Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Drug Testing and Food Stamps (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Drug Testing and Food Stamps
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wisconsin is in the news again. The state legislature has passed a bill requiring drug testing for food stamp recipients. This may or may not become law but I am interested in hearing what Ornery thinks. In the past these laws have been huge financial burdens and only implicate a small percentage of participants. To me it seems vindictive and motivated purely to gain political support from a strongly conservative base.

Wisconsin public Radio

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We tried it in Florida, cost more than it saved. Social conservatism wins, fiscal conservatism loses.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is a horrid idea. I wrote this on quora.

quote:
Lets suppose that it is 100% reliable and catches all potential welfare recipients who have recently used an illegal drug and zero false positives.

Let us further suppose that the tests are completely free.

So what is the logical consequences of pushing someone off of welfare and there aren't any jobs available. There is really only one possible way for them to get money - crime.

So this would obviously drive up the crime rate.

Either we catch them - and then spend more on jailing them then it costs to provide welfare.

Or we don't catch them, and the economic and social harm from the crime generally exceeds the cost of welfare.

In either case - welfare is cheaper and more effective, with fewer negative repercussions.

Personally I don't think drug testing for employees should be allowed unless the particular drug that is tested for can be shown to directly impact the safety of others (ie drivers, operators of heavy equipment, etc.)

If someone is using drugs and performs poorly, then fire them for performing poorly.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-drug-testing-for-receiving-welfare-should-be-implemented-If-I-have-to-do-a-drug-test-to-get-a-job-why-cant-they-take-a-drug-test-to-receive- the-money-I-worked-for
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drug testing in a business setting makes sense for liability reasons as society keeps trying to destroy personal responsibility and claim no one can be held responsible for their actions. If a company employs someone who harms or kills someone on the clock or using company equipment the legal result is devastating to the company.

I think drug testing for welfare is a good idea, but I can see that pro-welfare people are against the idea because of the final result.

We don't know how many people that this testing stops from using drugs because any such surveys wouldn't get honest answers. If we allow welfare to subsidize drug using lifestyles though then that does harm society.

[ May 14, 2015, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What do you think is the "final result"? What do you think we think is the "final result"?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The final result is that they are cut off from welfare and are free to completely fail with no rescue net to bail them out.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By "fail" you mean become homeless? Starve? Have their children become homeless and starve? Just how final are we talking about here?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heaven forbid we have any conditions where we don't infinitely offer food, housing and medical care to people regardless of whatever they do or don't do...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Heaven forbid we have any conditions where we don't infinitely offer food, housing and medical care to people regardless of whatever they do or don't do...

Yeah, we might actually be mistaken for civilized humans and not brutal animals.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
The final result is that they are cut off from welfare and are free to completely fail with no rescue net to bail them out.

Just the opposite. A strong safety, as you just combined about above, is what allows them to fail over and over until they manage to find a path that works. Without it, they cannot afford to fail, since there's no way to learn from their experiences and try again without it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is brutal is the forced taking of resources from people who worked for them and the redistribution of those to people who did not work for them. To make this even worse you are arguing that on top of not having to work for them, that the parasites should be allowed to consume illegal narcotics which endanger themselves and others as well as put additional burdens on our medical care providers as well as requiring additional welfare to make up for the money they blew on drugs.

I won't be sucked into another attempt by you to pretend that taxes aren't takings and that welfare doesn't cost taxpayers anything. If that were true then you wouldn't be afraid of inflation and you'd be fine with no income taxes at all and the government handing everyone $75k per year.

[ May 14, 2015, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
The final result is that they are cut off from welfare and are free to completely fail with no rescue net to bail them out.

Just the opposite. A strong safety, as you just combined about above, is what allows them to fail over and over until they manage to find a path that works. Without it, they cannot afford to fail, since there's no way to learn from their experiences and try again without it.
If people want to learn from their failures they can do it by their own sweat, hard work and with the support of whatever social networks they create for themselves.

