|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 13, 2007 20:49:45 GMT -4
There is now a collective insurance system that guarantees a decent level of income for all people who for some reason can't provide for themselves.
We have something like this too and if you are ever in Chicago, there are some public housing projects that I can recommend that you visit.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 13, 2007 21:32:14 GMT -4
Call it 'socialism' if you want, but we think that having to accept charity is undignifying, and that poverty is an undesirable social phenomenon. I agree. But I'm not sure what distinguishes charity from the government dole you describe. Does the fact that it's the government providing your handout make it more dignified than earning it yourself? Who's "we"? Somewhere in Europe, I would guess? So is my own church. I consider the proper order of who to go to when you need help to be: 1. Family. 2. Church. 3. Government.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 13, 2007 21:50:00 GMT -4
In fact, if your government is providing you charity, that basically means the government is extorting your hand out from your fellow citizens, rather than relying on their own charitable impulses.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Dec 14, 2007 5:05:09 GMT -4
Call it 'socialism' if you want, but we think that having to accept charity is undignifying, and that poverty is an undesirable social phenomenon. I agree. But I'm not sure what distinguishes charity from the government dole you describe. Does the fact that it's the government providing your handout make it more dignified than earning it yourself? Charity is voluntary and can be withheld. Income is a citizens right. It is not a handout. A row of stiff, haughty men in black behind a high desk staring down on you while you hold your cap in your hand, trying to speak the high tongue. That's what it used to be like. Work is certainly more satisfying. Financially, socially, and psychologically. But there are often not enough jobs for all the people who could work, and plenty of people who can't work. Who's "we"? Somewhere in Europe, I would guess? NLD is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code of the Netherlands. Charitable institutions are mostly active in third world countries. So is my own church. I consider the proper order of who to go to when you need help to be: 1. Family. 2. Church. 3. Government. Because of the social services you won't need to ask for help. Citizens are considered to be sovereign individuals. Society at large doesn't care whether or not you are associated with a religious organisation. And 42% of the people aren't. Nowadays churches here tend to be cash-strapped, leaking roofs and all. In fact, if your government is providing you charity, that basically means the government is extorting your hand out from your fellow citizens, rather than relying on their own charitable impulses. The Dutch produce more charitable funds per capita then any other nation. But they tend to give to causes, rather then organisations. And the rich don't complain (much), they know darn well things could have been different for themselves. Not having a destitute underclass is actually good for the economy, public safety, and social rest. We happen to be a democracy. Taxations/premiums are a matter of law, we voted for them. We are wealthy, and we think we can afford it. And wouldn't a collection in church not be a form of social extortion? I mean, everybody is watching. “that everyone shall remain free in religion and that no one may be persecuted or investigated because of religion” - Union of Utrecht (1579)
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Dec 14, 2007 6:52:21 GMT -4
Provate charity tends to come with strings attached; viz some of the criticisms of Mother Theresa of Calcutta.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 14, 2007 12:10:43 GMT -4
Charity is voluntary and can be withheld. Income is a citizens right. It is not a handout. Income should not be a right. When income becomes a right rather than something earned the only incentive to work or to do your job well becomes "dignity", and dignity is an insufficient incentive in many cases. A government safety net kills the work ethic and slowly poisons productivity, unless there are incentives built into it to get back out of the net - cut off dates or requirements to actively seek jobs while receiving assistance. Admittedly there are some people who really can't work, and who should therefore receive assistance, but the number of people who really can't work is much smaller than the number who are unwilling to work. Those who are unwilling rather than unable to work should not be given a free ride. Actually now that I think about it I think you mentioned you were from the Netherlands in another thread somewhere. As it happens I lived in the Netherlands for a couple years in the early '90s, so I'm fairly familiar with the country (and I speak Dutch - or at least I spoke it when I lived there, it's hard to keep it in practice wihtout hearing it every day). Which is a problem. The need to ask for help is a good incentive to help yourself, and to support yourself again as soon as you can. A nice PC slogan, but I don't see that it really helps people acheive something with their lives. Neither do many charitable associations in the US. Which is really sad, as many of the Dutch churchs are wonderful buildings that really should be preserved, even if no one is using them for the purpose they were built for anymore. Source? I've heard it said that the US produces more charitable funds per capita than any other nation. Forgive me for saying so, but there is an underclass in the Netherlands. They're fairly passive since they do get a taxpayer-funded apartment and TV, and can spend their days just watching TV and smoking hash rather than burning cars in the street like they seem to enjoy doing in France, but they are not productive members of society, and there's no incentive for them to make themselves such. True. But do you think the majority of people pay their taxes because they find it a worthwhile social duty, or because they know they'll be fined and sent to jail if they don't pay? And how often have Dutch taxes been decreased since these socialist programs began? If memory serves, Dutch taxes about twice what they are in the U.S. Not the way my church does it, where it's not a public collection and therefore nobody is watching to see if you donated or not. Only the local leader of your congrergation will be aware of how much you donated or whether you donated anything at all, and they do not exert pressure on individuals to donate.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 14, 2007 15:08:21 GMT -4
