|
| Thread: Voluntary Charity vs Welfare |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 16, 2010 09:53 PM |
|
|
But taxation is theft regardless of what it is used to fund. Taxing to spend on defence or police is also taxing one person to give to another. Can you give a consistent argument as to why that is not so?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 12:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Indeed, the Fifth Amendment specifically forbids such a use of taxation.
Quote:
......; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
A person who is taxed for the purposes of redistribution of wealth is not being justly compensated for the property taken from him.
Legitimate taxation is for the purposes of protecting the rights of the people and providing for necessary services that in general benefit everyone.
The intention of welfare is to benefit everybody, not just certain individuals.
Taxes that go towards police, for example, are for the benefit of everybody, even though only certain people are ever going to be directly affected by it. I have never had anything stolen from me or have been assaulted, etc., and yet I have paid taxes that go towards the police department, and I have benefited from this by living in a safer community than if there were no police department. Even though I have never as an individual needed the police, the police still exists as a form of insurance for me. That is my compensation.
The same concept applies to welfare programs. It is intended to produce better stability in a community by assisting people that need assistance.
Now, this does not in itself make all welfare programs a good idea. You still need to scrutinize each program and decide if the benefits of it are worthy of the cost of it. But in theory, the justification for welfare programs is the same justification given for police, fire, defense, or healthcare. In the broader sense of the word, all of those things are welfare programs as well, and they all continue to exist under the assumption that their cost is worthy of their benefit.
For the most part, the schism between socialism and capitalism isn't rooted in whether or not something should or shouldn't be allowed. It's about whether something is worthy of the cost. If I can be convinced that nationalizing automobiles so that everybody has a private car is worthy of the cost needed to make it so, then I will gladly support it.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 12:05 PM |
|
|
I have a right for the government to take part of your money and give it to me because I also have the right to an education and a fairly well-paid job so that I can constribute and pay taxes so that I may also help other who are in need of it.
____________
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 12:33 PM |
|
Edited by Shares at 12:44, 17 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
No, it is not a turn of phrase. All human beings are born with God-given [natural] rights. You don't have to have the same amount of money or the same size house of the same model car or the same intelligence or the same athletic ability to have the same natural rights as all other people. The only question is if you are living under a government that oppresses you and tries to prevent you from exercising your rights. Equal rights does not mean that everyone start out life under the same conditions or that life turns out the same for everyone.
There's no practical difference if we say that every one have equal right, but some of us are opressed or if we just say that we don't have equal rights. Or can you point out something that will actually CHANGE in my post due to that turn of phrase?
Wether money is something that makes a different when thinking of rights (or opression of right, if we see it your way) is not what you said, but I'll play, for the sake of discussion:
Money really do make a different. Maybe we are all born equal, but don't come here and say that we grow up equally! I can sure say that a rich ten year old will usually have more rights(or less opressed rights) than a poor ten year old! The poor kid might have to help out more at home than the rich kid. This will give different ammounts of spare time for homework, fun and improvement, thus the rich kid will be able to get a much better raising. I am not saying that this is a rule, I'm just saying that a rich parent will be able to give a kid a better start out in life, than a poor parent. Wether that is unfair for the PARENTS is not what I'm trying to discuss. I'm pointing at children and growing up. Not grown ups and their lives. They have had their shot at making their own happiness and have a history(and still some to go, hopefully) but saying that the parents past will not make a print on the kid is kinda... narrow-minded and it is my humble opinion that a person should not be judged by looking at their parents and I see little difference in making that judgement and judgement by looking at skin colour or country of origin.
"I [or poor people] have a right for the government to take part of your money and give it to me because ___________."
I think I can finish it two ways. Either saying that I am to be an asset to society in the future, and I require food and shelter until I have finished my education (I also hope that I in the future will be able to pay back the money I earn as pension to the previous generation (the one who paid my education (which also is covered by that quote from your founding fathers))) OR I don't deserve it. I'm eightteen and now a grown up. I should be standing on my own legs now and make myself a living.
But I do hope that in the future I'll have a nice little girl (I doubt that I'm gay) to marry and have kids with. By then MY KIDS will deserve a desent growing up and some resources to be spent on them. Then we'll have some choices; We can say that poor people can't have kids, give the poor some money or simply let the kids decay and let the next genereation be flawed as well. If we want to improve society we have to improve the FUTURE.
