I'm hearing a lot of this being said (in one way shape or form)
"Government needed to make safety nets because Charity wasn't doing enough"
1. Doing enough for whom?
Is SS doing enough for the elderly in poverty? I'd say no.
Is disability doing enough for the truly disabled? Nope.
Is the VA doing enough for returned and retired troops? Again, no.
Is poverty assistance services doing enough for the homeless/hungry? Not a chance.
Is Welfare doing anything to actually end institutionalized poverty? Hell no.
2. Doing enough for how many?
Is it necessary to make sure everyone born, or alive, makes it?
Is the safety net there to encourage overpopulation, and if not, why not have a cap (to the benefits, not the population inb4nazieugenicsargument)?
If so, why? Why should we have a system that ignores the natural limits of population management?
Maybe the reason both Charity, and the Government, even combined, are not solving the poverty problem
is because it is inherently counter-evolutionary.
Safety nets allow the birds who can't fly, or won't fly, to survive. Safety nets allow the birds who
can't hunt, or won't hunt, to survive. You only end up reducing the effective prosperity of the whole
Eagle population. Those that can and do fly and hunt successfully end up towing the weight of the rest.
Now, this isn't necessarily bad. As said before, compassion is a positive trait, and therefore an Eagle with compassion is great and desirable.
However, there is an economical limit to recognize that X number of successful Eagles can only support Y number of unsuccessful Eagles, before diminishing returns cause legitimate flock damage (which I believe we reached long ago).
So again, as I asked before in not only this thread, but others.
Do we want a system that simply allows us to have the most people possible, regardless of skill or ability, regardless of how much effort must be made to carry the ones who can't carry their own weight (a system with greater safety nets).
Or do we want a system that encourages us to have the best possible people (less safety nets, greater rewards for compassion).
Even if the answer is safety...
How can anyone accuse Charity of not being able to do enough, while ignoring that Government also isn't doing enough, even with Charity picking up some of the slack.
Now...
When is this thread going to talk about the other half of the OP? MERIT.
A figure in grey flowing robes stands before you in some sort of temple. His face barely visible from the light of the two candles he's holding. One candle is white with a black flame, the other is black yet bears a white flame.
Monsignor Raspier1(W/B)(W/B)(W/B)
Legendary Creature - Human Cleric (R)
Lifelink, persist.
As long as Monsignor Raspier has a -1/-1 counter on
it, it has "at the end of each opponents turn, that
player loses 2 life". "Forgiveness will come in the afterlife. In this life,
we expect atonement."
3/5
next:
A goblin explorer, with a backpack, canteen and such, is swinging on a rope, hanging from the side of a massive beast that appears to be running.
Tyrannical Intelligence3UB
Sorcery (R)
Target player draws four cards, then discards three cards.
You may proliferate once for each nonland card discarded this
way. "They say the days of my reign are numbered. It's up
to me to make sure I can keep counting." -Liliana Vess
next: "Only under this disguise, will they finally see my true nature!"
If I am being let go for no good reason, it is also my fault.
That's the mentality of an abuse victim. By definition if you're fired for no good reason there was no good reason for it.
Except, employers do not have a duty to keep you if they don't want to. Nor should they.
That's not what I said, I said that believing you are at fault when, by definition, you are not is the mentality of an abuse victim.
No, it's simply not.
The employer is NOT abusing you by firing you. They can abuse you. They can fire you. They can abuse you and then fire you. But they can also fire you and not abuse you.
If your work allows the statement "yeah, we can let that person go for no reason" to apply to you, it is your fault.
It is your responsibility, and yours alone to turn that statement into "that person is a valuable member of our workforce, we can't lose them."
As Bitter put it, your girlfriend/boyfriend can dump you for any reason whatsoever. It's up to YOU to be a boyfriend/girlfriend that is desirable, worthy, and difficult to part with. It is not your significant other responsibility to stay in the relationship with you even when it doesn't suit them.
Them dumping you, even for no good reason, is NOT in any way shape or form abuse. Which is not to say that you won't feel bad, or be hurt emotionally. But if you're the kind of boyfriend/girlfriend that can be easily dumped for no reason, you're doing it wrong.
People can fire workers arbitrarily but that doesn't mean the workers are at fault. It's not like employers are gods that make inherently just decisions.
Never said such a thing. But this doesn't refute what I did say at all.
I also had a harder time finding employment after I got my degree than before, it was kind of weird, but then, I was going into a field that paid twice what I was making before.
But anecdotal evidence is not evidence of causation.
Be the best candidate. Work on your persuasion, and interview skills. Pad that resume with relevant skills, education, and experience.
Be the one they can't pass up.
It's not the employers responsibility to make you good for them. Nor should it be.
I assume you're not actually saying that your knowledge of corporate culture, your job history, your age, your mobility, your personal charisma, and the amount of competition have no bearing on chances of employment and this is just some kind of rhetorical thing?
Those things are all part of YOU making YOURSELF a worthy candidate, a valuable and attractive applicant that the people in charge of hiring WANT to have on their crew.
Again, it is not the employers responsibility to make YOU good for THEM.
If I am being let go for no good reason, it is also my fault.
That's the mentality of an abuse victim. By definition if you're fired for no good reason there was no good reason for it.
Except, employers do not have a duty to keep you if they don't want to. Nor should they.
