Why do we resent having to pay for the mistakes others make?

[lotus503]

That can be your only answer because your worldview is so skewed that you implicitly dismiss the concept of personal responsibility. If I am not responsible for my actions, then I will be more than happy to weld a cow-catcher to the front of my car and plow students down in the crosswalk. I will start robbing banks because I am not culpable and that money doesn't really belong to anyone anyway. There is no property or liability in your worldview. You fail to see that this essentially makes you an anarchist, leading to the contradiction that you want to use government as a weapon to take what is mine and make it yours because you think nothing is really mine, all the while failing to see that this reasoning implies that nothing is really yours either. If there is no right to property then government cannot exist to protect such a right. Your worldview is one in which the whole mess is one big game of grab-ass to see who can use the government to take the most from one group and give it to another. Ironically, this is the exact same behavior you so despise in others. You feel morally validated since those you want to take from have a lot and those you want to give to have little. In short, you're nothing more than a hypocrite. I don't hold it against you because your hate of others has blinded you to the natural conclusions of your argument.

So they only thing keeping you from committing those acts is personal responsibility?

 

[Moonbeam]

So they only thing keeping you from committing those acts is personal responsibility?

I think CW is actually a very fine person who is just stressed by the difficulty of living up to his religion. He's still a bit pissed off at how God is and the size of the shoes he's supposed to fill. To be a Christian means to willingly go up on the cross and be crucified and worse still forgive the 'no nothings' who do it to you. It's a bitter pill for folk raised with egos to fill. That sneaky Devil whispers in all our ears that we deserve what we acquire and tells us we should cast evil doers in the fire. And that stupid damn God says forgive without exception. It's a bitter pill to swallow.

 

[CycloWizard]

So they only thing keeping you from committing those acts is personal responsibility?

Personal responsibility is a powerful motivator. I don't want my life or property to be damaged so I don't ram people while I drive. I don't want to go to prison for running over a crowd of students with my car. So in a legal sense, yes: personal responsibility is the only thing keeping me from doing those things. The legal system falls apart when this personal responsibility is waived under the false pretense that the perpetrator of a crime is the victim. Under such a system, I have no legal motivation to obey the law. Further, since in MB's system the law dictates practical morality, I have no legal reason to choose to act morally rather than immorally. This is a bad situation indeed.

 

[CycloWizard]

I think CW is actually a very fine person who is just stressed by the difficulty of living up to his religion. He's still a bit pissed off at how God is and the size of the shoes he's supposed to fill. To be a Christian means to willingly go up on the cross and be crucified and worse still forgive the 'no nothings' who do it to you. It's a bitter pill for folk raised with egos to fill. That sneaky Devil whispers in all our ears that we deserve what we acquire and tells us we should cast evil doers in the fire. And that stupid damn God says forgive without exception. It's a bitter pill to swallow.

You're muddling the waters of legal and personal behaviors. You started the thread questioning why some people wanted others to be held legally responsible for their own actions and I told you. Now you've resorted to petty diversions amounting to a low-level personal attack.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
I think CW is actually a very fine person who is just stressed by the difficulty of living up to his religion. He's still a bit pissed off at how God is and the size of the shoes he's supposed to fill. To be a Christian means to willingly go up on the cross and be crucified and worse still forgive the 'no nothings' who do it to you. It's a bitter pill for folk raised with egos to fill. That sneaky Devil whispers in all our ears that we deserve what we acquire and tells us we should cast evil doers in the fire. And that stupid damn God says forgive without exception. It's a bitter pill to swallow.

You're muddling the waters of legal and personal behaviors. You started the thread questioning why some people wanted others to be held legally responsible for their own actions and I told you. Now you've resorted to petty diversions amounting to a low-level personal attack.

Let's take your claim that I limited my question to the desire for folk to be held LEGALLY responsible. Can you show me where in my OP I did that? Here it is:

Why do we resent having to pay for the mistakes others make?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was just reading in the thread about woman's reproductive rights and health care that some folk don't want to pay for the mistakes others make, obviously abortion for women who 'carelessly' get pregnant. And this carries over into a million other social issues, welfare, drug rehabilitation, etc etc etc.

