An interesting conversation...

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack No I shouldn't, I thought it could have been a worthwhile conversation. With all due respect, you've led the effort to turn it into a trainwreck, and that's what should be discouraged. You're welcome to the last word...

Thanks, I'll take it. It wasn't a worthwhile conversation from the start: it was the potential beginning of the end.

[HFWR]

In the interest of being fair and balanced (heh), how about those who consider themselves conservative enunciate some ideas espoused by conservatives that they consider equally inane. And those who are liberal, do the same.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcowan Well that makes you an anarchist because you refuse to accept the principle that the government is concerned about the "common good" and does not care about your individual circumstance.

No, an anarchist refuses to accept a government role at all. I believe his position would best be described as "strict libertarian" wherein the proper role of government is restricted to protecting the rights of individuals (including the right to be secure in their possessions). Any exchange between adults that is voluntary (not the result of force or fraud) is acceptable in this view.

This world view has its limitations in the real world, but it is safe to say that the most murderous regimes in history (on both the left and the right) have been the ones that varied farthest from strict libertarianism.

[bright eyed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem It's possible we are confusing "efficiency" with "effectiveness." It seems to me that once the government steps into a charitable area, the private charities (and their contributors) figure that block is filled and they go find another area of need. If this is right, government is "crowding out" the charities that might otherwise be providing aid for sick children, etc. If the government is so efficient at performing services (and more efficient than private charities), then they should not be directing my tax money to (less efficient) private charities. They should do this work in house. Whichever is the case (more efficient private charities or less efficient private charities) the fact that the government is giving them my money implies that government is either less efficient at actually performing the services or making a poor decision in using the money they took from me. How much more money would be available for private charities if the government took less in taxes? If tax rates were lower, I'd have more to give. If government placed more of the burden on private charities, I'd have more incentive to give. I suspect others feel the same.

ah, hm perhaps there was some confusion between efficient and effective - however i think separating charity groups from government is not possible - the government hands out lots of money to them - so aren't they being efficient by doing that rather than building a bunch of their own institutions? (even if their grant applications are painful).

So people who say that charities are more efficient so we shouldn't support taxes for govmt services may not see how the two are so heavily tied together.

Would the public "step up" and replace the amount of support the government sends to these charities? I doubt it. And as others have noted before - there's the uncute charities (not babies and puppies - think mentally unwell, etc) that won't get the support they need to provide the services they do.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC . . . lots of people, typically children and the homeless, go hungry every minute of the day and these safety net programs don't always reach them. Here are some fast facts from the Center for Hunger and Poverty: Nearly one in eight US households do not have access to enough food to meet their basic needs. Over 38 million people live in these food-insecure households, including 13.9 million children. More than ten million people live in households that go hungry; close to one-third of these are children. Over 40% of low-income children live in households that are hungry or at risk of hunger. One-third of female-headed households and more than 20% of Black and Hispanic households are uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the basic needs of their members because of insufficient money to buy food.

First, I think "The Center for Hunger and Poverty" seriously needs a name change. Second, I'm sure you can see that such an organization could conceivably have a vested interest in portraying the situation in the worst possible light. Look at the fuzzy framing of their so-called statistics:

-- " . . . uncertain of having or unable to acquire . . ." what does that mean?
-- Notice that none of the blurbs indicate any children are actually going hungry. If one person in a "household" was hungry, then that whole household was at risk of hunger.

I prefer to just look around my community: Does anyone really think that a family (or an individual) who has the will and ability to seek help ever needs to go hungry in America? I don't mean "miss a meal" occasionally, I mean be at risk for malnutrition or serious caloric deficit.

[SteveR]

A gentle reminder to all members. Please refrain from personal attacks. If you can't contribute to the conversation without resorting to bashing and name calling then the Moderators will start throwing some Penalty flags at the offenders.

Play nice or find a thread that does not inflame you.

Thanks

[bright eyed]

Food uncertainty - is when you're not sure you can feed the family from one week to the next - depends on prices of things - so say poof - gas prices go up $.30 this week, you now have to reduce your food budget, or this month you have to pay medical bill, so poof, less or no food. Most are not "starving" - but uncertain - which causes other issues like mental stress and uneven development for the kids.

Many kids in america are overweight but undernourished - a different problem.

Missing meals also is significant because it can reduce a child's ability to learn in school among other issues.

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem No, an anarchist refuses to accept a government role at all. I believe his position would best be described as "strict libertarian" wherein the proper role of government is restricted to protecting the rights of individuals (including the right to be secure in their possessions). Any exchange between adults that is voluntary (not the result of force or fraud) is acceptable in this view. This world view has its limitations in the real world, but it is safe to say that the most murderous regimes in history (on both the left and the right) have been the ones that varied farthest from strict libertarianism.

Unfortunately you left out my explanation of my use of the term. So how does this government get the money it needs to protect these rights?

He does not want to contribute without getting a direct benefit personally.

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem I prefer to just look around my community: Does anyone really think that a family (or an individual) who has the will and ability to seek help ever needs to go hungry in America? I don't mean "miss a meal" occasionally, I mean be at risk for malnutrition or serious caloric deficit.

