NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/05/29/nz.lifesupport.ap/index.html

Opinions?

My opinion is that there's more to this story than meets the eye. I cannot understand how it's possible for the engineer to cut the electricity if there's someone clearly requiring oxygen.

Further, I don't understand why she would not be rushed to hospital if she was going to die without oxygen.

The whole thing just seems...unlikely.

I'm not saying it's not true, just that we surely don't have all the facts.

Wow, that's an interesting, if unfortunate, conundrum. Was the power board ethically obliged to supply her with electricity for free?

I reckon they were, and as such are institutionally partially guilty of extortion, blackmail and murder.

Sad, but there are thousands of other people dying every day, too.

I thought that this was an accidental power cut... But, no - somebody actually cut the power to that particular house. It's unfortunate, but it's general procedure to cut power for not paying bills. Perhaps they didn't know that the occupant of the house was on an oxygen machine? :confused:

aren't they required to give at least a minimum of power? Even if she doesn't pay the bills? I believe they have to do that here.

I feel bad for the family.

However, just playing the devil's advocate for a moment; did they, the electric company, have any true way of knowing? I mean, from the company's view at the time, it was a kid telling them not to turn off the electricity. They probably felt it was an attempt to scam them.

And don't people who typically rely on oxygen machines have a portable unit that they can use?

Sad, but there are thousands of other people dying every day, too.

And yet, many are not so easily preventable. I wonder if you would say the same thing were it your mother who died...

I do agree that we probably don't have all the facts. Something just seems off.

I do agree that we probably don't have all the facts. Something just seems off.
I think it's the fact that there is no mention of a portable oxygen unit. After all, how else would this woman have been able to do anything else? She should have been able to hook up to the portable unit, which doesn't require electricity to work.

I only say this because my granny relied on an oxygen machine in her later years and she had one that required electricity that she used at night and a portable unit when she had to get around.

Very sad. I remember a similar thing here a couple of years ago when a couple of pensioners died after losing their gas supply in the middle of winter.

And don't people who typically rely on oxygen machines have a portable unit that they can use?Yeah, you'd think she'd be given a battery pack or something in case of a blackout or something.

Wow, that's an interesting, if unfortunate, conundrum. Was the power board ethically obliged to supply her with electricity for free?

I reckon they were, and as such are institutionally partially guilty of extortion, blackmail and murder.I'm wondering why the bill was unpaid. Surely the woman should have qualified as being eligible for disability benefit, and therefore get help towards paying her bills from the state.

I was also wondering why the family didn't try to sort this out earlier. You tend to get several red letters before they send someone to cut off your power or gas (and they normally urge to contact them immediately if you have extenuating circumstances).

I think it's the fact that there is no mention of a portable oxygen unit. After all, how else would this woman have been able to do anything else? She should have been able to hook up to the portable unit, which doesn't require electricity to work.

I only say this because my granny relied on an oxygen machine in her later years and she had one that required electricity that she used at night and a portable unit when she had to get around.

also the fact that, despite knowing she needed oxygen, and knowing the power was cut, she wasn't taken to a hospital.

I thought that this was an accidental power cut... But, no - somebody actually cut the power to that particular house. It's unfortunate, but it's general procedure to cut power for not paying bills. Perhaps they didn't know that the occupant of the house was on an oxygen machine? :confused:

Well needing oxygen or not they still have to pay the bills , Company policy is for everyone and that women still has to abide by the policy.

Well needing oxygen or not they still have to pay the bills , Company policy is for everyone and that women still has to abide by the policy.

not if it knowingly kills someone...that can be considered manslaughter, iirc.

There are conflicting stories coming from both sides and there is a police investigation into it already. Mercury Energy is part of an SOE as well so the govt is getting involved.

not if it knowingly kills someone...that can be considered manslaughter, iirc.

They most probably don't , I'm sure they wouldn't of turned It of If they new they would kill some one . The company wouldn't want the negative attention.

Well needing oxygen or not they still have to pay the bills , Company policy is for everyone and that women still has to abide by the policy.No. Had the people at the top known about this woman's condition I doubt they would have cut her power. Company policy does not normally include attempting to extract money for unpaid bills from people, even if it kills them.

No. Had the people at the top known about this woman's condition I doubt they would have cut her power. Company policy does not normally include attempting to extract money for unpaid bills from people, even if it kills them.

Well they would of still cut the power eventually If the bills remained unpaid , They wouldn't provide free power for her because then many types of people such as people with disabilities will be demanding free energy.

she would most likely have been on a disable pension....but what if she had to use it all for say. medical treatments...not as if govt throws cash at anyone....bein old aint cheap...so they cut the power... easy to blame people but how are they supposed to know ?

A little more sensational (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/1158892)
The Muliaga family owed less than $200 on their power bill. They had made several attempts to pay some of it but not enough for Mercury Energy. The company switched off their power supply and three hours later Folole Muliaga, a woman who relied on an oxygen machine to help her breathe, was dead.

...
"When she stopped working because she was sick, that's why my family struggle," says Lopaavea.

They had made two payments to Mercury Energy last month, but that wasn't enough.

...
Folole Muliaga started feeling unwell but told her son not to call for help.ED:Why? But three hours later when she collapsed, he called an ambulance. She died in front of her sons.

...
We all came here today to pay the power because we love the husband and the kids staying in a dark place last night," says Sarai Tokuma, a relative.

However, following publicity about the case, Mercury Energy had already switched the family's power back on.

Then CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/30/world/main2866000.shtml)
Sheehan said the family's bills would prove Muliaga was trying to pay the account, and received no warning the power would be shut off. He declined to say how much she owed.

State Owned Enterprises Minister Trevor Mallard said there were reports the family had been warned about the overdue account.


Rather short comment from the DHB (http://www.newswire.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=375517&catid=30)
A District Health Board's surprised there wasn't time for medical help to get to the aid of a woman who died after power was cut off to her oxygen supply.
...
The Counties Manukau District Health Board's Chief Medical Officer Dr Don Mackey says patients who get into difficulty at home and who can't access power are instructed to call for an ambulance.

However Dr Mackey says most patients use oxygen machines at night, so the critical nature of this case comes as a surprise to him.

The Blustering (http://lawfuel.com/show-release.asp?ID=12657)
"This was a despicable act and it was possibly the principal cause of the woman’s death. For senior executives not to be made aware of the circumstances before the power was cut off makes it so much worse.
...
"Nobody, repeat nobody, in this country should die because they have not paid their power bill,” concluded Mr Brown.

The Politicing (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00554.htm)
"This is a terrible personal tragedy, but at its root is a political cause – this is a direct result of the free market system in electricity where company profits now overrule basic civilized behaviour."

"The money was more important than the safety, health and wellbeing of a New Zealander. That is a devastating indictment of where New Zealand is heading as a profit-driven society dominated by corporate interests and greed."

They didn't know, they say (http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/default.aspx?id=73554).
Falole Muliaga had recently been discharged from Middlemore Hospital after being admitted with a cardio-respiratory complaint. Counties Manukau Chief Medical Officer Don Mackie says around 170 adults in the Counties Manukau region use the machines. He says the device is not expected to be needed 24-hours a day and most people would have enough breathing reserve to call for help. Dr Mackie says Folole Muliaga had been using the breathing support device for some time.

This one loads slow. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4078159a6000.html)
Family spokesman Brenden Sheehan said he was outraged and disgusted that Mercury Energy cut off her power without giving her a chance to address the problem.

"Particularly when I look at her power bill and see there have been two payments made in the last month," he said.

"And there is nothing in the bill about disconnection and it was only issued last Wednesday."

Victim Support contacted Mercury Energy after the woman had passed away and asked them to put the power back on.

"But they refused to do so until the bill was paid," Mr Sheean said.

"I don't believe the statements made by Mercury this morning that they have put the power back on to help the family, I think they put it back on to avoid public embarrassment."

Mercury Energy general manager James Moulder said the company restored electricity to the household early this morning "to help the family through this difficult time".

"We are distressed by this tragic event and have offered our condolences to the family." he said.

"We are doing everything we can to understand the cull circumstances of what occurred."

Mercury had policies in place to prevent power being cut to homes when it was made aware there was a medical need.
New Zealand talk radio (http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=118320)
Convenor of the criminal law section of the Law Society, Jonathan Krebs, says Mercury Energy should be reasonably safe from prosecution. He says the case is extremely complicated and hinges on who knew what about the woman's condition, but it is early in the investigation.
See if you can find anything new (http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox-a&hl=en&hs=Tm1&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&ie=ISO-8859-1&ncl=1116795043) All the stories are starting to look the same to me.

Warning? Well Its basic knowledge that If you don't pay your bills you get your power turned of. The family should of done more for that possibility rather than relying on the companys generosity or they should of told the company of there situation so special arrangements could be made.

Warning? Well Its basic knowledge that If you don't pay your bills you get your power turned of. The family should of done more for that possibility rather than relying on the companys generosity or they should of told the company of there situation so special arrangements could be made.

-

"Particularly when I look at her power bill and see there have been two payments made in the last month," he said.

Well needing oxygen or not they still have to pay the bills , Company policy is for everyone and that women still has to abide by the policy.
I guess with my stream of cousciousness sort of way of answering posts you may not have got the fact that I said "It's unfortunate, but it's general procedure to cut power for not paying bills." So I really don't get why you appear to be atacking my position, when I implied that they were within their rights to cut the power...

And I still think that it's highly likely that the company didn't know that the house contained a woman on an oxygen machine. If a person was careless enough to get into a situation of not paying their bills when they need oxygen and not getting help (procedure may be different in New Zealand, but generally you get several warnings over the space of a several weeks before the power is cut), then I'm pretty sure that they're careless enough not to inform an electricity company that cutting the power would result in a fatality.

- SNIP -
There one thing consistent about the story and it's the fact that she had her sons home with her for the three hours before she died. Even if the company did cut off the power, shouldn't her children have some level of responsibility in this too? After all, they were with her in the house and even if she told them NOT to call the ambulance, they should have anyway.

