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 18:10:31 GMT -4
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? Not what I said at all.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 14, 2007 18:50:17 GMT -4
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? Not what I said at all. It was more for rhetorical effect than a serious comparison. ;D
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Dec 15, 2007 4:12:01 GMT -4
That's why it's called pro-choice. The mother retains the right to decide what happens to her and her foetus.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 15, 2007 12:09:05 GMT -4
And the "foetus" - otherwise known as a baby - gets no choice at all.
"Sorry little one - your existence was inconvenient to your mother, and you couldn't survive without her - so of course she had the right to have you killed. It was her choice."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 15, 2007 13:18:50 GMT -4
That's why it's called pro-choice.
Good. Now can we open up to the notion of being pro-choice for charity, that is, not having the state choose, but letting the individual choose to fund charitable causes at his or her own discretion?
|
|
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 15, 2007 13:20:32 GMT -4
Last time you had a tooth extracted, how much choice did you give the tooth?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 15, 2007 14:05:27 GMT -4
That's why it's called pro-choice.Good. Now can we open up to the notion of being pro-choice for charity, that is, not having the state choose, but letting the individual choose to fund charitable causes at his or her own discretion? Exactly. Given that helping the poor is a good thing, isn't helping the poor by choice a better thing?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 15, 2007 14:06:01 GMT -4
Last time you had a tooth extracted, how much choice did you give the tooth? Teeth are not potential human beings.
|
|
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 15, 2007 15:11:39 GMT -4
A potential human being doesn't get to outvote an actual human being.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 15, 2007 15:25:59 GMT -4
Unfortunately.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 15, 2007 15:49:03 GMT -4
A potential human being doesn't get to outvote an actual human being. I disagree. The truly innocent deserve more protection from the law, not less.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 15, 2007 16:32:14 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 15, 2007 17:09:53 GMT -4
Obviously that is intended to be funny, but sperm by themselves are not potential human beings either.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Dec 15, 2007 19:49:35 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. Minimum wages are considerably higher, and few workers are in that scale. So money certainly is an incentive. And of cause there are requirements or other incentives. Vocational retraining is a big thing these days, the economy is forever changing. But private companies are profit driven, they are considerably less likely to hire someone they think has a flaw. Lots of people who can't be placed in the money economy make themselves useful doing things private businesses don't see a profit in. 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.When there are not enough paying jobs to go around, how do you tell them apart? There are a lot more people looking for jobs then there are people technically unemployed. Zero unemployment would be a nice thing, but nobody has figured that one out yet. Which is really sad, as many of the Dutch churches are wonderful buildings that really should be preserved, even if no one is using them for the purpose they were built for anymore.There is an extensive subsidy system to upkeep and restore national monuments, churches included. But there are many of them, and traditional church buildings are difficult to convert to other purposes. Many of the historical ones are de facto musea, or concert halls, during weekdays. In the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam you walk on the graves of national heroes. Source? I've heard it said that the US produces more charitable funds per capita than any other nation.Me and my hyperbole. This list has us on top, but it I'm not sure what it exactly means. www.jhu.edu/~cnp/pdf/comptable5_dec04.pdfThe Dutch have a reputation for being cheap, but I don't feel that that is deserved. We are thrifty, but quite generous. (Who invented copperwire? Two Dutchies fighting over a cent.) 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.Can, but most don't. There are other incentives in live then money. Most people would be bored stiff. 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.Death and taxes... Is there a single country in the world that doesn't use public funds for the benefit of society? Isn't that what governments are for? There is practically nobody here that wants to abandon these programmes, all the debate is about the details. So I guess the libertarians, if there are any, just lucked out. (Technicality: the word socialism doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. And the political movements that created these social programmes would be social-democrat and social-christian.) 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. Money isn't earned in a vacuum. Wages are determined by blind, and quite random, market mechanisms, and its hight very much depends on the state of the economy, which is a collective accomplishment. If you get rich it is not just because you managed to utilise your talents, but because those talents happened to be useful or desirable by the economy you are part of. If Micheal Jordan had been born in Russia, where chess is the national sport, he possibly wouldn't have become a millionaire. 'Capitalism' is an effective instrument to create wealth, but it is a means to an end, not the measure of all things. Together we bake a big cake, slicing it up and distributing the pieces should not just be decided by blind forces. I guess you could call it a 'post-capitalist' society. (We've still got plenty of millionaires. They are our entertainment. ) That's why it's called pro-choice.Good. Now can we open up to the notion of being pro-choice for charity, that is, not having the state choose, but letting the individual choose to fund charitable causes at his or her own discretion? Exactly. Given that helping the poor is a good thing, isn't helping the poor by choice a better thing? Go right ahead. There are plenty of poor people left.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 16, 2007 0:45:20 GMT -4
Minimum wages are considerably higher, and few workers are in that scale. So money certainly is an incentive. The trouble is that if the subsistance level of the government programs is comfortable enough the added money they could make by working may not be much of an incentive. Especially if they then must begin paying taxes to support those who stay on the program. [qoute]But private companies are profit driven, they are considerably less likely to hire someone they think has a flaw. Lots of people who can't be placed in the money economy make themselves useful doing things private businesses don't see a profit in.[/quote]Anyone who makes money is in a private business, whether a formal company is their employer or not. It's very rare that there really aren't enough jobs to go around. It's much more likely that people will not find a job they like or that they think is suitable to their social position. It's a complex subject. I found this summary online: www.hudson.org/files/publications/Index2007ExecutiveSummary.pdfThe Netherlands is not at the top on this list, though it is obviously quite generous. What I found most intersting with this summary is that 50% of the contributions from the U.S. were from private giving, and another 36% was from private lending and investment, not government-mandated programs. I agree. The Dutch are generally thrifty, not cheap. Governments are for general defense, enforcement of the law, and general infrastructure (roads, education, etc). Only after those priorities comes social programs. True, but the details do make big differences. I haven't used the word "socialism". I would say that most of the factors are not really random. They may be difficult to predict, but that is not the same thing. Or, conversely, it may be because you found a way to make your talents useful or desirable, or developed those talents that were most useful. Except that talented basketball players in Russia come to America today to earn millions of dollars in the NBA. We've got one in the Utah Jazz. Capitalism is not a dirty word. It's what has made the economies of Europe, America, and parts of Asia as wealthy as they are today. Europe's economy at present shows the effects that adopting socialism (now I've used the word) and the higher taxes necessary to pay for it bring on - lower productivity, higher unemployment, less growth. And less spontaneous giving. The cake is not a zero-sum game. Just because I get the portion I worked for doesn't mean that someone else must get by with less. I would say that a "post-capitalist" society is a society in economic, and possibly social, decline.
|
|