Michael Moore bitchslaps CNN

[beetlebum]

And when your kid gets cancer and you are broke, we'll see how pompous you are about not running up your credit card.

I WASN'T BEING POMPOUS. I WAS JUST SAYING THERE ARE IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE WHO NEED TO PRACTICE FISCAL PRUDENCE THAT IS ALL. NO ONE TOLD THEM TO SPEND MONEY ON A NEW CAR OR A NEW IPOD OR WHATEVER . I DID NOT SAY EVERYONE WHO IS IN DEBT WAS IN IT FOR THE SAME REASONS I WAS JUST COMMENTING ON AMERICA'S CONSUMER CULTURE THAT IS ALL. If I offended you I apoligise ( at least I like you enough to say that) Oh here we go again.......

[KJ_81]

Well, his mom just broke her wrist. The hospital will only perform outpatient surgery if they pay in full beforehand; if not, no surgery, and she will permanently lose function in that hand.
.


Geez. That sentence (or three) horrifies me. To give you an example from Aus, a few months ago a mate of mine pretty much severed his hand on an industrial saw. Micro-surgery straight away, his hand will be almost as good as it was, and no cost to him.

[OzBat!]

And when your kid gets cancer and you are broke, we'll see how pompous you are about not running up your credit card.maybe you missed the part where he expounded on the impact runaway credit card debt directly had on his immediate family? That doesn't sound like pomposity to me.

[DungeonmasterJim]

Credit card companies aren't evil to me they just have really tough terms and some are less than easily understandable. I can easily see how people can get into debt considering certain circumstances. I'm not sure where I'd be without my credit card. I'm lucky enough to be in a position where I don't have to rely on my credit card as a source borrowing to survive so I am able to use my credit card and get away without getting into debt thus making it a very convient item to have.

It is frustrating in that debates for being elected to be run for president it seems I'm seeing little in the way of actual national health coverage. I'm really hoping that here in my home state of Massacusetts that statewide health care is able to be a successful option to people without medical insurance. There are a number of snags and catches with it which is not unexpected but hopefully it'll become a good model for other states to copy.

And as I seem to remember nothing but gloom and doom news, after watching and or reading about how much fraud there is with government funding there shouldn't be a major problem affording national and/or state health care. Just this week I caught part of a report about a Florida land developer that took a hefy chunk of government money to build public housing, never built anything other than posting a 'coming attractions' sign, and built a mansion for himself. Luckily, there was sort of an Erin Brokovich lady investigator that discovered all this despite attempts at blocking her investigation and the developer was indicted.

DM Jim

[Reverend Smooth]

Geez. That sentence (or three) horrifies me. To give you an example from Aus, a few months ago a mate of mine pretty much severed his hand on an industrial saw. Micro-surgery straight away, his hand will be almost as good as it was, and no cost to him.
Thank goodness.

It finally got resolved, sort of; I don't remember all the details, but the hospital is going to charge medicare instead. I think his mom now qualifies because of her age.

But that's how it is out here, generally-- for a significant segment of the population, the healthcare they receive is on a third-world level.

That's acceptable to many people and most politicians, since apparently poor folk are trash and deserve it because it's their fault that they're poor.

[Samurai]

Thank goodness.

It finally got resolved, sort of; I don't remember all the details, but the hospital is going to charge medicare instead. I think his mom now qualifies because of her age.

But that's how it is out here, generally-- for a significant segment of the population, the healthcare they receive is on a third-world level.

That's acceptable to many people and most politicians, since apparently poor folk are trash and deserve it because it's their fault that they're poor.

You also can't afford to eat steak and lobster with caviar appetizer every night, but have to make do with TV dinners, fast food, and canned stuff from the store. You also can't drive a Lamborghini, travel to Europe all the time, or live in a summer house by the sea. You can't buy one of a kind designer outfits, own a private jet, or hob nob with celebrities. I guess it's all because people hate the poor...

[Reverend Smooth]

You also can't afford to eat steak and lobster with caviar appetizer every night, but have to make do with TV dinners, fast food, and canned stuff from the store. You also can't drive a Lamborghini, travel to Europe all the time, or live in a summer house by the sea. You can't buy one of a kind designer outfits, own a private jet, or hob nob with celebrities. I guess it's all because people hate the poor...
Wow, I guess that having access to necessary surgery is the same as a lobster dinner.

Oh wait, it's not. You're just really stupid for making such a comparison.

[Sabrinaset]

I think in a roundabout way, Sam is trying to make the point that, well, what happens when someone decides that having food is a right as well? And then, what if someone decides that people have a right to lobster or something ...? At least, I think that's what he's trying to say. I wouldn't know. I tried lobster for the first time last month, and I didn't like it. I dunno what people would do if you had a right to meet celebrities. What if the celebrity you had a right to meet was Paris Hilton? You'd end up with twelve dozen STD's, and there you go needing health care again. Can I get the right to meet Jessica Alba though? Rrowr!

You know, people who couldn't afford medical coverage could pay it off in other ways. Like community service. They could start by removing the damned graffiti all over the place.

[Reverend Smooth]

I think in a roundabout way, Sam is trying to make the point that, well, what happens when someone decides that having food is a right as well? I think he was just being dumb, but I also think that having something to eat should be a right.

And then, what if someone decides that people have a right to lobster or something ...? That would also be a dumb argument.

You know, people who couldn't afford medical coverage could pay it off in other ways. Like community service. Sure, why not?

[Paul McEnery]

I think in a roundabout way, Sam is trying to make the point that, well, what happens when someone decides that having food is a right as well?

Having food is a right.

[Sabrinaset]

Is it? What about having a job to pay for that food, is that a right too? ... and who is out there guaranteeing me that job? I don't think I like where this is headed ...

I also think this thread is drifting pretty far from where it's supposed to, but that's another story ...

[Jeff F]

I dunno what people would do if you had a right to meet celebrities. What if the celebrity you had a right to meet was Paris Hilton? You'd end up with twelve dozen STD's, and there you go needing health care again.

I like that you'd have sex with Paris Hilton, knowing full well the risk of such an act, just because she's a celebrity.

And hey, I'm not judging, because we all have our own fun, I'm just reading too much into things and thinking they're funny.

[Reverend Smooth]

Is it? What about having a job to pay for that food, is that a right too? ... and who is out there guaranteeing me that job? I don't think I like where this is headed ...

I also think this thread is drifting pretty far from where it's supposed to, but that's another story ...I think that slippery slope fallacies are stupid and that you should probably not debate this type of thing with me, since we want to get along, and stuff. I have no patience for stupid arguments when people who make those same stupid arguments directly impact my family's livelihood and security.

If that's too serious for you, and you have a hard life as a doctor, then have consideration for someone who has a hard life as someone who's terminally ill and poor, ok?

[Sabrinaset]

Hmm, actually, it IS too serious for me. I'm mostly here to lighten things up. I'll let MacQ and Loren argue about the right to food and/or a job, because I already know they can argue it a million times better than I could.

I'm still waiting for someone to agree that I have the right to meet Jessica alba. And rip her clothes off.

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm still waiting for someone to agree that I have the right to meet Jessica alba. And rip her clothes off.
I'd agree with that.

[Paul McEnery]

Is it? What about having a job to pay for that food, is that a right too? ... and who is out there guaranteeing me that job? I don't think I like where this is headed ...

I also think this thread is drifting pretty far from where it's supposed to, but that's another story ...

Fuck the politically minded, here's something I want to say,
About the state of nation, the way it treats us today.
At school they give you shit, drop you in the pit,
You try and try and try to get out, but you can't because they've fucked you about.
Then you're a prime example of how they must not be,
This is just a sample of what they've done to you and me.

Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.

Don't want me anymore, cos I threw it on the floor.
They used to call me sweet thing, I'm nobody's plaything,
And now that I am different, they'd love to bust my head,
They'd love to see me cop-out, they'd love to see me dead.

Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.

The living that is owed to me I'm never going to get,
They've buggered this old world up, up to their necks in dept.
They'd give you a lobotomy for something you aint done,
They'll make you an epitomy of everything that's wrong.

Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.

Don't take any notice of what the public think,
They're so hyped up with T.V., they just don't want to think.
They'll use you as a target for demands and for advice,
When you don't want to hear it they'll say you're full of vice.

Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO

[Samurai]

Hmm, actually, it IS too serious for me. I'm mostly here to lighten things up. I'll let MacQ and Loren argue about the right to food and/or a job, because I already know they can argue it a million times better than I could.

I'm still waiting for someone to agree that I have the right to meet Jessica alba. And rip her clothes off.

Only if I have that right too, as well as the right to watch you exercise your rights... ;)

And my point above, in addition to what you said, was this: You already have the right to necessary, life-saving medical procedures, whether you can pay or not. So now we're to the point of non-life-saving medicine being covered, and from Rev's "3rd world" comment, top of the line cutting edge procedures. That's why, even if you feel you have a right to food, transportation, a place to live, and all the rest, does that mean you only have the right to subsistence levels and bare necessities, or steak and lobster, large comfy homes, and sports cars? Where does the sense of entitlement end?

[Sabrinaset]

[I]Fuck the politically minded, here's something I want to say...

Paul ... I don't think the government owes us a job, but they do owe us an education, and it's up to use to use that education to further ourselves. Now, to the extent that some people are unable to make it at all or need some help, we owe them something, but as far as owing everyone a job, I dunno. I mean, I've said it before, I worked my butt off taking the hard classes on independant study and taking college classes and so forth and going for the A's while a lot of my peers spent most of their high school years sniffing permanent markers. And there's just no way that these kids who wasted their time in school deserve a job doing the same kind of stuff that someone who worked hard for it does. At least until they work for it.

I'm also not saying these guys should be made into Soylent Green or something, we owe it to them to fund adult education for when they realize that they really did need it, and some kind of jobs program after that, but it's still up to them to search out the jobs and go for it ... eh, that's what I feel. I really don't wanna argue over it too much, like I said, MacQ or Loren can argue this better than I can. And maybe I'm wrong. You know, whatever MacQ says ... I agree with that. He's my backup Daddy anyways.

I'm not entirely sure how to put it, but we need to make some kind of a distiction between people who CAN'T work (The Rev) and people who WON'T (95% of my High School class) and at present I'm not sure that we are. Does this make any sense?

[Reverend Smooth]

And my point above, in addition to what you said, was this: You already have the right to necessary, life-saving medical procedures, whether you can pay or not. False. But I'm not surprised that you'd lie about it.

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm also not saying these guys should be made into Soylent Green or something, we owe it to them to fund adult education for when they realize that they really did need it, and some kind of jobs program after that, but it's still up to them to search out the jobs and go for it ... eh, that's what I feel. I really don't wanna argue over it too much, like I said, MacQ or Loren can argue this better than I can. And maybe I'm wrong. You know, whatever MacQ says ... I agree with that. He's my backup Daddy anyways.

I'm not entirely sure how to put it, but we need to make some kind of a distiction between people who CAN'T work (The Rev) and people who WON'T (95% of my High School class) and at present I'm not sure that we are. Does this make any sense?Yes.

I also think that most people here, myself included, agree with your above statement.

The way it's set up now, it's stacked against people who have been fucked over by illness or job loss to get back out of it. I can say that personally and that's also the case nationally.

[LtMarvel]

I think in a roundabout way, Sam is trying to make the point that, well, what happens when someone decides that having food is a right as well? And then, what if someone decides that people have a right to lobster or something ...? At least, I think that's what he's trying to say. I wouldn't know. I tried lobster for the first time last month, and I didn't like it. I dunno what people would do if you had a right to meet celebrities. What if the celebrity you had a right to meet was Paris Hilton? You'd end up with twelve dozen STD's, and there you go needing health care again. Can I get the right to meet Jessica Alba though? Rrowr!

You know, people who couldn't afford medical coverage could pay it off in other ways. Like community service. They could start by removing the damned graffiti all over the place.
You love the mental challange of trying to defend Sam's arguements, don't you?

[beetlebum]

maybe you missed the part where he expounded on the impact runaway credit card debt directly had on his immediate family? That doesn't sound like pomposity to me.


Thanks for defending me OzBat. The point I was trying to make was just be careful,because they are out to scam you. And once again, I will point out I am a girl. ;) The avatar does do a good job of fooling people now doesn't it? That's exactly what I wanted, not to be harangued every five minutes with pick up lines from geeky boys:p

[Sabrinaset]

As long as you realize that I made my own position on whatever we're talking about clear here, it boils down to two things ... 1) If I thought anyone's arguments were being misconstrued and I thought I understood what they were trying to say and could explain it better, I would do the same thing with them. 2) I reallllllly think you guys go waaay too hard on Sam, and I can understand you disagreeing with his facts, but when it gets personal ... I mean, I just did the same thing somewhere on the Marvel board, so it's not just for Sam, I'd do it for anyone.

That's exactly what I wanted, not to be harangued every five minutes with pick up lines from geeky boys

Hey, Beetlebum ... are you free tomorrow night? :p

[DungeonmasterJim]

Having food is a right.

Considering how many people are obese in America, I'm thinking it might be the most abused right in America.



DM Jim

[beetlebum]

As long as you realize that I made my own position on whatever we're talking about clear here, it boils down to two things ... 1) If I thought anyone's arguments were being misconstrued and I thought I understood what they were trying to say and could explain it better, I would do the same thing with them. 2) I reallllllly think you guys go waaay too hard on Sam, and I can understand you disagreeing with his facts, but when it gets personal ... I mean, I just did the same thing somewhere on the Marvel board, so it's not just for Sam, I'd do it for anyone.



Hey, Beetlebum ... are you free tomorrow night? :p


Yeah, sure why not? Your the only one here who actually leaves mom's basement.:p The Asian chick and the blond. Didn't I see this in a movie starring Jenna Jameson once.....

[Paul McEnery]

I reallllllly think you guys go waaay too hard on Sam, and I can understand you disagreeing with his facts, but when it gets personal ...

We don't go anywhere near hard enough, and my patience is at an end.

When you smear your opponents as anti-semites, that's it.

[Reverend Smooth]

Your the only one here who actually leaves mom's basement.I was on my own by the time I was sixteen. Thanks for reconfirming my judgement-- pompous, and clueless on top of it.

Edit: Re: Sam: he doesn't cite facts. He cites lies. We're not obligated to let him insult our intelligence. If you want people to be less hard on him, tell him to start being honest.

[Sabrinaset]

We don't go anywhere near hard enough, and my patience is at an end.

When you smear your opponents as anti-semites, that's it.

But Paul, disregarding that at first blush it really DID look like that website was anti-semetic, when YOU start saying stuff to the effect of "Why don't you just die," I think you're going way over the top. And look, you and I both disagree on everything, but we both respect each other, and even when you REALLY disagree with me, you never go THAT far.

Look, you know I like you, you know I'm not just saying this because I want you to change your political views, I'm just trying to keep you from getting banned this month. Like you do almost every other month! :p Because, let's face it ... I joke about you being so intellectually superior that no one understands your posts a lot, but it's because I DO admire your reasoning, intellect, and breadth of knowledge. I just don't like seeing you insulting people because, well, to me, it cheapens your arguments. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's just how I feel. And that goes for Sam as well, because he told Tages, I think, to f*ck off somewhere, and well, really, anyone here. And I know I'm not perfect, and I know there's plenty of posts where I need to apologize for not following my own advice here ... but I just wish we all could be more polite and civil to each other is all. I'm not saying change your political views, just ... argue them without resorting to personal attacks, I guess. And like I said, yeah, that goes double for me.

[Reverend Smooth]

Then I suggest, sabrinaset, that you tell Samurai to stop trolling in order to provoke him. All you are doing is contributing to the problem.

[Samurai]

False. But I'm not surprised that you'd lie about it.

Wrong. You do have that right, it's the law. Not every law is always followed 100% of the time (see also: murder, speeding, drug possession, jaywalking, and every other law on the books). But that is the law, as Sabrina confirmed.

[beetlebum]

I was on my own by the time I was sixteen. Thanks for reconfirming my judgement-- pompous, and clueless on top of it.

Edit: Re: Sam: he doesn't cite facts. He cites lies. We're not obligated to let him insult our intelligence. If you want people to be less hard on him, tell him to start being honest.


I was just joking for crying out loud. If I'm on this website it means I'm just as geeky. It's called a self deprecating sense of humour. I have tried to be nice to you but you keep attacking me. There's no need for you to personally insult me. And how was I being pompous? I was just saying be careful when it comes to credit cards. And as for clueless, I guess you never read my posts? Why don't you calm down, what did I ever do to piss you off?

[Reverend Smooth]

I was just joking for crying out loud. If I tack on 'it was just a joke', will you find it funny?

[JKCarrier]

Moore made an interesting point in his last Daily Show appearance: Nobody expects the Police Department or the Fire Department to turn a profit. We recognize that those are necessary services, we expect the government to provide those services for us, and we're willing to pay taxes to support them. Why is that not the case for health care?

(And for that matter, no one would suggest that it's acceptable for rich people to get better police and fire services than the poor -- at least, I hope they wouldn't)

[Samurai]

Then I suggest, sabrinaset, that you tell Samurai to stop trolling in order to provoke him. All you are doing is contributing to the problem.

I'm not "trolling" to try and provoke Paul, I'm stating my beliefs and opinions, same as Paul, you, and every other poster here does. And when I am treated with respect and decency, I always return it. Of the times I'm not, 99% of the time I STILL return it with civility, or just ignore the person. But sometimes I just blow my top, same as everyone does, and Tages pushed my buttons one too many times, so I responded to him just as he spoke to me.

