who do you owe a living?

[Ezra Smack]

Evidently a large segment of the population thinks that someone owes them a living. Sure they get a check from the government but since the government really doesn’t produce anything tangible, the actual money comes from you. The person, who got up, went to work and earned that money.

So, just out of curiosity, who do you think you owe a living?

You might say your minor children or your elderly parents? Maybe military veterans who were wounded in combat and disabled? Maybe cops or firemen who were hurt while trying to save lives and property? We could all pretty much agree on these but who else?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

So, just out of curiosity, who do you think you owe a living?

I can't help but ask myself instead: who am I indebted to and why? For if I owe some person a living, I must be in debt to them.

[Simius]

Owe a living is the wrong term, methinks.

That list would include myself, all government employees, wounded soldiers, wounded police/firemen etc

Who do I have an obligation to help?
Children, disabled people, temporarily unemployed, those whose jobs barely pay for the basic necessities, the old, etc

[Simius]

Or if I was a hardcore libertarian the answer would be easy: myself

[Libertaire]

Originally Posted by Simius

Owe a living is the wrong term, methinks.

That list would include myself, all government employees, wounded soldiers, wounded police/firemen etc

Who do I have an obligation to help?
Children, disabled people, temporarily unemployed, those whose jobs barely pay for the basic necessities, the old, etc

Yourself is good.

Government employees? I didn't hire them.

Wounded soldiers? Government employees are responsible for that. Though I would help them voluntarily.

Obligated or Coerced?

I am naturally obligated to help my child. I am obligated wheresoever I choose to help others because I hold life to be the highest essential to liberty (and vice versa).

The old? I help my grandparents and have helped elderly strangers, voluntarily.

Jobless? I have helped people get jobs as well, voluntarily.

I suppose the difference is in that while I would be charitable to any and all who need if I am able, I am opposed the use of aggressive force and theft by a pretentious state to enforce their own version of "charity".

[avsp]

As a massively overpaid semi-pro welfare recipient myself i can honestly answer I owe a living to aslyum seekers in the UK who are forbidden to work, not entitled to standard welfare benefits & what benefits they are are entitled to is extremely difficult to actually get & are in practice used as a means of control.

I also 'owe' help to UK tax payers who find themselves strapped for cash thru no fault of their own, ..., exact details are private

Also entitled are ppl the worldover who having just recently gained a foothold on the 'energy ladder' are now being pushed off it, largely as a result of over-consumption & associated actions in the west, (which, obviously, would also include my overly generous welfare payments).

Persons not entitled would include the greedheads who repeatedly pestered ppl on low incomes to borrow money so that they could have new bathrooms every few years or foriegn holidays every year, thus causing a massive misallocation of resources & denied credit to fund the future exploration of oil & to help those in the world in an economically marginal situations, (Ukrainian farmers perhaps).

The fact that the market position of the greedheads is such that their failure cant be allowed just shows the limitations of the market.

OTOH we all owe everyone else a living, ..., the belief that its 'your' money is false. None of us is able to scratch a living at all purely thru our own efforts. Just because we benefit from the advances made by the dead doesnt automatically mean that we can over-consume. Over-consumption divorces each of us from each other & ultimately from ourselves too

FWIW my welfare payments are overly generous coz i'm in an odd position

[WickedLou9]

I don't think it's a question of "owe" all the time. We don't "Owe" anyone food stamps, unemployment, welfare, corporate subsidies, farm subsidies, social security, etc. None of these are "owed' due to any particular action that the recipients have taken. Does that mean that they are not good programs? no. Some are and some arent. Some are well intentioned but poorly implemented. If someone gives me a hand and holds the door for me, does that mean i was owed it? No. It means that someone though enough to help me out even though they didn't owe me anything.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Simius

Who do I have an obligation to help?
Children, disabled people, temporarily unemployed, those whose jobs barely pay for the basic necessities, the old, etc

Based on morals/ethics or laws?

Voluntarily or forced?

Would you be more likely to give out of desire if it weren't being taken from you?

[thewise1]

Myself, My wife, and My daughter.

Myself, because I own myself and I want to be a good steward of me.
My wife, because she provides something that I certainly don't get from paying taxes
My daughter, because we created her and she is our responsibility

That's my view of how it should be, of course. If you want to discuss the reality, it includes people in third world countries that we send foreign aid to (but mostly just the warlord types, since the people often don't see the foreign aid money), people on welfare, basically anyone who uses the interstate system, everyone in my county, state, country in varying amounts.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

Evidently a large segment of the population thinks that someone owes them a living. Sure they get a check from the government but since the government really doesn’t produce anything tangible, the actual money comes from you. The person, who got up, went to work and earned that money.

So, just out of curiosity, who do you think you owe a living?

I think the terminology used is flawed here, because we don't help these people out becuase we "owe" it to them, we help them our because it is better for our society and thus better for ourselves as well.

Many government programs make sense from a social, economic and even, in many cases, a self interested point of view.

It benefits everyone to have a more stable society.

[Ezra Smack]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

Based on morals/ethics or laws?

Voluntarily or forced?

Good question. I mean moraly.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Libertaire

Yourself is good.

Government employees? I didn't hire them.

Wounded soldiers? Government employees are responsible for that. Though I would help them voluntarily.

Obligated or Coerced?

