Scrap the community wage

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

Libertarians advocate state seizure of children… because their parents are lazy? Come on now, I thought rape and or murder had to be involved.

What if laziness were bad because it is inefficent? Your taxes support inefficient companies through a variety of measures. At one time, if you were working for Chrysler, your taxes were probably being used to support you. I guess until the government actually informs when , where and how each of our individual tax dollars is being used, do you really know if your tax dollars are supporting that lazy couple on the other side of town, or if they used your money to help pay for security for Gerald Ford?

Again, the nature of the beast. But if you want me to answer why should X happen, I could ask why shouldn’t X happen. Assuming they spread our tax money about willy nilly Your tax dollars help pay for inefficient corporations and industries. Your tax dollars have helped to pay for the assassination of democratically elected leaders. Your tax dollars have helped pay to arm Saddam, train Osama, and probably benefit untold thousands of legitimately evil people. Your main gripe is about lazy folks?
Why shouldn’t your tax dollars go to them?

Again, I think you might want to re-examine your libertarian label. or at least educate me on what it means to consider yourself libertarian. Don’t you believe government involvement should be limited to certain essential programs and such? Did you know they tried what you are advocating in Australia with those poor ass aboriginals, not only did it not work, but to this day the country struggles with its moral turpitude. I believe the same thing also went on in the South here years ago. It isn’t talked about much, but from what little I have heard it isn’t considered to be a practice worth bragging about.

Phaedrus, dear friend, you know I am immune to such arguments. A posited hypothetical fails as actual proof of anything. I won’t hold this against you, I use them to, they are a nice rhetorical device. :stuck_out_tongue: Classic debating tactic, if we do or don’t do this, insert doomsday scenario. The problem with rhetorical questions is that they leave room for only one answer. This isn’t so bad if that answer is already known, but if the matter is being debated honestly, can we not at least agree then that the certainty of your answer will be suspect?

I mean I have try to present what I consider to be reasonable arguments (with some satire I admit) along with evidence to back up my points. I could, I suppose, resort to emotivism, but I would rather not… as you said, think of the children. :stuck_out_tongue:

22

Classic straw man tactic and beneath you, GCT. I clearly didn’t say that, as you can easily see by reading my actual words. Take away their children if they don’t take care of them. The chain of events should be easy for you to follow, though. Refusal to care for your children (eg feed, clothe, etc) would constitue abuse in most Western countries. It’s a little pathetic to pretend that a the two positions can be equated.

As for your being immune to common sense, I wouldn’t boast about that. :wink: But obviously as a libertarian I don’t see much of any point to any welfare programs at all. As I clearly said, even the “safety net” I make only as a concession to my nagging sense of sentimentality.

Once more, for the cheap seats, the act of using public money (ie yours and mine) to support someone cradle to grave is an extreme one and should be reserved for the direst cases. And I mean dire circumstances, not dire laziness.

However, if you would like to support a bunch of layabouts and bums, I could probably find a use for that money burning a hole in your pocket. :wink:

23

Phaedrus,

You ignore the effects of social and economic stratification on people. Also, you remove the effect that social “safety nets” have on the children of people that you consider to be irresponsible. Children should not have to ride the wave of destruction created by someone that they were simply unlucky enough to have as a parent.

Those are critical errors in the libertarian philosophy.

24

I posted this in another area and am curious about what you think:

There’s a lot of things that I like about libertarian philosophy. However, I think that it falls apart in many different ways.

I like the idea of people being free to choose how to live their lives, but also see that when people that use drugs make bad decisions then others have to pay. Many current laws restrict the rights of the individual for the public good and that makes a lot of sense to me. At the same time, I would like to see drugs decriminalized, but that’s because I think that criminalization causes more harm than good to both the individual and society.

Anyway, the thing that really makes no sense to me is the libertarian attitude toward welfare and other social programs. I can understand that they believe that people must pay the consequences for their actions, but if I am the child of an alcoholic or gambler, then why should I have to pay the consequences for their actions?

The philosophy has some good ideas but I don’t think that it is too well thought out and it does seem geared toward the middle-class and the rich that have already made it. It seems like an rationalization to not have to pay taxes.