[Samurai]

Moore made an interesting point in his last Daily Show appearance: Nobody expects the Police Department or the Fire Department to turn a profit. We recognize that those are necessary services, we expect the government to provide those services for us, and we're willing to pay taxes to support them. Why is that not the case for health care?

(And for that matter, no one would suggest that it's acceptable for rich people to get better police and fire services than the poor -- at least, I hope they wouldn't)

They all have private security, don't they?

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm not "trolling" to try and provoke Paul, I'm stating my beliefs and opinions,Nonsense. You are a troll who lies. If you want to be thought of as something else stop lying and stop trolling. Just about every word out of your mouth is dishonest, disingenuous, and flat-out offensive to anyone with an IQ above 45.

You are even lying now.

I am astounded that millions of years of evolution could have produced someone as useless to a debate as you.

[beetlebum]

If I tack on 'it was just a joke', will you find it funny?


Yes I would. I don't know what i did to deserve your ire, other than offhand, weak jokes making fun of the comic book geek stereotype
( of which I am a part of) No one else on this website seems offended by it. If they were they would let me know. If you continue with dexterous, petulant posts. There's no need for me to address you.

[Reverend Smooth]

If you continue with dexterousIt was a 'joke'. Stop being so oversensitive, etc. (Since it works for you.)

And furthermore, wtf does 'dexterous' mean in this context?

I'm ESL, I'd like to know precisely what I'm being accused of.

[DungeonmasterJim]

I was on my own by the time I was sixteen. Thanks for reconfirming my judgement-- pompous, and clueless on top of it.

Edit: Re: Sam: he doesn't cite facts. He cites lies. We're not obligated to let him insult our intelligence. If you want people to be less hard on him, tell him to start being honest.



Not trying to be a jerk Rev, but weren't you kicked out? I thought I remember you saying that.

I myself lived with my parents quite a long time before I moved out but I do own my own house. Unfortunately, because of a fixed incoming despite being middle class for most of their years my parents are now poor with taxes and everything going up. So it's possible they could move into my basement someday. Oy!

DM Jim

[Reverend Smooth]

Not trying to be a jerk Rev, but weren't you kicked out? I thought I remember you saying that.Yep. My brother started threatening to beat me up again and I finally stood up to him, and my mom kicked me out. (Edit: And before anyone tries to say it was my fault, I have to note that he is now on antipsychotics.)

And eek, role reversals.

[beetlebum]

It was a 'joke'. Stop being so oversensitive, etc. (Since it works for you.)

And furthermore, wtf does 'dexterous' mean in this context?

I'm ESL, I'd like to know precisely what I'm being accused of.

I wasn't addressing you . I was just joking with Sabrina. If I made an offensive comment, I take full responsibility for it. I did not say Rev. smooth in my posts, specifically. Again, I was just making fun of the comic book geek stereotype. I too lived with my mother until recently. You have ESL and I am sorry. I would never make fun of any one who has a disability. Don't you think your reading far more into this than what I typed? I did not think joking about mom's basement would draw so much anger.

[DungeonmasterJim]

I don't know Samurai, but he was perfectly civil in the CBR Runway threads in the art forums. I guess political stuff really gets him going like he mentioned. I can't reall say I consider him a troll.

I was bitching to my friend the other day at work because she got a physical scheduled with her doctor for next month. I have no idea why my doctor's schedule is crammed until April next year. Maybe the recpetionist on the phone was just being a prick. The same doctor had plenty and has plenty of time to see and take care of my mom.

DM Jim

[Reverend Smooth]

I wasn't addressing you . I was just joking with Sabrina. If I made an offensive comment, I take full responsibility for it. I did not say Rev. smooth in my posts, specifically. Again, I was just making fun of the comic book geek stereotype. I too lived with my mother until recently. You have ESL and I am sorry. I would never make fun of any one who has a disability. Don't you think your reading far more into this than what I typed? I did not think joking about mom's basement would draw so much anger.It just means English Second Language. When anglos use anglo words in contexts that I'm not familiar with, I get all confuzzled. ^^;

[Reverend Smooth]

I was bitching to my friend the other day at work because she got a physical scheduled with her doctor for next month. I have no idea why my doctor's schedule is crammed until April next year. Maybe the recpetionist on the phone was just being a prick. The same doctor had plenty and has plenty of time to see and take care of my mom.Ugh, I'm so sorry.

[DungeonmasterJim]

Ugh, I'm so sorry.


No need to be sorry about that. I'm a little confused as to why her schedule is so full. I can always get another doctor. I'm pretty lucky so far in that I've never really had a major health issue so I only really do yearly visits. I do suspect that in time most of my 401k savings and IRA saving will get burnt up on perspcription pills as I get older like into my 60's. I'm probably very lucky that I am healthy since my father worked at Monsanto for 25 years. They are a chemical company with a somewhat dubious record with waste chemical desposal. Fortunately, my dad didn't work at that particular plant.

DM Jim

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm probably very lucky that I am healthy since my father worked at Monsanto for 25 years. They are a chemical company with a somewhat dubious record with waste chemical desposal. Fortunately, my dad didn't work at that particular plant.

DM JimI know who they are, and you really are very lucky! o.o;;;

I really dislike that company, given my ridiculously extreme chemical sensitivities. Every damn time they come out with some 'innovation', it's yet another reason why I can't leave the house.

[beetlebum]

It just means English Second Language. When anglos use anglo words in contexts that I'm not familiar with, I get all confuzzled. ^^;

I had forgotten what ESL meant. I apoligise. On a humorous note, first day of Junior high school a friend of mine, who is Hispanic, and a first generation American who speaks fluent English, was put in the ESL class for some odd reason. I will never forget her telling me how she felt as she over heard the teacher say "OK, now who here does not know how to speak American?" We still laugh about it to this very day. All's well that ends well.

[Reverend Smooth]

I will never forget her telling me how she felt as she over heard the teacher say "OK, now who here does not know how to speak American?" We still laugh about it to this very day. All's well that ends well.The irony, it burns. ^^;;;

[beetlebum]

It just means English Second Language. When anglos use anglo words in contexts that I'm not familiar with, I get all confuzzled. ^^;

For the record I did not know about the fact that you lived in your parent's basement or the trouble you went through (this is only my first month her)If I did, than I would have rephrased my joke "still lives at home with their parents" which I did until recently.

[Reverend Smooth]

For the record I did not know about the fact that you lived in your parent's basement I didn't. XD (It was a crappy basement anyway, all unfinished and it had a leak. I totally expected zombies to lurk down there and grab my ankle through the ope staircase.) D:
or the trouble you went through (this is only my first month her)If I did, than I would have rephrased my joke "still lives at home with their parents" which I did until recently.It's ok, we're cool.

[Samurai]

I don't know Samurai, but he was perfectly civil in the CBR Runway threads in the art forums. I guess political stuff really gets him going like he mentioned. I can't reall say I consider him a troll.

DM Jim

Thanks. And it's not politics that gets me angry, it's the nasty, insulting language by certain people around here. I ignore it most of the time, and choose to respond in a civil manner because, as numerous PMs to me have related, it shows the other person to be the jerk who can't respond intelligently to your arguments and facts, and is left no recourse but to call names like a Kindergartener. Every once in a great while, though, everyone looses it a little bit because they've been pushed too far once too often, and Tages post just went too far.

[Samurai]

double post, darn board is acting up again.

[macul]

Having food is a right.

Having the ability to pursue the means to obtain food is a right.

[Spackling Compound]

Having the ability to pursue the means to obtain food is a right.

or a skill.

[MacQuarrie]

Having food is a right.

The right to freedom of the press means that you have the freedom to own one, as Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked. It does not mean that the government or anyone else is obligated to provide you with one.

Having food is a right in that you have the right to buy it and eat it. Having a right and having the ability to exercise it are two different things. If you mean that having food is a right in that other people are required to provide for you if you are unable to do so, then no, it is not a right. Other people may feel the moral responsibility to provide for the disadvantaged, but that does not confer on you the right to receive from them.

As Saul of Tarsus once said, "if any will not work, neither should he eat." (Note, he said "will not" not "can not.") If somebody has the ability to do something productive and refuses to do so, they have no right to food.

We really have to get off this kick of calling everything a right.

[Paul McEnery]

The right to freedom of the press means that you have the freedom to own one, as Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked. It does not mean that the government or anyone else is obligated to provide you with one.

Having food is a right in that you have the right to buy it and eat it. Having a right and having the ability to exercise it are two different things. If you mean that having food is a right in that other people are required to provide for you if you are unable to do so, then no, it is not a right. Other people may feel the moral responsibility to provide for the disadvantaged, but that does not confer on you the right to receive from them.

As Saul of Tarsus once said, "if any will not work, neither should he eat." (Note, he said "will not" not "can not.") If somebody has the ability to do something productive and refuses to do so, they have no right to food.

We really have to get off this kick of calling everything a right.

Yeah, but, you know, everyone down on their luck actually is entitled to food stamps.

Therefore, it's a right.

[Paul McEnery]

But Paul, disregarding that at first blush it really DID look like that website was anti-semetic, when YOU start saying stuff to the effect of "Why don't you just die," I think you're going way over the top. And look, you and I both disagree on everything, but we both respect each other, and even when you REALLY disagree with me, you never go THAT far.

Because you're not just repeating whatever fascist nonsense you've picked up from your stupid fascist websites.

There isn't any way on God's Green Earth that Samurai just happened upon that Wonkette page. And he never climbed down or apologized.

Almost everything Samurai posts about politics is deliberate disinformation intended to derail the discussion.

He also deliberately couches his posts in such a way that, in order to show that he's lying, you have to go into ridiculous detail to prove it.

It's a complete waste of everyone's time. And it's clearly intended to do harm. And in that case, it was intended to do harm to friends of mine.

Samurai has become nothing but a propaganda machine for fascism.

And I've got no time for that.

[Nick Soapdish]

Yeah, but, you know, everyone down on their luck actually is entitled to food stamps.

Therefore, it's a right.

That doesn't necessarily follow. At least, in the respect of a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It may be a right guaranteed by the law that enacted Food Stamps, but I think it's just us saying that they should be able to eat, not that they have a right to the food.

[MacQuarrie]

Yeah, but, you know, everyone down on their luck actually is entitled to food stamps.

Therefore, it's a right.

Nobody is entitled to anything. They are eligible for food stamps. Therefore it is not a right, it's a kindness.

Nobody ever has a right to the results of somebody else's efforts.

[MacQuarrie]

That doesn't necessarily follow. At least, in the respect of a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It may be a right guaranteed by the law that enacted Food Stamps, but I think it's just us saying that they should be able to eat, not that they have a right to the food.

Key word, 'guaranteed". The constitution does not grant rights, it guards against the infringement of self-evident inherent rights that people have. Food is not among them.

[Nick Soapdish]

Paul ... I don't think the government owes us a job, but they do owe us an education, and it's up to use to use that education to further ourselves.


You godless Commie bastard!

Maybe I'm not really a liberal, but I don't quite agree with that.

I believe that the government should give all of its citizens a good education and that it's its responsibility to do so. A well-educated populace is crucial to the economic and political prosperity of a democracy.

But I don't think that it's a right except so far as we're currently being taxed specifically for that purpose.

It's the same way that I feel about healthcare. We don't have a right to "free" or affordable healthcare, but making it available is only responsible on the part of the government.

[MacQuarrie]

You godless Commie bastard!

Maybe I'm not really a liberal, but I don't quite agree with that.

I believe that the government should give all of its citizens a good education and that it's its responsibility to do so. A well-educated populace is crucial to the economic and political prosperity of a democracy.

But I don't think that it's a right except so far as we're currently being taxed specifically for that purpose.

It's the same way that I feel about healthcare. We don't have a right to "free" or affordable healthcare, but making it available is only responsible on the part of the government.

What he said.

If we, as a people, decide that this is something necessary, and best handled by the government as opposed to private, market-driven commercial providers, then we should do it. But let's not delude ourselves that it's free or a right. There's no such thing as government funds; it's not their money. Our government is "We the People" and it's our money. If We the People want to take on this responsibility and expense, then hooray for us. As long as we are honest about what we're doing and why.

As I said before, TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

[Paul McEnery]

Key word, 'guaranteed". The constitution does not grant rights, it guards against the infringement of self-evident inherent rights that people have. Food is not among them.

There's no such thing as a self-evident inherent right. The constitution is one social contract among many, and that's all it is. The rights it protects/enshrines are simply those achieved by political activism -- this time.

In almost every developed nation, it's understood -- and written into law -- that everyone has the right to health, education, food, and shelter. The only exception is America, where these rights are substantial limited, and their provision distinctly grudging.

[Paul McEnery]

What he said.

If we, as a people, decide that this is something necessary, and best handled by the government as opposed to private, market-driven commercial providers, then we should do it. But let's not delude ourselves that it's free or a right. There's no such thing as government funds; it's not their money. Our government is "We the People" and it's our money. If We the People want to take on this responsibility and expense, then hooray for us. As long as we are honest about what we're doing and why.

As I said before, TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Now that I agree with, except I'd invert it:

If we choose not to take up that obligation to our fellow human beings, then we suck.

[Paul McEnery]

Nobody is entitled to anything. They are eligible for food stamps. Therefore it is not a right, it's a kindness.

Nobody ever has a right to the results of somebody else's efforts.

In a developed capitalist economy, there's no such thing as isolated achievement.

[Paul McEnery]

That doesn't necessarily follow. At least, in the respect of a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It may be a right guaranteed by the law that enacted Food Stamps, but I think it's just us saying that they should be able to eat, not that they have a right to the food.
When you can tell me the difference between "they should be able to eat" and "they have a right to eat", I'll concede the point.

[DungeonmasterJim]

In almost every developed nation, it's understood -- and written into law -- that everyone has the right to health, education, food, and shelter. The only exception is America, where these rights are substantial limited, and their provision distinctly grudging.

Sorry if I'm knit-picking, but what are you generally considering a developed country? I often see reports on the BBC World News broadcast on my local PBS station that shows Chinese authorites kicking farmers off their own lands and even killing them during protests of such land taking. Another report had kids in India learning in open back alleys that looked more like cellar holes than anything else. I've forgotten where exactly it was but I think it was an African nation where the government told the grocery stores to drop prices by half and everything sold out so that people couldn't get more food. Burma is a joke being a total dictatorship that seems to regularly use its population as forced slave labor so I'm guessing a dictatorship is not considered a developed country.

I'm just trying to understand you better is all.

Thanks,

DM Jim

[DungeonmasterJim]

In a developed capitalist economy, there's no such thing as isolated achievement.



This was posted as I was replying. So I'm figuring this is what you mean by a developed country. Correct?

Thanks.

DM JIm

[Paul McEnery]

Sorry if I'm knit-picking, but what are you generally considering a developed country? I often see reports on the BBC World News broadcast on my local PBS station that shows Chinese authorites kicking farmers off their own lands and even killing them during protests of such land taking. Another report had kids in India learning in open back alleys that looked more like cellar holes than anything else. I've forgotten where exactly it was but I think it was an African nation where the government told the grocery stores to drop prices by half and everything sold out so that people couldn't get more food. Burma is a joke being a total dictatorship that seems to regularly use its population as forced slave labor so I'm guessing a dictatorship is not considered a developed country.

I'm just trying to understand you better is all.

Thanks,

DM Jim

We'd call them developing nations. The third category is underdeveloped nations.

It's newsspeak for First, Second and Third World.

[Loren]

Moore made an interesting point in his last Daily Show appearance: Nobody expects the Police Department or the Fire Department to turn a profit. We recognize that those are necessary services, we expect the government to provide those services for us, and we're willing to pay taxes to support them. Why is that not the case for health care?

Different reasons, actually.

First, the Police Department. Due to the nature of core police duties (search, seizure, arrest, detention), it's difficult to imagine how a private police could work. Officers get warrants to search people and places. They have the authority to detain people. They have the authority to use force against people. Police responsibilities all revolve around the state's ability to utilize force, which is something private entities can't do. If you wanted to privatize police functions, you'd have to be willing to hand over police authority to private businesses.

So we don't have a privatized police force for pretty much the same reasons we don't have a privatized court system, or a privatized D.A.'s office.

Now with the Fire Department, it's different. Fire Departments COULD be private. In fact, many fire departments were private once upon a time, which people paid for. Perhaps more familiar is the notion of the volunteer fire department, where a town might own a fire engine, but wouldn't actually employ any firemen.

Over time, fire departments evolved into the public arena for several reasons. The risk posed by burning buildings to other buildings, the danger of fighting bigger fires, etc. It didn't have to go that way (fire protection certainly isn't a "right"), but it was a policy decision that Americans eventually adopted.

And a couple of reasons I think it works, as is so accepted, stand in stark contrast to the reasons advanced for state-run health care. Fire protection ends up being pretty cheap per person. And fire departments are operated exclusively by city and county governments, the same governments that collect property taxes. Since any property owner has a vested interest in not having his property burn, there's a direct correlation there. Health care, on the other hand, is HUGELY expensive. And that expense is, after all, the main reason that nationalization is being advanced in the first place.

One other difference is that police and fire departments are run on the local level. I imagine that the public wouldn't be terribly keen on nationalizing either of them. I can't imagine either of them improving overall in quality if nationalized, either.

[Nick Soapdish]

Not Second World.

