John Green, Father of the Little Girl Killed in Tuscon, is my New Hero
- Thread starter Lilavati
- Start date
I will comment on the disablility for a second. Without that my father would not be able to be taken care of by his family he would be in a nursing home getting NOWHERE near the care he is getting. He is in a coma and we actually had to get a attorney to PROVE he couldnt work because disability wanted to find him a job because you know a man in a coma can work and all. He is closer to coming out of it then if he was in a nursing home because he needed alot of one on one care to even get to this point. Even if all of us tried to pay for it there is no way that we could cover it AND my stepmoms wages so that she could afford to care for him. We do get alot of charity though thank god because on top of it to even do this they have to pay cobra to even have insurance. There are people who desperately need it that people dont think of.
And what do you suggest the disabled do in order to survive?
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 482
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
Part of living in a society is meeting the needs of others within that society. Because there are some selfish people out there *cough cough* societies have to mandate participation for the common good. Our constitution does that, btw.
Everyone will argue about what the common good entails. What it entails is what the majority decides and their representation in government legislates (in a free society)
Certain entitlements, usually known as "natural" or "human" rights, exist as shared norms of a broader society. People who choose to live outside those norms are typically not seen in a favorable light. In the "good old days" they would have been social outcasts, these days we call them "cranks" and try to ignore them while still requiring they participate in social contracts and can still benefit from them.
The concepts I mentioned earlier, the deriviation or underlying philosphy behind individuals views of those rights, typically break down into two distinct camps. Interest and will. Interest theorists believe that the principal function of human rights is to protect and promote certain essential human rights (interests) while will theorists believe human rights are based in the human capacity for freedom.
Thus, freedom means different things to different people based upon their experience (it typically informs their philosophy) so there is never going to be a consensus. Not even within US law because "common good" is so subjective.
Suffice to say, there are no absolute freedoms. None. All can be abbrogated, either for the common good or for nefarious purposes. The distinction needs to be made between intents. To classify people whose view on freedom differs from yours as "liars, cowards and thieves" (as an example) is assigning intent that likely does not exist.
That kind of rhetoric, all heat and no light, doesn't lead to reasoned and informative discussion. Remembering that there are actual people sitting in front of keyboards and monitors on the receiving end of commentary and statements of belief would be a good idea. A community can be built, it can also be torn apart, by how we treat others.
fwiw.
Everyone will argue about what the common good entails. What it entails is what the majority decides and their representation in government legislates (in a free society)
Certain entitlements, usually known as "natural" or "human" rights, exist as shared norms of a broader society. People who choose to live outside those norms are typically not seen in a favorable light. In the "good old days" they would have been social outcasts, these days we call them "cranks" and try to ignore them while still requiring they participate in social contracts and can still benefit from them.
The concepts I mentioned earlier, the deriviation or underlying philosphy behind individuals views of those rights, typically break down into two distinct camps. Interest and will. Interest theorists believe that the principal function of human rights is to protect and promote certain essential human rights (interests) while will theorists believe human rights are based in the human capacity for freedom.
Thus, freedom means different things to different people based upon their experience (it typically informs their philosophy) so there is never going to be a consensus. Not even within US law because "common good" is so subjective.
Suffice to say, there are no absolute freedoms. None. All can be abbrogated, either for the common good or for nefarious purposes. The distinction needs to be made between intents. To classify people whose view on freedom differs from yours as "liars, cowards and thieves" (as an example) is assigning intent that likely does not exist.
That kind of rhetoric, all heat and no light, doesn't lead to reasoned and informative discussion. Remembering that there are actual people sitting in front of keyboards and monitors on the receiving end of commentary and statements of belief would be a good idea. A community can be built, it can also be torn apart, by how we treat others.
fwiw.
Well, I'll state that I think that society can agree, by a vote of the majority, that it would like to take care of its disabled members. (Which was my point about insurance . . . its not an apples to oranges comparison . . . on a society wide scale you get consent by a vote rather than asking each individual). And the reason I think that is partially that I think is absurd that "freedom" means a society could NOT decide to do that, or that the preferences of the minority (that the disabled fend for themselves or depend on charity) be given a veto. I know that I would be perfectly content, and would feel that I was a free person, to live in a society where I was required to contribute to the care of the disabled . . . so long as I was also entitled to equal care if I were to be born (or become) disabled. I would agree to such a bargain in a private contract, and I would agree to such a bargain as part of a society, even if I did not, myself, vote on the issue. I don't think that makes me a sheep, or an ant . . . I think it makes me a human being who has chosen to live in the company of other human beings and obey the rules that we have collectively agreed upon. (Yes, there are always problems with the tyranny of the majority . . . but you take that too far and the rule becomes not the protection of the minority but the absolute power of the minority to veto the plans of the majority.)
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 482
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
^^ that
Voiding the social contract for strict propertarianism is a dangerous thing, and this is why a contemporary political scientist referred to anarchism as "half baked Marxism."
"half baked" because "at least Marx had the balls to honest about the kind of violent coercion necessary to turn his theory into practice."
Voiding the social contract for strict propertarianism is a dangerous thing, and this is why a contemporary political scientist referred to anarchism as "half baked Marxism."
"half baked" because "at least Marx had the balls to honest about the kind of violent coercion necessary to turn his theory into practice."
What I see is that, despite all the fine words and posturings, most people who adamantly support social programs/safety nets do so, not because they are worried about others who might need them, but mainly in case they might need to avail themselves thereof -- or make their living by their administration.
Sure, there are some exceptions, but for the most part, in my experience, they are out taking care of others OUTSIDE the socially accepted "norms" of government enforced charity and have little use for "brotherly love" by means of extortion.
Sure, there are some exceptions, but for the most part, in my experience, they are out taking care of others OUTSIDE the socially accepted "norms" of government enforced charity and have little use for "brotherly love" by means of extortion.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 482
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
Limited experience and projection are no substitute for reasoned analysis.
Having worked both within and outside the system I can tell you which one is more effective, in my experience, but what value would that add to the discussion? None. Statistics, on the other hand, can back me up:
Social Security and Elderly Poverty
One example
Efficacy is a major component of how we "bleeding hearts" chose the manner in which we minister. In stark contrast to the strict "charity" folks who limit their work to those deemed "worthy" or for reasons of self interest in other areas than possible future difficulties. Namely, will this make me look good to other people.
Having worked both within and outside the system I can tell you which one is more effective, in my experience, but what value would that add to the discussion? None. Statistics, on the other hand, can back me up:
Social Security and Elderly Poverty
One example
Efficacy is a major component of how we "bleeding hearts" chose the manner in which we minister. In stark contrast to the strict "charity" folks who limit their work to those deemed "worthy" or for reasons of self interest in other areas than possible future difficulties. Namely, will this make me look good to other people.
I'm rather fond of Benjamin Disraeli's astute observation that, "there are lies, damned lies and statistics."
Everyone's experience is somewhat limited. I am, however, far more inclined to trust the extent of mine -- working in and out of the system, and with and against it -- than someone whose experience is an unknown quantity.
You, of course, are free to do the same, should you so wish.
Everyone's experience is somewhat limited. I am, however, far more inclined to trust the extent of mine -- working in and out of the system, and with and against it -- than someone whose experience is an unknown quantity.
You, of course, are free to do the same, should you so wish.
It should also be noted that support for the principle of a social safety net does not mean an endorsement of the current system. Frankly, a lot about the current system sucks.
But calling a societial decision to implement a social safety net to be categorically "slavery" or "extortion" is more than a bit extreme.
But calling a societial decision to implement a social safety net to be categorically "slavery" or "extortion" is more than a bit extreme.