So the best way to avoid being let go for no good reason, is to give them good reason to keep you. Be indispensable, be valuable, be worth your paycheck, if not worth more.
The problem is NOT that jobs are hard to find. The problem is that most people are not as interested in learning a new skill, or improving their education and experience
I've applied for about two dozen jobs inside and outside of my skillset in the last few months. That resulted in exactly one response so far, from an employer who proved to be unstable and abusive. How hard it is to find a job isn't dependent on the number of jobs available, its dependent on the number of jobs vs the number of job seekers (and your knowledge of corporate culture, your job history, your age, your mobility, your personal charisma, etc).
I also had a harder time finding employment after I got my degree than before, it was kind of weird, but then, I was going into a field that paid twice what I was making before.
But anecdotal evidence is not evidence of causation.
Be the best candidate. Work on your persuasion, and interview skills. Pad that resume with relevant skills, education, and experience.
Be the one they can't pass up.
It's not the employers responsibility to make you good for them. Nor should it be.
The owner isn't taking the fruit of your labor without consent. You are selling it to him for your salary. If you feel your labor is worth more, you ask for a raise, renegotiate the contract, or quit and find new employment if you so desire. It is still a voluntary exchange between both parties.
The problem with thinking that this is voluntary is that the disparity of power is enormous. When a worker quits their job they lose their income and will have tremendous difficulty with keeping themselves and their families fed, clothed and housed unless there are already strong social safety nets in place. That's not even getting into the difficulty of finding a new job and the necessity of competing with others for those jobs thus driving wages down. A capitalist who loses a worker doesn't go hungry for it and can easily replace them. This ***** is why unions came into being. This is why there was a workers' movement to claim protections against unemployment. Thinking that there is an equal exchange between capitalist and worker is charitably described as naive.
You are starting from a defeatist position, then trying to persuade me that we're doomed to defeat. I do not accept this.
There may or may not be a disparity of power. However, my employer cannot force me to stay, and I cannot force them to give me a raise.
I am looking for a better job as we speak, and as soon as I find one, I can quit and there is nothing they can do about it.
However, if I am being fired for cause, it's my fault (for cause). If I am being let go for no good reason, it is also my fault. It is MY responsibility to make MYSELF indispensable. It is MY responsibility, and in my best interest, to make myself invaluable to my employers, so that they WON'T get rid of me. It is not the employers responsibility to keep me against their interests.
If you are quitting your job, without another one lined up, you're doing it wrong.
No one is holding a gun to my head, nor vice-versa.
The problem is NOT that jobs are hard to find. The problem is that most people are not as interested in learning a new skill, or improving their education and experience, as they are in voting themselves more of of that sweet sweet nectar called "other peoples money".
Just in my geographic area, there are like 13,000+ job listings. Some have been open for hiring for over 3 months. There are positions out there to be filled.
To avoid the risk of thread derailment, I'll only state that I do not believe Unions are necessary.
What I mean is, I'd rather not argue with you about what is more or less MORAL to do with the fruit. Since it's far too subjective.
Instead, I want you to posit the PRINCIPLE you stand on. What PRINCIPLE guides your decision on what should be done with the fruit.
What PRINCIPLE are you standing on that says it's right to take fruit from others and redistribute it?
That it's very easy to come up with situations where doing so is overall beneficial, and maximizes overall happiness.
Beneficial for whom? At the expense of who's overall happiness?
Time and energy are not free, and while it is not a zero-sum game, some people are going to work hard, and some not at all, and many right in the middle.
Maximizes happiness how? And who are the costs passed onto?
Let's not pretend this is about you and me and our credentials.
Let's not pretend that discussion of abstract concepts is possible without being able to entertain ideas.
I am fully capable of entertaining ideas. "Maximize happiness" is not an idea.
"Develop solar energy", or "Establish more charter schools", or "Close tax codes that reward outsourcing jobs", those are ideas.
"Maximize overall happiness" is a platitude.
WHY should I sign up for a job to maximize HAPPINESS, instead of say maximizing usefulness, or righteousness, or self-awareness, or self-actualization, or independence, or toughness, or...
Because these things only have an instrumental value in maximizing happiness. None of those things matter unless they contribute towards happiness. A system where everyone is unhappy but self-aware isn't particularly good one.
I vehemently disagree.
Living in a drug induced delirium might make someone very happy, but I wouldn't value that happiness over the truth, even if the truth meant discomfort.
I can maximize happiness tomorrow if we just put happy pills in the water supply.
I hope you see the problem with placing happiness at the top of the needs pyramid in this regard.
Saying "you're supposed to increase the overall happiness of the people" is so vague it's not even funny. How are we measuring happiness? Do I have to increase the happiness of the greedy people too, or just the needy people? Do I have to increase the happiness of the idiots as well as the educated? Do I have to increase the happiness of the pedophiles as well as the virtuous? What IS "happy". How can I tell if I've done a good job with my appointment?
So you'd rather sign up for a easy job than a beneficial one?
I'd rather everyone be their own boss, and not not pass the responsibility of scratching out a short but meaningful life onto someone else.
Say I accept the job. Then what, I'm dictator? I'm the king? After all, I get to decide how we maximize overall happiness. Does that sound good to you?
I should also add that we do have the ability to collect data that does a decent job of measuring happiness. Some of your former suggestions such as "self-awareness" or "self-actualization" would be even harder to measure.