Second World was the Communist Bloc and I don't think that they were ever considered "developing".

Or are you arguing that we've redefined them in such a way to keep us (the West) as First World and everybody else somewhere else?

I'm pretty sure that Singapore counts as fully developed by pretty much any economic standard, but they're still considered a Third World country.

[Loren]

Fuck the politically minded, here's something I want to say,
About the state of nation, the way it treats us today.
At school they give you shit, drop you in the pit,
You try and try and try to get out, but you can't because they've fucked you about.
Then you're a prime example of how they must not be,
This is just a sample of what they've done to you and me.

Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Owe us a living?
OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.

Who is this "they"? It's either the state, or the assertion is that somebody other than the state owes them "a living."

And I find it pretty funny if these are the words of an anarchist band claiming that the government owes them a living.

[Loren]

When you can tell me the difference between "they should be able to eat" and "they have a right to eat", I'll concede the point.

Now why'd you go and misquote Nick? He didn't say "they have a right to eat." He said, and you blockquoted his words, "they have a right to the food."

And it makes a difference. His phrasing refers to a right to a specific physical thing. Your paraphrase refers to a right to engage in an action.

[Nick Soapdish]

When you can tell me the difference between "they should be able to eat" and "they have a right to eat", I'll concede the point.

Woo-hoo!

Oh wait. I bet you meant coherently.

The former means that it's desirable, but that I have no obligation to provide it for them.

I believe that it's in my best interests to make sure that they can eat and I think that I have a moral responsibility to do so, but that's only one half of the equation. And I don't think that's the same as it being a requirement or them having the right.

For example, I think that we have a moral responsibility to be informed about the issues and vote. I don't think that it's a requirement.

[MacQuarrie]

There's no such thing as a self-evident inherent right. The constitution is one social contract among many, and that's all it is. The rights it protects/enshrines are simply those achieved by political activism -- this time.
The United States was founded on the proposition that certain rights are self-evident, "among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (Jefferson wanted to include property ownership, but he was talked out of it). The fundamental assumption of the US government is that the government cannot confer rights up on people; people already have those rights by virtue of being human; the government can only ensure or violate those rights, and we choose to ensure them.
In almost every developed nation, it's understood -- and written into law -- that everyone has the right to health, education, food, and shelter. The only exception is America, where these rights are substantial limited, and their provision distinctly grudging.
Those nations are coming at it from exactly the opposite position. In their philosophy, rights are granted by the government... and they can be rescinded at any time for any reason.

I happen to believe in the concept of self-evident, inherent rights, because those are the only ones that matter. Those are the only ones that can't be cancelled by government fiat. The guy standing in front of the tank at Tianenmen Square believed in a self-evident inherent right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of thought. That's why he was standing there. You say he was wrong. I disagree.

[Loren]

Yeah, but, you know, everyone down on their luck actually is entitled to food stamps.

Therefore, it's a right.

Nope, still an entitlement. If the federal government tomorrow decided to scrap the food stamp program entirely, no one could appeal to the judicial system and say that their "rights" were being violated because the feds weren't giving them food stamps anymore.

[Nick Soapdish]

Now why'd you go and misquote Nick? He didn't say "they have a right to eat." He said, and you blockquoted his words, "they have a right to the food."

And it makes a difference. His phrasing refers to a right to a specific physical thing. Your paraphrase refers to a right to engage in an action.

I don't think it was a misquote. He was contrasting the phrasing in my words and his and trying to nail down the distinction between our positions.

[MacQuarrie]

Now that I agree with, except I'd invert it:

If we choose not to take up that obligation to our fellow human beings, then we suck.

Sure. But we have the right to suck.

[MacQuarrie]

In a developed capitalist economy, there's no such thing as isolated achievement.

Rubbish.

J.K. Rowling sat down on her own and wrote a book while sitting in a coffee shop. Now she's the second-richest woman in the entertainment industry, and that is her achievement, from her own effort. The people who applied themselves to the task of marketing her book and turning it into a successful film franchise are also solely responsible for their achievements in that regard, and were also compensated for their effort.

Without Rowling's isolated achievement, none of them would have anything to market, and none of them would have been compensated for their efforts.

They may be interdependent, but they are also independent and isolated efforts on a common project.

You're playing word-games to try to defend the indefensible.

[Reverend Smooth]

As Saul of Tarsus once said, "if any will not work, neither should he eat." (Note, he said "will not" not "can not.") If somebody has the ability to do something productive and refuses to do so, they have no right to food.

We really have to get off this kick of calling everything a right.I'm going to give y'all a few more quotes. This is why, btw, I'm no longer a christian-- when I was homeless and starving and didn't even have shoes, as a teen, all I got was condemnation. And the poor are still condemned.

(Mac has been good about behaving like a true christian, though, I have to say.)

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from his goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prision and you came to Me." Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, "Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?" And the King will answer and say to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me." Then He will also say to those on the left hand, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me." Then they also will answer Him, saying, "Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?" Then He will answer them, saying, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me." And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?"

In my opinion, if every christian did his or her duty by his or her neighbor, you wouldn't need to legislate charity, because, what, 85% or so of this country is christian?

But they don't. And I'm sorry, Mac, but when I hear christians complain about a level o taxes that is truly minimal compared to what was levied on Jews in biblical times, and when most of them don't go out and feed, clothe, and house their starving, naked, and homeless brethren, when they don't go out to heal their sick brethren, as Christ did, then the government needs to step up.

Republicans talk about getting god back into government; if that was the kind of God they were talking about, I would have no objections.

[MacQuarrie]

Paul ... I don't think the government owes us a job, but they do owe us an education, and it's up to use to use that education to further ourselves.
No, they don't. the person who owes you an education is you.

The only thing the government owes us as regards education is the guarantee that nobody can prevent us from getting one because of some irrelevant excuse like race, religion, gender, place of origin or sexual orientation. But it's up to us to figure out how to get an education and how to pay for it.

"The world doesn't owe you anything... it was here first."

[Paul McEnery]

Different reasons, actually.

First, the Police Department. Due to the nature of core police duties (search, seizure, arrest, detention), it's difficult to imagine how a private police could work. Officers get warrants to search people and places. They have the authority to detain people. They have the authority to use force against people. Police responsibilities all revolve around the state's ability to utilize force, which is something private entities can't do. If you wanted to privatize police functions, you'd have to be willing to hand over police authority to private businesses.

So we don't have a privatized police force for pretty much the same reasons we don't have a privatized court system, or a privatized D.A.'s office.

This is a bit historically blind, if you don't mind me saying so. Historically, the police are in fact a private army for the ruling classes to be deployed against the lower classes if they start getting a bit uppity.

Whether that's the British police deployed against trades unions, or the French police deployed against Communards, or the NYPD which were de facto the Irish mob protecting their own.

Not to say that I don't want the PD keeping order on my street. Just saying, that's all.

And a couple of reasons I think it works, as is so accepted, stand in stark contrast to the reasons advanced for state-run health care. Fire protection ends up being pretty cheap per person. And fire departments are operated exclusively by city and county governments, the same governments that collect property taxes. Since any property owner has a vested interest in not having his property burn, there's a direct correlation there. Health care, on the other hand, is HUGELY expensive. And that expense is, after all, the main reason that nationalization is being advanced in the first place.
.
Ah, but need it be so expensive? And how much of health care is (or should be) expensive? What's expensive is the extended health care through technology. Standard stuff is still the same standard stuff.


One other difference is that police and fire departments are run on the local level. I imagine that the public wouldn't be terribly keen on nationalizing either of them. I can't imagine either of them improving overall in quality if nationalized, either.
Depends on the size of your community, doesn't it.

The US is always a special case because of its scale. People should always retain whatever ownership is practicable in their community.

[Paul McEnery]

Now why'd you go and misquote Nick? He didn't say "they have a right to eat." He said, and you blockquoted his words, "they have a right to the food."

And it makes a difference. His phrasing refers to a right to a specific physical thing. Your paraphrase refers to a right to engage in an action.

And I suppose they have a right to use that food as a hat if they so choose.

Let's not play semantics.

We've got a foodstamps program because we recognize that people shouldn't have to go hungry. You can argue if the correct word here is "right" "entitlement" or eligibility" if you like. Doesn't make the least bit of difference, does it.

[MacQuarrie]

I'm going to give y'all a few more quotes. This is why, btw, I'm no longer a christian-- when I was homeless and starving and didn't even have shoes, as a teen, all I got was condemnation. And the poor are still condemned.

(Mac has been good about behaving like a true christian, though, I have to say.)





In my opinion, if every christian did his or her duty by his or her neighbor, you wouldn't need to legislate charity, because, what, 85% or so of this country is christian?

But they don't. And I'm sorry, Mac, but when I hear christians complain about a level o taxes that is truly minimal compared to what was levied on Jews in biblical times, and when most of them don't go out and feed, clothe, and house their starving, naked, and homeless brethren, when they don't go out to heal their sick brethren, as Christ did, then the government needs to step up.

Republicans talk about getting god back into government; if that was the kind of God they were talking about, I would have no objections.

You're absolutely right in your comments about Christians failing to live up to the commands of Christ... but where in that does he suggest that the poor are entitled to any of it? He never argues that the hungry have a right to food, just that we have a responsibility to give where and when we can.

Calling it a right says that the hungry person can demand food from anyone, that somebody "owes" it to him.

I've been poor. I've been homeless and hungry.I've shoplifted to eat. At no point did I ever tell anybody that they had to give me anything. I was grateful and thankful for every bite I was given, and I am still thankful to this day for the people who gave it.

Calling it a right negates gratitude, cancels humility, and camouflages begging. If i thought I had a right to be taken care of, I'd still be dependent on handouts.

More than that, though. People who give because they feel a responsibility, a duty to do so, will give a lot more than people who are compelled to do so. Making it a right breeds resentment and discourages effort.

If the cost of providing a "right" becomes too much, the government will look for ways to eliminate the recipients. It's happened before, it's happening now.

[Paul McEnery]

Who is this "they"? It's either the state, or the assertion is that somebody other than the state owes them "a living."

And I find it pretty funny if these are the words of an anarchist band claiming that the government owes them a living.

THE anarchist band. Crass!

And of course, that wouldn't be anything as lowbrow as the American notion of the state, but rather the understanding that capital and monarchy are in collusion within the modern state to create the alienation of labour from its production. In such a system -- so the argument goes -- one's only options are cooperation within an unjust system or starvation.

A Marxian critique of Crass would note that they successfully formed a bourgeois cottage industry with their artistic production, thus undermining their simplistic and false dichotomy.

Since you asked. :evilsmile

[Reverend Smooth]

What's interesting is that Larime doesn't get foodstamps, we ran into that one a few times.

Because he already gets money from the government, even if it's far less than we need to cover rent etc, the stamps part is covered in that.

So if all the government money we get goes to paying rent (and it does) and bills, there's nothing left over for food, and we're not eligible for stamps because we ostensibly already got 'em.

[Nick Soapdish]

And I suppose they have a right to use that food as a hat if they so choose.

Let's not play semantics.

We've got a foodstamps program because we recognize that people shouldn't have to go hungry. You can argue if the correct word here is "right" "entitlement" or eligibility" if you like. Doesn't make the least bit of difference, does it.

It does.

If it's an entitlement or a matter of eligibility, it's something that we can decide that they don't get.

And maybe I was too quick in a previous post. I didn't say that people have a right to food or to eat, but rather that it was in our best interests to make sure that they could.

[Reverend Smooth]

You're absolutely right in your comments about Christians failing to live up to the commands of Christ... but where in that does he suggest that the poor are entitled to any of it? He never argues that the hungry have a right to food, just that we have a responsibility to give where and when we can.I strongly disagree with you. When he makes being christian contigent upon feeding the hungry, that says to me that the hungry have a right, mandated by our creator, to eat.

The only ones who can feed them are the people who can afford to. Jesus is very specific: Feed the poor, clothe them, and shelter them. Why? Because by doing so, you feed, clothe, and shelter God, and you also become the instrument through which God works. That is what he says, literally.


The poor, hungry, and homeless have those rights because they are god and god demands that you do these things.

[MacQuarrie]

And I suppose they have a right to use that food as a hat if they so choose.

Let's not play semantics.

We've got a foodstamps program because we recognize that people shouldn't have to go hungry. You can argue if the correct word here is "right" "entitlement" or eligibility" if you like. Doesn't make the least bit of difference, does it.

It makes a ton of difference.

If it's a right, the recipient is in the position to demand it, to demand that anything I have which hasn't been defined as a right may be forfeited at any time, if necessary to secure his right. That's what rights mean. They are absolute states of being. If you have a right to food, my family's comfort is secondary to your right, and your claim to my income is equal to mine. And that is tyranny.

As Rose Wilder Lane said, "private property is the mainspring of civilization." It is the right from which all others are derived. The right to profit from one's own effort without fear of confiscation is the fundamental building block of all society. You are chipping at that block by granting others rights to a block they did not carve.

[Nick Soapdish]

You're absolutely right in your comments about Christians failing to live up to the commands of Christ... but where in that does he suggest that the poor are entitled to any of it? He never argues that the hungry have a right to food, just that we have a responsibility to give where and when we can.

Calling it a right says that the hungry person can demand food from anyone, that somebody "owes" it to him.

I've been poor. I've been homeless and hungry.I've shoplifted to eat. At no point did I ever tell anybody that they had to give me anything. I was grateful and thankful for every bite I was given, and I am still thankful to this day for the people who gave it.

Calling it a right negates gratitude, cancels humility, and camouflages begging. If i thought I had a right to be taken care of, I'd still be dependent on handouts.

More than that, though. People who give because they feel a responsibility, a duty to do so, will give a lot more than people who are compelled to do so. Making it a right breeds resentment and discourages effort.

If the cost of providing a "right" becomes too much, the government will look for ways to eliminate the recipients. It's happened before, it's happening now.

Very well said.

Chalk it up to frailty on my own part, but I'm a lot more likely to give somebody something if they don't act like they think they have a right to it. (This came up kinda recently in a tipping thread because I tend to tip higher when they don't "suggest" a tip amount on the bill.)

[Nick Soapdish]

I strongly disagree with you. When he makes being christian contigent upon feeding the hungry, that says to me that the hungry have a right, mandated by our creator, to eat.

The only ones who can feed them are the people who can afford to. Jesus is very specific: Feed the poor, clothe them, and shelter them. Why? Because by doing so, you feed, clothe, and shelter God, and you also become the instrument through which God works. That is what he says, literally.

The poor, hungry, and homeless have those rights because they are god and god demands that you do these things.

That works except that, ostensibly, this isn't a theocracy based specifically on Jesus' teachings. It's heavily influenced by those teachings (again supposedly, although I sometimes have my doubts from how things play out), but they aren't the end-all, be-all.

[Reverend Smooth]

Very well said.

Chalk it up to frailty on my own part, but I'm a lot more likely to give somebody something if they don't act like they think they have a right to it. (This came up kinda recently in a tipping thread because I tend to tip higher when they don't "suggest" a tip amount on the bill.)
If you are christian, they do have that right, mandated by god, if they are unable to work on their own.

[Reverend Smooth]

That works except that, ostensibly, this isn't a theocracy based specifically on Jesus' teachings.Ostensibly.

[Paul McEnery]

The United States was founded on the proposition that certain rights are self-evident, "among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (Jefferson wanted to include property ownership, but he was talked out of it). The fundamental assumption of the US government is that the government cannot confer rights up on people; people already have those rights by virtue of being human; the government can only ensure or violate those rights, and we choose to ensure them.

Well yes. But this is political rhetoric, not philosophic truth. Sartre, amongst others, pointed out that this is nonsense (philosophically). In reality, what we call innate rights are in fact mutually conferred. Your "innate right" to anything actually rests with me, since I'm the one in the position to take them away (or, if we go up a level from individuals, the state is in that position).

All rights are either a social fiction (if unconscious and unexamined) or a social contract (if we're awake to them), but they're certainly not innate. If they were, nobody would have had to fight for them.

Those nations are coming at it from exactly the opposite position. In their philosophy, rights are granted by the government... and they can be rescinded at any time for any reason.

In reality, so are we. Come to think of it, judging by the people from whom those "universal" rights were withheld, it's perfectly obvious that the founding fathers felt exactly the same way.

I happen to believe in the concept of self-evident, inherent rights, because those are the only ones that matter. Those are the only ones that can't be cancelled by government fiat. The guy standing in front of the tank at Tianenmen Square believed in a self-evident inherent right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of thought. That's why he was standing there. You say he was wrong. I disagree.

I'd have thought that he's an object example that there isn't such a right -- or rather, it shows the limits of the idea of "natural right".

At the end of the day, whether he was right or not will come down to whether or not he won. The jury's still out on that.

[Nick Soapdish]

If you are christian, they do have that right, mandated by god, if they are unable to work on their own.

Again, I see that as a Christian duty (although last time, I phrased it more generally as moral responsibility).

But I don't think that the converse - that it is their right to receive that treatment - is true.

[Reverend Smooth]

Again, I see that as a Christian duty (although last time, I phrased it more generally as moral responsibility).

But I don't think that the converse - that it is their right to receive that treatment - is true.I disagree, because God states quite explicitly (through Jesus), that the poor, the homeless, and the hungry ARE god-- it is as if you do these things for God himself. This is tribute that you render to God. That is what God is entitled to.

He makes that point very clearly in order to impress upon the faithful exactly why they are doing these things. It is part of the new covenant with God that Jesus brought into existence.