The company is not responsible for the action or lack of action on the part of the children and mother. They provide a service. The family pays for it.

The right thing would have been for the family to take her back to the hospital or at least to a neighbours where there is electricity so she could make use of the machine.

There were three in hours in which her sons could have done something. So why is the company at fault when there is more than meets the eye? This is what I don't understand. I don't believe the whole story is accurate. Why would there have been no action taken when she wasn't feeling well?

I guess with my stream of cousciousness sort of way of answering posts you may not have got the fact that I said "It's unfortunate, but it's general procedure to cut power for not paying bills." So I really don't get why you appear to be atacking my position, when I implied that they were within their rights to cut the power...

And I still think that it's highly likely that the company didn't know that the house contained a woman on an oxygen machine. If a person was careless enough to get into a situation of not paying their bills when they need oxygen and not getting help (procedure may be different in New Zealand, but generally you get several warnings over the space of a several weeks before the power is cut), then I'm pretty sure that they're careless enough not to inform an electricity company that cutting the power would result in a fatality.

-
"When she stopped working because she was sick, that's why my family struggle," says Lopaavea.

They had made two payments to Mercury Energy last month, but that wasn't enough.
To classify not paying as 'careless' seems to ignore, well, a lot.
Sheehan said the family's bills would prove Muliaga was trying to pay the account, and received no warning the power would be shut off.

Just about every account has the son telling the contractor on the spot that the woman needed the oxygen and the company itself says it has a policy for that. A lot is going to hang on the investigation about what the contractor knew before he did what he did.

Well they would of still cut the power eventually If the bills remained unpaid , They wouldn't provide free power for her because then many types of people such as people with disabilities will be demanding free energy.You'd be surprised. Most energy companies, at least in the UK, will offer huge subsidies to those least able to afford their energy bill.

There one thing consistent about the story and it's the fact that she had her sons home with her for the three hours before she died. Even if the company did cut off the power, shouldn't her children have some level of responsibility in this too? After all, they were with her in the house and even if she told them NOT to call the ambulance, they should have anyway.

The company is not responsible for the action or lack of action on the part of the children and mother. They provide a service. The family pays for it.

The right thing would have been for the family to take her back to the hospital or at least to a neighbours where there is electricity so she could make use of the machine.

There were three in hours in which her sons could have done something. So why is the company at fault when there is more than meets the eye? This is what I don't understand. I don't believe the whole story is accurate. Why would there have been no action taken when she wasn't feeling well?

To be honest, and this will sound cruel, it seems to me they weren't the brightest bunch. I don't think that makes them deserving of death, but it certainly would explain some communication mix ups and why somethings just weren't done. She appears to be new to the oxygen thing, having only just been released, so it might be a case of her not being clear on what should happen next, though they seemed to understand that there was a danger.

From what I read it looks like the contractor is the one that's going to take the bullet here, he had the opportunity to see for himself she needed the power and Mercury insists that they have a policy for this kind of thing, so it really does look like the contractor is going to take the fall on this one. What the family did does seem odd, though. And stories don't match.

To classify not paying as 'careless' seems to ignore, well, a lot.
In this case it might have been a good idea if I'd actually read the article...Apologies.

I feel bad for the family.

However, just playing the devil's advocate for a moment; did they, the electric company, have any true way of knowing? I mean, from the company's view at the time, it was a kid telling them not to turn off the electricity. They probably felt it was an attempt to scam them.

And don't people who typically rely on oxygen machines have a portable unit that they can use?

They generally do yeah, one of our driver's wife has a portable one she carries with her all the time. Otherwise she'd be stuck tied to the machine at home.

I know this family very well. I work with the husband and have been round to the house and hospital many times. I found the family to be very loving and chuch-going family that puts family (both blood and hangers-on like me) and God first. It is one of the pacific-island families in NZ that doesn't want handouts from the government. The husband is very hard working and doesn't drink or smoke. He was also a very loving husband and father that if possible would have stopped work to look after her and the kids (kids between 8 and 16 (and before you say it, no the 16 y.o can't look after then as he is a very bright kid with a good head on his shoulders so he needs to study).Its the first time, I can say that CNN is wrong as the oldest is 16 not 20. With only one income coming in and really no government support to speak of (try $30 per fornight), it was vey hard to pay for things
Now some false info that has been said.
1) Power bill wasn't paid. True to some point but the money was in the house to pay it when the husband came back home about 1.00pm. The contactor was made aware that it was to be paid that day.
2) Contactor was not told about the sick women. That is a load of crap!! The son told the contactor as well as a neigbour. Two people told him and choose now to listen
3) Contactor never went in the house. Again true to a point but she could be seen through a window clearly if he wanted to look
4) Power bill was overdue. Yes but not as bad as you think. It was 1 full month and one part month.
If you say it would be easy to afford to live,try this (all per week):
$410 for rent
$200 for food
$80 (on average) to run a mini-van
And on top of that, school supplies for 4 kids, water rates and other week to week costs. Try doing that with a income of $340 per week.
My power bill (just me and a ginger cat) is about $90 a month, his was about $600
You have to know that the power company involved was the one last year caused all the power to go out for 8 hrs in the Greater Auckland and Northland areas and all the power out in Auckland CBD for 8 weeks in 1998. The company are bastards to the highest order. If I could, I would go with another company but can't due to my landlord. I wish I could really swear here but I won't cause words willn't get anywhere near how I feel about Mercury Energy and what has happen.
Earlier in the day, they was a stike at at our work and he was filmed on the picket line by a news crew.I just wished that he didn't need to go infront of the cameras twice in two days.
For all those out there who want to, pray for him. He really needs it!!

They generally do yeah, one of our driver's wife has a portable one she carries with her all the time. Otherwise she'd be stuck tied to the machine at home.

She was not new to taking oxygen. She has been doing it for the last 3 years and to get a portable machine costs money which the family doesn't have (try about $11,000!!)

In the US power is sold to the highest bidder.
Blackouts can happen to you, even if you've paid your bills.
It's called "free market".
And it's coming to Europe. Ain't that great?

She was not new to taking oxygen. She has been doing it for the last 3 years and to get a portable machine costs money which the family doesn't have (try about $11,000!!)

And you say they don't want to rely on government handouts? Maybe this is one case where they should have taken the help. I mean, the cost is astronomical and isn't the mother's life worth more than dignity if she needs the oxygen?

I don't want to sound judgemental but this just seems like common sense. If they needed help, shouldn't they have sought it?

aren't they required to give at least a minimum of power? Even if she doesn't pay the bills? I believe they have to do that here.

not in the US, or at least not where I grew up. We didn't have any electricity when we didn't pay the bill, no water, no gas, the trash man didn't come.

I can remember many times cooking over a campfire in the back yard, wrapped up in as many blankets as I could get because it was winter, and then having to drive around looking for an unlocked dumpster behind a store to get rid of our trash.

And you say they don't want to rely on government handouts? Maybe this is one case where they should have taken the help. I mean, the cost is astronomical and isn't the mother's life worth more than dignity if she needs the oxygen?

I don't want to sound judgemental but this just seems like common sense. If they needed help, shouldn't they have sought it?

But remember I said that they could only get abont $30 a fonight,$60 a month. That is way not enough for a $600 power bill.

And something else I didn't say in my other message is, just like in U.S and many other Westen Countries, if you are in hospital, you are taking up a bed that someone else might need. I was in the same hospital 2 years ago after I got hit by a car (don't ask, long story, not my fault) and broke my hip socket and I was only in overnight and was kicked out. I couldn't even walk but I still had to go. I got my revenge cause I was back in 3 weeks later for my hip op and stayed in there for 5 months. I could make after 1 month without aid but they kept me in there!!

Personally I think the family was the negligent party

They knew of her need AND they knew the power was in jeopardy of being shut off but left her there un attended anyways

I feel bad, I really do. but why wasn't there a back up for the pump? Certainly someone should have thought about that, no?

I'm generally the first to take a blow at the staggeringly inefficient morass of a state-run company. However, they were completely justified in their course of action. If the woman was dilatory in paying her bills, she had no right to expect the service; it's as simple as that.

I'm generally the first to take a blow at the staggeringly inefficient morass of a state-run company. However, they were completely justified in their course of action. If the woman was dilatory in paying her bills, she had no right to expect the service; it's as simple as that.And you would say the same if you were in the woman's situation?

And you would say the same if you were in the woman's situation?

If I were in the womans situation i would not have remained in my home if there was fore knowledge of possible power failure planned or not.

More over i would no place my life in the hands of a single interpretable source without a backup plan. (such as bottled oxygen) There is a reason that health care faculties not only have a power backup system but also a bottled oxygen system in place.

Personally she and her family were in my view more at fault then the power company

And you would say the same if you were in the woman's situation?

Being a diligent worker, I would not be in the woman's situation in the first place. Furthermore, if I was physically incapable of providing a valuable service to the state, I would not expect for the state to do the same for me. In the words of John F. Kennedy: "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for you country." The difference between me and her is that she does the former whereas I do the latter.

Being a diligent worker, I would not be in the woman's situation in the first place. Furthermore, if I was physically incapable of providing a valuable service to the state, I would not expect for the state to do the same for me. In the words of John F. Kennedy: "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for you country." The difference between me and her is that she does the former whereas I do the latter.or so you believe. and once you get sick, that might change.

Being a diligent worker, I would not be in the woman's situation in the first place. Furthermore, if I was physically incapable of providing a valuable service to the state, I would not expect for the state to do the same for me. In the words of John F. Kennedy: "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for you country." The difference between me and her is that she does the former whereas I do the latter.
Never took you as a communist...

Never took you as a communist...

It's a good thing you didn't because I'm not. I believe in a state whose only duty is to protect the people via a court system, a police force, and a military. The government should stay out of people's lives and economic affairs.