I also find it absurd that the rich and middle-class consider themselves to be “responsible” when it is the case that that most of us got that way via the deeds and luck of our ancestors. You can’t claim to have done what you didn’t do.

However, despite all of that, I do think that the ideas upon modification could be useful.

25

Ugg. How do I get in these arguments?

I wrote a long diatribe but deleted it once I figured out that Phaedrus was not advocating th seizure of poor children, or the children of lazy parents (some rich people are lazy ya know) but the children of poor and lazy parents.

Oh how did my smile light up the room once I realized that no strawman did GCT make. For if I am discussing the poor, and Phaedrus is discussing the poor and lazy, then the two are related.

Alas, my joy did turn to shame and horror, for on this day did a Libertarian argue that one must Earn Income amount X to have children. (thats net income btw).

Suppose that I do not garner the needed wages… no little GCT’s for me. or if I do have some, perhaps Phaedrus will adopt them (and there will be plenty of em, I am one virile sumbitch).

Did not God say be fruitful and multiply? How can I be expected to uphold the tenets of my faith when the fruit of loins might very well be ripped from my arms and sent to the home of Phaedrus and his slinky little avatar?

My lord and God, The AllMighty Dollar, why hath thou forsaken me and the fruit of my loins? Does not liberty include the right to have children?

And my lord, God, The AllMighty Dollar answers “I SAY THEE NAY! Liberty ends at cost efficiency! Freedom is open to market forces! If thine oxen lie with thy neighbor’s wife, pluck it out! Pluck that sucker out! For I am the lord, thy God, The AllMighty Dollar and I command it so!”

Only if what you propose will allow me to continue to look in the mirror without flinching.

26

Geez, I don’t even need to post anymore- you put all the words in my mouth for me! :astonished: Good thing I don’t smoke- all the straw men you’re leaving on my lawn would be a terrible fire hazzard. :laughing:

No, there’s no income level needed to have kids. :unamused: But in my backwards, old fashioned way I expect that a parent will provide them with enough food to prevent death by malnutrition. Does that sound acceptable or is even that one expectation of care too restrictive? :wink:

As tired as I am of repeating this, I guess I’d better do so once more, because it doesn’t seem to be sinking in- the issue isn’t people who cannot provide for their or childrens needs, but rather those who could but prefer to let the state pick up the tab.

For the former poor souls, I propose free gruel all around, on me! And an extra bowl for Tiny Tim. For the slackers who’d prefer to live on the dole, I say time to wake up to the real world. Give the public the freedom to spend their money on things of their own choosing.

Defense and roads, defense and roads…that’s all taxes are for! :stuck_out_tongue:

27

Don’t you ever sleep, or are you up late worshiping our lord and God, the AllMighty Dollar?

I would like to point a few things because you keep dismissing as a fallacy something which is simply the logical conclusion to your own argument

Those who can but don’t, the result is the same, they are still poor. You agree? Check yes, no, maybe.

Would you qualify being poor as having an income of a certain level (far below that of the norm) Yes no maybe?

If being poor is having an income at or even below a certain level, and if lazy people who are do not work are poor and thus having an income at or below a certain level, then taking the children of those people would be taking the children of some parents who have an income at or below a certain level.

That would be a yes.

You know venn diagrams? Draw em up and tremble at the might of my logical skills!

Sorry I am being overly sarcastic, but your dismissive attitude and ever present defense hey thats a strawman is beginning to bother me. The only other people I can think of that I have seen use that as a defense here over and over are Aspacia and Doctor Satanical… which doesn’t mean anything except I will write here what I should have written to them the first time they uttered straw man straw man

Just because you don’t see the connection doesn’t mean a connection doesn’t exist, it simply means that you don’t see it.

I admit I did a piss poor job of trying to make my point, and that is entirely my fault, but if you are going to continue to accuse me of fallacious reasoning I am going to ask that you do so with some P’s and Q’s and little squiggly things.

This probably sounds more combative then what I mean, and I admit that I did equate the two, but simply because the two are fiscally equatable. Its like, I dunno, part of the definition of being poor that you will only have a certain amount of income.

When you argue that parents cannot provide for their children because they are poor, or whether you skip that and say well they are poor because they are lazy and qualify laziness as being grounds for removing children then understand that part and parcel of that friggin argument consists of said parents being poor. And if said parents are poor, then what you are saying is that they possess an income at or below a certain level.

