NationStates Jolt Archive

I may tend to disagree with some people about certain issues, but with most people I can find some common ground to work from. However, I have to admit that there is one particular world view that I find truly repugnant, and I will go as far as to admit that I tend to hold a bias against those that favour this world view. I'm not sure if it is my culture, my upbringing, or something else, but this philosophy, while I can sort of understand it, nonetheless is abhorrent to me. I try to overcome this bias, however, and this thread is an attempt to aid me in this endeavour.

I'm speaking of the belief in absolute individualism. The idea that each person rises and falls on their own merits, and nothing more. The idea that we are not responsible whatsoever for what happens to another human being, and therefore have no obligation to care for or aid others. That doesn't mean people who believe this DON'T help others...but they simply don't think that they should be FORCED to in any way, via taxes, government programs etc.

Now, intellectually I understand this stand. However, I have to question it. Humans are social creatures. We form social unions, our societies are based on a certain give and take. We enter into these social contracts, and we always have...there must be a reason for it. Ay...I'm not explaining myself well. I'm not just talking about less government control (which I'm actually for)...more the idea that suffering is the FAULT of those who suffer, and damn the other factors. Are some people only capable of caring for immediate friends and family? Are people truly indifferent to the rest of humanity?

Anyway, no doubt your questions will help me clarify my point (where is it again?) or your own position....

The question is, am I responsible to uphold a social contract (or part of one) that another person may assume I'm responsible for, but I do not.

I believe that I have a social contract with others, but its scope and definition may not be what you wish it was.

I think that no one is an absolute individualist, unless they're psychotic.

The question is, am I responsible to uphold a social contract (or part of one) that another person may assume I'm responsible for, but I do not.

I believe that I have a social contract with others, but its scope and definition may not be what you wish it was.

I think that no one is an absolute individualist, unless they're psychotic.
So...more like a limited individualist? Caring for family and friends...but not for strangers?

I agree that we don't necessarily have a choice on the onset about what kind of social contract we are entered into upon our birth. The terms may not be to our liking. I understand wanting to change them...I have that desire as well.

I guess the root of it is a particular belief about others, and our relationship to them. My fundamental belief (again, I admit this is very much influenced by my particular background) is that as much as is possible, we should try to ensure that ALL humans are able to live with dignity. To me, that means ensuring human rights are recognised and upheld. In my mind, the purely capitalist system is incapable of meeting some of these fundamental human rights. So is the purely communist/socialist system. Which is why I favour more of a blend of the two.

Anyway...how would you define your social contract with others?

I may tend to disagree with some people about certain issues, but with most people I can find some common ground to work from. However, I have to admit that there is one particular world view that I find truly repugnant, and I will go as far as to admit that I tend to hold a bias against those that favour this world view. I'm not sure if it is my culture, my upbringing, or something else, but this philosophy, while I can sort of understand it, nonetheless is abhorrent to me. I try to overcome this bias, however, and this thread is an attempt to aid me in this endeavour.

I'm speaking of the belief in absolute individualism. The idea that each person rises and falls on their own merits, and nothing more. The idea that we are not responsible whatsoever for what happens to another human being, and therefore have no obligation to care for or aid others. That doesn't mean people who believe this DON'T help others...but they simply don't think that they should be FORCED to in any way, via taxes, government programs etc.

Now, intellectually I understand this stand. However, I have to question it. Humans are social creatures. We form social unions, our societies are based on a certain give and take. We enter into these social contracts, and we always have...there must be a reason for it. Ay...I'm not explaining myself well. I'm not just talking about less government control (which I'm actually for)...more the idea that suffering is the FAULT of those who suffer, and damn the other factors. Are some people only capable of caring for immediate friends and family? Are people truly indifferent to the rest of humanity?

Anyway, no doubt your questions will help me clarify my point (where is it again?) or your own position....
Ooh! They've absconded with another word and turned it into an "-ism".

I am not a person who believes that I don't owe something to *counts on fingers* 1. mum and dad, for my life, 2. humanity, for the society in which I live, 3. the Earth, for a home, and 4. future generations. Only the last is truely a responsibility. Responsibility implies an accountability for your actions to those you are responsible for; someone who will look back and judge that what you did was reasonable and worthwhile in terms of caring for them. So, the question becomes, Why should people place themselves in a position of being accountable to others here and now? The only answer I have is kindness/compassion, and I've found that doesn't work for everyone.

I only have responsibility for me, but I don't end where my skin does.

So...more like a limited individualist? Caring for family and friends...but not for strangers?


No, I also have limited obligations to strangers. But while some may assume that this implies a full obligation to all strangers, I do not.

For instance:

I feel I have more of an obligation to the children of strangers than I have to adult strangers.

I feel I have more of an obligation to strangers in areas where I can actually be of some real help - I am not a believer that throwing money at someone (whether into an open hand or into a social program) is of any long-term benefit.

I would, however, risk my life to stop an innocent person from being assaulted. And I would, if necessary, kill someone who was assaulting an innocent person.

My perception of the social contract is not the same as yours - but most people's perception of the social contract is not completely identical to anyone else's.

Ooh! They've absconded with another word and turned it into an "-ism". Not they. Me:)

I am not a person who believes that I don't owe something to *counts on fingers* 1. mum and dad, for my life, 2. humanity, for the society in which I live, 3. the Earth, for a home, and 4. future generations. Only the last is truely a responsibility. Responsibility implies an accountability for your actions to those you are responsible for; someone who will look back and judge that what you did was reasonable and worthwhile in terms of caring for them. So, the question becomes, Why should people place themselves in a position of being accountable to others here and now? The only answer I have is kindness/compassion, and I've found that doesn't work for everyone.

I like your definition of responsibility as accountability. And you've put your finger on what I wasn't able to express. I realise that with so many problems in the world, it can seem impossible to affect any real change right now...and for the most part, that's absolutely correct. It is the long run that we should be considering...which is why I detest the way politicians in particular seem so incredibly short-sighted about things...they seem to have about a 4 year tunnel vision...and what the hell can you REALLY accomplish in 4 years?

Anyway.

Down to the seventh generation...I try as much as I can to consider how I can help shape a better world for my future descendants. I certainly don't want to leave them with a world in even worse shape than it is now...

Yet that does not preclude me from being compassionate NOW, knowing that this may have repercussions that outlive me...

I may tend to disagree with some people about certain issues, but with most people I can find some common ground to work from. However, I have to admit that there is one particular world view that I find truly repugnant, and I will go as far as to admit that I tend to hold a bias against those that favour this world view. I'm not sure if it is my culture, my upbringing, or something else, but this philosophy, while I can sort of understand it, nonetheless is abhorrent to me. I try to overcome this bias, however, and this thread is an attempt to aid me in this endeavour.

I'm speaking of the belief in absolute individualism. The idea that each person rises and falls on their own merits, and nothing more. The idea that we are not responsible whatsoever for what happens to another human being, and therefore have no obligation to care for or aid others. That doesn't mean people who believe this DON'T help others...but they simply don't think that they should be FORCED to in any way, via taxes, government programs etc.

Now, intellectually I understand this stand. However, I have to question it. Humans are social creatures. We form social unions, our societies are based on a certain give and take. We enter into these social contracts, and we always have...there must be a reason for it. Ay...I'm not explaining myself well. I'm not just talking about less government control (which I'm actually for)...more the idea that suffering is the FAULT of those who suffer, and damn the other factors. Are some people only capable of caring for immediate friends and family? Are people truly indifferent to the rest of humanity?

Anyway, no doubt your questions will help me clarify my point (where is it again?) or your own position....
don't worry, you're not the only one. i find this view utterly repugnant as well.
i believe by our very existance we have a social responsibility to others, and this extends not only to those immediatley around us, thus affecting interpersonal behaviour (why i am a subscriber, at least in part, to Kantian Ethics), but also accross (abstract) national boundaries to everyone in the world. this responsibility to others is actually stronger than the responsibility to the self in my eyes, simply because there are more 'others' than the single 'self', and greater good of all will outweigh singular good for the individual (yeah a bit of utilitarianism creeping in there ;))

the problem comes in actually acting on this social responsibility - but just recognising it is important in itself


hence one of the campaign posters i made during the NS election http://www.hlj.me.uk/udcp/banners/UDCP%205.jpg



edit: and one of the things i particularly hate is when people say that poor people 'choose' to be poor. much as these people would love to believe the world IS (edit: mistakenly wrote isn't before) a pure meritocracy, it is twisted and corrupt by those already in power, and the world doesn't provide an equal starting point, an equality of opportunity - inequality is everywhere and works against this idea of meritocracy.
so how to make the world more fair, more free and more of a real meritocracy? reduce inequality.
...communism anyone? (as an extreme of course)

I only have responsibility for me, but I don't end where my skin does.
Oooh...interesting....so where do YOU end?

No, I also have limited obligations to strangers. But while some may assume that this implies a full obligation to all strangers, I do not.

For instance:

I feel I have more of an obligation to the children of strangers than I have to adult strangers. Agreed.

I feel I have more of an obligation to strangers in areas where I can actually be of some real help - I am not a believer that throwing money at someone (whether into an open hand or into a social program) is of any long-term benefit. Also agreed.

I would, however, risk my life to stop an innocent person from being assaulted. And I would, if necessary, kill someone who was assaulting an innocent person.

My perception of the social contract is not the same as yours - but most people's perception of the social contract is not completely identical to anyone else's.
Well aside from the killing someone thing...although unless it was totally unavoidable, and my own death wouldn't do the same thing...I think we share much of the same philosophy. The difference, I feel, is probably in our ideas about how best to go about implementing this philosophy.

I have a responsibility to myself FIRST.

I have a responsibility to my family/friends TIED FOR SECOND.

I have a responsibility to my society/nation/culture/religion TIED FOR THIRD.

I have a dim responsibility to the human race as a whole AT A DISTANT FOURTH.

"dim responsibility" means, "don't kill the planet with a giant neutron bomb, commit genocide on an entire race, turn off the sun or somesuch silly thing..."

While I beg the author of this thread to go watch Team America: World Police, especially the "big speech" at the very end for a more thorough response from me, I must also say the following:

Most people think I owe them more things than I do.

Most people are ammoral and will take advantage of me if I let them. They need to help themselves FIRST. Then go to family/friends. Then to their culture/nation/society religion. And appeal to others as fellow humans only as a last resort.

We do share this planet, but I'm ultimately not responsible for making other people's decisions, so I'll be damned if I suffer the consequences when they screw up and can't handle it.

Which pretty much sums up most Welfare programs and lots of liberal social ideals.

edit: and one of the things i particularly hate is when people say that poor people 'choose' to be poor. much as these people would love to believe the world isn't a pure meritocracy, it is twisted and corrupt by those already in power, and the world doesn't provide an equal starting point, an equality of opportunity - inequality is everywhere and works against this idea of meritocracy.

This is exactly what bothers me most. The way that blame is attached to all who 'fail', and yet these same people turn around and pat themselves on the back for their 'success', completely refusing to admit that they did not begin from the same starting point as the other. Like people who blame the poor for having children, and 'not being able to afford them'. Not only is there a value judgment there about what level of economic wealth a child should be raised in, in order to avoid being 'deprived', but there is the idea that whatever circumstances surrounded these people are entirely their fault. The whole, 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps because so and so did...' is ridiculous. The situations are rarely identical...but it's an easy way to avoid giving a shit.

Most people are ammoral and will take advantage of me if I let them. They need to help themselves FIRST. Then go to family/friends. Then to their culture/nation/society religion. And appeal to others as fellow humans only as a last resort.

in my experience it is other people doing precisely this and 'putting themselves first' that leads to others being 'ammoral' and trying to take advantage of people.

if most individuals put other people ahead of themselves, surely they wouldn't be trying to take advantage of others to further their own goals?


your statement above is totally illogical to me.


in my eyes we have a universal and equal responisbility to everyone, regardless of "national" or "cultural" boundaries (which are wholly arbitary anyway imo), and if more people adopted putting others ahead of the self, the world would be a better & less selfish place (logicaly by extention, too).

i try and do this myself, but i'm not very good at it to be honest :(
but at least i try. as Gandhi said, "if you wish change, you must BE that change"

We do share this planet, but I'm ultimately not responsible for making other people's decisions, so I'll be damned if I suffer the consequences when they screw up and can't handle it.

Which pretty much sums up most Welfare programs and lots of liberal social ideals.

To be realistic, none of us can be truly responsible for the decisions of anyone but ourselves.

However, this is not the same thing as having no responsibility for where others end up. People do not decide to be born into poverty, into abuse, into a lack of opportunity. Nor more than others can choose to be born into privilege. People often say, I am not responsible for the sins of my fathers...meaning that abuses committed in the past are not our fault. Yet these same people will turn around and hold other responsible for the sins of THEIR fathers...look...that poor couple CHOSE to have children even though they couldn't 'afford' it...tsk, tsk...they should have waited....I'm not responsible for someone else's children....look at the mess those people have made of their country...that's their own fault (despite the fact that just like you, the people being born into that situation are no more responsible for their nation's instability that YOU are for your nations stability)...

I'm speaking of the belief in absolute individualism. The idea that each person rises and falls on their own merits, and nothing more. The idea that we are not responsible whatsoever for what happens to another human being, and therefore have no obligation to care for or aid others. That doesn't mean people who believe this DON'T help others...but they simply don't think that they should be FORCED to in any way, via taxes, government programs etc.

Humans are social creatures. We form social unions, our societies are based on a certain give and take. We enter into these social contracts, and we always have...there must be a reason for it.


I truly to believe in what you call absolute individualism.

I would like to try and represent it a little better.

People really are responsible for themselves in this world. No one should have to help another person. I'm not talking bout indifference to a persons plight, I'm talking about the choice you can have as a person. I don't believe there is anything in the world that states I have entered into a social contract with anyone or any society. It is my choice to coexist with others, and therefore I am not obligated to anything. I never signed a piece of paper saying I must love and care for my fellow people.

Now, because I recognize that it is my choice, I gladly help people when needed. If it wasn't my choice, I would probably still help, but the effect of that help would be lessened due to it being an expected behavior. When someone goes out of their way to help another, it is a special event. How many people stop and think of the people who are out there cleaning up our highways and parks for free? They are performing a public service because they want to. It means something to them individually to be able to help. But they are equally free not to do it.

After spending a few years with the homeless and jobless, I found even in the depths of poverty and what people consider hitting rock-bottom, there is disparity in what people want. Some of my homeless friends wanted to get better. They wanted an opportunity to work. They wanted to be able to pay their meal ticket, and be in a position where they could give back to society what others have helped them with.

Yet there were others that were pefectly happy with where they were at. And as beautiful as that thought is, they were living off the expectation that other more generous people were going to help them. They didn't care whether society was indebted to them or not, because they were going to exploit others no matter what. No one is obligated to give them money, but they do by choice, and these people took advantage of that.

Like the freedoms America is based off of, you're free to help, or free to sit on your ass. I think society does form bonds and contracts within itself. It is still the power of the individual to decide whether or not they want to be a part of that society.

I believe that everyone has a responsibility to everyone else. It's all very well to say "people should help themselves" - how? I live in Britain and before the Welfare State was brought in, the consequences of pure capitalism on the people were dire.

How can you believe that people are stuck in poverty through their own fault?

It always bemuses me that the "religious right" are against societal responsibility to other humans, as that's a central tenet of Christianity…
…but I digress. All individuals have responsibility to others, unless you're going to argue that the situation that someone's born into is their responsibility.

I have a responsibility to myself FIRST.

I have a responsibility to my family/friends TIED FOR SECOND.

I have a responsibility to my society/nation/culture/religion TIED FOR THIRD.

I have a dim responsibility to the human race as a whole AT A DISTANT FOURTH.


I have a responsibility to my family FIRST
I have a responsibility to my society/nation/culture/religion TIED FOR SECOND
I have a responsibility to myself THIRD
I have a responsibility to the human race as a whole FOURTH. (this one is debatably higher on the list)

reasons? well, my family is the one I have the most immediate influence over and is my greatest responsibilty, for in raising a good family I increase the good in the society.

Next, society, If it is not safe, then my family will not be safe or happy. I must try to make my society a better place.

Third, Me. If those things are taken care of I will be happy and taken care of.

The human race is also my responsibility because we are all interconnected and in order to maximize my happiness is to maximize all happiness.

*snip*

Like the freedoms America is based off of, you're free to help, or free to sit on your ass. I think society does form bonds and contracts within itself. It is still the power of the individual to decide whether or not they want to be a part of that society.

The sentence in bold is what I question the most.

You can not decide to NOT be part of society unless you leave it. You can not pick and choose what benefits you will receive, and what benefits will not be received by others. Just as our tax dollars go to welfare programs, so do they go to maintaining infrastructure, education, and a myriad of other things you access every day. So, you want to be 'in' when it comes to things you consider useful, and use, but you want to drop 'out' when it comes to things you don't like. Like it or not, remaining in the country in which you were born puts your signature on the bottom of that invisible contract. It is a contract of compromise. It has to be, otherwise the very fabric of your society would tear. We can't please everyone...it's a bit trite, but a truism nonetheless. The goal is to meet the needs of the most people possible.

This is exactly what bothers me most. The way that blame is attached to all who 'fail', and yet these same people turn around and pat themselves on the back for their 'success', completely refusing to admit that they did not begin from the same starting point as the other. Like people who blame the poor for having children, and 'not being able to afford them'. Not only is there a value judgment there about what level of economic wealth a child should be raised in, in order to avoid being 'deprived', but there is the idea that whatever circumstances surrounded these people are entirely their fault. The whole, 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps because so and so did...' is ridiculous. The situations are rarely identical...but it's an easy way to avoid giving a shit.
precisely. i mean, to be fair, it does carry some weight within a nation where most of the population is within a similar starting point on life - some people who do have opportunities to do well, especially due to the welfare state providing education and healthcare (in the UK at least), but are too lazy not to do so (like myself :() can be 'blamed' in this way to an extent. only to an extent though as life opportunities are still definatley not equal..
but it is far less equal in the 3rd world, and the thinking especially fails when you consider the starving and poverty ridden millions in Africa, for example.

in one of the debates during election campaign i said "a child dies from poverty related problems, in the world, every three seconds" (The End Of Poverty, Jeffery Sachs) and in the arguement that ensued i added that people were dying in Africa because they cannot afford the medicines which would cure them or keep them alive. i almost couldn't believe it when the response i got from one poster (forget who) was that these people CHOOSE not to take the medicines and CHOOSE to die. they have no choice because they cannot AFFORD the medicines, and the self-interested drugs companies, the majority of whom evidently do not have a clue regarding social responsibility, effectively sign the death warrants of millions of people a year... and for what? profit? so their exectutives can have a bigger house, nicer car and a pool in their garden? so they can send their child to an expensive school to get a HEAD START in life? this is both morally unfair & reprehensible, and is the very thing that causes meritocracy to be destroyed - even if sending your child to a better school is not in itself a bad thing.
and to avoid the flames i'll get for saying that, i'm not advocating that all schools be as bad as each other or anything on that side of the arguement, but am saying that the 3rd world needs to be bought UP to our standard.

I feel a responsibility only to myself and my family, though I do donate to charitable organizations often and do care for the poor. However, I vehemently oppose social welfare. Welfare is to charity what rape is to sex.

However, I vehemently oppose social welfare. Welfare is to charity what rape is to sex.
So, tax is harassment, then?

I feel a responsibility only to myself and my family, though I do donate to charitable organizations often and do care for the poor. However, I vehemently oppose social welfare. Welfare is to charity what rape is to sex.
Do you include education and healthcare in the 'social welfare' concept? If not...what PARTICULAR 'welfare' programs do you oppose? (I'm asking, because many people, not necessarily you, have very little understanding of what 'welfare' entails, or consider it to be any government program that helps others...)

<Snip, post #1>

I agree completely... but then why on earth did you vote NS Classic Liberals?? :(

So, tax is harassment, then?
Yes...we want to be able to keep the government programs that benefit us, and ditch the ones that don't.

Sorry...my sarcasm is hard to contain...I'm not pointing this particular finger at anyone specific!

I may tend to disagree with some people about certain issues, but with most people I can find some common ground to work from. However, I have to admit that there is one particular world view that I find truly repugnant, and I will go as far as to admit that I tend to hold a bias against those that favour this world view. I'm not sure if it is my culture, my upbringing, or something else, but this philosophy, while I can sort of understand it, nonetheless is abhorrent to me. I try to overcome this bias, however, and this thread is an attempt to aid me in this endeavour.

