NationStates Jolt Archive

I had come across this debate in a Moral and Politcal Ideals class. I typically has good discussion outcomes and sums up most all welfare debates.

Who's rights are more important

1)The right for the working class to earn their living and keep it.
2)The right for the poor to have better living standards.

This contradictory rights debate is spawned from the ideas of post-FDR welfare.

I argue that a person has ultimately the right to maintain what he/she obtains, given that it is without force and with due right. I believe that morally it is wrong to take something which someone has earned in order to give it to someone who has not earned it.

Counter-argument: Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence that all men(women included) have the right to life. So why are we morally capable of not enabling someone to the right to life.

ENJOY guys.

I think we should work to improve the quality of life of those who need it. At which point we should make certain they can maintain that quality with a good job.

The right to maintain what you gain is only practicable in an anarchistic society without law enforcement and therefore lawless. The most primitive form of society, and even more primitive than that because primitive society is based on family and tribal structures, which will inevitably force the individual to give up certain items for the good of the group.

Modern society is about creating a balance between personal freedoms for the individuals and peace and stability in order to make full use of said freedoms. To ensure this peace and stability, everybody has to contribute.
It is a balance, and different societies put different emphasis on freedoms and obligations, but a society that drops the obligations completely won't remain a society for long.

I don't agree with either!!

What, no gray area? Every black-and-white proposition has a gray area. :confused:

I don't agree with either!!

Is that all? Or do you have a real contribution to the discussion?

What, no gray area? Every black-and-white proposition has a gray area. :confused:

To say it's more important doesn't mean it's the solution.

The solution is obvious. Emalgamate corporations into government after buying them out on the public Stock Exchange. That way the government makes its budget from things people spend money on anyway and so lets them keep their otherwise earned wages.

The solution is obvious. Emalgamate corporations into government after buying them out on the public Stock Exchange. That way the government makes its budget from things people spend money on anyway and so lets them keep their otherwise earned wages.

Good idea, but I'd fear the possible economic backlash. It could either take well, or very very badly.

I'm on this third-sided argument that neither of those choices really appeal to me, nonetheless, I did vote.....

Politically, I'm extremely liberal, but I realize I do have some conservative economic ideals. It's what tends to happen when you grow up rich, I guess. I think that the poor are certainly in need of help, but I think it's better to be doing volunteer work for that kind of cause than compulsory deductions and such. Obviously you can't then make volunteer work compulsory either, so, in my opinion, THAT'S the real catch.

Maybe if they offered serious tax breaks for community service/assistance......

Counter-argument: Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence that all men(women included) have the right to life. So why are we morally capable of not enabling someone to the right to life.

It is not something that government can grant, it is only something that government can allow and protect.

With that said, the right to life does not mean "a right not to die", it means that one has the ability to live without enfringement.

I voted for the first option...

But only what one really rightfully owns. Someone who gets a wage much higher than others, despite doing less or barely more work(relative to the higher wage), does not rightly have his things. He has exploited others into getting it.

the former leads to inequality, the latter to greater equality. as a socialist, guess which one i picked ;)

Robin Hood was a brigand and should have been hung.

"Curse you and your daily doubles"

I agree with the comment about the right to keep earnings only applying in an anarchist society. Unless you utterly isolate yourself from society, what you earn from your job is not the direct outcome of your work. It's just the value the market has placed on the work you do, and your job is affected by matters out of your control. So what you earn is partly through your work and partly through luck/fate/whatever. In my opinion this means that it's fair to take part of what everyone earns for the benefit of the less well-off in society.

Robin Hood was a brigand and should have been hung.

"Curse you and your daily doubles"

He robbed from the rich, who had no right to be rich in the first place. He should have been hung, but still.

The solution is obvious. Emalgamate corporations into government after buying them out on the public Stock Exchange. That way the government makes its budget from things people spend money on anyway and so lets them keep their otherwise earned wages.

Whenever government gets in to business it fails miserably. Doing that would collapse the economy and still reduce revenue because people wouldn't be earning enough nor spending it because of economic stability. It would probably cause one of the biggest recessions, if not depressions, in American history.

It would make the income gap worse, creating a superclass of corporate government bureaucrats who control everything while everyone else is enslaved to their monopoly.

Personaly i believe that anybody who earns soemthing shoudl be allowed to keep it. Surely its their right? People who argue that they should give money to those who need it and those who say that evryone should have equal ammounts of money are in my mind communists. I do agree that money should be given to the poor but it shouldnt be taken from those who have earned money of their own, wether they've inherted it or worked for it or even if they won it it shouldnt be takne off them. Of course taxation will take a small percestage away and i am not saying that there should not be taxation, all i am saying is that money shoul'dnt be taken from those who have earned (in which ever way they did) their money. But back to point, i agree with the first option that people should keep whatever is theres however they got (as long as it is legal) and shouldnt have to give it up (except through taxation)

I quote from another message:

But only what one really rightfully owns. Someone who gets a wage much higher than others, despite doing less or barely more work(relative to the higher wage), does not rightly have his things. He has exploited others into getting it. - Today 4:45 PM
Chellis

I personaly believe that footballers and tv stars get paid too much but what they do get paid IS rightfuly their's. Unfortunately the world is made so people are more fortunate in others, in luck and in money. Its their luck that they are good at somethign which gets them in a job that pays them well. Thats the way the world is and i disagree with that comment.

A final point someone wrote:

'Robin hood was a brigad and shoudl hang' (soemthing along those lines)
I agree with them, wether he robbed form rich, poor or anything in between he shoudl be punnished. He was a THIEF!!!! The bible says:

'Thou shall not Steal' Exodus Chapter 20

Although not evry is a christian stealign is wrong in all religions, cultures and societies. Anyone who says its ok to steal form rich people but not from poor are mad.

I agree with the comment about the right to keep earnings only applying in an anarchist society. Unless you utterly isolate yourself from society, what you earn from your job is not the direct outcome of your work. It's just the value the market has placed on the work you do, and your job is affected by matters out of your control. So what you earn is partly through your work and partly through luck/fate/whatever. In my opinion this means that it's fair to take part of what everyone earns for the benefit of the less well-off in society.

In a free market, your work is valued by the utility society recieves from it. It is not the direct result of your labor, but it is the only way to effectively value it.

In a free market, your work is valued by the utility society recieves from it. It is not the direct result of your labor, but it is the only way to effectively value it.

Human labor is an investment just like any other made by a business; your salary/wage is paid proportionate to the ROI the company gets from hiring you, and the supply of your labor in existence.

Personaly i believe that anybody who earns soemthing shoudl be allowed to keep it. Surely its their right? People who argue that they should give money to those who need it and those who say that evryone should have equal ammounts of money are in my mind communists. I do agree that money should be given to the poor but it shouldnt be taken from those who have earned money of their own, wether they've inherted it or worked for it or even if they won it it shouldnt be takne off them. Of course taxation will take a small percestage away and i am not saying that there should not be taxation, all i am saying is that money shoul'dnt be taken from those who have earned (in which ever way they did) their money. But back to point, i agree with the first option that people should keep whatever is theres however they got (as long as it is legal) and shouldnt have to give it up (except through taxation)

I quote from another message:

But only what one really rightfully owns. Someone who gets a wage much higher than others, despite doing less or barely more work(relative to the higher wage), does not rightly have his things. He has exploited others into getting it. - Today 4:45 PM
Chellis

I personaly believe that footballers and tv stars get paid too much but what they do get paid IS rightfuly their's. Unfortunately the world is made so people are more fortunate in others, in luck and in money. Its their luck that they are good at somethign which gets them in a job that pays them well. Thats the way the world is and i disagree with that comment.