Now the topic was government aid for the lazy and poor (if they weren’t lazy they would have jobs, and if they werent poor they wouldnt need government aid).

Do you agree that your argument can be summed up as…
Lazy people who only earn Income amount X or below should not have children.
Do you contend that lazy people who only earn income amount X or below should have as many kids as they want? I seriously did not infer that from your posts.

Now, if I have managed to straighten that up tell me how someone manages to be both a libertarian and can claim X people who only earn X should have their children taken by the state? (fill in the X’s with whatever you like).

28

[size=75][Hoe gaan did Undercover? Kannie hier kla nie. Alles voel weer normaal hier in London. Ek hou baie om Afrikaans te oefen waneer ek nog `n Suid Afrikaaner ontmoet.] [/size]

I think your willingness to work has a lot to do with how you were brought up (raised). your culture. In SA we didn’t have any other options but to educate ourselves - it’s a country where most people that I know personally either have their own businesses due to the political agenda to a large degree or are professionals in their fields - one has to be a professional to get a job out there. There is a creative spirit which I haven’t come across in all my travels anywhere. SA is small and young in comparison to other countries I have been to but there is a spirit that I have not yet encountered elsewhere. I don’t know how old you are but while I was growing up our country was affected by sanctions which isolated us from the rest of the world. We are part African part European…it’s a strange mix but it seems to work. Here in England South Africans have a reputation for being hard workers - this makes us highly employable. I’m not sure of the exact statistics but there are something like 500 thousand South Africans living and working in the UK. That is a huge amount people.

We’re culturally predisposed to work. Simple as that. I agree, scrap the community wage for those that are capable of working - for those that aren’t, community wage is important. In SA there are those who have not had a priveledged ‘white’ education, who grew up on farms or in townships. It is these people that need government support and benefits don’t you think?

A

29

This was more fun when you at least read my posts before you replied. :frowning:

30

Then stop using straw man tactics. :wink: Go back and actually read what I said. We’ll talk later.

31

Argg… That is it! The straw man that broke the camel’s back!

In Paragraph seven of subsection twenty three of section twleve of chapter thirty one of ILP posting guidelines it clearly states that any and all arguments must be convertable to some form of logic as a means of deciding the fallacious content of a post.

Bust out your P’s Q’s and little squiggly things and show me my fallacy (that sounded kinky).

Alas, you can’t, because you slyly accuse me of a rhetorical fallacy, not a logical one. Damn you and your dirty tricks!

I must take comfort in the fact that you do not mention that to not be able to earn X amount of income (for whatever reason, laziness, war injuries, abducted by aliens) means that one is poor (assuming one wasn’t rich to begin with). And that this means if you take the chidlren of lazy people who cannot afford certain things on their own because they do not possess income X, you are thus taking the children of poor people.

And you have yet to reply as to how one can be a Libertarian, yet think the state is justified in seizing children from families for reasons related to tax revenue.

Since you will not do these things, I hereby claim victory in the 2005 Pepsi “Should the Government take poor kids Debate”.

Now where is the cute bikini clad bimbo with fake breasts holding an oversized version of my check?

32

Hello F(r)iends,

I would wager that for every one kid you met in treatment that is bright I’ve met ten that are not in treatment and can’t wait to grow up to get welfare just like their mom and her ten sisters, brothers, cousins, and other trash… err family. Why even try in school if you are promised money anyways. In fact, education can get in the way. Baaaaaaahhh!

More bullshit excuses for the poor: they’re demoralized, they don’t know any better, they fear success, they aren’t lazy–society makes them that way, they are poor minorities that don’t have chances… bitch, exucuse, bitch, excuse, bitch and so on and so forth…

The state should provide for children of downtrodden homes; however, the parents should be left to fend for themselves.

Very true. How much simpler can this be put?

-Thirst4LessGovernment

33

By Ford, we agree on something!

That may be the difference between Libertarian and libertarian.

The party (big L) doesn’t always follow the philosophy.

This is the equal opportunity but not equal advantage concept. They think it is okay, and fail to see connection between severe disadvantage and crime; it seems to me to be a political philosophy more about the self than about what is best for society.

How can america function without a sizable number of poor workers? The Proles are poor by design.