I'm speaking of the belief in absolute individualism. The idea that each person rises and falls on their own merits, and nothing more. The idea that we are not responsible whatsoever for what happens to another human being, and therefore have no obligation to care for or aid others. That doesn't mean people who believe this DON'T help others...but they simply don't think that they should be FORCED to in any way, via taxes, government programs etc.

Now, intellectually I understand this stand. However, I have to question it. Humans are social creatures. We form social unions, our societies are based on a certain give and take. We enter into these social contracts, and we always have...there must be a reason for it. Ay...I'm not explaining myself well. I'm not just talking about less government control (which I'm actually for)...more the idea that suffering is the FAULT of those who suffer, and damn the other factors. Are some people only capable of caring for immediate friends and family? Are people truly indifferent to the rest of humanity?

Anyway, no doubt your questions will help me clarify my point (where is it again?) or your own position....

My wife and I have had many a tussel over this very issue. I tend to be an individualist before all else, while she tends to be more socially conscious. I think that the individualist stance comes from many different sources. Upbringing, personal experiance, religion, and philosophy all contribute to how much responsibility one feels towards their society.

I'll use myself as an example. I was born with both brain damage (as a result of a traumatic birth) and a genius level IQ. Early on I was fairly socially withdrawn because I was very different from other children. The school systems I encountered were not equipped to deal with a child who had my advantages and disadvantages. As a result, I had to fend for myself. I couldn't depend on others to help me unless they were family.

As I grew up, I read alot. By 8th grade I was quotting Machiavelli and by my freshman year of highschool I had read enough Nietzsche that I was committed to bettering my mind and body. There was no one there for me so I worked hard, I read, I studied, I went to the gym. Sure, I was very different from others my age, but I rarely encountered a bully who I couldn't best intellectually or, failing that, physically.

Coming from those personal experiances, the idea of people helping others was always kind of foreign to me. It was one of the things that lead to me losing my faith in Christianity and eventually moving over to Thelema, the emphasis on personal growth and responsibility appealed to me.

Politically, I do feel that charity is a good thing. I do not, however, believe that altruism exists. Helping others is rewarding in it's own right, and working in a soup kitchen is basically just trading time for something to put on a resume, a warm-fuzzy feeling, or the smug sense of satisfaction you get from helping others. It makes sense to help those who are truely destitute because. should you even end up there, you'll have a safety net.

I feel that the forced charity of the government, however, only serves to weaken people. The United States is a nation built on hardship. Unlike most of the old, first-world nations, we had to fight for everything we gained. We had to mine it, build it, and conquor it, or invent it for ourselves in just a little over 200 years. Hard woirk, toil, pain, it makes people grow, it makes them stronger. While government charity might help everyone survive, it weakens society as a whole because people who do not have the drive to survive continue to exist. By making everything easier many people become lazy, they don't work to their potential, they just coast through life because there are few consequences for failure.

I understand that I sound harsh and uncaring. There is no way to say how I feel without being a bit like stone. Still, I was brought up to work hard, and I believe very strongly in meritocracy. If I choose to give away some of what I have earned to others, that is OK because it is mine to give. When the government decides to play Robbin Hood, that is theft. Not only does society have no real claim on what I earned (especially since society never did anything but make me stronger by not being there for me), but when the government takes from me with the threat of imprisionment, thats wrong. Taking from someone who works hard to provide for someone who does not is a disgusting perversion of charity. You can try to justify it by saying that the rich man had better education (bullshit, I know from experiance that if you want to learn you can), you can say that the wealthy man won't notice his money is gone (if I were to take a pint of blood from you in your sleep, would you mind?), you can even say that the richest people don't really work (I'd like to see you pass the bar, handle a CEO's schedule, make it through a defense of dissertation, or invent something everyone wants). The fact of the mater is, taxation for charity is a redistributiuon of wealth, the redistribution of wealth is Marxism, and Marxism is a failed philosophy that depends on fear and theft to survive.

I agree completely... but then why on earth did you vote NS Classic Liberals?? :(
Huh? I voted the party of whatever works!

I may tend to disagree with some people about certain issues, but with most people I can find some common ground to work from. However, I have to admit that there is one particular world view that I find truly repugnant, and I will go as far as to admit that I tend to hold a bias against those that favour this world view. I'm not sure if it is my culture, my upbringing, or something else, but this philosophy, while I can sort of understand it, nonetheless is abhorrent to me. I try to overcome this bias, however, and this thread is an attempt to aid me in this endeavour.

I'm speaking of the belief in absolute individualism. The idea that each person rises and falls on their own merits, and nothing more. The idea that we are not responsible whatsoever for what happens to another human being, and therefore have no obligation to care for or aid others. That doesn't mean people who believe this DON'T help others...but they simply don't think that they should be FORCED to in any way, via taxes, government programs etc.

Now, intellectually I understand this stand. However, I have to question it. Humans are social creatures. We form social unions, our societies are based on a certain give and take. We enter into these social contracts, and we always have...there must be a reason for it. Ay...I'm not explaining myself well. I'm not just talking about less government control (which I'm actually for)...more the idea that suffering is the FAULT of those who suffer, and damn the other factors. Are some people only capable of caring for immediate friends and family? Are people truly indifferent to the rest of humanity?

Anyway, no doubt your questions will help me clarify my point (where is it again?) or your own position....
No one lives in a vacume, we are not here all alone ... our brothers and sisters, our children and significant others are here too. Responsibility is both imposed and shared at every level of society: family, community, each political subdivision, nation, and all of humanity.

How could it possibly be otherwise? :confused:

Pure Metal-

It is only illogical if you suffer from the curse of the modern liberal education: Subjective Standards.

You are saying to me, "If you value yourself, it means you devalue others." "To put food in YOUR MOUTH, that takes it out of MINE and EVERYONE ELSE'S mouths." "You cannot love thyself, without hating those external to you."

But these axioms are clearly false. Your notions of right and wrong are subjective and shallow because they lack grounding in objective reality.

If I value myself and take responsibility for myself, then I will work to feed, clothe and house myself. Most humans are capable of doing this at a moderate level in any given society. (((Those areas where this is impossible are terrible, but ultimately the individual must strive to find a place for himself where basic needs can be met. I would not stay in America if the water dried up, the food disappeared and the government knocked down my house. Common Sense.)))

I must work to eat, live for myself FIRST and in general be self-sufficient at all times. It is my FIRST DUTY, for how can I help others if I am in need myself, hmmm? To paraphrase Ayn Rand (my hero): There must be PRODUCERS to feed the rest.

However, my right to swing my fist ends at another man's nose.

Or, put more aptly, my right to stuff my face ends at another man's plate.

If, by looking out for myelf, I must steal from or harm another, then we are at an impasse. Another direction must be taken. I must ask for HELP because I am trapped in my situation.

The purpose of this HELP will be to make me self-sufficient again. And I will intend to REPAY the kindness shown to me in my time of need, not come to expect an endless supply of this HELP. I will live that I might be able to HELP another in need when their time of crisis arises.

"BUT!", you cry, "What about the disabled, retards, young children and disenfranchised minority voters with a dangling chad!?? Surely they deserve an endless free ride on your coat-tails! With a free education, free health care, no-cost dental visits and bonus Tantric Sex Therapy sessions to boot!!!"

Yes, I agree that children, retards and the disabled should be offered assistance, even using MY TAX DOLLARS. But the level of that help should never exceed what I am giving to myself, my children, my family. If it does, then where is my motivation to keep on PRODUCING? The sensible choice in that case becomes, "Get on the dole!"

I am a Capitalist first and foremost. I dislike involuntary taxation, but I accept it. I disagree with most forms of social welfare because I personally see both the recipients AND the results. But I am not heartless. I am just way more pragmatic about who is paying for all this crap. Because, usually, I am.

Ghetto women who have endless babies that ***I*** am paying for must be stopped. You keep having babies you can't feed? Screw that, give them to me. I'd rather keep my money, raise the kid myself and use the birth mother as an example of how NOT TO LIVE.

That is the best example in the USA of a despicable waste of my money that I am mortally offended by.

You do not have a RIGHT to have children you cannot feed, clothe or house. If you cannot even care for yourself, do not endanger your child or my checkbook by having unprotected sex. It is so simple, but so damn common that I absolutely get ill when I think about it.

This is respecting yourself, looking out for yourself FIRST and not HARMING OTHERS with your selfish ways.

How many of the poor are there because of bad decisions they made?

How many stay poor because they don't learn?

I was near bankruptcy a few years ago. But I learned from my mistakes and started working two jobs and got out from under it. I helped myself the best I could and thankfully, had a few helping hands along the way.

But I sure didn't get my girlfriend pregnant and then apply for all kinds of assistance! I didn't go buy a NEW CAR and then ask the government to pay off all my loans. I didn't quit working and become an artist because the corporate environment was too stuffy.

People think they are special. That they are owed something. That government is there FOR THEM. It's not true. We owe it to others to AVOID BEING LOSERS. To help ourselves. When there is a true underdog or just a permanently helpless person, I have ZERO PROBLEMS offering the shirt off my back. But that person truly in need is SUPER-RARE, my friends.

SUPER-RARE.

Huh? I voted the party of whatever works!
Yayyyyy! [ and the crowd goes wild! ] :D

Huh? I voted the party of whatever works!

Oh... Sorry. I just remembered you having voted something I hadn't expected from you.

Do you include education and healthcare in the 'social welfare' concept? If not...what PARTICULAR 'welfare' programs do you oppose? (I'm asking, because many people, not necessarily you, have very little understanding of what 'welfare' entails, or consider it to be any government program that helps others...)

Yes, I do. Although I believe education should be left up to state and local governments.

So...more like a limited individualist? Caring for family and friends...but not for strangers?

Thats not really limited. Human beings, by nature, care more about the people who are closer to them. I would do anything to help my family or my very close friends. I am far less likely to send a check to pay for a meal in Uganda. There is much more reciprocity in close relationships.

I noticed that one of my fellow gun nuts (lets reclaim the term, shall we?) brought up the scenario of a stranger being assaulted. It is not really a violation of individualism to help them, especially if the odds are overwhealmingly against them. I would, it is withing my ethical system to do so. I would not, however, feel that it is my obligation to society, nor do I feel that I should be held criminally responsible if I do not help.

The major problem I have with socialism is the lack of consent. Sure, MOST people in a given situation would help, but without choice it ceases to be charity. It ceases to be moral or ethical. Without conesnt it becomes theft. Without consent there is no ability to choose who deserves help and who does not. If I was in a bar and I saw a man being brutally beaten, I would likely help him. If I was there 30 second earlier and I saw that the man was being beaten because he had repeatedly made unwanted passes at a biker's wife and finally pinched her ass, well, stupidity should have consequences.

When the government decides to play Robbin Hood, that is theft. Not only does society have no real claim on what I earned (especially since society never did anything but make me stronger by not being there for me),

Here you are, denying that society ever helped you in any way, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Your birth was assisted by doctors who had access to life-saving technology, should you have needed it.

Despite your education not being able to completely meet your special needs, it was available, subsidised, and you lived in a stable enough nation that violence did not prevent you from attending.

You had access to literature that allowed you to expand your intellectual horizons. You had access because a) you were of an economic standing to afford these books OR b) your nation has a library system that allows its citizens to access this sort of information at a very low cost, if not free, AND c) your government does not censor your reading materials to any great extent.

You have the ability to rise in economic status because there does not exist a rigid class system or caste system in your nation. You are encouraged, even expected to 'better yourself', and your economy is a fairly healthy one, due to the laborious use of protectionism and trade by your forefathers.

Your society most certainly DID contribute to where you are now. You entire nation's history did. You can not simply ignore that and say, "But they have no claim on me, because I did it all on my own". You do not live in a societal vacuum. If you want to claim that your privilege was earned by you and you alone, you'll have quite a hard case to make...unless you can convince me that you are responsible for the founding and shaping of your nation.

Your society absolutely has a claim on what you have earned. However, as you are a member of that society, you have some power to change it, to mould it in the future. If you truly believe that your taxes should be spent only on certain things, you have the freedom to pursue that agenda. But in doing so, at least acknowledge that you are a part of that society, and that means you must make certain compromises for the time being.

[ snippage ]

Yes, I agree that children, retards and the disabled should be offered assistance, even using MY TAX DOLLARS. But the level of that help should never exceed what I am giving to myself, my children, my family. If it does, then where is my motivation to keep on PRODUCING? The sensible choice in that case becomes, "Get on the dole!"

[ more snippage ]

People think they are special. That they are owed something. That government is there FOR THEM. It's not true. We owe it to others to AVOID BEING LOSERS. To help ourselves. When there is a true underdog or just a permanently helpless person, I have ZERO PROBLEMS offering the shirt off my back. But that person truly in need is SUPER-RARE, my friends.
Not nearly so "super-rare" as you might suppose. The largest percentage of people on "welfare" are those who are there temporarily, especially single ( often not by choice! ) mothers with small children.

As with most people, it's apparently your lack of data and your emotions which shape your politics. Your use of the prejorative term "retards" would tend to support this.

As to motivation, studies have shown time and time again, people are motivated by many different things. Try reading about Abraham Maslow's "Heirarchy of Needs," which goes a long way toward illustrating that as people satisfy one need ( safety, for example ), their motivation moves from the basic needs to more complex ( such as "self-realization ).*

As I indicated in my first post in this thread, we are not here alone. Our brothers and sisters are here as well, and sometimes they need our help, and beyond that our understanding and compassion.


* Maslow's "Heirarchy of Needs" has been shown to have a somewhat limited validity, but still holds true in most cases.

Not nearly so "super-rare" as you might suppose. The largest percentage of people on "welfare" are those who are there temporarily, especially single ( often not by choice! ) mothers with small children.

As with most people, it's apparently your lack of data and your emotions which shape your politics. Your use of the prejorative term "retards" would tend to support this.

As to motivation, studies have shown time and time again, people are motivated by many different things. Try reading about Abraham Maslow's "Heirarchy of Needs," which goes a long way toward illustrating that as people satisfy one need ( safety, for example ), their motivation moves from the basic needs to more complex ( such as "self-realization ).*

As I indicated in my first post in this thread, we are not here alone. Our brothers and sisters are here as well, and sometimes they need our help, and beyond that our understanding and compassion.


* Maslow's "Heirarchy of Needs" has been shown to have a somewhat limited validity, but still holds true in most cases.


Hmmm, good point, Gramps. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CWAbrams.jpg) :D

Oh... Sorry. I just remembered you having voted something I hadn't expected from you.
And now knowing which party I voted for...are you still surprised?

The fact of the mater is, taxation for charity is a redistributiuon of wealth, the redistribution of wealth is Marxism, and Marxism is a failed philosophy that depends on fear and theft to survive.

All else aside, this is clearly wrong. Redistribution is a component of Marxism, but is clearly not inalienable from it. In the most obvious sense, redistribution of wealth existed long before Marx was even born. Moreover, the crux of Marxism is not in redistribution, but in workers control over the means of production, and the mode of production which this entails.

I have a responsibility to my family FIRST
I have a responsibility to my society/nation/culture/religion TIED FOR SECOND
I have a responsibility to myself THIRD
I have a responsibility to the human race as a whole FOURTH. (this one is debatably higher on the list)

The human race is also my responsibility because we are all interconnected and in order to maximize my happiness is to maximize all happiness.


I think I get your priority list if you are a child still living in the home or a Mom. In that case, maintaining your family (the suppliers of your sustenance) is of utmost importance.

If you are Mom, your "job" in that instance *IS* your family. You are providing for yourself by being there for them. Somebody else might be winning the DOUGH, but you *ARE* working (for the family) and getting paid in return.

If you are a child in that household, I disagree with you, although I get your point. A child's job is to better themselves and attain the skills, knowledge and training to become a self-sufficient adult, and hopefully care for the parents when they grow old.

Children are given a free ride on this tuna boat of life simply because we are INVESTING in them. They don't owe us, we owe them a strong chance in this life. They deserve the best chance to become awesome people and, ideally, PRODUCERS who can help others.

You make a good point about the interconnectedness of life on this planet. My fear is that we are being sucked dry through that connection becuase many people no longer value themselves enough to do it on their own. If everybody is a selfish, arrogant user-and-abuser who thinks they are "owed", what sort of life will we have???

Yes, I do. Although I believe education should be left up to state and local governments.
But you believe that education and health should not be subsidised?

Hmmm, good point, Gramps. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CWAbrams.jpg) :D
"Gramps." [ slaps RB upside da head wid a pair of dirty socks which wound up under the bed for a week and thus never made it into the laundry ] :D

And now knowing which party I voted for...are you still surprised?
Heh! Well, I have to admit that I was, pleasantly so! :D

This is exactly what bothers me most. The way that blame is attached to all who 'fail', and yet these same people turn around and pat themselves on the back for their 'success', completely refusing to admit that they did not begin from the same starting point as the other. Like people who blame the poor for having children, and 'not being able to afford them'. Not only is there a value judgment there about what level of economic wealth a child should be raised in, in order to avoid being 'deprived', but there is the idea that whatever circumstances surrounded these people are entirely their fault. The whole, 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps because so and so did...' is ridiculous. The situations are rarely identical...but it's an easy way to avoid giving a shit.

No, in our society we have given up on the very concept of personal responsibility. Everyone is a victim, everyone has an excuse. I call bullshit on that. I have gotten to where I am by sheer force of Will. There was never any expectation for me to be able to live unassisted. I'm a graduate student, I walk, I run, I live fine. Society never did anything but put obstacles in my path. So you know what, I have little sympathy for some lazy piece of shit who whines about never having enough money or his culture not putting a proper emphasis on education. Everything of value that I learned before highschool I learned on my own without the value of schools that were, for all intents and purposes, warehouses for kids that everyone had written off as a loss. Public highschool was only marginally better and I had to retain a lawyer just to stay in school.

Don't give me the old "the situations are rarely the same" crap. I started further back than most and I'm further ahead than most. I understand that the meritocracy sometimes fails. I understand that social inequalities make the game less fair, but thats life. You play the hand you are dealt and you get where you have the drive to get. Just as the meritocracy is a good way for lucky people to avoid giving a shit about those who fail, social inequality is a way for lazy people to excuse themselves from responsibility.

Not nearly so "super-rare" as you might suppose. The largest percentage of people on "welfare" are those who are there temporarily, especially single ( often not by choice! ) mothers with small children.


Yes, I love that assumption, or belief in lifelong 'welfare bums'. Ask anyone who's actually worked in a claims department, and they'll tell you that these people aren't that common...and they must be master of deception to get away with it for any amount of time. Benefits are automatically cut off after a certain period. Benefits are often ties into how many hours you've actually worked. Benefits are a pittance at best. You do not live in mansions, and become a professional socialite on welfare. You get in, you get out, you move on. Wholescale abuse of the system is not the reality.

And now knowing which party I voted for...are you still surprised?

A little, yes.

Excellent points in this thread, though.

No, in our society we have given up on the very concept of personal responsibility. Everyone is a victim, everyone has an excuse. I call bullshit on that. I have gotten to where I am by sheer force of Will.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9036641&postcount=33

How about, I call bull.

A little, yes. Why? Have you read their platform? I'm very comfortable with it.

Excellent points in this thread, though.Anything not jibing with you at this point?

Responsibility.

I am responsible for what I do and who I am. I can not be and will not be held responsible for more than this. I can be appealed to, and I can choose to respond to such appeals, on behalf of those with less opportunities than I have had, but I can not be made responsible for them unless it is a direct result of my action that they are being deprived of an opportunity that I had.

This does not mean that if there is one vacancy and I obtain the position that I am responsible for those that did not. They had the opportunity. It does mean however (to give a trivial example) that if I destroy a library book then I am responsible for replacing this to provide the opportunity to others to read that book that I had. The former is not my action. It is the action of the world, other people etc. It may be, and almost certainly is. the indirect action of my having achieved better grades, or having more experience, but I am not responsible for how others react to my actions in this general way. The latter is a matter of my action denying opportunity, so I am responsible (I would never actualy do such a thing by the way).

These positions are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSCL.

