• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Should gov't maximize opportunity for the smart, or protection for the vulnerable?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
And the free market will be the one to decide. If you want to work at the mine, ask around. How many deaths have there been? If there have been no deaths, then you know that the minimum amount of safety is there.
You are so SMART. Because 25 years later, have fun with cancer.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The people who ran AIG, Lehman bros, or Enron, which group were they in ?
For the people you mentioned, I don't think that's a matter of government empowering the smart or protecting the weak, but rather incompetence in part of the regulators. The last few years have shown the complete inability of the regulatory bodies to detect financial fraud (see Bernie Madoff), preventing systemic risk (AIG and Lehman), or even understand what they were regulating (see products like CDS, CDO, MBS, and others).
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,402
9,248
126
Read the question. There's your answer.
False dilemma.

Not only should govt do both, but arguably doing one is frequently the same as doing the other. For example, public education of children both protects the vulnerable AND maximizes opportunity for the smart. And not just for the smart children. No employer wants an uneducated workforce.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
How about if the feds had taken preventative steps to keep Wells Fargo, BOA, WaMu, JP Morgan Chase, AIG, Citi, Lehman, Goldman, etc. from taking varying degrees of extraordinary risk that benefitted a clear minority of bankers and wealthy Americans and in turn not instead a clear majority of middle class Americans that could have benefited from not having their 401K's used as gambling chips.
Take away their corporate charters. When the CEOs start risking their own money, then they might think twice about taking risks.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,402
9,248
126
For the people you mentioned, I don't think that's a matter of government empowering the smart or protecting the weak, but rather incompetence in part of the regulators. The last few years have shown the complete inability of the regulatory bodies to detect financial fraud (see Bernie Madoff), preventing systemic risk (AIG and Lehman), or even understand what they were regulating (see products like CDS, CDO, MBS, and others).
Do you also blame the police for the fact that there are criminals?

Partisan rhetoric aside, the fact that we have such a big govt is much more the result of our actions than it is our agendas. If everyone were knowledgeable, ethical, and honest in our dealings with each other, we'd probably decide we didn't need govt. Like death, govt is the wages of sin. And while death might free us from sin, govt won't. So don't blame govt for not saving us from our sins, blame the sinners.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
So take money from the productive and hard working so some bum who is up to no good can live off welfare and bang a bunch of teenagers.
Kid A: Parents are rich, slacks off, gets Ds
Kid B: Parents on welfare, works hard, gets As

Which one do you think has a better chance of going to college, assuming that there is absolutely no re-distribution of wealth by government. As a member of society, who would you rather go to college?
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
One day people will finally realize that countries are minimum security prisons run by governments.
 

Jack Ryan

Golden Member
Jun 11, 2004
1,353
0
0
Kid A: Parents are rich, slacks off, gets Ds
Kid B: Parents on welfare, works hard, gets As

Which one do you think has a better chance of going to college, assuming that there is absolutely no re-distribution of wealth by government. As a member of society, who would you rather go to college?
Since universities are businesses themselves, the person who earned acceptance and can pay for it.

Here is where liberty is so great. You have the FREEDOM to donate your hard-earned money to whatever charity you want. If you feel strongly that kids that grew up on welfare should have an opportunity at a higher education then feel free to donate to a charity that supports that.

Just as you have that right, I also should have the right to NOT do so.

Government should have no say in any of this.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
How about if the feds had taken preventative steps to keep Wells Fargo, BOA, WaMu, JP Morgan Chase, AIG, Citi, Lehman, Goldman, etc. from taking varying degrees of extraordinary risk that benefitted a clear minority of bankers and wealthy Americans and in turn not instead a clear majority of middle class Americans that could have benefited from not having their 401K's used as gambling chips.
I'll answer that question. Because those entities and wealthy people own government. And they aren't going to regulate themselves. Well, not in the manner which you desire. Obviously I'm right, because they didn't. And still aren't.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,360
4,074
126
I'll answer that question. Because those entities and wealthy people own government. And they aren't going to regulate themselves. Well, not in the manner which you desire. Obviously I'm right, because they didn't. And still aren't.
Yup, it will be libertarians who fix that and not democrats.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Since universities are businesses themselves, the person who earned acceptance and can pay for it.