What could possibly be the psychology behind such thinking, allowing unwanted children to grow up psychopaths and shoot you in the back? These self reliant types, I guess, all carry, and may even psychologically hope for such an attack, but surely their wives or children are not so well protected. Of course, ones neighborhood and gated community can make some difference. Even God loves gates, no?

So, while for liberals, such selfishness seems like a form of dementia, it has to have a deeper origin than a simple lack of IQ.

And in puzzling about it this is what I thought:

The need to allow folk to sink or swim on their own merits, to follow Darwin's model, is really hubris and conceit, the feeling that oneself can make it and is of great value, morally superior and gifted with a work ethic, capacity, ability, intelligence, etc etc etc. And all these skills came at a sacrifice, a dominion of the Will over ones animal nature, good over evil.

Yes, I think that the key to this thinking is a feeling of superiority and pride because one has mastered ones lower self, that one is not like the rabble and all that because one conformed to the notion of what it is to be a winner.

So having destroyed the happy relaxed cheerfully unconcerned monkey one was born as, and become a productive driven little machine, one looks out on the untrained but living, with disdain. One has paid already in mental health for the success one has in live, and now they want you to pay again. No way, eh?

So those who were most taught and driven to achieve by despising weakness, are actually among us the most sad.

Opinions?

=========================
Pretty clearly, I think, I claim folk like you want others to pay existentially, not just legally, for their sins. They should receive no help because they are irresponsible, a terribly irresponsible way to think, and certainly not one that lives up to anybodies religion. Now if you find that being shown you are a hypocrite is a low level personal attack, what can I say. Perhaps your mirror is also guilty of assault.

 

[bfdd]

Why do selfish people have to make selfish mistakes and then want to selfishly push the burden onto society? You talk about those not wanting to be FORCED to help others as being selfish? Sounds like YOU and all the others who want to FORCE others to "help"(which by the way it no longer becomes help when it's taken by FORCE), are the selfish ones. I'm more than willing to help if asked nicely, it's another thing to take it by force.

Personal responsibility is a shining virtue of following the Golden Rule.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why do selfish people have to make selfish mistakes and then want to selfishly push the burden onto society? You talk about those not wanting to be FORCED to help others as being selfish? Sounds like YOU and all the others who want to FORCE others to "help"(which by the way it no longer becomes help when it's taken by FORCE), are the selfish ones. I'm more than willing to help if asked nicely, it's another thing to take it by force.

Personal responsibility is a shining virtue of following the Golden Rule.

Please oh please never apply the Golden Rule to me. I know how much you hate yourself and what you do to yourself and others as a result. Think more along the lines of "And forgive us our trespasses,: as we forgive them that trespass against us" As was pointed out to me by a wonderful person today, that's a real plea for justice. Those who can't forgive will get none in return.

It's sort of like forcing you to pay for the mistakes of others, like mandated driver's insurance. If you don't have it you can be arrested for driving. This way the great collection of assholes who wouldn't spend a dime to self insure are protected from all the millions of other assholes who would do the same. There is just no telling which one of us morons will be the next to be at fault.

The delusion of ones own perfection and immortality is strong in the egotistical and laws that force responsibility are required to save such fools from themselves. You only hate it till it's time for you to collect instead of having an ambulance dump your useless body on your family or the dump.

 

[CycloWizard]

Let's take your claim that I limited my question to the desire for folk to be held LEGALLY responsible. Can you show me where in my OP I did that? Here it is:

Why do we resent having to pay for the mistakes others make?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was just reading in the thread about woman's reproductive rights and health care that some folk don't want to pay for the mistakes others make, obviously abortion for women who 'carelessly' get pregnant. And this carries over into a million other social issues, welfare, drug rehabilitation, etc etc etc.

What could possibly be the psychology behind such thinking, allowing unwanted children to grow up psychopaths and shoot you in the back? These self reliant types, I guess, all carry, and may even psychologically hope for such an attack, but surely their wives or children are not so well protected. Of course, ones neighborhood and gated community can make some difference. Even God loves gates, no?

So, while for liberals, such selfishness seems like a form of dementia, it has to have a deeper origin than a simple lack of IQ.