I have a responsibility to my family FIRST
I have a responsibility to my society/nation/culture/religion TIED FOR SECOND
I have a responsibility to myself THIRD
I have a responsibility to the human race as a whole FOURTH. (this one is debatably higher on the list)

I have a responsibility to myself FIRST, without control of my own mind and body I am an animal.

I have a responsibility to my family and friends SECOND, those who I care about deserve my aid before all others it is the nature of a relationship built on trust and reciprocity.

I have a responsibility to my country THIRD, I have chosen to live here and I am commited to the ideals of this grand experiment.

I have no responsibility to my religion, it exists only as a tool to focus my Will.

I have no responsibility to my society, it has done little for me and I will do as I can, but it is not my duty.

I have no responsibility to my culture, I am an outsider and I represent no one but myself.

I have no responsibility to the human race. Humans are animals, and just because I share a certain percentage of my genetic material with them does not mean that they are my brothers. Humans are viscious, territorial primates that slaughter eachother as a matter of course. My comrades are determined not by their genes, but by their character.

So, tax is harassment, then?

No, taxation is mugging on a sliding scale.

*snip*
Don't take the term so literally, Alien. Keep reading :p

Thats not really limited. Human beings, by nature, care more about the people who are closer to them. I would do anything to help my family or my very close friends. I am far less likely to send a check to pay for a meal in Uganda. There is much more reciprocity in close relationships.

I noticed that one of my fellow gun nuts (lets reclaim the term, shall we?) brought up the scenario of a stranger being assaulted. It is not really a violation of individualism to help them, especially if the odds are overwhealmingly against them. I would, it is withing my ethical system to do so. I would not, however, feel that it is my obligation to society, nor do I feel that I should be held criminally responsible if I do not help.

The major problem I have with socialism is the lack of consent. Sure, MOST people in a given situation would help, but without choice it ceases to be charity. It ceases to be moral or ethical. Without conesnt it becomes theft. Without consent there is no ability to choose who deserves help and who does not. If I was in a bar and I saw a man being brutally beaten, I would likely help him. If I was there 30 second earlier and I saw that the man was being beaten because he had repeatedly made unwanted passes at a biker's wife and finally pinched her ass, well, stupidity should have consequences.
Again, your conclusions are based on a lack of data. Studies have shown that most people contribute to those "charities/causes" they personally support. The higher the income level, the more likely it is that an individual will contribute to cultural/artistic "causes" than to any sort of assistance to those in need. One of the primary reasons for this is that people with wealth, especially in America, tend to view it as "earned" or "deserved," when in all truthfulness it was more often inherited or at least a partial result of "connections." [ don't take my word for this. Do your own research. ]

One of the primary results of this tendency to contribute to cultural "causes" the higher your income, is that private and non-profit programs for the economically and socially disavantaged are underfunded. As a people with at least some compassion in our hearts, we have decided ( repeatedly ) that a portion of government income should be redistributed to those most in need.

Yes, stupidity should have "consequences," but IMHO, one of the things which determines whether a people is truly great or not is how they approach the problem of their weakest members: the young, the disabled, the infirm, people who are temporarily down on their luck, those who for whatever reason are unable to help themselves.

No, taxation is mugging on a sliding scale.
And how do you propose then that we pay for infrastructure? Things like roads, libraries, schools and other 'public' buildings? Will we, rather than paying a government, instead pay a corporation to do these things? Will we concentrate ourselves in areas according to our economic standing, and have all our surroundings reflected thusly? Do you advocate ridding ourselves completely of taxation, and making all development private? How would that work in your opinion?

No, taxation is mugging on a sliding scale.
I agree, to a point. Fairness, IMHO, would dictate that we tax all at the same percentage rate of income.

And how do you propose then that we pay for infrastructure? Things like roads, libraries, schools and other 'public' buildings? Will we, rather than paying a government, instead pay a corporation to do these things? Will we concentrate ourselves in areas according to our economic standing, and have all our surroundings reflected thusly? Do you advocate ridding ourselves completely of taxation, and making all development private? How would that work in your opinion?
Just a side note here: I can't believe that I find myself actually siding with so-called "liberals!" Ewwww! :D

No, taxation is mugging on a sliding scale.
argh.

1) There are no such thing as natural rights. An asocial person, one existing in a true state of nature (i.e. totally asocial, Rousseau's state of nature) not only has no need for rights, but would be unable to even conceive of them. Unless you're proposing that rights are magic, they can be neither pre-social nor natural.

2) Thus rights, in as much as they exist, must be socially created. Rights are only coherent or necessary in situations of social interactions; i.e. society. They have no innate nature, but are created by these societies to protect a certain right/value/being/etc.

3) In as much as rights are socially created, they cannot be referred to as absolute. They are neither unchanging nor eternal, but are a product of political deliberation within a society.

4) In our society the right to property is understood, politically and for the greater part in general, as not including an absolute right not to be taxed.

5) Since tax does not infringe on our socially determined property rights, they cannot be understood as theft.

I think I get your priority list if you are a child still living in the home or a Mom. In that case, maintaining your family (the suppliers of your sustenance) is of utmost importance.


Actually I am a 24 year old working married man. :)
It is my responsibility to provide for a family, my personal comforts and desires are second to that.
It is my responsibility (with other members of my society) to look out for society to thus fulfill the responsibility to my family :)


AS for whats-his-face who says he has no responsibility to nation or human race..... I hope that you never have to depend on those you do not want to help.

It is ALL our responsibility to look out for eachother. Our families depend on society for its well being and our society does depend on the rest of the world. a nation cannot progress without trade. A nation cannot progress if it is being indescriminately slaughtered. If the nation can't progress the family suffers.

"Gramps." [ slaps RB upside da head wid a pair of dirty socks which wound up under the bed for a week and thus never made it into the laundry ] :D

Did you see the pic, Gramps? :D

Just a side note here: I can't believe that I find myself actually siding with so-called "liberals!" Ewwww! :D
I can hardly believe it of you too!

Not nearly so "super-rare" as you might suppose. The largest percentage of people on "welfare" are those who are there temporarily, especially single ( often not by choice! ) mothers with small children.

As with most people, it's apparently your lack of data and your emotions which shape your politics. Your use of the prejorative term "retards" would tend to support this.



First off, I despise political correctness. Retard is a shortened form of "Mentally-Retarded". The word has a meaning, it accurately describes a range of conditions which limit (OR RETARD) the mental and/or physical development of certain persons. Thus, retards.

The fact that retards are often offended by references to their condition doesn't make me feel bad about saying it.

I'm offended by political correctness, but nobody is changing things back to suit me, so there you go. In fact, that brings me to a good point- Being P.C. is plain RETARDED. It's even GHEY. ***Oh, no! Now I've offended homosexuals!!!*** :)

I still have a Right to Free Speech and I'm using it. You also have a RIGHT to keep renaming things every time somebody gets offended, but don't expect me to play along.

SECONDLY,

You list single mothers with small children as being the largest percentage of people on welfare and use this to somehow challenge my statements.

But that shows your inability to read, since I clearly state that I value the defense of children, that they are valid recipients of my tax money, my welfare and my kindness.

I will never hold their birth against them nor propose that they be punished for the misdeeds of their parents! I say they deserve a strong chance at a good life, just like anybody else.

THIRDLY,

My first-hand knowledge of the world, my rational mind, my principles and my emotions shape my politics. In that order. Where does emotion play into your order, I wonder?

I am greatly interested in other human being's welfare. As such, I demand that they be interested in their own welfare as well. For those people who act in any way they wish no matter the cost to them or me? I have little regard for them. They aren't good for the species, after all.

Only a liberal demands the utmost morality from the highest in station while defending the immorality of the lowest in station.

Your argument boils down to, "If you have, you should give! You owe it to us and are evil if you don't turn it over!"

My argument is, "If you don't have, go get it already! Here, let me show you how I got it."

Only a Libertarian demands equality and fairness for all and from all.

Did you see the pic, Gramps? :D
Of course. I refrained from commenting due to conflicting emotions. :p

I can hardly believe it of you too!
ROFLMAO! Sinuhue, you're a trip, woman! :D

I truly to believe in what you call absolute individualism.

I would like to try and represent it a little better.

People really are responsible for themselves in this world. No one should have to help another person. I'm not talking bout indifference to a persons plight, I'm talking about the choice you can have as a person. I don't believe there is anything in the world that states I have entered into a social contract with anyone or any society. It is my choice to coexist with others, and therefore I am not obligated to anything. I never signed a piece of paper saying I must love and care for my fellow people.

Now, because I recognize that it is my choice, I gladly help people when needed. If it wasn't my choice, I would probably still help, but the effect of that help would be lessened due to it being an expected behavior. When someone goes out of their way to help another, it is a special event. How many people stop and think of the people who are out there cleaning up our highways and parks for free? They are performing a public service because they want to. It means something to them individually to be able to help. But they are equally free not to do it.

After spending a few years with the homeless and jobless, I found even in the depths of poverty and what people consider hitting rock-bottom, there is disparity in what people want. Some of my homeless friends wanted to get better. They wanted an opportunity to work. They wanted to be able to pay their meal ticket, and be in a position where they could give back to society what others have helped them with.

Yet there were others that were pefectly happy with where they were at. And as beautiful as that thought is, they were living off the expectation that other more generous people were going to help them. They didn't care whether society was indebted to them or not, because they were going to exploit others no matter what. No one is obligated to give them money, but they do by choice, and these people took advantage of that.

Like the freedoms America is based off of, you're free to help, or free to sit on your ass. I think society does form bonds and contracts within itself. It is still the power of the individual to decide whether or not they want to be a part of that society.

I have no obligations toward your welfare? Good. You won't mind if I rob your house then. I mean, what 'contract' makes me have to respect your property? There isn't one according to you.

EDIT: Yes, I exaggerated your point. But if I'm only responsible to myself then isn't this the logical conclusion of that?

Here you are, denying that society ever helped you in any way, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Your birth was assisted by doctors who had access to life-saving technology, should you have needed it.

Despite your education not being able to completely meet your special needs, it was available, subsidised, and you lived in a stable enough nation that violence did not prevent you from attending.

You had access to literature that allowed you to expand your intellectual horizons. You had access because a) you were of an economic standing to afford these books OR b) your nation has a library system that allows its citizens to access this sort of information at a very low cost, if not free, AND c) your government does not censor your reading materials to any great extent.

You have the ability to rise in economic status because there does not exist a rigid class system or caste system in your nation. You are encouraged, even expected to 'better yourself', and your economy is a fairly healthy one, due to the laborious use of protectionism and trade by your forefathers.

Your society most certainly DID contribute to where you are now. You entire nation's history did. You can not simply ignore that and say, "But they have no claim on me, because I did it all on my own". You do not live in a societal vacuum. If you want to claim that your privilege was earned by you and you alone, you'll have quite a hard case to make...unless you can convince me that you are responsible for the founding and shaping of your nation.

Your society absolutely has a claim on what you have earned. However, as you are a member of that society, you have some power to change it, to mould it in the future. If you truly believe that your taxes should be spent only on certain things, you have the freedom to pursue that agenda. But in doing so, at least acknowledge that you are a part of that society, and that means you must make certain compromises for the time being.


1) My birth was assisted by doctors in a middle class hospital who were not vigilant enough. As a result the chord was wraped around my neck three times during delivery and I was unable to breath for nearly 6 minutes. My parents didn't know that this was negligence, and no lawsuit was filed.

2) My education fit no one's needs. Schools for children with severe learning disabilities are not schools, they are daycare centers with orderlies. There is no attempt to teach, only to control, and if you are particularly willful you are physically restrained. I would have been better off at home, reading by myself. Society required me to go to school, and since the public schools wouldn't take me, they subsidised my attendance of something not unlike prison. You'll forgive me if I'd rather repay their "kindness" with vitriol.

3) I had access to literature because several people in my family were voracious readers who frequented garage sales and secondhand bookstores. I didn't get to the library much, I couldn't go alone and both of my parents worked between 9 am and 5 pm, when the library near our house was open.

4) I have the ability to rise because of our nation's system, yes. I feel that the "charity" we have is limiting that ability. It would have been very easy for me to coast through school and go on welfare because of my condition. I wanted more, and I was almsot expelled from highschool because of it. I was never expected to do anything other than become another drain on resources, another hopeless, helpless welfare case. When I wanted to do better, I was constantly told that I couldn't. When I pushed the issue, the administration pushed back, hard. I won because I had the Will to succeed.

5) This society does not have a natural claim on me. Why? Because the American system is built on individualism, capitalism, hard work and, above all else, freedom. You cannot say that a system built on those values then has a claim on my wealth so that it can undermine them.

I agree, to a point. Fairness, IMHO, would dictate that we tax all at the same percentage rate of income. Nope. It's called the Poll Tax. Thatcher tried it.

Of course. I refrained from commenting due to conflicting emotions. :p

Call me crazy, but for some reason, I always pictured you looking exactly like Creighton Abrams. :D

Don't take the term so literally, Alien. Keep reading :p

How else is one supposed to take it?

How many thousands more books do I have to read :)

Only a Libertarian demands equality and fairness for all and from all.
This is a bad thing?

*snip* Yes, stupidity should have "consequences," but IMHO, one of the things which determines whether a people is truly great or not is how they approach the problem of their weakest members: the young, the disabled, the infirm, people who are temporarily down on their luck, those who for whatever reason are unable to help themselves.
Well said. I'd like to add that referring to these people as "charity cases" or "lazy" is nothing more than demonizing them, so to put them down. People on welfare are not there by choice. In Canada, at least, welfare does not pay the rent, nor does it put food on the table for long.

All else aside, this is clearly wrong. Redistribution is a component of Marxism, but is clearly not inalienable from it. In the most obvious sense, redistribution of wealth existed long before Marx was even born. Moreover, the crux of Marxism is not in redistribution, but in workers control over the means of production, and the mode of production which this entails.

Workers cannot have that conbtrol if they do not have the wealth. It's the old sarcastic remark about the golden rule. "Whats the golden rule? Whoever has the gold makes the rules." Without the redistribution of wealth (or, more specifically, without putting the bulk of the wealth in the government's hands) Marxism cannot work. Workers cannot control production if the factory is owned by someone else. Workers cannot even control the means of production unless wealth is sufficiently distributed that no one would have an incentive to become a scab laborer during a strike. Without control of the wealth, workers are nothing more than cogs.

Yes, redistribution of wealth existed before Marx, but he gave it a name, a system, and a real chance. The problem is, the level of power one must hand over to the government in order for Marxism to work on a large scale (it can definately work in VERY small communities) practically guarantees tyranny by the second generation of leaders. Furthermore, in our society, the labor that Marx talked about is increasingly becoming obsolete and the general openness of international borders undermines the ability of Communist governments to maintain the control they need without becoming completely isolated.


...whoa...tanget...sorry about that guys ;)

1) My birth was assisted by doctors in a middle class hospital who were not vigilant enough.
-snip-
You cannot say that a system built on those values then has a claim on my wealth so that it can undermine them.
This is hilarious, you claim society has done nothing for you but the very fact you can even express this is due to your socialization.

Socieites of humans are responsible for EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU. No society, no language.

Picture it this way: are you or are you not better off than Rousseau's nobel savage subsisting off the forest? If you are in any way better, you have been benefitted by society.

Now it may be true that the education/welfare system failed you, but that does not mean you owe society.
nothing.

Just as an aside, it is not true that American was founded purely on ideas of individua freedomsl; the Republic as a political construct implies shared governance and thus social belonging. The only system based purely on individual freedoms is captialist anarchism.

5) This society does not have a natural claim on me. Why? Because the American system is built on individualism, capitalism, hard work and, above all else, freedom. You cannot say that a system built on those values then has a claim on my wealth so that it can undermine them. You seem to think that this bolded sentence means that your nation is a collection of individuals working individually to serve themselves. You ignore the reality. Your nation is made up of individuals who, for certain things, work with a collective purpose. To deny this is to deny the very existence of your democratic government.

Well said. I'd like to add that referring to these people as "charity cases" or "lazy" is nothing more than demonizing them, so to put them down. People on welfare are not there by choice. In Canada, at least, welfare does not pay the rent, nor does it put food on the table for long.

A lot of the people refer to them as 'lazy' come from countries, such as the UK, where welfare does pay the rent, puts food on the table, and even allows a surplus for beer or holidays.

Your view of the welfare state depends greatly upon your experience of it.

Where you have worked your butt off and the nett benefit to you is only a fraction greater then what is provided to others from your efforts, there tends to be a jaundiced view of welfare.

How else is one supposed to take it?

How many thousands more books do I have to read :)
I'm going to kick your English-living-in-sinful-Brazil-ian butt! And you can go ahead and take THAT literally!

You get in, you get out, you move on. Wholescale abuse of the system is not the reality.

Even been to the housing projects in Chicago? Miniature cities of people, all of whom are on welfare, many of whom have known nothing but. People who, in some cases, take pride in their multigenerational welfare staus. Until the welfare reforms of the 90s, many of these people had no intention of leaving welfare.

Don't believe people want to stay on? Watch local Chicago news sometime when the city is tearing down one of the old, rat-infested, crime-ridden, racist highrise projects of the past. Look at the hundreds of residents who come together to complain that they are being moved from their homes (even though the scattered-sight housing they're being moved to is of better quality, in better neighborhoods, with better schools). Look at the people in their thrities who talk about having grown up in Cabrini or Robert Taylor and not wanting to move out now that they have their own unit. Look at community activists who come and scream about how it is the people's right to live in this highrise. It happens, and its sad.

...whoa...tanget...sorry about that guys ;)
Tangents are part and parcel of NS...no one even notices them anymore :D

Workers cannot have that conbtrol if they do not have the wealth. It's the old sarcastic remark about the golden rule. "Whats the golden rule? Whoever has the gold makes the rules." Without the redistribution of wealth (or, more specifically, without putting the bulk of the wealth in the government's hands) Marxism cannot work. Workers cannot control production if the factory is owned by someone else. Workers cannot even control the means of production unless wealth is sufficiently distributed that no one would have an incentive to become a scab laborer during a strike. Without control of the wealth, workers are nothing more than cogs.

Well I would say this is seriously wrong, from a theoretical standpoint. Marxism does not imply redistribution of wealth as we understand it (a long term gradual taxing) but workers revolution which abolishes capitalist wealth as it understood. Workers control the means of production by seizing it, not through taxing or reform. In fact many Marxists are against welfare systems as they are perceived to reduce class conciousness by alleviating the plight of the proletariat (which is adimittedly pretty twisted). Marxists would never, in the utopia, tax income, because money and wealth are abolished.

That aside, this does not explain your conflation of Marxism with ALL theories involving redistribution. I think it's silly to say liberal egalitarianism, for example, is the same as Marxism given they have entirely, indeed diametrically opposed, theoretical roots. They have nothing in common whatsoever.

In short equating tax with Marxism doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Even been to the housing projects in Chicago? Miniature cities of people, all of whom are on welfare, many of whom have known nothing but. People who, in some cases, take pride in their multigenerational welfare staus. Until the welfare reforms of the 90s, many of these people had no intention of leaving welfare.

Don't believe people want to stay on? Watch local Chicago news sometime when the city is tearing down one of the old, rat-infested, crime-ridden, racist highrise projects of the past. Look at the hundreds of residents who come together to complain that they are being moved from their homes (even though the scattered-sight housing they're being moved to is of better quality, in better neighborhoods, with better schools). Look at the people in their thrities who talk about having grown up in Cabrini or Robert Taylor and not wanting to move out now that they have their own unit. Look at community activists who come and scream about how it is the people's right to live in this highrise. It happens, and its sad.

Hmmm...because of this http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9036893&postcount=72, I'm going to have to say that I'm speaking from the viewpoint of the Canadian welfare system, which as Willamena has pointed out, is not something that will pay the rent.

Perhaps you yanks have something to learn from us, after all? :D

Even been to the housing projects in Chicago? Miniature cities of people, all of whom are on welfare, many of whom have known nothing but. People who, in some cases, take pride in their multigenerational welfare staus. Until the welfare reforms of the 90s, many of these people had no intention of leaving welfare.

