I noticed you didn't answer my question.... If you are considerate of specifics, then you ought to be able to answer specific questions. Do you have any evidence that food stamp recipients would have more money to buy food if the food stamp program didn't exist? -Meta
Nope. No evidence. And is your question supposed to support your ideology-based opinion that violence is an ethical means by which to accomplish one's political ends? When it comes to protecting the person and property of our fellow man, do you have any practical, as opposed to ideologically driven one-size-fits-all, solutions?
I think the principle is "We want it, and we are strong enough to impose it." Nothing more than "might makes right". It's so incredibly primitive. Sometimes I'm astounded that people are still spell-bound by that ideology.
Wow! Now that's a loaded question if Ive ever seen one. I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth, OK... What your answer supports is my assertion that removing things like food stamps etc. without replacing them with something does nothing to improve the lives of the poor, young, old, sick, etc. and in fact harms them instead. There are actually (at least) two questions here. 1. What exactly constitutes property/what should constitute property or...more importantly, what constitutes or should constitute just ownership of things? 2. How do we ensure that just ownership is maintained? My answer to the first question is that people only justly own that which they themselves create through their own labor. It should be mentioned though, that there are cases where such ownership is shared between more than one individual, or even a whole society. To the second, to ensure that such just ownership is maintained, some sort of enforcement mechanism should be put in place, ie: courts, lawyers,, police etc. to both verify and or keep a record of who justly owns what and to make sure that individuals do not try to unjustly transfer such justly owned things. Practically speaking though, such things cost money. And one practical way to pay for it, is a system of taxes. Otherwise, only the rich would be afforded the protection of their justly owned property. -Meta
Lol, have you not been reading what I've been writing? Like I said, generally there are no one-size-fits-all principals. and that's part of my point. If you want to avoid dogmatic idealism, then you have to look at things on a case-by-case basis and consider all the alternatives when considering potential options and not simply rule options out completely on the basis of some overarching ideology without having first compared them to the pros and cons of the other options. And keep in mind....true absolutes are few and far between. -Meta
Logic and critical thinking is no longer a part of the education curriculum. It has been replaced by "your government can get you what you want if you just vote for it" is the base ideology, and young children are taught that it is heresy to deny the authority of the state. It is not ideology that they adhere to, it is dogma.
Now that's just silly. What specific curriculum changes have occurred which would lead you to make such a claim? It seems to me that you simply disagree with your opposition, and need something to blame that disagreement on, so you blame your opposition's education. But doing so isn't particularly useful when attempting to convince others. If your opposition's point of view truly isn't logical or thought out, you should then be able to use logic to show why your oppositions positions don't make sense. The main difference between the two being the degree of flexibility. If you have an ideology which is rigid, absolute, and unchallengeable, then you've got yourself a dogmatic ideology. -Meta
I don't think anyone has contended otherwise Meta, but primarily because no one else thinks it is pertinent to the topic. While I am not sure that it does (a topic for another thread), the greater point in relationship the topic is that the means do not justify the ends. You can not in any way morally justify taking from a person without their consent the justly earned fruits of their labor. This is the force being referred to by BHK and Longshot. As far as your questions go: The answer to this question stems from self-ownership. Only you can own yourself. If anyone else owns you in any way (even "partial" ownership) it constitutes slavery. This is, as we can all agree, immoral. to quote wiki: All other forms of ownership stem from this one, basic truth. I would argue (as do many of the founders) that the ONLY moral reason for the existence of government is to protect the right of the individual. Once government uses its legal force to take from one individual the fruits of their labor and give it to another for whatever reason, it has broken its moral mandate. This is what is referred to as "might makes right" and "the means do not justify the ends". Sure,it may seem moral to take from one group and use it to provide food from another, but without the consent of those being taken from it is unequivocally wrong because by doing do by the very definition given above you are enslaving that person.
So your plan is to protect people's person and property by using violence to take their property. - - - Updated - - - So you don't rule out a course of action simply because it might be unethical. If it accomplishes your ends and you have the power to do it, then you do it regardless.
In farming, in which there are mostly legal and illegal immigrants working, all of which are receiving a 'market wage', Americans are unwilling to accept this type of work. The FACT that Americans won't do this type of work creates a labor void which is happily filled by 'others'! This also applies to many other industries and jobs in the USA. The 'country' is not awash in money? Perhaps people and business have money but not the 'country'. People and business not paying more taxes is not the 'only reason our government is in debt'. Spending is an equal and greater problem with government! If government creates debt, this indicates higher taxes are hard to come by or impossible to achieve, therefore, mitigating debt must be done by reduced spending. It is so convenient and self-serving to proclaim 'certain' people and business don't pay enough taxes yet never do these same people whine that government is spending too much money? Fact is a majority of adult Americans are in the workforce and earning a chosen living. Any American who does not like their position simply need to take steps to modify their spending and/or increase their incomes.