Being a diligent worker, I would not be in the woman's situation in the first place.

Get a debilitating illness and get back to us with that nonsense. You have no reason to believe that, when capable, this woman was not a "diligent worker."

Get a debilitating illness and get back to us with that nonsense.

Again, to repeat myself, those who cannot provide a valuable service to the state should not expect the state to support them. Such people may rely on their family or private charities, but if they don't give anything to the state (via a private corporation, of course), the state should not give anything to them.

It's a good thing you didn't because I'm not. I believe in a state whose only duty is to protect the people via a court system, a police force, and a military. The government should stay out of people's lives and economic affairs.Yep. Countries with no taxes are pretty cool....

Again, to repeat myself, those who cannot provide a valuable service to the state should not expect the state to support them. Such people may rely on their family or private charities, but if they don't give anything to the state (via a private corporation, of course), the state should not give anything to them.

Interesting. And I bet you think you provide valuable services to the state.

Roll along little trolly!

Again, to repeat myself, those who cannot provide a valuable service to the state should not expect the state to support them. Such people may rely on their family or private charities, but if they don't give anything to the state (via a private corporation, of course), the state should not give anything to them.What exactly do you do for a living??

Yep. Countries with no taxes are pretty cool....

I never said that I don't believe in taxes; in fact, I created a thread in which I expounded upon my views on the subject (in case you missed it, I stated that I was a proponent of counter-progress [regressive] taxation).

What exactly do you do for a living??

You think you are going to get a straight answer?

Interesting. And I bet you think you provide valuable services to the state.

A "valuable service" is, quite literally, a "service of value." That is, a monetary value is attached to one's work by the market. Any paying job is considered a "valuable service" by me.

A "valuable service" is, quite literally, a "service of value." That is, a monetary value is attached to one's work by the market. Any paying job is considered a "valuable service" by me.

Ahh so you work retail.....

Again, to repeat myself, those who cannot provide a valuable service to the state should not expect the state to support them. Such people may rely on their family or private charities, but if they don't give anything to the state (via a private corporation, of course), the state should not give anything to them.

This has nothing to do with my issue with your comment. You essentially suggested that the woman was lazy and that you could never end up in her situation because you are "a diligent worker." Such a statement is nonsense. You don't have a debilitating disease. Get one and then tell me what a "diligent worker" you are and how you don't have to rely on others.

What exactly do you do for a living??

Professional Troll, I'd assume.

This has nothing to do with my issue with your comment. You essentially suggested that the woman was lazy and that you could never end up in her situation because you are "a diligent worker." Such a statement is nonsense. You don't have a debilitating disease. Get one and then tell me what a "diligent worker" you are and how you don't have to rely on others.

She can't breathe. That's hardly debilitating. She could easily engage in some form of at-home employment if she is creative and diligent. For example, she could become a writer or an artist. She could intelligently invest in stocks. Of course, she may even be able to leave the house of her own volition but is precluded from doing so by her own self-pity and laziness.

Meh, unfortunate, and, with consideration, should have been avoided, but such is life. Go and depress somebody else, I'm having a Morrissey day:(

She can't breathe. That's hardly debilitating. She could easily engage in some form of at-home employment if she is creative and diligent. For example, she could become a writer or an artist. She could intelligently invest in stocks. Of course, she may even be able to leave the house of her own volition but is precluded from doing so by her own self-pity and laziness.What exactly do you do for a living??

Again, to repeat myself, those who cannot provide a valuable service to the state should not expect the state to support them. Such people may rely on their family or private charities, but if they don't give anything to the state (via a private corporation, of course), the state should not give anything to them.

Subjective though the term "service" is, I broadly agree.

However, would you consider, for example, a destitute poet, artist or musician to have given society a service?

What exactly do you do for a living??

I do not wish to reveal personal information to potential criminals or sexual predators.

Meh, unfortunate, and, with consideration, should have been avoided, but such is life. Go and depress somebody else, I'm having a Morrissey day:(

Emo! :p

I do not wish to reveal personal information to potential criminals or sexual predators.So in fact you are not a diligent worker.

She can't breathe. That's hardly debilitating. She could easily engage in some form of at-home employment if she is creative and diligent. For example, she could become a writer or an artist. She could intelligently invest in stocks. Of course, she may even be able to leave the house of her own volition but is precluded from doing so by her own self-pity and laziness.

So you really don't understand her condition.

However, would you consider, for example, a destitute poet, artist or musician to have given society a service?

A service is only as valuable as the price the market places on it; the effort involved in producing it is of no consequence. Thus, if such artists were destitute, the public did not place a high monetary worth on their services. If a service was given at all, it had very little value; however, it may not have been entirely worthless.

Emo! :p

I'm not about to dispute that. However, the music one listens to, the clothes one wears, and the way one wears one's hair, shouldn't immediately reduce the value of their emotions.

A service is only as valuable as the price the market places on it; the effort involved in producing it is of no consequence. Thus, if such artists were destitute, the public did not place a high monetary worth on their services. If a service was given at all, it had very little value; however, it may not have been entirely worthless.

Thus the intellectual merits of a piece are dictated by whether the general public embrace it? The very same general public that have embraced novels such as "the da Vinci code"?

Very well done.

So in fact you are not a diligent worker.

If I was not averse to lying, I could easily fabricate a particular position in which I claimed to be diligently working. You have no way of determining whether or not I am a diligent worker (other than trusting me, of course); thus, your questions are futile and pointless. However, the fact remains that I do work diligently at a particular post, but I do not wish to share that information via the internet where criminals are lurking.

If I was not averse to lying, I could easily fabricate a particular position in which I claimed to be diligently working. You have no way of determining whether or not I am a diligent worker (other than trusting me, of course); thus, your questions are futile and pointless. However, the fact remains that I do work diligently at a particular post, but I do not wish to share that information via the internet where criminals are lurking.Tum podem extulit horridulum

If I was not averse to lying, I could easily fabricate a particular position in which I claimed to be diligently working. You have no way of determining whether or not I am a diligent worker (other than trusting me, of course); thus, your questions are futile and pointless. However, the fact remains that I do work diligently at a particular post, but I do not wish to share that information via the internet where criminals are lurking.

Judgments without experience have no merit. Which is why you are avoiding the question of what "valuable" service you offer the state.

I think we can guess pretty well you are:

1) A puppet getting his jollies trolling.
2) A student working part-time since you yabber basic textbook economics.

Thus the intellectual merits of a piece are dictated by whether the general public embrace it? The very same general public that have embraced novels such as "the da Vinci code"?

Very well done.

The object of a particular piece of art is not to achieve an elevated intellectual status; it is to please the public. In fact, doing so would be impossible, as there is no universal judge of what a superb piece of art is. You and I may scoff at such literary works as The da Vinci Code, yet the public was enthralled by its opaque twists and sacreligious turns. What I'm trying to say is that while the intellectual merits of a piece of art are not dictated by whether the general public embraces it, its value to society is so dictated.

Judgments without experience have no merit. Which is why you are avoiding the question of what "valuable" service you offer the state.

The following statement would be fallacious: "I am employed as a janitor at Burger King." I do not actually work in such a capacity; I am simply saying that I do in order to illustrate a point. The point in question is, of course, that I am capable of claiming that I work in such a post diligently, even though I do not actually work there.

However, it would be a true to state that I am, indeed, a diligent worker (but not at Burger King; that was an incorrect statement simply meant to show something).

She can't breathe. That's hardly debilitating.

wow..what exactly do YOU think is debilitating. I sure as hell wouldn't be able to do much if I couldn't breathe. Aw hell..I'd be dead.

She could easily engage in some form of at-home employment if she is creative and diligent. For example, she could become a writer or an artist. She could intelligently invest in stocks. .

Being an artist or a writer is not something people can just pick up. At least not if you want to make money off of it.

And you cannot invest in stocks if you do not HAVE the money to begin with. Money does not grow on trees.

Of course, she may even be able to leave the house of her own volition but is precluded from doing so by her own self-pity and laziness.

When you get yourself in a situation when you can't breathe..come back and tell us how much you were able to do.

The object of a particular piece of art is not to achieve an elevated intellectual status; it is to please the public. In fact, doing so would be impossible, as there is no universal judge of what a superb piece of art is. You and I may scoff at such literary works as The da Vinci Code, yet the public was enthralled by its opaque twists and sacreligious turns. What I'm trying to say is that while the intellectual merits of a piece of art are not dictated by whether the general public embraces it, its value to society is so dictated.

The philosophical axiom upon which the above is based flies in the face of intellectual integrity. To simply produce any intellectual creation solely so as to make money precludes it's being intellectual; it renders it an exercise in commerce.

Equally, in order to ensure a febrile, engaging intellectual community, the state must intervene. To arrange society solely upon financial criteria is to establish affluence and profit as the sole goal of society, and those who live in society, and thus to impose such a view upon millions who object.

She can't breathe. That's hardly debilitating.
Quality.
I do not wish to reveal personal information to potential criminals or sexual predators.
What could you possibly be doing that telling us would give valuable information to 'potential criminals or sexual predators?' Are you the only one who does it?
If I was not averse to lying,
Quality.
it?
I could easily fabricate a particular position in which I claimed to be diligently working. You have no way of determining whether or not I am a diligent worker (other than trusting me, of course); thus, your questions are futile and pointless. However, the fact remains that I do work diligently at a particular post, but I do not wish to share that information via the internet where criminals are lurking.
You're a stripper, aren't you? You're afraid we're going to find out what club you strip at and that's why you won't tell us?

You don't have to tell us, just say something trolly if it's true.

However, it would be a true to state that I am, indeed, a diligent worker (but not at Burger King; that was an incorrect statement simply meant to show something).

Fine. Then simply provide us with a rough indication of your income. We indeed have no way to verify the truth of your claims - but at least it would give as an idea as to how valuable society deems you from a capitalist point of view while keeping your privacy reasonably intact.