Yes, we can survey people and ask them if they're happy. Unfortunately, the people polled are going to have different reasons for WHY they were happy. Some because of their job, some because of their friends, some because of skydiving, some because they collect spiders...
If you agree with this, and I'm going to guess that you do, then I only argue that taxing people will never achieve the cure. All we have is institutionalized poverty, a welfare state, and not a compassionate people who work to cure poverty.
I claim NOT to know how to achieve this, I only know that I want to.
But this argument is worthless in exclusion. You need to prove that what you want is achievable in the first place. If the cure isn't possible, which is a possibility you're completely disregarding, treating symptoms is the optimal course of action. I want world peace and complete disarmament, and everyone being considerate of those around themselves, but I know it won't happen.
What claim have I made that requires me to prove something?
"I want less government control" is not a claim of a working model for society.
Now,
Let me actually offer one tiny piece.
Tax reform. I'd tax everyone (individuals, not corps. which I'd treat differently) much LESS, but keep it all.
No deductions, no write offs, no paperwork.
Why tax someone 11-12% over the course of the year, only to hand them 6-7% back in the form of a refund? Why not just tax them 7%, they keep more of their pay throughout the year, making their checks bigger, and the government actually nets more in the long run in the way of reduced paperwork and man-hours of labor needed by the IRS.
Healthcare - bring back HSA's. Personally owned HSA's, 100% portable, they don't rely on employment, they go wherever you go, parents and legal guardians can contribute to your HSA as you grow, you take over at 18. Employers can offer contributions to your HSA as hiring incentives and bonuses, You never lose equity just because you got fired or laid off...(so much more that can take up a lot of time)
I want you to explain how we measure compassion for the purposses of "rewarding the most compassionate".
No idea, all I'm saying is that getting rid of welfare and expecting charity to fix it wouldn't work.
You're the one trying to replace the current system with something that would be better, so you need to show that the alternative system is possible.
The problem with these debates, is that while we are supposed to focus on the charity/welfare issue for instance, people start thinking things exist in a vacuum.
It's not like I'm taking the country as it is today and saying "Tomorrow, that's it, no more welfare! ROFLMAO!"
You slowly phase it out, and reduce it, but you start by fixing education to be more flexible and encouraging to upward mobility versus this conveyor belt to Burger Kings education we have now, end the war on drugs, tort reform, reducing war expenditures, reducing fraud and embezzlement by the government, reduce overbids for services by the government...
Not to mention, fixing Welfare in the first place so that it no longer punishes mothers for having the father in the house. Welfare has done so much harm to families in poverty - making it more cost effective to be a broken home, that a loving two parent household...
Welfare isn't the FIRST thing I'd touch. Not even the second. But this thread is about welfare/charity.
This does not mean you can't think for yourself and maybe realize that I, and no one else, has said, lets get rid of Welfare tomorrow, cut & dry.
Because I am not required by law to help the needy, or those in danger, then it's on me, as a moral creature, to inwardly look at my own ethics and self-worth to decide that I want to both help the needy, and assist those people in danger. This is how I know I'm a compassionate person. I empathize. I've been poor, I've had the welfare Christmas, I've eaten donations from a food bank. I've slept in someones attic.
I volunteer, and donate, out of the kindness of my heart, and this is knowing that I've already paid taxes.
And under a system where welfare would be abolished, you would continue to do so but those that currently avoid doing it wouldn't. They would benefit from not having to pay taxes, causing them to gain a competitive edge over yourself. This is the core issue with your assumption that charity can replace welfare: It assumes that people stop being selfish dicks at some point.
See above statement as to why no one has said Abolish welfare, not even me.
All that being said - what good does it do then, to tax the those who lack compassion, only to watch them vote the taxes down, or vote them away altogether..
Vote the taxes back up. If you disagree with this being possible, we can get to an argument about how democracy isn't actually democratic, but I'm willing to bet we should start another thread for that mess.
Yes, that is an argument for another day, let's not light that fuse here.
[quote]
[quote from="IcecreamMan80 »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/558374-can-charity-and-merit-replace-the-welfare-state?comment=30"]If we tried harder to steer them towards being compassionate, first they likely wouldn't fight the taxes so much, but ideally, if we succeeded in making them, and ourselves compassionate enough, there would be no need to tax at all.
And your claim is that such a situation is achievable?
----------
Let's make something clear here. I agree that such a situation would be ideal. I just do not see it happening. Not now, not in the future. Not as long as two sentient beings are still alive. Any system that relies on voluntary decision to help others will punish those compassionate, unless there is some method of rewarding them for their acts of kindness, at which point we can no longer talk about compassion but optimization, as self-sacrifice to help others is no longer self-sacrifice if it benefits the self.
And I thought I was the pessimist.
I disagree. There are tons of people out there who are compassionate, giving, and kind. They give their time, money, sweat, and blood, to make the world a better place. Many do it with some help from various government grants, and many do it with nothing but private donations and the sacrifice of their supporters, and some even with a mixture of both.
Doctors Without Borders, International Rescue Committee, Orphan Grain Train, ASPCA, Robin Hood Foundation, Books for Africa, Oxfam, World Vision, Habitat for Humanity, Fund for Global Human Rights, Bread for the World Institute, Farm Aid, Global Hunger Project...