A final point someone wrote:

'Robin hood was a brigad and shoudl hang' (soemthing along those lines)
I agree with them, wether he robbed form rich, poor or anything in between he shoudl be punnished. He was a THIEF!!!! The bible says:

'Thou shall not Steal' Exodus Chapter 20

Although not evry is a christian stealign is wrong in all religions, cultures and societies. Anyone who says its ok to steal form rich people but not from poor are mad.

This is really inconsistent. If money shouldn't be taken from those who've earned it there should be zero taxation. I don't agree that earnings are 100% the result of work, there is always a degree of luck. For some people it's almost all luck.

We had a good example here in NZ. A strange little current affairs host called Paul Holmes who was utterly convinced that he was entitled to his enormous salary because of his 'talents'. Not long ago he shifted from TV networks, doing the same kind of show, and it was a total flop. The fact is, almost anyone in his position could have had the same ratings. It's not that he was exploiting anyone but was grossly overpaid and his salary did not represent what he 'rightfully obtained'.

[QUOTE=St Thomas and St James]
A final point someone wrote:

'Robin hood was a brigad and shoudl hang' (soemthing along those lines)
I agree with them, wether he robbed form rich, poor or anything in between he shoudl be punnished. He was a THIEF!!!! The bible says:

'Thou shall not Steal' Exodus Chapter 20

QUOTE]

Hey, that was meant to be an intro to my SNL Celebrity Jeopardy reference.

Yes I believe the term here is "rightfully" earned. So then consider the whole Wal-MArt and megacorps that exist. They use child/cheap labor and avoid contributing to those societies. Then making their profits they give nothing back. They do provide jobs here in the states, but do not pay enough to support a family on or anything. And yet their heirs will be grossly rich and never have to contribute to society in any way. You have to define rightfully, I mean inheriting a business that takes advantage of the poor, is not right. I mean it was what slavery was all about. Taking them for all they as human beings were worth and giving nothing in return.

[QUOTE=St Thomas and St James]
'Thou shall not Steal' Exodus Chapter 20
[END QUOTE]

Something else to consider Jesus said:
"It is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to get a rich man into heaven"

Something else to consider Jesus said:
"It is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to get a rich man into heaven"

Do you know what the eye of the needle is anyways?

They do provide jobs here in the states, but do not pay enough to support a family on or anything.

So what? If their FAMILY wants a job, the FAMILY can apply for it. ;) I'm sick of hearing how it's apparently all employer's duty to support not only their workers but any number of rugrats they manage to churn out. Employment=/=welfare.

So what? If their FAMILY wants a job, the FAMILY can apply for it. ;) I'm sick of hearing how it's apparently all employer's duty to support not only their workers but any number of rugrats they manage to churn out. Employment=/=welfare.

Amen brother

As with most forced-choice questions of ideology, the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes. In order to be a fully functional society, those who work must be allowed to benefit from the fruits of their labor, regardless of what legal form that labor takes. Every society must also provide for those who aren't fully capable of caring for themselves. Ideally, this would be a function of the family, the community, and charitable organizations. Involving government in what amounts to a forced redistribution of income should be a last resort, utilized only when families, communities and charitable organizations cannot or do not function properly.

For a society to provide for those unable to provide for themselves, the society as a whole has to have a surplus of wealth. It is out of this surplus that a just society can afford to care for those unable to care for themselves, or who are temporarily facing financial difficulties. This is one reason I strongly support the concept of having a separate fund for such contingencies, one to which politicians do not have access. Politicians, being politicians, will squander non-isolated funds on pork-barrel legislation designed to get them re-elected. This is largely what has happened with Social Security in the US.

Government should perform only those activities which the private sector cannot make profitable. Regulated comptetion will insure that prices remain as low as possible consonant with a reasonble return on investment for those functions which lend themselves to private enterprise. When government provides support to businesses, it defeats one of the primary purposes of competition: weeding out the inefficient and incompetent.

In short, a mix of closely regulated capitalism, together with a resonable government run social program is probably the best means of making sure that a viable, energetic society does not leave its least competitive members in dire need.

So what? If their FAMILY wants a job, the FAMILY can apply for it. ;) I'm sick of hearing how it's apparently all employer's duty to support not only their workers but any number of rugrats they manage to churn out. Employment=/=welfare.

You're right it's not the employer's duty. So um oh well to the rugrats who die, decreasing the surplus population.

But to all those who are saying keep what you earn, why do you have such a problem with thieves like Robin Hood. Are they too not earning the money by stealing. In cases of robbing from rich heirs are they not earning it more than those who just sit around and enjoy it? I mean they go through all the effort. Who says crime doesn't pay?

Do you know what the eye of the needle is anyways?

Sorry I miss this a second ago with my other reply. Anyways yes, it's that top circular part of the needle where you normally stick thread through. And believe me I have a hard time getting that thread through let alone a camel!

You're right it's not the employer's duty. So um oh well to the rugrats who die, decreasing the surplus population.

But to all those who are saying keep what you earn, why do you have such a problem with thieves like Robin Hood. Are they too not earning the money by stealing. In cases of robbing from rich heirs are they not earning it more than those who just sit around and enjoy it? I mean they go through all the effort. Who says crime doesn't pay?

Most of us have specified 'rightfully' acquired stuff. Not stolen stuff.

So what? If their FAMILY wants a job, the FAMILY can apply for it. ;) I'm sick of hearing how it's apparently all employer's duty to support not only their workers but any number of rugrats they manage to churn out. Employment=/=welfare.

I'd agree that it's not an individual employer's duty to support a workers family, but if someone can't support an average sized family with their job then there's something wrong with the system.

Sorry I miss this a second ago with my other reply. Anyways yes, it's that top circular part of the needle where you normally stick thread through. And believe me I have a hard time getting that thread through let alone a camel!

And no, the Eye of the Needle was an entrance to Jeruselem at the time of Jesus. It was smaller than the rest so that only one person could fit through it at a time. It WAS possible to fit a camel through, but only with great precision.

But to all those who are saying keep what you earn, why do you have such a problem with thieves like Robin Hood. Are they too not earning the money by stealing. In cases of robbing from rich heirs are they not earning it more than those who just sit around and enjoy it? I mean they go through all the effort. Who says crime doesn't pay?

He stole money that didn't belong to him. That is a crime, and morally wrong. Stealing is stealing no matter how noble the reasons for it, and is in no way comparable to legitimate methods of earning money.

There's no quantifier for who deserves what wealth other than the people earning the money. It's preposterous to assume that because someone puts in more effort they automatically deserve more money.

Do you know what the eye of the needle is anyways?

Right, better nip this in the bud straight away. I know there's been all manner of attempts at explaining this in such a way that rich people can go on not doing what the rabbi says, but it's a very simple sentiment.