The only way to prevent a system where we bail anyone out for any mistake is to draw hard lines in the sand that prevent our resources from being used by those who willfully disobey our laws in highly destructive and self-perpetuating ways.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
The final result is that they are cut off from welfare and are free to completely fail with no rescue net to bail them out.

Just the opposite. A strong safety, as you just combined about above, is what allows them to fail over and over until they manage to find a path that works. Without it, they cannot afford to fail, since there's no way to learn from their experiences and try again without it.
If people want to learn from their failures they can do it by their own sweat, hard work and with the support of whatever social networks they create for themselves.

The only way to prevent a system where we bail anyone out for any mistake is to draw hard lines in the sand that prevent our resources from being used by those who willfully disobey our laws in highly destructive and self-perpetuating ways.

Why would we want to prevent such a system? How about if we tax people on money they didn't work for? Not wages, I mean.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you attempting to say investing is not work?

Are you saying that people don't have a right to pass on what they earned to their spouses and their kids?

[ May 14, 2015, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends on the investing. Mostly, no, it isn't. Certainly it isn't for those who have people do it for them. Define "earned". Are you saying that it is just for some children to be born with so much that they never have to work and for some who are born with so little that they go hungry because you want to draw a line in the sand?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since you are comfortable with describing how others acquire their wealth as worthy of being taken from them or not, tell us all about what you do, what you have, how you got it and if you are willing for us to take it away based on how we feel about it.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are doing that annoying thing you do again and making it personal but, this time, I will indulge you. I work 40plus hours a week, make less than $50,000 a year, support myself and make a small contribution (along with my siblings)to supporting my mother. I inherited no money or property nor do I expect to. I was blessed to have a good public school education and went to college on scholarship. I am fine paying the taxes I pay and would be open to paying more if more of them went towards programs that help people rather than weapons. I make small but regular contributions to charity.

Now why are we talking about me?

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What is brutal is the forced taking of resources from people who worked for them and the redistribution of those to people who did not work for them.
Which no one is proposing, so is completely irrelevant.

quote:
To make this even worse you are arguing that on top of not having to work for them, that the parasites should be allowed to consume illegal narcotics which endanger themselves and others as well as put additional burdens on our medical care providers as well as requiring additional welfare to make up for the money they blew on drugs.
Far better we go back to the old ways where they just stole such things or turned to more significant crimes than simply being poor and engaging in behaviors that are effectively only illegal to criminalize being poor.

quote:
If that were true then you wouldn't be afraid of inflation and you'd be fine with no income taxes at all and the government handing everyone $75k per year.
BY and large I'm not afraid of inflation.WE could go with 75K/year, though that would lead to a short term adjustment to account for the deviation from the current price level. I'd be perfectly fine with eliminating the income tax on all incomes up to somewhere between 5 and 10x the media, since it's only at that point that excess income actually starts to drive inflation and does not offer any additional access to wealth.

quote:
If people want to learn from their failures they can do it by their own sweat, hard work and with the support of whatever social networks they create for themselves.
Because people who are dead or de facto enslaved are so good at applying lessons learned?

quote:
The only way to prevent a system where we bail anyone out for any mistake is to draw hard lines in the sand that prevent our resources from being used by those who willfully disobey our laws in highly destructive and self-perpetuating ways.
Because of course, the social and economic dysfunction caused by such a hardline approach is what we want to return to. Feudalism is, apparently, what you think we should be striving to return to?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
You are doing that annoying thing you do again and making it personal but, this time, I will indulge you. I work 40plus hours a week, make less than $50,000 a year, support myself and make a small contribution (along with my siblings)to supporting my mother. I inherited no money or property nor do I expect to. I was blessed to have a good public school education and went to college on scholarship. I am fine paying the taxes I pay and would be open to paying more if more of them went towards programs that help people rather than weapons. I make small but regular contributions to charity.

Now why are we talking about me?

We are talking about you because you are so willing to stick your nose into other people's pockets and make value judgments about whether they truly "deserve" to keep what they have or not. Too often many limousine liberals like Al Sharpton, George Soros, etc., are quick to advocate higher taxes as long as they don't have to pay. In your case based on what you said you feel that what you do is "better" than what an investment banker does and thus we get to the attitude of "more taxes for thee but not for me."