Young and locked and loaded
Skills in tracking you have honed
The meadow is a dance floor
The call of the wild is Patron
Be sure to line up every shot
And Hope to take her home
Another stuffed and mounted
But you're still camping all alone
The brag is for your friends
To see how well you've killed
The sheets there to remember
All the tags that you have filled
Now in the cold of morning
There's no one by your side
Your belly may be full
But your soul's empty inside
Now the game knows you well
Your reputation walks before
They hear you coming from a mile
Soon there's no targets anymore
And then you finally realize
Standing old and in the mist
That the real and honest prize
Is the one that you have missed
Does someone else have more of a right, or a higher claim to the fruit of your labor than you do?
Isn't that pretty much the basis of capitalism? The owner of the company I work for gets to claim the "fruit of my labour" because he provided the capital for the business and is supplying the tools and materials I use. In exchange I get a salary.
The owner isn't taking the fruit of your labor without consent. You are selling it to him for your salary. If you feel your labor is worth more, you ask for a raise, renegotiate the contract, or quit and find new employment if you so desire. It is still a voluntary exchange between both parties.
Taxation is taking the fruit of your labor without consent. Now, you may argue that you have given consent, que claims of <social contract>. However, taxation is done with the explicit threat of fine, imprisonment, or both. If you refuse to pay your taxes, they fine you. If you refuse to pay the fines, they lien you. If you still do not cooperate they incarcerate you. If you resist incarceration, they may shoot you.
So, to avoid this real and potential harm to yourself, you comply, and cooperate with the taxation.
Much like a rape victim might lay still and comply, because the rapist has a gun and threatens to beat and kill them if they fight back.
Now, que <social contract> again.
We are said to have all been born into this social contract. But this is inherently unjust. I was never asked if I wanted in on it. I was never given a chance to weigh my options, and negotiate my own deal with a reasoned and consensual agreement that benefited both myself, and those who are taking my fruit. This is essentially a slave being born on the plantation. Sure, if all the slaves born into this bondage were to refuse to work the fields, the plantation would surely fall apart, and since many slaves depend on the Plantation for their food, and survival, any slave who stands up and say "HEY! this is unjust!" is quickly marginalized, and they are told to shut up and work or you will harm your fellow slaves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
I am NOT an anarchist, I am NOT against taxation, or government. Because I'm a realist, and a pessimist. I see that the whole WORLD is plantations. I happen to agree that THIS plantation is better than any other plantation. So while I can see that I was born into bondage, I do not run, because I can only possibly run to another plantation, and they aren't as good as this one. There is nowhere to escape to. There is no place without this bondage, so just pick the plantation you like best, and go there.
I'm a nonbeliever, life is short, and thankfully I don't have to endure this forever.
I've been jumped once, and only once, when I was a teen. Me and a friend were walking to a football game at our school, when 4 adult men came out of a garage near the street and took our coats and hats and punched my friend.
Since growing up, I have never been attacked, or even threatened. The only fight I ever got into after turning 21 was a mutually instigated bar-room thing, so I wouldn't even call it being attacked, we were both stupid and mouthing off.
That all being said, I don't carry often, and when I do it's openly. But my wife, who goes to work in the dark, and often drives home from work in the dark - I want her to carry (concealed of course) on the off-chance, that one in a million occurrence, where someone in that crap hole town tries to mess with her. It doesn't guarantee she wins, but it improves her chances even a tiny bit, I'll go with that.
After that, we carry openly when we are going hunting, target shooting, busting clays, or gathering at a pro-2nd Amendment demonstration.
Does someone else have more of a right, or a higher claim to the fruit of your labor than you do?
If so, why?
If not, justify the non-voluntary system of fruit redistribution.
This is a pointless argument, which only makes sense if you value the merit of the people over everything else. Just because someone doesn't deserve a thing doesn't mean they don't need it. Nor does it mean that giving it to them wouldn't be the right thing to do. This is especially evident when you remove yourself and the biases associated with that from the equation, and look at the equation from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't themselves benefit either way.
I never used the word 'DESERVE'.
I refuse to get into a morality pissing contest of who deserves what and how much. I said the right, or greater claim.
So you insist on having some absolute right to things, based on no rational argument, be a thing that dictates lawmaking?
Because unless you can ground these "rights" somehow, you're not entitled to the fruit of your labour either. No one is. The fruit just happens to exist, and no one has a claim to it.
What I mean is, I'd rather not argue with you about what is more or less MORAL to do with the fruit. Since it's far too subjective.
Instead, I want you to posit the PRINCIPLE you stand on. What PRINCIPLE guides your decision on what should be done with the fruit.
What PRINCIPLE are you standing on that says it's right to take fruit from others and redistribute it?
Say you were a politician, and you were tasked to improve the average happiness of the citizens under your rule, because you're actually supposed to represent the entirety of the people. Now, you see two people, one who earns a lot and one who earns very little. The quality of life for the rich person would be barely affected if 5% of his income went towards the poor person, but the quality of life for the poor person would drastically improve. How would you justify not choosing the action that results in greater good?
I contest this. I would never agree to or accept the task of "improving the average happiness" of the citizens.
A wholly subjective and perpetually economically crippling quanta of "Happiness" is the last thing I want to be responsible for.
Instead, I'll let them be as FREE as possible, and they can work to obtain whatever level of happiness they can.