Fine. Then simply provide us with a rough indication of your income. We indeed have no way to verify the truth of your claims - but at least it would give as an idea as to how valuable society deems you from a capitalist point of view while keeping your privacy reasonably intact.

Very well; my income is within the (arbitrary) $75,000 - $100,000 range.

Fine. Then simply provide us with a rough indication of your income. We indeed have no way to verify the truth of your claims - but at least it would give as an idea as to how valuable society deems you from a capitalist point of view while keeping your privacy reasonably intact.:p Yep. I truly wonder what this backbone of world society makes..

Very well; my income is within the (arbitrary) $75,000 - $100,000 range.

And your title is?

The philosophical axiom upon which the above is based flies in the face of intellectual integrity. To simply produce any intellectual creation solely so as to make money precludes it's being intellectual; it renders it an exercise in commerce.

The pusuit of financial gain and intellectual purity are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, many intellectual works are viable from a monetary standpoint, although that is by no means the rule. Also, the philosophical axiom of intellectual integrity flies in the face of maximizing society's benefit: we should not mindlessly pursue high-minded works for their own sake rather than delivering to the people what they desire.

To arrange society solely upon financial criteria is to establish affluence and profit as the sole goal of society, and those who live in society, and thus to impose such a view upon millions who object.

Those who object need not pursue profit; they may struggle to attain intellectual satisfaction. However, it is not incumbent upon society in general to sponsor such people, given that their services are not being required by society. State intervention simply serves to deny the people what they want in order to get the state what it wants. Thus, it ends up hurting society.

And your title is?

I have divulged enough information for the time being.

Very well; my income is within the (arbitrary) $75,000 - $100,000 range.

Not bad :)
Do you consider yourself more worthy to people who earn less and less worthy compared to people who earn more ?

She can't breathe. That's hardly debilitating.

Ok, even if this were her only ailment, rather than being a symptom among other issues, this is the most idiotic statement I've read today.

She could easily engage in some form of at-home employment if she is creative and diligent. For example, she could become a writer or an artist.

The family can't afford to pay their medical bills. Do you think they can afford a computer (which is necessary for most jobs in which you work from home)?

And "creative" is something a person either has or does not. Not everyone can make money being a writer or an artist. Even incredibly talented authors and artists often don't make money at it.

She could intelligently invest in stocks.

You have to have money to invest in stocks, my dear. Investing is a money-maker for those who already have money (if they're lucky).

Of course, she may even be able to leave the house of her own volition but is precluded from doing so by her own self-pity and laziness.

Yes, which is why she died without her oxygen machine. :rolleyes:

Not bad :)

Why, thank you. :)

Do you consider yourself more worthy to people who earn less and less worthy compared to people who earn more ?

The market considers me to be so. Of course, this is solely in terms of the services which I provide to society. Morals and personal characteristics are not considered. A volunteer who labors to aid the poor without pay, for example, might be a very "worthy" person in a certain sense, yet does not earn a lot of money. The question is predicated upon one's defintion of "worth," which may vary.

You're a stripper, aren't you? You're afraid we're going to find out what club you strip at and that's why you won't tell us?

You don't have to tell us, just say something trolly if it's true.
I think we can guess pretty well you are:

1) A puppet getting his jollies trolling.
2) A student working part-time since you yabber basic textbook economics.
So in fact you are not a diligent worker.
I'll be fairly blunt with you guys. This is absolute crap. This is a strategy to tear down the other debater in an effort to validate your own. In case you were wondering, this is the fallacy of Ad Hominem, or "to the man". As if this weren't enough, whether FreedomandGlory even has a job or not absolutely has no bearing on the validity of his argument, so why don't you all let go of this and actually start debating on the real subject.

Of course, all that can be said has been said. Fact is, businesses like that are in business to make money, not to take care of people. To boot, they are under no obligation to provide power to anyone who doesn't pay for it. Period. We can get all emotional about things and the poor woman's condition, but we can't go assigning companies should-haves rules like this, because they have no legal obligation to follow them.

Mattorn;12715495']I'll be fairly blunt with you guys. This is absolute crap. This is a strategy to tear down the other debater in an effort to validate your own. In case you were wondering, this is the fallacy of Ad Hominem, or "to the man". As if this weren't enough, whether FreedomandGlory even has a job or not absolutely has no bearing on the validity of his argument, so why don't you all let go of this and actually start debating on the real subject.

Of course, all that can be said has been said. Fact is, businesses like that are in business to make money, not to take care of people. To boot, they are under no obligation to provide power to anyone who doesn't pay for it. Period. We can get all emotional about things and the poor woman's condition, but we can't go assigning companies should-haves rules like this, because they have no legal obligation to follow them.They cannot go around and kill people, however. Money is not worth a life. And the purpose of a state is to keep its people well, not to make money.

The market considers me to be so. Of course, this is solely in terms of the services which I provide to society. Morals and personal characteristics are not considered. A volunteer who labors to aid the poor without pay, for example, might be a very "worthy" person in a certain sense, yet does not earn a lot of money. The question is predicated upon one's defintion of "worth," which may vary.

Ah darn - I was hoping you would answer in a way that would make me able to demand you'd get down on your knees and start worshipping me *pout*.

Money is not worth a life.

I'm afraid you've got it the wrong way around. Her life is not worth money; if she is incapable of generating a profit whilst taking care of herself, her life has no monetary value for society. As such, she must seek the kindness of gentle souls, private charities, and family in order to survive.

Ah darn - I was hoping you would answer in a way that would make me able to demand you'd get down on your knees and start worshipping me *pout*.

Lol, I'm sorry to disappoint. :)

I'm afraid you've got it the wrong way around. Her life is not worth money; if she is incapable of generating a profit whilst taking care of herself, her life has no monetary value for society. As such, she must seek the kindness of gentle souls, private charities, and family in order to survive.The purpose of life is not profit. Nor is it the purpose of state.
And if you get jobless and ill, you deserve to die because your monetary value (if such a thing existed) would disappear?

Mattorn;12715495']I'll be fairly blunt with you guys. This is absolute crap. This is a strategy to tear down the other debater in an effort to validate your own. In case you were wondering, this is the fallacy of Ad Hominem, or "to the man". As if this weren't enough, whether FreedomandGlory even has a job or not absolutely has no bearing on the validity of his argument, so why don't you all let go of this and actually start debating on the real subject.

Of course, all that can be said has been said. Fact is, businesses like that are in business to make money, not to take care of people. To boot, they are under no obligation to provide power to anyone who doesn't pay for it. Period. We can get all emotional about things and the poor woman's condition, but we can't go assigning companies should-haves rules like this, because they have no legal obligation to follow them.

Gosh, we're super-glad you made it through a 1A class or the like and learned yourself some logical fallacies. It's even more useful because no one on a debate forum ever points them out.

Also we're super-ashamed that you've uncovered our 'strategy' to tear down the poster. We worked ever so hard on it, all those nights planning and here it is, foiled by someone with an argumentative writing text book. Why, we feel as foolish as the de-masked foreman who would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids.

But see, even the company believes it should have a policy for situations like this-in fact, they do have a policy like that, because when you provide a service such as power you actually do have to take into account public well being, especially when you're state owned. Never mind the other factors that have been listed in this.

And as to F&Gs trollitude. It's not an Ad Hominum to call a tree a tree, a frog a frog, and a troll a troll. It's not something that springs solely from this thread but from a pattern of behavior or just looking if the person is arguing from good faith or just making up contrarian shit, like "She can't breath, that's hardly debilitating." Or saying that he doesn't want to tell us what he does because of 'sexual predators.' This things are just silly, and as such are dealt with with appropriate silliness.

A service is only as valuable as the price the market places on it; the effort involved in producing it is of no consequence. Thus, if such artists were destitute, the public did not place a high monetary worth on their services. If a service was given at all, it had very little value; however, it may not have been entirely worthless.

Wait, you mean that artists don't automatically make a living wage?!!?!?!?! :boggle:

Mattorn]
Of course, all that can be said has been said. Fact is, businesses like that are in business to make money, not to take care of people. To boot, they are under no obligation to provide power to anyone who doesn't pay for it. Period. We can get all emotional about things and the poor woman's condition, but we can't go assigning companies should-haves rules like this, because they have no legal obligation to follow them.

These people were paying for it, however. They were a little behind in their payments, but it isn't as if they had racked up a huge bill with no payment in sight. One can argue over whether or not they should or must, but most companies will work with someone who is struggling to pay the bill by setting up a payment plan. And considering the chances that a bill gets lost in the mail or something of that sort, one month behind is generally not enough to cut off the power.

This things are just silly, and as such are dealt with with appropriate silliness.

Let us examine your statements in order in order to reach a surprising logical conclusion.

FreedomAndGlory is a troll.
I can deem him as such because several of his comments are trollish.
Further, I will stipulate that his trollish comments are "silly."
I concede that I have also posted "silly" comments.
Ergo, I am a troll by the same token.

According to your post, both of us are trolls. Of course, I do not consider you a troll, and hope the same applies to your judgment of me.

I know that the above chain is not air-tight. However, I resent the implication that I am a troll based on frivolous assertions and attempted to respond in kind.

Let us examine your statements in order in order to reach a surprising logical conclusion.


FreedomAndGlory is a troll.
I can deem him as such because several of his comments are trollish.
Further, I will stipulate that his trollish comments are "silly."
I concede that I have also posted "silly" comments.
Ergo, I am a troll by the same token.


According to your post, both of us are trolls. Of course, I do not consider you a troll, and hope the same applies to your judgment of me.
You jumped a step or two to make that work.

You jumped a step or two to make that work.

Sounds like someone didn't read the disclaimer. ;)

Let us examine your statements in order in order to reach a surprising logical conclusion.


FreedomAndGlory is a troll.
I can deem him as such because several of his comments are trollish.
Further, I will stipulate that his trollish comments are "silly."
I concede that I have also posted "silly" comments.
Ergo, I am a troll by the same token.


