Originally posted by: Matthias99
Originally posted by: exdeath
You mention that society as a whole gets to make a choice? You said:
"But so far as a society we seem to have decided that it's better to potentially take on that burden than to prohibit people from having children."
No, only you decided, and maybe a few others.
I didn't decide anything (and I didn't really say that I thought that was the best plan either, just that it's what we do now.) We've got ourselves a democracy here; if a majority of people felt that this had to change, it would.
If society on its own has decided to take on that burden, why isn't that society opening their checkbooks and making payments to these families on their own? You see, by not doing that, society has spoken for itself and decided that it DOES NOT want that burden. If you think then, that means that government needs to force people to pay because they don't do it themselves, you are in fact ignoring what society has decided because it is not in agreement with your own personal moral views or what you think society should be doing instead.
The last paragraph here is important. It is what is fundamentally wrong with this whole debate.
"Want" is the wrong word. Of course nobody "wants" to be burdened because of someone else's bad decisions. But society is implicitly accepting that burden. Let's say that family that can't afford to take care of their kids relies on food stamps (since the parents are lazy bums who won't work, or work just enough to pay for subsidized housing). The government decides that food stamps are costing them too much money and they won't give them out anymore.
You think the people around that family would sit there and do nothing if they really couldn't afford to feed the kids? I'm thinking people would chip in and pay for food and shelter for the kids if their parents couldn't or wouldn't, since most people (I hope) are not heartless animals.
That's what I mean by "society has decided to take on that burden"; the vast majority of people would choose to make some sacrifice to prevent the alternative (the kids starving to death). If a majority of people weren't willing to make the financial sacrifice, but also weren't willing to let the kids die, some other solution (such as involuntary sterilization) would have to be found.
Exactly, the problem is universal to people, period, and new government systems to address the symptoms and not the cause will not help. Different people have different values and scales for different things, so how will a universal system run by a government agency accomodate everyone?
$50 a month from my checkbook into a healthcare system might seem reasonble to you or I, but I assure you there will be many who think that even $10 is too much and that they deserve it for free. Others might feel that it is not enough, that you should give everything and keep nothing for yourself.
Who gets to arbitrarily draw that line, among all the other 'lines' weve discussed these last few pages? Can I make those decisions? You?
Again: democracy. Like I said before -- I honestly believe that a vast majority of people would prefer to live in a society where, when the ****** hits the fan, other people will make sacrifices to help them or their loved ones when their life is on the line. For that to work, everyone needs to chip in to shoulder the load of other people when they really need it.
If a large enough majority of people decide that being stupid or shortsighted beyond a certain point is reason to cut you loose, that's what will happen. If a large enough majority of people decide that we need to cut back on other spending and raise taxes so there are enough resources to save the crack whores too, that's what will happen. If a large enough majority of people decide they'd prefer "every man for themselves", and if you can't pay you die, we'll have that too. It's not me or you that makes that decision. It's everyone, hopefully arriving at some kind of sane consensus.
That is why I would rather people be left with the ability to decide for themselves what their moral values are. There are too many conflicting moral values all across the board. The best way to is to leave people alone to make those decisions for themselves and by themselves.
I don't believe people's values are that conflicted in this area. Few people would choose the alternative of a dog-eat-dog society unless keeping that healthcare safety net in place (at least for truly life-threatening situations) was truly unsustainable.
What society "decides" is just the automatic outcome of the sum total of every individuals actions combined. Of all the people who say we need to accept the burden of supporting others, who actually in that group has ever contributed to any kind of private healthcare charity for poor families? I'm bet zero.
If society 'accepted' the burden the problem would have resolved itself. But the fact that people do not willingly pay out of their pocket to support other people shows that society has automatically rejected that burden and believes either that greed is good or that those people simply should be left to fend for their own choices. Just because you or I may feel differently gives neither of us the right to spread our values forcibly onto others using our system of law.
It is claimed that the majority of Americans are fat overweight lazy people who eat McDonalds three times a day and live unhealthy lives. Does that make it a majority decision that I am forced to take part in? No. I am not part of the group, majority or not, because I make the willful choice not to be.
Why would those people rather see "N.H.C. $50" on their check stub rather than "health clinic donation $50" in their check registry?
This all boils down to exactly what I described in that last paragraph and you didn't seem to get the message.
To clarify, it went something like this:
You or I or anyone else have no right to tell someone else what they can and can't do and what their moral values should be provided that they do not actively infringe on someone else.
So while this means I shouldn't have to pay into something I don't support, it also means just because you may feel that chinese people are the scum of the earth and should be removed from the country, doesn't mean you can force them. One is infringing on another's free will, one is not. Digressing for a moment, as for how this applies to immigration, I believe everyone has a right to the
chance to come here and become Americans. I just don't support lawless mass illegal immigration and social chaos and cultural dillution and displacement, or leeching off others for a free ride.