I am naturally obligated to help my child. I am obligated wheresoever I choose to help others because I hold life to be the highest essential to liberty (and vice versa).

The old? I help my grandparents and have helped elderly strangers, voluntarily.

Jobless? I have helped people get jobs as well, voluntarily.

I suppose the difference is in that while I would be charitable to any and all who need if I am able, I am opposed the use of aggressive force and theft by a pretentious state to enforce their own version of "charity".

The one, of many, flaws of libertarianism is its inherit selfishness (the other major flaw is believing the markets are always "rational"), it goes against every principle of our evolutionary past. For one thing you have the privilege to have that thinking because of property and other such laws made by the government whose force you so loath that allows you to be secure in your persons and property. That the laws have been around for generations makes you feel that it was natural, always there since creation itself, as if it would magically stay if there was no government or a government that has no ability to enforce such laws.

In the end we need society as much as we need our individual independence. There must be a balance but to think that as people who has benefited greatly from living in this country and its laws, consume goods/services made by fellow countrymen that you've never meet, and made a living based on other people consuming your goods and services who you will also never meet, that you morally "owe" nothing to your fellow American is quite silly.

Now you can argue the levels, such as welfare, social security etc, but to say morally we owe nothing to our country is akin to a petulant little child striking his mother.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

The one, of many, flaws of libertarianism is its inherit selfishness (the other major flaw is believing the markets are always "rational"), it goes against every principle of our evolutionary past. For one thing you have the privilege to have that thinking because of property and other such laws made by the government whose force you so loath that allows you to be secure in your persons and property. That the laws have been around for generations makes you feel that it was natural, always there since creation itself, as if it would magically stay if there was no government or a government that has no ability to enforce such laws.

In the end we need society as much as we need our individual independence. There must be a balance but to think that as people who has benefited greatly from living in this country and its laws, consume goods/services made by fellow countrymen that you've never meet, and made a living based on other people consuming your goods and services who you will also never meet, that you morally "owe" nothing to your fellow American is quite silly.

Now you can argue the levels, such as welfare, social security etc, but to say morally we owe nothing to our country is akin to a petulant little child striking his mother.

I think you might like this guy. It's a good article on libertarians. Doesn't bash them at all, he considers himself one to an extent. But he points out the drawbacks.

Yahoo! Personal Finance: Calculators,Money Advice,Guides,& More

[Donkey®]

If I had such an issue with helping others my first thought would be to move out of this country and go start my own.

[7960]

can mod change the title to "To whom do you owe a living?"

[Smull]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If I had such an issue with helping others my first thought would be to move out of this country and go start my own.

The question isn't if you have issue helping others, very few people do, even the most hardcore libertarians. But who are you morally obligated to help? Who do you HAVE to help? Certainly this can't include everyone, so where do we draw the line?

Are we all obligated to help the poor? If so, how poor? Does this only apply to the poor who happen to live in our own country? Does it matter if the person is poor as a result of his own mistakes, or a twist of fate?

These are all very difficult questions to answer, I would say that first and foremost you have to place yourself, if you can't take care of yourself then your not going to be able to help anyone else anyway. But I also feel that soldiers and police firemen etc are worthy government services. If you have some kind of handicap then I'm fine with giving you a break too, though i still feel you should be given some kind of job that a person with a disability can preform. I also believe in a basic "safety net" for anyone in our country, but this should only cover the basics and serve as a way to help them become self-sufficient again.

I don't feel that we should be forced to help people in other countries, people can do so voluntarily if they wish but our government shouldn't be involved. I don't feel that struggling businesses should be helped out by the government/me. Including those being threatened by overseas competitors.

I'm sure theres more on each side that I'm forgetting

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

can mod change the title to "To whom do you owe a living?"

omg, I came in here to post this, it finally got to me too much to ignore.

[Dispatcher]

Originally Posted by Libertaire

Yourself is good.

Government employees? I didn't hire them.

Wounded soldiers? Government employees are responsible for that. Though I would help them voluntarily.

Obligated or Coerced?

I am naturally obligated to help my child. I am obligated wheresoever I choose to help others because I hold life to be the highest essential to liberty (and vice versa).

The old? I help my grandparents and have helped elderly strangers, voluntarily.

Jobless? I have helped people get jobs as well, voluntarily.

I suppose the difference is in that while I would be charitable to any and all who need if I am able, I am opposed the use of aggressive force and theft by a pretentious state to enforce their own version of "charity".

The problem with NOT forcing people to give to those that need is that many people would NOT voluntarily give. The assumption that people will do the right thing if left alone is patently false. That's why we have laws and police. That's why we have taxes. If you made more than twice your neighbor would you voluntarily give twice as much to charity?
I think not.

[Dispatcher]

Alright, let's pretend there are no taxes, no welfare, no social security, no disability. Now, how many of you would send money to my ex wife who is disabled for life through no fault of her own?
Please, don't everyone raise their hand all at once.
I rest my case.

[Dispatcher]

Originally Posted by Simius

Owe a living is the wrong term, methinks.

That list would include myself, all government employees, wounded soldiers, wounded police/firemen etc

Who do I have an obligation to help?
Children, disabled people, temporarily unemployed, those whose jobs barely pay for the basic necessities, the old, etc

Of course, you realize that makes you a "bleeding heart liberal".
Too bad there aren't more compassionate people like you.