An interesting conversation...

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Well, not an experiment and only a case of one, but (from the Christian Science Monitor, that bastion of reactionary thought): Homeless: Can you build a life from $25? | csmonitor.com

That was a good read. It would have been even better if the young man had not been an athlete and capable of handling physically strenuous jobs. His physical ability made it simple to find a job as a mover, a trade with decent pay and where few questions are asked.

College educated (although not advertising it), good looking, well spoken, extremely physically fit....... I'd have bet that he would have made his goals without hesitation. Fairly obvious outcome.

They should have sent in a 45 year old fella who couldn't work in the mines anymore because his back was totally shot from being bent over 12 hours a day and who was suffering from black lung. Probably could still make it just like the young fella in the article, but it would have been more interesting to read how he did it.....a less obvious outcome.

[ladelfina]

Quote:

I see the world as a place where you should only be rewarded through the results of your own labor. And that no one should have a claim on your posessions, money or otherwise, just because they have less than you. I do not see things like food, clothing, medicine, or heathcare as a right. I see them as commodities, to be bought and sold just like anything else. I do believe that people in dire need through no fault of their own, should be able to get a small amount of assistance. I believe in the idea of charity, and that for charity to be useful, it must always be voluntary. I also take a VERY dim view of people that try to fleece a system for money, when they are mentally and physically able to provide for themselves, but just choose not to. My uncle tended to have the opinion, that no one in an island, that any one of us is just as likely to have something bad happen to us. And for that reason, we should always seek to help anyone and everyone we can, because it could very well be us tomorrow. For my uncle, there was very little personal responsibility in play. He believes that people that get into trouble of their own doing, are just as deserving of help from everyone, as folks who have random bad things occur in their lives. He believes it should be everyones goal in life to help as many people as possible, and to not help someone in need for any reason, is just not acceptable. He also seems to think that no one should ever be allowed to become too wealthy. In his mind, if you are too wealthy, it means you obviously did not help out enough people in life, because you now have more than your fair share. And this are the basic differences in the way that we think.

ERD50 said armor99 is more 'analytical' than his uncle.. but I think his train of thought is at least equally simplistic. Armor99 lives in a world where no stranger has ever helped him, he thinks.. (I'll assume armor99 is male for convenience and from the writing style), but that's not true at all. We assume public schooling helped. We assume police, firefighters and military protect him. Courts are waiting and ready to deal with his legal and financial problems. The SEC and bank regulators protect his investments (now very much in theory). The FDA screens food and drugs for safety. To get to work you don't have to use a machete to clear your own road. Etc., etc., etc. Someone pays for for all these things, and the money can only come from those who have more of it than others.

I got into this argument with Right-Wing Sis. She was all exercised about the inheritance tax. My argument was that the Hilton heirs and the Wal*Mart heirs didn't themselves do anything in particular to 'deserve' billions of dollars and, while the people who amassed these fortunes certainly deserve the right to enjoy most of it during their lifetime.. you have to admit that Wal*Mart benefits from -that is, USES- the public roads and the court systems and even the police and military that defends their holdings.. to a far greater extent than do you or I. I just see it as 'pay to play', there. Who benefits most from the system should also pay in the most. See Buffett's arguments on his proportion of tax payments on income being less than his secretary's. The truly wealthy are taxed too little, currently.

armor, you admit physical health can be a random obstacle to "making it", so why not consider that -perhaps not a 'right'- but something that is convenient for society at large? Europe doesn't have large populations of sick and homeless living under bridges and, while the benefit of public housing and health care to those folks is huge.. it's not ONLY a handout, but something that benefits the average citizen (sit in an outdoor cafe here vs. Santa Monica to experience the difference). I see increasing disparity as only leading to higher crime and violence, which is no good for anyone. The US already has 1/4 of the world's prison population (maintained by taxpayers) with not even 5% of the world's overall population. How high do you want that ratio to go? Which is more costly: public health care and housing, or jail health care and jail housing?

Since the dawn of time people have lived in groups of lesser or greater organization and complexity. They did not tend to be fierce individualists, because few fierce individualists would have survived. (Those at the top of any heap 'earned' their status more often from sheer taking than from judicious cultivation, and to be at the top implies a bottom that furnishes the top, willfully or less willfully) To me, the same thing still holds true, and I think the uncle has the more sophisticated view here. Perhaps it's the 'official' nature of the mutual assistance that turns you off, but I don't see any way around that when you are talking about millions of people.

You talk about people "fleecing the system" and there will always be those.. we just need better screening. I rarely see the 'bootstrap' crowd complaining about defense contractors or offshore hedge-fund managers "fleecing the system", however. One person's 'enterprise' is another person's 'theft'. More venom seems to be reserved for the criminal/stupid who have less than for the criminal/stupid who have more. Ken Lay had people crying publicly over his fate.. not so some Jimmy Joe who stole a truck and got the book thrown at him. Lay's conviction was 'tragic'; Jimmy Joe's was 'justice', yet we try to pretend that there is no such thing as class in America, and that everyone is equal under the law. I think at each income level we tend to want to demonize those below us more than they deserve (for their 'poor' choices w/r/t our 'good' ones), and honor those above us more than they deserve (because more $$ means they 'must be doing something right' that we aren't). It's probably human nature, but that doesn't mean we have to give in to its basest expressions.