Don't believe people want to stay on? Watch local Chicago news sometime when the city is tearing down one of the old, rat-infested, crime-ridden, racist highrise projects of the past. Look at the hundreds of residents who come together to complain that they are being moved from their homes (even though the scattered-sight housing they're being moved to is of better quality, in better neighborhoods, with better schools). Look at the people in their thrities who talk about having grown up in Cabrini or Robert Taylor and not wanting to move out now that they have their own unit. Look at community activists who come and scream about how it is the people's right to live in this highrise. It happens, and its sad.
As Alien Born said, it depends on where you live. In Canada (where Sinuhue and I live) welfare is only offered for a limited time and those applying have to meet qualifications.

If I value myself and take responsibility for myself, then I will work to feed, clothe and house myself. Most humans are capable of doing this at a moderate level in any given society. (((Those areas where this is impossible are terrible, but ultimately the individual must strive to find a place for himself where basic needs can be met. I would not stay in America if the water dried up, the food disappeared and the government knocked down my house. Common Sense.)))

You assume that its always possible to leave. In many cases its not.

First off, I despise political correctness. Retard is a shortened form of "Mentally-Retarded". The word has a meaning, it accurately describes a range of conditions which limit (OR RETARD) the mental and/or physical development of certain persons. Thus, retards.

The fact that retards are often offended by references to their condition doesn't make me feel bad about saying it.

I'm offended by political correctness, but nobody is changing things back to suit me, so there you go. In fact, that brings me to a good point- Being P.C. is plain RETARDED. It's even GHEY. ***Oh, no! Now I've offended homosexuals!!!*** :)

I still have a Right to Free Speech and I'm using it. You also have a RIGHT to keep renaming things every time somebody gets offended, but don't expect me to play along.

SECONDLY,

You list single mothers with small children as being the largest percentage of people on welfare and use this to somehow challenge my statements.

But that shows your inability to read, since I clearly state that I value the defense of children, that they are valid recipients of my tax money, my welfare and my kindness.

I will never hold their birth against them nor propose that they be punished for the misdeeds of their parents! I say they deserve a strong chance at a good life, just like anybody else.

THIRDLY,

My first-hand knowledge of the world, my rational mind, my principles and my emotions shape my politics. In that order. Where does emotion play into your order, I wonder?

I am greatly interested in other human being's welfare. As such, I demand that they be interested in their own welfare as well. For those people who act in any way they wish no matter the cost to them or me? I have little regard for them. They aren't good for the species, after all.

Only a liberal demands the utmost morality from the highest in station while defending the immorality of the lowest in station.

Your argument boils down to, "If you have, you should give! You owe it to us and are evil if you don't turn it over!"

My argument is, "If you don't have, go get it already! Here, let me show you how I got it."

Only a Libertarian demands equality and fairness for all and from all.
You're calling me "politically correct???" [ faints, dies ]

There's a vast difference between being "politicially correct" and simply not liking the use of derogatory terms for a group of people who can no more help being what they are than you could help being born with whatever color of eyes you have. Obviously, you're well within your rights to offend whomever you so desire.

Your second point: good. I approve. However, I hope you realize that I was approaching the issue of children more as inclusion in a general approach.

As to your third point, without going too much into the esoteric world of philosophy, emotions do exist. They are there to warn your rational mind when there is something going on to which you need to pay attention. Failure to take them into account will often result in either missing something important or in a slow but definite atrophy of feelings, neither of which is in your personal best interests.

"Your argument boils down to, 'If you have, you should give! You owe it to us and are evil if you don't turn it over!'" Say what??? No, that is definitely NOT my argument. All I am saying is that people are often the recipients of what some call "bad luck," which is nothing more than paying a penalty for being alive. I've never said anyone was evil ( well, maybe Fass, but that's another story! :D ). What I have said I have posted in my previous meanderings on this thread.

Look ... I suspect there are very few people who would say that the poor or disabled or whomever should simply suffer along without any sort of assistance whatsoever. The real question here is, "Where should assitance come from?" I do definitely not advocate "government handouts," what I advocate is giving people a "hand UP." When the private and non-profit sectors fall short in this regard, simple compassion dictates that government step in. It's really just that simple.

HOW government steps in and to what degree are other matters entirely. I suggest you read the POWW Party Platform if you're at all interested in my take on those two issues. :)

Again, your conclusions are based on a lack of data. Studies have shown that most people contribute to those "charities/causes" they personally support. The higher the income level, the more likely it is that an individual will contribute to cultural/artistic "causes" than to any sort of assistance to those in need. One of the primary reasons for this is that people with wealth, especially in America, tend to view it as "earned" or "deserved," when in all truthfulness it was more often inherited or at least a partial result of "connections." [ don't take my word for this. Do your own research. ]

One of the primary results of this tendency to contribute to cultural "causes" the higher your income, is that private and non-profit programs for the economically and socially disavantaged are underfunded. As a people with at least some compassion in our hearts, we have decided ( repeatedly ) that a portion of government income should be redistributed to those most in need.

Yes, stupidity should have "consequences," but IMHO, one of the things which determines whether a people is truly great or not is how they approach the problem of their weakest members: the young, the disabled, the infirm, people who are temporarily down on their luck, those who for whatever reason are unable to help themselves.

No, you are right about how people contribute. I personally don't give any of my charitable dollars to "those inb need." I give my money to the things I feel are more important (The ACLU, Institute for Justice, The NRA, and NOW). I feel that freedom has a hegemony.

Now, while I do have a fundamental philosophical problem with welfare, I understand it's necessity in a nation our size. No pure politic can work in a system this huge (look at what happened to the USSR). I'm a realist, I can accept it, but I don't have to like it. With that said, I believe that we go WAY too far and are WAY to willing to tollerate abuses. Theres no reason an ablebodied person should be allowed to live on the public teat for 20 years. Even if it only allows them to survive, some people will settle for that.

Now don't think I'm just some bootsrap conservative. I believe that all kinda of welfare should be reformed. Social welfare needs to be greatly scaled back. Corporate welfare and farm subsidies need to be completely eliminated. Foreign aid needs to be significantly reduced and completely cut in political cases (sorry Israel and Egypt, you cost too much, sink or swim on your own). In general I feel that the government needs to be more responsible with the money that it does steal from me. The amount of pork is staggering.

You assume that its always possible to leave. In many cases its not.
Oooh...great segway into my open borders rant....*resists...RESISTS...*

Of course, this also has to do with economic resources, so perhaps I can manage to stay on track...

It has been said, "If your economic circumstances are not good enough, move one..." and yet when people DO, because they are not eligible for LEGAL migration/immigration, they are lambasted for this as well. Catch 22 anyone?

Oh damnit...I strayed a bit after all...

I suppose I'm lucky. I live in a society where even the current neoliberal government have more compassion in it's little finger than most of the posters here. I'm lucky, because I loathe the egomaniacs who thinks pulling their own weight is enough.

We live in a society by choice. There is nothing forcing us to stay. If you intensely dislike the society you're born in, just make the most of it untill you're old enough to rid yourself of it. Or organise with your fellow dissidents and change it.

I am an individual first and foremost. But I rely on the society I live in every bit as much as it relies on me.
The society I live in is - comparatively - highly socially concious. If it weren't I'd pack my shit and leave. I do not believe in laws of any kind. But as I've grown older, I have come to realize societies of more than a few thousand individuals cannot function without them. It's pathetic, I know, but somehow people feel alienated. To the extent where they don't give a flying fuck about anyone but themselves.
The USA doesn't have anything I'd consider a social system, wellfare or a safety net. It has ghettoes, poverty, crumbeling social services, failling education and entire city districts reminicent of poverty stricken 3rd world countries. I would never live there and I would sooner kill your homocidal president than pay taxes. Your taxdollars aren't giving anyone a free ride.

I firmly believe it's our societies job to provide us with the things we cannot provide ourselves with. Jobs, security, basic neccesities, housing, education, health care, access to free information and much much more.
They should be able to support our sick, disabled, elderly and whoever else cannot make a living by themselves. It should be entirely possible - but not lucrative - to live without a job.
It is like this where I am. But I suppose that's detrimental to us, since we're one of the richest countries (per citizen) in the world. If it were any different, I would relocate. I am very happy that we have almost no people living below the poverty line. I'm proud of the fact that it's entirely possible to live out your life without working for a single day.
These things are important to me because it enables people to do almost anything they can imagine. Feel like writing a book? Quit your job for 6 months. It's no big deal.
Unable to work because you suffer from a massive depression? Not a problem. Not only will I and the rest of my society sustain you, but we'll provide all the aid we possibly can. And we won't ever demand anything in return.

These are the very same things 99% (i hope) would do for our friends and family. Why the hell should we not offer the rest of our society the same?

Sure I get pissed of when my society wastes my money on things I think are useless (such as the military - it would be much cheaper buying military aid from allies). But if most of my society wants those things, I'll cough up. And I'll do it because just as it helps them realize something, it goes a long way towards ensuring I can depend on the same help and encouragement.

Someone earlier mentioned carving a new world in 200 years and how tough it was... Go open a history book of europe. Comparatively speaking, you Americans have one of the most peacefull, lucrative and universally subsidised (by the rest of us) histories in the world. Hard labour, wars, epedemics, oppressive regimes and whatever other bad stuff you can think of is very much a european thing. You Americans have never had to contend with any of it much. Not like we have anyway.

In general I feel that the government needs to be more responsible with the money that it does steal from me. The amount of pork is staggering.
I couldn't agree more. :)

( Well, I might take issue with the term "steal." ) :)

Now, while I do have a fundamental philosophical problem with welfare, I understand it's necessity in a nation our size. No pure politic can work in a system this huge (look at what happened to the USSR). I'm a realist, I can accept it, but I don't have to like it. With that said, I believe that we go WAY too far and are WAY to willing to tollerate abuses. Theres no reason an ablebodied person should be allowed to live on the public teat for 20 years. Even if it only allows them to survive, some people will settle for that. .
Now, this I can agree with. You're right...help should not become disabling. But so few people are able to admit that there is a difference between total, complacent dependency, and temporary relief. I am for the latter, not the former. Thank you for making this distinction...it's really all I wanted. The system needs reform, as all systems do at some point...but the system of welfare is not inherently disabling. It can be...but it doesn't HAVE to be.

Oooh...great segway into my open borders rant....*resists...RESISTS...*

Of course, this also has to do with economic resources, so perhaps I can manage to stay on track...

It has been said, "If your economic circumstances are not good enough, move one..." and yet when people DO, because they are not eligible for LEGAL migration/immigration, they are lambasted for this as well. Catch 22 anyone?

Oh damnit...I strayed a bit after all...

Well, in his/her scenario they basically took everything away from this hypothetical family. How do you propose they move thousands of miles with no income, no money, no food, no nothing, even assuming open borders? The point is that even in that situation it's unlikely you can reach relative safety without assistance of people who can afford to help you.

You assume that its always possible to leave. In many cases its not.

Of course.

And, given that I could not leave, I would then perish.

It is the way of the world. Most of Africa is going to die during our lifetimes without an AIDS vaccine. Simple fact of life.

However, if my choice were invading your garden to steal your bread or dying, I will choose the lesser of two evils: Suicide or theft/tresspassing, that is.

And, because I am a violent, stupid, angry, poorly-socialized, unemotional and inconsiderate American, I would invade your garden and steal your bread at gunpoint. :) Because really, that offers me a better chance of survival, which is the whole point of the exercise.

Life sucks at times. I just try to plan ahead so it doesn't suck on me.

And how do you propose then that we pay for infrastructure? Things like roads, libraries, schools and other 'public' buildings? Will we, rather than paying a government, instead pay a corporation to do these things? Will we concentrate ourselves in areas according to our economic standing, and have all our surroundings reflected thusly? Do you advocate ridding ourselves completely of taxation, and making all development private? How would that work in your opinion?

Let me be a bit more clear. I feel that, in general, our government is far larger than it has any right to be. A modest income tax is still a mugging, but its one you can accept in a society our size. Better than an income tax would be a sales tax on nonessentials. Service based fees (ever wondered why toll roads are always better than free ones?) are another way to defray costs. Most importantly, however, we need fiscal responsibility. Why do the departments of Education or Agriculture recieve homeland security dollars? Why did the federal government pay part of the cost for a mariachi appreciation center in New Mexico? Why did we, as a country, subsidize the funding of a B. B. King museum? I love B. B. King, but come on here!

I understand that starving the beast won't work. I understand that we have dug ourselves into a pretty deep hole in terms of spending. That doesn't change the fact that we tax more than is conscionable and spend more than there is any right to spend. Social welfare doesn't get a pass. It costs too much, is too often abused, and it really isn't RIGHT to force charity. If you have to do it, I can bite my tounge, but not when no attempt is made to curb abuse and not when the system isn't designed in such a way that people are encouraged to get off it as quickly as possible.

It has ghettoes, poverty, crumbeling social services, failling education and entire city districts reminicent of poverty stricken 3rd world countries. I would never live there and I would sooner kill your homocidal president than pay taxes. Your taxdollars aren't giving anyone a free ride.

[ snippage of relatively interesting stuff ]

Comparatively speaking, you Americans have one of the most peacefull, lucrative and universally subsidised (by the rest of us) histories in the world. Hard labour, wars, epedemics, oppressive regimes and whatever other bad stuff you can think of is very much a european thing. You Americans have never had to contend with any of it much. Not like we have anyway.
These two statements by you spoke so loudly that I couldn't "hear" the rest of what you said, although as I recall it was relatively rational.

I'm proud of the fact that it's entirely possible to live out your life without working for a single day.
These things are important to me because it enables people to do almost anything they can imagine. Feel like writing a book? Quit your job for 6 months. It's no big deal.
I think you are ignoring the fact that work, in itself, can be rewarding. People need to feel useful, even those with limited abilities. Unless you have a very pressing reason to 'never work a day in your life' (like perhaps, you are in a coma), I do not support this. Sure, quit your job to write a book. But don't expect to get employment insurance (which only kicks in if you are let go, not if you quit). Or, you could write that book AND work part time. Or, you could NOT work, in the hopes that your work on the book will pay off. But being paid to 'do whatever you want' is not what I am talking about here. At all.

I may tend to disagree with some people about certain issues, but with most people I can find some common ground to work from. However, I have to admit that there is one particular world view that I find truly repugnant, and I will go as far as to admit that I tend to hold a bias against those that favour this world view. I'm not sure if it is my culture, my upbringing, or something else, but this philosophy, while I can sort of understand it, nonetheless is abhorrent to me. I try to overcome this bias, however, and this thread is an attempt to aid me in this endeavour.
Simply put, its your value judgements and the reactions you have formulated in reaction to this philosophy based on conscious or unconscious concepts. Its more or less an emotional reaction; emotions being an internal reaction to a perceived object [ie, this philosophy]. The object itself has no power over you from which to base your emotional response; such a response can only be reached by evaluating the object in question against your existing value judgements.

I'm speaking of the belief in absolute individualism. The idea that each person rises and falls on their own merits, and nothing more. The idea that we are not responsible whatsoever for what happens to another human being, and therefore have no obligation to care for or aid others. That doesn't mean people who believe this DON'T help others...but they simply don't think that they should be FORCED to in any way, via taxes, government programs etc.
I'm wary of the term 'absolute individualism,' mainly because the vast majority of people who use the word 'absolute' in a context similar to this have little or no idea how to use it. The idea that we have obligations to other people implies, in a sense, that we all owe society something, if only for the mere fact that we exist.

This concept is contradictory and fallacious on a number of levels; most notable of which is the stipulation that the actions or conditions of others are somehow contingent on the actions or conditions of myself. In some cases this is true, but in the vast majority it's an assumption which plays to my [or your] emotions rather than to any semblance of reason. I did not vote for the job-killing federal minimum wage increase that put lots of folks on the streets, yet the same people who champion a policy of altruism love to assume that I should to pay for their folly. I did not fire the bum at the corner of 15th Avenue, yet I am looked down upon if I don't give him my spare change.

Now, intellectually I understand this stand. However, I have to question it. Humans are social creatures. We form social unions, our societies are based on a certain give and take.
On what concepts or fundamental basis does the concept of socialization lie? Socialization is not a valid term to use by itself in the context of discussing human interaction, "mutual benefit" is. Humans are not social, we are traders. It can be plainly seen that every [sane] man from Adam to G.W Bush has sought, in one way or another, to better his circumstance. If he chosses to do so via interaction with others, he does it because this interaction will bring a benefit to him. You seem to be acknowledging this with your final 'give and take' statement, but that term carries heavier connotations in regards to societal interaction than you're giving it credit for.

We enter into these social contracts, and we always have...there must be a reason for it. Ay...I'm not explaining myself well. I'm not just talking about less government control (which I'm actually for)...more the idea that suffering is the FAULT of those who suffer, and damn the other factors. Are some people only capable of caring for immediate friends and family? Are people truly indifferent to the rest of humanity?

Anyway, no doubt your questions will help me clarify my point (where is it again?) or your own position....
I can only speak for Objectivism of course, which applies pretty directly to what you're saying. My main problem with this statement is the assumption that "suffering is the FAULT of those who suffer," which is an overly simplistic way of looking at things. The fact of the matter is, this is sometimes--though hardly always the case.

I can't condone being "truly indifferent" to the rest of humanity, since to do so would be to ignore their rights as individuals and may lead me to irrational action, like shooting someone because I feel like it or keying a 1964 Firebird. Individualism [or, in my case Objectivism] does not advocate indifference to humanity, it simply asks that you follow reason and prioritize accordingly.

Socialistic ideas and 'communal mentality' as I like to call it, is essentially an appeal to emotion once all factors are considered, and emotion is not a valid means of formulating conclusions about reality.

If you would like, over the next few days, to peruse a more in-depth exposition as to the reasoning behind this line of thought, it can be found at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424611. But I'll warn you, it'll be really wordy and I don't know how long it will take to write.

Well, in his/her scenario they basically took everything away from this hypothetical family. How do you propose they move thousands of miles with no income, no money, no food, no nothing, even assuming open borders? The point is that even in that situation it's unlikely you can reach relative safety without assistance of people who can afford to help you.
You walk...*old geezer voice a la Eut... :D *"just like my ancestors from Siberia did to come to this great land"

Yeah, forget that my people were nomadic by nature, had the skills to live off the land, and worked together as a community. Just forget that.

I just try to plan ahead so it doesn't suck on me.
Sorry. But this made me spew coffe out of my nose. CAREFUL WITH WHAT YOU SAY!!! :D

You're calling me "politically correct???" [ faints, dies ]

Obviously, you're well within your rights to offend whomever you so desire.

They are there to warn your rational mind when there is something going on to which you need to pay attention. Failure to take them into account will often result in either missing something important or in a slow but definite atrophy of feelings, neither of which is in your personal best interests.

All I am saying is that people are often the recipients of what some call "bad luck," which is nothing more than paying a penalty for being alive.

The real question here is, "Where should assitance come from?" I do definitely not advocate "government handouts," what I advocate is giving people a "hand UP." When the private and non-profit sectors fall short in this regard, simple compassion dictates that government step in. It's really just that simple.

HOW government steps in and to what degree are other matters entirely. I suggest you read the POWW Party Platform if you're at all interested in my take on those two issues. :)

Well, I think we are fairly close in terms of belief after all.

I just don't sugarcoat stuff and wish it was overseen better.

I'm also willing to say, "FEED EM LEAN" so they want to get something better.

Government Charity should be limited in scope and duration, barring lifetime conditions we've already hashed over.

Private Charity can do what it wants, really.

Let me be a bit more clear. I feel that, in general, our government is far larger than it has any right to be. A modest income tax is still a mugging, but its one you can accept in a society our size. Better than an income tax would be a sales tax on nonessentials. *snipage*.
You see, despite certain fundamental differences in philosophy, when it comes to government, we are actually more in agreement than not.

... we need fiscal responsibility. Why do the departments of Education or Agriculture recieve homeland security dollars? Why did the federal government pay part of the cost for a mariachi appreciation center in New Mexico? Why did we, as a country, subsidize the funding of a B. B. King museum? I love B. B. King, but come on here!
Yes, we do need to be more fiscally responsible, but as I have been at pains to point out in many different threads, everything in the federal budget is there because someone with power and/or money wanted it in there.



I understand that starving the beast won't work. I understand that we have dug ourselves into a pretty deep hole in terms of spending. That doesn't change the fact that we tax more than is conscionable and spend more than there is any right to spend. Social welfare doesn't get a pass. It costs too much, is too often abused, and it really isn't RIGHT to force charity. If you have to do it, I can bite my tounge, but not when no attempt is made to curb abuse and not when the system isn't designed in such a way that people are encouraged to get off it as quickly as possible.
If you can figure out a way to eliminate "pork" from the government budget, I'll acclaim you President myself! The best we could do is to propose that the budget at all levels be mandatorily balanced, and that the entire process be made more transparent.