And in puzzling about it this is what I thought:

The need to allow folk to sink or swim on their own merits, to follow Darwin's model, is really hubris and conceit, the feeling that oneself can make it and is of great value, morally superior and gifted with a work ethic, capacity, ability, intelligence, etc etc etc. And all these skills came at a sacrifice, a dominion of the Will over ones animal nature, good over evil.

Yes, I think that the key to this thinking is a feeling of superiority and pride because one has mastered ones lower self, that one is not like the rabble and all that because one conformed to the notion of what it is to be a winner.

So having destroyed the happy relaxed cheerfully unconcerned monkey one was born as, and become a productive driven little machine, one looks out on the untrained but living, with disdain. One has paid already in mental health for the success one has in live, and now they want you to pay again. No way, eh?

So those who were most taught and driven to achieve by despising weakness, are actually among us the most sad.

Opinions?

=========================
Pretty clearly, I think, I claim folk like you want others to pay existentially, not just legally, for their sins. They should receive no help because they are irresponsible, a terribly irresponsible way to think, and certainly not one that lives up to anybodies religion. Now if you find that being shown you are a hypocrite is a low level personal attack, what can I say. Perhaps your mirror is also guilty of assault.

You're conflating two issues here. What I or anyone else does or does not do is a personal choice. What is legal or illegal is not a personal choice. You can't legally mandate compassion, common sense, intelligence, or good decision making. You might use laws to encourage or discourage behaviors that you feel are moral or immoral. The rest of your OP was a bunch of tripe in which you tried to demonstrate your own presumed moral superiority. You're unproductive so you feel entitled to the earnings of those of us who are. You want to be able to act in whatever way you see fit, regardless of how your actions impact others. I simply want to be protected from assholes like you.

 

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard: You're conflating two issues here. What I or anyone else does or does not do is a personal choice. What is legal or illegal is not a personal choice. You can't legally mandate compassion, common sense, intelligence, or good decision making. You might use laws to encourage or discourage behaviors that you feel are moral or immoral. The rest of your OP was a bunch of tripe in which you tried to demonstrate your own presumed moral superiority. You're unproductive so you feel entitled to the earnings of those of us who are. You want to be able to act in whatever way you see fit, regardless of how your actions impact others. I simply want to be protected from assholes like you.

M: I already told you that your delusional state depends on the notion you have choice but you don't have choice at all. You are motivated by feelings that are unconscious and thus that you do not know that you have. You are a sleeping program with your finger out pointing at other sleeping programs. You are a hypocrite but you can't see it. I am not superior to you. I am just like you. The only difference is that I know it and thus I also know you.

There is no way that I can be protected from assholes like you because your ego keeps you from seeing your real condition. I can produce in a couple of lines more truth than you know and I give it to you for free. But poor poor you, you can only take away what you can carry.

 

[LunarRay]

You're conflating two issues here. What I or anyone else does or does not do is a personal choice. What is legal or illegal is not a personal choice. You can't legally mandate compassion, common sense, intelligence, or good decision making. You might use laws to encourage or discourage behaviors that you feel are moral or immoral. The rest of your OP was a bunch of tripe in which you tried to demonstrate your own presumed moral superiority. You're unproductive so you feel entitled to the earnings of those of us who are. You want to be able to act in whatever way you see fit, regardless of how your actions impact others. I simply want to be protected from assholes like you.

I don't think a society can mandate ... say Compassion, for instance, via a law OR can we?...

Compassion is a part of love and perhaps the cornerstone of Humanism... And, we are human... at least mostly. We are also, for the most part, a society with belief in a supreme being which presumptively guides our actions assuming we are in control of those actions...

One of the main players in this Supreme Being scenario is Jesus and his take on it all seems - as presented by a follower - quite telling...
Among the many utterances ascribed to him is his Sermon on the Mount.

One salient bit has to do with mercy or in context compassion... "Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy" He, it seems, was telling folks to forsake their own desires in deference towards those who are in need but also there appears to be a carrot involved... The part about Receiving Mercy seems to be the carrot and in other context he seems to always challenge folks to care more about others and in so doing your own cares are addressed...

It seems to me that Moonster is pointing to my in bold bit above and that the laws of society ARE society's wants and needs but should we have laws to be human acting in a humane manner toward our brethren?