EDIT: Society lives in generation. The generation with power is the middle aged ones. The ones currently raising children, having the jobs and experience. This generation makes the way for the next way, as well as the previous one. This so that the next generation can take their place and take care of them when they become the previous generation as well as making way for the next one. Thus the cycle repeats and each generation have a chance to inflict change upon society, since they all control the next generation. If we as current generation do not take responsibility for the next one it will come out flawed and we will harm society.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 06:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can sure say that a rich ten year old will usually have more rights(or less opressed rights) than a poor ten year old! The poor kid might have to help out more at home than the rich kid.
This has nothing to do with rights. Both kids have the equal right to not be killed, to not have their property stolen, etc. Just because one is getting a better education doesn't mean he has more rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 06:30 PM |
|
|
Paris Hilton is the best example on how the law is not applying to rich people. Condemned to jail, she never went in.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 07:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This has nothing to do with rights. Both kids have the equal right to not be killed, to not have their property stolen, etc. Just because one is getting a better education doesn't mean he has more rights.
Isn't equality supposed to be a right? At least untilb we're adults and can prove ourselves?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 07:36 PM |
|
|
Yes. Equality - before the law. And they are indeed equal in that respect. There is no law that says rich people are to be provided with more than poor people.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 10:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, it is not a turn of phrase. All human beings are born with God-given [natural] rights. You don't have to have the same amount of money or the same size house of the same model car or the same intelligence or the same athletic ability to have the same natural rights as all other people. The only question is if you are living under a government that oppresses you and tries to prevent you from exercising your rights. Equal rights does not mean that everyone start out life under the same conditions or that life turns out the same for everyone.
There's no practical difference if we say that every one have equal right, but some of us are opressed or if we just say that we don't have equal rights. Or can you point out something that will actually CHANGE in my post due to that turn of phrase?
If you claim each person is not born with the same rights then all rights come from the government. You then have no reason to complain if you live in a dictatorship where the dictator decides to rape you 5 times a day until he tires of you and then slowly tortures you to death. After all, in his nation there is no law that says you have a right to live or a right for him not to rape you. In fact, his law says that it is his right to do whatever he wants to do.
Is that what you are arguing, that no rights exist unless the government grants them?
Also, if you live in a nation that recognizes your right to life and you get murdered does that mean that you never had a right to life or that someone wrongly took your life?
If you live in a nation where private property rights are recognized and someone steals your property does that mean you never had the right or that someone wrongly took your property.
If you live in a nation where the law says that you can't be denied liberty without a fair trial and some local law enforcement official locks you away for 20 years with no trial did you never have the right to liberty or is the law enforcement official ignoring the law and wrongly oppressing you?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 10:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes. Equality - before the law. And they are indeed equal in that respect.
Ignoring more openly corruption ravaged countries such as mine, where such equality is a thing of fairytales, even in America the rich will get better lawyers and most often win before the law.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 10:24 PM |
|
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 10:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ignoring more openly corruption ravaged countries such as mine, where such equality is a thing of fairytales, even in America the rich will get better lawyers and most often win before the law.
True as that may be, that's a flaw with the legal system, not with the law itself.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 17, 2010 11:40 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:42, 17 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
The intention of welfare is to benefit everybody, not just certain individuals.
The government taking my money and giving it to someone else benefits the other person and harms me.
Quote:
Taxes that go towards police, for example, are for the benefit of everybody, even though only certain people are ever going to be directly affected by it.
Everyone benefits directly from having a police force. Without a police force criminals would rob, rape, and pillage as much as they wanted to.
Quote:
The same concept applies to welfare programs. It is intended to produce better stability in a community by assisting people that need assistance.
It is an insult to poor people when people claim that without welfare they would be criminals. I grew up poor and neither I, my family, nor the poor around me were criminals.
Quote:
In the broader sense of the word, all of those things are welfare programs as well, and they all continue to exist under the assumption that their cost is worthy of their benefit.
No, there is no justification for calling police welfare. Welfare transfers wealth from one person to another person.
Quote:
I have a right for the government to take part of your money and give it to me because I also have the right to an education and a fairly well-paid job so that I can constribute and pay taxes so that I may also help other who are in need of it.