In reality if we go down this road and start allowing the mob to dictate whose wealth gets confiscated then be careful, as the mob is fickle and may turn on you. You might find yourself with people believing that your job doesn't qualify as "meaningful" work and that you should lose what you have.

Also, why should your mother be allowed to benefit from your wealth?

If you find this uncomfortable then maybe you should reevaluate your willingness to take from others what they or their family has lawfully earned.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not making decisions based on what I feel that people deserve. That is what you are doing. You are the one who wants drug testing to make sure that the undeserving don't get help. I am making decisions based on what I think people need.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nope. I assume that no one is entitled to take anything from anyone who acquired it lawfully. That is what freedom is all about. If it were up to me I wouldn't have drug testing for welfare because we wouldn't have welfare at all.

Do you really want people using welfare money for drugs? Unless that is what you actively want, then griping about attempts to restrict it seems disingenuous. Do you want people to spend welfare that way? If you don't then offer a better suggestion for regulating this to prevent druggies from wasting other people's money that was forcefully redistributed to them against the original taxpayers' will.

I don't begrudge liberal billionaires like Soros for what they do, but I find it hypocritical when they advocate higher taxes while also dodging and evading existing taxes.
I also don't begrudge people who work low income jobs by their own choice as long as they don't use that as an excuse to say that people who worked jobs that paid more or whose families worked jobs that paid more need to let society take their wealth because of that.

Everyone is free to fail or succeed, to attempt to acquire as much wealth as they want or can. Yes, life isn't fair but attempts to "make it fair" by interfering with the system are having the opposite effect.

[ May 14, 2015, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Everyone is free to fail or succeed, to attempt to acquire as much wealth as they want or can.
If you mean "equally free", this is sadly untrue.

quote:
Yes, life isn't fair but attempts to "make it fair" by interfering with the system are having the opposite effect.
Those interfering with the system the most are not the ones who currently have the short end of the stick. At the same time, they are promoting class warfare distractions to keep small business owners and would-be millionaires afraid of losing their money to the greedy undeserving.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Everyone is free to fail or succeed, to attempt to acquire as much wealth as they want or can.
If you mean "equally free", this is sadly untrue.

quote:
Yes, life isn't fair but attempts to "make it fair" by interfering with the system are having the opposite effect.
Those interfering with the system the most are not the ones who currently have the short end of the stick. At the same time, they are promoting class warfare distractions to keep small business owners and would-be millionaires afraid of losing their money to the greedy undeserving.

There is no such thing as "true equality." As long as there is more than 1 human on earth you'll never have it. The best thing you can do is let people be free of each other and let them sort it out themselves.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What is brutal is the forced taking of resources from people who worked for them and the redistribution of those to people who did not work for them.
I've been staring at this statement for a while and have concluded that we have very different definitions of the word "brutality." There are many words I would use to describe income redistribution, not all of them positive in denotation or connotation, but "brutal" isn't one of them.

But I understand where you're coming from, I do. You're an absolutist, and you long ago settled on two principles that appear to guide your every position: bad decisions should be punished, and the concept of possession is at the heart of liberty. Anything that prioritizes something else above these principles is evil and inimical; anything that makes these principles less absolutely attractive is insidiously dangerous; and anyone who supports anything that challenges those absolutes is either misguided or actively working for the destruction of the good.

But it seems to me that asserting "life isn't fair" in response to arguments in favor of income distribution is not something you can do, because you're actually answering that argument with one of your priorities, not those of the speaker you're debating. To them, life is already plenty fair, and what it needs more of is compassion and mercy; to you, life should be more fair, a world in which people have what they deserve and deserve what they have and are punished in full for the wrongs they've done.

So, yes, life is not sufficiently fair for you. People are not punished as much as they should be, perhaps. And they are not left to suffer as much as they could. But to the people with whom you're arguing, these are not problems.