You can get by on, say, bread, water, and one set of clothing. There are many, many people who have none of these. Why are you eating veal, drinking wine, and in posession of a walk-in wardrobe? Because you're not doing your Christian duty, is why.

I'd agree that it's not an individual employer's duty to support a workers family, but if someone can't support an average sized family with their job then there's something wrong with the system.

No, there's nothing wrong. Those jobs are low skill, low productivity, and low ROI. There is also a huge supply of labor that could fill those low paying positions. Those people are getting the money they deserve for the amount they return on the company's investment in them, and to pay them more would just be a waste of money.

I'd agree that it's not an individual employer's duty to support a workers family, but if someone can't support an average sized family with their job then there's something wrong with the system.

So if I happen to pay you each week to clean my toilet, and I don't pay you enough to support you and your family, the system is wrong? No. A job is a job, if you have to support a family and your job isn't good enough, find a new job.

Right, better nip this in the bud straight away. I know there's been all manner of attempts at explaining this in such a way that rich people can go on not doing what the rabbi says, but it's a very simple sentiment.

You can get by on, say, bread, water, and one set of clothing. There are many, many people who have none of these. Why are you eating veal, drinking wine, and in posession of a walk-in wardrobe? Because you're not doing your Christian duty, is why.

And again, there is a very defined meaning of "The Eye of the Needle" in Jesus's days. And it appears in other texts of the time.

Most of us have specified 'rightfully' acquired stuff. Not stolen stuff.

But that was my point I mentioned earlier taking advantage of cheap/child labor laws in other countries. Is that not a form of not rightfully earning money on the behalf of rather wealthy corporations such as Nike, GAP, Wal-Mart and etc. Are they not stealing? And also the whole if you cannot support yourself in a job, than is not the supposed job market failing you?

But that was my point I mentioned earlier taking advantage of cheap/child labor laws in other countries. Is that not a form of not rightfully earning money on the behalf of rather wealthy corporations such as Nike, GAP, Wal-Mart and etc. Are they not stealing? And also the whole if you cannot support yourself in a job, than is not the supposed job market failing you?

Not at all. Child/Cheap Labor is still paid labor. Just because they are willing to work for less is not a point. It's like having a $200 baseball card, but only being able to find someone who will buy it for $100. You sell it, you suck it up and you spend your $100.

And no, the Eye of the Needle was an entrance to Jeruselem at the time of Jesus. It was smaller than the rest so that only one person could fit through it at a time. It WAS possible to fit a camel through, but only with great precision.

Well still you get the idea. Rich man into heaven difficult...Most likely a matephor those who cling to things and don't want to let them go can't get in.

But that was my point I mentioned earlier taking advantage of cheap/child labor laws in other countries. Is that not a form of not rightfully earning money on the behalf of rather wealthy corporations such as Nike, GAP, Wal-Mart and etc. Are they not stealing? And also the whole if you cannot support yourself in a job, than is not the supposed job market failing you?

Cheap labor isn't always wrong. Just because its cheap doesn't mean they are abusing the system; the PPP of poor countries makes a smaller wage go much farther than it appears to Americans. Unless these companies are actively breaking the law, they aren't doing anything wrong.

The job market isn't failing you. You're failing yourself by not getting the education or putting in the effort to get the skills necessary to earn enough to support you and your family. People don't "deserve" money just for working, they deserve it based upon how much companies get on their investment. Many of those low-paying jobs could be filled by teenagers for minimum wage, so why would they pay any more when there's so much cheap labor available?

Not at all. Child/Cheap Labor is still paid labor. Just because they are willing to work for less is not a point. It's like having a $200 baseball card, but only being able to find someone who will buy it for $100. You sell it, you suck it up and you spend your $100.

Woah so you are saying it's their fault for "sucking it up" and only accepting those wages? You honestly believe those people have an alternative?

Well still you get the idea. Rich man into heaven difficult...Most likely a matephor those who cling to things and don't want to let them go can't get in.

exactly, but I just like to educate people. Plus, a lot of people try to misuse that passage.

I believe we are all responsible for our own welfare, however, if one of us is falling on tough times, it is the duty of others to help to the best of their ability until that person is able to care for himself again.

Woah so you are saying it's their fault for "sucking it up" and only accepting those wages? You honestly believe those people have an alternative?

No, but that's not the company's responsibility.

Woah so you are saying it's their fault for "sucking it up" and only accepting those wages? You honestly believe those people have an alternative?

Move to America, that's what my parents did when they had nothing left. And you know what, it's twice as hard here as it is over there to get started. Even with twice/thrice the pay, costs are insane. But you never have only one choice.

So if I happen to pay you each week to clean my toilet, and I don't pay you enough to support you and your family, the system is wrong? No. A job is a job, if you have to support a family and your job isn't good enough, find a new job.

Like I said, it's not an individual employer's duty. If you want to pay someone to have their toilet cleaned you don't have to pay excessive amounts of money. That's not what I said at all.

But if the only job I can get is one working in a factory at the wage of a weekly toilet cleaner, there's something wrong there, even if that's the will of the free market.

You see? It doesn't pay on here to make calm, reasoned, rational posts like the one below. They are almost uniformly ignored in favor of the more controversial and even outlandish posts. I sometimes find myself wondering whether anyone even reads posts like the one below!


As with most forced-choice questions of ideology, the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes. In order to be a fully functional society, those who work must be allowed to benefit from the fruits of their labor, regardless of what legal form that labor takes. Every society must also provide for those who aren't fully capable of caring for themselves. Ideally, this would be a function of the family, the community, and charitable organizations. Involving government in what amounts to a forced redistribution of income should be a last resort, utilized only when families, communities and charitable organizations cannot or do not function properly.

For a society to provide for those unable to provide for themselves, the society as a whole has to have a surplus of wealth. It is out of this surplus that a just society can afford to care for those unable to care for themselves, or who are temporarily facing financial difficulties. This is one reason I strongly support the concept of having a separate fund for such contingencies, one to which politicians do not have access. Politicians, being politicians, will squander non-isolated funds on pork-barrel legislation designed to get them re-elected. This is largely what has happened with Social Security in the US.

Government should perform only those activities which the private sector cannot make profitable. Regulated comptetion will insure that prices remain as low as possible consonant with a reasonble return on investment for those functions which lend themselves to private enterprise. When government provides support to businesses, it defeats one of the primary purposes of competition: weeding out the inefficient and incompetent.

In short, a mix of closely regulated capitalism, together with a resonable government run social program is probably the best means of making sure that a viable, energetic society does not leave its least competitive members in dire need.

I'd agree that it's not an individual employer's duty to support a workers family, but if someone can't support an average sized family with their job then there's something wrong with the system.

No, the problem is not with the system. It is with those who have families without consideration.

We have this idea that offspring are some sort of fundamental right, and that if society does not give us what we need to support our own children we are somehow being cheated.

Many aspects of our labor surplus would be fixed if we were more responsible for our reproduction.

Cheap labor isn't always wrong. Just because its cheap doesn't mean they are abusing the system; the PPP of poor countries makes a smaller wage go much farther than it appears to Americans. Unless these companies are actively breaking the law, they aren't doing anything wrong.

