4 ms·

Still, crux_ is playing the straw man, and it's risky to legitimise such comments. He is twisting his parent through bad interpretation to be a comment about wh

by cturner 19y ago

Still, crux_ is playing the straw man, and it's risky to legitimise such comments. He is twisting his parent through bad interpretation to be a comment about what people 'deserve', and then develops this theme. So let me attempt to deal with that idea of 'deserving'. What people 'deserve' is arbitrary, and extremely position sensitive. For instance - what if you were to phrase the education issue in terms of "if somebody works part time and wants to pay to attend university to do extra subjects that are not provided under government university sponsorship, do they deserve to be allowed to do so?" Or "if somebody works hard and drives an old bomb of a car in order to save money to pay for a particular education for their children, do they deserve to be allowed to make that choice?" Or, "if somebody wants to spend five years sitting around smoking marijuana and collecting government benefits while failing to make any progress on the degree they're supposed to be doing, do they deserve government funding for this, when the opportunity cost for that choice hits poor people who have no interest in a university education but who can't get jobs due to the correspondingly higher levels of taxation required to fund such university places?" The idea of what people 'deserve' is completely arbitrary. Ideas like 'deserve' and 'fairness' don't belong in public policy, except in reference to: * direct application of the rule of law * formation and honouring of private contracts * ownership of private property (and that excludes anti-rights that are often mislabeled as property, such as "copyright") These rules extend from the idea that you should be allowed to do what you like so long as you are not impinging on your neighbour. As 'mynameishere' says in the existing reply to this comment, the only way to guarantee other equality on other levels is to force some individuals to give up something for the benefit of expense of others. And one of the side-effects of that sort of thinking is policy that acts against even the common interest. If you ban private schools so that everyone can be equal, that means people who would have put extra money into education (creating spaces in private schools and thereby removing demand form the public sector) instead spend it on improvements to their house or funding a more luxurious lifestyle. People who to improve education standards for poor people by abolishing private education need to think harder. And people who want to make everyone equal regardless of relative outcome need to have a look at Cambodia. I'd like to return to another part of mynameishere's previous comment: "We want to pay right-thinking, liberal arts majors middle class salaries for them to administer money distributions from functional people to dysfunctional people". Governments tend to grow in a way that gives more work and power to the decision makers. This process is the enemy of individual freedom, and - as a general measure - fails on a utilitarian basis, also. If they don't have unambiguous facts to support what they're doing then they need to be blocked.

crux_ 19y ago
I agree that I was exaggerating things somewhat with usage of "deserve". But that is rather inessential to the core of my argument, which isn't so much about fairness or even public policy: If it is wrong to force some individuals to give up opportunities and wealth in order to benefit others; is it not then also wrong for a child to be equally or more deprived by the circumstances of their birth? The two are not identical but they have enough in common to make it a very valid question. Rephrased: An irresponsible parent is stealing their child's future away, just as the state might steal from you to pay for their meals. It is easy to agree that both are wrong... but I think it will take some fancy dancing to justify the second as wrong while the first is okay. Both yourself and mynameishere have made the same leap of judgment to condemn one possible solution (widely applied), but that's missing the point: either deprivation due to circumstances of birth is wrong or it is not -- regardless of whether the possible solution of wealth distribution might be itself wrong. I don't have a problem with debating these solutions -- I find estate taxes an elegant compromise, for example -- but what I do have a problem with is those who pretend that poverty & inequality as it exists today is a just part of the natural order and praise that all is as it ought to be: That is self-justifying sanctimonious BS of the first order.
- cturner 19y ago
  If it is wrong to force some individuals to give up opportunities and wealth in order to benefit others; is it not then also wrong for a child to be equally or more deprived by the circumstances of their birth? In the situation of the former, an individual has had something and then that has been taken away from them. In the situation of the latter, it is a case of the child having not had something given to them that you judge to be fundamental. The word 'deprived' is interesting. "Lacking in advantage, opportunity or experience." The child is deprived because they have not been given one of those three things. Thus, these scenarios do not correspond. The two are not identical but they have enough in common to make it a very valid question. They're fundamentally different. The uncomfortable feeling you got that caused you to write the above sentence might have been used to better effect. An irresponsible parent is stealing their child's future away You're deliberately being sloppy with the language to further a broken conclusion. Stealing implies property that has been taken away. That's not what's happening here. The dancing is all yours, and this is the second post in a row where. Semantic tricks do not thrust an argument beyond logical barriers. either deprivation due to circumstances of birth is wrong or it is not -- regardless of whether the possible solution of wealth distribution might be itself wrong I don't have a problem with debating these solutions -- I find estate taxes an elegant compromise No. It is not your place to steal from people, nor to get the government to do it on your behalf and then pretend it's any different. That is self-justifying sanctimonious BS of the first order. It's very easy to throw nasty names around. Your frustration at seeing potential gain go to waste (the child) and consequential suffering on the part of that person is clear. Please - try to see where I'm coming from. I want a situation where as many people get good education, health care and moral guidance. However, government is a mechanism that is both poor and dangerous when it is given charge of these things. Poor because it is not subject to the brutal honesty of market forces to keep it in check, and dangerous because it uses every bit of power that it is granted to (in some measure) line the pockets of the people involved in its running and self-perpetuate at the expense of our freedoms. Government creates dependance on itself, steals our liberty, and poisons minds such that when good people identify a problem they wrong assume that it's the government's responsibility to fix it rather than their own. It's not. If you want to improve the lot of a particular grouping of people, then there are things you can do like finding ways to sponsor people, finding charities that actually make a difference in things and supporting them, or getting involved in things that make a difference yourself. But actually, in order to do good you don't even need to go that far. If we go out into the world, be effective in our careers, have a family and raise them well enough that we are improving on the contribution of ourselves and our spouses, that will actually make a positive difference because we'll be growing a better next generation and creating opportunities for others through our economic activity. Powerful government is the enemy. It is wasteful, inherently corrupt and hampers the ability of honest people to do what I describe in the above paragraph.