At most, I'll provide a cop and a court to settle any issues of direct harm caused to one by the other.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Let's not pretend this is about you and me and our credentials.
WHY should I sign up for a job to maximize HAPPINESS, instead of say maximizing usefulness, or righteousness, or self-awareness, or self-actualization, or independence, or toughness, or...
I'm not going to entertain your little thought experiment, until you make it clear what the experiment IS.
Saying "you're supposed to increase the overall happiness of the people" is so vague it's not even funny. How are we measuring happiness? Do I have to increase the happiness of the greedy people too, or just the needy people? Do I have to increase the happiness of the idiots as well as the educated? Do I have to increase the happiness of the pedophiles as well as the virtuous? What IS "happy". How can I tell if I've done a good job with my appointment?
Don't talk to me about complex levels of thought, and quote Aristotle, until after you've actually put some into your question.
Is the goal indeed to foster compassionate people, or is it simply to have people?
Do we want the most people possible, or do we want the best possible people?
I assure you that charity achieves neither, as it is primarily the poor that give significant portions of their income to charity. Current market economy already benefits sociopaths and allows them to reach high income levels, precisely due to their lack of compassion. Under a system of charity they would benefit more, and would be able to amass even more of a fortune. Nowhere does your system explain how charity would get rewarded in your system, so that compassionate people would actually benefit.
I won't answer the first falsehood contained in this paragraph, so long as you're already biased against the "sociopaths who lack compassion".
If you insist that fostering people with compassion is a desirable trait of a society, you need to be able to explain how the society you proposed as superior does that. You can't criticize the current system for prioritizing multiple people over compassionate people if your proposed alternative does not improve in either of these fronts.
I only posit that compassion is a desirable trait. I never once talked about fostering it, or forcing it.
Do we want compassionate people, or just taxed people? Taxation treats the symptoms, compassion is the cure.
If you agree with this, and I'm going to guess that you do, then I only argue that taxing people will never achieve the cure. All we have is institutionalized poverty, a welfare state, and not a compassionate people who work to cure poverty.
I claim NOT to know how to achieve this, I only know that I want to.
As far as the system rewarding the most compassionate people? How do we measure this?
In a real world way, where Bill Gates gives $300k and is therefore more compassionate than I, who gave $10. Bill gates then becomes what, President?
Or in a YAY, Jesus! kind of way, where $300k to Bill Gates is less of a sacrifice to him, than my $10 was to me, therefore I'm more compassionate, and become President?
So you admit that your criticism was ludicrous?
NO.
I want you to explain how we measure compassion for the purposses of "rewarding the most compassionate".
Because I myself feel that if Billionaire Bill sends a check in the mail for $50,000 to a homeless shelter while cruising on his yacht in the virgin islands, it is not a given that he is more compassionate than say Minimum-Wage Margaret, who gives her free time after work volunteering at the shelter, and what little bit of cash she has to help.
Here's the thing, that's my opinion, and maybe you agree (or not), but what happens when I'm the government, and I go to "reward the most compassionate"? Billionaire Bill says "Hey hey hey, I gave so much more!! Why does Minimum-Wage Margaret get to be Council Chair!?"
If those people, so affected, put in a position of institutionalized poverty, want to end such abuses and usurpation's of their humanity, is it not their responsibility to cast off the shackles of oppression and form new guards for their future security?
This has already happened: It's called the welfare state. It's comprised of institutions and laws that provide minimum level income for the poor, so that the unfortunate do not have to rely on irregular charity to survive.
Who said it was other peoples responsibility to save them? Who commanded that we should, as individuals, help the needy, and if we don't want to, we'll help anyways against our will through taxation?
Again, if you want compassion, you're not getting it by taxation.
The law.
For a more profound answer: The people who wrote the law.
For an even more profound answer: The people who voted for those who wrote the law.
While the welfare and social programs we have are indeed part of the law. I was more speaking to people. As far as I know, there is no law that says I MUST help the needy, in fact, I don't even have to help someone in danger. Bystander laws have been written just for that even.
Because I am not required by law to help the needy, or those in danger, then it's on me, as a moral creature, to inwardly look at my own ethics and self-worth to decide that I want to both help the needy, and assist those people in danger. This is how I know I'm a compassionate person. I empathize. I've been poor, I've had the welfare Christmas, I've eaten donations from a food bank. I've slept in someones attic.
I volunteer, and donate, out of the kindness of my heart, and this is knowing that I've already paid taxes.
However, are there not whole groups of people who want to end the welfare state, AND pay less taxes, AND believe that the poor are just lazy layabouts who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, etc.? Yeah...look no further than some of those TEA party loudmouths.
Clearly, society is failing to foster compassion within those people. Fault lies with their parents, their peers, their chosen forms of media, etc.
All that being said - what good does it do then, to tax the those who lack compassion, only to watch them vote the taxes down, or vote them away altogether. Now you don't have the taxes, AND you don't have the compassion.
If we tried harder to steer them towards being compassionate, first they likely wouldn't fight the taxes so much, but ideally, if we succeeded in making them, and ourselves compassionate enough, there would be no need to tax at all.
I also almost voted for Honeybee, it was so close to giving me everything I wanted to get out of it.
"Government needed to make safety nets because Charity wasn't doing enough"
1. Doing enough for whom?
Is SS doing enough for the elderly in poverty? I'd say no.
Is disability doing enough for the truly disabled? Nope.