The job market isn't failing you. You're failing yourself by not getting the education or putting in the effort to get the skills necessary to earn enough to support you and your family. People don't "deserve" money just for working, they deserve it based upon how much companies get on their investment. Many of those low-paying jobs could be filled by teenagers for minimum wage, so why would they pay any more when there's so much cheap labor available?

Well it's all about equal opporuntiy. Not everyone has one, if they did then yes what you earn is fair, but since it's not than no it has almost nothing to do with effort and almost everything to do with luck

You see? It doesn't pay on here to make calm, reasoned, rational posts like the one below. They are almost uniformly ignored in favor of the more controversial and even outlandish posts. I sometimes find myself wondering whether anyone even reads posts like the one below!

I did, but I agreed with the general message and so did not comment on it.

You see? It doesn't pay on here to make calm, reasoned, rational posts like the one below. They are almost uniformly ignored in favor of the more controversial and even outlandish posts. I sometimes find myself wondering whether anyone even reads posts like the one below!

Oh, they read the couple of lines which they can use against you without the whole picture.

Well it's all about equal opporuntiy. Not everyone has one, if they did then yes what you earn is fair, but since it's not than no it has almost nothing to do with effort and almost everything to do with luck

Or how people use the equal opportunity which is presented to them.

Well it's all about equal opporuntiy. Not everyone has one, if they did then yes what you earn is fair, but since it's not than no it has almost nothing to do with effort and almost everything to do with luck

A lot of the opportunity lack is the fault of the people themselves. They have to change from within before we can help them from without. I'm all for giving people an equal shot, as long as it's accompanied by real change from within. Once they take command of their communities and lives, then I will support spending money to help them.

The problem is, that's not happening and we are spending trillions of tax dollars on nothing. I mean, poverty has worsened since the Great Society programs were implemented, and there is now a permanent underclass of welfare slaves who are effectively chained to the government while the elite praise themselves for their "egalitarian" efforts.

You see? It doesn't pay on here to make calm, reasoned, rational posts like the one below. They are almost uniformly ignored in favor of the more controversial and even outlandish posts. I sometimes find myself wondering whether anyone even reads posts like the one below!

You must have been really proud of that post to give yourself that big of a pat on the back.

You have posted a very reasonable, very moderate response that is very difficult to disagree with. The only responses you can reasonably expect are kudos.

And again, there is a very defined meaning of "The Eye of the Needle" in Jesus's days. And it appears in other texts of the time.

And that's very nice. So the metaphor is not 'It is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven, because he is shirking his Christian duty,' but rather, 'it is somewhat difficult for a rich man to get into heaven, because he is shirking his Christian duty.' Glad we cleared that up!

There is no contradiction between those goals. The first alternative is a human right, and is the best means of achieveing the second. Making the second alternative out as an alternative at all just shows that we are all very rich and very stupid. Were would the resources to 'live better lives' come from, if not from working and making things better?

In this world we are all the victims of our own short comings and the future of our own decisions. This however does not mean that those who have should not give to those who do not. Now I will agree that in this world there are people who just will not help themselves and these people do not need to be given the help that someone else may actually need it such as cancer patients or the elderly or those who just are down on the floor at the moment. I do believe in working for what you have because if you do not then really you have nothing but if you are the person who just has a bad run at life where everything you do turns out wrong and you have nothing you should be able to have some help not matter where from. Personally I perffer to do what I have to myself but let say this ex Gas is expenisive lol. seriously people do make mistakes and they do desiver help although not papmering.

I agree with the comment about the right to keep earnings only applying in an anarchist society. Unless you utterly isolate yourself from society, what you earn from your job is not the direct outcome of your work. It's just the value the market has placed on the work you do, and your job is affected by matters out of your control. So what you earn is partly through your work and partly through luck/fate/whatever. In my opinion this means that it's fair to take part of what everyone earns for the benefit of the less well-off in society.

A lot of the opportunity lack is the fault of the people themselves. They have to change from within before we can help them from without. I'm all for giving people an equal shot, as long as it's accompanied by real change from within. Once they take command of their communities and lives, then I will support spending money to help them.

The problem is, that's not happening and we are spending trillions of tax dollars on nothing. I mean, poverty has worsened since the Great Society programs were implemented, and there is now a permanent underclass of welfare slaves who are effectively chained to the government while the elite praise themselves for their "egalitarian" efforts.

How could people deprive themselves opportunities? They can turn them down, yes but they can't not offer them to themselves in the first place. Take for example education here in the states. Although yes it's offered to everyone you must admit not all schools/school districts are the same.

How could people deprive themselves opportunities? They can turn them down, yes but they can't not offer them to themselves in the first place. Take for example education here in the states. Although yes it's offered to everyone you must admit not all schools/school districts are the same.

They can by perpetuating drug/alcohol abuse, the idea that they are "owed" something, the huge numbers of fatherless (or even parentless) children (in inner city African-American neighborhoods especially), the lack of emphasis on education, the lack of teaching their children a strong work ethic and so on.

These factors combine to create the situations in inner city schools, and are responsible for keeping the good down with the bad. Throwing money at them doesn't work, and never has. Until communities change themselves, opportunity will never improve for these people.

They can by perpetuating drug/alcohol abuse, the idea that they are "owed" something, the huge numbers of fatherless (or even parentless) children (in inner city African-American neighborhoods especially), the lack of emphasis on education, the lack of teaching their children a strong work ethic and so on.

These factors combine to create the situations in inner city schools, and are responsible for keeping the good down with the bad. Throwing money at them doesn't work, and never has. Until communities change themselves, opportunity will never improve for these people.

No throwing money never improves anything, but putting money into programs is the idea. So how is it these children's fault they were born into families with poor work ethics? Or 'absentee' parents? They are just going to teach/act the same way with their children. We need to offer these children good honest jobs, with security. We need to teach them contributing to society will help improve their lives and society will contribute back. That they are more than socio-economic slaves and that there are better opportunities than the drug market.

In a free market, your work is valued by the utility society recieves from it. It is not the direct result of your labor, but it is the only way to effectively value it.

OK, but that doesn't speak to the issue raised.

You are talking about the practicality of market valuation. The question previously raised, at least it seemed to me, was of the validity of property rights, "keeping what you earn", where it isn't exactly clear what you have earned.

No throwing money never improves anything, but putting money into programs is the idea. So how is it these children's fault they were born into families with poor work ethics? Or 'absentee' parents? They are just going to teach/act the same way with their children. We need to offer these children good honest jobs, with security. We need to teach them contributing to society will help improve their lives and society will contribute back. That they are more than socio-economic slaves and that there are better opportunities than the drug market.

It's not the childrens' fault; I blame the community and the parents for this, and until these communities and adults take a stand on these problems, nothing will change. Handouts only make things worse if they aren't combined with responsibility and change, and that's not happening right now.

Once there is a real change in the attitudes of these people and communitites, the problems will begin to fix themselves. It is here that the rest of society steps in and begins helping them lift up entirely from their situation. We cannot continue to just give them money, or jobs, and let it go from there. We need a comprehensive, community-based effort to help them, and it has to start from within. Otherwise, any attempt to help them will inevitably fail.