So... let's say we enact a law giving health care to all our citizens and maybe even anyone visiting, would that not be an act of mercy towards folks who might otherwise not be able to enjoy the benefits of health care the otherwise health plan covered folks enjoy... Think of the Mercy the willing giver receives... I'd imagine they'd receive in full measure of their joy in giving...
Well... to the extent there are no rich folks, needles and camels about...

 

[CycloWizard]

CycloWizard: You're conflating two issues here. What I or anyone else does or does not do is a personal choice. What is legal or illegal is not a personal choice. You can't legally mandate compassion, common sense, intelligence, or good decision making. You might use laws to encourage or discourage behaviors that you feel are moral or immoral. The rest of your OP was a bunch of tripe in which you tried to demonstrate your own presumed moral superiority. You're unproductive so you feel entitled to the earnings of those of us who are. You want to be able to act in whatever way you see fit, regardless of how your actions impact others. I simply want to be protected from assholes like you.

M: I already told you that your delusional state depends on the notion you have choice but you don't have choice at all. You are motivated by feelings that are unconscious and thus that you do not know that you have. You are a sleeping program with your finger out pointing at other sleeping programs. You are a hypocrite but you can't see it. I am not superior to you. I am just like you. The only difference is that I know it and thus I also know you.

There is no way that I can be protected from assholes like you because your ego keeps you from seeing your real condition. I can produce in a couple of lines more truth than you know and I give it to you for free. But poor poor you, you can only take away what you can carry.

Blah blah blah. Maybe you should take a new approach fora change. Your same tired rubbish is still just rubbish. Your point is demonstrably false:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

In other words, protecting me from irresponsible douchebags is the only reason to have a government. All of this other crap you try to superimpose on it is just that - crap. But you have taken it to a new level by blaming me for someone else's actions, placing yourself firmly in the zombie camp where brains have been replaced by hearts. My heart can forgive if it wants, but it can't put food on the table if someone wrecks my car so I can't go to work. Your philosophy makes you feel good, but it's nothing but a shallow layer over the great hollow underneath.

 

[CycloWizard]

I don't think a society can mandate ... say Compassion, for instance, via a law OR can we?...

Compassion is a part of love and perhaps the cornerstone of Humanism... And, we are human... at least mostly. We are also, for the most part, a society with belief in a supreme being which presumptively guides our actions assuming we are in control of those actions...

One of the main players in this Supreme Being scenario is Jesus and his take on it all seems - as presented by a follower - quite telling...
Among the many utterances ascribed to him is his Sermon on the Mount.

One salient bit has to do with mercy or in context compassion... "Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy" He, it seems, was telling folks to forsake their own desires in deference towards those who are in need but also there appears to be a carrot involved... The part about Receiving Mercy seems to be the carrot and in other context he seems to always challenge folks to care more about others and in so doing your own cares are addressed...

It seems to me that Moonster is pointing to my in bold bit above and that the laws of society ARE society's wants and needs but should we have laws to be human acting in a humane manner toward our brethren?

So... let's say we enact a law giving health care to all our citizens and maybe even anyone visiting, would that not be an act of mercy towards folks who might otherwise not be able to enjoy the benefits of health care the otherwise health plan covered folks enjoy... Think of the Mercy the willing giver receives... I'd imagine they'd receive in full measure of their joy in giving...
Well... to the extent there are no rich folks, needles and camels about...

So suddenly we're interested in legislating morality? As in my post immediately above, that is not the purpose of government. The purpose of government is to secure the rights of its citizens, not to meet their every need. Even if this were its purpose, it would always fail because human need is infinite and government resources are not. This approach is doomed to fail by math even if your heart tells you it's the right thing to do.

 

[LunarRay]

So suddenly we're interested in legislating morality? As in my post immediately above, that is not the purpose of government. The purpose of government is to secure the rights of its citizens, not to meet their every need. Even if this were its purpose, it would always fail because human need is infinite and government resources are not. This approach is doomed to fail by math even if your heart tells you it's the right thing to do.

The function of Government is what ever the society in place wants it to be. We are the Government. We are the Congress, the Presidency and over time the SCOTUS. SCOTUS lags by quite a bit but that is good cuz it insures the people's wants and needs is not a 'spur of the moment' event.

