortune (or good smarts, one or the other).
There doesn't always have to be a benefit to society. To me each person has a responsibility to themselves to ensure that at the end of their days they look back and can say honestly to themselves, "it was worth it" or "I had...
The entire justification for individuals accumulating fantastic sums of wealth is that they're "worth it." To whom might they be worth it, if not their fellow man?
|
|
If a person sees a homeless guy and brings him soup, bread, and water, I'd think he was a really nice guy.
If instead he walked right by him ignoring him, my opinion of him would be pretty neutral. Not a saint, not a villain.
If while walking by, he was confronted by a stranger who forced him (at gunpoint) to go to the store and buy soup, bread, and water and bring it to the homeless guy, I'd think the guy with the gun was a real ____ (rhymes with stick).
|
|
I tend to judge people based on whether they are a drain to society. The rich, lazy dude isn't a drain on society so I have no problems with him. I may not like his personality or mannerisms but that really doesn't negatively effect me unless you add fame into the equation and then you have a rolemodel for sloth which I would not like. But he still isn't a drain on the resources of society.
In contrast, someone that is able to work (mentally and physically) but makes a decision not to and believes that it is his right to have the "dummies" who have some sort of work ethic support him is the lowest of the low to me and doesn't deserve a lick of help IMO. Hunger, poor health from lack of care and the other factors of poverty should help such a person to make a decision to take the job that will help feed and clothe him and any possible offspring he decides to populate the planet with.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I suspect that the difference in opinions on the lazy rich vs. lazy poor is closely connected to the difference in opinions on whether we live in meritocracies.
I grew up fairly poor and worked my ass off to be in the soon-to-be somewhat comfortable situation I'm in. Along the way, I encountered countless roadblocks that would not have been there if my parents had money. I went to terrible schools where violence was rampant and programs were underfunded. In university, I quickly learnt to adopt a more urban accent so I wouldn't be thought of as dumb for sounding like a country hick. During my PhD, I had to work full-time while some of my colleagues took much longer to complete their degrees enjoying the benefits of both parental support and government subsidized education (those lazy rich do get paid for by the rest of us).
Yes, it is possible for people to overcome the challenges thrown in their path, but in a true meritocracy, the kids from poor families would not need to work four times as hard as the kids from rich families. The same opportunities would be afforded to each, based upon merit.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You have to pay for billionaires because they're consuming resources while producing none, just like the poor guy. Only by arbitrary accounting is one more of a burden on society than the other. By tacit agreement we decide that one starts with a pile of resources, while the other does not. After all, money has no * intrinsic* value.
Where did I express contempt? And why do I have to pay for your billionare? And why do you hate the billionare but not the lazy poor guy?
Ok, I don't follow.
He doesn't need to produce any, he has them already. If I win/earn 7 bajillion dollars, and quit tomorrow, I'll never produce a resource again. I'll be living off my stockpile.
If I croak and my kids inherit it, it's still resources that were produced, and given freely.
This is my problem with the estate tax, BTW. It's my money, I should be able to do with it whatever I want. It was taxed once as income, so why should it be taxed again because I want to do something besides give it to the government?
I came from a pretty poor family as well. Today, I'm much better off than my parents, and they're very happy about that, because it's exactly what they wanted for me. But the "before and after" of my life absolutely pales in comparison to my wife. Even the poorest person in America has no idea what it's like to live for 6 years in a refugee camp in Southeast Asia after being displaced by the ravages of the Vietnam War.
And yet, both she and I question how much government assistance poor people in America seem to require. Is it about providing them the necessities of life (i.e., food, clothing, shelter)? Or is it about subsidizing those things for them so they can spend their own remaining money on the "luxuries" society offers? I'm not questioning your experience, bugleyman. I get what you're describing. But there are examples (even brought up in this thread) about people who abuse the system in this manner.
I don't believe that there are that many people who fit the scenario you describe, but I have only my experience to go by, so I may be naive. And as "poor" as I was growing up, I have no illusions that it was in any way comparable to your wife's experience.
If someone who is poor throws away money on drugs or a luxury car or expensive cellphones or music or games, and so on...all while the government picks up the tab on the other stuff...are we really achieving the end-goal of giving them a "hand up" in society? My wife and I would say, "Probably not." Because that incents them to live off the government for the basics...which really translates to living off everyone else, because it's the tax dollars of those who work that get used to support them in that way.
I agree that the goal in this case is NOT being served. Remember, I'm not an advocate for the system as it currently exists. I said only that no one should be allowed to starve.
Now, if you juxtapose that with the government only assisting those facing real hardships (i.e., the previously mentioned health issues and other factors that truly prevent some from working)...while also letting churches and charities assist the poor with food banks, soup kitchens, Toys-for-Tots programs at Christmas, and so on...that makes sure tax dollars get used for those who really need it...and it allows the voluntary donations of the "wealthy" (some of who aren't that wealthy but still want to contribute) to pick up those other families who might have the basics covered but could use some additional assistance in climbing higher than the basic poverty line.
That's a fine theoretical model; I just don't think it's happening that way now. Many, many people with health issues, real mental problems, etc. seem to be falling through the cracks.