To them, the question is not one of entitlement; it is not whether the rich deserve to be rich. Rather, it is that the rich have the assets necessary to save people from suffering without suffering excessively themselves. And let's not quibble about "suffering," here; the rich do not "suffer" from redistribution, beyond a definition of "suffer" which means that they are inconvenienced. But to you, where fairness and desert are the highest goods, redistribution is unfair; those whose income is taken "suffer" because they are not being treated fairly. One might address this by listing all the ways in which those without resources are poorly and unfairly treated by our laws and institutions. But one might also just shrug and note that life is not fair, but fairness is less important than compassion.

[ May 14, 2015, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm just not a collectivist. I don't believe that people "belong" to each other or have any inherent duty to each other that should be enforced at the point of a sword.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thing is, if you also valued compassion, you would eventually recognize that it is not generally a prioritized virtue among those with the resources to effectively help the needy. Meaning that if the needy are to be actually and substantially helped, resources to do so must be obtained from among those who do not wish to spend resources on the effort.

At that point, one has to decide whether it is more important for a society to fulfill some of the needs of the needy at the cost of some of the resources of those with many resources, or respect the sanctity of the resources of those who have many resources.

History records the results of many different approaches to that question. In general, it appears that retaining a concept of private property while diverting a substantial number of resources from those with many resources reduces overall unrest, minimizes public health and safety and infrastructure concerns, and does not result in an excessively authoritarian or centralized decision-making body. But if merely taking from someone who does not wish to give is always perceived as a fundamental form of harm, this may not be considered moral even if its results are not only typically a net good but rarely result in measurable material harm to the subjects from whom wealth is being stolen.

[ May 15, 2015, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The most compassionate viewpoint is to give people freedom and to not patronize them or chain them with dependence on others.

As for charity and goodwill toward fellow man, that is most present where it is optional and a matter of choice. The more the government enforces it the more it decreases. Medicaid is a classic example of this.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The most compassionate viewpoint is to give people freedom and to not patronize them...
See, I don't think most people would agree with you. Let's imagine a scenario in which you're hiking along the bottom of a canyon and find someone with his leg trapped under a rock. Is it more compassionate to a) help extricate him; b) call help for him; c) give him a saw; or d) remind him that he's free to make his own decisions?

quote:
Medicaid is a classic example of this.
I think you'll find that medical outcomes prior to the advent of Medicaid are considerably worse than outcomes since the advent of Medicaid. The availability of Medicaid, in other words, has dramatically improved the quality of life for Americans. So I'm not sure how that's an example that proves your point.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, are you okay with the massive increase in funding that would be necessary for law enforcement and prisons?

If so, are you also okay with the law abiding citizens who would suffer as a result of the drastically increased crime rate? Or would their suffering also be their own fault, for not owning a gun and just shooting the criminal dead?

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I am not making decisions based on what I feel that people deserve. That is what you are doing. You are the one who wants drug testing to make sure that the undeserving don't get help. I am making decisions based on what I think people need.

Not really. You're making decisions on what makes you feel good, what gives you a feeling of moral superiority. Maybe drug testing is or isn't a good idea but any time we enable people to fall and stay down we are ultimately enslaving them. Whatever the solution, it should provide strong incentives to get off and stay off drugs. It is beyond cruel to provide a drug addict the means to stay a drug addict.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're making decisions on what makes you feel good...
It is entirely possible that what makes her feel good is helping people get what she believes they need, no?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why does 'we should leave money in the hands of the people, because the people will make the best decisions with that money' not translate to welfare money?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It might. But while that's often a defense used of laissez-faire policies, a more important socioeconomic principle for most modern conservatives is "people deserve what they have." So the important part of that sentence, to them, is "we should leave money in the hands of the people," not take money from some people and put it into the hands of other people. The ones who have the money at the moment you start keeping track are the ones who should get to decide how to use it.

The idea here is that, to certain people, the exchange of money represents recognized merit and value, so giving someone money means that you believe they have intrinsic value. And someone who makes foolish decisions should be considered to have less intrinsic value than someone who would not, so we should not give them money to recognize value that we do not have.