Is the VA doing enough for returned and retired troops? Again, no.
Is poverty assistance services doing enough for the homeless/hungry? Not a chance.
Is Welfare doing anything to actually end institutionalized poverty? Hell no.
2. Doing enough for how many?
Is it necessary to make sure everyone born, or alive, makes it?
Is the safety net there to encourage overpopulation, and if not, why not have a cap (to the benefits, not the population inb4nazieugenicsargument)?
If so, why? Why should we have a system that ignores the natural limits of population management?
Maybe the reason both Charity, and the Government, even combined, are not solving the poverty problem
is because it is inherently counter-evolutionary.
Safety nets allow the birds who can't fly, or won't fly, to survive. Safety nets allow the birds who
can't hunt, or won't hunt, to survive. You only end up reducing the effective prosperity of the whole
Eagle population. Those that can and do fly and hunt successfully end up towing the weight of the rest.
Now, this isn't necessarily bad. As said before, compassion is a positive trait, and therefore an Eagle with compassion is great and desirable.
However, there is an economical limit to recognize that X number of successful Eagles can only support Y number of unsuccessful Eagles, before diminishing returns cause legitimate flock damage (which I believe we reached long ago).
So again, as I asked before in not only this thread, but others.
Do we want a system that simply allows us to have the most people possible, regardless of skill or ability, regardless of how much effort must be made to carry the ones who can't carry their own weight (a system with greater safety nets).
Or do we want a system that encourages us to have the best possible people (less safety nets, greater rewards for compassion).
Even if the answer is safety...
How can anyone accuse Charity of not being able to do enough, while ignoring that Government also isn't doing enough, even with Charity picking up some of the slack.
Now...
When is this thread going to talk about the other half of the OP?
MERIT.
Monsignor Raspier 1(W/B)(W/B)(W/B)
Legendary Creature - Human Cleric (R)
Lifelink, persist.
As long as Monsignor Raspier has a -1/-1 counter on
it, it has "at the end of each opponents turn, that
player loses 2 life".
"Forgiveness will come in the afterlife. In this life,
we expect atonement."
3/5
next:
A goblin explorer, with a backpack, canteen and such, is swinging on a rope, hanging from the side of a massive beast that appears to be running.
Sorcery (R)
Target player draws four cards, then discards three cards.
You may proliferate once for each nonland card discarded this
way.
"They say the days of my reign are numbered. It's up
to me to make sure I can keep counting." -Liliana Vess
next: "Only under this disguise, will they finally see my true nature!"
No, it's simply not.
The employer is NOT abusing you by firing you. They can abuse you. They can fire you. They can abuse you and then fire you. But they can also fire you and not abuse you.
If your work allows the statement "yeah, we can let that person go for no reason" to apply to you, it is your fault.
It is your responsibility, and yours alone to turn that statement into "that person is a valuable member of our workforce, we can't lose them."
As Bitter put it, your girlfriend/boyfriend can dump you for any reason whatsoever. It's up to YOU to be a boyfriend/girlfriend that is desirable, worthy, and difficult to part with. It is not your significant other responsibility to stay in the relationship with you even when it doesn't suit them.
Them dumping you, even for no good reason, is NOT in any way shape or form abuse. Which is not to say that you won't feel bad, or be hurt emotionally. But if you're the kind of boyfriend/girlfriend that can be easily dumped for no reason, you're doing it wrong.
Never said such a thing. But this doesn't refute what I did say at all.
Those things are all part of YOU making YOURSELF a worthy candidate, a valuable and attractive applicant that the people in charge of hiring WANT to have on their crew.
Again, it is not the employers responsibility to make YOU good for THEM.
Except, employers do not have a duty to keep you if they don't want to. Nor should they.
So the best way to avoid being let go for no good reason, is to give them good reason to keep you. Be indispensable, be valuable, be worth your paycheck, if not worth more.
I also had a harder time finding employment after I got my degree than before, it was kind of weird, but then, I was going into a field that paid twice what I was making before.
But anecdotal evidence is not evidence of causation.
Be the best candidate. Work on your persuasion, and interview skills. Pad that resume with relevant skills, education, and experience.
Be the one they can't pass up.
It's not the employers responsibility to make you good for them. Nor should it be.
You are starting from a defeatist position, then trying to persuade me that we're doomed to defeat. I do not accept this.
There may or may not be a disparity of power. However, my employer cannot force me to stay, and I cannot force them to give me a raise.
I am looking for a better job as we speak, and as soon as I find one, I can quit and there is nothing they can do about it.
However, if I am being fired for cause, it's my fault (for cause). If I am being let go for no good reason, it is also my fault. It is MY responsibility to make MYSELF indispensable. It is MY responsibility, and in my best interest, to make myself invaluable to my employers, so that they WON'T get rid of me. It is not the employers responsibility to keep me against their interests.
If you are quitting your job, without another one lined up, you're doing it wrong.
No one is holding a gun to my head, nor vice-versa.
The problem is NOT that jobs are hard to find. The problem is that most people are not as interested in learning a new skill, or improving their education and experience, as they are in voting themselves more of of that sweet sweet nectar called "other peoples money".
Just in my geographic area, there are like 13,000+ job listings. Some have been open for hiring for over 3 months. There are positions out there to be filled.
To avoid the risk of thread derailment, I'll only state that I do not believe Unions are necessary.