IF we want to meet the every need of the people then that is what government is designed to effect. The resources you speak to are as infinite and the needs. You see, even to the extent that a heart transplant might be valued the same as an apple it can be met... it is simply some number assigned to some 'asset or event or whatever'.

My heart does not tell me something is the right thing to do. The needs of the others does. I can't determine what needs I'm going to sate and which might not be 'right'... those are for the other folks to have... my needs and or what I think is right is to endeavor to meet those needs... etc.

IF I meet up with a wandering person who is cold from the rainy day and asks for a blanket and I give them one and then they say 'I'm still cold' do I say 'you can't be I just gave you a blanket' or do I give them another.... I say it is wrong to attempt to determine the needs of another and quantify that based on my understanding... I say collectively we can as a society... the warm and the cold alike...

 

[JockoJohnson]

The function of Government is what ever the society in place wants it to be. We are the Government. We are the Congress, the Presidency and over time the SCOTUS. SCOTUS lags by quite a bit but that is good cuz it insures the people's wants and needs is not a 'spur of the moment' event.

IF we want to meet the every need of the people then that is what government is designed to effect. The resources you speak to are as infinite and the needs. You see, even to the extent that a heart transplant might be valued the same as an apple it can be met... it is simply some number assigned to some 'asset or event or whatever'.

My heart does not tell me something is the right thing to do. The needs of the others does. I can't determine what needs I'm going to sate and which might not be 'right'... those are for the other folks to have... my needs and or what I think is right is to endeavor to meet those needs... etc.

IF I meet up with a wandering person who is cold from the rainy day and asks for a blanket and I give them one and then they say 'I'm still cold' do I say 'you can't be I just gave you a blanket' or do I give them another.... I say it is wrong to attempt to determine the needs of another and quantify that based on my understanding... I say collectively we can as a society... the warm and the cold alike...

So taking it a step further, does everyone NEED a house or just some place to live? Do we start giving away houses because somebody thinks they NEED one? Why is an apartment or condo not enough?

In your example, a person is cold. Do they need a blanket or a heated house? What if they say they need a heated house because a blanket is not enough?

There has to be some line drawn as to what we as a society are forced to give to others via gov't. That is why there are charities. Let the charities, and the kindness of those that donate to them, handle the truly needy. This is why half the country is at odds with the other half---the needy half wants the other half to give them everything.

 

[CycloWizard]

The function of Government is what ever the society in place wants it to be. We are the Government. We are the Congress, the Presidency and over time the SCOTUS. SCOTUS lags by quite a bit but that is good cuz it insures the people's wants and needs is not a 'spur of the moment' event.

IF we want to meet the every need of the people then that is what government is designed to effect. The resources you speak to are as infinite and the needs. You see, even to the extent that a heart transplant might be valued the same as an apple it can be met... it is simply some number assigned to some 'asset or event or whatever'.

My heart does not tell me something is the right thing to do. The needs of the others does. I can't determine what needs I'm going to sate and which might not be 'right'... those are for the other folks to have... my needs and or what I think is right is to endeavor to meet those needs... etc.

IF I meet up with a wandering person who is cold from the rainy day and asks for a blanket and I give them one and then they say 'I'm still cold' do I say 'you can't be I just gave you a blanket' or do I give them another.... I say it is wrong to attempt to determine the needs of another and quantify that based on my understanding... I say collectively we can as a society... the warm and the cold alike...

Your model of government is what we have today. It sounds great: everyone's needs are met by everyone else and we all live as one big happy family. Unfortunately, it's an utter and complete failure due to completely predictable reasons. We can't force everyone to comply with the law based on what your heart tells you because my heart might tell me something else. Then you are putting people at odds with what they feel is right and that never ends well. This is obvious when we observe the political scene today, where Santorum pulls facts out of his a... heart and they conflict with reality. Obama speaks from the heart but it's utter nonsense. More importantly, Obama and Santorum arrive at completely different conclusions based on what their hearts tell them.