[MacQuarrie]

I strongly disagree with you. When he makes being christian contigent upon feeding the hungry, that says to me that the hungry have a right, mandated by our creator, to eat.

The only ones who can feed them are the people who can afford to. Jesus is very specific: Feed the poor, clothe them, and shelter them. Why? Because by doing so, you feed, clothe, and shelter God, and you also become the instrument through which God works. That is what he says, literally.


The poor, hungry, and homeless have those rights because they are god and god demands that you do these things.

Yes, that is what he says. He also says that by doing so, we become God as well, representing him in his ministering to the poor and hungry, caring for them as he cares for us. It's a two-way street, in which each person benefits, regardless of whether giving or receiving.

He also cautioned people to be humble. If we demand our way, we get nothing. If we declare our entitlement, we get nothing. Even what we have will be taken. He who would be greatest must be servant of all. The one who demands to be served will be least.

But that's a moral economy to be dealt with by the people involved and their God. Putting it into law is the road to fascism. There's a reason we prohibit religion from having a hand in government. In a pluralistic society we cannot have a theocracy.

Remember, government is force and nothing but. It's a blunt instrument. It says "we think you ought to do these things, so we're going to MAKE you do it." That's a power that must be used sparingly and with great caution.

[MacQuarrie]

I disagree, because God states quite explicitly (through Jesus), that the poor, the homeless, and the hungry ARE god-- it is as if you do these things for God himself. This is tribute that you render to God. That is what God is entitled to.

He makes that point very clearly in order to impress upon the faithful exactly why they are doing these things. It is part of the new covenant with God that Jesus brought into existence.

But he never tells the poor that they are God and are due this kind of tribute.

[Paul McEnery]

Not Second World.

Second World was the Communist Bloc and I don't think that they were ever considered "developing".

Or are you arguing that we've redefined them in such a way to keep us (the West) as First World and everybody else somewhere else?

I'm pretty sure that Singapore counts as fully developed by pretty much any economic standard, but they're still considered a Third World country.

Political correctness apart, I think that's why we use the words developed, developing, and underdeveloped now. Well, aside from the World Bank's aims in establishing neo-liberal economics across the world.

So if Singapore is thoroughly developed -- and I don't know that it is; strong financial industry there, but I'm not sure about the rest of it -- then it wouldn't be Third World as we understand Third World (which would be a country or populace that needs help).

[Paul McEnery]

Nope, still an entitlement. If the federal government tomorrow decided to scrap the food stamp program entirely, no one could appeal to the judicial system and say that their "rights" were being violated because the feds weren't giving them food stamps anymore.

I don't assume that the Constitution is the be all and end all of human rights.

[Paul McEnery]

Sure. But we have the right to suck.

Do we?

I think you'd say that the Constitution says otherwise in certain instances. Why not this one?

[MacQuarrie]

I'd have thought that he's an object example that there isn't such a right -- or rather, it shows the limits of the idea of "natural right".

At the end of the day, whether he was right or not will come down to whether or not he won. The jury's still out on that.

The point is this: The moral outrage felt by just about everybody who saw that photo is what shows that it is a natural right. We believe these things are inherent rights because we yell so loudly when they are violated. The fact that we recognize injustice at all indicates that justice is our natural habitat. Fish don't know they're wet until they recognize the absence of water. We should be completely acclimated to and accustomed to a world of injustice, and yet we aren't. We still have to teach our children that life isn't fair. Why do they expect it to be fair? Because they and we are adapted to live in a fair world that we do not live in. In that fair world, certain rights are as inviolable as gravity. The tragedy of life is that we don't yet live in that world.

[MacQuarrie]

Do we?

I think you'd say that the Constitution says otherwise in certain instances. Why not this one?

Sucking (in the sense of being a selfish jerk) falls under the freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of expression section.

[Paul McEnery]

Rubbish.

J.K. Rowling sat down on her own and wrote a book while sitting in a coffee shop. Now she's the second-richest woman in the entertainment industry, and that is her achievement, from her own effort. The people who applied themselves to the task of marketing her book and turning it into a successful film franchise are also solely responsible for their achievements in that regard, and were also compensated for their effort.

Without Rowling's isolated achievement, none of them would have anything to market, and none of them would have been compensated for their efforts.

They may be interdependent, but they are also independent and isolated efforts on a common project.

You're playing word-games to try to defend the indefensible.
With respect, that's utter crap.

The first thing Rowling was depending on was an established pubishing industry that was very fully developed in terms of distribution and production, from woodpulp to bookstore.

The second thing was a helluva lot of genre tropes she'd obviously schooled herself in, because all four of the books I've read are chock full of cliches, not usually so much of detail, but at one level lower i.e. the cliche narrative requires this kind of detail here, so I'll customize something and slot it in.

The third thing is the existence of "Englishness" -- not actually being English, of course, but the ideal of it from Rex Harrison to John Steed and so on. That kind of phoney national ideal is huge in America -- America needs it as its other -- and quite large in the nostalgia classes in England.

So whether Rowling was writing for cash or passion, I couldn't say. But she certainly has traded in and on a lot of preexisting bits of reality, fiction and the myths that live inbetween to get where she is today. And good luck to her!

But to see this as nothing but an individual achievement calls for ideological sunshades.










Not to mention that she was the recipient of the English health and education system, without which no mens sana or corpora sana.

[MacQuarrie]

I don't assume that the Constitution is the be all and end all of human rights.

No, it is a local ordinance. But as I suggested earlier, it's the one that, rather than granting rights, merely acknowledges them and attempts to protect them from government infringement.

Go read the Bill of Rights. It's nothing of the kind. It does not grant rights, it lists things the government is not allowed to do. It recognizes that far from being the arbiter and provider of rights, the government is the single biggest threat to human rights.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

[MacQuarrie]

With respect, that's utter crap.

The first thing Rowling was depending on was an established pubishing industry that was very fully developed in terms of distribution and production, from woodpulp to bookstore.

The second thing was a helluva lot of genre tropes she'd obviously schooled herself in, because all four of the books I've read are chock full of cliches, not usually so much of detail, but at one level lower i.e. the cliche narrative requires this kind of detail here, so I'll customize something and slot it in.

The third thing is the existence of "Englishness" -- not actually being English, of course, but the ideal of it from Rex Harrison to John Steed and so on. That kind of phoney national ideal is huge in America -- America needs it as its other -- and quite large in the nostalgia classes in England.

So whether Rowling was writing for cash or passion, I couldn't say. But she certainly has traded in and on a lot of preexisting bits of reality, fiction and the myths that live inbetween to get where she is today. And good luck to her!

But to see this as nothing but an individual achievement calls for ideological sunshades.
Yes, but she traded on it all. She put pen to paper and made something she could sell. All by herself. She didn't sit around and talk about it, or wait for somebody to do it for her, she did it. that's her isolated individual contribution, and that's the part for which she's cashing checks big enough to buy Peru.

I hope to someday find some tropes and cliches I can exploit half so well.

[Joe Rice]

Yes, but she traded on it all. She put pen to paper and made something she could sell. All by herself. She didn't sit around and talk about it, or wait for somebody to do it for her, she did it. that's her isolated individual contribution, and that's the part for which she's cashing checks big enough to buy Peru.

I hope to someday find some tropes and cliches I can exploit half so well.

None of which would be possible without the society and lifestyle she'd been granted by the government.

[MacQuarrie]

Not to mention that she was the recipient of the English health and education system, without which no mens sana or corpora sana.
Sure. She could have laid around doing nothing and settled for the life provided by that assistance. She didn't, and she's entitled to benefit from getting off her ass and doing something.

The people benefiting from the millions she is giving to charities are (hopefully) glad she didn't choose to do nothing.

[Joe Rice]

I don't normally jump in on these things, but the idea that someone has accomplished something "all on their own" is an incredible western (especially American) fallacy. The most heartening by-the-bootstraps story would not be possible without the work of millions supporting a government and society that fostered it.

[MacQuarrie]

None of which would be possible without the society and lifestyle she'd been granted by the government.

For which she is paying a hefty tax bill now. But they don't get to take credit for her efforts and that doesn't give the beggar on the corner claim to any part of her earnings other than the taxes that are voted in by the people.

[Joe Rice]

Sure. She could have laid around doing nothing and settled for the life provided by that assistance. She didn't, and she's entitled to benefit from getting off her ass and doing something.

The people benefiting from the millions she is giving to charities are (hopefully) glad she didn't choose to do nothing.

I don't believe Paul is arguing anything against what you're saying in this instance. Yeah, it's great she did something in this environment fostered for her. It's great that she is giving to charity.

What he's saying is that, no, she didn't do it alone. Her achievement would have been utterly impossible without the governmental and societal structures provided for her.

[MacQuarrie]

I don't normally jump in on these things, but the idea that someone has accomplished something "all on their own" is an incredible western (especially American) fallacy. The most heartening by-the-bootstraps story would not be possible without the work of millions supporting a government and society that fostered it.

The only point I'm contending otherwise is the implication that others are therefore entitled to a share of whatever anyone earns.

[Joe Rice]

For which she is paying a hefty tax bill now. But they don't get to take credit for her efforts and that doesn't give the beggar on the corner claim to any part of her earnings other than the taxes that are voted in by the people.

And yet I see no one arguing counter-wise.

[Joe Rice]

The only point I'm contending otherwise is the implication that others are therefore entitled to a share of whatever anyone earns.

And yet you already said they're entitled to proceeds from taxes voted on by the people; that taxes are just recompense for the freedom and mobility government grants.

[MacQuarrie]

I don't believe Paul is arguing anything against what you're saying in this instance. Yeah, it's great she did something in this environment fostered for her. It's great that she is giving to charity.

What he's saying is that, no, she didn't do it alone. Her achievement would have been utterly impossible without the governmental and societal structures provided for her.

Go back up to the original comment. He is exactly arguing that since there is no such thing as isolated achievement, nobody is really entitled to keep the proceeds of their effort.

[Paul McEnery]

The point is this: The moral outrage felt by just about everybody who saw that photo is what shows that it is a natural right. We believe these things are inherent rights because we yell so loudly when they are violated. The fact that we recognize injustice at all indicates that justice is our natural habitat. Fish don't know they're wet until they recognize the absence of water. We should be completely acclimated to and accustomed to a world of injustice, and yet we aren't. We still have to teach our children that life isn't fair. Why do they expect it to be fair? Because they and we are adapted to live in a fair world that we do not live in. In that fair world, certain rights are as inviolable as gravity. The tragedy of life is that we don't yet live in that world.

Yeah, I agree we're evolved for a sense of justice. However, what does that actually mean in a developed capitalist nation, especially one of such a scale as the USA?

And we can talk about the Tienenmen Square picture as an iconic image of individual freedom, but there are plenty of people who might well regard that as a self-important gesture against mutual responsibility. There are other ways to read it, you know. Just as there are other ways to read resistance against an occupying power. It depends which side you stand with.

The question is always which "rights" get the priority, which depends on what sort of society you live in, and that's always going to be a matter of political struggle.

Again, the US is the only developed nation which begrudges the basic human rights to health, food, shelter, education and so on. Obviously this is ironic, because it's the US got the ball rolling on basic human rights.

In some ways, the Constitution is one of the greatest of human achievements. In other ways, it's a really terrible thing, because it's locked us in to 18th Century standards. And we can do a lot better.

[Reverend Smooth]

Yes, that is what he says. He also says that by doing so, we become God as well, representing him in his ministering to the poor and hungry, caring for them as he cares for us. It's a two-way street, in which each person benefits, regardless of whether giving or receiving.Yes.

He also cautioned people to be humble. If we demand our way, we get nothing. If we declare our entitlement, we get nothing. Even what we have will be taken. He who would be greatest must be servant of all. The one who demands to be served will be least.The very act of being hungry should be enough. It isn't.
But that's a moral economy to be dealt with by the people involved and their God. Putting it into law is the road to fascism. There's a reason we prohibit religion from having a hand in government. In a pluralistic society we cannot have a theocracy. It doesn't play out that way, unfortunately. I am a strong advocate for a secular government, but I think that christians have it too morally easy when they criticise government aid to the poor.

Remember, government is force and nothing but. It's a blunt instrument. It says "we think you ought to do these things, so we're going to MAKE you do it." That's a power that must be used sparingly and with great caution.As someone who is poor, I apologise. I apologise for being poor. It may not be my fault, but that seems to be what is required: I grovel, I am shit. I'm sorry.

I'm used to doing that. Evey day, people below the poverty line are reminded that they are nothing.

But I have to say: instead of working to remove the protections the poor have in place, christians who are against government-mandated programs for the poor should instead work upon their fellows to make sure they do their christian duty.

That way, when they are, the poor will not be hungry.

Because, I'm sorry if this offends you, but what is taken from you is not preventing you to have a roof over your head and food on your table and clothes on your back. What is taken away from my husband means that he will have none of these things-- he won't even have an aide to help him go to the bathroom, because I'm too sick to do it now.

Does that mean I'm ungrateful? Of course not, I'm very grateful.

But it is not proud to want to have shelter, to eat, to be clothed. I didn't feel proud when I had no clothes or shoes. I felt pathetic. In fact, I felt like the lowest form of humanity, and I was treated like that, too, by very 'good' christians. Too many to count. I didn't feel like I was 'entitled' to a handout, but I did wonder why God bothered to say those things when I was spat on, beaten, and turned away, called a leech, told I was useless and a drain on society, and told to die.

I felt like a piece of shit while my feet were bloody and blistered and my stomach burned and my raggedy clothes were so loose on my skinny body that nothing fit.

I remember crying like a little baby when I got infrequently fed or got donations of clothes. I still cry like one when we get donations nowadays.

But God said that, ostensibly, christians should feed me.

How is that pride? I didn't swagger up to anyone with my hand outstretched, though I can understand the rage in those who can't make ends meet, either, in the face of the contempt of the well-to-do.

Humility goes both ways and I see more arrogance in the well-off person who says, 'I don't feel that they are entitled to some of my money," than the starving person who says, "I would like to eat today." It should not be the poor, in my opinion, who sacrifice the most.

So, I think that removing programs before christians, as a nation, do their duty is putting the cart before the horse.

It's funny, because I grew up in a solidly middle-class household (until my parents divorced a few years before I got kicked out, anyway). I wore beautiful clothes and ate delicious food and had a roof over my head, I was healthy enough. We gave to charity. I was a devout christian.

It took becoming trash to make me realise that I was nothing. There was no difference between the well-off me and the destitute me except for circumstance, and yet, I was somehow arrogant for wanting food, clothes, and shelter. Yes, the very act of wanting to survive was arrogance. Even begging was an insult. The act of asking was 'entitlement'.

And I know that will leave many readers here indifferent and unmoved. I don't have a problem shaming myself in order to try to bing perspective, but unfortunately I also know that it is probably futile.

[Paul McEnery]

Go back up to the original comment. He is exactly arguing that since there is no such thing as isolated achievement, nobody is really entitled to keep the proceeds of their effort.

Exsqueeze me?

Where did I say that?

[MacQuarrie]

Exsqueeze me?

Where did I say that?

When you said that food stamps are a right. I quoted you.

[Joe Rice]

Exsqueeze me?

Where did I say that?

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I don't see it either.

[Reverend Smooth]

But he never tells the poor that they are God and are due this kind of tribute.No, and it's pretty telling that he doesn't have to tell the poor these things, it's the well-off that he feels the need to remonstrate.

In fact, if you read the New Testament, you find that Jesus doesn't castigate the poor for being needy.

I like you, but I think that you are being cognitively dissonant as a christian when you say these things.

Edit: and unfortunately, these kinds of conversations only reinforce the fact that I'm not interested in turning back to christianity.

[Joe Rice]

For which she is paying a hefty tax bill now. But they don't get to take credit for her efforts and that doesn't give the beggar on the corner claim to any part of her earnings other than the taxes that are voted in by the people.

When you said that food stamps are a right. I quoted you.

I think these two quotes show the difference between what Paul's getting at and what you're saying he's getting at. You seem to agree in the former quote with what Paul is saying.

[MacQuarrie]

I'm pained to read what you wrote. You speak very eloquently, and argue very effectively, and you are right to condemn christians who pay lip-service to the commands of their Lord.

Problem is, government programs encourage them to do so. The mentality is "let George do it." "I pay my taxes" is the cry when christians are reminded of their duty. They are encouraged to believe that by having a little deducted from their check, they've done their obligation, they;re done, and if it's not enough that's just too bad.

We need to encourage people to step up, as individuals, willingly and from a sense of duty and obligation. Turning that over to the government is just encouraging people to cheat on their taxes, look for loopholes, pay as little as possible and still pretend to be meeting the commandment to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and comfort the sick. And to resent the recipients.

Mandated charity (from a greek word meaning love) isn't charity at all. And the counterfeit will often drive out the real thing.

Yes.
The very act of being hungry should be enough. It isn't.
It doesn't play out that way, unfortunately. I am a strong advocate for a secular government, but I think that christians have it too morally easy when they criticise government aid to the poor.

As someone who is poor, I apologise. I apologise for being poor. It may not be my fault, but that seems to be what is required: I grovel, I am shit. I'm sorry.

I'm used to doing that. Evey day, people below the poverty line are reminded that they are nothing.

But I have to say: instead of working to remove the protections the poor have in place, christians who are against government-mandated programs for the poor should instead work upon their fellows to make sure they do their christian duty.