According to your post, both of us are trolls. Of course, I do not consider you a troll, and hope the same applies to your judgment of me.

What a weird logical train that is

It does not follow that because you have silly trollish comments that silly comments does a troll make

What a weird logical train that is

You and CannotThinkOfAName are two peas in the same pod, entitled "people who did not read the disclaimer."

You and CannotThinkOfAName are two peas in the same pod, entitled "people who did not read the disclaimer."

Look dude, unless it's going to be a power up that lets me skip the next level or that real special weapon that lets me defeat the sub-boss, I'm not going to spend too much time poking around for easter eggs...

those who cannot provide a valuable service to the state should not expect the state to support them.

Why not?

After all, you have stated that the state may protect people's lives and property... why not protect their health as well?

A service is only as valuable as the price the market places on it

That's one way of valuing a service.

There are others: we could speak, for instance, of a service's social utility.

Why should we value the production of expensive luxuries for the rich over the provision of free food and health care to the poor?

Why not?

After all, you have stated that the state may protect people's lives and property... why not protect their health as well?

I asserted that the state may enforce a code of laws which is viewed as fundamental to the well-being of a society. It is not illegal to passively allow someone to die; therefore, the state should not be concerned with the health of that individual. On the other hand, someone's property must be protected because otherwise, rampant theft would ensue, imperiling the basis of any capitalist society.

I asserted that the state may enforce a code of laws which is viewed as fundamental to the well-being of a society. It is not illegal to passively allow someone to die; therefore, the state should not be concerned with the health of that individual. On the other hand, someone's property must be protected because otherwise, rampant theft would ensue, imperiling the basis of any capitalist society.Pulling someone's plug is murder., And btw it is illegal to passively allow, or rather cause, someone to die.

Why should we value the production of expensive luxuries for the rich over the provision of free food and health care to the poor?

Who is "we"? The market apportions its resources as is dictated by the laws of economics and profit maximization; it is an impersonal entity which does not place any "value" on an item other than its monetary worth. Individuals who operate within that market are given the unalienable right to freely establish a legal business, and, by extension, to serve whichever segment of the population they desire. To allocate resources in order to achieve such a non-market goal would necessitate stealing the tax money of many people in order to provide services from which many do not benefit. Such an action would be equally reprehensible as common burglary. It is the burden of private charities to aid the poor, not your average tax-payer.

I asserted that the state may enforce a code of laws which is viewed as fundamental to the well-being of a society. It is not illegal to passively allow someone to die; therefore, the state should not be concerned with the health of that individual. On the other hand, someone's property must be protected because otherwise, rampant theft would ensue, imperiling the basis of any capitalist society.

Yes it is ... Passive neglect is absolutely illegal, you have never worked in a health care facility have you?

And btw it is illegal to passively allow, or rather cause, someone to die.

There is a enormous difference between causation and passive allowance. For example, if I walk past a dying man on the street and refuse to call 911, I might be guilty of a petty offense depending on which country I am a resident of, but I am hardly guilty of murder. If, on the other hand, I shoot someone and allow them to die without calling 911, I will most likely be guilty of murder in any given country.

Yes it is ... Passive neglect is absolutely illegal, you have never worked in a health care facility have you?

I am not referring to health care facilities; those are subject to special regulations. I am talking about the conditions in any given country at large.

Who is "we"? The market apportions its resources as is dictated by the laws of economics and profit maximization; it is an impersonal entity which does not place any "value" on an item other than its monetary worth. Individuals who operate within that market are given the unalienable right to freely establish a legal business, and, by extension, to serve whichever segment of the population they desire. To allocate resources in order to achieve such a non-market goal would necessitate stealing the tax money of many people in order to provide services from which many do not benefit. Such an action would be equally reprehensible as common burglary. It is the burden of private charities to aid the poor, not your average tax-payer.What's all this shit about market? The purpose of a state, a society, is not profit. The sole purpose of state is the well-being of its people. Market considerations are secondary.
And a couple 100 euros, dollars, or whatever are no reason to kill someone by pulling the plug.

I asserted that the state may enforce a code of laws which is viewed as fundamental to the well-being of a society.

"Viewed" by whom?

In terms of the "well-being of a society", what's the difference between a person killed by a preventable withdrawal of necessities of life and a person shot to death by a murderer?

And why should the state keep itself only to that which is fundamental to society's well-being?

It is not illegal to passively allow someone to die; therefore, the state should not be concerned with the health of that individual.

You're fallaciously conflating what the law is with what the law ought to be.

And you're assuming that the only possible way to the state to concern itself with the health of its citizens is criminal punishment.

On the other hand, someone's property must be protected because otherwise, rampant theft would ensue, imperiling the basis of any capitalist society.

But every protection of property is not fundamental to the well-being of society. Certainly, by any reasonable conception of "well-being", there are things beyond the basic protection of lives and property from aggressors that are more fundamental to the well-being of society than the prevention of the more insignificant of thefts.

Whoops.

The market apportions its resources as is dictated by the laws of economics and profit maximization; it is an impersonal entity which does not place any "value" on an item other than its monetary worth.

Yes, right.

Obviously you were referring to market value. I asked why that is the relevant sense of "value" in this case.

Individuals who operate within that market are given the unalienable right

The notion of "giving" a truly unalienable right is probably incoherent, but that is moving far from the topic.

to freely establish a legal business,

The state permits everyone the right to engage in legal activities.

You have, in effect, stated a tautology.

To allocate resources in order to achieve such a non-market goal would necessitate stealing the tax money of many people in order to provide services from which many do not benefit.

This, again, involves an unargued for acceptance of the worthiness of market value and market results.

If "stealing" is a morally meaningful concept, there must not merely be a factual sense in which something is owned, but a moral sense: you must show that the distribution of property caused by the market is so morally legitimate that it cannot be interfered with justly.

And you must morally justify property in the first place... for otherwise the consensual transfers upon which the market is based are just the transfers of illegitimately owned goods, and as such have no moral force, at least insofar as they are considered independently of their social utility. And once the standard becomes social utility, it is easy to conceive of a justification for the state pursuing non-market goals, for the market itself has been founded on such a non-market goal: the public good, the welfare of society.

Such an action would be equally reprehensible as common burglary.

The intent and consequences are very much different. So, indeed, are the means themselves. Taxation in a democratic society necessarily involves a component of consent. The people are ultimately the decision-makers as to how much they should be taxed. And taxation in all cases involves foreknowledge. Tax rates are public, and a person can act taking tax rates into account. People do not enter into jobs without knowing that their income will be taxed. They consent to their employment knowing exactly what they will get from it, at least in terms of material reward.

Mattorn;12715495']
Of course, all that can be said has been said. Fact is, businesses like that are in business to make money, not to take care of people.

So we don't need organizations such as the FDA since that would be "taking care" of people and that takes away from profit right? :rolleyes:

Never mind the fact the power company doesn't install wire willy nilly is in fact taking care of them. They work hard to restore power is in fact taking care of them. Then again it's probably the laws and lawyers that make them do that......


To boot, they are under no obligation to provide power to anyone who doesn't pay for it. Period.

Aww poor libertarian. If only everybody thought like that.

Arrangements can be made to work around issues.

Companies do NOT have the right to profit.


We can get all emotional about things and the poor woman's condition, but we can't go assigning companies should-haves rules like this, because they have no legal obligation to follow them.

Coool!!!! My old company would LOVE you! They could start dumping chemicals, radiation, cut the protection measures for handling such materials.

Your line of thinking is why the unions came into being.

I have divulged enough information for the time being.

:rolleyes: As if anybody here could track you down.

Gosh, we're super-glad you made it through a 1A class or the like and learned yourself some logical fallacies. It's even more useful because no one on a debate forum ever points them out.

Also we're super-ashamed that you've uncovered our 'strategy' to tear down the poster. We worked ever so hard on it, all those nights planning and here it is, foiled by someone with an argumentative writing text book. Why, we feel as foolish as the de-masked foreman who would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids.
That's quite enough.

But see, even the company believes it should have a policy for situations like this-in fact, they do have a policy like that, because when you provide a service such as power you actually do have to take into account public well being, especially when you're state owned. Never mind the other factors that have been listed in this.
The company should not have to be responsible for the lack of forethought of others. For instance: why hadn't she applied for a nursing home? Seems a bit cheaper than losing her life, eh? However, if they have a policy, by all means. But take into account, just because the company believes it should have a policy doesn't mean they do. Apparently, it's only inferred.

And as to F&Gs trollitude. It's not an Ad Hominum to call a tree a tree, a frog a frog, and a troll a troll. It's not something that springs solely from this thread but from a pattern of behavior or just looking if the person is arguing from good faith or just making up contrarian shit, like "She can't breath, that's hardly debilitating." Or saying that he doesn't want to tell us what he does because of 'sexual predators.' This things are just silly, and as such are dealt with with appropriate silliness.First, these things aren't dealt with "appropriate silliness". That is exactly what puts up a wall between you and your reader. As long as that continues, you're not doing anything but venting your emotions--not convincing at all. I wouldn't get to call you a dork or an idiot even if you were one. I'm sure you can find a more reasonable way of informing F&G of his/her shortcomings.
Or saying that he doesn't want to tell us what he does because of 'sexual predators.'
This piece of info isn't even necessary. Let me stress again that this person's job is not a relevant part of the argument.

or just making up contrarian shit, like "She can't breath, that's hardly debilitating."
I do not support FreedomandGlory unquestionably, nor do I defend any fallacies he/she might have made. In this case, I would agree with you that this is not a reasonable statement.

Companies do NOT have the right to profit.
Now how did you come up with that one?

"Viewed" by whom?

Legislators and the courts; those in charge of writing, and assessing the validity of, laws. Obviously, the people have a direct say in this process via direct election of congressmen.

