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.