That way, when they are, the poor will not be hungry.

Because, I'm sorry if this offends you, but what is taken from you is not preventing you to have a roof over your head and food on your table and clothes on your back. What is taken away from my husband means that he will have none of these things-- he won't even have an aide to help him go to the bathroom, because I'm too sick to do it now.

Does that mean I'm ungrateful? Of course not, I'm very grateful.

But it is not proud to want to have shelter, to eat, to be clothed. I didn't feel proud when I had no clothes or shoes. I felt pathetic. In fact, I felt like the lowest form of humanity, and I was treated like that, too, by very 'good' christians. Too many to count. I didn't feel like I was 'entitled' to a handout, but I did wonder why God bothered to say those things when I was spat on, beaten, and turned away, called a leech, told I was useless and a drain on society, and told to die.

I felt like a piece of shit while my feet were bloody and blistered and my stomach burned and my raggedy clothes were so loose on my skinny body that nothing fit.

I remember crying like a little baby when I got infrequently fed or got donations of clothes. I still cry like one when we get donations nowadays.

But God said that, ostensibly, christians should feed me.

How is that pride? I didn't swagger up to anyone with my hand outstretched, though I can understand the rage in those who can't make ends meet, either, in the face of the contempt of the well-to-do.

Humility goes both ways and I see more arrogance in the well-off person who says, 'I don't feel that they are entitled to some of my money," than the starving person who says, "I would like to eat today." It should not be the poor, in my opinion, who sacrifice the most.

So, I think that removing programs before christians, as a nation, do their duty is putting the cart before the horse.

It's funny, because I grew up in a solidly middle-class household (until my parents divorced a few years before I got kicked out, anyway). I wore beautiful clothes and ate delicious food and had a roof over my head, I was healthy enough. We gave to charity. I was a devout christian.

It took becoming trash to make me realise that I was nothing. There was no difference between the well-off me and the destitute me except for circumstance, and yet, I was somehow arrogant for wanting food, clothes, and shelter. Yes, the very act of wanting to survive was arrogance. Even begging was an insult. The act of asking was 'entitlement'.

And I know that will leave many readers here indifferent and unmoved. I don't have a problem shaming myself in order to try to bing perspective, but unfortunately I also know that it is probably futile.

[Joe Rice]

I'm pained to read what you wrote. You speak very eloquently, and argue very effectively, and you are right to condemn christians who pay lip-service to the commands of their Lord.

Problem is, government programs encourage them to do so. The mentality is "let George do it." "I pay my taxes" is the cry when christians are reminded of their duty. They are encouraged to believe that by having a little deducted from their check, they've done their obligation, they;re done, and if it's not enough that's just too bad.

We need to encourage people to step up, as individuals, willingly and from a sense of duty and obligation. Turning that over to the government is just encouraging people to cheat on their taxes, look for loopholes, pay as little as possible and still pretend to be meeting the commandment to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and comfort the sick. And to resent the recipients.

Mandated charity (from a greek word meaning love) isn't charity at all. And the counterfeit will often drive out the real thing.

Were this a Christian theocracy, I'd agree, but it is not. Those without must be provided for, and we cannot rely on everyone just deciding to all the sudden be the first group of people ever that actually behaved as they should.

[MacQuarrie]

I think these two quotes show the difference between what Paul's getting at and what you're saying he's getting at. You seem to agree in the former quote with what Paul is saying.
Not at all.

Food stamps are not a right. Food is not a right.

[Joe Rice]

Not at all.

Food stamps are not a right. Food is not a right.

Survival is a right, even if you go by old slave-owner stuff . . ."LIFE, liberty, etc." Food is necessary for life. Thus, if life is a right, so is food.

[Loren]

With respect, that's utter crap.

The first thing Rowling was depending on was an established pubishing industry that was very fully developed in terms of distribution and production, from woodpulp to bookstore.

The second thing was a helluva lot of genre tropes she'd obviously schooled herself in, because all four of the books I've read are chock full of cliches, not usually so much of detail, but at one level lower i.e. the cliche narrative requires this kind of detail here, so I'll customize something and slot it in.

The third thing is the existence of "Englishness" -- not actually being English, of course, but the ideal of it from Rex Harrison to John Steed and so on. That kind of phoney national ideal is huge in America -- America needs it as its other -- and quite large in the nostalgia classes in England...

Not to mention that she was the recipient of the English health and education system, without which no mens sana or corpora sana.

True, J.K. Rowling had all of that. So did 60 million other citizens of the United Kingdom who aren't household name billionaires. Clearly, those elements alone don't make for success.

What set Rowling apart? What made her the second richest female entertainer in the world, instead of those 60 million other people? It was her own imagination, initiative, and effort.

[Joe Rice]

True, J.K. Rowling had all of that. So did 60 million other citizens of the United Kingdom who aren't household name billionaires. Clearly, those elements alone don't make for success.

What set Rowling apart? What made her the second richest female entertainer in the world, instead of those 60 million other people? It was her own imagination, initiative, and effort.

No one said she was just like everyone else, or that she is entitled to nothing.

We only said she couldn't have ANYthing without what she was provided.

[MacQuarrie]

Survival is a right, even if you go by old slave-owner stuff . . ."LIFE, liberty, etc." Food is necessary for life. Thus, if life is a right, so is food.
Does that mean other people are obligated to provide you food, or just that they are prohibited from denying you the food you acquire for yourself?

[Loren]

None of which would be possible without the society and lifestyle she'd been granted by the government.

"Granted"?

[Joe Rice]

Does that mean other people are obligated to provide you food, or just that they are prohibited from denying you the food you acquire for yourself?

The government is obligated to make sure you can survive.

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm pained to read what you wrote. You speak very eloquently, and argue very effectively, and you are right to condemn christians who pay lip-service to the commands of their Lord.

Problem is, government programs encourage them to do so. The mentality is "let George do it." "I pay my taxes" is the cry when christians are reminded of their duty. They are encouraged to believe that by having a little deducted from their check, they've done their obligation, they;re done, and if it's not enough that's just too bad.

We need to encourage people to step up, as individuals, willingly and from a sense of duty and obligation. Turning that over to the government is just encouraging people to cheat on their taxes, look for loopholes, pay as little as possible and still pretend to be meeting the commandment to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and comfort the sick. And to resent the recipients.

Mandated charity (from a greek word meaning love) isn't charity at all. And the counterfeit will often drive out the real thing.I'm sorry, but your way means that my husband -- and I -- will die while we wait for christians to get off their asses. It's that stark. So I can't agree with you.

And it's the poor, who have the least, who give the most of their time and money.

If there were a revolution of charity and kindness and compassion, if that many voters stood up and said, "Cut taxes, we are and will continue to feed, clothe, and shelter our brethren," I'm pretty sure you could get conservative politicians to go along at the very least.

So I think that it's fair to ask to change your brothers before you take away the pittance that the poor receives. If that's a harsh sacrifice, well, I have to say that Jesus died on the cross for everyone's sake; the least people can do is pay a small amount every month to the government while they strive to make it so they won't have to in the future.

[Joe Rice]

"Granted"?

"Yes." Rights granted by the state provide a platform upon which she and others can succeed.

[MacQuarrie]

It's interesting to me that this thread took this turn at the exact time that a philosophically identical discussion is going on in another thread, specifically the one about Old Man Hilton cutting all his grandchildren out of his will.

It's all about entitlement mentality. Paris Hilton acts like her grandpa "owes" her an inheritance, and we all say "good" when he cuts her off. Other people declare that somebody "owes" them a living and we agree. I fail to see the difference.

[Joe Rice]

I'm sorry, but your way means that my husband -- and I -- will die while we wait for christians to get off their asses. It's that stark. So I can't agree with you.

And it's the poor, who have the least, who give the most of their time and money.

If there were a revolution of charity and kindness and compassion, if that many voters stood up and said, "Cut taxes, we are and will continue to feed, clothe, and shelter our brethren," I'm pretty sure you could get conservative politicians to go along at the very least.

So I think that it's fair to ask to change your brothers before you take away the pittance that the poor receives. If that's a harsh sacrifice, well, I have to say that Jesus died on the cross for everyone's sake; the least people can do is pay a small amount every month to the government while they strive to make it so they won't have to in the future.

As a Christian, I find giving to the poor to be one of the absolute most important ways I can live out the grace of the Gospel. But I know I'm a rotten asshole and that humanity at its core is a rotten asshole, so I'd rather put some rules in that make sure the necessary happens rather than just crossing my fingers and hoping that I (and everyone else) all the sudden stop being a rotten asshole.

[MacQuarrie]

The government is obligated to make sure you can survive.

The government is under no such obligation. The government is only obligated to make sure that nobody tries to prevent you from surviving.

[Joe Rice]

It's interesting to me that this thread took this turn at the exact time that a philosophically identical discussion is going on in another thread, specifically the one about Old Man Hilton cutting all his grandchildren out of his will.


Sorry, I can't waste my time reading about anything like that.

[Reverend Smooth]

It's interesting to me that this thread took this turn at the exact time that a philosophically identical discussion is going on in another thread, specifically the one about Old Man Hilton cutting all his grandchildren out of his will.

It's all about entitlement mentality. Paris Hilton acts like her grandpa "owes" her an inheritance, and we all say "good" when he cuts her off. Other people declare that somebody "owes" them a living and we agree. I fail to see the difference.Paris Hilton isn't poor, starving, and homeless.

[Reverend Smooth]

As a Christian, I find giving to the poor to be one of the absolute most important ways I can live out the grace of the Gospel. But I know I'm a rotten asshole and that humanity at its core is a rotten asshole, so I'd rather put some rules in that make sure the necessary happens rather than just crossing my fingers and hoping that I (and everyone else) all the sudden stop being a rotten asshole.Yeah. I used to be all optimistic, but then I became homeless. ._.

[Joe Rice]

The government is under no such obligation. The government is only obligated to make sure that nobody tries to prevent you from surviving.

And herein we see the schism. I couldn't disagree more. You have a very specific interpretation of "right" and the Constitution. You've read "Right to life" and decided "Well that means that no one is allowed to kill you;" you're seeing only in the negative. Whereas I see the "right to life" as the right to, you know, be alive; something impossible without food. And if you can't get food, the government needs to get it to you. If you CAN get food, but not enough, they need to help. And if you can get enough, you're fine.

[Loren]

The government is obligated to make sure you can survive.

And why is that?

It's not an obligation that can be found in the Constitution. So it's not an obligation we've imposed upon our government.

And it certainly can't be a natural right, because natural rights preexist the state.

So from where does the government inherit this obligation? Does it apply to all levels of government? If everybody higher up slacks off, is it the county government's obligation to make sure you can survive?

[MacQuarrie]

YAgain, the US is the only developed nation which begrudges the basic human rights to health, food, shelter, education and so on. Obviously this is ironic, because it's the US got the ball rolling on basic human rights.
Continuing to insist that these things are rights is the primary thing holding them back, because we do not believe that other people have a right to live off the efforts of others.

There are people who have no choice but to depend on others; we have developed a social contract by which we believe it is right to provide for them. And that's good. But labeling food, shelter and education as rights suggests that those who are capable of earning them are under no obligation to do so. They have a right to them.

We do not want to live in a culture of dependence where people who are capable of earning their way are guaranteed that they don't have to; nor are we keen to follow the Soviet Union into the brutal area of persecuting such "parasites", nor do we wish to follow the fascists into the area of eliminating the "useless eaters" who will burden the economy. But that's where calling every need a right will lead. It always has.

If you want to care for the poor and hungry and provide health care for the people, start calling it an obligation or responsibility and stop callign it a right.

[Loren]

THE anarchist band. Crass!

And of course, that wouldn't be anything as lowbrow as the American notion of the state, but rather the understanding that capital and monarchy are in collusion within the modern state to create the alienation of labour from its production. In such a system -- so the argument goes -- one's only options are cooperation within an unjust system or starvation.

A Marxian critique of Crass would note that they successfully formed a bourgeois cottage industry with their artistic production, thus undermining their simplistic and false dichotomy.

Since you asked. :evilsmile

OK, well, if it's not the state that they're saying owes them a living, then who does?

[MacQuarrie]

And herein we see the schism. I couldn't disagree more. You have a very specific interpretation of "right" and the Constitution. You've read "Right to life" and decided "Well that means that no one is allowed to kill you;" you're seeing only in the negative. Whereas I see the "right to life" as the right to, you know, be alive; something impossible without food. And if you can't get food, the government needs to get it to you. If you CAN get food, but not enough, they need to help. And if you can get enough, you're fine.
The government is me. We the People. Apart from We the People, there is no government, and the government has no money with which to feed people other than what it takes from We the People by force. That's tyranny.

I feed the hungry because God tells me to, not because I'm required by law to do so.

My reading of "right to life" is exactly what the authors meant. They feared the power of government.

"Like fire, government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." --George Washington

[MacQuarrie]

Paris Hilton isn't poor, starving, and homeless.

She would be if she wasn't still spending her family's money that she didn't earn.

[Reverend Smooth]

The difference is that she doesn't need a government handout to provide her with the basics with which to survive. Her family, and her own efforts, have insured that she should be fine.

[Paul McEnery]

It's interesting to me that this thread took this turn at the exact time that a philosophically identical discussion is going on in another thread, specifically the one about Old Man Hilton cutting all his grandchildren out of his will.

It's all about entitlement mentality. Paris Hilton acts like her grandpa "owes" her an inheritance, and we all say "good" when he cuts her off. Other people declare that somebody "owes" them a living and we agree. I fail to see the difference.

As somebody who doesn't have a bloody great inheritance to fall back on, and has used the British education system to gain employment, and the National Health system to not be dead, and national insurance to survive through bitter times where unemployment was massively high, I respectfully suggest that there might be just a wee bit of a difference.

[Loren]

In my opinion, if every christian did his or her duty by his or her neighbor, you wouldn't need to legislate charity, because, what, 85% or so of this country is christian?

But they don't. And I'm sorry, Mac, but when I hear christians complain about a level o taxes that is truly minimal compared to what was levied on Jews in biblical times, and when most of them don't go out and feed, clothe, and house their starving, naked, and homeless brethren, when they don't go out to heal their sick brethren, as Christ did, then the government needs to step up.

Incidentally, this touches on one of my bigger problems with modern liberalism. The side of classical liberalism that it still retains are the social aspects, including the relationship between church and state. Of legislating morality. The Left takes a solid stance on that issue, one that I, more often than not, find myself in greater agreement with than with the GOP.

Except then when the Left takes up stances like health care, there is a distinct undercurrent of a contrary position. As you demonstrate, it's the principle of legislating Christian charity. Of course, the Left makes sure never to call it that, but that's the emotional current that it's trying to tap into. And it's the same with other left-wing positions too, from Social Security to gas emissions. 'This is what a good, moral person ought to do, and we're going to make the law require that everyone do it.'

[Reverend Smooth]

Incidentally, this touches on one of my bigger problems with modern liberalism. The side of classical liberalism that it still retains are the social aspects, including the relationship between church and state. Of legislating morality. The Left takes a solid stance on that issue, one that I, more often than not, find myself in greater agreement with than with the GOP.

Except then when the Left takes up stances like health care, there is a distinct undercurrent of a contrary position. As you demonstrate, it's the principle of legislating Christian charity. Of course, the Left makes sure never to call it that, but that's the emotional current that it's trying to tap into. And it's the same with other left-wing positions too, from Social Security to gas emissions. 'This is what a good, moral person ought to do, and we're going to make the law require that everyone do it.'Unfortunately, the religious right takes it fifty steps further and says, 'gays shouldn't marry', which alienates many liberal christians and non-christians.

[Loren]

This is a bit historically blind, if you don't mind me saying so. Historically, the police are in fact a private army for the ruling classes to be deployed against the lower classes if they start getting a bit uppity.

You're not exactly making a great argument for why the state should be trusted.

And it doesn't change the fact that only the state should be involved in policing. Otherwise, the police would go from occasionally being effectively a private army for the rich, to being always being a private army owned and operated by the rich.

Ah, but need it be so expensive? And how much of health care is (or should be) expensive? What's expensive is the extended health care through technology. Standard stuff is still the same standard stuff.

And it's the expensive stuff that's driving people to call for nationalization. The public doesn't often ask for nationalization of standard expenses.

Depends on the size of your community, doesn't it.

The US is always a special case because of its scale. People should always retain whatever ownership is practicable in their community.

Well, knock me over with a feather. In multiple posts you've argued that the U.S. should change and be more like other nations. Heck, I think it was earlier in this thread that you argued that the American public's attitudes should themselves change. And yet here, your argument is that the U.S. is singularly different from other nations.

[Paul McEnery]

You're not exactly making a great argument for why the state should be trusted.

With respect, that's a very American way to look at it. (Though, as an anarcho-socialist, I share your paranoia. :D)

As I see it, it's a strong reason for reforming if not revolutionizing the system to give us the natural justice of a social democracy.

[Loren]

Well yes. But this is political rhetoric, not philosophic truth. Sartre, amongst others, pointed out that this is nonsense (philosophically). In reality, what we call innate rights are in fact mutually conferred. Your "innate right" to anything actually rests with me, since I'm the one in the position to take them away (or, if we go up a level from individuals, the state is in that position).

All rights are either a social fiction (if unconscious and unexamined) or a social contract (if we're awake to them), but they're certainly not innate. If they were, nobody would have had to fight for them.