I own it, it's not so bad.
A reboot might not be so bad - keep Mr. Bay away!
The Outsiders
Charlie Bartlett
Lucas
The Last American Virgin
Friday Night Lights/Varsity Blues
The Last Picture Show
Pleasantville
+1
Stand By Me
Boyz 'n the Hood
Precious
Beneficial for whom? At the expense of who's overall happiness?
Time and energy are not free, and while it is not a zero-sum game, some people are going to work hard, and some not at all, and many right in the middle.
Maximizes happiness how? And who are the costs passed onto?
I am fully capable of entertaining ideas. "Maximize happiness" is not an idea.
"Develop solar energy", or "Establish more charter schools", or "Close tax codes that reward outsourcing jobs", those are ideas.
"Maximize overall happiness" is a platitude.
I vehemently disagree.
Living in a drug induced delirium might make someone very happy, but I wouldn't value that happiness over the truth, even if the truth meant discomfort.
I can maximize happiness tomorrow if we just put happy pills in the water supply.
I hope you see the problem with placing happiness at the top of the needs pyramid in this regard.
I'd rather everyone be their own boss, and not not pass the responsibility of scratching out a short but meaningful life onto someone else.
Say I accept the job. Then what, I'm dictator? I'm the king? After all, I get to decide how we maximize overall happiness. Does that sound good to you?
Yes, we can survey people and ask them if they're happy. Unfortunately, the people polled are going to have different reasons for WHY they were happy. Some because of their job, some because of their friends, some because of skydiving, some because they collect spiders...
What claim have I made that requires me to prove something?
"I want less government control" is not a claim of a working model for society.
Now,
Let me actually offer one tiny piece.
Tax reform. I'd tax everyone (individuals, not corps. which I'd treat differently) much LESS, but keep it all.
No deductions, no write offs, no paperwork.
Why tax someone 11-12% over the course of the year, only to hand them 6-7% back in the form of a refund? Why not just tax them 7%, they keep more of their pay throughout the year, making their checks bigger, and the government actually nets more in the long run in the way of reduced paperwork and man-hours of labor needed by the IRS.
Healthcare - bring back HSA's. Personally owned HSA's, 100% portable, they don't rely on employment, they go wherever you go, parents and legal guardians can contribute to your HSA as you grow, you take over at 18. Employers can offer contributions to your HSA as hiring incentives and bonuses, You never lose equity just because you got fired or laid off...(so much more that can take up a lot of time)
The problem with these debates, is that while we are supposed to focus on the charity/welfare issue for instance, people start thinking things exist in a vacuum.
It's not like I'm taking the country as it is today and saying "Tomorrow, that's it, no more welfare! ROFLMAO!"
You slowly phase it out, and reduce it, but you start by fixing education to be more flexible and encouraging to upward mobility versus this conveyor belt to Burger Kings education we have now, end the war on drugs, tort reform, reducing war expenditures, reducing fraud and embezzlement by the government, reduce overbids for services by the government...
Not to mention, fixing Welfare in the first place so that it no longer punishes mothers for having the father in the house. Welfare has done so much harm to families in poverty - making it more cost effective to be a broken home, that a loving two parent household...
Welfare isn't the FIRST thing I'd touch. Not even the second. But this thread is about welfare/charity.
This does not mean you can't think for yourself and maybe realize that I, and no one else, has said, lets get rid of Welfare tomorrow, cut & dry.
I'll certainly agree it's more pragmatic.
See above statement as to why no one has said Abolish welfare, not even me.
And I thought I was the pessimist.
I disagree. There are tons of people out there who are compassionate, giving, and kind. They give their time, money, sweat, and blood, to make the world a better place. Many do it with some help from various government grants, and many do it with nothing but private donations and the sacrifice of their supporters, and some even with a mixture of both.
Doctors Without Borders, International Rescue Committee, Orphan Grain Train, ASPCA, Robin Hood Foundation, Books for Africa, Oxfam, World Vision, Habitat for Humanity, Fund for Global Human Rights, Bread for the World Institute, Farm Aid, Global Hunger Project...
~Amory McKeever (IcecreamMan80)
Young and locked and loaded
Skills in tracking you have honed
The meadow is a dance floor
The call of the wild is Patron
Be sure to line up every shot
And Hope to take her home
Another stuffed and mounted
But you're still camping all alone
The brag is for your friends
To see how well you've killed
The sheets there to remember
All the tags that you have filled
Now in the cold of morning
There's no one by your side
Your belly may be full
But your soul's empty inside
Now the game knows you well
Your reputation walks before
They hear you coming from a mile
Soon there's no targets anymore
And then you finally realize
Standing old and in the mist
That the real and honest prize
Is the one that you have missed
The owner isn't taking the fruit of your labor without consent. You are selling it to him for your salary. If you feel your labor is worth more, you ask for a raise, renegotiate the contract, or quit and find new employment if you so desire. It is still a voluntary exchange between both parties.
Taxation is taking the fruit of your labor without consent. Now, you may argue that you have given consent, que claims of <social contract>. However, taxation is done with the explicit threat of fine, imprisonment, or both. If you refuse to pay your taxes, they fine you. If you refuse to pay the fines, they lien you. If you still do not cooperate they incarcerate you. If you resist incarceration, they may shoot you.
