7 ms·

> politicians get off for things magnitudes more illegal than what they've done, That indeed demands justice. > I think isn't a bad thing as long as the poore

> politicians get off for things magnitudes more illegal than what they've done, That indeed demands justice. > I think isn't a bad thing as long as the poorest among us have some basic level of livelihood. The problem is that in the US, that isn't true, and so, people clamor for justice. That is not a demand for justice, but charity. Words have a meaning, please don't misuse them.

halfteatree 9y ago
How is this charity? Isn't "the poorest among us have some basic level of livelihood" exactly justice, and exactly the job of a government? Please don't use this kind of argument to turn HN into reddit.
- grondilu 9y ago
  In my humble opinion, the job of the government is absolutely not to give money to the poorest people, not even to maintain a "basic level of livelyhood". I'm also fairly certain this has nothing to do with the concept of justice.
  - rco8786 9y ago
    What's so bad about needing help? And what's so bad about society helping it's neediest maintain a basic level of existence?
    - chii 9y ago
      Overwhelmingly large number of people in society are selfish. They say that social welfare is good, but when time comes to increase taxes to fund it, either they oppose, or build in clever loopholes to work around it (the rich do anyway). What's left is the middle to lower class getting the burden, and that causes them to also reject tax increases.
  - ZeroCool2u 9y ago
    Then what is the role of government, in your opinion?
    - andrepd 9y ago
      Probably anything that is needed to ensure and maintain his status, such as property laws and protection against bodily harm, and not any thing else.
  - halfteatree 9y ago
    Not believing in basic human rights isn't exactly what I would call a "humble" opinion. Words have meanings.
    - mitchty 9y ago
      You could argue rights as being in the welfare category. But in all reality this centers on first agreeing to basic definitions of terms. Words do have meanings, but the most frustrating thing about our "post truth" world is everyone wants to define words in a personal level. It makes any sort of debate or discussion next to impossible.
  - dagss 9y ago
    "Justice" means upholding laws? Most of the world has signed conventions that makes basic livelihood a right -- and puts it on the state to ensure this. Perhaps you don't agree with these laws and conventions. But please consider that the very concept of "ownership" and "property" is also something that is only upheld by laws. Also on a pragmatic level, why should those without property acknowledge and support a state which doesn't look out for their basic livelihood? A state that does not at least try to make sure everyone has a livelihood is a sure path to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well. You should turn around and ask: Why should people support the notion of property? Property is part of the social contract in much the same way that human rights (everyone having a livelihood) is part of the social contract.
    - grondilu 9y ago
      > to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well. Some problems for sure, but it's probably manageable. Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime. Rich people can build as many prisons as necessary.
      - halfteatree 9y ago
        That went pretty well in venezuela.
      - kelnos 9y ago
        How can you possibly believe that a society where a large percent of people are in prison is a healthy society?
        grondilu 9y ago
        If they committed crime, they should be in prison, regardless of how numerous they are.
        kelnos 9y ago
        How is that even remotely the point? If you have a huge prison population, your society is unhealthy. Full stop. Even if those people "deserve" to be in prison. If they do, that's the society's failing in successfully educating and raising people to be productive members of that society. It's rotten to the core.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    Ah then you must also believe that the government should not be giving money to corporations, and special breaks to the rich; breaks that make it so the poor have a harder time escaping poverty?? They do, because the laws are bought by the rich.
