The flawed ideology of Conservatism

[Dispatcher]

Originally Posted by 7960

Thanks for not reading my post.

My bitch is not that they're taking my money, it's that they're taking it and giving it to people who I woudln't give it to.

There is no contradiction in anything I've said. From the beginning I've said I believe it's my responsibility to give. What I don't believe is in someone else deciding where it goes. How is that a contradiction? I've said it 9 different ways.........the govt going in your house and taking your tv, the govt going in your wallet and taking your money, the govt going in your checkbook and writing checks for you. That's bullshit.

I didn't say they're that way because they're stupid or lazy. I said if they want to change their situation then they need to get off their asses.

My problem is when someone else comes and takes my money to give to someone I don't agree with.

I'm against people being FORCED to give. Period.

First of all, I wasn't bitching because my wife doesn't get more money from the government to give to ME. She was on disability when I married her and I knew full well she could not work. However, when she was still single, she was so poor that she went without things like soap and light bulbs because food stamps didn't pay for that.
The reason our government forces YOU to pay taxes to support the poor is the same reason our government forces companies to abide by pollution standards...because there was a problem that wasn't being addressed without legislation. In other words, if everyone gave to charity, the government wouldn't FORCE you to help support the poor. But there are many people who would otherwise say "Screw em, I've got my gold and I deserve it, so let them starve".
And call me a liberal or a left wing nut case, but I have a problem with one person living in a 5 million dollar mansion and another person living in a cardboard box over a steam grate. Even if the person living in the box is a lazy drunk who did it to himself.
And to believe that it is a level playing field and everyone has the same opportunity is fantasy at worst, and wishful thinking at best.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

And call me a liberal or a left wing nut case, but I have a problem with one person living in a 5 million dollar mansion and another person living in a cardboard box over a steam grate. Even if the person living in the box is a lazy drunk who did it to himself.

What I would call a person who makes this statement would probably get me banned.

[7960]

Originally Posted by thewise1

What I would call a person who makes this statement would probably get me banned.

werd



Because the logical extension is "I want what he's got so there's nothing wrong with passing a law to take it legally."

Hell, my house is only 1,400 sq ft but my neighbor's is 2,600. I think we need a law requiring anyone living in a 2,600 sq ft house to cut 600 sq ft of materials off and give them to his neighbor!

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

However, when she was still single, she was so poor that she went without things like soap and light bulbs because food stamps didn't pay for that.

And call me a liberal or a left wing nut case, but I have a problem with one person living (better than another)

Hmm.

In a tangential way I agree with you but you're not going to like it. I think it's disgusting that you wife couldn't buy soap or light bulbs! It's a horrible thing that she had to go without basic necessities.

So where was her family? Where were her friends? Her church? Why did she not have soap when all those people had soap? Why do you want to FORCE me to give to her when the people who supposedly love her didn't give enough of a shit to make sure she was clean and had light?

[Kytro]

I am opposed to most common ideology in the collections they are in now.

My ideology is a knowledge based community, and problem such as land and money are primarily based on a lack knowledge, and so whatever method we choose to treat the symptom is probably going to be wrong.

I am opposed to most taxation now because the resources are poorly used. I am not however opposed to the idea of taxation as an intermediate step, and since money is part of society I believe taxation to be quite reasonable.

Just as membership in an organization can require certain concessions, so can membership in society. The argument that the money is yours because you earned it is pointless, without society you could never have done it and hence taxation is reasonable. You don't have to like it, or agree with it, and there methods of changing it, though it is difficult the way society is now.

Money and ownership driven by scarcity are the big ticket issues for society IMO

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

I'm going to try and stay out of this, but I want to note one interesting thing:

Did anyone else around here ever notice that ALL the people who claim wholeheartedly that "anyone can rise above their poor circumstances in America" all have their own hero story about how they "rose above"? "I joined the military and learned a trade" "I poured concrete for three years so I could go to college", etc. And then these same people say, "look at me, obviously it can be done since I did it."

I just want to point out the severely flawed logical reasoning that goes into saying "because I did this, someone else can obviously do it too."

So...for those who can't rise above...we should just take money from people who have done it and give it to them?

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

So...for those who can't rise above...we should just take money from people who have done it and give it to them?

Conversely, we should let them starve?

What seems like the more optimal scenario?

[kombayn]

^There are charities in place already to help people get food, plus if they pan-handle on the streets, people usually drop the spare change. It shouldn't be our responsibility.

[7960]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Conversely, we should let them starve?

What seems like the more optimal scenario?

nobody's stopping you from giving......why do you feel the need to force me to hand it over to the govt so they can pick who they think deserves it?

[7960]

Originally Posted by kombayn

^There are charities in place already to help people get food, plus if they pan-handle on the streets, people usually drop the spare change. It shouldn't be our responsibility.

I know you probably didn't mean it this way but I'll point this out anyway.

I do believe, as an individual, it is your responsibility to give and help. Same as it is for me, and ACE, and everyone else. I believe everyone should give and those in need should have a place to go to get help.

