Subject:
|
Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2001 20:48:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1288 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> 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?
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.
> - What are the consequences if no one feels like paying for the
> child's basic needs?
The child starves to death.
> - Should the fulfillment of basic rights really be left to
> voluntariness?
No they should not. But needs are not rights. You haven't yet demonstrated
that there are rights to free goods of any sort.
> > > 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.
No, actually we *are* talking charity.
> - In my understanding, there is a right to live decently
But not in mine. There is no right to unearned goods, the world does not owe
anyone a living.
> Can you enumerate the most important three to five civil rights you have, in
> the order of importance?
Life, liberty and the *pursuit* of happiness. (note emphasis, it's a right
to try to be happy, not a right to BE happy)
These are all freedom of action rights and freedom from oppression rights.
They are not rights to goods earned and paid for by others and forcibly
transferred to me.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
| Hello Larry, hello everybody, (...) So the goods you need to be kept alive (in a decent way, I would add) are not rights? What value does the right to live have, then, if it is OK for others to just let me starve, without any fault on my side (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
| Hello Larry, (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 8-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
|
|
|
|