I'm going to guess that nearly 100% of Americans in some form or fashion cheat on their tax reporting. How can this be possible? It is possible because people and business dislike paying taxes! When government takes steps to force higher taxation only from certain tax payers, the risk in doing so is diminishing returns. The higher the taxation the more cheating! The more loopholes! The more tax attorney's to solve complex tax issues benefiting the taxpayer! The more lobbyists applying pressure on politicians! The more expanded use of placing cash outside of the USA! Etc...etc...etc. Forget the moral debate and focus on the math and logical outcomes of government actions. How stupid is it for Apple Corp. to have $200 billion in cash, mostly sitting outside of the USA, because idiot government thinks they should tax earnings outside of the USA??!! In case idiot Americans have not noticed, Apple and others have options today and the more problems created by US government the more that these options are exercised. As an example, what would happen to the tax revenue and state of economy in California if CA raised personal income tax rates by 30%? Answer; there would be a mass exodus from CA to all other more favorable locations. IMO just the idea of discussing government taxation as moral or immoral shows how screwed up we have gotten in governing our local and federal governments...
The adoption of government run public schools, implemented in order to create good government citizens and instill civic virtue. Meanwhile, very few today are able to see past rhetoric and divisive narrative as anything but fact. They swallow the government line and never give a thought to the legitimacy of power and the wielding of it. They dutifully vote for a pre-selected group of individuals to be their rulers every so often, and then go back to their business without wondering they really had any right to do so. Hey, if someone can explain why a law is legitimate simply because 50%+1 of those enfranchised to vote then voted for it, or a bunch of long dead men wrote up a document, I'm all ears. Would you like to give it a try? I ask for objectivity, logic, and reason. If I wanted to convince others, I'd resort to rhetoric and divisive narrative. I'd rather people question every belief that they hold and examine the underpinnings of that belief. If it's right for them, it'll be the stronger for it. If it's wrong for them, they'll come to a different conclusion through that critical thinking. Was that the thread of the conversation? It sure doesn't look like it. What set of unfounded assertions do you contend that I am avoiding? I find that most people hold that the legitimacy of the state is unchallengeable.
I don't think that everyone sees it as immoral. I think most believe that one person owning another is immoral, because they are told to believe that (abolitionists were in the minority the antebellum US), but most also accept the idea that the state, to some measure, can and must own the individual in order to benefit the collective. Even the 13th amendment simply nationalized slavery rather than abolished it. What about socializing the cost of services?
Had to make sure we were all on the same page, since for a moment, it seemed like Longshot was saying that removing things like food stamps, Medicare/caid, SS, etc. would actually be a net benefit to the poor, young, old, sick, etc. by leaving them with more money in their pockets to spend on food, health care, retirement etc. I'm glad we're all in agreement that that isn't the case. I think you got that backwards. Should read, "the ends do not justify the means". Either way,...part of he problem here is that Longshot at least, is trying to dismiss arguments based on what the potential means of achieving societal goals/ends might consist of before we've even agreed upon what those goals/ends should be. Evaluating whether the means are justified given their pros and cons is all fine and good imo, but they shouldn't be used to rule out what our goals should be, and as I mentioned before, those who argue that we shouldn't have certain goals, because one might logically adopt a certain set of means to achieve said goals and even potentially see them as justified, those folks,...they are committing the Appeal to Consequences Fallacy. And coincidentally, they are also using the 'potential means to un-justify the ends'....(which makes about as much sense (or less) as saying the ends always justify the means) The other big issue which I think is contributing to the disconnect, is on what actually constitutes "justly earned fruits" or "justly owned fruits". Again, my view is that people justly earn and own that which they themselves create through their own labor, the one exception being that one can't own the body of someone else. And I should clarify,...that of course such just ownership can justly be transferred to someone else, at which point this second person becomes the just owner. Ownership can also be transferred unjustly as well, and in such a case I would consider the resulting ownership, a form of unjust ownership. Lastly, let me mention again the potential for shared ownership of certain things. Yes, I think we can all agree that every person has or should have complete self-ownership. But where the disconnect is I think is on the question of ownership of property which, while possibly created by the self, is also apart from the self. Would you say there is anything missing from my characterization of just ownership which I posted above? -Meta
That's not what I said at all..... Would you immediately rule out the option of borrowing a neighbor's rope without asking in order to rescue a person who's fallen down a well? I wouldn't, because while I view borrowing things without asking as generally unethical, I view leaving someone to die in a well as even more-so. And while there may very well be better options, you should only rule out the first one after you've compared it with the pros and cons of those better options, and not simply dismiss it immediately out of dogmatic principal, because on the off chance that no better options exist, it'd be pretty silly (among other things) to do nothing and let a person die in a well just because you wanted to make sure you stuck unwaveringly to some poorly formulated set of principals. That said, keep in mind that the ethical value of the specific thing we're discussing here hasn't even been agreed upon. -Meta
Sure, but utilizing critical thinking one realizes that the two positions conflict. Otherwise the issue is compartmentalized. If by socialize you mean entering into a voluntary contract for a specific set of core services by government that is fine. Any other services can be offered by government (such as healthcare or retirement) but is a direct fee to those who subsribe.