Yes, is the answer. Does that satisfy your test?

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcowan Well that makes you an anarchist because you refuse to accept the principle that the government is concerned about the "common good" and does not care about your individual circumstance. I use the term anarchist pointedly because you do not want to pay any taxes and not get a direct benefit in return. I am thinking you are quite young. Most of us have experienced a different path where we contribute to others' benefits. Think of it like insurance. You pay for it every year and, fortunately, you have never had to make a claim. But one day you might have to and then you are really glad you had it.

Well first of all.... an anarchist is someone who believes that anyone can do anything they want at any time. Basically they believe that there should be no laws at all, and that "right" is usually determined in any conflict by who is holding the biggest gun. I do not believe in any of those things. I also did say that I have no problem paying taxes at all. Taxes go for things that I either have used (such as public schools), and things I will certainly use at some point in my future (police, fire department, roads, etc). I fail to see any potential benefit that I can ever draw, at any time, even in the future, by enriching another man's pockets.
I also believe that the point of the US constitution is based upon the very premise of the individuals right, vs the rights of the collective mob. Just because all of your neighbors believe that they should own your car, does not give them claim to it. The notion of private property is cental to the very core of our form of government. I do not see how you can say that the govt is most concerned with the "common good" above all else.

[novaman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud You must not have lived in NY city.... when I was there they had an article on the 'poor'... I think 70% had cable, cell phones, microwave oven (who knew it was for rich) and something else I can not remember... to me... if you are POOR, a cell phone is a luxury (or course, there is the Virgin or similar where you can get by for about $5 per month... so maybe not as much...)...

Poverty in the US is more like middle class in many other countries.

True story....a few Thanksgivings back I volunteered to deliver turkey dinners for a charity to "Deserving" families found through the local social services program. So the very first house I deliver to was a single family home in an OK part of town. The car parked in the driveway was a newer model Honda Odessy Minivan...and I thought "gee, I don't have a car that nice, mine is an older model Chrysler". Then as I walked to the door, I noticed that this house had a satellite dish hooked up, then I thought, "gee, I don't even have satellite TV." Finally, when the door to the house was opened, I could see that they had a huge 65" giant screen television, and I thought, "gee, I don't even have a TV that big."

So I guess I'm living in poverty like conditions.

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem I believe his position would best be described as "strict libertarian" wherein the proper role of government is restricted to protecting the rights of individuals (including the right to be secure in their possessions). Any exchange between adults that is voluntary (not the result of force or fraud) is acceptable in this view.

Yeah but even strict libertarians eventually soften their views with age, as demonstrated by Nozick's progression. "Nozick backed away from some of the views he expressed in Anarchy, State, and Utopia in one of his later books, The Examined Life, calling those views "seriously inadequate." In a 2001 interview, however, he clarified his position: "What I was really saying in The Examined Life was that I was no longer as hardcore a libertarian as I had been before." From Wiki.

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed Would the public "step up" and replace the amount of support the government sends to these charities? I doubt it. And as others have noted before - there's the uncute charities (not babies and puppies - think mentally unwell, etc) that won't get the support they need to provide the services they do.

That is a very interesting point bright eyed. In fact you might very well be right. So do you see the govt handling the situation as a way to ensure that people are giving enough? Please take no offense, as none is directed at you, but this makes me a bit nervous.
Let's say that all charity was now in the hands of the private sector, and that people are in fact giving less as you said. So you want to use the govt to force people into paying whatever their share is, as determined by the govt? When it comes to govt trying to steer people to do something, there are basically two ways to do it. I like to call them "sticks and carrots". The carrot method, is to offer some sort of incentive (if and only if) the individual chooses to comply. That might be a tax break, education voucher, whatever. The stick method is when the govt basically will punish you in someway if you do not comply with doing what they want. This might take the form of fines, increased taxes, etc. So people are complying with the stick method because they fear negative consequences, not because they had any desire to comply. In my mind... this is an oppressive form of govt. I would much rather have the option to do something or not, than to do something because I fear punishment if I don't. Charity at the point of a gun (coersion), is still called extortion, no matter how worthy that charitable cause might be.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Because no one.... no matter how great their personal need might be, has the "right" to take what I have earned for myself. The government has no money of it's own.... the govt's money is in fact my money, that I pay via taxes. Is it wrong to want some personal benefit with the using of my own money?

Most all of us pay taxes for things we do not value. I pay taxes for a war I do not want and believe does not benefit me. You don't get to individually pick and chose what you believe in and what you don't as far as government spending. As a whole, we vote for candidates and programs we believe will help ourselves or help society. I won't vote for McCain because of his weak health policies, his position on the war, and other reasons. Others of you may vote for him. If he wins, I still have to pay my taxes. It is a price we pay to live in our society.

So, I don't buy that it is my money and I get to decide how to use it. We all decide. I may vote for and hope for one thing, you another. We both end up pleased with some things and displeased with other things.