--
samclem, I read that article.. ok as far as it went, with the caveats youbet noted. I also read "Nickled and Dimed..." by Barbara Ehrenreich which came to a slightly different conclusion. Either one's experiment would have failed the minute they got ill. That's why health care is where I am most liberal. Armor99 talks about 'planning'.. but I don't think any amount of 'planning' can assist with a major health crisis, which has a chance of blowing through caps of even 'good' insurance . You can't get from $25 in your wallet to funding $10-15k/year for non-group health insurance without a lot of extraordinary luck.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladelfina . . . Perhaps it's the 'official' nature of the mutual assistance that turns you off, but I don't see any way around that when you are talking about millions of people.

I think if you'd said this you would have captured my feelings: "perhaps it's the official, mandatory taking of the things you worked for (e.g. the product of your time, which can never be replaced) that turns you off."

But, as I said earlier, a little socialism and unfair confiscation is the price we pay to live in the world's most prosperous nation. Made prosperous by the efforts of individuals, each pursuing their individual goals for the betterment of us all. "Invisible hand" and all that rot.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Adam Smith

Taxes and regulation introduce friction and inefficiencies into this system. Some of that is unavoidable and even beneficial overall (just as brakes and clutches introduce friction into the workings of a car, which is a good thing). Taking resources from productive people and giving them to less productive people cannot be expected to produce an overall increase in productivity. Such redistribution may have other benefits (on the karmic balance sheet), but we should all realize that it makes us poorer as a society. I think the karmic balance sheet is boosted more by voluntary giving.

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem I think if you'd said this you would have captured my feelings: "perhaps it's the official, mandatory taking of the things you worked for (e.g. the product of your time, which can never be replaced) that turns you off." But, as I said earlier, a little socialism and unfair confiscation is the price we pay to live in the world's most prosperous nation. Made prosperous by the efforts of individuals, each pursuing their individual goals for the betterment of us all. "Invisible hand" and all that rot. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Adam Smith Taxes and regulation introduce friction and inefficiencies into this system. Some of that is unavoidable and even beneficial overall (just as brakes and clutches introduce friction into the workings of a car, which is a good thing). Taking resources from productive people and giving them to less productive people cannot be expected to produce an overall increase in productivity. Such redistribution may have other benefits (on the karmic balance sheet), but we should all realize that it makes us poorer as a society. I think the karmic balance sheet is boosted more by voluntary giving.

Very well said Samclem, I could not have put it any better. I guess that we can agree to disagree on some things. No harm, and no foul there, part of what makes america a great place to live. I was laid off in the past, and was out of work for a long time. My net worth was ~3k. And in approximately 10 years, I have doubled my original salary, and improved my networth considerably. Did people help me out along the way? Sure they did.... but I always paid for that help in one way or another. A mechanic cuts me a break on an expensive bill, but he gets my continued business in the future for it. A company takes a chance on hiring me, and they are returned in kind with high quality work. I pay taxes that go for the roads, schools, libraries etc. I would be hard pressed to think of a situation in the last 10 years where I have gotten anything that was truly "free", or nothing was ever expected in return. You can even look at favors between friends as a payment and a debt. Someone does a good turn for you, if you respect that person, you will feel the need to repay that kindness at some point in the future. I do not expect any others to pay my way, it is just not my style of doing things.

[ladelfina]

Smith also said:

Quote:

What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.

It is not the sheer fact of taxes and regulation, but the fact that it is extremely hard to balance them correctly even when we want to.. they can sometimes create more imbalances than they hope to resolve. Why should a "productive person" pay a higher proportion of tax than Paris Hilton, or the hedge-fund dudes who pocketed billions at reduced tax rates while their funds imploded? The pendulum has swung too far to the right in this.

I can understand the 'invisible hand' arguments. I just want to see them come out more frequently when the recipients of largess are the homebuilders or the oil companies or the sports stadiums or KBR or insurers or pharma or the investment banks, etc. etc. Is that too much to ask?

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem I think if you'd said this you would have captured my feelings: "perhaps it's the official, mandatory taking of the things you worked for (e.g. the product of your time, which can never be replaced) that turns you off." But, as I said earlier, a little socialism and unfair confiscation is the price we pay to live in the world's most prosperous nation. Made prosperous by the efforts of individuals, each pursuing their individual goals for the betterment of us all. "Invisible hand" and all that rot. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Adam Smith Taxes and regulation introduce friction and inefficiencies into this system. Some of that is unavoidable and even beneficial overall (just as brakes and clutches introduce friction into the workings of a car, which is a good thing). Taking resources from productive people and giving them to less productive people cannot be expected to produce an overall increase in productivity. Such redistribution may have other benefits (on the karmic balance sheet), but we should all realize that it makes us poorer as a society. I think the karmic balance sheet is boosted more by voluntary giving.

I guess I don't understand how it makes us poorer! There is simply a clash between any distributive scheme of resources by the Government and notion of unrestrained individual liberty. Robert Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example demonstrated that. But in countless ways we restrain individual liberty and we don't really have major philosophical angst with that.

Topic aside, what annoys me about these threads is that since I've been on this forum -- we've have these debates a lot, typically initiated by the original poster in a thread which bores little resemblance to a philosophical debate of justice and libertarianism. I don't learn any new issues, I don't get any additional insight, and quite frankly they appear to me to just be a "rant" about how someone's individual liberty is being taken away and how it's unfair to have a forced distribution of resources. I guess the soap box is a good place for the rant, but I'm tired of it and I'm exercising my liberty by putting on the ignore button for the original poster.

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC I guess the soap box is a good place for the rant, but I'm tired of it and I'm exercising my liberty by putting on the ignore button for the original poster.

Why thank you.... do not let the door hit you on the way out.