If I saw someone down in a well and my only option was to take my neighbor's rope I would do so in order to save a life. And I would do so knowing that I have violated my neighbor's property rights. And I would accept whatever legal punishment was imposed. However, I doubt that the "victim" would sue me for the trespass against his rope, once he knew my reasons for violating his property rights.
You're telling me that Americans don't want to work?? That couldn't be any further from the truth! The real issue isn't that people aren't looking for work, but that there are more people looking than there are jobs to put them in. And this doesn't just apply to one or two particular types of work, but across all the major industries! And you'll notice that construction coincidentally has the most people looking per number of job openings. Note though that this data is from a few years ago (I wanted to post it for the graphical representation) More recent data suggests that we are doing much better, but as you can see from the chart below, there are still more job-seeking workers than openings across the board in ever major industry. For some reason, I was unable to find similar job openings data for agriculture, possibly due to its seasonal nature, but while it's accurate that most agriculture workers are immigrants, to say that Americans wont work agriculture jobs is inaccurate. 25% of agricultural crop workers nationwide are American citizens. Now that's a FACT! https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do So clearly there are Americans who are willing to work those jobs. How exactly are more suppose to do them though when the remaining positions are filled already? You might try to suggest that without those immigrants, the jobs would go unfilled....I am skeptical of that however, and even if such was the case it would just mean that farm owners would need to raise the wages offered to attract more workers. That's how a market works. Having said all that though, its sort of a moot point, since in the case of a WPA, most of those jobs would likely be construction type work, a field in which, as previously mentioned, there are plenty of workers vying for the limited number of positions there are right now, and not to mention that construction is something we really need to focus more on as a country anyway, seeing as how our current infrastructure is nothing less than a disgrace when compared with that of other advanced countries. Beyond that, as you can clearly see from the charts, there are several other industries in which there are more folks looking for work than there are jobs that a WPA program could support in one way or another. BTW, yes, we as a country are awash in money. Also,...how can something be equal and greater at the same time? That doesn't make any sense. Nor does it make any sense to suggest that debt due to spending more than you take in suggests that taking more in is impossible.... I could just as easily say that it suggests that cutting spending is impossible. But neither of these things are true. And again, it does not make sense to suggest that they are, especially when one hasn't even tried!!!...That is to say that if congress voted to do it, it could be done, therefore the issue is not one that is practical or technical in nature, but political. Again, a lacking of political will to fix things is the real problem here. -Meta
Please, can you be specific?.....What specific change in curriculum and or teaching methods leads you to believe that logic and critical thinking have been taken out and are not taught in schools anymore, and that blind allegiance to a 'benevolent' gift-giving government is being taught instead?? I guess I've been out of school for a while, so maybe that's why I'm not aware, but what exactly has changed? Are they not teaching math and science anymore?? Did they get rid of reading and writing?...If not,..then what?? What exactly do you mean by legitimate? I assume you mean morally justifiable,...right? When groups of people come together and then find themselves with a set of choices which affects them all.... should there be any disagreement over which choice to pick, there are only so many ways to resolve such disagreements. One way might be to compromise, but in cases where that isn't possible the goal of democracy is to ensure that as many people as possible are satisfied by the chosen option, with the understanding that no matter what is chosen there will always be some who are unsatisfied by the choice. That document the dead men wrote that you mentioned, specifically the bill of rights, is there to provide citizens with some base protection against volatile shifts in that majority opinion which may occur sporadically or in small regional pockets. I believe our particular democracy could be greatly improved. But even with such improvements, we would still be a democracy. If there is a better way out there for large groups of people to resolve disagreements which is itself not ultimately another form of democracy or compromise,...I haven't seen it. I'm not suggesting you're avoiding anything. But its clear you have disagreement with some folk, and are blaming their education for the disagreement instead of explaining the true substance of why their position is wrong and yours right. Not me. I find the state, any state, is only legitimate (morally justifiable) insofar as it works towards the well-being of those who are governed. -Meta