Just remember no matter how right you think you are or what you think other people SHOULD act like, there is always someone more liberal than you or more conservative than you who thinks otherwise, even what you would consider extreme in your own party.
That is why those types of things are best left to individuals to decide.
If 70% of people in society would willingly donate money, those 70% can get together and form a private charity that that fund, and they can choose whether or not they want to be generous and share it with people who didn't pay in or not. Omish communities do it, Native American communities do it. That is also why we have states where different people with different views can reside together with people of similar views.
What you said about people chipping in to shelter those kids, that is exactly what I mean. They do so out of their own concern and compassion, they are not being forced. If they didn't step in, someone else will. I know I would, as I have done so before. But I like having that choice, because I know better than the government how my finances are and when I can spare to help someone out and when I cannot. I am also free to make my own individual moral judgement as to where to draw those lines that you agree that not everyone can agree on. I may only feel I should help people with cancer, and children. Someone else may feel that treating people with cancer is a waste, but that a crack whore should have a fair chance to chance.
How many people eat hot food at a salvation army? None of that is government run or funded. When a problem gets bad enough, communities will always find a solution to help their own people... unless you wait around waiting for the government to bail you out with polititians making promises with an 'unlimited' supply of money... or promising "to take from the rich and give to the poor". :roll:
It's the same for every hot issue in this country and it comes down to individual freedom of will.
If you don't like guns, don't buy them and shoot them.
Don't like religion? Nobody is forcing you to go to church.
Don't believe in abortions? Don't get one.
Don't believe people should go hungry? Volunteer your time and money to a charity or food bank.
Don't feel that anybody should be homeless? Volunteer your home.
Why is it so important that your views of what 'should be' get forced down everyone elses throat?
People that say they can't get help are like students saying they can't get money for college. There is money all over the place from private scholarships, grants, etc, if you look in the right places.
Society is made out of individuals with free will, not a collective controlled by a few people who enforce their favored views on everyone else by threat of force.
You want to 'save money and lives' by going with public health care. What will you do if I refuse to pay? Kill me even though you want my money to save lives? I need not point out the irony. Throw me in jail? That would cost more money than what you would be losing by my not paying.
Democracy is majorty rule with respect for minority rights. If the majority rule that they want national healthcare, good for them, but they must also respect my rights to opt out of it. It's no use arguing 'you can't opt out of social security, this is no different' because I don't support those things either, and I am on the side that wants to make it go away. What if society decided 51 to 49 that we didn't wan't any black people in the country anymore? Could we rightfully kick them all out? No, regardless of majority rule, there is still recognition of minority rights. Our democracy is based on a very strict and basic set of guidelines spelled out in the constitution, and the rest left to indivdual choice within those basic common guidelines. While there is no mention of abortion for example, the right to bear arms is one of those ensured guidelines that is written in stone. Because our government got out of control and started regulating and legislating moral issues it had no business getting involved with and enforcing them on everyone as a whole as if everyone shares the same views does not mean it's right, and doing it more will not make it more right.
Society is NOT implicitly accepting that burden, they are being forced with that burden against their will through higher taxes, hidden costs, etc, without being told directly what they are paying for. You never here about most people griping that they have to pay out of their pocket to support a crack whore and her 8 kids, you only hear about 'more taxes'. Maybe that is why people want that "NHS $50" on peoples check stubs, it abstracts what people are really paying for so they forget to question it. I really wonder how many people would be as happy paying their taxes if they realized what some of their money actually went to, and if their actually had the money in your hand and had a tradeoff decision to make. Automatic deduction gets people used to the idea that its not theirs to decide. Again, instead of having it taken out of your pay by government, why not write a check yourself every month? Scared that not everyone else will pitch in and it won't work? You seem pretty confident that 'most Americans' would be willing to support such a system, so why don't you ask them to write the check themselves instead of having the government force it?
Bottom line: Live your life to the best of your ability and make your own moral choices. Nobody has any right to impose what
they think is best for society on others against their will. They have a right to assemble amongst people like them in communities that share their views, but they have no right to infringe on someone elses free will, even if it's only one person vs. 250,000,000. The term today that is often thrown around and misused, that describes what I am talking about, is freedom.
What I do with my money in my back yard should not concern you as long as I my actions do not interfere with your right to do what you please in your own back yard.
I'm not trying to be greedy here, I believe in helping people as well, but I'm not talking about helping people here as being the fundamental problem, I am talking about national policy, systems of government, socioeconomic systems, freedom of will, etc.
