This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
JP1119 · 36-40, M
@redredred Oh jeez you dumb Republican. I could give a ten page speech in reply to this, and I’m going to have to hold myself back from doing that. Here goes:
Because we’re all better off when we give a shit about our fellow human beings. You think you would be happy if the government didn’t tax? So everyone could just make an unlimited amount of money? You think people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are billions of times happier than commoners like me? Studies have shown that when it comes to wealth, the law of diminishing returns applies. Yes, people who can meet their basic needs are much happier than people who can’t. After that, money and things don’t do much for your mid to long term happiness. Money only helps to the extent that it allows you to spend time having fun with friends and family, especially friends and family you don’t see often. So allowing the super rich to continue accumulating more and more wealth isn’t making them any happier, so what good is it doing anybody? Especially given that its people think of it as a first world country, it’s entirely unconscionable that the US is home to people as rich as Bill Gates and also millions of people who can’t afford shelter, healthcare, and three meals a day.
The other major misconception you seem to be so sure to be true is that you are in complete control, presumably by your hard work and your intellect, of how much money you have at any given time. There’s at least one more major factor that you don’t seem to consider: dumb luck. Right now you’re young and strong and healthy and probably relatively lucky, so it’s easy as fuck for you to advocate caring about no one but yourself. But it’s not always going to be that way. Either your luck will hold up and you’ll grow old and feeble and sickly and won’t be able to care for yourself anymore, or it won’t hold up and you’ll die suddenly or your wealth will vanish. I feel pretty safe in assuming none of the following wealth-gobbling catastrophes have happened to you: You got mugged or robbed, you got cancer, you got falsely convicted of a crime and had to go to prison, you were born into a poor family and missed out on a decent education because you went to an underfunded school in a poor neighborhood, your neighborhood got destroyed by a flood or tornado or hurricane or wildfire, someone secretly photographed you nude and posted the pics on the internet making you unemployable to anyone who did a simple Google search for your name. You have little to no control over any of those devastating possibilities. Luck is not fair, so yes, the lucky do have a responsibility to help meet just the most basic of needs of those who are for whatever reason not blessed enough to be able to provide for themselves, because that’s what you would want them to do for you if the situation was reversed.
I could probably go on and on but I’ll make myself stop there.
Because we’re all better off when we give a shit about our fellow human beings. You think you would be happy if the government didn’t tax? So everyone could just make an unlimited amount of money? You think people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are billions of times happier than commoners like me? Studies have shown that when it comes to wealth, the law of diminishing returns applies. Yes, people who can meet their basic needs are much happier than people who can’t. After that, money and things don’t do much for your mid to long term happiness. Money only helps to the extent that it allows you to spend time having fun with friends and family, especially friends and family you don’t see often. So allowing the super rich to continue accumulating more and more wealth isn’t making them any happier, so what good is it doing anybody? Especially given that its people think of it as a first world country, it’s entirely unconscionable that the US is home to people as rich as Bill Gates and also millions of people who can’t afford shelter, healthcare, and three meals a day.
The other major misconception you seem to be so sure to be true is that you are in complete control, presumably by your hard work and your intellect, of how much money you have at any given time. There’s at least one more major factor that you don’t seem to consider: dumb luck. Right now you’re young and strong and healthy and probably relatively lucky, so it’s easy as fuck for you to advocate caring about no one but yourself. But it’s not always going to be that way. Either your luck will hold up and you’ll grow old and feeble and sickly and won’t be able to care for yourself anymore, or it won’t hold up and you’ll die suddenly or your wealth will vanish. I feel pretty safe in assuming none of the following wealth-gobbling catastrophes have happened to you: You got mugged or robbed, you got cancer, you got falsely convicted of a crime and had to go to prison, you were born into a poor family and missed out on a decent education because you went to an underfunded school in a poor neighborhood, your neighborhood got destroyed by a flood or tornado or hurricane or wildfire, someone secretly photographed you nude and posted the pics on the internet making you unemployable to anyone who did a simple Google search for your name. You have little to no control over any of those devastating possibilities. Luck is not fair, so yes, the lucky do have a responsibility to help meet just the most basic of needs of those who are for whatever reason not blessed enough to be able to provide for themselves, because that’s what you would want them to do for you if the situation was reversed.
I could probably go on and on but I’ll make myself stop there.
This message was deleted by its author.
redredred · M
I well understand your fondness for the dumb luck excuse, dumbass. You still didnt address my question. Precisely how does one mans need become another mans obligation? What arevthe exact steps ethically and morally and, please dont rely on Judeo- Christian values; theyre not mine.
I also understand why you think i should want to help others but I dont. And you can only make me pay for their upkeep by force. The ideas you have are so attractive, theyre mandatory, mandated by fascists by force.
The urge to rule others invariably starts with the stated goal to save humanity. @JP1119
I also understand why you think i should want to help others but I dont. And you can only make me pay for their upkeep by force. The ideas you have are so attractive, theyre mandatory, mandated by fascists by force.
The urge to rule others invariably starts with the stated goal to save humanity. @JP1119
JP1119 · 36-40, M
@redredred
I thought I had answered your question quite thoroughly, so I should probably start with the simplest, most straightforward approach. Forgive me, for I was raised as a Christian, but treat others as you would want to be treated is a moral that’s not unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition, is it? That’s something that even non-spiritual people believe in, isn’t it? Well, if you were in desperate need of something, like it was a life or death matter, and there was someone better off than you who was aware of your plight and had the resources to help you, I imagine you would want that person to help you; therefore, you should feel compelled to help others in need when you can. It’s that simple. Consider also that it’s only by either A. the grace of a God that you openly scorn or B. dumb luck that you weren’t born with a dark skin pigmentation into squalor in some “shit hole” country perhaps south of the border. You could have been sick and in need of affordable healthcare or food or shelter or clothing yourself through no fault of your own.