In terms of the "well-being of a society", what's the difference between a person killed by a preventable withdrawal of necessities of life and a person shot to death by a murderer?

More information is required in order to answer the question accurately. The well-being of a society is not negatively impacted by the (preventable) death of a person who is a "drag" on the economy (ie, is incapable of supporting oneself). However, the man who is murdered might have been an extremely productive member of society whose death will carry detrimental consequences. Those who contribute positively to society are integral and useful members of that society; those who do not are expendable.

And why should the state keep itself only to that which is fundamental to society's well-being?

Perhaps that was a poor choice of words; any crime, no matter how petty, must be penalized. However, bureaucracy tends to interfere with the well-being of society; such look at the complex US tax code as an example. This applies to our code of laws, too. I was referring to such things as the crazy laws that you occasionally hear about (ie, that donkeys cannot sleep in bathtubs in Arizona).

And you're assuming that the only possible way to the state to concern itself with the health of its citizens is criminal punishment.

No, I'm stating that if the state is not legally bound to do something and if taking such an action does not aid society in any way (with the exception of foreign policy, which is more complicated), the state should remain inactive.

But every protection of property is not fundamental to the well-being of society.

Private property is a central tenet -- a sine qua non -- of a capitalist system; consequently, if ownership is not enforced, a capitalist system will crumble. With that in mind, illegalizing theft is a necessity; while stealing a loaf of bread might not demolish an economic system, the notion that such an act will go unpunished is sufficient to ensure its downfall. There may be certain exigent circumstances in which stealing may be the least of two evils, and the law accounts for this.

:rolleyes: As if anybody here could track you down.

As if anyone would want to...

Mattorn;12716096']
Now how did you come up with that one?
You have a right to try and earn a profit. You don't have a right to have it.

As if anyone would want to...

:D

My guess is his past has had a few swirlies. ;)

Mattorn;12716096']That's quite enough.
Let that be a lesson, don't lecture.


Mattorn;12716096']The company should not have to be responsible for the lack of forethought of others. For instance: why hadn't she applied for a nursing home? Seems a bit cheaper than losing her life, eh? However, if they have a policy, by all means. But take into account, just because the company believes it should have a policy doesn't mean they do. Apparently, it's only inferred.
Actually, if you read the material provided, they have express policies for this and are concerned that their contractor didn't follow them. If she can't afford to keep up with her power bill, you expect her to be able to pay for a nursing home? You sure that's the one you want to run with?

Mattorn;12716096']First, these things aren't dealt with "appropriate silliness". That is exactly what puts up a wall between you and your reader. As long as that continues, you're not doing anything but venting your emotions--not convincing at all. I wouldn't get to call you a dork or an idiot even if you were one. I'm sure you can find a more reasonable way of informing F&G of his/her shortcomings.
Trolls are not operating in good faith, they are being trolls. Calling a troll a troll is not news to a troll. They know they're being a troll. To them, it's not a shortcoming but a pastime. Taking them seriously feeds them as it provides outlet for further nonsense. Being outraged by their nonsense feeds them as that is their rather simpleminded goal. Playfully stabbing at a few of the weird loops they get themselves in in an effort to mindless poke people with pointy sticks feeds them as well, but at least I can dip into some of that mindless fun myself without committing to a serious argument with a clown.

As to separating myself from my 'reader,' the criteria for an internet forum is remarkably low. I'm not building a fan base here, I'm passing time. I admire your desire to connect with me as an author, but I tend to save the effort for my professional works. You don't do Hamlet soliloquies in a cage of Howler Monkeys.

Which is not to say that I don't make serious or thought out arguments, but only when the person I'm arguing with is operating in good faith.

Mattorn;12716096']This piece of info isn't even necessary. Let me stress again that this person's job is not a relevant part of the argument.
Most of what he's said is not relevant. It's also silly. I chose to focus on the silly since any other course would be wheel spinning.


Mattorn;12716096']I do not support FreedomandGlory unquestionably, nor do I defend any fallacies he/she might have made. In this case, I would agree with you that this is not a reasonable statement.
And you start to unlock the key to his and other trolls existence.

Mattorn;12716096']The company should not have to be responsible for the lack of forethought of others. For instance: why hadn't she applied for a nursing home?

A nursing home would have been even more expensive than staying at home. If the family was trying to make ends meet, why would they go looking for more expenditures?

Seems a bit cheaper than losing her life, eh?

Monetarily? Depends on the funeral costs.

This piece of info isn't even necessary. Let me stress again that this person's job is not a relevant part of the argument.

Actually, it is. He claims that he could never be in this woman's situation because he is a "diligent worker." Now, simply being a diligent worker will not keep you out of her situation, so there must be something more to it. Perhaps he is in a job that he could never lose, even if he were incapable of doing it. Or maybe it is a job that he could do while bedridden or confined to his home. Or maybe he's a trust fund kid who doesn't have to work at all. But the comment that it could never happen because he is a "diligent worker" simply doesn't fly.

*ahem*..... It is not illegal to passively allow someone to die

......For example, if I walk past a dying man on the street and refuse to call 911, I might be guilty of a petty offense ....



.... if you would be guilty of a petty offence, that means you are still guilty of a crime.

That line of example contradicts your statement that it's not illegal.

This brings to mind something that happened in one of South Africa's hospitals. There was this ward in which in one specific bed patients kept on dying, on a relatively frequent basis. This eventually generated a great deal of curiosity in the hospital administrators, and they decided to investigate the matter further. It turned out one of the cleaning ladies unplugged the life-support unit attached to the bed, in order that she may use her vacuum cleaner (every week). :D


Trolls are not operating in good faith, they are being trolls. Calling a troll a troll is not news to a troll. They know they're being a troll.
What, pray tell, makes F&G a troll? He has said some idiotic things, but then I also count highly emotive, angry responses as idiotic as well.

:)i think its murder but who cares:upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours:

:)i think its murder but who cares:upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours:

I admire the clever and original use of the up yours smiley there. It really drove the point home in a truly magnificent fashion.

Legislators and the courts; those in charge of writing, and assessing the validity of, laws. Obviously, the people have a direct say in this process via direct election of congressmen.

Then your minimal state will not last very long, because most people have a very different conception of what is "fundamental to society's well-being" than you do.

More information is required in order to answer the question accurately. The well-being of a society is not negatively impacted by the (preventable) death of a person who is a "drag" on the economy (ie, is incapable of supporting oneself).

Nonsense.

Any such person is herself a member of society... meaning that she is one of the people whose well-being is under consideration. Death tends, generally, to have a negative impact on a person's well-being.

Of course, you are making a distinction here that does not answer the question. Prohibitions on murder protect both the productive and the unproductive. The protection of lives beyond the mere prevention of the use of force similarly benefits both productive and unproductive.

Those who contribute positively to society are integral and useful members of that society; those who do not are expendable.

"Society" includes those people who do not "contribute positively to society."

Their non-expendability is thus a benefit to society.

No, I'm stating that if the state is not legally bound to do something and if taking such an action does not aid society in any way (with the exception of foreign policy, which is more complicated), the state should remain inactive.

But the whole point is that the state should be "legally bound" to do something about people in these kinds of conditions.

Private property is a central tenet -- a sine qua non -- of a capitalist system; consequently, if ownership is not enforced, a capitalist system will crumble.

Yes. Thus all advocates of capitalism are also advocates of the state taking an active role in people's lives and economic affairs.

With that in mind, illegalizing theft is a necessity; while stealing a loaf of bread might not demolish an economic system, the notion that such an act will go unpunished is sufficient to ensure its downfall.

The market for loaves of bread would suffer somewhat, but social catastrophe would hardly ensue.

There may be certain exigent circumstances in which stealing may be the least of two evils, and the law accounts for this.

It is interesting that you advocate that position, considering your other stances, but since I don't disagree, I see no reason to argue.

What, pray tell, makes F&G a troll? He has said some idiotic things, but then I also count highly emotive, angry responses as idiotic as well.

And unlike most trolls, F&G (the way the obvious acronym is avoided amuses me) is willing to make more or less coherent arguments for everything he says.

What, pray tell, makes F&G a troll? He has said some idiotic things, but then I also count highly emotive, angry responses as idiotic as well.

Certainly I can't be sure he's a troll. But then my other option is that he is a remarkable idiot. And that's not just to say that he disagrees with me ergo he's an idiot, but that the things he says are outrageous by design. And that last little bit makes him a troll. I'm not conflating and idiot with a troll, or a jerk with a troll, but someone who appears to being saying things that are outrageous by design as trolls.

We could go in a post by post analysis of this conclusion and it would likely be a full thread unto itself, but I'm not that interested in proving my conclusion about him. His posting history is readily accessible and you are welcome to make your own conclusions. I have reached mine.

I asked why that is the relevant sense of "value" in this case.

Because that is the value of one's contribution to society. Society benefits from an individual based on how much that individual gives to society; this, in turn, is measured accorded to market prices. The value society places on an individual is the pertinent value that should be taken into consideration here.

The notion of "giving" a truly unalienable right is probably incoherent...

What some cultures may consider an unalienable right might not be thought of that way by others; nobody is born with any rights, but are given them by the law.

You have, in effect, stated a tautology.

Indeed I have; that's because you asked why a particular logical consequence of free enterprise exists. If you have a free market, some resources will probably be allocated to the rich rather to the poor. Period.

you must show that the distribution of property caused by the market is so morally legitimate that it cannot be interfered with justly.

Again, this is based upon the notion of private ownership and free enterprise. If you accept both of those as just axioms, you must also accept the resultant distribution of property as just.

And you must morally justify property in the first place

The vast majority of the population agrees with the concept of private property; thus, the defense thereof has been enshrined into law. There are, of course, long and rambling discourses on moral justifications for property, but that would be too tedious to get into.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/property.htm

The people are ultimately the decision-makers as to how much they should be taxed.