[ May 15, 2015, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Seneca isn't talking about whether there is room for compassion in the world or not, but rather that compassion shouldn't be mandated by the state and backed up by force. In this sense I think the problem isn't with Seneca's view that taking from others with force is wrong (which I agree with) but rather that the system is improperly set up such that the only way to give to some people is by taking directly from others. With this kind of zero sum framework it's true that compassion comes at the expense of partial slavery (not being remunerated for some portion of your toil). Given the way mixed capitalism works right now this conflict seems inevitable, but I don't think it has to be this way.

Although it's riddled with faults of comprehension, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged does have one very nice chapter where a company is described as having adopted a system where employees are paid based on their need instead of based on their efforts. The entire system devolves into each person trying to demonstrate more than the last how much need he had, "but I have 5 kids!" or "but I have a medical condition!" and those few who humbly did not demand special favors ended up with nothing. The company shortly failed under the weight of this policy, as productivity went down and infighting became never-ending.

Although this allegory isn't a direct equivalence to our society, it does illustrate a few true things:

1) When you set up a gravy train and give it to whomever sounds most convincing (or is most powerful) you end up with a system of lobbying and begging where income redistribution is determined on a whim-basis. The problem isn't the beggars, it's the gravy train, since any available resource (including 'free money') will be vied for. I think much of our political corruption stems from this area.

2) When resource distribution is conducted with need rather than productivity as its calculus you end up with a poorly functioning system and with lower incentives towards employment and productivity. That being said, this premise does break down to an extent if the unemployment rate is high in the first place, as it is right now.

3) It isn't always moral or functional to give people what they want.

In these senses I sympathize with Seneca's position to a good extent. When Seneca speaks of "freedom" I believe he means freedom from government force being used to coerce citizen behavior; he doesn't mean "freedom to have the same chance as the next guy"; or at least I think this is what he means. No one can actually have the same chance as the next guy since each person is different, which I think Seneca mentioned also.

But Seneca, here's where I think your ideas fall into trouble: In a scenario where each man is left to his own efforts and the government stays out of it, what we will always see is powerful men getting together to form alliances or partnerships (they always do) and their combined assets and power create the scenario where they are effective masters over each individual 'normal guy' working on his own efforts. We end up not with each man for himself, but most men for themselves up against a few powerful men united who begin dictating terms to the rest. Is it not natural that 'everyone else' should not band together also and dictate terms back at the powerful? On a private level this means unions, but on a government scale it is supposed to mean representation by population. The fact that this system also doesn't work properly because the powerful alliances have undue influence is, I believe, part of the problem at the root of your disagreement with Tom and the others.

[ May 15, 2015, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When resource distribution is conducted with need rather than productivity as its calculus you end up with a poorly functioning system...
If by "poorly functioning" you mean "not maximally productive," I would agree. But one has to ask what the "function" of an economy is, and what resource distribution is meant to accomplish. If you grant that it is possible to produce enough without producing as much as possible, you might consider an economy that produces less but ensures that everyone has enough to be more functional than one that produces more but leaves hundreds of thousands of people in misery.

quote:
It isn't always moral or functional to give people what they want.
Again, it comes down to what we consider "functional." And what we consider the difference between "want" and "need." What does a starving drug addict need? Does he need food, so that he is no longer starving? Or does he need to stop doing drugs, so that by starving and dying he provides an object lesson to other addicts?

[ May 15, 2015, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
Seneca, are you okay with the massive increase in funding that would be necessary for law enforcement and prisons?

If so, are you also okay with the law abiding citizens who would suffer as a result of the drastically increased crime rate? Or would their suffering also be their own fault, for not owning a gun and just shooting the criminal dead?