It seems to me that the solution to this inevitable inconsistency is to apply objective standards. These standards are determined by our brains rather than our hearts, but they are governed by logic and so are applicable to everyone. This will set a rather minimal role for government that we should all be able to agree upon by using objective standards. If an individual wants to go over and above those minimum standards using his own time, money, and talent, then more power to him. However, simple math will very quickly tell us that we cannot get enough blood from a turnip sufficient to satisfy the infinite need of 300 million citizens. Logic also suggests that the more needs we try to mandate legally, the more things will become needs rather than wants. This is exactly what has happened today as our ability to produce has finally become overwhelmed by our ability to consume, even as the law attempts to force us to produce an infinite amount to satisfy the demand. It's impossible. I can do what I can do but I can never do more, even if you legally require me to do more.

 

[heymrdj]

You know I'm just going to throw it out there even though it's probably slightly OT. I find it sad how driven we are as a people to money. That money determines whether or not you're going to have an existence that you hate every day as you try to scrape by and starve and freeze..or that you'll have a wonder life living lavishly ect. Many of us are truly in the middle (not middle class mind you), but we get enough to live in a place (be it apartment, house whatever) with enough money to feed and clothe ourselves and exist. But there's many, through no fault of their own, that got the short end of the stick. Legislating it out would be very dangerous to America, and I certainly don't have an answer to the problem.

I can use myself as an example. I need medicine that costs 300$ a month. There was a time that I was unemployed, and certainly for the most part underemployed. I was willing to work for anything, I applied to walmart as a 3rd shift stocker for minimum wage. But I always was turned down because I had a degree. You can't just pickup and move somewhere with 1000$ in the bank. The idea that everyone should just "pick themselves up" is a utopian one at best, and disconnects from reality when in the end we're all rooted down by damn money.

I just think it's sad that in all these millions of years, we still haven't devised a system that's not completely socialistic, but at least lets *humans* work together to bolster a *country* and provide for the common good. Not just select persons riding off the back so the rest.

 

[bfdd]

Please oh please never apply the Golden Rule to me. I know how much you hate yourself and what you do to yourself and others as a result. Think more along the lines of "And forgive us our trespasses,: as we forgive them that trespass against us" As was pointed out to me by a wonderful person today, that's a real plea for justice. Those who can't forgive will get none in return.

It's sort of like forcing you to pay for the mistakes of others, like mandated driver's insurance. If you don't have it you can be arrested for driving. This way the great collection of assholes who wouldn't spend a dime to self insure are protected from all the millions of other assholes who would do the same. There is just no telling which one of us morons will be the next to be at fault.

The delusion of ones own perfection and immortality is strong in the egotistical and laws that force responsibility are required to save such fools from themselves. You only hate it till it's time for you to collect instead of having an ambulance dump your useless body on your family or the dump.

lol @ hating myself. I haven't hated myself in a long time. You want to force your selfishness and the selfishness of others onto people, for your selfish reasons. You do not want to join together and make it mutual by asking nicely. You want force. You're nothing but an authoritarian slave owner wannabe.

 

[bfdd]

The function of Government is what ever the society in place wants it to be. We are the Government. We are the Congress, the Presidency and over time the SCOTUS. SCOTUS lags by quite a bit but that is good cuz it insures the people's wants and needs is not a 'spur of the moment' event.

IF we want to meet the every need of the people then that is what government is designed to effect. The resources you speak to are as infinite and the needs. You see, even to the extent that a heart transplant might be valued the same as an apple it can be met... it is simply some number assigned to some 'asset or event or whatever'.

My heart does not tell me something is the right thing to do. The needs of the others does. I can't determine what needs I'm going to sate and which might not be 'right'... those are for the other folks to have... my needs and or what I think is right is to endeavor to meet those needs... etc.

IF I meet up with a wandering person who is cold from the rainy day and asks for a blanket and I give them one and then they say 'I'm still cold' do I say 'you can't be I just gave you a blanket' or do I give them another.... I say it is wrong to attempt to determine the needs of another and quantify that based on my understanding... I say collectively we can as a society... the warm and the cold alike...

Bullshit. You're simply being a selfish asshole by wanting to force your world view on others. You want others to live like you do, that makes you a selfish prick because you're self centered. You don't actually care about other people, you just pretend like you do because you're scared of your own mortality.