by cturner 19y ago

crux_ 19y ago

I agree that I was exaggerating things somewhat with usage of "deserve". But that is rather inessential to the core of my argument, which isn't so much about fairness or even public policy: If it is wrong to force some individuals to give up opportunities and wealth in order to benefit others; is it not then also wrong for a child to be equally or more deprived by the circumstances of their birth? The two are not identical but they have enough in common to make it a very valid question. Rephrased: An irresponsible parent is stealing their child's future away, just as the state might steal from you to pay for their meals. It is easy to agree that both are wrong... but I think it will take some fancy dancing to justify the second as wrong while the first is okay. Both yourself and mynameishere have made the same leap of judgment to condemn one possible solution (widely applied), but that's missing the point: either deprivation due to circumstances of birth is wrong or it is not -- regardless of whether the possible solution of wealth distribution might be itself wrong. I don't have a problem with debating these solutions -- I find estate taxes an elegant compromise, for example -- but what I do have a problem with is those who pretend that poverty & inequality as it exists today is a just part of the natural order and praise that all is as it ought to be: That is self-justifying sanctimonious BS of the first order.

cturner 19y ago
If it is wrong to force some individuals to give up opportunities and wealth in order to benefit others; is it not then also wrong for a child to be equally or more deprived by the circumstances of their birth? In the situation of the former, an individual has had something and then that has been taken away from them. In the situation of the latter, it is a case of the child having not had something given to them that you judge to be fundamental. The word 'deprived' is interesting. "Lacking in advantage, opportunity or experience." The child is deprived because they have not been given one of those three things. Thus, these scenarios do not correspond. The two are not identical but they have enough in common to make it a very valid question. They're fundamentally different. The uncomfortable feeling you got that caused you to write the above sentence might have been used to better effect. An irresponsible parent is stealing their child's future away You're deliberately being sloppy with the language to further a broken conclusion. Stealing implies property that has been taken away. That's not what's happening here. The dancing is all yours, and this is the second post in a row where. Semantic tricks do not thrust an argument beyond logical barriers. either deprivation due to circumstances of birth is wrong or it is not -- regardless of whether the possible solution of wealth distribution might be itself wrong I don't have a problem with debating these solutions -- I find estate taxes an elegant compromise No. It is not your place to steal from people, nor to get the government to do it on your behalf and then pretend it's any different. That is self-justifying sanctimonious BS of the first order. It's very easy to throw nasty names around. Your frustration at seeing potential gain go to waste (the child) and consequential suffering on the part of that person is clear. Please - try to see where I'm coming from. I want a situation where as many people get good education, health care and moral guidance. However, government is a mechanism that is both poor and dangerous when it is given charge of these things. Poor because it is not subject to the brutal honesty of market forces to keep it in check, and dangerous because it uses every bit of power that it is granted to (in some measure) line the pockets of the people involved in its running and self-perpetuate at the expense of our freedoms. Government creates dependance on itself, steals our liberty, and poisons minds such that when good people identify a problem they wrong assume that it's the government's responsibility to fix it rather than their own. It's not. If you want to improve the lot of a particular grouping of people, then there are things you can do like finding ways to sponsor people, finding charities that actually make a difference in things and supporting them, or getting involved in things that make a difference yourself. But actually, in order to do good you don't even need to go that far. If we go out into the world, be effective in our careers, have a family and raise them well enough that we are improving on the contribution of ourselves and our spouses, that will actually make a positive difference because we'll be growing a better next generation and creating opportunities for others through our economic activity. Powerful government is the enemy. It is wasteful, inherently corrupt and hampers the ability of honest people to do what I describe in the above paragraph.