Prisons aren't charity or welfare, at least they aren't supposed to be. They are places where we put people who have harmed others and proven themselves to be dangerous and untrustworthy. Yes there are non-violent people who committed victimless crimes in them, and that is wrong and should be stopped, but the others who have proven themselves to be more like beasts than men aren't being kept there for their own good.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They are places where we put people who have harmed others and proven themselves to be dangerous and untrustworthy.
If this is true, why do we let people out of prison?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In these senses I sympathize with Seneca's position to a good extent. When Seneca speaks of "freedom" I believe he means freedom from government force being used to coerce citizen behavior; he doesn't mean "freedom to have the same chance as the next guy"; or at least I think this is what he means. No one can actually have the same chance as the next guy since each person is different, which I think Seneca mentioned also.
Freedom from government interference, which is to say a socially-endorsed application of force from which there is no "reasonable" resistance, is what I am referring to. This is the most relevant and important kind of freedom because without governments enforcing rules that restrict freedom, it is hard for a populace to stay down at the desire of others for long.

quote:
But Seneca, here's where I think your ideas fall into trouble: In a scenario where each man is left to his own efforts and the government stays out of it, what we will always see is powerful men getting together to form alliances or partnerships (they always do) and their combined assets and power create the scenario where they are effective masters over each individual 'normal guy' working on his own efforts. We end up not with each man for himself, but most men for themselves up against a few powerful men united who begin dictating terms to the rest.
Only when the government backs them up. How much oppression codified with overwhelming force would any rich person have without government protection and enforcement of their regime? One of the forms of this is our crony-capitalism system that isn't a free market, but is in reality progressive statists rigging the system for their friends and pet projects and causes and campaign contributors.

quote:
Is it not natural that 'everyone else' should not band together also and dictate terms back at the powerful? On a private level this means unions, but on a government scale it is supposed to mean representation by population.
Only as much as necessary to end that party's corruption and use of government to force their will on the rest of society, but it shouldn't be a revenge-pendulum where the "other side" decides to use government to "do it too."

quote:
The fact that this system also doesn't work properly because the powerful alliances have undue influence is, I believe, part of the problem at the root of your disagreement with Tom and the others.
The root of my disagreement is is founded on the problem of statists viewing the government as some big volleyball game where they need to to constantly hit back at their opponents with equal measure in their own way. The proper course is to make the game as small as possible so everyone mostly walks away from it and it serves only the most basic functions.

It's ironic, the complaints most people have about the "rich" aren't really about the rich, they are rooted in government action for those "rich."

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd say most murderers and many violent criminals should never be let out of prisons. The violent crime recidivism rate proves that.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
Seneca, are you okay with the massive increase in funding that would be necessary for law enforcement and prisons?

If so, are you also okay with the law abiding citizens who would suffer as a result of the drastically increased crime rate? Or would their suffering also be their own fault, for not owning a gun and just shooting the criminal dead?

Prisons aren't charity or welfare, at least they aren't supposed to be. They are places where we put people who have harmed others and proven themselves to be dangerous and untrustworthy. Yes there are non-violent people who committed victimless crimes in them, and that is wrong and should be stopped, but the others who have proven themselves to be more like beasts than men aren't being kept there for their own good.
Okay. So we put people in prisons to keep them away from the rest of us. Fair enough. But prison is EXPENSIVE. Far more expensive then welfare.

At the end of the day, if someone hasn't eaten in three days, most are going g to take from others in order to eat. Legally or not, violently or not. I can agree with you that addicts doing that are selfish and a drag on society. Acknowledging that that is wrong doesn't change the realities of the situation. For you to say that these people will live or die, and the rest of us will live happily ever after, that strikes me as being just as foolishly idealistic as the worst left winger's daydreams, which you so often rail against.

Some people just need help and support to overcome their addictions and/or bad life skills learned from parents just as messed up as they are. Some people will NEVER come out of that messed up state. It is just who they are. The question is, how do we deal with that? Do we help who we can, and let the people who have chosen misery and death go down their road? Or do we help those that we can, reduce the natural crime rate of a population like that, and pull some of them into a better, productive life?

I'm just curious because, as I said, prison is expensive. People who can't eat will commit crime, and innocents will suffer.

If you want to say that this is fine, that your ideals demand that we let things turn out as they may in that situation, then fine. But at least the own up to it. In my opinion, these ideas are no less idealistic and no better then ypur most left wing, pro communist sympathiser. You're both looking at the world as it SHOULD be, rather then how it IS.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1