Just so you know:

The Platform of The Party of Whatever Works

Preamble: We, the members of The Party of Whatever Works, hereby provide this statement of beliefs, principles and process, to clarify the basic legislative and political standards of our Party.

Basis For Our Platform:

We believe that the human race is only one of the many species of Earth and that any political process should take this fact into account.

We believe, in a paraphrase of a well-known saying, that government is best which has to govern least.

We believe that an educated citizenry is the best defense against many of the ills which beset humanity, and that the intelligence, knowledge, creativity and ingenuity of our people will find a way to overcome when free to do so.

We believe in the maximum amount of freedom for all members of society, consonant with the maintenance of safety and prosperity.

We believe that one of the primary functions of government is to defend our people from foreseeable threats from other nations, organizations, natural disasters, and other assorted ills and threats from what can sometimes be a dangerous universe.

We believe in the right of people to live their lives as free from governmental interference and regulation as possible.

We believe in the essential dignity of every human life, and do not support discrimination of any sort on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation or sexual choice.

We believe that the right of the individual citizen to defend him or herself is sacrosanct.

Specific Issues:

1. Abortion. Though we do not approve of abortion as a means of birth control, we oppose any limitations on a woman's prerogative to abort during the first trimester, or on medical abortions necessary for the health of the mother. We also advocate support for those organizations which provide legal and rational alternatives for women who elect to not abort but who are unable or unwilling to raise a child.

2. Gay Marriage. We do not consider this to be an appropriate issue for consideration by the government.

3. Transgender Issues. We do not consider this to be an appropriate issue for consideration by the government.

4. Medical Insurance. We advocate universal medical insurance for all citizens, to be managed by a private organization, a list of approved procedures and treatments, and a legally-enforced schedule of fees and charges for all approved procedures and treatments. We also advocate spreading the cost for this program across the entire insurance industry.

5. Taxes. We advocate the total elimination of all deductions and exemptions, the taxation of every dollar of income for all individuals and organizations ( without exception! ), and the establishment of a fixed percentage for this taxation regardless of income, above a fixed minimum income level. We advocate the elimination of all governmental welfare programs which cannot show a 20% increase in the standard of living for at least 80% of clients over a three-year period ( and "sunset law" provisions for all programs remaining ), and the institution of a "reverse income tax" on a sliding scale based on income, for all those below the fixed minimum income.

6. Environmental Issues. We advocate that in any situation where there is a clear and provable conflict between any sort of "development," whether private or public, the conflict will be resolved in favor of environmental restraint. We also advocate heavy fines for environmental pollution, and substantial monetary rewards for individuals and organizations which demonstrate a proven track record in improving the environment. We also advocate expansion of all national parks, national forests and other wild and/or scenic areas, with "fair market value" compensation for citizens who prove loss as a result of this expansion.

7. Military Preparedness. We advocate a strong, technologically advanced, highly trained, all volunteer military. We also advocate training programs for all members of the military in civil affairs/civic operations and in methods to prevent/minimize civilian casualties.

8. International Relations. We advocate a four-step process in resolving international conflict: direct diplomacy with the nation(s) involved, diplomacy through the United Nations, sanctions against recalcitrant nations, and only when it becomes obvious that the first three options have failed, military intervention. We also advocate international dialogue on ways to improve the United Nations, or in creating a more viable alternative organization.

9. Education. We advocate the establishment of a national council on education, to include representatives from all walks of life, which will be responsible for establishing minimal educational standards for teachers and curricula nationwide. We also advocate the imposition of severe penalties for failure on the part of local educational and governmental organizations to maintain these minimal educational standards, up to and including substantial fines and jail terms, as well as substantial financial and other rewards for those who use creative and effective means of furthering education below the college level. We also advocate substantial financial aid for college students based upon family income and asset levels.

10. Space Programs. We advocate full funding of viable space programs and initiatives, including substantial financial and other rewards for the development of new, cost-effective methods of improving these programs.

11. Basic Research. We advocate full funding of basic research at levels above a minimum of 2% of GDP.

12. Death Penalty. We advocate working toward total elimination of the death penalty. We advocate immediate elimination of the death penalty for all crimes other than treason, child molestation, severe child abuse or neglect, premeditated murder, mass murder, serial murder, or murder in the commission of another felony.

13. Genetic Research. We advocate the funding of all genetic research, with effective safeguards, which have no adverse effects on the environment as determined by the best scientific methods available, and which safeguards the privacy of human beings and the genetic integrity of all naturally existing species.

14. Maintenance of the National Infrastructure. We advocate following the recommendations of the National Transportation Board and other independent organizations.

15. Private Ownership of Weapons. We advocate the abolition of all laws prohibiting or limiting private ownership of personal weapons normally available to the average military infantryman for any citizen other than convicted felons or those proven to advocate the violent overthrow of the duly constituted government. We also advocate legally mandated training in weapons safety and use for all gun owners, including ( but not limited to )child safety, weapons security, and legal circumstances of use.

16. National Financial Responsibility. We advocate elimination of the national debt and a prohibition against governmental spending ( at all levels! ) which exceeds governmental income, except in times of national emergency.

17. National Priorities. In the event that insufficient revenue precludes funding for all requirements of this Platform, we advocate a national plebiscite which gives registered voters an opportunity to prioritize governmental goals and objectives in descending order of preference.

18. Election Integrity. We advocate the establishment of an independent commission to recommend secure processes and procedures to guarantee that all citizens eligible to vote will have the opportunity to do so, that all votes are valid, and that all valid votes are counted, for all elections at all levels, national, state and local.

19. Citizen Initiative. We advocate an initiative law allowing citizen-initiated legislation upon the submission of petitions containing no less than 10% of all registered voters within the appropriate political division ( national, state or local ).

20. Energy Policy. We advocate increasing the tax on non-renewable energy resources, with all revenue from this tax going to individuals and organizations seeking alternative energy options.

Involvement of Non-Party Members:

We encourage all citizens, whether members of The Whatever Works Party or not, to comment on this Platform, and to make suggestions for other issues they feel we should address.

[ Last edited in response to citizen input at 21:40 hours, May 18, 2005 ]

argh.

1) There are no such thing as natural rights. An asocial person, one existing in a true state of nature (i.e. totally asocial, Rousseau's state of nature) not only has no need for rights, but would be unable to even conceive of them. Unless you're proposing that rights are magic, they can be neither pre-social nor natural.

2) Thus rights, in as much as they exist, must be socially created. Rights are only coherent or necessary in situations of social interactions; i.e. society. They have no innate nature, but are created by these societies to protect a certain right/value/being/etc.

3) In as much as rights are socially created, they cannot be referred to as absolute. They are neither unchanging nor eternal, but are a product of political deliberation within a society.

4) In our society the right to property is understood, politically and for the greater part in general, as not including an absolute right not to be taxed.

5) Since tax does not infringe on our socially determined property rights, they cannot be understood as theft.

Ok, here is the fundamental problem with taxation in this country, it undermines property rights. If I own a chunk of land in Chicago thats worth $500,000.00 and I do NOTHING with it, I still have to pay property tax. Its just grass. It requires no city services, no police or fire protection, nothing. If I don't pay my property tax, the city will seize it and sell it to someone else. Now, if I live in an appartment, and I don't pay my rent, what happens? Does that look like private property to you?

Now lets extend that to you as a person. If you and I were to enter into a contract that said you would pay me 10% of your income and I would protect you, that would be legal. If you stopped paying me, I could take you to court and the court could force you to pay me. If you were bankrupt, however, I couldn't lock you in my basement for 25 years, even if that was stipulated in our contract from the start. Even if I knew you had the money to pay me I would be doing something illegal if I said "pay me or I'll lock you in my basement." That would be extortion. Now lets say you don't pay your taxes.

Life, be it personal or social is a series of contracts. One party cannot break that contract without being a criminal. Uncle Sam is no different.

I have no obligations toward your welfare? Good. You won't mind if I rob your house then. I mean, what 'contract' makes me have to respect your property? There isn't one according to you.

EDIT: Yes, I exaggerated your point. But if I'm only responsible to myself then isn't this the logical conclusion of that?

Go ahead and rob his house, just try not to complain when he protects his property with a 12 guage.

If I value myself and take responsibility for myself, then I will work to feed, clothe and house myself. Most humans are capable of doing this at a moderate level in any given society. (((Those areas where this is impossible are terrible, but ultimately the individual must strive to find a place for himself where basic needs can be met. I would not stay in America if the water dried up, the food disappeared and the government knocked down my house. Common Sense.)))
common sense to you, but in most of these areas where people are pursecuted and lack the ability to feed and clothe themselves they simply do not have the option to leave, and even if they do they lack the resources to set up home anywhere else - if you have no money, if you leave your home do you really have anywhere to go? this is why there are so many refugee camps around the world. this too is subjective - you can leave if you find your environment unsatisfactory, while simply leaving just isn't an option for these people, especially when 1st world countries like ours close our borders to "undesirable" people simply because our own welfare may suffer from opening the gates.
yes we may suffer a little in terms of a downturn in economic prosperity, but this will be in the short run, and will benefit these people more than the disbenefit to ourselves, i would argue, and would then say that this is worthwhile. this is in part what i mean when i say we have an equal responsibility for others as we do ourselves
(note i never said to disregard responsibility for the self, just that many people place that much higher than responsibility for others)

I must work to eat, live for myself FIRST and in general be self-sufficient at all times. It is my FIRST DUTY, for how can I help others if I am in need myself, hmmm? To paraphrase Ayn Rand (my hero): There must be PRODUCERS to feed the rest.



indeed. but we no longer live in subsistance economies in the West/1st World. we are the priveliged ones who no longer need to struggle for survival. we can, as a society, help others as a first duty without becoming in need ourselves. we must use our priveliged position to help those less fortunate imho


the rest of your post strikes me as inherently selfish, to be frank ("MY money used to help OTHER PEOPLE?!?" shock horror :eek: )
ever heard of compassion or empathy?


it is all, ultimatley, subjective. it also depends what you want out of life. personally i'm not one for seeing making loads of money, being particularly "sucessful" or gaining prestige as particularly important in life. one of my main motivations is to help others (although i am not in a stage in my life whereby i can do this effectively yet)

so when you say where is the incentive Yes, I agree that children, retards and the disabled should be offered assistance, even using MY TAX DOLLARS. But the level of that help should never exceed what I am giving to myself, my children, my family. If it does, then where is my motivation to keep on PRODUCING? The sensible choice in that case becomes, "Get on the dole!"

i say first you are over-simplifying the welfare system... not all of an individual's taxes go to the dole, but to state education, state healthcare, foreign aid, etc. so while it is true that it doesn't make any logical sense to keep producing if you can make more on benefits, this isn't the case with taxes in the real world.
and with that in mind, secondly i reply: "helping others", "compassion" and trying to make the world a fairer place



You do not have a RIGHT to have children you cannot feed, clothe or house. If you cannot even care for yourself, do not endanger your child or my checkbook by having unprotected sex. It is so simple, but so damn common that I absolutely get ill when I think about it.

How many stay poor because they don't learn?

I was near bankruptcy a few years ago. But I learned from my mistakes and started working two jobs and got out from under it. I helped myself the best I could and thankfully, had a few helping hands along the way.

But I sure didn't get my girlfriend pregnant and then apply for all kinds of assistance! I didn't go buy a NEW CAR and then ask the government to pay off all my loans. I didn't quit working and become an artist because the corporate environment was too stuffy.

well good for you, but, as you even said yourself, people make mistakes. i don't believe people should be punished for those mistakes, even if it means the rest of us giving up a little of what we have to help them, especially in cases where its either not their fault or where children are concerned.

you say "people are poor because they didn't learn". i say many people are poor because they happened to be born in an area where they didn't have the facility to learn as well compared to someone born in a more priveliged area. should that person be punished for this "mistake" they had nothing to do with?
what if family problems, or the environment they grew up in prevented or discouraged them from learning? same problem, same question.
both these occur in the West, but also more to the extreme in the 3rd world. children in Africa who have to walk 20km just to go to school, if they have one in the area. those who cannot afford to send thier children to school, be it literally or in terms of opportunity cost (they cannot spare their child working on the fields)... should these people, these children be punished and poor for the rest of their lives because of something they had no control over?

what about people who have unexpected pregnancies? are they to be punished for this mistake?

people aren't perfect, people make mistakes. you seem to regard yourself as above making mistakes (at least of this sort), but not everyone is like you.
a bit of compassion, empthy and understanding could go a long way

How else is one supposed to take it?

How many thousands more books do I have to read :)

Umm, however many you get through before you die :)

At the risk of sounding pedantic (but I must!)... Welfare is not "forced charity", or, more accurately, that is an abuse of the word and concept to make an invalid point. A charitable act is done freely; if it is forced, it is not charity. Find a new made-up term, please.

Government exists for society, not for the individual. Individualism is contrary to society, and therefore to government, so the attitude of such people, that views taxes and theft, is not unreasonable. For them. The flipside of this coin is that, if you live in this society willingly, as a part of it, then yours are the attitudes/beliefs that are contrary to what is more generally reasonable, which is conforming with the society you are a part of.

Go ahead and rob his house, just try not to complain when he protects his property with a 12 guage.

Yes, and that would be much better than teaching people they have a responsibility to work within a social contract rather than only doing what interests them. Personal responsibility is an important thing to learn, but part of personal responsibility is accepting our effects on the world and our responsibility to others. The question isn't whether we are responsible to others, but where does that responsibility end.

Again, remember that the path continues then and I bring my gun as well and the his survival in his house is dependent on whether or not I can avoid waking him.

Pure Metal, ask yourself the following question:

What are compassion and empathy? Compassion and empathy are emotions. They're not to be ignored of course, but they are not tools for discerning the nature of reality. There is no alternative to reason as a means of knowledge. If one attempts to designate such a role to emotions, then his has ceased to engage in cognition. Instead, he is subverting the validity of his thought by introducing as its guide nonobjective elements.

Policy should be based on reason, not emotion. Many mistake this as an anti-emotion viewpoint, but this is not the case. The role of emotions, while crucial to our existence, is not that of the discovery of reality. One casts no aspersions on eating or breathing if one denies they are means of cognition. The same applies to feeling.

This is hilarious, you claim society has done nothing for you but the very fact you can even express this is due to your socialization.

Socieites of humans are responsible for EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU. No society, no language.

Picture it this way: are you or are you not better off than Rousseau's nobel savage subsisting off the forest? If you are in any way better, you have been benefitted by society.

Now it may be true that the education/welfare system failed you, but that does not mean you owe society.
nothing.

Just as an aside, it is not true that American was founded purely on ideas of individua freedomsl; the Republic as a political construct implies shared governance and thus social belonging. The only system based purely on individual freedoms is captialist anarchism.

Big on Rousseau, aren't you? I've always found that Rousseau is most useful for what you're using him for, attempting to justify any terrible social wrong by saying that it what you get with society. Sorry, but when society has screwed me again and again, I don't turn around and thank it for language. Want me to contribute to society? Fine. I'm currently training to be a Psychologist, I'll help individuals one at a time in exchange for money and when I have children I will teach them to speak, read, think, and shoot. I feel society and I will be about even then. Perhaps at some point I'll even remove a predator or two from society when they decide to prey on the wrong victim.

As for the American system. It was built as an attempt to get as close to Capitalistic Anarchy as possible without degenerating into tyranny.

*snip*
Okay Melkor, you're disappointing me. I'm used to the edgy, angry Melkor, not the philosophical Melkor...the Melkor Chained, as it were...EDGY DAMNIT! BE UNCHAINED! :D

Of course.

And, given that I could not leave, I would then perish.

It is the way of the world. Most of Africa is going to die during our lifetimes without an AIDS vaccine. Simple fact of life.

However, if my choice were invading your garden to steal your bread or dying, I will choose the lesser of two evils: Suicide or theft/tresspassing, that is.

And, because I am a violent, stupid, angry, poorly-socialized, unemotional and inconsiderate American, I would invade your garden and steal your bread at gunpoint. :) Because really, that offers me a better chance of survival, which is the whole point of the exercise.

Doesn't have to be.

Life sucks at times. I just try to plan ahead so it doesn't suck on me.

And maybe you're getting the wrong kind because I plan ahead so it does. ;)

Okay Melkor, you're disappointing me. I'm used to the edgy, angry Melkor, not the philosophical Melkor...the Melkor Chained, as it were...EDGY DAMNIT! BE UNCHAINED! :D
Heh. We'll see; it depends on the methodology of those who respond to my reasoning. Generally the best way to get that kind of reaction out of me is to practice stupidity or irrationality, which I haven't seen yet [possibly because I haven't read the whole thread]. You're being pretty honest with yourself here, so I see no problem with it as of yet.

Okay Melkor, you're disappointing me. I'm used to the edgy, angry Melkor, not the philosophical Melkor...the Melkor Chained, as it were...EDGY DAMNIT! BE UNCHAINED! :D

He became a moderator and now he thinks he's gotta be all philosophical and cool.

Pure Metal, ask yourself the following question:

What are compassion and empathy? Compassion and empathy are emotions. They're not to be ignored of course, but they are not tools for discerning the nature of reality. There is no alternative to reason as a means of knowledge. If one attempts to designate such a role to emotions, then his has ceased to engage in cognition. Instead, he is subverting the validity of his thought by introducing as its guide nonobjective elements.

Policy should be based on reason, not emotion. Many mistake this as an anti-emotion viewpoint, but this is not the case. The role of emotions, while crucial to our existence, is not that of the discovery of reality. One casts no aspersions on eating or breathing if one denies they are means of cognition. The same applies to feeling.
You say that as if thought and emotion were totally separate things. They are not. Thoughts stir emotions, and emotions generate thought. There is no such thing as a "pure thought". Unless you are from Vulcan.

Yes, policies should be based on reason, but reasoning is tempered by compassion and empathy in a normal human being.

Pure Metal, ask yourself the following question:

What are compassion and empathy? Compassion and empathy are emotions. They're not to be ignored of course, but they are not tools for discerning the nature of reality. There is no alternative to reason as a means of knowledge. If one attempts to designate such a role to emotions, then his has ceased to engage in cognition. Instead, he is subverting the validity of his thought by introducing as its guide nonobjective elements.

Policy should be based on reason, not emotion. Many mistake this as an anti-emotion viewpoint, but this is not the case. The role of emotions, while crucial to our existence, is not that of the discovery of reality. One casts no aspersions on eating or breathing if one denies they are means of cognition. The same applies to feeling.
[ applauds wildly ] :)

He became a moderator and now he thinks he's gotta be all philosophical and cool.
LOL! :D

He became a moderator and now he thinks he's gotta be all philosophical and cool.Heaven forbid what would occur if I became a mod! :eek:

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

You walk...*old geezer voice a la Eut... :D *"just like my ancestors from Siberia did to come to this great land"

Yeah, forget that my people were nomadic by nature, had the skills to live off the land, and worked together as a community. Just forget that.
Ahem! Just keep in mind that I'm still in good condition and can spank yer lil butt if need be! :D

Heh. We'll see; it depends on the methodology of those who respond to my reasoning. Generally the best way to get that kind of reaction out of me is to practice stupidity or irrationality, which I haven't seen yet [possibly because I haven't read the whole thread]. You're being pretty honest with yourself here, so I see no problem with it as of yet.
Hmmm...well...

BAN SMOKING/GUNS/THE MISSIONARY POSITION/HOMOPHOBES AND CELL PHONES!

How's that for irrational? Edgy yet?
:eek:

You seem to think that this bolded sentence means that your nation is a collection of individuals working individually to serve themselves. You ignore the reality. Your nation is made up of individuals who, for certain things, work with a collective purpose. To deny this is to deny the very existence of your democratic government.


I don't have a democratic government. I live in a republic. You see, normal people are too embroiled in their passions, to caught up in their daily lives, too myopic, and yes, often times too stupid to make important choices about the direction of the nation or it's laws. As a result, we choose people to represent us. Pure democracy only works in small enclaves.