It's political philosophy. And if you want to go down that road, you can't simply claim that your philosopher is right and represents truth, and all others are just rhetoric and not real philosophy. Because if that's what you want to do, I'll see your Sartre and raise you a Paine and Kant.

In reality, so are we. Come to think of it, judging by the people from whom those "universal" rights were withheld, it's perfectly obvious that the founding fathers felt exactly the same way.

Depends on the Founding Father in question.

I'd have thought that he's an object example that there isn't such a right -- or rather, it shows the limits of the idea of "natural right".

No. It just shows that natural rights can be violated through oppression.

[Paul McEnery]

Well, knock me over with a feather. In multiple posts you've argued that the U.S. should change and be more like other nations. Heck, I think it was earlier in this thread that you argued that the American public's attitudes should themselves change. And yet here, your argument is that the U.S. is singularly different from other nations.

I'm not saying this is going to be easy. And I'm not saying this isn't part of a general new American revolution which we kinda need.

The trick to federal government, as I understand it, is to take care of national infrastructure and guarantee basic civil rights. What those rights are are, of course, a matter of some discussion. It's also to move money around so that disadvantaged states don't go down the tubes -- ooh look, more socialism that dare not speak its name! Especially since the recipients of such largesse are usually the extremely conservative bits of the nation that keep voting us back towards the 19th Century. Ungrateful bastards.

So how we actually institute universal healthcare is a bit of a tricky one, no doubt about it. Like democratic revolution (and environmental revolution), I suspect it's going to grow organically rather than be centrally imposed. That's the way it works round here. First the major cities do something, then the progressive states pick it up, then the bloody White House is finally able to overrun the objections of the hicks and villains who haven't yet joined the 21st Century.

[Paul McEnery]

It's political philosophy. And if you want to go down that road, you can't simply claim that your philosopher is right and represents truth, and all others are just rhetoric and not real philosophy. Because if that's what you want to do, I'll see your Sartre and raise you a Paine and Kant.


You're going to raise me a Paine!

That'd wind up kind of interesting. That's like fielding Byrne's Superman against Morrison's.

My Paine can kick your Paine's arse. That's all I'm saying. :D

[Samurai]

You're going to raise me a Paine!

That'd wind up kind of interesting. That's like fielding Byrne's Superman against Morrison's.

My Paine can kick your Paine's arse. That's all I'm saying. :D

Byrne's Superman DOES kick Morrison's ass, around the moon and back.

[Sabrinaset]

You're going to raise me a Paine!

That'd wind up kind of interesting. That's like fielding Byrne's Superman against Morrison's.

My Paine can kick your Paine's arse. That's all I'm saying. :D

I'm used to reading McEnery posts that name-drop philosophers, but this one is just off the charts. :p

[macul]

In my opinion the only rights we have are those that can exist in a natural state without depending upon another person to provide. I've the right to provide for my family. I've the right to defend myself and family. I've the right to fight against tyranny. Those are rights granted by virtue of existence. They are not rights granted to me by some benevolent nanny-state government.

The other rights bandied about in this thread (healthcare, education, food) are not rights at all. All of them depend upon someone else to provide. They all depend upon an ordered structured society that is capable of confering those rights upon you. You must also be deemed worthy of those rights. The moment you have to depend upon another human being for a right, then it ceases to be that and instead becomes a public service capable of being granted or nullified on the whim of another person.

If that ordered society you depend upon for your rights breaks down then you will realize what rights you truly possess. Where are your food stamps absent of government? Where is your universal insurance absent of government?

[Larime]

In my opinion the only rights we have are those that can exist in a natural state without depending upon another person to provide.

In this case, I have no rights at all.

[Paul McEnery]

In my opinion the only rights we have are those that can exist in a natural state without depending upon another person to provide. I've the right to provide for my family...

Sorry. Got to stop you right there.

No you don't.

Because without the mutual aid of your community, both locally and globally, you are dead from the countless diseases the world community has put out of business.

You are too ignorant to live in the modern world, because you've done without schooling.

You didn't exist in the first place, because your forebears didn't come here, and didn't bind together as a nation state.

You died of thirst, because nobody put in water pipes.

You don't have a house, because nobody put in roads.

And so on.

If that ordered society you depend upon for your rights breaks down then you will realize what rights you truly possess. Where are your food stamps absent of government? Where is your universal insurance absent of government?

This is true. And I'd be buggered for breathing in a vacuum. Your point is?

[Reverend Smooth]

In my opinion the only rights we have are those that can exist in a natural state without depending upon another person to provide.Social Darwinism was discredited long ago. You are part of a social species. What let human beings, and many other animals, survive and prosper was society. IE, dependence on each other.

[Joe Rice]

Incidentally, this touches on one of my bigger problems with modern liberalism. The side of classical liberalism that it still retains are the social aspects, including the relationship between church and state. Of legislating morality. The Left takes a solid stance on that issue, one that I, more often than not, find myself in greater agreement with than with the GOP.

Except then when the Left takes up stances like health care, there is a distinct undercurrent of a contrary position. As you demonstrate, it's the principle of legislating Christian charity. Of course, the Left makes sure never to call it that, but that's the emotional current that it's trying to tap into. And it's the same with other left-wing positions too, from Social Security to gas emissions. 'This is what a good, moral person ought to do, and we're going to make the law require that everyone do it.'

Don't be fooled by jingoism. Even the most secular liberal believes in legislation of morality; you just might not agree with the morals. Either way, that's not the issue here.

And why is that?

It's not an obligation that can be found in the Constitution. So it's not an obligation we've imposed upon our government.

And it certainly can't be a natural right, because natural rights preexist the state.

So from where does the government inherit this obligation? Does it apply to all levels of government? If everybody higher up slacks off, is it the county government's obligation to make sure you can survive?

"Why" is because it's right. You don't let people starve.

The government is me. We the People. Apart from We the People, there is no government, and the government has no money with which to feed people other than what it takes from We the People by force. That's tyranny.

I feed the hungry because God tells me to, not because I'm required by law to do so.

My reading of "right to life" is exactly what the authors meant. They feared the power of government.

"Like fire, government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." --George Washington

Unless you somehow developed the ability to travel through time AND read minds, I'm not going to take this seriously.

EDIT: Even if you are Rip Hunter and Saturn Girl, what the original intent of racist Deists who believed in slavery isn't really of much concern in this day and age.

BTW, According to my wife, interestingly, Rowling was a welfare-using single mother when she first came up with her stories.

[Samurai]

Social Darwinism was discredited long ago. You are part of a social species. What let human beings, and many other animals, survive and prosper was society. IE, dependence on each other.

Cooperation and working together for mutual benefit and profit are not the same as demanding to be taken care of by a nanny state's provisions, supplied by the taxes of others. Suckling at the government teat should be only for those absolutely unable to care for themselves or as a limited and temporary help for those fallen on hard times, until they can recover. It should not be a lifestyle choice.

[Joe Rice]

Byrne's Superman DOES kick Morrison's ass, around the moon and back.

This is wronger than your political leanings, and that's saying something.

(In a Rumbles way or in a TCJ way!)

[Samurai]

This is wronger than your political leanings, and that's saying something.

(In a Rumbles way or in a TCJ way!)

Heh, I'm serious... I really liked Man of Steel and the Superman books that followed. I dislike All Star Supes mostly because of Quietly's art, but the stories haven't really done much for me either.

[macul]

In this case, I have no rights at all.

Understand that this isn't an argument for what we should do, but rather life as it exists in its natural state.

[macul]

Sorry. Got to stop you right there.

No you don't.

Because without the mutual aid of your community, both locally and globally, you are dead from the countless diseases the world community has put out of business.

You are too ignorant to live in the modern world, because you've done without schooling.

You didn't exist in the first place, because your forebears didn't come here, and didn't bind together as a nation state.

You died of thirst, because nobody put in water pipes.

You don't have a house, because nobody put in roads.

And so on.


Really? People managed to live without water being piped to them. People managed to live without roads. Nothing of what you said argues against what I said. You are deflecting. I never said life would be better without those things. My point is that the only Rights you have are those you can create for yourself. Everything you mentioned is a public service. None of them are rights.

This is true. And I'd be buggered for breathing in a vacuum. Your point is?

Every single right you believe in, paul, is provided by someone else. What if that someone else isn't around to provide you that right?

[Joe Rice]

Just a note: Lisa got upset I quoted her without confirming it. I just did and, yes, she finished the first novel while unemployed and living on welfare.

[Reverend Smooth]

Cooperation and working together for mutual benefit and profit are not the same as demanding to be taken care of by a nanny state's provisions, supplied by the taxes of others. Suckling at the government teat should be only for those absolutely unable to care for themselves or as a limited and temporary help for those fallen on hard times, until they can recover. It should not be a lifestyle choice.Because you can't address what I say and instead rely on hyperbole and strawmen, you are a complete fucking moron. Go suckle at the teat of logic before you open your yap, next time.

My condolences go to your ancestors. Millions of years of evolution and what did they get for their efforts? You.

[Reverend Smooth]

Really? People managed to live without water being piped to them. People managed to live without roads.It's called 'progress'.

Besides, if you go study primitive societies, they usually live cooperatively and many of them have communal systems.

[Paul McEnery]

BTW, According to my wife, interestingly, Rowling was a welfare-using single mother when she first came up with her stories.

Hee.

And let's leave Tim Hunter out of this, shall we?

[Paul McEnery]

Really? People managed to live without water being piped to them. People managed to live without roads. Nothing of what you said argues against what I said. You are deflecting. I never said life would be better without those things. My point is that the only Rights you have are those you can create for yourself. Everything you mentioned is a public service. None of them are rights.



Every single right you believe in, paul, is provided by someone else. What if that someone else isn't around to provide you that right?

I'm not saying you're not right, because you are. You just don't push it all the way like wot you should. There are no innate rights. All rights are established by political struggle.

However, there's never been a political struggle won by one man on his own.

So your options are:

1) Go live in a cave
2) Live as a vassal to the English Crown
3) Accept that we live in a system of mutual interdependence.

And that's not about it being "provided".

I mean, I got no problem with my comic books being "provided". I got no problem with my electricity being "provided". That's how a modern capitalist society works, isn't it. I pitch in with my bit, other people pitch in with their bits. And we democratically elect people to make sure the whole thing rolls along as best it can.

Well, no we don't, because it can roll along a helluva lot better, can't it.

[Paul McEnery]

Understand that this isn't an argument for what we should do, but rather life as it exists in its natural state.

No primate life exists in a "natural" state, since every primate troop is mediated by culture, which itself exists as a way of mediating between power and justice. Serious, yo. Chimps have government.

[Reverend Smooth]

No primate life exists in a "natural" state, since every primate troop is mediated by culture, which itself exists as a way of mediating between power and justice. Serious, yo. Chimps have government.A lot of the 'natural', 'survival of the fittest' crowd forget that there are social species and species that aren't; those that live in groups do so because they are all too weak to live on their own. Humans included.

[Loren]

I'm not saying you're not right, because you are. You just don't push it all the way like wot you should. There are no innate rights. All rights are established by political struggle.

So what happens when people lose a political struggle, and are consequentially oppressed? If they have no innate rights, and they haven't successfully established any rights either, then I suppose no one's rights are being violated?

That certainly does paint the Civil Rights era in a new light, as it throws a rather great deal of legitimacy to the arguments of the Jim Crow supporters. Heck, genocide itself may not involve any rights violations under this scheme, since genocides usually take place under the rule of despots who won their particular political struggles.

I mean, I got no problem with my comic books being "provided". I got no problem with my electricity being "provided". That's how a modern capitalist society works, isn't it.

No, not really. Your comic books aren't "provided." You choose to buy them, with your own money. If you choose to buy them, it's because the comic books are worth more to you than whatever else you could spend that money on. Somebody else chooses to make those comics, and is free to stop when they feel like it. If you stopped buying comics, the guys who make them couldn't force them on you. And if your favorite comic creators stopped making comics, then you couldn't force them to provide you with new material.

Same with electricity. It's only "provided" because you choose to pay for it. Maybe you're also "provided" with cable TV. I'm not, because I choose not to be. There's a line to my house, but I don't consider it to be worth the cost they ask, so I forgo it, and it costs me nothing. And the cable company can't do jack-squat about it.

[Sabrinaset]

Serious, yo. Chimps have government.

We call that "Jr. High ASB" :D

[Paul McEnery]

So what happens when people lose a political struggle, and are consequentially oppressed? If they have no innate rights, and they haven't successfully established any rights either, then I suppose no one's rights are being violated?

That certainly does paint the Civil Rights era in a new light, as it throws a rather great deal of legitimacy to the arguments of the Jim Crow supporters. Heck, genocide itself may not involve any rights violations under this scheme, since genocides usually take place under the rule of despots who won their particular political struggles.

Ultimately, this is correct.

Except for one thing: the rest of us won the ideological argument, which was a matter of political struggle. As indeed was the electoral part of the deal. As is the human rights part of the United Nations.

It's all political struggle at the end of the day, even though I believe my team has the right of it. And even though my reason for being on my team is only partly self-interest -- the other part is my identity as an ethical being, so that's self-interest too, I suppose.

Hey look everyone! I just invented enlightened self-interest!

What do you mean, you already got one?


No, not really. Your comic books aren't "provided." You choose to buy them, with your own money. If you choose to buy them, it's because the comic books are worth more to you than whatever else you could spend that money on. Somebody else chooses to make those comics, and is free to stop when they feel like it. If you stopped buying comics, the guys who make them couldn't force them on you. And if your favorite comic creators stopped making comics, then you couldn't force them to provide you with new material.

Same with electricity. It's only "provided" because you choose to pay for it. Maybe you're also "provided" with cable TV. I'm not, because I choose not to be. There's a line to my house, but I don't consider it to be worth the cost they ask, so I forgo it, and it costs me nothing. And the cable company can't do jack-squat about it.

Course they're provided. But it's up to me what I want to do about it.

We run on much more of a gift economy than is commonly acknowledged.

[MacQuarrie]

Just a note: Lisa got upset I quoted her without confirming it. I just did and, yes, she finished the first novel while unemployed and living on welfare.
The point is, she finished the novel. She made the effort and now she's cashing the checks, and that is as it should be. Thousands of other welfare recipients didn't bother to try and they are still on welfare and they think that's their right.

Why do we want to encourage that?

[MacQuarrie]

A lot of the 'natural', 'survival of the fittest' crowd forget that there are social species and species that aren't; those that live in groups do so because they are all too weak to live on their own. Humans included.

Even in social species, those who don't do their share or try to take what isn't theirs are driven out of the tribe.

Again, I'm making a distinction between those who can provide for themselves but won't and those who can't. Calling these social services "rights" validates the deadbeats' claims to them. We cannot permit that. People who are physically and mentally capable of earning their own way but refuse to do so should starve until they catch a clue and shape up. They have no inherent right to food, shelter, clothing or anything else that they are unwilling to provide for themselves.

[Reverend Smooth]

Again, I'm making a distinction between those who can provide for themselves but won't and those who can't. Calling these social services "rights" validates the deadbeats' claims to them. .The answer is to simply add the caveat 'only if you can't provide for yourself', imo-- and I think that's a reasonable compromise between both absolutist ends.

And it is human nature, as wll as the nature of other species, to care for those who are too ill or infirm to care for themselves. African wild dogs are a great example of that-- they're africa's top predator. Humans are a great example of it, too.

One can argue just as easily that saying, 'it's not a right' means that those who can't provide for themselves shouldn't be provided for. And that's often the case, especially in the US.

[LtMarvel]

Even in social species, those who don't do their share or try to take what isn't theirs are driven out of the tribe.

Again, I'm making a distinction between those who can provide for themselves but won't and those who can't. Calling these social services "rights" validates the deadbeats' claims to them. We cannot permit that. People who are physically and mentally capable of earning their own way but refuse to do so should starve until they catch a clue and shape up. They have no inherent right to food, shelter, clothing or anything else that they are unwilling to provide for themselves.
Case study: Working woman with a toddler gets pregnant again, ends up with triplets. She can go back to work but finds after daycare expenses she doesn't end up clearing enough to pay rent/food. So she chooses not to go back to work and go on welfare fulltime until the kids are school age.

Deadbeat or providing for her family?

[Paul McEnery]

The point is, she finished the novel. She made the effort and now she's cashing the checks, and that is as it should be. Thousands of other welfare recipients didn't bother to try and they are still on welfare and they think that's their right.

Why do we want to encourage that?

That's a pretty reprehensible way to spin it, Jim.

No, the point is, she'd never have had the chance to write Harry Potter without socialized medicine and unemployment benefit.

That's the whole point of a system of mutual aid. We take care of each other through the rough patches, and sometimes we get a Harry Potter out of it, and sometimes we just get someone harmlessly vegetating away their lives, I suppose. Social stock can go up as well as down. So it goes.

But I'd rather live in a society where a J.K. Rowling gets her shot at life than one where she doesn't.

[Paul McEnery]

Even in social species, those who don't do their share or try to take what isn't theirs are driven out of the tribe.

Well, come the revolution, we'll take care of them.

In the meantime, please sir, can we have universal healthcare?

[Reverend Smooth]

I think the 'didn't bother to try' thing is too, er, liberally applied, too. Several of the posters here have to go on assistance. What makes them different from the many others?

[MacQuarrie]

Case study: Working woman with a toddler gets pregnant again, ends up with triplets. She can go back to work but finds after daycare expenses she doesn't end up clearing enough to pay rent/food. So she chooses not to go back to work and go on welfare fulltime until the kids are school age.