And no, the Eye of the Needle was an entrance to Jeruselem at the time of Jesus. It was smaller than the rest so that only one person could fit through it at a time. It WAS possible to fit a camel through, but only with great precision.

bullshit. there is no archeaological evidence of such a gate at the relevant time, and absolutely none that any gate was actually called that. and the context of the phrase makes that interpretation stupid. unless you think jesus intentionally used a metaphor that meant 'difficult but routinely done' right before talking impossibility because he just wasn't very good with words.

OK, but that doesn't speak to the issue raised.

You are talking about the practicality of market valuation. The question previously raised, at least it seemed to me, was of the validity of property rights, "keeping what you earn", where it isn't exactly clear what you have earned.

In the market, it is clear what you have earned. You don't work for yourself, you don't labor for yourself. You are selling your labor for the money you recieve in wages. It is no different from selling your car or business, as long as you do not enter the contract under duress, you are recieving fair payment.

Due to the efficiency of market valuation, the selling price of your labor will be an accurate valuation.

It's not the childrens' fault; I blame the community and the parents for this, and until these communities and adults take a stand on these problems, nothing will change. Handouts only make things worse if they aren't combined with responsibility and change, and that's not happening right now.

Once there is a real change in the attitudes of these people and communitites, the problems will begin to fix themselves. It is here that the rest of society steps in and begins helping them lift up entirely from their situation. We cannot continue to just give them money, or jobs, and let it go from there. We need a comprehensive, community-based effort to help them, and it has to start from within. Otherwise, any attempt to help them will inevitably fail.

So it sounds like you believe these people honestly do not want to improve their lives? I am saying if they were given the same opportunities they would take them. How are they suppose to fix themselves? No man is an island and neither are these communities they are a direct result of a society and an interaction with that society. These individuals are no different than you and I except they were unlucky enough to be born into this situation. So what is the community suppose to do within themselves?

You must have been really proud of that post to give yourself that big of a pat on the back.

You have posted a very reasonable, very moderate response that is very difficult to disagree with. The only responses you can reasonably expect are kudos.
Not really. I was a bit proud of having taken the time to write more than what passes for a sound-bite on here, but didn't consider that as having been a big pat on the back.

That response is how I really think in real life. That's why I refer to myself as a centrist, something with which quite a few on here take issue because the only posts of mine they read are the ones where I rant. The posts where I raise hell and rant are the exceptions to the rule in real life. I seldom, if ever actually rant like that at people.

bullshit. there is no archeaological evidence of such a gate at the relevant time, and absolutely none that any gate was actually called that. and the context of the phrase makes that interpretation stupid. unless you think jesus intentionally used a metaphor that meant 'difficult but routinely done' right before talking impossibility because he just wasn't very good with words.

Believe what you wish and try harder not to make false claims.

The correct interpretation would be:
You can have materialistic goods, but you need to be careful with them.

So it sounds like you believe these people honestly do not want to improve their lives? I am saying if they were given the same opportunities they would take them. How are they suppose to fix themselves? No man is an island and neither are these communities they are a direct result of a society and an interaction with that society. These individuals are no different than you and I except they were unlucky enough to be born into this situation. So what is the community suppose to do within themselves?

Too many of them don't care, or just keep blaming others for their problems while doing nothing about them. They need to take responsibility, to speak out and fight drug use and other problems in their communities. The leaders of these communities need to force the value of education, of work and all of the other aspects on to the community by any means necessary.

Fundamentally, the people have to take responsibilty. We can help, and should, but no meaningful progress has been made by the programs currently in place. We need to shift focus to helping them take responsibility, and then provide the money to make it work and last. Eventually, they won't need our help anymore, which would be a far greater accomplishment than any today.

So it sounds like you believe these people honestly do not want to improve their lives? I am saying if they were given the same opportunities they would take them. How are they suppose to fix themselves? No man is an island and neither are these communities they are a direct result of a society and an interaction with that society. These individuals are no different than you and I except they were unlucky enough to be born into this situation. So what is the community suppose to do within themselves?
I don't know exactly what Vetalia meant, but one interpretation is that yes, they do want to improve their lives, but they have other priorities than you as to what things they should do/get first.

That response is how I really think in real life. That's why I refer to myself as a centrist, something with which quite a few on here take issue because the only posts of mine they read are the ones where I rant. The posts where I raise hell and rant are the exceptions to the rule in real life. I seldom, if ever actually rant like that at people.

You are one of the most moderate persons on here. You always seem to be reasonable and fair, at least until political affiliations come up. Then you have a tendency to be a little silly.

Plus, it would be advantageous for you to research what kind of needles existed during the time. Most were what we would recognize as crocheting needles. Those by the way, have no eye. ;)

I argue that a person has ultimately the right to maintain what he/she obtains, given that it is without force and with due right. I believe that morally it is wrong to take something which someone has earned in order to give it to someone who has not earned it.

wouldn't the real issue of the seeming contradiction fall with differing ideas over how 'due right' to material goods actually plays out? nobody aquires things in a vacuum - how somebody gains a legal right to some object is socially determined.

wouldn't the real issue of the seeming contradiction fall with differing ideas over how 'due right' to material goods actually plays out? nobody aquires things in a vacuum - how somebody gains a legal right to some object is socially determined.

If it is socially determined and we change this determination in the prospect of a welfare system, then we change the definition of 'due right' according to your argument. Thus we have changed what is 'due right' to fit the change against what we were determining 'due right' in the first place. It's an endless cycle of redefining then. The paradox proves an inconsistancy. Thus NULL AND VOID.

In the market, it is clear what you have earned. You don't work for yourself, you don't labor for yourself. You are selling your labor for the money you recieve in wages. It is no different from selling your car or business, as long as you do not enter the contract under duress, you are recieving fair payment.

Yes I understand that, but I am calling that process irrelevant. You are using the market as some sort of value laundering operation. You put in what you will, get out what you can, and damn reality.

In society our work is, to a certain degree, the product of the work of others. This is the problem of the division of labor, complex labor and exchange relations so that we do not advance individually but as a society.

All human economic acitivity in the modern age is a collective endeavour. Capitalism is just the choice to have the decision making power in the hands of individuals, it doesn't transform us into a society of Robinson Crusoes.

In the market, it is clear what you have earned. You don't work for yourself, you don't labor for yourself. You are selling your labor for the money you recieve in wages. It is no different from selling your car or business, as long as you do not enter the contract under duress, you are recieving fair payment.

Due to the efficiency of market valuation, the selling price of your labor will be an accurate valuation.

This is a very legalistic view of things. Not being able to pay for food or rent is a form of duress even if your employer isn't personally pointing a gun at you. There are still many situations where people have no choice but to agree to sell their labour for unfair terms, which is not an accurate valuation.

As for communities helping themselves, I agree that welfare alone doesn't solve everything, but a poor community with drug problems etc is certainly not going to solve its problems if welfare is completely taken away.

Believe what you wish and try harder not to make false claims.

The correct interpretation would be:
You can have materialistic goods, but you need to be careful with them.

I thought the point would be it'd be easier just to leave the camel behind. I mean Jesus walked everywhere he used a donkey once and I think it was a loaner. He didn't believe in owning a lot of material possessions. Just walked around and spread the love. Hmm sounds like another stereotype...