On what basis do you have a right to an education and why does that trump my right to private property?
I will point out that I worked my way through college. There is no reason why anyone can't work and go to college at the same time. It just means you have to cut out the frat parties and take responsiblity for yourself rather than wanting me to be responsible for you.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 12:31 AM |
|
|
Getting a job is easier said than done. I can't afford college at the moment, since I have trouble just paying rent. If not for aid from government, I wouldn't have managed and probably ended up on the street. Yeah, that's just the way it is. When you give to charity, you choose who recieves it. Not everyone actually have the opportunity to get a better life, there's a big part luck in everything (though you'll probably call it faith or something). I think it's better that the government gives to those who needs, not just those visible and who knows people wealthy enough to give ... but to those not able to go outside, and do stuff, or who doesn't have contacts and doesn't know wealthy people. I think those lucky to have money, should share to help those not so lucky. You may say you've worked hard, but there are always a big part luck in everything, though you probably won't admit that. With your 'success' someone else might have gotten a harder time and had to rely on government aid.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 01:12 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
It is an insult to poor people when people claim that without welfare they would be criminals.
Insult or not, it can't be denied that poor people commit a disproportionate amount of crimes. Just because you're moral in that way doesn't mean everyone is.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 01:58 AM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 02:12, 18 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
The government taking my money and giving it to someone else benefits the other person and harms me.
Which is why this stuff should just have an opt out with people being able to choose where their tax dollars go while filling out their taxes each year.
One could also argue that the money being taken from some people to kill civilians in other countries through indiscriminate bombing harms the person who has their money taken as they feel their money is being used to murder people.
That's the thing about perception. "Oh no, you're stealing my money to give to people who haven't earned it through other sources and that makes me feel bad" or "Oh no, you're stealing my money to kill people who have no chance of fighting back or directly threatening our country and that makes me feel bad."
I can see where you are coming from. But in that frame of mind no use of taxation is really satisfactory for everybody.
"Oh no, you're stealing my money to make a road to that run down ghost town in the middle of nowhere and that makes me feel bad".
There are others who feel good about these things.
"Yes, I like that my tax dollars are used to help people who can otherwise not work to provide for themselves" or "Yes, I like that my tax dollars go to defending my country" or "Yes, I like that the country is being more opened up for commuters.
Essentially all taxation benfits most people and also harms most people with only the apathetic or the staunchest nationalists who believe everything their country does is right including the new stuff are satisfied fully.
Quote:
Quote:
The same concept applies to welfare programs. It is intended to produce better stability in a community by assisting people that need assistance.
It is an insult to poor people when people claim that without welfare they would be criminals. I grew up poor and neither I, my family, nor the poor around me were criminals.
I also grew up poor, even more so on top of that my parents barely could speak English which caused a language barrier. My dad had a stroke and completely lost his ability to walk, drive or speak in any language other than what he grew up with. Without those programs I don't believe we'd have become criminals in the traditional sense... who knows my parents might have just... set up camp in the woods and illegally hunted animals and foraged for food and used horrible home remedies instead of any sort of healthcare. So yes, I guess maybe they would be criminals, but taking from other people unwilling to give is a big no-no where my parents come from. They'd only be criminals in so far as hunting without a license. If you don't have the opportunity to live normally, you have to fall back to the survivalist ways that got through being a target of genocide. Right?
They'd only be criminals on the technical level as they are merely living off the land. My parents are very religious, I suppose I somewhat am too but not to their degree, but I do follow a fairly strict moral code of not taking what doesn't belong to me. To say my family is a bunch of thieves for using a government service that's supported by a vast majority is frankly, not nice. Not quite an honest picture either. Just as you're no thief if you for example support government supported faith-based initiatives which some others (not me, but some others indeed) may disagree with.
Quote:
No, there is no justification for calling police welfare. Welfare transfers wealth from one person to another person.
From your pocket to the pocket of a government worker who in most states can also arrest you for taping them in public even if you aren't doing anything illegal. I do believe the police departments also need cleaning up of corruption like all government entities. Maybe that's the biggest common denominator. People generally approve of their dollars going to things that help everybody, but they dislike the corruption that goes with it.
Quote:
On what basis do you have a right to an education and why does that trump my right to private property?