Deadbeat or providing for her family?
Rule number 1: Bad laws are based on extreme examples.

Also, can she work from home? Can she job-share with someone else?

We're not discussing child-care issues, but the fact remains that people who want to work find a way. My mother did it as a single mother with five kids. Welfare is supposed to be assistance, not a replacement for income. So I'd say that int eh case you offer, the woman is either sadly lacking in ambition and imagination or she's a deadbeat.

[MacQuarrie]

That's a pretty reprehensible way to spin it, Jim.

No, the point is, she'd never have had the chance to write Harry Potter without socialized medicine and unemployment benefit.

That's the whole point of a system of mutual aid. We take care of each other through the rough patches, and sometimes we get a Harry Potter out of it, and sometimes we just get someone harmlessly vegetating away their lives, I suppose. Social stock can go up as well as down. So it goes.

But I'd rather live in a society where a J.K. Rowling gets her shot at life than one where she doesn't.
That is completely off the point for which I cited her. She is one of the richest women o earth, and I don't begrudge her a penny of it.

In your philosophy, she is not entitled to benefit from the proceeds of her own efforts, but filthy layabouts have a moral claim on her profit simply because they say they do.

That's the point I was making. You said that there's no such thing as isolated achievement, and I said there is. Why aren't millions of other welfare mothers getting filthy rich and she is? Because she did something as an individual that they didn't. Not everybody can do it. Almost nobody can. That's why it's an isolated individual achievement. The kind you said doesn't exist.

[MacQuarrie]

The answer is to simply add the caveat 'only if you can't provide for yourself', imo-- and I think that's a reasonable compromise between both absolutist ends.

And it is human nature, as wll as the nature of other species, to care for those who are too ill or infirm to care for themselves. African wild dogs are a great example of that-- they're africa's top predator. Humans are a great example of it, too.

One can argue just as easily that saying, 'it's not a right' means that those who can't provide for themselves shouldn't be provided for. And that's often the case, especially in the US.

Rights are right. The right to free speech is no respecter of persons; it does not depend upon one's ability to say something intelligent or informed. Idiots have as much freedom of speech as anyone else. They have that right.

If food is a right, it's a universal right. Everyone has a right to eat, regardless of whether they want to earn it, try to earn it, or simply lie in front of the TV watching Springer. If it's a right, it's a right.

It's not a right. It can't be. Calling it a right is the death-knell of democracy. As soon as the majority discover that they can vote themselves a living at the expense of the minority, democracy is over and tyranny has begun.

[MacQuarrie]

Well, come the revolution, we'll take care of them.

In the meantime, please sir, can we have universal healthcare?

Who's going to pay for it?

Why not give everybody Corvettes while we're at it? Oh, yeah, because they're a limited commodity and can't be universal. So is medical care.

Where are we going to get the doctors? Are we going to force unwilling people into medical school now that they can't make a good living at it? How are we going to keep the pharmaceutical companies in the pharmaceutical business if they can make more money manufacturing something else? We mandated lower insurance rates in California with Prop 103, and the result was huge numbers of insurance companies refused to do business in California any longer.

Universal healthcare is by definition rationed healthcare. Somebody will have to decide what is covered and what is not. If people are forced to use the government program (the Clinton plan mandated prison terms for attempting to pay out of pocket for anything), and the government program decides not to cover a given condition, you die. That's the reality.

[Paul McEnery]

That is completely off the point for which I cited her. She is one of the richest women o earth, and I don't begrudge her a penny of it.

In your philosophy, she is not entitled to benefit from the proceeds of her own efforts, but filthy layabouts have a moral claim on her profit simply because they say they do.

That's the point I was making. You said that there's no such thing as isolated achievement, and I said there is. Why aren't millions of other welfare mothers getting filthy rich and she is? Because she did something as an individual that they didn't. Not everybody can do it. Almost nobody can. That's why it's an isolated individual achievement. The kind you said doesn't exist.

Horsepucky!

No socialism, no Harry Potter. In your face! Booyakasha!

Um, and so forth.

[Paul McEnery]

Rights are right. The right to free speech is no respecter of persons; it does not depend upon one's ability to say something intelligent or informed. Idiots have as much freedom of speech as anyone else. They have that right.

If food is a right, it's a universal right. Everyone has a right to eat, regardless of whether they want to earn it, try to earn it, or simply lie in front of the TV watching Springer. If it's a right, it's a right.

It's not a right. It can't be. Calling it a right is the death-knell of democracy. As soon as the majority discover that they can vote themselves a living at the expense of the minority, democracy is over and tyranny has begun.

And that is soooooooo the case in every developed nation except for America (which in any case has food stamps for everyone who really needs them).

Now, tell me. What's the greatest threat to democracy in America. Is it food stamps? Or is it...

Satan!

[Paul McEnery]

Who's going to pay for it?

Why not give everybody Corvettes while we're at it? Oh, yeah, because they're a limited commodity and can't be universal. So is medical care.

Where are we going to get the doctors? Are we going to force unwilling people into medical school now that they can't make a good living at it? How are we going to keep the pharmaceutical companies in the pharmaceutical business if they can make more money manufacturing something else? We mandated lower insurance rates in California with Prop 103, and the result was huge numbers of insurance companies refused to do business in California any longer.

Universal healthcare is by definition rationed healthcare. Somebody will have to decide what is covered and what is not. If people are forced to use the government program (the Clinton plan mandated prison terms for attempting to pay out of pocket for anything), and the government program decides not to cover a given condition, you die. That's the reality.

Is it now.

And that's the case in every developed nation except for the United States, is it?

[MacQuarrie]

Horsepucky!

No socialism, no Harry Potter. In your face! Booyakasha!

Um, and so forth.
Maybe. Or maybe Neil Gaiman would be cashing those checks for the film adaptation of Tim Hunter. Or maybe Rowling would have written the books anyway. The point is, was, and remains, that she did it as an individual. Regardless of whether she was on welfare or not, the story came from between her ears, and it could have stayed there, or she could have written it without government assistance. The achievement is hers and hers alone.

How did people write stories before welfare existed? How do people do it without being on welfare now?

[Samurai]

Horsepucky!

No socialism, no Harry Potter. In your face! Booyakasha!

Um, and so forth.

I can live with that. We have a deal, no socialism or Harry Potter.

[macul]

A lot of the 'natural', 'survival of the fittest' crowd forget that there are social species and species that aren't; those that live in groups do so because they are all too weak to live on their own. Humans included.

You and paul are missing my point. I'm not saying that life isn't better in a society. I'm not saying we don't benefit from living in a cooperative society. My point is that when you strip all of that away you are left with very few rights. When it comes down to the nitty gritty you've only a few true rights and healthcare and food aren't among them.

[macul]

Ultimately, this is correct.

Except for one thing: the rest of us won the ideological argument, which was a matter of political struggle.

Have we? In some parts of the world people are massacred for what religion they belong to. In some parts of the world people are massacred to fuel the diamond trade. Per your idealogy, those people have no rights. What have they won?

[macul]

The answer is to simply add the caveat 'only if you can't provide for yourself', imo-- and I think that's a reasonable compromise between both absolutist ends.

Absolutely. I don't think any of us dispute that. Providing for those who can't is the right thing to do. Providing for those who won't is the wrong thing to do.

[macul]

No, the point is, she'd never have had the chance to write Harry Potter without socialized medicine and unemployment benefit.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked novels weren't a 20th (or 21st, not sure when Potter first came out) invention. People were writing novels long before socialized medicine and unemployment benefits.

[Joe Rice]

The point is, she finished the novel. She made the effort and now she's cashing the checks, and that is as it should be. Thousands of other welfare recipients didn't bother to try and they are still on welfare and they think that's their right.

Why do we want to encourage that?

More telepathy, huh, Ms. Grey?

[Joe Rice]

That's the point I was making. You said that there's no such thing as isolated achievement, and I said there is. Why aren't millions of other welfare mothers getting filthy rich and she is? Because she did something as an individual that they didn't. Not everybody can do it. Almost nobody can. That's why it's an isolated individual achievement. The kind you said doesn't exist.

This is terrible logic. No matter what these other "filthy layabouts" (nice Christian thought there) did, Rowling would not have succeeded without the government's help. Yes, she did something others in her situation did not do. That does not change that she got help.

You talk about extreme examples being bad reasons for laws? Sure. But your "filthy layabouts" are the extreme example.

[Joe Rice]

Maybe. Or maybe Neil Gaiman would be cashing those checks for the film adaptation of Tim Hunter. Or maybe Rowling would have written the books anyway. The point is, was, and remains, that she did it as an individual. Regardless of whether she was on welfare or not, the story came from between her ears, and it could have stayed there, or she could have written it without government assistance. The achievement is hers and hers alone.

How did people write stories before welfare existed? How do people do it without being on welfare now?

Not the point and you're either being willfully obtuse or just missing it. If she did not have the welfare systems to rely on, she would not have been in the place to write her books. End of story. Perhaps that's why she not only doesn't mind being taxed, but gives a lot more to charity as well; as she know she partially survived on the indirect charity of others through the government.

You and paul are missing my point. I'm not saying that life isn't better in a society. I'm not saying we don't benefit from living in a cooperative society. My point is that when you strip all of that away you are left with very few rights. When it comes down to the nitty gritty you've only a few true rights and healthcare and food aren't among them.

And why would we want to strip down to the nitty gritty?

Absolutely. I don't think any of us dispute that. Providing for those who can't is the right thing to do. Providing for those who won't is the wrong thing to do.

I'd rather provide for both than neither; if it's too difficult to tell the difference that's a loss I'd rather take than anyone falling through the cracks.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked novels weren't a 20th (or 21st, not sure when Potter first came out) invention. People were writing novels long before socialized medicine and unemployment benefits.

But Rowling was LIVING on these benefits. We're not saying Moby Dick was part of it; just that Rowling herself survived due to government welfare.

[beetlebum]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked novels weren't a 20th (or 21st, not sure when Potter first came out) invention. People were writing novels long before socialized medicine and unemployment benefits.


I have to agree with him on that point. What many speculate to be the earliest novel in the world was The Tale of Genji. It was written 8th Century CE Japan. Back then people did not worry about welfare or socialism, they were concerned with getting whale meat and Octopuses having sex with women. And since were talking about British artists who were on the dole, Ian Brown of the legendary group the Stone Roses, blasted Tony Blair back in 1998 for his welfare to work program, saying if he had not gone on the "dole" the Stone Roses music, which paved the way for Oasis, rave culture and brought Chicago's acid house movement to the mainstream,would have never been made. And although I am a Goldwaterite ( one of his quotes is my signature)I do have to admit Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal saved America. When the stock market crashed in 1941, the US lost 75 billion in equity capital, and our GNP had gone from 104 billion a year to mere 74.2 billion. Prior to Roosevelt, the federal government tended to be little more than a passive observer when it came to the social well-being of its citizens. FDR’s response was to initiate the “New Deal” The New Deal created 2.5 million jobs, created vital programs such as Social Security, and implemented social safety nets to ensure that another Great Depression ever happened again. Hell,even Milton Friedman ssaid that it was an appropriate response to a critical situation. It was one of the few circumstances where John Keynes theory that massive government spending is a vehicle for recovery.
However much I admire Roosevelt, I do have to admit an antipathy towards. Lyndon Johnson. If it wasn't bad enough that he lied about the Gulf of Tonkin and about bombing North Vietnam (at least Goldwater was honest) he also tried to implement his Great Society which was ultimately a failure With the exception of Medicare, Medicaid, and Headstart, the program ultimately did more harm than good.Perhaps it would have done more good if not for the 120 billion spent on the war in Indo-China. I blame the Great Society,the war (which spilled over into my country Laos and took the lives of over 350,000 Laotians, and created an ongoing civil conflict in the north between the Lao and Hmong rebels) along with the oil embargo by Arabs pissed off at our support of Israel for the double digit inflation and unemployment we experienced for the next two decades. Socialism is needed, but only in moderation. You don't have a right to food, but the morality of a nation should not be based on pornography or abortion, but how well it takes care or it's own people. The United States is doing an adequate job but we could be doing better.

[Joe Rice]

Jim, I think part of the problem is that you're looking at this from the perspective of "filthy layabouts" acting entitled to something, and you (understandably) have a big problem with a sense of entitlement. But that's not how I see it; and in my neighborhood and community that's not how it plays out.

The way I look at it is not THEIR ENTITLEMENT but MY DUTY. I have more than I need, it is my duty as Christian and as a human being to give. I know neither I nor anybody else is always going to be willing to fulfill that duty; that's why we legislate it. It's the duty of everyone not to kill each other, but we legislate that, too. For we live in a fallen world, an imperfect pile of corruption, sin, and evil. Humans have shown time and again we do not naturally go to our better natures. So when we can think straight and make rules that force us to do the right thing, that's not quite as good, but I'd rather we be forced to help each other than have those that need suffer.

[macul]

And why would we want to strip down to the nitty gritty?

You are confusing "want" with "could." I don't want for society to become that way, but it easily could do so. Just look at New Orleans a few years back for a small snapshot of what I'm speaking of.

[Joe Rice]

You are confusing "want" with "could." I don't want for society to become that way, but it easily could do so. Just look at New Orleans a few years back for a small snapshot of what I'm speaking of.

Then I'm not seeing how your point relates to what I'm saying.

[macul]

Then I'm not seeing how your point relates to what I'm saying.

Consider that I wasn't talking to you, joe. I was responding to paul and rev smooth.

[Joe Rice]

Consider that I wasn't talking to you, joe. I was responding to paul and rev smooth.

Duly considered.

[macul]

Duly considered.

That came out wrong on my part. Apologies.

[Joe Rice]

That came out wrong on my part. Apologies.

(I figured you didn't mean it snotty, so I tried making my reply kinda jokey. Looks like we both screwed it. No worries.)

[Loren]

Ultimately, this is correct.

Except for one thing: the rest of us won the ideological argument, which was a matter of political struggle. As indeed was the electoral part of the deal. As is the human rights part of the United Nations.

That's all and good for today's genocides, but it paints the past in a seriously relativistic color. It means that pre-Civil War slavery in the South didn't violate anyone's rights, simply because what was done was legal. It means that Jim Crow laws didn't violate anyone's rights because they too were legal. It means the Japanese internment during WWII didn't violate anyone's rights either.

Heck, it nullifies the entire argument for American independence, since the various infringements on rights that were cited in the Declaration were deliberate actions by the Crown and not in violation of British law.

[Joe Rice]

That's all and good for today's genocides, but it paints the past in a seriously relativistic color. It means that pre-Civil War slavery in the South didn't violate anyone's rights, simply because what was done was legal. It means that Jim Crow laws didn't violate anyone's rights because they too were legal. It means the Japanese internment during WWII didn't violate anyone's rights either.

Heck, it nullifies the entire argument for American independence, since the various infringements on rights that were cited in the Declaration were deliberate actions by the Crown and not in violation of British law.

Perhaps, then, "rights" are a flowing, nebulous term decided by political struggle while justice, as an abstract, is something that goes beyond that and is in effect eternal.

[Loren]

That's a pretty reprehensible way to spin it, Jim.

No, the point is, she'd never have had the chance to write Harry Potter without socialized medicine and unemployment benefit.

She never would have had the chance? That's a pretty firm conclusion for a highly hypothetical situation. How could we know what she would have done without those programs? Maybe she wouldn't have written the first book. Maybe she would have written it faster. Maybe it would have taken longer for her to finish it, but it would have been better. Maybe she would have written a different book altogether. Maybe she never would have returned to Scotland in the first place, and instead met the love of her life somewhere else.

[Joe Rice]

She never would have had the chance? That's a pretty firm conclusion for a highly hypothetical situation. How could we know what she would have done without those programs? Maybe she wouldn't have written the first book. Maybe she would have written it faster. Maybe it would have taken longer for her to finish it, but it would have been better. Maybe she would have written a different book altogether. Maybe she never would have returned to Scotland in the first place, and instead met the love of her life somewhere else.

That's a lot of maybes coming together to form a Voltron-like Straw Man.

[Dreadstar]

The point is, she finished the novel. She made the effort and now she's cashing the checks, and that is as it should be. Thousands of other welfare recipients didn't bother to try and they are still on welfare and they think that's their right.

Why do we want to encourage that?

Not taking sides in what seems to be an argument of the semantics of the definition (lexical OR legal) of "rights," but to me, this is the basic CRUX, the question that cuts to the heart of the matter regarding the welfare state.

Why, indeed?

[Joe Rice]

Not taking sides in what seems to be an argument of the semantics of the definition (lexical OR legal) of "rights," but to me, this is the basic CRUX, the question that cuts to the heart of the matter regarding the welfare state.

Why, indeed?

Wrong question. Why would we, as a society, fail to provide for ourselves and our needy (even if there are these supposed "filthy layabouts" among the actual needy)?

[MacQuarrie]

This is terrible logic. No matter what these other "filthy layabouts" (nice Christian thought there) did, Rowling would not have succeeded without the government's help. Yes, she did something others in her situation did not do. That does not change that she got help.
How do you know she wouldn't have succeeded without government help? Thousands of other authors, writers, musicians throughout the last couple of hundred years have done exactly that. Are you saying that J.K. Rowling is incapable of doing it? Is she stupid or lazy? She got government help to feed herself and her daughter. The government did not help her write her book. SHE did that. The government gets zero credit for that, but the did confiscate a big chunk of her earnings, a lot more than she received from them.