A row of stiff, haughty men in black behind a high desk staring down on you while you hold your cap in your hand, trying to speak the high tongue. That's what it used to be like. Not to mention the complaints against the "undeserving" poor. As if it matters if the parent drinks when providing for the child. And here in the US, the process for getting help for those who can't work is long and slow. You have to show that you're completely destitute to qualify for any government assistance. You're not allowed to save money. If you have any saved, you can be disqualified, even for medical insurance, even if you have a major condition that needs treatment and can no longer work. Heck, in theory, family heirlooms can disqualify you, even if you would never sell them. Simply having them if they're worth more than a few dollars means you could sell them and live on the proceeds. Or shouldn't, anyway. Certainly it shouldn't take meeting someone's moral approval to keep off the streets, fed, and medically cared for. Especially since we've seen how narrow-minded some people's morals are. (Now, I should think you'd at least need to fill out an application. But you shouldn't have to meet with someone else's judgement about the state of your soul.) You'll never convince some people of that. Just as you'll never convince some people that it's in their own best interests to make sure that everyone gets health care--to prevent epidemics, if nothing else. And some churches consider your place in Heaven to be jeopardized by whether or not you tithe. No matter what the tithe is used for.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 14, 2007 15:41:26 GMT -4
Income is a citizens right.
That is a contradiction. It says that the people who earned the money don't have a right to their income and that its disposition is ultimately up to the state. A right defines boundaries of freedom. It is not a claim on someone else's property.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Dec 14, 2007 15:46:49 GMT -4
" among these are life ... "
A right to life implies a right not to die of thirst, starvation or other humanly-avoidable cause, which in turn implies some form of income ...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 14, 2007 15:51:27 GMT -4
The right to life mentioned is not a right to force others to support you. It is a right to not be unjustly deprived of your life by the actions of others.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 14, 2007 16:18:40 GMT -4
Would you argue that "a right to life" also includes the right to force others to donate a kidney or lung in order to save someone? That's a "humanly avoidable" cause, and you can get by with only one kidney or lung. How about abortion?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 14, 2007 16:20:24 GMT -4
" among these are life ... "A right to life implies a right not to die of thirst, starvation or other humanly-avoidable cause, which in turn implies some form of income ... A right to life means you have a right not to have the government take your life or your means to support your life away from you without due process. No one has the right to compel others to support them.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Dec 14, 2007 17:11:37 GMT -4
As ever, any absolute position inevitably leads to contradictions ;D
Personally, I would say that medical intervention such as transplantation involves risk to both donor and recipient, rendering any saving of life a matter of probability rather than certainty. I therefore wouldn't attempt to justify forcing a living donor to contribute any body part. Cadavers on the other hand don't need theirs, so there's a definite case for making organ donation an opt-out rather than an opt-in as it generally is at present.
Similarly with abortion, one party is quite definitely a human, the other has varying degrees of probability that it may survive to become so. Subject to time-limits (which will vary given advances in medical technology) based on the ability of the foetus to survive independently, I'm in favour of allowing abortion.
I suppose for some people their wallet could be considered a major organ ...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 14, 2007 17:36:40 GMT -4
A right to life implies a right not to die of thirst, starvation or other humanly-avoidable cause, which in turn implies some form of income ...
That is opposite of the actual purpose of rights. A right is more like a fence that demarcates the space you live your life in. Rights are required in a social context to keep people from stepping on each other. Alice taking income from Bob violates Bob's right to his own life. It could be argued that Bob should help Alice, but only a voluntary transfer respects Bob's right to his own life.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 14, 2007 17:58:23 GMT -4
Personally, I would say that medical intervention such as transplantation involves risk to both donor and recipient, rendering any saving of life a matter of probability rather than certainty. I therefore wouldn't attempt to justify forcing a living donor to contribute any body part. Providing an income to a person doesn't make their survival a certainty either. What if they spend it all on drugs, gambling, and women? There is a case for it, but the right to decide what is done with your own body parts - even when you aren't actively using them anymore - trumps that. I am registered as an organ donar in case the worst were to happen to me, but I can understand why others may not be comfortable doing the same. And it's not like they can be put back after they're put in someone else. So if someone has a low probability of survival anyway you see no problem in actively killing them? Who decides when the probability of survival is low enough to allow you to kill a person?
|
|