While we occasionally work together for a common goal, most people are individuals serving themselves. The busdriver doesn't care about the environment or getting people to work on time. He cares about his $14.50 and hour. He isn't working to a common goal, hes working to the end of his shift when he can go home, play with his kids and kiss his wife. Before you disagree with me, just think about it. How many people actually care enough to vote? How many people give $200 to Amnesty International instead of buying their kid an X-Box for Christmas? How many times a week do you look down at your shoes when someone shakes a cup full of change in your direction because all you have is a 5 and you'd like to eat lunch today? It sucks, it'd be nice to help the world. The problem is, we have our own lives, our own families, our own concerns

Some of us honestly don't have very much sympathy. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone complaining about how hard it is from them and thought "If I can get to where I am from where I came, why the hell can't you? You've got two working legs, you've never been institutionalized, and you don't have to consider a dozen specialzed heuristics every time you run into numbers because your brain doesn't work the same way as everyone else's. Why are you asking me for help?"

You say that as if thought and emotion were totally separate things. They are not. Thoughts stir emotions, and emotions generate thought. There is no such thing as a "pure thought". Unless you are from Vulcan.

Yes, policies should be based on reason, but reasoning is tempered by compassion and empathy in a normal human being.
Well, this doesn't exactly invalidate my point, but I'll bite nonetheless. The problem with unfettered emotional thought in most cases is that the subject is unaware as to the roots of his emotional response; ie. he does not reason to determine its source or validity.

Emotions are a product of reason, not the other way around. "Reasoning is tempered by compassion and empathy in a normal human being," is therefore an invalid statement [nevermind that it contradicts your earlier premise of 'thoughts stir emotions']; a more accurate portrayal would be "Compassion and empathy are tempered by reason in a normal human being." One must engage in some method of cognition to forumlate the basis for his compassionate or empathetic thought in the first place; to assume the inverse is to invalidate reason as our primary means of perceiving reality.

EDIT: and I've been a mod longer than most of you have been playing this game :p

I can't even imagine being a regular player anymore.

At the risk of sounding pedantic (but I must!)... Welfare is not "forced charity", or, more accurately, that is an abuse of the word and concept to make an invalid point. A charitable act is done freely; if it is forced, it is not charity. Find a new made-up term, please. Exactly. Welfare is, instead, collective charity. I mean, people have a choice to pay taxes, don't they? :rolleyes: What made-up term do you propose we use for it then?
Government exists for society, not for the individual. Individualism is contrary to society, and therefore to government, so the attitude of such people, that views taxes and theft, is not unreasonable. For them. The flipside of this coin is that, if you live in this society willingly, as a part of it, then yours are the attitudes/beliefs that are contrary to what is more generally reasonable, which is conforming with the society you are a part of.Government exists because society is imperfect and needs someone to take care of it. In a pure democracy, capitalist state, autocracy, etc., no government would exist as such.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I don't have a democratic government. I live in a republic. You see, normal people are too embroiled in their passions, to caught up in their daily lives, too myopic, and yes, often times too stupid to make important choices about the direction of the nation or it's laws. As a result, we choose people to represent us. Pure democracy only works in small enclaves.

While we occasionally work together for a common goal, most people are individuals serving themselves. The busdriver doesn't care about the environment or getting people to work on time. He cares about his $14.50 and hour. He isn't working to a common goal, hes working to the end of his shift when he can go home, play with his kids and kiss his wife. Before you disagree with me, just think about it. How many people actually care enough to vote? How many people give $200 to Amnesty International instead of buying their kid an X-Box for Christmas? How many times a week do you look down at your shoes when someone shakes a cup full of change in your direction because all you have is a 5 and you'd like to eat lunch today? It sucks, it'd be nice to help the world. The problem is, we have our own lives, our own families, our own concerns

Some of us honestly don't have very much sympathy. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone complaining about how hard it is from them and thought "If I can get to where I am from where I came, why the hell can't you? You've got two working legs, you've never been institutionalized, and you don't have to consider a dozen specialzed heuristics every time you run into numbers because your brain doesn't work the same way as everyone else's. Why are you asking me for help?"Exactly. People care first about themselves, then their families, then the rest of the world. It's part of what humans are. If you're not human, like me, it looks very strange, but humans are that kind of territorial animal which does not easily lend itself to altruism. Some humans do have the time to care for others of their kind, and set up hospitals, charities, etc. or organizations like Amnesty, but membership and donations are limited.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Exactly. Welfare is, instead, collective charity. I mean, people have a choice to pay taxes, don't they? :rolleyes: What made-up term do you propose we use for it then?
I'd prefer accuracy to any made-up term. I think the term "welfare" suits it best.

EDIT: and I've been a mod longer than most of you have been playing this game :p

I can't even imagine being a regular player anymore.Wait...you're a mod? Wow, I must have seriously missed something. I was away for a while. When did you become a mod again? :D

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Wait...you're a mod? Wow, I must have seriously missed something. I was away for a while. When did you become a mod again? :D

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
April of 2003.

April of 2003.

They made you a mod in two months.

I'd prefer accuracy to any made-up term. I think the term "welfare" suits it best.Exactly. Me too.

April 2003. Oh yes! I seem to remember something about a new mod at that time. Only I thought it was someone else entirely.

Dear me, that was a long time ago...

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Yes, they did. I was also the first GM. Now stop hijacking the thread, dammit! Don't make me get out the beatin' stick.

How many times a week do you look down at your shoes when someone shakes a cup full of change in your direction because all you have is a 5 and you'd like to eat lunch today?
Never. Honestly. It truly doesn't matter what he ( or she ) does with the money, as long as my intent was to help in some way. I suppose you would say I have too much empathy. Sue me. ;)



Some of us honestly don't have very much sympathy. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone complaining about how hard it is from them and thought "If I can get to where I am from where I came, why the hell can't you? You've got two working legs, you've never been institutionalized, and you don't have to consider a dozen specialzed heuristics every time you run into numbers because your brain doesn't work the same way as everyone else's. Why are you asking me for help?"
There could be a whole host of reasons why their problems aren't visible: they could be mental ( which is often just as much of a disability as not having legs ), they could be economic ( perhaps he lost his job and is in a panic ), they could be one or several of any number of reasons.

I truly pray/meditate that you never find yourself in the position of having to depend on others to help you survive.

Well I would say this is seriously wrong, from a theoretical standpoint. Marxism does not imply redistribution of wealth as we understand it (a long term gradual taxing) but workers revolution which abolishes capitalist wealth as it understood. Workers control the means of production by seizing it, not through taxing or reform. In fact many Marxists are against welfare systems as they are perceived to reduce class conciousness by alleviating the plight of the proletariat (which is adimittedly pretty twisted). Marxists would never, in the utopia, tax income, because money and wealth are abolished.

That aside, this does not explain your conflation of Marxism with ALL theories involving redistribution. I think it's silly to say liberal egalitarianism, for example, is the same as Marxism given they have entirely, indeed diametrically opposed, theoretical roots. They have nothing in common whatsoever.

In short equating tax with Marxism doesn't make any sense to me at all.


The problem is that Marxism, like all philosophical systems, cannot ever be pure. Any system is marked by the world in which it is tried. Wealth is ingrained in the minds of society, it cannot ever be truely abolished. The only way to even simulate the abolition of wealth is to attempt to redistribute it in such a manner as to reduce the perception of wealth and it's disparities. Pure Marxism is academic, not realistic.

The reason I equate all systems that redistribute wealth with one another is because, while the theoretical roots might be different, the end is very similar. The effects, are very similar. There are only two ways to redistribute wealth, outright confiscation and taxation. Whats the real difference between a Liberal Egalitarian nation taxes it's citizens at 50% in order to pay for extensive social programs, and a Marxist nation that pay's it's workers half of what they would be worth in a free market and keeps the rest of the money to pay for extensive social programs? In both nations you have people getting less than they earned and a massive bureaucracy that attempts to take care of everyone equally. The reasons, the propaganda, the justifications, they may be different, but the end result is VERY similar.

For the record, I despise "egalitarianism." I don't really want to start a tangent as to why, but lets just say I don't think Vonnegut's "Harrison Burgeron" is too much of an exaggeration.

Yes, they did. I was also the first GM. Now stop hijacking the thread, dammit! Don't make me get out the beatin' stick.

*thinks about responding and runs instead* /Hijack

Note: Sinuhue likes it when we pad her threads as it makes her look more popular. That way when a mod reasonably changes their mind about a response to nontrolling we can all laugh as someone complains that it's simply because she's so popular. :p

Well, this doesn't exactly invalidate my point, but I'll bite nonetheless. The problem with unfettered emotional thought in most cases is that the subject is unaware as to the roots of his emotional response; ie. he does not reason to determine its source or validity.

Emotions are a product of reason, not the other way around. "Reasoning is tempered by compassion and empathy in a normal human being," is therefore an invalid statement [nevermind that it contradicts your earlier premise of 'thoughts stir emotions']; a more accurate portrayal would be "Compassion and empathy are tempered by reason in a normal human being." One must engage in some method of cognition to forumlate the basis for his compassionate or empathetic thought in the first place; to assume the inverse is to invalidate reason as our primary means of perceiving reality.
I have to disagree. Emotions are a chemical reaction, a product of bodily functions. They generate thoughts, which in term stimulate more chemical reactions in the body, and more emotion. Reasoning is a method of applying logic to thinking, so I wouldn't think to assign it as a source of emotions. Compassion and empathy are as much tempered by reason as reason is by them. This is an exercise of self-control.

"What are compassion and empathy? Compassion and empathy are emotions..." "One must engage in some method of cognition to forumlate the basis for his compassionate or empathetic thought in the first place..." Are you now claiming that compassion and empathy are thoughts rather than emotions?

Hmmm...because of this http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9036893&postcount=72, I'm going to have to say that I'm speaking from the viewpoint of the Canadian welfare system, which as Willamena has pointed out, is not something that will pay the rent.

Perhaps you yanks have something to learn from us, after all? :D

LOL. That would explain some of the issue. I don't really have a problem with Canada, you guys have the right idea in some things (although you have a way to go when it comes to free speech).

I think you are ignoring the fact that work, in itself, can be rewarding. People need to feel useful, even those with limited abilities. Unless you have a very pressing reason to 'never work a day in your life' (like perhaps, you are in a coma), I do not support this. Sure, quit your job to write a book. But don't expect to get employment insurance (which only kicks in if you are let go, not if you quit). Or, you could write that book AND work part time. Or, you could NOT work, in the hopes that your work on the book will pay off. But being paid to 'do whatever you want' is not what I am talking about here. At all.
I can only say that I am glad we do not live in the same society. However, I know full well unemployment leads to misery. Depression, Insomnia, mental breakdowns and so forth. Do not misinterpret what I said. I neither condone nor incurage people taking a free ride for the sake of it. But I am proud of the fact that it's possible.
Not everyone is cut out for a job. There are many different reasons. Some may be ill and maybe 0.01% are just lazy bums. But I'm prepared to accept the lazy minority, and provide them with free medicare when their lack of a meningful life nets them a mental breakdown. I'm prepared to do this, because it enables the rest of society do what they please. Most people want to work. A very few wants to do things they cannot live off. Political activism, arts, education - and countless other things. Hell some just wants to go around and build playgrounds or nature preserves all their life.
These are all things I value. Things I do not believe a society can do without. At least not without loosing our humanity and stunting our growth both as individuals and society.

I do not consider it to be anyones primary duty to take care of themselves. We live in vast, sprawling societies, so rich it's hard to comprehend. There is no real need for us to behave as if we were poor.
The primary role, as I see it, must be to enrich the society you're in and to help yourself and everyone else to realize their full potential and their dreams.
That may sound extremely decadent and lofty, but it is the reality of most western societies. We may as well imbrace it and prosper from it. The stoneage mentality of "Me, my dearest, and maybe you" is no longer relevant for us. We have - no small thanks to our thorough exploitation of our fellow beings & globe - societies capable of helping us realize almost anything we can think of. Not doing so is a waste.

We are not so poor as to have need for oldschool individualism. It's just limiting ourself and our peers.

You're calling me "politically correct???" [ faints, dies ]


OOH! Dem's Fightin' woids!

I got twenty on th' grizzled vet, and I'm takin' all bets!


;)

Emotions are a product of reason ...
Say what??? Where, pray tell, did you discover this gem of folk wisdom???

Oooh...great segway into my open borders rant....*resists...RESISTS...*

Of course, this also has to do with economic resources, so perhaps I can manage to stay on track...

It has been said, "If your economic circumstances are not good enough, move one..." and yet when people DO, because they are not eligible for LEGAL migration/immigration, they are lambasted for this as well. Catch 22 anyone?

Oh damnit...I strayed a bit after all...

Just breath deeply and think of Lou Dobbs being harassed by a swarm of bees ;)

Oooh...great segway into my open borders rant....*resists...RESISTS...*

Of course, this also has to do with economic resources, so perhaps I can manage to stay on track...

It has been said, "If your economic circumstances are not good enough, move one..." and yet when people DO, because they are not eligible for LEGAL migration/immigration, they are lambasted for this as well. Catch 22 anyone?

Oh damnit...I strayed a bit after all...



....Mexican bees

Yes, they did. I was also the first GM. Now stop hijacking the thread, dammit! Don't make me get out the beatin' stick.
My most humble apologies, O Esteemed Game Mod. (I was here before you! Why didn't I get to be a mod? Probably because of my cruel sense of humor and constant sarcasm? Who knows.) *runs*

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

You see, despite certain fundamental differences in philosophy, when it comes to government, we are actually more in agreement than not.

Hmm...quick quiz...Guns, Gays, and the UN, where do you stand?!

;) LOL

Say what??? Where, pray tell, did you discover this gem of folk wisdom???Exactly. Emotions ? reason (? = =/=). They are opposites. Ergo, emotions are evil, since reason is good. Or are they complements (yin-yang relationship)? Who really knows?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

If you can figure out a way to eliminate "pork" from the government budget, I'll acclaim you President myself! The best we could do is to propose that the budget at all levels be mandatorily balanced, and that the entire process be made more transparent.
[ Last edited in response to citizen input at 21:40 hours, May 18, 2005 ]

I think dealing with pork needs multiple solutions. A good start is a constitutional ammendment that puts an automatic 10 year sunset clause on all laws. This will do two things. First, it will require periodic re-evaluation of all laws. Second, it will keep congress busy. If they had to review everything they'd done they wouldn't have time to ask baseball players about steroids. From there, you put hard inflation-based caps on the growth of all departments and agencies except Justice, DOD, and State. That'd do alot to help the problem. Wouldn't eliminate it, but it'd make a dent.

At the risk of sounding pedantic (but I must!)... Welfare is not "forced charity", or, more accurately, that is an abuse of the word and concept to make an invalid point. A charitable act is done freely; if it is forced, it is not charity. Find a new made-up term, please.

Government exists for society, not for the individual. Individualism is contrary to society, and therefore to government, so the attitude of such people, that views taxes and theft, is not unreasonable. For them. The flipside of this coin is that, if you live in this society willingly, as a part of it, then yours are the attitudes/beliefs that are contrary to what is more generally reasonable, which is conforming with the society you are a part of.

1) The point of the term is that forced charity is no charity at all. It's meant to be derisive and satirical.

2) The point of US government is to safeguard the freedom of the individual. EVERYTHING else is secondary.

1) The point of the term is that forced charity is no charity at all. It's meant to be derisive and satirical.I take it you're anti-welfare?

2) The point of US government is to safeguard the freedom of the individual. EVERYTHING else is secondary.The point of government is essentially to protect people from each other. Or at least it ought to be.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Yes, and that would be much better than teaching people they have a responsibility to work within a social contract rather than only doing what interests them. Personal responsibility is an important thing to learn, but part of personal responsibility is accepting our effects on the world and our responsibility to others. The question isn't whether we are responsible to others, but where does that responsibility end.

Again, remember that the path continues then and I bring my gun as well and the his survival in his house is dependent on whether or not I can avoid waking him.


Wrong argument to make with someone who is partially a social darwinist ;). I don't have a fundamental problem with people too stupid/foolish/greedy to understand that theft is bad being removed from the gene pool.

As for the path coninuing, it is unlikely. Criminals are oppritunists. They are not likely to put their lives in danger. Bringing a gun and depending on not waking the victim seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice it causes problems. You would have a short career as a thief that would almost certainly end in your death or a lifetime of incarceration. More likely, you would choose to commit crimes that were less risky for you (you would case my home, break into my car, etc). Criminals are, sociologically, lazy creatures. They engage in criminal activity because they can get higher rewards for less work that way. When you introduce the very real chance that they'll bleed to death in someone's living room, they look for an easier crime.

I truly pray/meditate that you never find yourself in the position of having to depend on others to help you survive.

I have worked hard to reject the help of others so that I can provide for myself. I've never used the ADA to get ahead (even though I easily could have), I've never expected people to apply special standards to me because I have a harder time. I accept the fact that it will be more difficult for me and I succeed.

Exactly. Emotions ? reason (? = =/=). They are opposites. Ergo, emotions are evil, since reason is good. Or are they complements (yin-yang relationship)? Who really knows?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
:rolleyes:

Emotions and reason are not "opposites," they are complimentary. They are both useful, and using either at the expense of the other is unproductive and irrational. Use your reason to think this through: if emotions were "evil" would they not have eventually fallen by the wayside due to evolutionary culling?

Exactly. Welfare is, instead, collective charity. I mean, people have a choice to pay taxes, don't they?
On the off-chance that you were serious (it's hard to tell sometimes, especially for me), I will reply here...
Welfare is not "collective charity." Charity is given by individuals, or groups of individuals, on behalf of themselves or the group, and it is given freely. Welfare is not any sort of charity.

I have worked hard to reject the help of others so that I can provide for myself. I've never used the ADA to get ahead (even though I easily could have), I've never expected people to apply special standards to me because I have a harder time. I accept the fact that it will be more difficult for me and I succeed.
I thought much the same way when I was considerably younger. I was wrong.

It's admirable that you have persevered and been successful in your own eyes. Many others don't have that capability for a wide variety of reasons, including those like me who had what I refer to as a "life accident." Shit happens. It's nice to know that when it does, you're not alone.

*thinks about responding and runs instead* /Hijack

Note: Sinuhue likes it when we pad her threads as it makes her look more popular. That way when a mod reasonably changes their mind about a response to nontrolling we can all laugh as someone complains that it's simply because she's so popular. :p
And get thwaped. :)

I have to disagree. Emotions are a chemical reaction, a product of bodily functions.
Ridiculous. If emotions were governed purely by chemical reactions, they would be objective and not subject to change much from person to person. Some extremes of emotion are a result of such a reaction, as depression is often indicative of low seratonin levels. Happiness, likewise, often indicates a presence of endorphins. The corner you're failing to think around is just what cognitive process leads us to the triggering of such a reaction.

If someone has a varying emotional response to something, it means that he reached a different conclusion in the process of evaluating his value judgements in regard to said object. The onset of a chemical reaction is dependent on just what the person happens to think or believe about this object or concept. Endorphins are released because someone feels happy about something, not because it's an automated response. Like I said, an object in and of itself does not have the power to dictate an emotional process on a person. People don't automatically feel the same way when they look at a bottle or a candle or a guitar.

They generate thoughts, which in term stimulate more chemical reactions in the body, and more emotion. Reasoning is a method of applying logic to thinking, so I wouldn't think to assign it as a source of emotions. Compassion and empathy are as much tempered by reason as reason is by them. This is an exercise of self-control.
Wrong. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates material provided by man's senses. In order to properly deploy reason, we must boil down all concepts to their perceptual level. This includes emotion. Perhaps I was slightly off the mark in declaring that emotions are the product of reason, emotions are essentially the product of ideas; ideas which may held consciously or unconsiously, explicit or implicit, sharply defined or vague, rational or contradictory.

There are four steps to emotion-formation, only the first and last of which are conscious. They are: perception, identification, evaluation, and response. The middle two are done quickly and automatically; we are often unaware of them. Reason is the faculty that responds to concepts, and emotion is the faculty that responds ro percepts. They can be integrated to an extent, but this integration is hardly universal.

"What are compassion and empathy? Compassion and empathy are emotions..." "One must engage in some method of cognition to forumlate the basis for his compassionate or empathetic thought in the first place..." Are you now claiming that compassion and empathy are thoughts rather than emotions?
No, I'm saying they rest on a cognitive process, just like everything else that happens within our minds. Hopefully.