I could also make the argument that government assistance does help you. Some possible examples: No assistance, potential for civil unrest. Or maybe you or a loved one will become seriously ill and need assistance after using up health insurance benefits. Maybe you will have a seriously disabled child that needs special assistance for life.

We all are vulnerable.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC Ideology aside, there are some things that the Government can do significantly better, like fighting hunger in America or throughout the world, than charities. And it makes economic sense, from a purely self-interest perspective (and I know that appeals to you) that Government do this, not charities.I read an article the other day discussing a hunger study by a prominent expert that says it would take the Government $12 billion to eliminate hunger in America, as opposed to the $14.5 billion charities currently expend to fight hunger and the $90 billion in costs in "hunger related problems" paid by all of us. So, it seems that this private charity thing is sometimes inefficient to address some social issues.

And charity is unlikely to do much to address issues concerning medical care. My grandniece before her death incurred more than a million in medical bills. Covered by medicaid, thank goodness.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC Yeah but even strict libertarians eventually soften their views with age, as demonstrated by Nozick's progression.

Some do. Strict libertarianism suffers from a couple of weaknesses when applied to the real world. Among them:
-- Under the strictest interpretation, libertarianism would not permit the government to take anything from individuals without their individual (not collective) consent. Thus, all taxes would be voluntary. Here, there's a "tragedy of the commons" problem, as the individual derives only a minuscule benefit from the tax dollars he contributes. The individual inclination would be to let others carry the load. IMO, people will voluntarily contribute only if the problem is very local ("everyone please pitch in, as the fire truck in our dinky town needs a new engine") or very huge and immediate ("Send money to buy bullets now, the Canadians are storming Long Island").
-- Under the strictest interpretation, libertarianism would not permit a country to engage in military force against another country unless the action was clearly in self-defense to their armed action first (not as a means to prevent their armed action, not a means to save lives in other countries, not as means to enforce agreements, etc). It would be very isolationist from a military standpoint. This is appealing to many people, but in the real world nations take military action for many reasons, and a strictly reactive/defensive posture is a very big disadvantage, and an invitation to war.
-- Under the strictest interpretation, libertarianism does not permit any government redistribution of property/wealth (or policies which favor the poor at the expense of the wealthy). In countries which have tried this, the gap between rich and poor widens, and there is eventually blood in the streets as the mobs grow. In addition, if everyone's vote counts the same, the poor will eventually vote themselves a share of the more well-to-do people's property, and increasing socialism results. So, as a practical matter, what seems to work best is to have modest redistribution of wealth and policies which encourage opportunity for those who have less. This is a raw use of government power to take the rightful property of those who have been more successful, but it is the price we/they pay for peace and civic harmony. The smaller this "taking" is, the more incentive there is to be individually productive, and the wealthier society, as a whole, becomes.

A short, well-done movie on the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism. Each of the tenets would have huge implications int he real-world, and in some cases these implications/results are not good.
http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem "Ideology aside" I'd make three points: 1) Making charitable work a government responsibilty deprives us all of a very important opportunity: The ability to voluntarily help others by giving money to charitable agencies. I think everyone likes to feel good about themselves by giving in this way. I get no feeling of having helped others when my money is forcibly taken by the government.

You can still give and we need you to give. There are many many unmet needs. The government has not and probably will not meet all the needs out there.

I wonder whether the war in Iraq would have been fought if it was dependent on voluntary contributions? Will roads get built? Will schools get staffed? The world does not work that way.

[Independent]

armor -

you say this about 'liberals'

Quote:

So there in a nutshell is why I miss the liberal arguement most of the time. It seems to be a system about 'feeling' rather than 'knowing'. I can never tell somone that what they are 'feeling' is right or wrong, that is different for everyone, and certainly not a measurable quantity. The best I can ever do is show various facts, and try to base my decisions on what those facts reveal about the reality of the situation. In my uncles mind it seems not to work that way at all.

But then you justify your postion this way:

Quote:

Charity at the point of a gun (coersion), is still called extortion, no matter how worthy that charitable cause might be.

It seems to me all you're saying is 'It feels wrong to me' I don't see any facts to back up your notion that tax supported charity is 'extortion'.

I'm not saying that you are wrong to "feel" this way. I am saying that you can recognize the difference between "feelings" and facts in other people, but you seem to have trouble with the same distinction when you're looking at your own opinions. (I'm putting feelings in quotes because I think a better word is "values".)

[CuppaJoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by honobob Mom forced to live in car with dogs - CNN.com Did she make bad choices? Maybe she just wasn't lucky enough to get some of the huge farm subsidy payments....

Honobob, is that you? Posting a photo of housing that may depreciate? 4%?, 12%?

[chinaco]

The OP spoke with his uncle and then extrapolated and generalized that all people that have liberal views think the same.... Illogically. I believe your conclusion is wrong.

IMHO I do not believe many people are blanket liberals or conservatives... they tend to have different views based on certain issues.

On the freeloader issue... most "liberal" people I know are not in favor of enabling true freeloaders (chronic won't work, don't care, deadbeats)... but they do favor creating an environment that does not leave people who try and work in our society living in poverty, without healthcare and other basic life needs.