 

[JockoJohnson]

You know I'm just going to throw it out there even though it's probably slightly OT. I find it sad how driven we are as a people to money. That money determines whether or not you're going to have an existence that you hate every day as you try to scrape by and starve and freeze..or that you'll have a wonder life living lavishly ect. Many of us are truly in the middle (not middle class mind you), but we get enough to live in a place (be it apartment, house whatever) with enough money to feed and clothe ourselves and exist. But there's many, through no fault of their own, that got the short end of the stick. Legislating it out would be very dangerous to America, and I certainly don't have an answer to the problem.

I can use myself as an example. I need medicine that costs 300$ a month. There was a time that I was unemployed, and certainly for the most part underemployed. I was willing to work for anything, I applied to walmart as a 3rd shift stocker for minimum wage. But I always was turned down because I had a degree. You can't just pickup and move somewhere with 1000$ in the bank. The idea that everyone should just "pick themselves up" is a utopian one at best, and disconnects from reality when in the end we're all rooted down by damn money.

I just think it's sad that in all these millions of years, we still haven't devised a system that's not completely socialistic, but at least lets *humans* work together to bolster a *country* and provide for the common good. Not just select persons riding off the back so the rest.

But we do. They are called charities. Maybe we should have more of them or consolidate and make the good ones even bigger. Why does gov't have to be the solution for everything? What do they do so well that would make people want to rely on gov't for their every need?

 

[CycloWizard]

But we do. They are called charities. Maybe we should have more of them or consolidate and make the good ones even bigger. Why does gov't have to be the solution for everything? What do they do so well that would make people want to rely on gov't for their every need?

For psychological reasons, some people will never give anything away unless they know everyone else has to do the same. Otherwise, they will end up with less than those who aren't doing the right thing. This is the flip side of Moonbeam's coin where he says conservatives are demented for wanting people to act of their own free will in doing the right thing, whereas liberals want to use the force of law to coerce people to do the same to keep a level playing field. Freedom of choice only applies when they want people to be free to choose.

 

[heymrdj]

But we do. They are called charities. Maybe we should have more of them or consolidate and make the good ones even bigger. Why does gov't have to be the solution for everything? What do they do so well that would make people want to rely on gov't for their every need?

For psychological reasons, some people will never give anything away unless they know everyone else has to do the same. Otherwise, they will end up with less than those who aren't doing the right thing. This is the flip side of Moonbeam's coin where he says conservatives are demented for wanting people to act of their own free will in doing the right thing, whereas liberals want to use the force of law to coerce people to do the same to keep a level playing field. Freedom of choice only applies when they want people to be free to choose.

What I was trying to explain I think goes farther than political, and like I said realistically there's nothing that can be done about it. Even the question how much profit is too much profit. Why can't manufacturers build in America to give american jobs, keep the same price, and just take a couple hundred million as profit instead of massive over the top profits (shell i'm looking at you). Greed just seems to have run away in this country (and elsewhere) and eventually I really do believe we will crumple to a point that there is a rich few pulling all the strings and the rest will be serfs to the bitter end. Not in my lifetime (maybe) but I think it's coming. Reversing this current trend of greed seems just about impossible now. All I can hope for is that *if* I have children they'll still be in a world that if they have some sort of minor health condition like asthma or whatever they can get the medication they need to live a fairly normal life (like at least be able to step outdoors) and you know live a fulfilling life. I'm far from rich, but I love my life with the people I love, I'm content not making 100k a year. Sure there's some things I'd like to buy, but I'm perfectly happy. Others, however, are not so fortunate, regardless of how much work they are willing to do.

 

[Svnla]

You know I'm just going to throw it out there even though it's probably slightly OT. I find it sad how driven we are as a people to money. That money determines whether or not you're going to have an existence that you hate every day as you try to scrape by and starve and freeze..or that you'll have a wonder life living lavishly ect. Many of us are truly in the middle (not middle class mind you), but we get enough to live in a place (be it apartment, house whatever) with enough money to feed and clothe ourselves and exist. But there's many, through no fault of their own, that got the short end of the stick. Legislating it out would be very dangerous to America, and I certainly don't have an answer to the problem.