Not everyone is cut out for a job. There are many different reasons. Some may be ill and maybe 0.01% are just lazy bums...
Welfare and disability are separate issues, but I agree with you that it is something to take pride in, that society cares for those who cannot care for themselves.

I think dealing with pork needs multiple solutions. A good start is a constitutional ammendment that puts an automatic 10 year sunset clause on all laws. This will do two things. First, it will require periodic re-evaluation of all laws. Second, it will keep congress busy. If they had to review everything they'd done they wouldn't have time to ask baseball players about steroids. From there, you put hard inflation-based caps on the growth of all departments and agencies except Justice, DOD, and State. That'd do alot to help the problem. Wouldn't eliminate it, but it'd make a dent.
Something along these lines?

"We advocate the elimination of all governmental welfare programs which cannot show a 20% increase in the standard of living for at least 80% of clients over a three-year period ( and "sunset law" provisions for all programs remaining ), and the institution of a "reverse income tax" on a sliding scale based on income, for all those below the fixed minimum income."

Exactly. Emotions ? reason (? = =/=). They are opposites. Ergo, emotions are evil, since reason is good. Or are they complements (yin-yang relationship)? Who really knows?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
LOL :D

I am primarily responsible for myself and for my own actions. While my children were still children, I was very much responsible for them too. There is also some limited responsibility I have to other members of my family (i.e., my husband, grown children, grandchildren, parents and siblings), but for those who are grown and competent, my responsibility is extremely limited. If something happened to my children to where they couldn't take care of themselves or their young children, for example, then I would assume responsibility for those familiy members who are not capable of taking responsibility for themselves.

Also, if I see someone collapse on the street, for example, I would assume temporary responsibility for them until I could get them some help - I certainly wouldn't walk away and leave them there.

I think we all should have a responsibility to do at least this much for others. But to support all those who simply don't want to work or to pay for the religious indoctrination of others (directly or indirectly) via my taxes? Definitely not.

I may tend to disagree with some people about certain issues, but with most people I can find some common ground to work from. However, I have to admit that there is one particular world view that I find truly repugnant, and I will go as far as to admit that I tend to hold a bias against those that favour this world view. I'm not sure if it is my culture, my upbringing, or something else, but this philosophy, while I can sort of understand it, nonetheless is abhorrent to me. I try to overcome this bias, however, and this thread is an attempt to aid me in this endeavour.

I'm speaking of the belief in absolute individualism. The idea that each person rises and falls on their own merits, and nothing more. The idea that we are not responsible whatsoever for what happens to another human being, and therefore have no obligation to care for or aid others. That doesn't mean people who believe this DON'T help others...but they simply don't think that they should be FORCED to in any way, via taxes, government programs etc.

Now, intellectually I understand this stand. However, I have to question it. Humans are social creatures. We form social unions, our societies are based on a certain give and take. We enter into these social contracts, and we always have...there must be a reason for it. Ay...I'm not explaining myself well. I'm not just talking about less government control (which I'm actually for)...more the idea that suffering is the FAULT of those who suffer, and damn the other factors. Are some people only capable of caring for immediate friends and family? Are people truly indifferent to the rest of humanity?

Anyway, no doubt your questions will help me clarify my point (where is it again?) or your own position....


Oh so you think that we should put everyone elses needs ahead of our own, eh? We can't try to make our lives better without having to feel bad for all those who are too lazy to make their own lives better I take it. j/k <3

I myself feel bad for all people/animals/plants on this planet who are suffering in any way. I help with what little I can but I still put my needs first. Even if I feel that someone has gotten themselves into whatever bad situation they are suffering from and deserve to endure it a bit, I still feel bad and wish the best for them.

Something along these lines?

"We advocate the elimination of all governmental welfare programs which cannot show a 20% increase in the standard of living for at least 80% of clients over a three-year period ( and "sunset law" provisions for all programs remaining ), and the institution of a "reverse income tax" on a sliding scale based on income, for all those below the fixed minimum income."

I feel that ALL laws (including those already on the books) need a sunset clause. I like your idea about eliminating programs that cannot show progress. I am adimantly opposed to your "reverse income tax" idea. It would be too expensive and it would be too easily abused.

1) The point of the term is that forced charity is no charity at all. It's meant to be derisive and satirical.
The satire fails, because it is not a charity of any sort. There is no comparison that can be made between them.

Ridiculous. If emotions were governed purely by chemical reactions, they would be objective and not subject to change much from person to person. Some extremes of emotion are a result of such a reaction, as depression is often indicative of low seratonin levels. Happiness, likewise, often indicates a presence of endorphins. The corner you're failing to think around is just what cognitive process leads us to the triggering of such a reaction.
I have to disagree to some extent here.
Emotions are, physiologically, neuro chemical responses to stimuli. This is not open to dispute without negating or denying decades of neuro-chemical study. However this does not mean that each person responds in the same way to the same stimulus. Even what have been called 'calm passions' for a few hundred years are traceable to chemicals in the brain. What the causal relation is is not clear as it appears to be bidirectional. The emotion causes the change in brain chemistry as much as the change in brain chemistry causes the emotion.

If someone has a varying emotional response to something, it means that he reached a different conclusion in the process of evaluating his value judgements in regard to said object. The onset of a chemical reaction is dependent on just what the person happens to think or believe about this object or concept. Endorphins are released because someone feels happy about something, not because it's an automated response. Like I said, an object in and of itself does not have the power to dictate an emotional process on a person. People don't automatically feel the same way when they look at a bottle or a candle or a guitar.
You are assuming that we are all in the same state and have all been subject to the same stimuli in our lives. An obviously false assumption. We have conditioned responses. aAll of us, and a large number of these bypass our rational centres altogether. Smells are typical stimuli that provoke unconsidered emotional responses. The release of endorphins just is what it is to be happy, it is not caused by being happy, nor is being happy caused by it. What will cause this release will vary from person to person, no robotic nature required here.

Wrong. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates material provided by man's senses. In order to properly deploy reason, we must boil down all concepts to their perceptual level. This includes emotion. Perhaps I was slightly off the mark in declaring that emotions are the product of reason, emotions are essentially the product of ideas; ideas which may held consciously or unconsiously, explicit or implicit, sharply defined or vague, rational or contradictory.
Reason does two things, and two things only. It judges the probabilities of an event occuring, or it compares two ideas. It does not judge the qualities of our experience. It says that if A implies B and A, then B. It says that if the ground is wet across the whole of the field of view then it is likely that it has rained. It does not tell you what you think about that rain. It has no part whatsoever to play in emotional responses to stimuli. It can provide stimuli to which we respond emotionally, but that is all. Ideas depend upon emotion in many cases not the other way around. Emotion, or passion is basic to us as human beings. If you love someone then this is not a result of an idea of that person, it is a direct, unconsidered non cognitive response to a complex of stimuli.

There are four steps to emotion-formation, only the first and last of which are conscious. They are: perception, identification, evaluation, and response. The middle two are done quickly and automatically; we are often unaware of them. Reason is the faculty that responds to concepts, and emotion is the faculty that responds ro percepts. They can be integrated to an extent, but this integration is hardly universal.
Perception is not necessarily conscious. Can we go back to the smells we encounter in our lives, or the sounds we hear, and say that we were aware of all of them. No. Perception may be conscious, but it does not have to be. Response is also not necessarily conscious. If you are worried about something do you sweat more. Yes. Do your pupils dilate when you see something that pleases you? Yes. Are these conscious responses? No. We can pass through the entire perception to response cycle without ever being aware that we perceived or responded. The middle two terms I do not believe are necessary in any sense. we can simply respond to a stimulus in a very automatic way. What way, will of course depend upon what we have experienced, but it is still automatic.


No, I'm saying they rest on a cognitive process, just like everything else that happens within our minds. Hopefully.

Unfortunately about 80% of what goes on in our minds is not cognitive. Well actually I prefer it not to be as I do not want to have to consider whether I need to release a little more insulin into my bloodstream right now. Emotions are no more cognitive, in many cases than our physiological control systems are.

I don't have the time or patience to deal with the glaring errors in this... rather... assumptive rhetoric at present; I'll just deal with them in my Objectivism vs. Utilitarianism thread.

Like just about any philosophical viewpoint, a lot of what Alien Born says here has some merit, but it's not without its gross errors as well.

I'm not an absolute individualist, and while I hold some of that true, some of it is just plain bogus.

I feel that ALL laws (including those already on the books) need a sunset clause. I like your idea about eliminating programs that cannot show progress. I am adimantly opposed to your "reverse income tax" idea. It would be too expensive and it would be too easily abused.
A negative income tax would largely elminate some of the more cumbersome systems currently in place to deal with this issue. I would recommend using a portion of the money saved to build up the Office of Management and Budget so it could oversee implementation of the negative income tax and hold its managers accounable.

Although I am in favor of most "sunset laws," I don't think they can or should be universally applied. The Congress is already slow enough. Adding a review of every law and every program on a yearly or other basis would totally overwhelm it. Additionally, every time the political landscape changed, so would the laws and programs. This is already becoming a problem every time there's an election; let's not make it worse. :(

Ridiculous. If emotions were governed purely by chemical reactions, they would be objective and not subject to change much from person to person. Some extremes of emotion are a result of such a reaction, as depression is often indicative of low seratonin levels. Happiness, likewise, often indicates a presence of endorphins. The corner you're failing to think around is just what cognitive process leads us to the triggering of such a reaction.

If someone has a varying emotional response to something, it means that he reached a different conclusion in the process of evaluating his value judgements in regard to said object. The onset of a chemical reaction is dependent on just what the person happens to think or believe about this object or concept. Endorphins are released because someone feels happy about something, not because it's an automated response. Like I said, an object in and of itself does not have the power to dictate an emotional process on a person. People don't automatically feel the same way when they look at a bottle or a candle or a guitar.


Wrong. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates material provided by man's senses. In order to properly deploy reason, we must boil down all concepts to their perceptual level. This includes emotion. Perhaps I was slightly off the mark in declaring that emotions are the product of reason, emotions are essentially the product of ideas; ideas which may held consciously or unconsiously, explicit or implicit, sharply defined or vague, rational or contradictory.

There are four steps to emotion-formation, only the first and last of which are conscious. They are: perception, identification, evaluation, and response. The middle two are done quickly and automatically; we are often unaware of them. Reason is the faculty that responds to concepts, and emotion is the faculty that responds ro percepts. They can be integrated to an extent, but this integration is hardly universal.
I'm sorry; as far as I can see, we are saying essentially the same thing. The "percepts" that emotion responds to come through the senses of the physical body (interpretations of what the body "knows") and the mental (what the mind "knows"). I agree. As I said earlier, emotions can accompany thoughts, and some emotions can generate thoughts, such as depression generating thoughts of gloom and doom that would ordinarily not occur to a healthy person.

The objective nature of emotions can be demonstrated in the affect of drugs to alter the body chemistry, and therefore the emotional state, or in the witness of people who have become disassociated from emotions (can feel no emotions inside yet still feel the chemical changes associated with them the at times they should be happening (adrenaline, tears, etc)).

The emotions that you refer to as "a product of ideas" I think of as the interpretation of the chemcial changes. I don't want to argue about which comes first, the chicken or the egg; as far I am concerned, the physical change and the intepretation of it happen simultaneously, just as the electrical change in the brain and a thought do. I agree that "an object in and of itself does not have the power to dictate an emotional process on a person", and I never suggested otherwise; not a "dictation", but a "participation".

Although they are individual and unique, it's true that emotions do not change much from person to person in healthy people --this is why we can use metaphor to identify them, learn and name them.

The way we "feel" about objects, like the candle or the guitar, is a combination of symbol recognition and associative memory, which in turn stirs a emotion.

What is that tax system called when you are taxed on the lifestyle you live because you only get taxed on what you buy? WHat I've heard of this tax I liked.

I may tend to disagree with some people about certain issues, but with most people I can find some common ground to work from. However, I have to admit that there is one particular world view that I find truly repugnant, and I will go as far as to admit that I tend to hold a bias against those that favour this world view. I'm not sure if it is my culture, my upbringing, or something else, but this philosophy, while I can sort of understand it, nonetheless is abhorrent to me. I try to overcome this bias, however, and this thread is an attempt to aid me in this endeavour.

I'm speaking of the belief in absolute individualism. The idea that each person rises and falls on their own merits, and nothing more. The idea that we are not responsible whatsoever for what happens to another human being, and therefore have no obligation to care for or aid others. That doesn't mean people who believe this DON'T help others...but they simply don't think that they should be FORCED to in any way, via taxes, government programs etc.

Now, intellectually I understand this stand. However, I have to question it. Humans are social creatures. We form social unions, our societies are based on a certain give and take. We enter into these social contracts, and we always have...there must be a reason for it. Ay...I'm not explaining myself well. I'm not just talking about less government control (which I'm actually for)...more the idea that suffering is the FAULT of those who suffer, and damn the other factors. Are some people only capable of caring for immediate friends and family? Are people truly indifferent to the rest of humanity?

Anyway, no doubt your questions will help me clarify my point (where is it again?) or your own position....

In addition to being responsible for myself, I believe I am only inherently responsible for my family and friends, because of the relationship I choose to have with them...it's sort of an unspoken mutual contract, though that doesn't really sound right...hopefully you get the general idea of what I am getting at.

I am also responsible for all my actions, including the ways that my actions may impact non-family or non-friends, so in that sense my personal responsibility extends to other people. I do not believe the welfare, personal comfort, individual happiness, or life satisfaction of other citizens is necessarily my responsibility, though I tend to choose to take responsibility for such things because I want to do so.

Wrong argument to make with someone who is partially a social darwinist ;). I don't have a fundamental problem with people too stupid/foolish/greedy to understand that theft is bad being removed from the gene pool.

As for the path coninuing, it is unlikely. Criminals are oppritunists. They are not likely to put their lives in danger. Bringing a gun and depending on not waking the victim seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice it causes problems. You would have a short career as a thief that would almost certainly end in your death or a lifetime of incarceration. More likely, you would choose to commit crimes that were less risky for you (you would case my home, break into my car, etc). Criminals are, sociologically, lazy creatures. They engage in criminal activity because they can get higher rewards for less work that way. When you introduce the very real chance that they'll bleed to death in someone's living room, they look for an easier crime.

You mention incarceration. Does that mean that you agree with government interference in protecting the welfare of others? See my point.

The satire fails, because it is not a charity of any sort. There is no comparison that can be made between them.

*shakes his head* You're one of those people who really liked Kant and Descarte in college, aren't you?

;)

A negative income tax would largely elminate some of the more cumbersome systems currently in place to deal with this issue. I would recommend using a portion of the money saved to build up the Office of Management and Budget so it could oversee implementation of the negative income tax and hold its managers accounable.

Although I am in favor of most "sunset laws," I don't think they can or should be universally applied. The Congress is already slow enough. Adding a review of every law and every program on a yearly or other basis would totally overwhelm it. Additionally, every time the political landscape changed, so would the laws and programs. This is already becoming a problem every time there's an election; let's not make it worse. :(


Thats kinda the point. If Leviathan is too busy chasing it's tail it is less likely to notice things like MS patients smoking pot, baseball players taking steroids, or produce in Florida.


p.s. Yeah, before anyone flames on my joke... I know the last one was in bad taste. I know I'm insensitive.I don't have a natural respect for human life. And I definately don't care what Jesus would do.

What is that tax system called when you are taxed on the lifestyle you live because you only get taxed on what you buy? WHat I've heard of this tax I liked.


Income tax...

You mention incarceration. Does that mean that you agree with government interference in protecting the welfare of others? See my point.

I feel the government needs to apply certain basic laws that are required to keep tyranny at bay. There is a huge gulf between "If you rob someone you go to jail" and "If life is unkind we'll pay for your TV."

*shakes his head* You're one of those people who really liked Kant and Descarte in college, aren't you?

;)
[ hurls ]

Willamena, say it ain't so!

NOTE: I refuse to particpate in any more discussions on existentialism. The last time I did that ( last night! ), someone tried to sucker me into a flame war, in a highly insulting way. :rolleyes:

I'm speaking of the belief in absolute individualism. The idea that each person rises and falls on their own merits, and nothing more. The idea that we are not responsible whatsoever for what happens to another human being, and therefore have no obligation to care for or aid others. That doesn't mean people who believe this DON'T help others...but they simply don't think that they should be FORCED to in any way, via taxes, government programs etc.

....

I have actually never met someone who truely believed this. Prob as most are in jail for tax fraud! Its an old arguement for people, who at some stage in their life suffered from what they saw as an injustice and felt someone, the state perhaps should have helped them. The very idea of absolute individualism is absurd.

I feel the government needs to apply certain basic laws that are required to keep tyranny at bay. There is a huge gulf between "If you rob someone you go to jail" and "If life is unkind we'll pay for your TV."

Oh they are very far apart on the line, but they are on the same line.

Not even close. They are not on the same line. Putting people in jail for theft or harming others is the government's protecting the natural rights of its citizens (which, I should add, exist whether the government recognizes them or not). The latter is pure silliness and an example of government acting out of its proper role.

BTW I noticed someone somewhere on this thread, a long time ago, said all rights were societal...I disagree with that vehemently, but all I have to say about it is, if rights are societal, have fun when your "brothers" decide they don't like you (or maybe just want your things) and you've left yourself no idea of justice from which to defend yourself. EVERYTHING begins with ideas and the rest follows.

Just as an afterthought I'd like to distinguish my position from someone who believes rights come from God. I don't believe in God so of course I can't believe he gave me any rights.

The Kat

I'm sorry; as far as I can see, we are saying essentially the same thing. The "percepts" that emotion responds to come through the senses of the physical body (interpretations of what the body "knows") and the mental (what the mind "knows"). I agree. As I said earlier, emotions can accompany thoughts, and some emotions can generate thoughts, such as depression generating thoughts of gloom and doom that would ordinarily not occur to a healthy person.

The objective nature of emotions can be demonstrated in the affect of drugs to alter the body chemistry, and therefore the emotional state, or in the witness of people who have become disassociated from emotions (can feel no emotions inside yet still feel the chemical changes associated with them the at times they should be happening (adrenaline, tears, etc)).

The emotions that you refer to as "a product of ideas" I think of as the interpretation of the chemcial changes. I don't want to argue about which comes first, the chicken or the egg; as far I am concerned, the physical change and the intepretation of it happen simultaneously, just as the electrical change in the brain and a thought do. I agree that "an object in and of itself does not have the power to dictate an emotional process on a person", and I never suggested otherwise; not a "dictation", but a "participation".

Although they are individual and unique, it's true that emotions do not change much from person to person in healthy people --this is why we can use metaphor to identify them, learn and name them.

The way we "feel" about objects, like the candle or the guitar, is a combination of symbol recognition and associative memory, which in turn stirs a emotion.

OK, I can accept most of this; it seems like we're on more or less the same page here. But your 'chicken and the egg' analogy here is a flawed one, because it is impossible to have an emotion for something without first grasping at its nature in some way shape or form. For example, I can have an idea without emotion [say, 'stuff burns when you set it on fire'], but an emotion without an idea is a floating abstraction without any real referent.

EDIT: Alien Born, thanks for pointing out the distinction between active cognition and automated responses; a more accurate wording on my part would have been something along the lines of 'every active thought process which occurs in our minds.' I made a hasty generalization there without taking into account the fundamental properties of the mind.

OK, I can accept most of this; it seems like we're on more or less the same page here. But your 'chicken and the egg' analogy here is a flawed one, because it is impossible to have an emotion for something without first grasping at its nature in some way shape or form. For example, I can have an idea without emotion [say, 'stuff burns when you set it on fire'], but an emotion without an idea is a floating abstraction without any real referent.
Okay.

Well, that was fun. :)

[ hurls ]

Willamena, say it ain't so!

NOTE: I refuse to particpate in any more discussions on existentialism. The last time I did that ( last night! ), someone tried to sucker me into a flame war, in a highly insulting way. :rolleyes:
No problem. Truth is, I haven't read either, and I never went to college. And I'm not an existentialist.

(But since I don't know what these people are, it's hard to deny I may be one of them.)

OK, I can accept most of this; it seems like we're on more or less the same page here. But your 'chicken and the egg' analogy here is a flawed one, because it is impossible to have an emotion for something without first grasping at its nature in some way shape or form. For example, I can have an idea without emotion [say, 'stuff burns when you set it on fire'], but an emotion without an idea is a floating abstraction without any real referent.