If someone wants to be greedy, thats their choice. I'm sure they don't give a ****** that others are more compassionate and donate their money.
Summary and conclusion of my point of view (as interesting, enlightening, and informational as this thread is, it has started consuming vast amounts of my time and energy...):
To each their own... so long as you uphold another's right to the same
The only, and I mean ONLY fundamental right that anyone in this world has, is to freely be who they are. Ultimately this means that the individual retains all rights over the use of their own body as their own property, and any property thus gained by the life and labor of that body. Everything else, every concept of law, justice, punishment, and government, is derived from that one fundamental law for the purposes of protecting it. Every crime and punishment ever devised by man since the dawn of time, at the lowest possible level, will be found to be a direct violation off that rule. And punishment discouragement and justice for a prior and initial willful violation of a persons freedom with intentional ill will is the only time it is rightful to violate that rule. (For example, it is only ok to take a persons property if that person has stolen in order to repay the person that was stolen from, execute someone who has murdered or as proven to be so vile and a grave threat to society and has proven they cannot live by the above rule, etc.)
You put up some genuine concerns, many that I was aware of and even expected, and alot of them based on personal value and moral judgements. But like we agreed, you don't have an answer, I don't have an answer, and its most likely there simply is no perfect answer, and for good reason. Different people have different moral values and will draw the line at different places. The reason these issues are 'grey' is because there are so many lines at so many places represented by those various moral opinions of individuals, and as a whole, there is dithered grey. There is a reason these issues have never been settled and never will be. There may have been rulings one way but like a pendulum they are temporary, and soon swing the other way as different people come along and have different values, or change their mind based on the outcomes. Allowing individuals to make those choices on their own without intervetion or force of will is the only real solution, as any single line being set at any time will undoubtably be a violation of someone elses rights to choose for themselves. This is the sole reason I do not support policies like national health care.
Now that I've made myself out to be selfish, greedy, etc. in support of my fundamental views that taking from someone without consent is wrong, let me share something close and personal:
Right now we have a teenage girl living with us who had a bad life with a bad mother who was basically the kind of abusive trailer trash crack whore type person I keep refering to. She has a place to stay rent free, food to eat, etc, and it costs us next to nothing other than having another lightbulb in the house turned on at any given time and slightly more food to buy, etc. One big factor is that she shows potential and willingness to succeed. After living on her own for a while and being a typical rebelling teen and doing things the hard way on the streets, and making choices we don't agree with, and didn't follow our advice. We left her alone to her own means to learn lifes lessons and make her own choices as she rejected us. She recently had a change of heart and realized she didn't know what she was doing with her life and wanted help to get right. We had conditions of course, such as no smoking (our carpet alone cost $8000, don't need that crap in my house and I don't like the smell anyway). She decided to stop smoking, get a GED and a job, bought her own car, etc. She couldn't have done those things without the stable platform we provided for her. Sure some people say we have a house way bigger than needs to be for two people, but we've taken advantage of that to help someone now. Sure she is just a friend and you might not see it as anything special because everyone helps their friends right? But in reality, she is not my kid, she isn't even my family. If I didn't know her as a personal friend she would be one of those uneducated girls on the streets, etc., who would have nowhere to turn in a time of need. No government intervention here. No tax increases. I'd doesn't cost you or anyone else a dime and it makes our excessively large and empty house useful for a change to help someone else by allowing us to have the room to accomodate someone in need of support. You could even say that we are doing our share to support 33% of the US population (2 people supporting 1 extra person) and last I checked there aren't even that many people who are poor and in need. She is in the other room watching her anime on our 106" HDTV, laughing her ass off and having a blast. She is an incredible artist. She wants to go to college if she can do so with a GED. We don't charge her a dime, though for personal things like auto insurance and cell phones, she will have to wait until she can pay for those things on her own; personal responsibility and all that. Can't give someone everything or they will never learn, she understands that now and is greatful.
If our other adult friends with 4 kids died in a car accident tomorrow, we would probably be the ones to take them in as well because we care for them. People will find a way to take care of their own if left to their own means. Does it matter if they are friends and we know them? Four kids in need that are not my responsibility that would otherwise become part of the system if we didn't know them, who would be taken care of without owing anybody anything, and they wouldn't be taking from you or anybody else. And with our guidance (and every game system made hooked up to that 106" HDTV) they will be provided for better than any government institution could ever hope to take care of them at any cost to taxpayers.
Oh and as for the smoking? Completely over it. The smell of cigarette smoke on another person is in fact quite repulsive to her. There is always an avenue for those who look for it and wish to change or succeed if they put forth the effort. It won't be fair or proportional to someone elses effort, but nobody can stop them from trying. Try that in a communist country or in a caste system.
With that said, I enjoyed the debate, peace out.