However, a given individual is not. Even if one does not agree with taxation, one is still legally bound to pay taxes; in effect, this is stripping someone of property ownership without his consent, regardless of foreknowledge.

People do not enter into jobs without knowing that their income will be taxed.

But taxation is external to the bargain made between the employer and employee; there is no implicit consent to being taxed when one takes a job.

Let that be a lesson, don't lecture.
Just absorb to dang information and use it...

Actually, if you read the material provided, they have express policies for this and are concerned that their contractor didn't follow them. If she can't afford to keep up with her power bill, you expect her to be able to pay for a nursing home? You sure that's the one you want to run with?
That is absolutely the course I'd run with. Heck, if I knew I couldn't make payments on my power bill and I know I'm dependent on it to live, I'd take some drastic action.

Once again, if the company has a policy like this, by all means. And yes, I'm sure the company will sue the pants off everybody who had a hand in this unfortunate operation.

Trolls are not operating in good faith, they are being trolls. Calling a troll a troll is not news to a troll. They know they're being a troll. To them, it's not a shortcoming but a pastime. Taking them seriously feeds them as it provides outlet for further nonsense. Being outraged by their nonsense feeds them as that is their rather simpleminded goal. Playfully stabbing at a few of the weird loops they get themselves in in an effort to mindless poke people with pointy sticks feeds them as well, but at least I can dip into some of that mindless fun myself without committing to a serious argument with a clown. Anything I could have said to persuade you otherwise has been said. Is there any doubt why wheel-spinning is so prevalent on these forums?

As to separating myself from my 'reader,' the criteria for an internet forum is remarkably low. I'm not building a fan base here, I'm passing time. I admire your desire to connect with me as an author, but I tend to save the effort for my professional works. You don't do Hamlet soliloquies in a cage of Howler Monkeys.So you use this excuse to allow yourself free reign of flawed reasoning? Why are you even posting on this debate?

Which is not to say that I don't make serious or thought out arguments, but only when the person I'm arguing with is operating in good faith.It doesn't make you any different from the other when you condescend onto his/her plane of thinking.


Most of what he's said is not relevant. It's also silly. I chose to focus on the silly since any other course would be wheel spinning.
As if you'd get anywhere else by choosing the to focus on silliness. Tell me, then: what separates you from a troll? Wouldn't you find the fact that you're doing this a bit, if not more so, irksome?[/QUOTE]

Actually, it is. He claims that he could never be in this woman's situation because he is a "diligent worker." Now, simply being a diligent worker will not keep you out of her situation, so there must be something more to it. Perhaps he is in a job that he could never lose, even if he were incapable of doing it. Or maybe it is a job that he could do while bedridden or confined to his home. Or maybe he's a trust fund kid who doesn't have to work at all. But the comment that it could never happen because he is a "diligent worker" simply doesn't fly.
Excellent! I was waiting for this. Notice how you didn't need his job description to come up with that conclusion? All you needed to do is refute the claim that being a diligent worker wasn't enough to be kept out of that situation. Therefore, you defeat the entire argument there, and needn't be bothered with all the rabbit trails.

Monetarily? Depends on the funeral costs.
No, sentimentally. Monetarily, it was just her time to go.

You have a right to try and earn a profit. You don't have a right to have it.
I see. And this ties in with a company's purpose... How?

Mattorn;12716216']Just absorb to dang information and use it...
Goshgollygeewillikers! Will you really really really impart your oh so valuable entry level general education knowledge to us poor plebians so that we may bask in the warming glow of you having learned a few fallacies? Please? Gosh that would be swell.


Mattorn;12716216']That is absolutely the course I'd run with. Heck, if I knew I couldn't make payments on my power bill and I know I'm dependent on it to live, I'd take some drastic action.
Drastic action is to go from one situation to another that they are in less of a position to afford? I'm glad you're not in charge of my finances.

There is nothing to say that they hadn't already taken drastic actions. Up to this point all we have is mere speculation on what the family did or didn't do. Is there more that the family could have done? Perhaps. But what is at issue is what the company has done. To pass it off on some imagined path that the family didn't take means that the company can essentially decide life and death of another human being. "That's tragic, but you should have gone to a nursing home or some other thing that you couldn't afford, so you die now."

I do not think that placing that degree of power of life and death in the hands of a cooperation, state run or not, is a good idea. If your actions knowingly contribute to the death of someone else you cannot site profit motives to trump that decision. Frankly, that is barbaric.

Mattorn;12716216']Once again, if the company has a policy like this, by all means. And yes, I'm sure the company will sue the pants off everybody who had a hand in this unfortunate operation.
The company won't sue the contractor, but they will dump this on him since they do have a policy for this thing and he didn't follow it. That is if it is determined that he was aware the woman was there. Note that no one seriously involved in this matter holds that the power company should have turned the power off, but who knew what when and could have prevented this.

Mattorn;12716216'] Anything I could have said to persuade you otherwise has been said. Is there any doubt why wheel-spinning is so prevalent on these forums?

So you use this excuse to allow yourself free reign of flawed reasoning? Why are you even posting on this debate?
In the instances you quoted I wasn't attempting reason. I was teasing him. You'll also note that my entries in this debate have not been limited to responses to F&G and have not had the same tone.

Mattorn;12716216']It doesn't make you any different from the other when you condescend onto his/her plane of thinking.



As if you'd get anywhere else by choosing the to focus on silliness. Tell me, then: what separates you from a troll? Wouldn't you find the fact that you're doing this a bit, if not more so, irksome?
Look to other definitions given. There's only so many times I can re-word this for those who haven't caught up yet.

Society benefits from an individual based on how much that individual gives to society; this, in turn, is measured accorded to market prices.

Market prices are not measurements of social utility. They are measurements of utility to the people with the money.

Social utility is egalitarian, because everyone is a member of society. The utility a poor person gains is worth the same as the utility a rich person gains in terms of social benefit. The market is not egalitarian; the utility of a rich person matters more, because the rich person will pay more for it.

It is more profitable to provide expensive luxuries to the obscenely rich than free necessities to the desperately poor... but if everyone's utility is considered equally, which one increases the sum of the utility of society's members more?

You may be able to argue that ultimately this system maximizes social utility, due to incentives, but you cannot argue that market prices in and of themselves are measures of social utility, because they're not.

What some cultures may consider an unalienable right might not be thought of that way by others

Then it is not unalienable... at least if you consider the other cultures' decision to be morally legitimate.

The culture in which one lives can alienate it.

Indeed I have; that's because you asked why a particular logical consequence of free enterprise exists.

I know how the market works.

I asked why its assessment of value was relevant to the question of how the state should measure social contribution, and the desert you associate with it.

Again, this is based upon the notion of private ownership and free enterprise. If you accept both of those as just axioms, you must also accept the resultant distribution of property as just.

Right. Why should either be accepted as just... so just that interference by taxation for the pursuit of non-market goals is always illegitimate (beyond the basic provision of security)?

The vast majority of the population agrees with the concept of private property; thus, the defense thereof has been enshrined into law.

The vast majority of the population agrees with the concept of taxation for the pursuit of non-market objectives.

There are, of course, long and rambling discourses on moral justifications for property, but that would be too tedious to get into.

Strange, it's been done plenty on NS before, and not really any more tediously than any of the other topics.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/property.htm

A quick skim of some of the crucial parts in that indicates that at least one important element in the defense of private property as presented there is the notion that it provides human beings with a private sphere in which they can make their own choices, and that is unquestionably true - but it is also a weak defense, because neither taxation nor even communism deprives them of that private sphere.

Indeed, radical inequality in the distribution of property can threaten that sovereignty far more easily, for the people who cannot afford to buy themselves such a sphere of sovereignty.

But taxation is external to the bargain made between the employer and employee;

Indeed, but it is not external to the employee's decision to take the job.

If the employee meaningfully consents to the employer's conditions by taking to the job, how can it be said that she does not also consent to society's conditions? Undoubtedly she may wish that she did not have to pay taxes... but then, she may also wish that her employer pay her more.

Then your minimal state will not last very long, because most people have a very different conception of what is "fundamental to society's well-being" than you do.

What society thinks is fundamental to society is fundamental to society. If the people want a bloated legal system because they feel that it is necessary to preserve their well-being, they are entitled to it. Although I believe a minimal state to be optimal, I acknowledge the right of the people to complicate the matter.

Any such person is herself a member of society... meaning that she is one of the people whose well-being is under consideration.

Nonsense. The well-being of society is not dependent on the well-being of any of its members. Instead, it is derived from the rights afforded to its citizens coupled with the value of the goods produced within that society. The well-being of one individual (who does not positively contribute to society) is immaterial to society as a whole.

The protection of lives beyond the mere prevention of the use of force...

Such protection generally tends to negate individual freedom. How do you intend to safeguard someone's life without asking anything from society?

"Society" includes those people who do not "contribute positively to society." Their non-expendability is thus a benefit to society.

Why do you assume that members of society are not expendable? And if this were true, how would it benefit society?

But the whole point is that the state should be "legally bound" to do something about people in these kinds of conditions.

As long as such people have not been deprived of their rights, why should the state intervene on their behalf? People in such conditions are a dead weight on society; when you're being dragged down in such a manner, the solution is not to sacrifice resources in order to help such people.

Yes. Thus all advocates of capitalism are also advocates of the state taking an active role in people's lives and economic affairs.

Yes; the state must take an active role to preserve the rights it has decreed that all individuals should have. However, the state is not an obtrusive entity when its powers are used in such a manner; it is not infringing upon individual liberties.

The market for loaves of bread would suffer somewhat, but social catastrophe would hardly ensue.

If stealing was legalized, social catastrophe would indeed ensue. If stealing loaves of bread was legalized, then the production of bread would plummet as no profit could be gained from such a practice. If stealing loaves under exigent circumstances was legalized, then you would be correct.

It is interesting that you advocate that position, considering your other stances, but since I don't disagree, I see no reason to argue.