EDIT: Alien Born, thanks for pointing out the distinction between active cognition and automated responses; a more accurate wording on my part would have been something along the lines of 'every active thought process which occurs in our minds.' I made a hasty generalization there without taking into account the fundamental properties of the mind.

While most would agree that animals experience emotions (they are just chemical reactions), there would certainly be a great deal of debate over the quality of their 'thoughts' (requiring cognative ability). I think it's absolutely possible to feel fear with no attached thought, as abstract a concept as that may be to you.

[ hurls ]

Willamena, say it ain't so!

NOTE: I refuse to particpate in any more discussions on existentialism. The last time I did that ( last night! ), someone tried to sucker me into a flame war, in a highly insulting way. :rolleyes:


How DO you feel about existentialism?


btw...YOUR MOTHER VOTES LYNDON LAROUCHE AND YOU BREATH SMELLS OF ELDERBERRIES!!!!!


;)

Hmm...quick quiz...Guns, Gays, and the UN, where do you stand?!

;) LOL
Don't ban them, love them, is corrupt and needs dismantling.

I don't have the time or patience to deal with the glaring errors in this... rather... assumptive rhetoric at present; I'll just deal with them in my Objectivism vs. Utilitarianism thread.

Like just about any philosophical viewpoint, a lot of what Alien Born says here has some merit, but it's not without its gross errors as well.
Oh boy....*wouldn't an Alien Born vs. Melkor battle to the death be interesting?*

Oh boy....*wouldn't an Alien Born vs. Melkor battle to the death be interesting?*

Only if they were naked and Melkor was painted blue. *looks embarrassed. Runs*

How DO you feel about existentialism?
I feel that existentialism is only looks at half of existence and declares it all that is. No wonder their lives are futile.

Absolute individualism is probably the least realistic of all philosophies.

While most would agree that animals experience emotions (they are just chemical reactions), there would certainly be a great deal of debate over the quality of their 'thoughts' (requiring cognative ability). I think it's absolutely possible to feel fear with no attached thought, as abstract a concept as that may be to you.
Wrong. One cannot be afraid of something without first being aware of just what it is that he or she is afraid of. Whether the reason for this fear is readily manifest in your thinking [ie, I'm in a dark room and I'm hearing wierd noises] or more subconcious in nature [ie, I've got a bad feeling that life is about to get worse], some idea or concept lies at its root.

In short, it's impossible to form emotions--any emotions--without first grasping the concepts that induce them.

In most cases, I find myself feeling responsibility to everyone but me.

In most cases, I find myself feeling responsibility to everyone but me.
Oh, cool. Can I have a hundred bucks?

Oh, cool. Can I have a hundred bucks?
If I had 100 bucks to give.

I only have responsibility for me, but I don't end where my skin does.

Indeed, you do not end at all.

If I had 100 bucks to give.
Thanks. Case closed.

Wrong. One cannot be afraid of something without first being aware of just what it is that he or she is afraid of. Whether the reason for this fear is readily manifest in your thinking [ie, I'm in a dark room and I'm hearing wierd noises] or more subconcious in nature [ie, I've got a bad feeling that life is about to get worse], some idea or concept lies at its root.

In short, it's impossible to form emotions--any emotions--without first grasping the concepts that induce them.

That's absolutely false. It's a chicken and the egg argument. Your body releases a chemical that makes you feel something. You then decide why you're feeling it. Or you think something and you then decide how you feel about it. It has long been known that react to things we aren't aware we are reacting to, odd smells we haven't yet noted, pheremones, sounds so low that consciously we haven't addressed them at all, etc. We had feelings long before we ever had cognative thought. Long before. In the case of brain malfunction, something that we are discovering is much more prevelant than previously thought, your body produces chemicals that force you to react to feelings that are a result of nothing. We rectify those feelings with the happenings around us. That's why you see people behaving as if they are angry though there is really nothing to make them angry, crying over nothing, etc. Your premise is hardly a given and certainly not upheld by scientific evidence.

Wrong. One cannot be afraid of something without first being aware of just what it is that he or she is afraid of. Whether the reason for this fear is readily manifest in your thinking [ie, I'm in a dark room and I'm hearing wierd noises] or more subconcious in nature [ie, I've got a bad feeling that life is about to get worse], some idea or concept lies at its root.

In short, it's impossible to form emotions--any emotions--without first grasping the concepts that induce them.
That flies in the face of intuition, which can happen with no conscious knowledge. Now, you may make a claim of subconscious knowledge, but you also make a claim of awareness, which is undoubtedly conscious.

My fundamental belief (again, I admit this is very much influenced by my particular background) is that as much as is possible, we should try to ensure that ALL humans are able to live with dignity.

The sad truth is that it is not possible for every person in the world to live with dignity, at least not in the sense that people live with dignity in developed countries. Were everyone to live modestly like we do in developed countries we would need about 8 earths.
Putting that fact aside, in theory, I do not think that people should think only about themselves and their immediate families. It is really difficult, however, for people to think about those outside their own situations when then can barely pay the bills themselves. Let alone situations where a relative is sick and you have to pay for their treatment. It is human nature to care for our families. What are we supposed to do, let our relative die so that people we don't even know in some distant corner of the globe can be given food? I know that sounds really cruel, but I bet it's true for most people and I'm not so sure it's really such a bad thing.

That's absolutely false.

Pfft.

It's a chicken and the egg argument. Your body releases a chemical that makes you feel something. You then decide why you're feeling it.
Bullshit. The chemical is released as a result of some external stimuli; it doesn't just happen out of nowhere for no reason, unless you happen to have some sort of inbalance in the first place .

Or you think something and you then decide how you feel about it. It has long been known that react to things we aren't aware we are reacting to, odd smells we haven't yet noted, pheremones, sounds so low that consciously we haven't addressed them at all, etc.
That doesn't mean we don't perceive these things. Just because something is on the periphery of [i]conscious thought or awareness doesn't mean our brain isn't processing the data. I can't identify pheremones when they're in the air, but that doesn't mean my body can't.

We had feelings long before we ever had cognative thought. Long before.
Oh yeah? You actually happen to remember being 2 months old? Who's making 'chicken and the egg' arguments now hmm?

In the case of brain malfunction, something that we are discovering is much more prevelant than previously thought, your body produces chemicals that force you to react to feelings that are a result of nothing.
Yes. In brain malfunction. Thank you for making a totally irrelevant point.

We rectify those feelings with the happenings around us. That's why you see people behaving as if they are angry though there is really nothing to make them angry, crying over nothing, etc. Your premise is hardly a given and certainly not upheld by scientific evidence.
I've already answered to this; people who feel emotions based on higher level abstractions and complex situations are still responding to sensory information; the reason for their emotional reactions are still rooted in objective reality.

That's not to say that all emotion is rational or calculated; of course you're going to find exceptions in folks with severe depression or bipolar disorder or what have you. This doesn't mean their malfunctions can or should be applied to the rest of us.

Pfft.

I'll ignore this well-reasoned argument.

Bullshit. The chemical is released as a result of some external stimuli; it doesn't just happen out of nowhere for no reason, unless you happen to have some sort of inbalance in the first place .

Yes, we sense things. I didn't know that all responses to external stimuli amounts to cognative. If you're saying that all brain activity counts as cognitive (I totally misspelled that earlier) then we agree, because I know the brain controls emotion.

That doesn't mean we don't perceive these things. Just because something is on the periphery of [i]conscious thought or awareness doesn't mean our brain isn't processing the data. I can't identify pheremones when they're in the air, but that doesn't mean my body can't.

Again, that the brain is involved does not amount to cognitive (thinking). Someone has never heard of instinct.

Oh yeah? You actually happen to remember being 2 months old? Who's making 'chicken and the egg' arguments now hmm?

I was talking about evolutionarily, but it's accepted theory that infants do not have complex reasoning, i.e. cognitive abilities. When they develop varies by child, but we can also use brain-damaged adults as examples as well. It is known that brain-damaged adults sometimes behave in a way that we would call primitive, their reactions are instinctive and they experience emotions with little or no cognition.

Yes. In brain malfunction. Thank you for making a totally irrelevant point.

We call everything we don't like, malfunction. However, things like PMS and depression are perfectly natural states.

I've already answered to this; people who feel emotions based on higher level abstractions and complex situations are still responding to sensory information; the reason for their emotional reactions are still rooted in objective reality.

Again, you don't account for instinct.

That's not to say that all emotion is rational or calculated; of course you're going to find exceptions in folks with severe depression or bipolar disorder or what have you. This doesn't mean their malfunctions can or should be applied to the rest of us.

And here is where I define cognitive, since your definition doesn't really match up with the dictionary's (Mirriam-Webster).

Cognitive -
1 : of, relating to, or involving cognition <the cognitive elements of perception -- C. H. Hamburg>
2 : based on or capable of being reduced to empirical factual knowledge

Oh, in case cognitive is not enough.

Cognition -
: the act or process of knowing including both awareness and judgment; also : a product of this act

More importantly, these are denotative definitions, but the idea of cognitive ability is almost always reserved for sentient beings. Considering animals we would not consider sentient experience emotion, that seems to refute your claims.

Again, that the brain is involved does not amount to cognitive (thinking). Someone has never heard of instinct.
Instinct isn't an emotional state, nor does it apply to the realm of reason either; thus it's completely irrelevant to our discussion It's a phenomenon that has no real root in emotion or reason, and it's one of the more fundamentally enigmatic functions of our psyche.

I was talking about evolutionarily, but it's accepted theory that infants do not have complex reasoning, i.e. cognitive abilities. When they develop varies by child, but we can also use brain-damaged adults as examples as well. It is known that brain-damaged adults sometimes behave in a way that we would call primitive, their reactions are instinctive and they experience emotions with little or no cognition.
You don't have to have 'complex reasoning' to have emotions; I never stated this was the case and you're twisting my words to suit your needs. What I am saying is that emotion is reliant on a perception and reaction to external stimuli. Emotion formation happens in four stages, whether you're a Harvard grad or a grade school dropout, whether you're an infant or elderly: perception, identification, evaluation, and response.

A small child, for example, may be aware of the emptiness of his stomach, ie, he perceives there is no food in it, so he does the only thing he knows how to do at this point: open his mouth and fill the room with shrill yells until someone comes along to feed him. This does not require a comprehensive grasp of the nature of hunger, it doesn't mean he has to know what's going on with the chemicals in his brain.

Again, you're invoking examples of flawed thought here; you're telling me that because people with brains that do not work properly can experience irrational or groundless emotions, that somehow this is applicable to all of us. That would be like me saying "well, it's a misnomer to say all people have two arms and two legs, because sometimes limbs get chopped off." It's an inconsistent application of logic.

We call everything we don't like, malfunction. However, things like PMS and depression are perfectly natural states.
Excuse me? You yourself were the first to introduce the term malfunction into this conversation. I don't understand what you're trying to say with this.

Again, you don't account for instinct.
See above.

More importantly, these are denotative definitions, but the idea of cognitive ability is almost always reserved for sentient beings. Considering animals we would not consider sentient experience emotion, that seems to refute your claims.
Why are you defining a word I didn't even use in that post?

Instinct isn't an emotional state, nor does it apply to the realm of reason either; thus it's completely irrelevant to our discussion It's a phenomenon that has no real root in emotion or reason, and it's one of the more fundamentally enigmatic functions of our psyche.
But it is reaction with no conscious thought, and some of that reaction can be physical and produce emotions with no apparent cause. A good example is on onset of women's periods, the state of mind that is (incorrectly) referred to as "PMS". There is no conscious thought that incites such emotions.

I believe that everyone has a responsibility to everyone else. It's all very well to say "people should help themselves" - how? I live in Britain and before the Welfare State was brought in, the consequences of pure capitalism on the people were dire.

How can you believe that people are stuck in poverty through their own fault?

It always bemuses me that the "religious right" are against societal responsibility to other humans, as that's a central tenet of Christianity…
…but I digress. All individuals have responsibility to others, unless you're going to argue that the situation that someone's born into is their responsibility.

where to start?

Some people are stuck in poverty through their own fault. Some are, some aren't.

People do have a responsibility to take care of themselves, so long as they are not prevented mentally or physically (IE, disabled) from doing so.

If you have a choice of jobs and choose not to work, you should not be able to mooch off everyone else for support. That is wrong.

It's that fake defeatist "Oh, help me, I'm poor and helpless and unable to do anything on my own. What, was I offered the job? Yes, but they'll only pay me $10 an hour, so I turned it down... I'm going to stay on welfare instead" attitude that hurts economies everywhere and the cause of legitimate socialism/social safety nets... which should be there for those who can't help themselves, or who have recently been laid off and are in the process of finding other work. It should not be there for people who refuse to take a job because it is "beneath" them... when taking such a job would mean that they would be no longer eligible to receive the largesse of others via government programs.

As to your assertion that the Bible commands us to help others, you're right... Jesus commanded people to help other people. He said nothing about arbitrary, impersonal help from governments.

And Jesus was against sloth... so for those who choose not to work and line up for their welfare checks to live off the sweat of others... I don't think he would approve.

But it is reaction with no conscious thought....
Yes, but it's still a reaction. You can't have a reaction without an object to induce said reaction. I think a lot of what I'm saying here is being misconstrued; I'm not trying to imply that emotions are the product of reason, but rather the product of ideas or perceptions. From what I can gather, the oppoisiton here is trying to say that we can have 'free standing' emotions without anything to induce it.

Emotions are reactive by their very nature: they don't generally occur in and of themselves; the same thing applies in a much more abstract sense to instinct. It would be pretty hard to have an instinct about nothing, which would be possible if we could embark upon these states of mind without thought.

In the end, the only thing over which I have control is my own person, and for that I MUST take responsibility.

It is the pulls of my compassionate heart that make me want to pick up the burdens of others and cast them behind my back that their yoke may be light.

However, I also know that by suffering comes growth. "Good timber does not grow in ease; the stronger the gale, the tougher the trees" (unknown poet). I also know that no matter how insignificant my efforts may seem, perhaps they will mean something to someone with whom I had no direct contact.

As I am blessed with great bounty, I take opportunity to alleviate the sufferings of others. It is not my responsibility, but it is my great privilage to serve.

This is an excellent way to approach a moral framework espousing compassion. Very well said.

Instinct isn't an emotional state, nor does it apply to the realm of reason either; thus it's completely irrelevant to our discussion It's a phenomenon that has no real root in emotion or reason, and it's one of the more fundamentally enigmatic functions of our psyche.

Instinct often causes emotions to occur. It's absolutely relevant because people react to stimuli on instinct and sometimes that reaction is emotional, e.g. fear. And you're right that it has no place in the realm of reason. Thank you for making my point. Emotion can exist without reason. Are we done?

You don't have to have 'complex reasoning' to have emotions; I never stated this was the case and you're twisting my words to suit your needs. What I am saying is that emotion is reliant on a perception and reaction to external stimuli. Emotion formation happens in four stages, whether you're a Harvard grad or a grade school dropout, whether you're an infant or elderly: perception, identification, evaluation, and response.

Let's go back to my original statment that you said was wrong, shall we? As you can see below, I was very clear in what I was saying. That emotion does not require cognitive processes, awareness and judgement. I was saying it's not cognitive as judgement is not a part of the process, only awareness.

While most would agree that animals experience emotions (they are just chemical reactions), there would certainly be a great deal of debate over the quality of their 'thoughts' (requiring cognative ability). I think it's absolutely possible to feel fear with no attached thought, as abstract a concept as that may be to you.

In other words, when instinct interferes, an animal, for example, doesn't say to himself, "By Jove, I think this 'ere cougar is a threat to me, I shall flee." Instead, the animal becomes aware of the cougar and his instict tells him to feel fear and to flee. This does qualify as a cognitive process or even as a thought.


A small child, for example, may be aware of the emptiness of his stomach, ie, he perceives there is no food in it, so he does the only thing he knows how to do at this point: open his mouth and fill the room with shrill yells until someone comes along to feed him. This does not require a comprehensive grasp of the nature of hunger, it doesn't mean he has to know what's going on with the chemicals in his brain.

Again I question the word 'know'. The child's instinct tells him to cry and feel sad when he is cold. There is no thought involved. It is necessary for the child to think, "I'm uncomfortable." The child just needs to BE uncomfortable.

Again, you're invoking examples of flawed thought here; you're telling me that because people with brains that do not work properly can experience irrational or groundless emotions, that somehow this is applicable to all of us. That would be like me saying "well, it's a misnomer to say all people have two arms and two legs, because sometimes limbs get chopped off." It's an inconsistent application of logic.

It would be a misnomer to say all people are born with two arms and legs or that all people have two arms and two legs. It suggests that people who are not born with or do not have two arms and two legs are not, in fact, people.

What I was saying is that in natural processes (that's why I redefined malfunctions) that we often consider to be outside of normal function, e.g. PMS & depression, we find that people are often capable of emotion without thought. As beings that are so desperate to see ourselves as rational, we have a tendency to consider anything irrational as abherrent. The fact that almost all women experience PMS to some degree suggests it is not abnormal.

Excuse me? You yourself were the first to introduce the term malfunction into this conversation. I don't understand what you're trying to say with this.

I introduced the term, malfunction, into the conversation because it is how many people view it. The point is that studying "malfunctioning" brains gives us much insight into the processes in "functioning" brains. If a malfunctioning brain can induce emotion with no thought, so can a functioning brain. I doubt many hold to the claim that a functioning brain can do less than a malfunctioning brain. However, like I said depression and PMS are examples of where emotions are not a result of thoughts, but rather thoughts are a result of emotions.

Why are you defining a word I didn't even use in that post?

I used it and you said I was wrong. I continued to use it properly and you continued to ignore that cognitive processes (what most would consider a thought) are not necessary. You've states clearly that an idea is necessary for emotion (I can quote you if you like). Idea/thought/cognative process, all synonyms in the way they are being used. Only you've tried to redefine idea to some sort of unconscious behavior. Only, it's not. Ideas do not really apply to autonomic behavior. What's an example of autonomic behavior? How's instinct for you? Oh, oh, I have a better example. It has recently been discovered that women have a better sense of smell during ovulation. Know why? I'll tell you. Because women can actually tell in the chemicals that you naturally secrete, pheremones, whether or not your make a good genetic match for her. This is an autonomic process. The result is for her to feel desire, an emotion, if you are a good genetic match. Processing the pheremones does not involve ideas, thoughts, congnitive processes in any way. This is why many men are left wondering why women are attracted to jerks.

Yes, but it's still a reaction. You can't have a reaction without an object to induce said reaction. I think a lot of what I'm saying here is being misconstrued; I'm not trying to imply that emotions are the product of reason, but rather the product of ideas or perceptions. From what I can gather, the oppoisiton here is trying to say that we can have 'free standing' emotions without anything to induce it.

Emotions are reactive by their very nature: they don't generally occur in and of themselves; the same thing applies in a much more abstract sense to instinct. It would be pretty hard to have an instinct about nothing, which would be possible if we could embark upon these states of mind without thought.
I have no real argument with what you say. I just wanted to make the point that not all emotions have a conscious stimuli. I would state it (and have) that thought, even subconscious, and the interpretation of emotion are simultaneous, even one and the same, and it doesn't really contradict what you've said. We separate them linguistically into two concepts deliberately, to symbolically deal with matters of the mind separate from matters of the heart. To quote you:
If one attempts to designate such a role to emotions, then he has ceased to engage in cognition. Instead, he is subverting the validity of his thought by introducing as its guide nonobjective elements.
See, it was the emotionally charged words that peaked my eyebrow: the ideas of subversion of thought, and invalidating thought. And as you pointed out, my claim that they are actually the same thing doesn't invalidate the point you make, except that there is no real "subversion" or "invalidity" because of emotion --it is a natural part of the thought process.

You also said:
They're not to be ignored of course, but they are not tools for discerning the nature of reality. There is no alternative to reason as a means of knowledge... Policy should be based on reason, not emotion.
Both thought and emotion should be used to create policy where human beings are involved, because together they represent our inner workings. Not one or the other exclusively, but both together --that is the measure of a man.

I took a bit of amusement at this:
The role of emotions, while crucial to our existence, is not that of the discovery of reality.
Amusement, because they are the very nature of reality as far as human beings are concerned, unless you prefer to look at life from an unrealistic, solely objective point of view.