Believe what you wish and try harder not to make false claims.

i dare you to provide a legit source that claims there actually was such a gate.

The correct interpretation would be:
You can have materialistic goods, but you need to be careful with them.

and the apostles just astonish easily?

You are one of the most moderate persons on here. You always seem to be reasonable and fair, at least until political affiliations come up. Then you have a tendency to be a little silly.
Le silly? Moi? Sacre blu! :D

What do you mean by "political affiliations," pray tell?

Yes I understand that, but I am calling that process irrelevant. You are using the market as some sort of value laundering operation. You put in what you will, get out what you can, and damn reality.

In society our work is, to a certain degree, the product of the work of others. This is the problem of the division of labor, complex labor and exchange relations so that we do not advance individually but as a society.

It is impossible for us to maintain our standards of living while not selling our labor on a market. Technology and specialization has made that so. So, while you are correct that we do not keep what we labor for, we are at least given the ability to purchase items of equivalent value to that we have labored.

All human economic acitivity in the modern age is a collective endeavour. Capitalism is just the choice to have the decision making power in the hands of individuals, it doesn't transform us into a society of Robinson Crusoes.

Completely agreed.

i dare you to provide a legit source that claims there actually was such a gate.



and the apostles just astonish easily?

Question for you? Are you a Christian by chance?

I am. Just seeing who I'm arguing with and what you may believe.

Le silly? Moi? Sacre blu! :D

What do you mean by "political affiliations," pray tell?

When discussing political parties and specific political figures (I won't name anyone), you tend to eschew your reasonableness and moderation and choose definite sides.

It's an endless cycle of redefining then. The paradox proves an inconsistancy.

not necessarily endless - we could find a definition that people are happy with that also has good material results.

what is paradoxical about the idea of such things being socially defined? especially since they are in fact socially defined. what counts as having legitimately obtained some object in one culture might count as an unjust appropriation in another.

[QUOTE=Hemingsoft]The thing about being careful with material goods [/END QUOTE]

Also with the gate metaphor don't you agree that no one can take their material possessions with them into heaven?

Question for you? Are you a Christian by chance?

I am. Just seeing who I'm arguing with and what you may believe.

i fail to see how it is relevant. my position is the one held by all experts on the subject.

but for the record, i'm an ex-lutheran.

When discussing political parties and specific political figures (I won't name anyone), you tend to eschew your reasonableness and moderation and choose definite sides.
Perhaps I'm like a computer with a poilitical "default." Who knows? LOL!

not necessarily endless - we could find a definition that people are happy with that also has good material results.

what is paradoxical about the idea of such things being socially defined? especially since they are in fact socially defined. what counts as having legitimately obtained some object in one culture might count as an unjust appropriation in another.

Well, the idea that most people are offering is that many of the social definitions are wrong and we need to change them. And people will never agree to that point.

This is a very legalistic view of things. Not being able to pay for food or rent is a form of duress even if your employer isn't personally pointing a gun at you. There are still many situations where people have no choice but to agree to sell their labour for unfair terms, which is not an accurate valuation.

The unemployed maintain that people are recieving fair wages. If someone would do the same work for less, then the person currently employed is overpaid.

I could also get into the Iron Law of Wages, which is a theory that states that the supply of labor and wages would find an equilibrium at the living wage.

i fail to see how it is relevant. my position is the one held by all experts on the subject.

but for the record, i'm an ex-lutheran.

Expert, please tell. Do you excavate the holy lands?

Not to mention, many of the documents which portray the Eye of the Needle have been hushed, unfotunately by the Catholic church for conflicting interests have been bad in the church. The mention of this gate was referencing a region near the Temple. And Jews are pretty stringent in that region.

I hate to do this, but gotta go to work. I appreciate the discussions guys. Peace Out.

And honestly, who gives a hoot about the stupid camel. We all know the point of the story.

not necessarily endless - we could find a definition that people are happy with that also has good material results.

what is paradoxical about the idea of such things being socially defined? especially since they are in fact socially defined. what counts as having legitimately obtained some object in one culture might count as an unjust appropriation in another.
What is considered X is of course socially determined, regardless of what X is, per the definition of considered. But the basic means of aquiring property are the same now as they have been ever since the first man/ape claimed that his newfangled tool was his own:

1) Homesteading something that wasn't owned before.
2) Recieving it from the previous owner in a voluntary transaction (gift, purchase, bribe etc.)
3) Taking it by force from the previous owner (theft, robbery, fraud, taxation etc.)

What libertarians, and I think all who care about property rights call legitimately aquired property is property aquired by means 1 and 2, but not 3. The only ambiguities in that definition is what you must do to homestead or disown a thing. That is what needs to be determined socially. (... Well, that and wether or not anyone cares.)

I hate to do this, but gotta go to work. I appreciate the discussions guys. Peace Out.

And honestly, who gives a hoot about the stupid camel. We all know the point of the story.

Yeah, the camel was pretty off-topic. The point is what is rightfully obtained, and whether all/some/none of a person's money counts as 'rightful'... The whole religious thing is more concerned with people who value possessions over God, not whether they are entitled to those possessions.

I had come across this debate in a Moral and Politcal Ideals class. I typically has good discussion outcomes and sums up most all welfare debates.

Who's rights are more important

1)The right for the working class to earn their living and keep it.
2)The right for the poor to have better living standards.

This contradictory rights debate is spawned from the ideas of post-FDR welfare.

I argue that a person has ultimately the right to maintain what he/she obtains, given that it is without force and with due right. I believe that morally it is wrong to take something which someone has earned in order to give it to someone who has not earned it.

Counter-argument: Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence that all men(women included) have the right to life. So why are we morally capable of not enabling someone to the right to life.

ENJOY guys.


You're building this argument from a false premise. You don't really MEAN for the working class to earn their living and keep it, because I am all in favor of that. what YOU mean, is for the uber-wealthy to get to keep all their, AT THE EXPENSE of the REAL working class.

I'm sorry, but I do not consider Bill Gates to be a member of the working class. He's a member of the exploiter class.

I think honest, hard-working people SHOULD be paid more, and they should keep a vast majority of what they earn (and I mean what their labor actually earns...I believe a business owner should be extracting less of the workers' labor value for themselves, and giving more of it to the workers.)

I think it's high time the uber-wealthy got taken down a peg or two, and were finally FORCED to share their wealth with those who helped to create that wealth...THE WORKERS!!

That said, I think that anyone who wants to work...should have a job made available to them, and at least the very minimum of survival needs, plus a few creature comforts, should be the reward of anyone willing to work a full, honest day.

For those physically and/or mentally unable to work that much, accomodation should be made as far as possible to allow them to work at whatever they can, for as long as they can, and, in turn, be rewarded with a full, enriching life. For those completely unable to work, physically or mentally or both, I believe it to be society's obligation to see to the general welfare of such people...and to demand nothing in return.

Here's MY ideal society, and the "layers" it would have...

Inventor/Ownership Class - This would be made of people who had somehow managed to work smarter, or harder...had managed to invent some good or service that improved the quality of life for human society, in some way. Many doctors might belong to this group, too, because their work DOES benefit human society. These people would earn more than the average layman, but not at the expense of the average layman. Ideally, members of this class might earn from three to five times that what a member of the Worker's Class might earn. Though there would be no cap on the potential, so long as no one beneath them on the socio-economic "ladder" were unduly exploited or used, or taken advantage of.

