5 ms·

You'd hope it was because you considered your country (and the world as a whole) a community where we all help each other out, and treat each other how we'd lik

by SCdF 12y ago

You'd hope it was because you considered your country (and the world as a whole) a community where we all help each other out, and treat each other how we'd like to be treated. The implication of "user pays" is that the rich live life basically as they always have (because costs of life events don't scale with your wage), and the poor are utterly fucked. You may believe it's selfish for new parents to demand time off. I believe it is selfish for people who are more fortunate than others to not contribute more tax and help lift those below them when they're in need.

the_ancient 12y ago
I believe both are selfish, I also do not believe it is any place for government to be involved. If an employer wants to have 1 day, or 365 days off that is up to them, that is part of your compensation package you should evaluate when you agree to take a job. Just like I believe it is a responsibility of those with money to help those with out. That does not translate in to supporting the use of government violence to forcing people to give up money, nor does that mean I support the creating of terribly inefficient government programs to manage, regulate, or dispense said benefits or money As to the topic at hand, if a private business owner desires to offer their employee time off for child bearing more power to them, it is not the business of government however to force that on said business owner.
- mikeash 12y ago
  It appears that a lot of people think it is the business of government to force that on business owners. I think you'd do better if you could justify your position instead of just flatly declaring it as if it were an objectively verifiable fact.
  - the_ancient 12y ago
    It is a combination of how people look at employment, and how people look at government Many(most) people have this entitlement mentality where by government, society, employers "owe them". Employment is simply you selling your labor to the highest bidder. Company X needs Y labor done for them, you have the ability to perform that labor so you agree to a wage where by said labor gets done. Nothing more. It is not a "family" you are not entitled to a job, or benefits of any type. As for government, the only function government has is to prevent aggressive actions against me and my property and to provide a peaceful method of conflict resolution (aka courts) It is not to inject itself in to the voluntary agreements of me and my employer, or anyone else.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Did you even read my comment? You just declared a bunch more stuff with no justification, as if you were reciting incontrovertible facts.
    - NateDad 12y ago
      The job of the government is to help us make our world a better place. If the job of government was just to resolve conflict, we'd have no roads, no bridges, no public education, we'd all be working 100 hour weeks for a pittance, and the world would be a really really awful place that none of us would like to live in. To think otherwise is just foolishness.
      - the_ancient 12y ago
        Ahh the classic "Who will build the roads" Fallacy To think government was the reason for any of things you site it ignorant is best. You really need to study history more.
        NateDad 12y ago
        History? Like the New Deal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
        splintercell 12y ago
        New Deal simply exacerbated the Great Depression instead of helping to fix it. Its like you give a patient poison and then when he gets more sick you say "You see how much you really needed my medicine". Lets say we do wanna study the effect of Government on Great Depression, what would be the falsifiability criteria for that?
- SCdF 12y ago
  I imagine we will never agree on this, as it sounds like our opinions could not differ more. To sum up with an example though: a few elections ago I voted for the political party who had stated that they would raise my taxes (in particular, the bracket I get paid in). I did so because I consider myself very fortunate to work in a clean ventilated office, and sit at a desk solving programming problems. I don't think it's because I'm hard working, or diligent, or anything like that. At least, no more so than the dude outside logging bags of concrete around I think it's because I was lucky enough to be brought up in a culture where I "fell" into this situation (pressured to do well in high school, brought up around computers with a passionate father, taught to program when I was 10, going to uni was a no-brainer and couldn't be any other way, etc). Other people aren't so lucky, and it would be height of hubris for me to think any other way. (edit: quick note: I live in NZ, not the US. My opinions aren't particular controversial here)
  - the_ancient 12y ago
    Allow me to sum up with a quote... "It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint." -- Penn Jillette
    - secabeen 12y ago
      The problem with this argument is that if we only relied on compassion, people who fit well into community norms would be taken care of, and those people who didn't would get lesser or no services.
      - NateDad 12y ago
        I think most people have no idea how much it costs to do half the things the government does, and so even if everyone was compassionate, they'd give far less money than is actually needed, even for the socially normal people.

by SCdF 12y ago

the_ancient 12y ago

I believe both are selfish, I also do not believe it is any place for government to be involved. If an employer wants to have 1 day, or 365 days off that is up to them, that is part of your compensation package you should evaluate when you agree to take a job. Just like I believe it is a responsibility of those with money to help those with out. That does not translate in to supporting the use of government violence to forcing people to give up money, nor does that mean I support the creating of terribly inefficient government programs to manage, regulate, or dispense said benefits or money As to the topic at hand, if a private business owner desires to offer their employee time off for child bearing more power to them, it is not the business of government however to force that on said business owner.

mikeash 12y ago
It appears that a lot of people think it is the business of government to force that on business owners. I think you'd do better if you could justify your position instead of just flatly declaring it as if it were an objectively verifiable fact.
- the_ancient 12y ago
  It is a combination of how people look at employment, and how people look at government Many(most) people have this entitlement mentality where by government, society, employers "owe them". Employment is simply you selling your labor to the highest bidder. Company X needs Y labor done for them, you have the ability to perform that labor so you agree to a wage where by said labor gets done. Nothing more. It is not a "family" you are not entitled to a job, or benefits of any type. As for government, the only function government has is to prevent aggressive actions against me and my property and to provide a peaceful method of conflict resolution (aka courts) It is not to inject itself in to the voluntary agreements of me and my employer, or anyone else.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Did you even read my comment? You just declared a bunch more stuff with no justification, as if you were reciting incontrovertible facts.
  - NateDad 12y ago
    The job of the government is to help us make our world a better place. If the job of government was just to resolve conflict, we'd have no roads, no bridges, no public education, we'd all be working 100 hour weeks for a pittance, and the world would be a really really awful place that none of us would like to live in. To think otherwise is just foolishness.
    - the_ancient 12y ago
      Ahh the classic "Who will build the roads" Fallacy To think government was the reason for any of things you site it ignorant is best. You really need to study history more.
      - NateDad 12y ago
        History? Like the New Deal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
        splintercell 12y ago
        New Deal simply exacerbated the Great Depression instead of helping to fix it. Its like you give a patient poison and then when he gets more sick you say "You see how much you really needed my medicine". Lets say we do wanna study the effect of Government on Great Depression, what would be the falsifiability criteria for that?
SCdF 12y ago
I imagine we will never agree on this, as it sounds like our opinions could not differ more. To sum up with an example though: a few elections ago I voted for the political party who had stated that they would raise my taxes (in particular, the bracket I get paid in). I did so because I consider myself very fortunate to work in a clean ventilated office, and sit at a desk solving programming problems. I don't think it's because I'm hard working, or diligent, or anything like that. At least, no more so than the dude outside logging bags of concrete around I think it's because I was lucky enough to be brought up in a culture where I "fell" into this situation (pressured to do well in high school, brought up around computers with a passionate father, taught to program when I was 10, going to uni was a no-brainer and couldn't be any other way, etc). Other people aren't so lucky, and it would be height of hubris for me to think any other way. (edit: quick note: I live in NZ, not the US. My opinions aren't particular controversial here)
- the_ancient 12y ago
  Allow me to sum up with a quote... "It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint." -- Penn Jillette
  - secabeen 12y ago
    The problem with this argument is that if we only relied on compassion, people who fit well into community norms would be taken care of, and those people who didn't would get lesser or no services.
    - NateDad 12y ago
      I think most people have no idea how much it costs to do half the things the government does, and so even if everyone was compassionate, they'd give far less money than is actually needed, even for the socially normal people.