    - andrenth 9y ago
      The way to fix this is by design: to have a government small enough that buying it wouldn’t bring you advantages comparable to succeeding in the free market. Most people disagree with that and seem to think it’s possible to have angels from heaven running the government machine. The thing is that even if you manage that, it’s bound to go wrong at some future election.
      - SubiculumCode 9y ago
        The problem will always be that the profit motive is an engine that chews up the weak and the helpless, and as a moral society we want to limit these kind of behaviors, both by local gangs, and by massive corporations. Government is one way to do this. I agree that government should be more limited in some way. I think that the solution will be to empower local government, and the yoke the power of the federal fiat currency to local authority.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    Two things: it relieves me to see that you are in the minority with that kind of repellent thought. Second, I'm almost 100% sure that you would sing a very different tune if you had drawn the short stick in the birth lottery.
aylmao 9y ago
It's always disappointing to find people on the web who don't believe in basic human rights. Don't we all have the right to a basic level of livelihood? Why should the family I was born to determine wether I have clean water to drink or not, for example?
- grondilu 9y ago
  > Don't we all have the right to a basic level of livelihood? You have the right to it, but you're not entitled to it. To me, having the right to do something means you can't be prosecuted for doing it. It doesn't mean that society must help you.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    Then you're using "right" in a very different way from what we expect around here.
    - grondilu 9y ago
      It seems so. Regardless of our opinion about it, it'd be nice if people could agree on using two different terms for both concepts. https://fee.org/articles/rights-versus-entitlements/ https://fee.org/articles/rights-versus-entitlements/
      - kelnos 9y ago
        Maybe it would be, but it's generally considered folly to ignore community norms. Based on your response, clearly you know what people actually mean here, but it sounds like you're arguing out of some desire for pedantry, which is not something that goes over well here.
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    Ok, let's set aside for a moment your personal politics, since compassion is clearly not a concept you're likely to grasp right now. As a practical matter, what do you think happens to any society that suffers a class divide severe enough that (a) the majority of the citizenry ends up in the underclass and (b) being in the underclass sucks badly enough to really piss people off? Societies need to take care of their citizens and ensure they receive, if nothing else, fair treatment under law and approximately equal opportunity. Otherwise, you get behavior like this: https://youtu.be/HL45pVdsRvE?t=60 https://youtu.be/HL45pVdsRvE?t=60 What a lot of people on both sides don't seem to be getting is that Trump getting elected was an expression of bipartisan anger and frustration on the part of voters. Their anger and frustration may have created an even worse result, depending on whether you think Trump is going to ease or worsen inequality in this country, but guess what? Stupid things are exactly the result of festering anger and resentment. There are a bunch of folks out there -- maybe you're one of them, maybe not, I dunno -- who kind of wish for some kind of implosion of American society. They think they'll come out ahead, because they've got guns or they live in the middle of nowhere. But, they won't come out ahead, they'll lose. Everyone will lose. So you can pontificate about the ideological merits of extreme Libertarianism all you want, but in practice it works exactly as well as extreme socialism.