Worker's Class - This would be, by far, the largest group in my ideal society, encompassing perhaps 85 percent of the adult populace. These would be the people who did the actual work, and the work would be life-fulfilling, enriching, and rewarding, for all of their basic needs would be met, and there would be enough left over for some basic creature comforts of the choice of the individual. Yes, they would still have to make some choices on what to have, and what to have-not...but never would they worry about basic survival requirements. they would only choose between what luxuries to opt for...and which not to. This group would all be gainfully employed, and would consist of all adults who were willing and able to work a full, honest day. Newver would they need worry about employment security, for work would always be available to those who wanted it.

Welfare Class - This group would consist of those who were not physically or mentally able to work quite as much as members of the working class, or maybe not even at all. For those who could work, with accomodations...those accomodations would be met, allowing these people to live as independently as possible. They would not be punished for their disabilities. For those completely unable to work, they would be cared for. The members of this group would earn between 85 to 100 percent of what members of the Worker's Class earned, and, no matter what, their basic survival needs would always be met. They may end up with fewer creature comforts than those members of the Worker's Class...depending on just how industrious these people were...or were able to be. This would basically be the group who WANTED to be honest workers, and, for reasons beyond their control, they were not able to be full-fledged members of the Worker's Class. They would not be punished economically, for their inability to join that Worker's Class. Also, subsidies would be given to those qualified persons of this class, in order to make up for what they were unable to earn, through no fault of their own.

Dependent Class - this would be the class for people who just absolutely did not want to work. They could work, physically and or mentally, they simply CHOOSE not to. For these people, basic survival only would be insured. No creature comforts of any type would be permitted them. While we would care for them, they would never be any better off than just barely surviving, and not always in the most comfortable of circumstances, either.

The members of the Inventor/Owner Class, and the Worker's Class...would both be taxed in order to provide for those members of the Welfare and Dependent Classes. Taxes would be proportioned based upon actual income. The more income one recieved, a higher percentage of that income would be subject to a flat tax. Example, one who earned $25,000 a year might see 10 percent, or $2,500 of his income subject to the flat tax rate. The flat tax rate might be, for easy figures, let us say, 40 percent. Therefore, for this family, they would pay $1,000 in taxes (40 percent of $2,500) while the remaining $22,500 of their income would remain tax-exempt. Therefore, out of $25,000, that family would keep $24,000. The next example would be a unti that made $100,000 per year. He might see 20 percent of his income subject to the flat tax rate, thus $20,000 would be taxable, at 40 percent, for a tax bill of $8,000. Therefore, that unit keeps $92,000 of the $100,000 it earned. The next example would be for one who earned, say, $500,000. They might have, say 60 percent of their income subject to the flat tax. Thus, $300,000 of it would be subject to the 40 percent tax, resulting in a tax bill of $120,000. Therefore, that unit would keep $380,000 of the $500,000 it had earned.
The next bracket would be for those who earned between 1/2 to 1 million annually, and for east figures, I'll example this with a 1 million income. For them, 80 percent of their income would be suject to the flat tax. Therefore, $800,000 of their income is subject to the 40 percent tax, resulting in a tax bill of $360,000. The end result is that they keep $640,000 of the money they had earned, out of 1 million.
The highest bracket, then, would be for those earning over 1 million annually. 100 percent of their income would be subject to the flat tax. for easy figures, I'll example this with a 2 million income. All 2 million would be subject to the 40 percent flat tax, resulting in a tax bill of $800,000. They would therefore keep 1.2 million, out of 2 million they had earned.

This way, those who earn more...they pay more...but they also DO get to keep more (in actual dollars)...than those who have earned less (in actual dollars.) A strong, unbreakable safety net should be a part of every great society...for any society is only as good as the least among it.

Anyway, that is my ideal society. There is definitely an element of capitalism (tamed) and certainly an incentive and motivation to do the best you can, but failure is not punished. There is a strong underpinning of Socialism in my plan, which cares for the more needy elements of society. The rewards in my society may not be as high as in an unfettered capitalistic society, but the devastations that happen in such societies, to those less fortunate, are avoided, and thus, the society does not get ripped apart by vast gulfs of difference between the haves and the have-nots. Everyone is given at least enough to be fairly content, or, at the very least, to survive.

Obviously, education and job-training services would be heavily funded, in order to allow those who wanted to, to move upward in the classes to reach their fullest potential. Just because one was born in one class, they would not be condemned to spend their life in that class, they could, with diligent effort, work themselves up. similarly, there would be no guarantee that, just because you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, that you would always get to keep the spoon. but, even if you didn't...you would still, under any circumstances, be cared for at least enough to survive.

Severe penalties, including prison time and asset forfeiture, would be the penalty for anyone seeking to find loopholes in the system to unduly benefit themselves at the expense of others. such actions include cheating on taxes, not paying fair wages to employees, faking disabilities in order to get subsidies...etc, etc.

No one would be allowed to more than merely exist off the fat of the land. No creature comforts for those who are able, yet refuse...to work. no one would be able to unduly exploit his fellow man for unfair benefit, either.

But the basic means of aquiring property are the same now as they have been ever since the first man/ape claimed that his newfangled tool was his own

maybe. but there is also the issue of who can own particular things. many cultures (particularly the ones that were the original inhabitants of some area) operated under 'common property regimes', where land literally could not be owned by individuals. if you homesteaded some bit of previously unoccupied land, it did not become your personal property, but was added to the wider system of common property. so while the means of acquiring things may be the same, the ideas of who rightfully could obtain them have changed rather dramatically.

No, there's nothing wrong. Those jobs are low skill, low productivity, and low ROI. There is also a huge supply of labor that could fill those low paying positions. Those people are getting the money they deserve for the amount they return on the company's investment in them, and to pay them more would just be a waste of money.

Ah...so what you are saying is that money is more important than PEOPLE. Ok, I understand your thought prodcess now.

Return On Investment is more important than making sure your employee has a decent living after you have sucked 40 hours out of his week. I get it. Thanks for showing us how heartless and cruel the current system is.

Cheap labor isn't always wrong. Just because its cheap doesn't mean they are abusing the system; the PPP of poor countries makes a smaller wage go much farther than it appears to Americans. Unless these companies are actively breaking the law, they aren't doing anything wrong.

The job market isn't failing you. You're failing yourself by not getting the education or putting in the effort to get the skills necessary to earn enough to support you and your family. People don't "deserve" money just for working, they deserve it based upon how much companies get on their investment. Many of those low-paying jobs could be filled by teenagers for minimum wage, so why would they pay any more when there's so much cheap labor available?

No...company profits ARE NOT more important than people surviving. For once, why can't the companies take it on the chin, instead of people? why do THEY always have to make money...even if it is at the expense of others?

I have no problem with a company making money, until they are doing it by taking unfair advantage of people.

Bottom line, when you cut them, PEOPLE bleed. Companies don't. My vote for the bleeders.

I believe we are all responsible for our own welfare, however, if one of us is falling on tough times, it is the duty of others to help to the best of their ability until that person is able to care for himself again.