Let me tell you about a man named Ted Bundy. In 1970 Bundy jumped into Seattle’s Green Lake and saved the life of a drowning boy. Maybe this is a stupid question, but please humor me: are you the type of guy who would see the boy struggling for air and say to yourself, “Eh, his need isn’t my obligation,” and just walk away knowing he’ll die unless someone else comes along pretty quickly and sees the boy and reacts differently from how you did? In case you’re antisocial, meaning you don’t have a conscience, let me give you a hint: normal people would think that that’s a cruel way to react. Given Bundy’s now well-known dark secrets, I shudder to think what skeletons might be lurking in your closet. Ffs, one of the most infamous serial killers in American history apparently has a kinder sense of morality than you!!
Precisely how does one man’s need become another man’s obligation?
Would you listen to your damn self?! You seriously can’t think of any scenario in which one man’s need is another man’s obligation? I think you’re too wrapped up in your own ideology to think straight. Again I can think of so many ways to approach this and will have to restrain myself from using all of them.I thought I had answered your question quite thoroughly, so I should probably start with the simplest, most straightforward approach. Forgive me, for I was raised as a Christian, but treat others as you would want to be treated is a moral that’s not unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition, is it? That’s something that even non-spiritual people believe in, isn’t it? Well, if you were in desperate need of something, like it was a life or death matter, and there was someone better off than you who was aware of your plight and had the resources to help you, I imagine you would want that person to help you; therefore, you should feel compelled to help others in need when you can. It’s that simple. Consider also that it’s only by either A. the grace of a God that you openly scorn or B. dumb luck that you weren’t born with a dark skin pigmentation into squalor in some “shit hole” country perhaps south of the border. You could have been sick and in need of affordable healthcare or food or shelter or clothing yourself through no fault of your own.
Let me tell you about a man named Ted Bundy. In 1970 Bundy jumped into Seattle’s Green Lake and saved the life of a drowning boy. Maybe this is a stupid question, but please humor me: are you the type of guy who would see the boy struggling for air and say to yourself, “Eh, his need isn’t my obligation,” and just walk away knowing he’ll die unless someone else comes along pretty quickly and sees the boy and reacts differently from how you did? In case you’re antisocial, meaning you don’t have a conscience, let me give you a hint: normal people would think that that’s a cruel way to react. Given Bundy’s now well-known dark secrets, I shudder to think what skeletons might be lurking in your closet. Ffs, one of the most infamous serial killers in American history apparently has a kinder sense of morality than you!!
redredred · M
With very limited eloquence youve repeatedly stated why you think I should be willing to be robbed. What you have not addressed (And I suspect cannot) is the ethical mechanism by which one mans need becomes another mans obligation. I am not interested in arguments as to why you feel this is desirable.
So far youve been selling cars. I want to hear from the mechanic.@JP1119
So far youve been selling cars. I want to hear from the mechanic.@JP1119
JP1119 · 36-40, M
@redredred I think I get it, like this then: the government builds a road for you to use. You use that road to drive to work where you make money. The government then taxes your paycheck because you wouldn’t have been able to go to work and make that money, at least not nearly as efficiently, without that road the government built for you. The government then uses the tax dollars from your paycheck to pay for my dad’s vibrating vest that helps him breathe better, because he’s 66 and retired and would have a hard time getting reasonably priced insurance through the private marketplace, and because government’s purpose is to protect and empower its people. It’s an honorable social contract. Like that?
redredred · M
Not quite. The US constitution permits a government of limited AND specifically enumerated powers. Public support is not one of those enumerated powers. Spending money on roads and border security are within the realm of permitted government powers. Paying your medical bills or buying durable medical equipment are not@JP1119
redredred · M
Ultimately yes, Transfer payments from the federal government are not consistent with the Constitution as written and amended. Sadly, since about the Wilson administration, the federal government has seen its mission to include workarounds to ignore the Constitution.Wilson while at Princeton wrote disparagingly about the Constitution and actively worked as president as if it didn't limit him.
The critical issue is that the US once had a government restrained by a Constitution that clearly described what government could not do. Politicians have worked throughout most of the 20th century up to the present to change the meaning and effect of the Constitution. It is often said that the Constitution is a living document and that judges of any level are free to rule on it. If this were so, why did the Founders spend so much time describing the difficult and legal way to amend it?@JP1119
The critical issue is that the US once had a government restrained by a Constitution that clearly described what government could not do. Politicians have worked throughout most of the 20th century up to the present to change the meaning and effect of the Constitution. It is often said that the Constitution is a living document and that judges of any level are free to rule on it. If this were so, why did the Founders spend so much time describing the difficult and legal way to amend it?@JP1119
JP1119 · 36-40, M
Transfer payments from the federal government are not consistent with the Constitution as written and amended.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?Amending the Constitution and interpreting It are two different things. The founders wanted it to be difficult to amend because it supersedes even federal law; however, different judges have different opinions on the meaning of the Constitution. Also, the founders were not gods, they could not know what things were going to be like 230+ years in the future, so there are different opinions on how it applies today, and they made some mistakes. @redredred