I can use myself as an example. I need medicine that costs 300$ a month. There was a time that I was unemployed, and certainly for the most part underemployed. I was willing to work for anything, I applied to walmart as a 3rd shift stocker for minimum wage. But I always was turned down because I had a degree. You can't just pickup and move somewhere with 1000$ in the bank. The idea that everyone should just "pick themselves up" is a utopian one at best, and disconnects from reality when in the end we're all rooted down by damn money.

I just think it's sad that in all these millions of years, we still haven't devised a system that's not completely socialistic, but at least lets *humans* work together to bolster a *country* and provide for the common good. Not just select persons riding off the back so the rest.

See the bolded and underlined part?

The big DIFFERENCE is that you WANT to work. I do not have any problem to help you and folks like you out of a jam.

The problem that I and million of hard working Americans is the lazy leeches that demand more and more after years and years (generation after generation) of dependency on government programs.

 

[CycloWizard]

What I was trying to explain I think goes farther than political, and like I said realistically there's nothing that can be done about it. Even the question how much profit is too much profit. Why can't manufacturers build in America to give american jobs, keep the same price, and just take a couple hundred million as profit instead of massive over the top profits (shell i'm looking at you). Greed just seems to have run away in this country (and elsewhere) and eventually I really do believe we will crumple to a point that there is a rich few pulling all the strings and the rest will be serfs to the bitter end. Not in my lifetime (maybe) but I think it's coming. Reversing this current trend of greed seems just about impossible now. All I can hope for is that *if* I have children they'll still be in a world that if they have some sort of minor health condition like asthma or whatever they can get the medication they need to live a fairly normal life (like at least be able to step outdoors) and you know live a fulfilling life. I'm far from rich, but I love my life with the people I love, I'm content not making 100k a year. Sure there's some things I'd like to buy, but I'm perfectly happy. Others, however, are not so fortunate, regardless of how much work they are willing to do.

There is no answer to your questions because you're asking the wrong questions. What was it that motivated the development of the asthma meds your kid might need some day? How much wealth is too much when we are talking about someone working 18 hours a day to invent something that could save your life? If I invest 40+ years of my life to invent something that will cure a condition affecting every person over the age of 40, thereby vastly improving their quality of life and eliminating the leading cause of blindness in the world, how much money should I make for it? As much as I can. How much is too much? If I charge so much that no one is willing to pay for it, then obviously that was too much. Instead, I will make some amount based on what others are willing to pay based on their perception of improved quality of life. They, in turn, can be more productive because they can still see. They will hopefully not squander that benefit and will in turn do something valuable for someone else. When this chain is disrupted by government intervention, the cause-and-effect relationship between work, payment, and benefit to others is disrupted. Some are rewarded for not working, some work but are not rewarded.

 

[heymrdj]

See the bolded and underlined part?

The big DIFFERENCE is that you WANT to work. I do not have any problem to help you and folks like you out of a jam.

The problem that I and million of hard working Americans is the lazy leeches that demand more and more after years and years (generation after generation) of dependency on government programs.

Agreed, having seen it first hand way too many times. American culture has become crap.

 

[heymrdj]

There is no answer to your questions because you're asking the wrong questions. What was it that motivated the development of the asthma meds your kid might need some day? How much wealth is too much when we are talking about someone working 18 hours a day to invent something that could save your life? If I invest 40+ years of my life to invent something that will cure a condition affecting every person over the age of 40, thereby vastly improving their quality of life and eliminating the leading cause of blindness in the world, how much money should I make for it? As much as I can. How much is too much? If I charge so much that no one is willing to pay for it, then obviously that was too much. Instead, I will make some amount based on what others are willing to pay based on their perception of improved quality of life. They, in turn, can be more productive because they can still see. They will hopefully not squander that benefit and will in turn do something valuable for someone else. When this chain is disrupted by government intervention, the cause-and-effect relationship between work, payment, and benefit to others is disrupted. Some are rewarded for not working, some work but are not rewarded.

You're looking at the wrong side of my question. I have no problem with things like Advair and Symbicort being 350$ for a one month inhaler, I understand research costs. I'm just saying if someone *doesn't* make that, their life is reduced to that of being without the medication, which may be semi-productive, or it may be as bad as just meaning death.