Here is where liberty is so great. You have the FREEDOM to donate your hard-earned money to whatever charity you want. If you feel strongly that kids that grew up on welfare should have an opportunity at a higher education then feel free to donate to a charity that supports that.

Just as you have that right, I also should have the right to NOT do so.

Government should have no say in any of this.
Taxes. Those are the rights you gave up for being a part of society.

Social Justice does not care about what you want.
 

Soltis

Member
Mar 2, 2010
115
0
0
Kid A: Parents are rich, slacks off, gets Ds
Kid B: Parents on welfare, works hard, gets As

Which one do you think has a better chance of going to college, assuming that there is absolutely no re-distribution of wealth by government. As a member of society, who would you rather go to college?
TBH If I was going to help pay for a kid's college it would be Kid C: Parents who work but just don't make alot of money in current profession, probably gets anywhere from Cs to As, but I say that because from personal experience in regards to my own family, children of people who have been long-term dependent on welfare more often than not do not even finish high-school.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
To accept that things can't be reconciled because people are different, allow people the individual right to be different, and protect everyones equal right to do their own thing without fear of loss of life, liberty, or property caused by others without just cause (eg: the defense of life, liberty, and property from someone else who initiated an unwelcome infrindgement)

That is the basis of liberty, and the role of government is simply to protect liberty. Nothing more.

There is nothing wrong with not finding middle ground because it's ok to have differing views. Governments role is to be neutral and keep the peace so that each is free to embody his/her own view, not to take a side and butcher both views with a comprimise and try to force everyone to be the same.

eg: if you don't like gays, hate guns, and are concerned about the environment, then you have a right to not be forced to be gay, a right to not buy a gun, and a right to drive a Prius without anyone being able to stop you. However, COMPRIMISE comes in the form that you likewise have no right to prohibit, via by law or other means, someone else from being gay, owning a gun, or driving a Hummer. You don't have to agree with it, you just have to sit there and accept it.

Government is intended to keep the peace and allow everyone to be different, the upholding of individual liberty, not what it has become, a vehicle for 51% of the people to use anonymous force to enact their views and take away the rights of the other 49%.
Pretty much my ideal government. Both sides are in love with using the armed might of government to enforce their will on others. I have no problem with government bringing up to the poverty level those who honestly cannot do for themselves; I have a big problem with government seizing and redistributing wealth simply because outcomes haven't been equal, or enforcing lower standards simply because an outcome is unequal in distribution of skin color, sexual orientation, shoe size, etc..

But while I do recognize that the strength of the economy is vested in the smart, thrifty, and hardworking, I also recognize that some people who might otherwise be smart, thrifty, and/or hardworking start out with three strikes against them and won't succeed unless someone removes at least one strike. A black kid born to a crack-head single mother in a gang-infested inner city housing project, forced into attending a failing government school that has given up educating and hopes only to not have too many students killed before they drop out, has virtually no chance of success; an illegal immigrant speaking no English is likewise going to struggle and fall behind without some assistance from someone. Thus some of our (at least potentially) smart, thrifty, and/or hardworking kids will fail due merely to the luck of the draw. So I can support government programs to remedy such problems, especially where they are also failures in existing government services like schools, as long as they work, are reasonably cost-effective, are administered according to need and not skin color or ethnicity, and raise the downtrodden to society's level rather than lowering society to theirs.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
Pretty much my ideal government. Both sides are in love with using the armed might of government to enforce their will on others. I have no problem with government bringing up to the poverty level those who honestly cannot do for themselves; I have a big problem with government seizing and redistributing wealth simply because outcomes haven't been equal, or enforcing lower standards simply because an outcome is unequal in distribution of skin color, sexual orientation, shoe size, etc..