I will point out that I worked my way through college. There is no reason why anyone can't work and go to college at the same time. It just means you have to cut out the frat parties and take responsiblity for yourself rather than wanting me to be responsible for you.
I worked my way through college as well. I don't believe he was talking about college but about public grade school.
Nothing trumps your right to private property, which I may remind you is why I believe people should be able to choose on their tax forms which services they wish for their tax dollars to be excluded from. If it becomes your choice, it is to your benefit entirely or your fault if you are mistaken. If it's the latter case you can always fix it next year. (I doubt any politicians would actually have the fortitude to try to pass such a law allowing opt-outs of various departments and services on their tax returns though.)
Not everybody can afford private school and the churches/synagogues/mosques/temples/etc can only afford to run so many religious schools. Without proper education at least basic literacy and mathematical skills, the entire country would suffer as the quality of workers would slump and opportunities for people to better themselves also would be few and far between.
edit: People who party all the time in college always looked like they weren't taking it seriously enough. Of course nobody wants the government to pay for that. It doesn't really either. (Well, maybe in Alberta, but it's paid for by oil and not by taxes)
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 02:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Everyone benefits directly from having a police force. Without a police force criminals would rob, rape, and pillage as much as they wanted to.
criminals benefit from it too. without the police, people would do justice themselves, and not sure they would be as kind as the justice.
and why do you think criminals rob, rape and pillage? because of the absence of police force? it will dissuade some of them, but it doesn't have much to do with the origin of the problem.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 03:00 AM |
|
|
@ Elodin:
Quote:
The government taking my money and giving it to someone else benefits the other person and harms me.
That is incorrect; welfare produces a more stable community by sustaining people during times of catastrophe or transition, or living under hard circumstances. If a person isn't able to properly care for their kids, or themselves, the tangible utility that they can offer to the world around them will vastly decrease. Every bad scenario produces a ripple effect. We as individuals are not independent fiefdoms that have no effect on each other; the world is highly connected and interdependent.
Quote:
Everyone benefits directly from having a police force. Without a police force criminals would rob, rape, and pillage as much as they wanted to.
Mostly true (there are always alternatives to a government-funded police force, though they would be less adequate), just as it is true that there would be very real and negative consequences to abolishing all welfare programs.
Quote:
It is an insult to poor people when people claim that without welfare they would be criminals. I grew up poor and neither I, my family, nor the poor around me were criminals.
I don't care about you, your family, or the poor people that were around you. I care about statistics. You're a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent.
Quote:
No, there is no justification for calling police welfare. Welfare transfers wealth from one person to another person.
Welfare is something that helps ensure welfare; that's why it's called welfare  . I know in government lingo 'welfare programs' typically refer to programs that directly fund a person.
Quote:
On what basis do you have a right to an education and why does that trump my right to private property?
On what basis do you have a right to private property and why does that trump his right to an education?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 04:31 AM |
|
|
Shyranis:
Good post, but there's one thing with which I take issue. Letting people decide on their tax forms where their tax dollars go is all well and good - for most people. But what if you're, say, a farmer, a defence contractor, or a member of some other eavily subsidised group? The farmer will decide that all of his tax income should go to farm subsidies - and so he'll get a disproportionate amount of taxes back as cash. Don't you see the adverse incentive there?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2010 07:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Shyranis:
Letting people decide on their tax forms where their tax dollars go is all well and good - for most people. But what if you're, say, a farmer, a defence contractor, or a member of some other eavily subsidised group? The farmer will decide that all of his tax income should go to farm subsidies - and so he'll get a disproportionate amount of taxes back as cash. Don't you see the adverse incentive there?
Basic macroeconomics. While the farmer may choose to opt out of everything but farm subsidies in hope of getting that money back there will be a person choosing to opt out of farm subsidies under the belief in free trade or free market pricing. For every person opting out of funding the military, police, infrastructure, etc, there would most likely be one opting out of funding welfare, healthcare, etc.
What's best also is that it also can cause some deviations as well and will force the government to be more careful with its tax dollars if it cannot estimate as accurately as it once would how many tax dollars it brings in. It would drive up accountability... or cause budget shortfalls in certain areas which in turn should draw a lot of scrutiny eying whatever sort of waste can be eliminated.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
| |
|
|