Son of a bitch!! Is this now the FOURTH thing we have agreed on, Neo?? WTF?!?!!?

I had come across this debate in a Moral and Politcal Ideals class. I typically has good discussion outcomes and sums up most all welfare debates.

Who's rights are more important

1)The right for the working class to earn their living and keep it.
2)The right for the poor to have better living standards.

This contradictory rights debate is spawned from the ideas of post-FDR welfare.

I argue that a person has ultimately the right to maintain what he/she obtains, given that it is without force and with due right. I believe that morally it is wrong to take something which someone has earned in order to give it to someone who has not earned it.

Counter-argument: Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence that all men(women included) have the right to life. So why are we morally capable of not enabling someone to the right to life.

ENJOY guys.

This ignores the fact that the working class could not obtain what they obtain if it were not for a stable society around them - which can be provided by ensuring that everyone has at least a minimum standard of living.

The working class may "rightfully obtain" something, but that is only possible on the backs of others. Human beings do not exist in a vacuum.

You see? It doesn't pay on here to make calm, reasoned, rational posts like the one below. They are almost uniformly ignored in favor of the more controversial and even outlandish posts. I sometimes find myself wondering whether anyone even reads posts like the one below!


I read it. And IU found that I only agree with this part of the post...

In short, a mix of closely regulated capitalism, together with a resonable government run social program is probably the best means of making sure that a viable, energetic society does not leave its least competitive members in dire need.

They can by perpetuating drug/alcohol abuse, the idea that they are "owed" something, the huge numbers of fatherless (or even parentless) children (in inner city African-American neighborhoods especially), the lack of emphasis on education, the lack of teaching their children a strong work ethic and so on.

These factors combine to create the situations in inner city schools, and are responsible for keeping the good down with the bad. Throwing money at them doesn't work, and never has. Until communities change themselves, opportunity will never improve for these people.

And you think that, somehow, turning your back on these communities will cause them to change?

In order for change to happen, there must first be HOPE.

As a dedicated conservative my sentiments ought to be evident, but as a measure of justification, consider the following; In Britain, the percieved "middle class", an expansive social bracket that is generally erroneously and over-used, pay considerably more taxes than those who earn only £5000-£10000 in deficit per annum. However those who earn less are percieved to be needy and impoverished by our enlightened government, and accordingly recieve a myriad of benefits thatcan at times increase their income to over those who fund their benefits. Such a socialist policy is logically and inherently injust, and punishes those who work to forge a beeter life and removes the necessity upon the poor to work.

Furthermore, recognised investigations discern that upwards of 30% of the "poor" possess cable television, a frivolity that does not befit their dependancy upon benefits, and contravenes the concept of benefits;to facilitate a tolerable quality of life. To use a somewhat cliched argument, in the modern, western culture, oppurtunity for all is an integral, and plaudable, concept. A multitude of affluent, influential and respected individuals; Richard Branson an eminent example, hail from supposedly impoverished backgrounds, and yet they are not reliant upon government aid. It is accordingly both irrational and unjustified to procure necessities for those who lack the inclination to work from those who do.

I could also get into the Iron Law of Wages, which is a theory that states that the supply of labor and wages would find an equilibrium at the living wage.

According to this then slavery should be made legal. And the ironic is that a lot of ppl would live better if someone just gave them a roof and food.

Son of a bitch!! Is this now the FOURTH thing we have agreed on, Neo?? WTF?!?!!?

I think you'll find the difference between your position and Neo's is that you are opting for a duty that can and will be enforced, whereas she is most likely talking about a voluntary duty, something people should do as opposed to something people have to do.

It is a fundamental human right of every person to have access to food, water, housing, clothing, a job and the full fruits of their labour. This will undoubtedly require a radical redistribution of wealth and property and that is the only morally justified thing to do.

As a dedicated conservative my sentiments ought to be evident, but as a measure of justification, consider the following; In Britain, the percieved "middle class", an expansive social bracket that is generally erroneously and over-used, pay considerably more taxes than those who earn only £5000-£10000 in deficit per annum. However those who earn less are percieved to be needy and impoverished by our enlightened government, and accordingly recieve a myriad of benefits thatcan at times increase their income to over those who fund their benefits. Such a socialist policy is logically and inherently injust, and punishes those who work to forge a beeter life and removes the necessity upon the poor to work.

Furthermore, recognised investigations discern that upwards of 30% of the "poor" possess cable television, a frivolity that does not befit their dependancy upon benefits, and contravenes the concept of benefits;to facilitate a tolerable quality of life. To use a somewhat cliched argument, in the modern, western culture, oppurtunity for all is an integral, and plaudable, concept. A multitude of affluent, influential and respected individuals; Richard Branson an eminent example, hail from supposedly impoverished backgrounds, and yet they are not reliant upon government aid. It is accordingly both irrational and unjustified to procure necessities for those who lack the inclination to work from those who do.
The last line doesn't seem to me to sit as a logical conclusion of the rest of the post. It seems like you said this:
"Many of the poor get too much by way of benefits and spend on frivolous things. Because of this, they should not receive the necessities."
If they were receiving only the necessities, as your last line implies you are against, wouldn't the rest of your argument be irrelevent? Or did I misinterpret you?

According to this then slavery should be made legal. And the ironic is that a lot of ppl would live better if someone just gave them a roof and food.

There is a huge difference between slave labor and working to survive.

The right to maintain what you gain is only practicable in an anarchistic society without law enforcement and therefore lawless. The most primitive form of society, and even more primitive than that because primitive society is based on family and tribal structures, which will inevitably force the individual to give up certain items for the good of the group.

Modern society is about creating a balance between personal freedoms for the individuals and peace and stability in order to make full use of said freedoms. To ensure this peace and stability, everybody has to contribute.
It is a balance, and different societies put different emphasis on freedoms and obligations, but a society that drops the obligations completely won't remain a society for long.
So basically, if I work my entire life away and become a millionaire through blood, sweat, and tears, some of it should be forcefully taken from me by the federal government and distributed to some hobo's? If any political leader tried to instate something like that they should be overthrown. Period.

So basically, if I work my entire life away and become a millionaire through blood, sweat, and tears, some of it should be forcefully taken from me by the federal government and distributed to some hobo's? If any political leader tried to instate something like that they should be overthrown. Period.

Selfish. Greedy. Just the very problem with our society. When do you FINALLY have enough...or are you so hard-hearted that you care not about the people who are in serverely dire straits, often through no fault of their own?

Plus, it would be advantageous for you to research what kind of needles existed during the time. Most were what we would recognize as crocheting needles. Those by the way, have no eye. ;)

Actually, eyed needles date back to predynastic times in ancient Egypt. Initially they were made of bone, changing to copper in the Old Kingdom and bronze in the Middle. The eye was not bored, but scratched out.

If eyed needles did not exist in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, then whence the name "Eye of the Needle" for this alleged gate? Matthew and Mark use the word rafic where as in Luke it is belone. Both refer to needles used for sewing (though the word in Luke refers more to a needle used for medical sutures).

And again, there is a very defined meaning of "The Eye of the Needle" in Jesus's days. And it appears in other texts of the time.

And those texts you refer to are which texts?