Absolutely...I'm saying a huge portion of Americans won't work jobs that legal and illegal immigrants are doing...this is a FACT. The FACT that there might be 5-10 million illegal workers in the USA, most of which are working, have these jobs because Americans won't compete for these jobs. Another FACT is if Americans did take these jobs the US would not have an illegal immigrant issue. There are something like 4.5 million unfilled jobs across the nation...why is this? Business only increases wages when they can't hire and maintain the necessary labor. As long as illegal immigrants show up to do certain work, and they work hard, and they don't complain, there is no reason to change wages. BTW: where I live lower skilled farm workers earn $12-$15/hour while more skilled workers earn $15 and up. I've said WPA type work won't solve the broad US unemployment issue. First, most unemployed don't qualify for the type of work, and second, the jobs are not usually located in one's backyard. Your 'country' is not awash in money and if it was you would not have $500 billion annual deficits, mounting debt, and a sluggish economy. Makes no difference all the excuses for deficit spending and debt...FACT is it continues as it has for years with no end in sight. When I believe most any business, including the US government, has at least 20% waste, then it's a no-brainer for me to know the US government has a spending problem. 20% of $4 trillion is $800 billion which is wasted every single year. Can you imagine how $800 billion of critical spending can benefit the nation? $800 billion resolves the annual deficit spending issue! But this will never change as well because our leaders are too stupid, too self-serving, and those that keep them in office are the same...
1) Deport illegals 2) Make obscene-amount campaign donations and lobbying a criminal offense. 3) Ease restrictions on small business and cut favoratism to large corporatiions. 4) Trim the fat out of all the Bureaus.
The goal here is for us as individuals to be as moral and for society as a whole to be as ethical as possible given the situation. In this particular case, both of us chose an option which, under a different set of circumstances, would certainly have been viewed as immoral, and yet the reason we chose it, and likely the reason many others would make the same choice, is that the alternative in this case, letting someone die, is viewed as even more immoral. Am I right? So what would you do if you were government/society, in this case? ie: what if you were the one passing judgement on the rope borrower? Would you consider it ethical or moral to sentence this person who saved another person's life in the same way one might pass judgement on a common thief? If not, then we shouldn't consider it moral ethical or right for our government or society to do the same. And again, all that said, I am not of the group that believes the ends always justifies the means. That is to say that if there are alternatives that achieve the same goal(s) without negative ethical consequences, then the less-moral/less-ethical option is unjustified. And if such alternatives are unknown, we still have a duty imo to at least consider the possibility of their existence and put forth a reasonable amount of effort in seeking them out. At the same time, this effort should not be to an extent such that our moral and ethical high ground is lost in the process. We work with options we have given time sensitive things, and move to continually improve ourselves and society as situations allow. So.....once again it seems that I have used a lot of words to explain a point which could have been described in a single sentence.....sorry about that And that is that there are very few absolute principles when it comes to morals ethics right and wrong, so choices need to be made in-context, with consideration given to all the known options at a minimum, comparing them against one another for their pros and cons, and keeping in mind that sometimes the goals we set for ourselves may conflict in certain instances and we'll have to ask ourselves which we give a higher priority too, just as in the case with the rope and the person's life. -Meta
If my only option was to borrow someone's rope without his permission, then I'd do so. However, I would do so with the knowledge that I was trespassing against the rope owner. I would be prepared to pay whatever damages were judged to be due, assuming that the rope owner decided to take legal action against me. However, this would be a once in a lifetime act. How many times do I find a person down a well and myself unequipped to help? Never, so far. What I wouldn't do would be to continuously and systematically trespass against my neighbor while simultaneously claiming the my trespass was legitimate and telling him "if you don't like it, leave your home and move away".
Disagreements on issues which may affect the whole group in some way or another. eg: What a shared lake or other water source is to be used for, how defensive measures are to be erected organized and or paid for, or more generally, what the laws of the land should or should not be. -Meta