But while I do recognize that the strength of the economy is vested in the smart, thrifty, and hardworking, I also recognize that some people who might otherwise be smart, thrifty, and/or hardworking start out with three strikes against them and won't succeed unless someone removes at least one strike. A black kid born to a crack-head single mother in a gang-infested inner city housing project, forced into attending a failing government school that has given up educating and hopes only to not have too many students killed before they drop out, has virtually no chance of success;
It depends if the kid actually tries and works hard or is otherwise up to no good(drugs,weapons,doorags)

an illegal immigrant speaking no English is likewise going to struggle and fall behind without some assistance from someone. Thus some of our (at least potentially) smart, thrifty, and/or hardworking kids will fail due merely to the luck of the draw. So I can support government programs to remedy such problems, especially where they are also failures in existing government services like schools, as long as they work, are reasonably cost-effective, are administered according to need and not skin color or ethnicity, and raise the downtrodden to society's level rather than lowering society to theirs.
Illegal immigrant? Are you serious? Send the illegals back to Mexico.
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
Personally I believe protection of the smart would lead to opportunity for the vulnerable. Though it would be highly unpopular, require a friggen test to be eligible to vote. Your IQ is under 140, no voting rights for you. Financial interests lose most of their influence peddling abilities because those people voting are able to think for themselves and likely don't need the government to subsidize their lives or protect their interests and social reform would likely take place. Welfare likely becomes workfare and old money dissipates because intelligent people are left in charge of government and policies and would be most likely to change these to have the maximum effect for everyone. We currently are all beholden to the lowest common denominator and are taught that this is right from a very young age. I could put a lot more faith in the policies and decisions of an electorate that doesn't find "American Idol" and "Dancing With The Stars" entertaining and doesn't decide who to vote for based on television ads.
 

Soltis

Member
Mar 2, 2010
115
0
0
Personally I believe protection of the smart would lead to opportunity for the vulnerable. Though it would be highly unpopular, require a friggen test to be eligible to vote. Your IQ is under 140, no voting rights for you. Financial interests lose most of their influence peddling abilities because those people voting are able to think for themselves and likely don't need the government to subsidize their lives or protect their interests and social reform would likely take place. Welfare likely becomes workfare and old money dissipates because intelligent people are left in charge of government and policies and would be most likely to change these to have the maximum effect for everyone. We currently are all beholden to the lowest common denominator and are taught that this is right from a very young age. I could put a lot more faith in the policies and decisions of an electorate that doesn't find "American Idol" and "Dancing With The Stars" entertaining and doesn't decide who to vote for based on television ads.
I agree in a sense that we need our people to be more educated and willing to become informed to see real change, but I doubt testing for the right to vote will help. I think something like this was tried in the 50's where blacks were given words to read like Deoxyribonucleicacid, and whites were given words like Boy, and if you couldn't read the word you weren't allowed to vote.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
It depends if the kid actually tries and works hard or is otherwise up to no good(drugs,weapons,doorags)

Illegal immigrant? Are you serious? Send the illegals back to Mexico.
Yes, I prefer offering a chance only. If a kid or an adult is honestly trying to better themselves (and therefore society) then I'm all for helping them, but I'm never for lowering the bar for them. As to illegals, sending them back is fine with me too. But honestly I'd rather sort them out, kick out the bad people and keep the good people. My principle concern with illegal immigration is stopping it more than handling the illegals we already have.
 

Soltis

Member
Mar 2, 2010
115
0
0
It depends if the kid actually tries and works hard or is otherwise up to no good(drugs,weapons,doorags)
The problem though is probably like 85% of people learn what their parents teach, and what their peers teach. Then add in the fact that some of the mothers are raising their kids alone, and even if they do try to instill values, its only one of them and their values have to compete against the influence of the child's peers and older kids. It's like trying to grow a flower in a garden of weeds, more often than not itll get choked to death. I mean would I be correct in saying the majority of your ethics were from or groomed by the people who raised you?

One thing though that I know helps some(helped my mom when she was younger) was getting a chance to be exposed to a different lifestyle. It's one thing to be told by your mom while living in a run-down apartment that "you can do better than this", its another to go spend an hour after school with someone who actually owns their house, and be hold "you can have your own home too if you finish high school and go to college".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY