Subject:
|
Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2001 07:44:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1235 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello Larry,
> > Wouldn't it be a lot more just to offer some money if
> > that is what is required for a decent (not luxury!) life without the money
> > the father has earned before?
>
> Where does this money come from? Taxpayers, or voluntary contributions? If
> the former, it is *less* just to extort funds from yet more victims (the
> taxpayers) to allow the father to avoid the consequences of his actions than
> it is to do nothing.
Now, this is exactly where we differ. While you seem to always look at the
situation from the imprisoned father's perspective, I see the child to be an
innocent victim of the father. And if you feel as a victim just because you
are forced to help an innocent child with your tax dollar, then there is
probably not much I can do about that feeling. Except maybe ask some
critical questions:
- Why would you want to pay for the imprisonment of the father,
and not let him go?
- What are the consequences if no one feels like paying for the
child's basic needs?
- Should the fulfillment of basic rights really be left to
voluntariness?
> > Do you really think it cuts your freedom so
> > badly if you have to pay your share of that?
>
> Yes. This gets into the larger question around whether it is appropriate to
> do "charity by force", which has been discussed in depth here in the past. I
> hold that it is not.
>
> I'm happy to discuss this with you or other critical thinkers as long as
> we're not covering TOO much plowed ground.
Well, not having followed the discussion you mention, it is probably hard
for me to draw the line. Anyway, my strongest argument FOR what you call
"charity by force" are these:
- We are not actually talking charity. The issue is civil rights.
- In my understanding, there is a right to live decently, but none
that guarantees unlimited earning of money
Can you enumerate the most important three to five civil rights you have, in
the order of importance? My list would read:
- Be alive
- Live in decency
- Decide, where I (and my data) go
- Influence political decisions that affect my life
- Build reasonable (as opposed to unlimited) wealth
As you can see from it, my fortune depends less on wealth than on some other
aspects of my life. Therefore, I happily pay my taxes to enable a decent
life for ALL (OK, as many as possible ...) people. You could also call this
my humanistic attitude, I guess.
Greetings
Horst
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
| (...) I would *not* want to pay. He should pay for his own incarceration to the maximum extent possible, but when he cannot we must pay to keep him there in order to protect ourselves. (...) The child starves to death. (...) No they should not. But (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare (was: War)
|
| (...) Potentially, if that's what the mother wants to do. (...) Where does this money come from? Taxpayers, or voluntary contributions? If the former, it is *less* just to extort funds from yet more victims (the taxpayers) to allow the father to (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