I do not believe the govt should be forcing me or anyone else to do it, though.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by 7960

nobody's stopping you from giving......why do you feel the need to force me to hand it over to the govt so they can pick who they think deserves it?

Well, for my part, I don't believe in government handouts for people who can work but choose not to, same as you.

But if, for the sake of argument, there are two possibilities--take from people who are successful to give to those who are not; or let those who are not successful starve? Given those two choices, I obviously have to prefer the former. In a nation so successful (the most successful on Earth), it seems to be poor form to let people starve when there's something we all could have done about it.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by kombayn

^There are charities in place already to help people get food, plus if they pan-handle on the streets, people usually drop the spare change. It shouldn't be our responsibility.

Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. "There are charities in place--it is not our responsibility to help."

Ok, so it's not our responsibility. Then people who donate to/work for charities don't have any responsibility either. So, in the end, no one has any responsibility whatsoever to give anything they have to help the poor. Well, if we all agree that it isn't our responsibility, why would anyone do it?

The answer is that they WOULDN'T. People donate because they feel it is their responsibility to do so, whether or not you see this as a flawed belief. So, if we achieved a general consensus that it was no one's responsibility to give..........no one would give, and those people would starve. That's the final extension of your argument.

Not exactly a very pleasant picture, now, is it?

[7960]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

But if, for the sake of argument, there are two possibilities.....

There aren't.

Given those two choices,......

But there are more so your false dilemma doesn't apply.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by 7960

There aren't.
But there are more so your false dilemma doesn't apply.

So, in your little world, the optimal scenario is this:

"Let private charity take care of it. It is our responsibility to give and to help, but we should only feel responsible to give and help to individuals/charities we agree with; we should not let the government decide, it should be only our decision."

This is your belief, yes?

By the way, way to completely dodge the question so you could avoid a hole being shown in the theory of your argument.

[7960]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. "There are charities in place--it is not our responsibility to help."

Ok, so it's not our responsibility. Then people who donate to/work for charities don't have any responsibility either.

They have an individual responsibility that should not be forced or even coerced by the govt.

And people who work for charities don't have any responsibility at all anyway so that doesn't even make sense. The govt takes my money and gives it to some charities and social programs. It does not take some people and force them to work for those charities. The people are there becuase they want to be.

So, in the end, no one has any responsibility whatsoever to give anything they have to help the poor. Well, if we all agree that it isn't our responsibility, why would anyone do it?

The answer is that they WOULDN'T.

The govt is taking our money NOW and giving it away, and yet people are STILL giving away EVEN MORE on top of that. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that people WOULD give if the govt wasn't forcing them to.

So, if we achieved a general consensus that it was no one's responsibility to give..........

We did not.

Not exactly a very pleasant picture, now, is it?

Not exactly a very accurate one either

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by 7960

They have an individual responsibility that should not be forced or even coerced by the govt.

And people who work for charities don't have any responsibility at all anyway so that doesn't even make sense. The govt takes my money and gives it to some charities and social programs. It does not take some people and force them to work for those charities. The people are there becuase they want to be.

The govt is taking our money NOW and giving it away, and yet people are STILL giving away EVEN MORE on top of that. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that people WOULD give if the govt wasn't forcing them to.

We did not.

Not exactly a very accurate one either

You don't really understand the concept of theory, do you

Also, these comments were not directed at you, nor did I want/expect you to answer them. You and kombayn have different ideas on charity, I would like HIS opinions. You have made yours known more than enough times.

[7960]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

So, in your little world, the optimal scenario is this:

"Let private charity take care of it. It is our responsibility to give and to help, but we should only feel responsible to give and help to individuals/charities we agree with; we should not let the government decide, it should be only our decision."

This is your belief, yes?

Basically.

I *might* even go so far as to say the govt could require charitable contributions and let the people pick where it goes but that would probably piss me off, too.

By the way, way to completely dodge the question so you could avoid a hole being shown in the theory of your argument.

I didn't dodge the question. You presented a false dilemma. There are more than those two choices so why should I pick one?

[7960]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

You don't really understand the concept of theory, do you

Much like you don't understand how to create an argument that doesn't hinge on a fallacy

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by 7960

Basically.

I *might* even go so far as to say the govt could require charitable contributions and let the people pick where it goes but that would probably piss me off, too.

Ok, so let's work with this.

People should feel obligated to give, but only to what they see as worthwhile causes. So, let us posit this dilemma, then: What if no one thinks your cause is worthwhile? Maybe no one gives a shit about schoolchildren in East St. Louis (they really don't if you've seen the conditions they live in). So, if no one cares about children in East St. Louis, people will not see this as a worthwhile use of their charitable contribution. Thus, they will instead donate to other causes. Of course, it is needless to say that they end result of no one caring about East St. Louis is that the poor children in the city will very likely continue to be poor, hungry, and hopeless.

The government, meanwhile, charged with the welfare of all citizens, will send some money to support schoolchildren in East St. Louis, just as it will for many other causes. They will not get an optimal level of support, but they will certainly get some--more than they will get in the case of private charity.

Prove this is wrong, please.