Subject:
|
Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:12:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
492 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Bill Farkas wrote:
> >
> > The idea that any system will/can get rid of poor starving folks is naive,
> > .....any system which does not realisticly recognize the fact that we as a >>species are bent toward selfishness will not be able to provide an answer.
>
> In my book, selfishness needs to be separated from "moral rot".
> Selfishness in and of itself is not bad
I agree, not all selfishness is bad, yet I believe it to be the root of most
of what ails us. Any crime or perversion can be sifted down to an illicit
focus on meeting a selfish desire. Again, our freedom only exists in our
ability to respect the rights of others, which is why selfishness is
counter-productive.
> (giving poor slobs money because it's cheaper than having them steal to
> get the money is based on pure selfishness).
Yet, you also run the risk of feeding selfish irresponsibility by throwing
mere money at a human problem. Our society has demonstrated that if you give
something away you create a class of dependents who begin to expect
something for nothing, because society owes them. If you give your neighbor
money in hopes of preventing future crime you may in fact be fueling it
because he now knows he can get something for nothing.
>
> Now if you're arguing for the "depravity of man", then it will be
> difficult for us to find common ground.
I do subscribe to that philosophy, and I don't think it is remotely
arguable, too much evidence all around. Most people object to it as a matter
of pride (more selfishness) which I understand, and that is why I didn't
state it so blatantly. I respect the fact that you don't accept it and do
not seek to force it upon you.
>
> > We will always have the poor (re: J.C.) - they give us a divine opportunity
> > to show genuine compassion. I disagree with what Frank says below because I
> > believe we should help people because they need it, not because we don't
> > want to be hurt ourselves (selfishness). Yet, then there is the matter of,
> > "If I give that guy money will he use it for drugs or booze?" Is it
> > unreasonable to set some sort of criteria for this compassion? Are some more
> > deserving than others? Should we choose who we think will use our compassion
> > more wisely than others? I don't think there easy answers to such questions.
> > One-size-fits-all doesn't work in the myriad of circumstances people find
> > themselves in.
>
> Very valid points, in fact, I was going to raise the "one size fits all"
> as a bad model, that is the model of our current system. We are
> increasingly limiting the options of judges, enforcing one size fits all
> solutions. We are increasingly straightjacketting states by enforcing
> one size fits all "do it our [the federal] way, or lose your highway
> dollars". I think there are some areas where commonality is good, but
> I'm also inclined to trust the free market to find those (for example, I
> think the free market would quickly decide that the bulk of traffic laws
> should be uniform [to take an extreme example, consider if some region
> decided that red means go and green means stop - how many fatal
> collisions will it take before that region finds that it's roads don't
> connect with anyone elses?]).
I agree 100% here, which is why I believe in as little goverment as
possible. Kick it back to the States and local governments, that way if
people don't like something, they can move to an area that suits them -
which will be the ultimate test of a particular policy's life span. I don't
think these are necessarily Libertarian beliefs exclusively. I think there
is a large part of the Republican party that supports these ideas as well. I
realize that there are oodles of problems in the Republican party - but I
see it as a more viable apparatus to accomplish much of what the LP stands
for. I don't think the Republicans had as hard a time unseating the Whigs as
the Libertarians are having trying to get established. Perhaps the American
people simply don't want it - perhaps they don't know what they want (which
is what the problem really seems to be).
>
>
> > My point is that I believe this young man's life is worth far more than any
> > inconvenience he may have caused me and my family, yet we did make some
> > value judgements before embarking on such a task. Some people will get back
> > up and some won't. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't help those whom "we
> > think" won't. I wasn't "certain" Ellis would, but I was willing to take the
> > chance. Poverty is not a simple "give 'em what they lack" issue. It gets
> > into the human spirit and will to achieve - all things which are nurtured by
> > a loving environment which promotes the significance of each individual.
> > Those in society who are lacking this love or significance on a tangible
> > level are the same ones who become derelict (which I believe to be evidence
> > of God - and no, I'm not trying to open that debate again - just musing
> > aloud).
>
> Your charity in this case is what libertarians want to foster. You saw a
> potential in this young man, and you reached out a hand, but that hand
> came with some conditions (I'm assuming that had he started pilfering
> constantly, or refused to help out, or otherwise was a "derelict" that
> you would have shown him the door).
Absolutely, if I had perceived him to be a threat to the welfare of my
immediate family, he would have been mulch.
>
> > Also, I believe our motives justify or negate or actions, whatever they may
> > be. A seemingly good deed done for the wrong reason stinks. If we help some
> > one soley to prevent ourselves from being harmed, we are no better than the
> > miser who hoards his wealth, both are selfish. True happiness can only be
> > found by helping others without thought of return.
>
> There is some virtue in charity without thought of return, but just
> giving without ever expecting anything isn't going to help anyone. That
> is the problem with government charity, it can't set enough conditions.
Which is why I raised all those tough questions above about whether some are
more deserving than others. It's not a simple matter, too many variables. I
think it's better left to individuals and localities, than the Fed. I do
believe that in this era, where the spotlight of public scrutiny is so keen,
that it is not quite as easy to behave unscrupulously as it was 50 or 100
years ago - meaning that corporations and governments are finding it harder
to get away with there shenanigans. I believe there is a greater level of
public accountability that comes with the information age. It's harder to
keep secrets from the people today than ever before. I also believe that
capitalism is and can police itself in such a climate. Many companies are
beginning to treat there people better for fear of losing them to high-tech
industry, and fiascos like the Firestone tire thing hold companies
accountable for the products the make. No, it's not perfect, again due to
human failings, but I do believe that American Capitalism is THE BEST system
there is to deal with poverty - much room for improvement, but still the
best. Not that you were saying it wasn't, just rambling.
And, back to your point above, when you consider that as much as 85% of
public funds are consumed by an ever growing Federal Employees Union, it
kinda makes you wonder if helping the poor is really in view here.
"I'm NOT PLAYING, I'm CREATING!!"
Bill
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
| (...) If I may interject, because you two have crystallized the crux of the matter here for me. In a perfect world, Libertopia is, IMO, the best form of government you could have. Problem is, you need to have the perfect world *first*. People need (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
231 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
|
|
|
|