You talk about extreme examples being bad reasons for laws? Sure. But your "filthy layabouts" are the extreme example.
My filthy layabouts are on every corner and in every doorway of my neighborhood. I see them all the time. They are far from the extreme. They are the norm for the welfare state.

[Dreadstar]

Wrong question. Why would we, as a society, fail to provide for ourselves and our needy (even if there are these supposed "filthy layabouts" among the actual needy)?

It's a matter of perspective. Thing is, the two perspectives (and the questions they engender) are *NOT* mutually exclusive. It's not one or the other. Both questions can exist side by side.

Seeing as how we *do* provide for ourselves and our needy (YES, I believe we do, NO I am NOT going to argue whether or not the degree of provision suits your ideal. Drop it), and the latter question is answered, the former question occupies me more.

[MacQuarrie]

Wrong question. Why would we, as a society, fail to provide for ourselves and our needy (even if there are these supposed "filthy layabouts" among the actual needy)?

We wouldn't and we shouldn't.

BUT we must never call it a right.

Rights are always universal and always trump anything that isn't a right. Telling people they have a right to food is giving them permission to enslave you.

If food is a right, then it's a right everyone has, all the time, regardless of ability or effort. If somebody is hungry and does not want to work, they don't have to. They have a right.

[Joe Rice]

How do you know she wouldn't have succeeded without government help? Thousands of other authors, writers, musicians throughout the last couple of hundred years have done exactly that. Are you saying that J.K. Rowling is incapable of doing it? Is she stupid or lazy? She got government help to feed herself and her daughter. The government did not help her write her book. SHE did that. The government gets zero credit for that, but the did confiscate a big chunk of her earnings, a lot more than she received from them.


My filthy layabouts are on every corner and in every doorway of my neighborhood. I see them all the time. They are far from the extreme. They are the norm for the welfare state.

The government provided her with the life and society that allowed her to write the book. No government, no laws, no book. Now, as you said before, government IS the people. We give ourselves these things, as we should.

I'm sorry you live in a terrible place, Mac, but I live in one of the worst, poorest areas of NYC. And guess what? The people on welfare? They're people. And they're doing their best. I don't see the point of dehumanizing them. It wouldn't make me feel better. It wouldn't help them.

[Joe Rice]

It's a matter of perspective. Thing is, the two perspectives (and the questions they engender) are *NOT* mutually exclusive. It's not one or the other. Both questions can exist side by side.

Seeing as how we *do* provide for ourselves and our needy (YES, I believe we do, NO I am NOT going to argue whether or not the degree of provision suits your ideal. Drop it), and the latter question is answered, the former question occupies me more.

If someone can find a way of perfectly figuring out which people really are deserving the welfare and which are "filthy layabouts" then I'm all for it. Until a system exists, I'd rather a few "filthy layabouts" get free rides than hard-working, hard-up folks (the majority of people on welfare, believe you me) get shafted.

[Sabrinaset]

The government provided her with the life and society that allowed her to write the book.

Awfully generous of the government to provide us with life and society. Yow.

[cactusmaac]

Government flows from society, it doesn't provide it.

edit: Since welfare reform started in the mid-90s aren't welfare recipients kicked off the system if they don't get a job within a certain period of time? Doesn't that make the filthy layabouts and welfare queens argument a moot one?

[Joe Rice]

We wouldn't and we shouldn't.

BUT we must never call it a right.

Rights are always universal and always trump anything that isn't a right. Telling people they have a right to food is giving them permission to enslave you.

If food is a right, then it's a right everyone has, all the time, regardless of ability or effort. If somebody is hungry and does not want to work, they don't have to. They have a right.

You're hung up on a word and an obsession with entitlement.

People have a right to live. If they cannot live on their own, it is the duty of those that can to provide.

[Joe Rice]

Awfully generous of the government to provide us with life and society. Yow.

See how comfy you are in a state of anarchy.

Government flows from society, it doesn't provide it.

It flows from it and it provides it. Without the law and structure of government, society would not be what it is. Without the morals and beliefs of society, government would not be what it is.

[Dreadstar]

If someone can find a way of perfectly figuring out which people really are deserving the welfare and which are "filthy layabouts" then I'm all for it. Until a system exists, I'd rather a few "filthy layabouts" get free rides than hard-working, hard-up folks (the majority of people on welfare, believe you me) get shafted.

Thing is, I'm not arguing AGAINST THIS POINT. I *do*, however, believe to be the question that hits to the heart of the welfare state. I accept that you believe that "encouraging" welfare cheats is an acceptable trade-off for the system. It's quite similar to the way I view the death penalty. I accept the errors in its application as an acceptable risk.

This doesn't mean the question should go unasked.

[Sabrinaset]

See how comfy you are in a state of anarchy.

I'd rather NOT live in a society in which my life and society are viewed of as gifts bestowed upon me by the government.

[Samurai]

You're hung up on a word and an obsession with entitlement.

People have a right to live. If they cannot live on their own, it is the duty of those that can to provide.

In other words, if someone chooses not to work, but would rather (literally) steal food, clothing, etc from people who have it, that is their right? If someone who was able bodied but unwilling to work just walked up to you, said "I'm hungry", and took a burger from your hands and the shirt off your back, you'd shrug, say "well, that's his right, and it's my duty to help him", and go buy yourself another burger and shirt because you can afford it? What if, by the time you get back to your table, there is a line of similar people waiting to take your burger because you can afford it better than they can? How long before you say "Enough"?

[Joe Rice]

Thing is, I'm not arguing AGAINST THIS POINT. I *do*, however, believe to be the question that hits to the heart of the welfare state. I accept that you believe that "encouraging" welfare cheats is an acceptable trade-off for the system. It's quite similar to the way I view the death penalty. I accept the errors in its application as an acceptable risk.

This doesn't mean the question should go unasked.

No doubt, I get that. But when it's asked I'm gonna try to answer it.

I was also thinking of it in terms of gun control. Sure, some people fuck up with guns. But that doesn't mean no one should have them.

[Joe Rice]

I'd rather NOT live in a society in which my life and society are viewed of as gifts bestowed upon me by the government.

Like I said to cactus, it's a circular thing. Surely you don't think that without the safety and structure provided by our government you'd be in exactly the same place you are now.

[Samurai]

I'd rather NOT live in a society in which my life and society are viewed of as gifts bestowed upon me by the government.

Make sure you get a gift receipt, so you can return them if the size is wrong...

[Joe Rice]

In other words, if someone chooses not to work, but would rather (literally) steal food, clothing, etc from people who have it, that is their right? If someone who was able bodied but unwilling to work just walked up to you, said "I'm hungry", and took a burger from your hands and the shirt off your back, you'd shrug, say "well, that's his right, and it's my duty to help him", and go buy yourself another burger and shirt because you can afford it? What if, by the time you get back to your table, there is a line of similar people waiting to take your burger because you can afford it better than they can? How long before you say "Enough"?

Wow, that's not what I said at all. Read better.

[Sabrinaset]

Like I said to cactus, it's a circular thing. Surely you don't think that without the safety and structure provided by our government you'd be in exactly the same place you are now.

No, but your alternative is "Oh, you must want anarchy then." What is Ed Cunard's saying again ...?

[Joe Rice]

No, but your alternative is "Oh, you must want anarchy then." What is Ed Cunard's saying again ...?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Are you eating Samurai sandwiches for lunch?

What I'm saying is without a government, and, in this specific case, our government, your life and our society would be in a very different shape indeed.

[Samurai]

Wow, that's not what I said at all. Read better.

You said "will not" is an acceptable spin off of "cannot", and then you said "People have a right to live. If they cannot live on their own, it is the duty of those that can to provide." So, putting the 2 together, you are saying that it is the duty to also provide for those that will not provide for themselves.

[Samurai]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Are you eating Samurai sandwiches for lunch?

What I'm saying is without a government, and, in this specific case, our government, your life and our society would be in a very different shape indeed.

Yes, govt is a necessary evil. I think we all concede that.

[Joe Rice]

You said "will not" is an acceptable spin off of "cannot"

No I did not.

[cactusmaac]

Like I said to cactus, it's a circular thing. Surely you don't think that without the safety and structure provided by our government you'd be in exactly the same place you are now.

I see government as being the cherry on top of the sundae that is society. It isn't an independent entity, it develops out of what society thinks it should be. Any safety and structure it provides is only possible because society approves.

It wasn't the government that enabled JK Rowling to get benefits as a single mother but a society that decided providing such benefits is desirable.

[Joe Rice]

I see government as being the cherry on top of the sundae that is society. It isn't an independent entity, it develops out of what society thinks it should be. Any safety and structure it provides is only possible because society approves.

It wasn't the government that enabled JK Rowling to get benefits as a single mother but a society that decided providing such benefits is desirable.

But it was government that provided the structure and the ability to do these things. Essentially, government is society, organized and administrated.

[Samurai]

Wrong question. Why would we, as a society, fail to provide for ourselves and our needy (even if there are these supposed "filthy layabouts" among the actual needy)?

Not the point and you're either being willfully obtuse or just missing it. If she did not have the welfare systems to rely on, she would not have been in the place to write her books. End of story. Perhaps that's why she not only doesn't mind being taxed, but gives a lot more to charity as well; as she know she partially survived on the indirect charity of others through the government.



And why would we want to strip down to the nitty gritty?



I'd rather provide for both than neither; if it's too difficult to tell the difference that's a loss I'd rather take than anyone falling through the cracks.



But Rowling was LIVING on these benefits. We're not saying Moby Dick was part of it; just that Rowling herself survived due to government welfare.
There is where you seemed to be saying that taking care of the "will nots" is an acceptable side effect of taking care of the "cannots".

[Joe Rice]

There is where you seemed to be saying that taking care of the "will nots" is an acceptable side effect of taking care of the "cannots".

"Side effect," yes, of course. You misused the term "spin off." Yes, of course, I would rather the majority of truly needy AND the bilkers get benefits rather than no one at all.

[Samurai]

"Side effect," yes, of course. You misused the term "spin off." Yes, of course, I would rather the majority of truly needy AND the bilkers get benefits rather than no one at all.

Ok, now that you've conceded that point, at which point does that position change? Do you only feel that way so long as the truly needy far outnumber the bilkers? What if there were an equal number of each? What if there were more bilkers than needy?

[Joe Rice]

Ok, now that you've conceded that point, at which point does that position change? Do you only feel that way so long as the truly needy far outnumber the bilkers? What if there were an equal number of each? What if there were more bilkers than needy?

In that final couple of cases, which I find unlikely, there would clearly need to be some serious reform. But not cancellation. As long as there is one truly needy person it is the moral imperative of society/government to provide.

EDIT: I conceded no "point." You misused a word.

[cactusmaac]

But is welfare bilking a serious problem given the mid-90s, Wisconsin-inspired reforms?

I can't think of it being a major current political issue.

[Joe Rice]

But is welfare bilking a serious problem given the mid-90s, Wisconsin-inspired reforms?

I can't think of it being a major current political issue.

I'm no expert, but my anecdotal reference (the schools where I've taught are at least 90% government-assisted families) shows very little bilking indeed.

[Samurai]

http://www.nabihq.org/en-us/News/welfare_fraud.php?sf_ses=09m058de71223oavf55h827q6 0

Welfare Fraud

From the Los Angeles Daily News

By Troy Anderson

LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS

LOS ANGELES - Rampant fraud is costing California taxpayers as much as $1.5 billion a year -- half of the welfare money it pays to needy families for child care, officials say.

The scam is increasingly popular in Los Angeles County, where investigators have opened more than 800 cases involving child-care fraud.

"Right now, this is the fraud du jour," said James Baker, assistant head deputy district attorney in the Welfare Fraud Division. "This is where the big money is now."

The scam typically involves welfare-to-work recipients who fabricate employers or exaggerate work hours in order to qualify for taxpayer-financed child care. Then they split the money with friends and relatives who claim to be caring for the children, prosecutors said.

Under reforms of the 1990s, welfare recipients qualify for government-paid child care -- usually $500 to $1,000 a month per child -- while they are looking for work or, after finding jobs, are making the transition into the work force.

"For a person who has five children, somebody can be paid $5,000 a month to watch their children," Baker said.

Officials estimate Los Angeles County loses 40 percent to 50 percent of its $600 million-a-year child-care allocation to fraud.

"We've had to aggressively go after this," said Bryce Yokomizo, director of the county Department of Public Social Services.

"There was a time when welfare fraud was pretty straightforward. But we're now seeing such a rise in child-care fraud because people can fictitiously claim employment, which actually reduces the welfare grant, but then you have an opportunity to make so much more money on the child care."

In what James Cosper, head deputy district attorney in the Welfare Fraud Division, called a "tragic looting of the public treasury," investigators last week arrested 10 suspects accused of cheating public-welfare programs out of more than $1.2 million.

In one case, prosecutors say a Lancaster resident conspired with relatives and friends to invent phony employment and child-care records and fraudulently obtain $345,719. In another case, Palmdale residents are accused of fraud totaling $196,756 from several programs between 2001 and 2005.

In a case last year involving about $116,000, the Artesia relatives of an Ohio prison inmate set up a joint bank account in his name and submitted monthly vouchers to a local child-care agency, claiming the inmate was watching their children, Baker said.

Cosper said about 20 people have been prosecuted for fraud involving roughly $3 million in public funds since the District Attorney's Office began actively pursuing child-care cheaters a little more than a year ago, .

Of the $2 billion to $3 billion spent statewide on taxpayer-financed child care each year, up to 50 percent is going to fraudulent providers, estimated Cosper, citing a recent California Department of Education report.

"My colleagues up and down the state estimate the losses at 40-50 percent of the child-care funds," Cosper said.

In a survey of 1,744 child-care cases by the state Department of Education, workers were not able to contact about half of those listed as providers by phone. In one-third of the cases, they found evidence the child was being cared for, and in about 15 percent of the cases they found no evidence that such care had ever been provided, Baker said.

"There is virtually no follow-up to ensure the provider even exists," Cosper said. "We've found some providers listed out of vacant lots or abandoned businesses."

But Greg Hudson, a field-services administrator for the state Department of Education, said the study was not intended to be used in estimating the amount of fraud. He also doesn't think the fact that his workers were unable to reach about half of the child-care providers is proof of fraud.

"It could mean they were out on a field trip," Hudson said. "It could mean the phone number was changed and they didn't tell the agency."

But Hudson said investigation is merited in the roughly one case in five in which researchers found potential problems. Holly Mitchell, chief executive officer of Los Angeles-based Crystal Stairs, the county's largest nonprofit child-development agency, claimed Cosper's fraud estimate is a gross exaggeration.

Grace Cainoy, executive director of the Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles, called fraud a serious problem, although she said estimates were much lower when lawmakers held hearings on the subject a couple of years ago.

[Joe Rice]

I'm glad they're going after that without taking away from those that need it.

Yet another reason Cali sucks.

[Sabrinaset]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Are you eating Samurai sandwiches for lunch?

What I'm saying is without a government, and, in this specific case, our government, your life and our society would be in a very different shape indeed.

No, what you said is "The government provided her with the life and society that allowed her to write the book." As in, the government giving us, by its own largess, our lives to live and our society to function in. Those are your own words. I strongly disagree with that. It's really the other way around, WE allow the government to exist and function, through our own actions ... or indifference.

Debating whether I should make a cheap shot of my own ...

[cactusmaac]

Is California typical or atypical of welfare fraud?

[Joe Rice]

No, what you said is "The government provided her with the life and society that allowed her to write the book." As in, the government giving us, by its own largess, our lives to live and our society to function in. Those are your own words. I strongly disagree with that. It's really the other way around, WE allow the government to exist and function, through our own actions ... or indifference.

Debating whether I should make a cheap shot of my own ...

I took no cheap shot, but thanks for you not taking one either.

Like I've said twice now, it is circular. Of course, the government doesn't function without us. But our society as it is cannot function without the government. I don't see what is confusing about this. If we didn't have the government, we would not have our relatively safe society. That's a fact. And if our relatively safe society didn't have us, we wouldn't have that government. Therefore we give to the government (society, organized), and it gives back.

Is California typical or atypical of welfare fraud?

From what I understand it's on the worst end of it.

[Samurai]

I'm glad they're going after that without taking away from those that need it.

Yet another reason Cali sucks.

But it's a massive problem, and about half the money is going to bilkers, so my hypothetical is real. Also, notice how they said the bilkers changed their schemes in response to changes in the system. Child care is now the big scam. If we change the system, it can make it harder on scammers, or they have to find a new racket that may be easier to identify and stop.

Look at it this way... if a business was losing as much product to theft as it did in sales, wouldn't it be time for some massive changes, to make it much more difficult to steal?

[Joe Rice]

But it's a massive problem, and about half the money is going to bilkers, so my hypothetical is real. Also, notice how they said the bilkers changed their schemes in response to changes in the system. Child care is now the big scam. If we change the system, it can make it harder on scammers, or they have to find a new racket that may be easier to identify and stop.

Look at it this way... if a business was losing as much product to theft as it did in sales, wouldn't it be time for some massive changes, to make it much more difficult to steal?

I agreed that Cali needs reform.

But, let's be clear, it is NOT a business.

[Samurai]

Is California typical or atypical of welfare fraud?

I don't know other states as well, but IMO it's probably one of the worst (though several other states are up there too). It's a massive problem in the US.