So, to avoid this real and potential harm to yourself, you comply, and cooperate with the taxation.
Much like a rape victim might lay still and comply, because the rapist has a gun and threatens to beat and kill them if they fight back.
Now, que <social contract> again.
We are said to have all been born into this social contract. But this is inherently unjust. I was never asked if I wanted in on it. I was never given a chance to weigh my options, and negotiate my own deal with a reasoned and consensual agreement that benefited both myself, and those who are taking my fruit. This is essentially a slave being born on the plantation. Sure, if all the slaves born into this bondage were to refuse to work the fields, the plantation would surely fall apart, and since many slaves depend on the Plantation for their food, and survival, any slave who stands up and say "HEY! this is unjust!" is quickly marginalized, and they are told to shut up and work or you will harm your fellow slaves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
I am NOT an anarchist, I am NOT against taxation, or government. Because I'm a realist, and a pessimist. I see that the whole WORLD is plantations. I happen to agree that THIS plantation is better than any other plantation. So while I can see that I was born into bondage, I do not run, because I can only possibly run to another plantation, and they aren't as good as this one. There is nowhere to escape to. There is no place without this bondage, so just pick the plantation you like best, and go there.
I'm a nonbeliever, life is short, and thankfully I don't have to endure this forever.
Since growing up, I have never been attacked, or even threatened. The only fight I ever got into after turning 21 was a mutually instigated bar-room thing, so I wouldn't even call it being attacked, we were both stupid and mouthing off.
That all being said, I don't carry often, and when I do it's openly. But my wife, who goes to work in the dark, and often drives home from work in the dark - I want her to carry (concealed of course) on the off-chance, that one in a million occurrence, where someone in that crap hole town tries to mess with her. It doesn't guarantee she wins, but it improves her chances even a tiny bit, I'll go with that.
After that, we carry openly when we are going hunting, target shooting, busting clays, or gathering at a pro-2nd Amendment demonstration.
What I mean is, I'd rather not argue with you about what is more or less MORAL to do with the fruit. Since it's far too subjective.
Instead, I want you to posit the PRINCIPLE you stand on. What PRINCIPLE guides your decision on what should be done with the fruit.
What PRINCIPLE are you standing on that says it's right to take fruit from others and redistribute it?
Let's not pretend this is about you and me and our credentials.
WHY should I sign up for a job to maximize HAPPINESS, instead of say maximizing usefulness, or righteousness, or self-awareness, or self-actualization, or independence, or toughness, or...
I'm not going to entertain your little thought experiment, until you make it clear what the experiment IS.
Saying "you're supposed to increase the overall happiness of the people" is so vague it's not even funny. How are we measuring happiness? Do I have to increase the happiness of the greedy people too, or just the needy people? Do I have to increase the happiness of the idiots as well as the educated? Do I have to increase the happiness of the pedophiles as well as the virtuous? What IS "happy". How can I tell if I've done a good job with my appointment?
Don't talk to me about complex levels of thought, and quote Aristotle, until after you've actually put some into your question.
I only posit that compassion is a desirable trait. I never once talked about fostering it, or forcing it.
Do we want compassionate people, or just taxed people? Taxation treats the symptoms, compassion is the cure.
If you agree with this, and I'm going to guess that you do, then I only argue that taxing people will never achieve the cure. All we have is institutionalized poverty, a welfare state, and not a compassionate people who work to cure poverty.
I claim NOT to know how to achieve this, I only know that I want to.
NO.
I want you to explain how we measure compassion for the purposses of "rewarding the most compassionate".
Because I myself feel that if Billionaire Bill sends a check in the mail for $50,000 to a homeless shelter while cruising on his yacht in the virgin islands, it is not a given that he is more compassionate than say Minimum-Wage Margaret, who gives her free time after work volunteering at the shelter, and what little bit of cash she has to help.
Here's the thing, that's my opinion, and maybe you agree (or not), but what happens when I'm the government, and I go to "reward the most compassionate"? Billionaire Bill says "Hey hey hey, I gave so much more!! Why does Minimum-Wage Margaret get to be Council Chair!?"
While the welfare and social programs we have are indeed part of the law. I was more speaking to people. As far as I know, there is no law that says I MUST help the needy, in fact, I don't even have to help someone in danger. Bystander laws have been written just for that even.
Because I am not required by law to help the needy, or those in danger, then it's on me, as a moral creature, to inwardly look at my own ethics and self-worth to decide that I want to both help the needy, and assist those people in danger. This is how I know I'm a compassionate person. I empathize. I've been poor, I've had the welfare Christmas, I've eaten donations from a food bank. I've slept in someones attic.
I volunteer, and donate, out of the kindness of my heart, and this is knowing that I've already paid taxes.
However, are there not whole groups of people who want to end the welfare state, AND pay less taxes, AND believe that the poor are just lazy layabouts who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, etc.? Yeah...look no further than some of those TEA party loudmouths.
Clearly, society is failing to foster compassion within those people. Fault lies with their parents, their peers, their chosen forms of media, etc.
All that being said - what good does it do then, to tax the those who lack compassion, only to watch them vote the taxes down, or vote them away altogether. Now you don't have the taxes, AND you don't have the compassion.
If we tried harder to steer them towards being compassionate, first they likely wouldn't fight the taxes so much, but ideally, if we succeeded in making them, and ourselves compassionate enough, there would be no need to tax at all.