halfteatree 9y ago

How is this charity? Isn't "the poorest among us have some basic level of livelihood" exactly justice, and exactly the job of a government? Please don't use this kind of argument to turn HN into reddit.

grondilu 9y ago
In my humble opinion, the job of the government is absolutely not to give money to the poorest people, not even to maintain a "basic level of livelyhood". I'm also fairly certain this has nothing to do with the concept of justice.
- rco8786 9y ago
  What's so bad about needing help? And what's so bad about society helping it's neediest maintain a basic level of existence?
  - chii 9y ago
    Overwhelmingly large number of people in society are selfish. They say that social welfare is good, but when time comes to increase taxes to fund it, either they oppose, or build in clever loopholes to work around it (the rich do anyway). What's left is the middle to lower class getting the burden, and that causes them to also reject tax increases.
- ZeroCool2u 9y ago
  Then what is the role of government, in your opinion?
  - andrepd 9y ago
    Probably anything that is needed to ensure and maintain his status, such as property laws and protection against bodily harm, and not any thing else.
- halfteatree 9y ago
  Not believing in basic human rights isn't exactly what I would call a "humble" opinion. Words have meanings.
  - mitchty 9y ago
    You could argue rights as being in the welfare category. But in all reality this centers on first agreeing to basic definitions of terms. Words do have meanings, but the most frustrating thing about our "post truth" world is everyone wants to define words in a personal level. It makes any sort of debate or discussion next to impossible.
- dagss 9y ago
  "Justice" means upholding laws? Most of the world has signed conventions that makes basic livelihood a right -- and puts it on the state to ensure this. Perhaps you don't agree with these laws and conventions. But please consider that the very concept of "ownership" and "property" is also something that is only upheld by laws. Also on a pragmatic level, why should those without property acknowledge and support a state which doesn't look out for their basic livelihood? A state that does not at least try to make sure everyone has a livelihood is a sure path to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well. You should turn around and ask: Why should people support the notion of property? Property is part of the social contract in much the same way that human rights (everyone having a livelihood) is part of the social contract.
  - grondilu 9y ago
    > to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well. Some problems for sure, but it's probably manageable. Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime. Rich people can build as many prisons as necessary.
    - halfteatree 9y ago
      That went pretty well in venezuela.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      How can you possibly believe that a society where a large percent of people are in prison is a healthy society?
      - grondilu 9y ago
        If they committed crime, they should be in prison, regardless of how numerous they are.
        kelnos 9y ago
        How is that even remotely the point? If you have a huge prison population, your society is unhealthy. Full stop. Even if those people "deserve" to be in prison. If they do, that's the society's failing in successfully educating and raising people to be productive members of that society. It's rotten to the core.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  Ah then you must also believe that the government should not be giving money to corporations, and special breaks to the rich; breaks that make it so the poor have a harder time escaping poverty?? They do, because the laws are bought by the rich.
  - andrenth 9y ago
    The way to fix this is by design: to have a government small enough that buying it wouldn’t bring you advantages comparable to succeeding in the free market. Most people disagree with that and seem to think it’s possible to have angels from heaven running the government machine. The thing is that even if you manage that, it’s bound to go wrong at some future election.
    - SubiculumCode 9y ago
      The problem will always be that the profit motive is an engine that chews up the weak and the helpless, and as a moral society we want to limit these kind of behaviors, both by local gangs, and by massive corporations. Government is one way to do this. I agree that government should be more limited in some way. I think that the solution will be to empower local government, and the yoke the power of the federal fiat currency to local authority.
- andrepd 9y ago
  Two things: it relieves me to see that you are in the minority with that kind of repellent thought. Second, I'm almost 100% sure that you would sing a very different tune if you had drawn the short stick in the birth lottery.

aylmao 9y ago

It's always disappointing to find people on the web who don't believe in basic human rights. Don't we all have the right to a basic level of livelihood? Why should the family I was born to determine wether I have clean water to drink or not, for example?

grondilu 9y ago
> Don't we all have the right to a basic level of livelihood? You have the right to it, but you're not entitled to it. To me, having the right to do something means you can't be prosecuted for doing it. It doesn't mean that society must help you.
- kelnos 9y ago
  Then you're using "right" in a very different way from what we expect around here.
  - grondilu 9y ago
    It seems so. Regardless of our opinion about it, it'd be nice if people could agree on using two different terms for both concepts. https://fee.org/articles/rights-versus-entitlements/ https://fee.org/articles/rights-versus-entitlements/
    - kelnos 9y ago
      Maybe it would be, but it's generally considered folly to ignore community norms. Based on your response, clearly you know what people actually mean here, but it sounds like you're arguing out of some desire for pedantry, which is not something that goes over well here.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  Ok, let's set aside for a moment your personal politics, since compassion is clearly not a concept you're likely to grasp right now. As a practical matter, what do you think happens to any society that suffers a class divide severe enough that (a) the majority of the citizenry ends up in the underclass and (b) being in the underclass sucks badly enough to really piss people off? Societies need to take care of their citizens and ensure they receive, if nothing else, fair treatment under law and approximately equal opportunity. Otherwise, you get behavior like this: https://youtu.be/HL45pVdsRvE?t=60 https://youtu.be/HL45pVdsRvE?t=60 What a lot of people on both sides don't seem to be getting is that Trump getting elected was an expression of bipartisan anger and frustration on the part of voters. Their anger and frustration may have created an even worse result, depending on whether you think Trump is going to ease or worsen inequality in this country, but guess what? Stupid things are exactly the result of festering anger and resentment. There are a bunch of folks out there -- maybe you're one of them, maybe not, I dunno -- who kind of wish for some kind of implosion of American society. They think they'll come out ahead, because they've got guns or they live in the middle of nowhere. But, they won't come out ahead, they'll lose. Everyone will lose. So you can pontificate about the ideological merits of extreme Libertarianism all you want, but in practice it works exactly as well as extreme socialism.