My views are generally not absolute. For example, I believe that the state should actively support orphans, neglected children, and abused children, regardless of the fact that such children do not contribute positively to society. This is based on the expectation that they will make a positive contribution in the future which will outweigh their current drain on society. Similarly, the punishment for stealing may be mitigated by certain circumstances, although the guilty party must pay, at least, for the full damages.

You may be able to argue that ultimately this system maximizes social utility, due to incentives, but you cannot argue that market prices in and of themselves are measures of social utility, because they're not.

Social utility must take a secondary role to personal freedom. In fact, I don't see social utility as a statistic that needs to be maximized at all. Society benefits when individuals are allowed to freely participate in unhindered enterprise, regardless of the resultant allocation of resources. Why should one individual's freedom be sacrificed in order to aid someone else? The concept of freedom is imperative; what comes of it matters little to me.

I asked why its assessment of value was relevant to the question of how the state should measure social contribution

Why should the state measure social contribution in the first place?

The vast majority of the population agrees with the concept of taxation for the pursuit of non-market objectives.

I realize that I evaded answering the question. I accept private property as an inviolable axiom. Is there any logical reason for this? I don't know, but I'm sure that there is, and much wiser men than I have debated it.

If the employee meaningfully consents to the employer's conditions by taking to the job, how can it be said that she does not also consent to society's conditions? Undoubtedly she may wish that she did not have to pay taxes... but then, she may also wish that her employer pay her more.

The employee has the option of declining the job offer; however, she does not have the right to decline to pay taxes. If she is not satisfied with one job, she can look around for another one; however, if she is not satisfied with the system of taxation, she does not have the luxury of looking for another one.

Refusing to accept a job does not exempt an individual from her tax duties; thus the consent to taxation is not affirmed at the moment when one takes a job.

What society thinks is fundamental to society is fundamental to society.

That seems an unnecessarily absolutist acceptance of democratic principle.

Nonsense. The well-being of society is not dependent on the well-being of any of its members.

Then the well-being of "society" is a meaningless abstract concept.

Society is made up of individuals. Society's well-being, therefore, is nothing more than the well-being of those individuals.

Instead, it is derived from the rights afforded to its citizens

These may protect well-being, but in and of themselves do not constitute well-being.

coupled with the value of the goods produced within that society.

Value to whom? The people within society, obviously.

The woman's life is valuable to her, and probably to others as well; it is thus a good important to society's well-being.

The well-being of one individual (who does not positively contribute to society) is immaterial to society as a whole.

But if you act on the principle that "people who do not contribute to society are expendable," a whole lot more than one individual will be negatively affected, especially by your standards of contribution.

Such protection generally tends to negate individual freedom. How do you intend to safeguard someone's life without asking anything from society?

Of course you ask something from society. Just as you do when preventing murders.

The question is whether or not the benefit to society exceeds the cost.

Why do you assume that members of society are not expendable?

You misunderstood. I was merely arguing that non-expendability has a greater social benefit than expendability.

And if this were true, how would it benefit society?

By benefiting the people who are not expendable anymore.

As long as such people have not been deprived of their rights, why should the state intervene on their behalf?

Because people's value does not just consist of their value to others. They have intrinsic value as well.

Of course, we cannot meaningfully talk of their "value to others" without acknowledging this, for why should we care about what people value if their values do not matter?

People must have intrinsic worth, or else your consideration of their relative worth is irrelevant.

However, the state is not an obtrusive entity when its powers are used in such a manner; it is not infringing upon individual liberties.

My only point here was that this position is not in any meaningful sense "anti-statist."

If stealing loaves of bread was legalized, then the production of bread would plummet as no profit could be gained from such a practice.

I doubt that the store-owners would make it so easy. But, yes, the production of loaves of bread would plummet. The result would still not be social catastrophe. Thus, protecting against the stealing of bread is not "fundamental to the well-being of society" - though I guess it is by the weak standard you presented above.

Social utility must take a secondary role to personal freedom. In fact, I don't see social utility as a statistic that needs to be maximized at all.

Then you have changed your standard.

Society benefits

And suddenly you return to it again.

You are conflating two different arguments for free markets, based on very different moral assumptions.

when individuals are allowed to freely participate in unhindered enterprise, regardless of the resultant allocation of resources.

If you value freedom as a good in itself, your argument for free participation need not be predicated on its social benefit.

And you cannot argue that free markets promote freedom without a justification for property, anyway. It is easy to see how not interfering with free exchange promotes freedom (in terms of non-prohibition of deals, anyway; the terms might still be regulated), but it is much more difficult to see how the right of a capitalist to have full control over a factory is a benefit to freedom, especially when that control comes at the expense of the freedom of employees, consumers, and other members of the community.

Why should one individual's freedom be sacrificed in order to aid someone else?

What if the sacrifice required to defend the second person's freedom?

After all, in order to defend all freedom, other people's freedom must be restricted: particularly the freedom of the powerful to exercise their power at the expense of the freedom of others.

Why should the state measure social contribution in the first place?

Did you not say that benefits should be distributed according to social contribution?

I realize that I evaded answering the question. I accept private property as an inviolable axiom.

Nobody else does.

Private property requires justification; its legitimacy is very far from self-evident.

Is there any logical reason for this? I don't know, but I'm sure that there is,

Make up your mind. ;)

and much wiser men than I have debated it.

I don't know how wise you are, but plenty of wise and intelligent people have been on both sides of this argument.

Which means that you should not unquestionably accept it as justified (or unjustified) solely on the basis of some authority, but should instead make up your own mind.

The employee has the option of declining the job offer; however, she does not have the right to decline to pay taxes.

She has the right to decline to pay taxes for the income she gains from that job - by refusing to take it.

In the abstract, she has the right not to take a job at all, and to pay no income taxes, as well.

If she is not satisfied with one job, she can look around for another one; however, if she is not satisfied with the system of taxation, she does not have the luxury of looking for another one.

And if she is not satisfied with the economic system, or the specific options available to her, she does not have the luxury of looking for others, either.

Refusing to accept a job does not exempt an individual from her tax duties;

Nor does it exempt an individual from having to participate in an economy where employment is a necessary condition (for most people) of a decent life.

When you live in society, you deal with the social system. This applies regardless of taxation.

Then you have changed your standard...and suddenly you return to it again.

You have a distinct definition of "social benefit" which differs from mine. I do not believe that social benefit is a function of the social utility (as defined by you) enjoyed by the members of a society. I think that it is dependent on the liberties that the members of a society are entitled to coupled with the value of the goods produced by the society. It would be a true statement that "society benefits if individuals have more freedom" according to my definition.

If you value freedom as a good in itself, your argument for free participation need not be predicated on its social benefit.

Freedom is a social benefit.

And you cannot argue that free markets promote freedom without a justification for property, anyway.

Property is necessary for the proper functioning of any complex society with diverse goods. That is a fact which is not really up for debate. However, the justification then falls on the need for such a society; I suppose that this is more of a matter of opinion rather than objective truth. Perhaps some people deem hunter-gatherer societies as superior to our modern society.

...it is much more difficult to see how the right of a capitalist to have full control over a factory is a benefit to freedom, especially when that control comes at the expense of the freedom of employees, consumers, and other members of the community.

Given that the employees willingly entered into a contract mandating that they serve at that particular factory, their rights have not been negated. Consumers don't have a gradient of rights: they simply have the choice of purchasing a product or not doing so. Their rights have not been infringed upon, either, as they still retain that choice. The members of the community are not effected by the factory in any way (except in terms of pollution, the ruining of scenic views, etc.); however, if such rights are "lost" they must have been possessed in the first place. However, unless pollution and the like are illegal, the community members never were entitled to such rights.

What if the sacrifice required to defend the second person's freedom?

I assume that someone must pay for the medical care required to save the second person's life (or whatever the scenario was). Increasing the tax rate decreases personal freedom.

After all, in order to defend all freedom, other people's freedom must be restricted: particularly the freedom of the powerful to exercise their power at the expense of the freedom of others.

Indeed, and this is acknowledged by a code of laws to prevent such a thing from occurring. However, I do not consider the ability to commit murder to be a meaningful "freedom."

Did you not say that benefits should be distributed according to social contribution?

Yes, and the free market distributes the benefits, not the state.

Nobody else does.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Make up your mind. ;)

I meant that I myself didn't know the reason, but I was sure there must be one.

Which means that you should not unquestionably accept it as justified (or unjustified) solely on the basis of some authority, but should instead make up your own mind.

I accept based upon my gut feeling (which, I'm told from a reliable source, has more nerve endings than one's brain). :)

Again, to repeat myself, those who cannot provide a valuable service to the state should not expect the state to support them. Such people may rely on their family or private charities, but if they don't give anything to the state (via a private corporation, of course), the state should not give anything to them.

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

Talk about being a caricature.

You have a distinct definition of "social benefit" which differs from mine. I do not believe that social benefit is a function of the social utility (as defined by you) enjoyed by the members of a society.

That's generally the way "social benefit" is used.

I think that it is dependent on the liberties that the members of a society are entitled to coupled with the value of the goods produced by the society.

What determines "the value of the goods" other than their social utility?

It would be a true statement that "society benefits if individuals have more freedom" according to my definition.

Freedom is a social benefit.

Yes, and yes.

But if you found your defense on freedom in its status as a social benefit, you must acknowledge that other social benefits might supercede it.

Property is necessary for the proper functioning of any complex society with diverse goods. That is a fact which is not really up for debate.

Some notion of property, perhaps. Free market capitalist notions of property... here the case becomes much more difficult, especially the more absolutist your defense of capitalist property rights becomes.

Does taxation beyond basic security really interfere with the "proper functioning of any complex society with diverse goods"? Always?

Perhaps some people deem hunter-gatherer societies as superior to our modern society.

Yes, and not so unreasonably. But that is another discussion.

Given that the employees willingly entered into a contract mandating that they serve at that particular factory, their rights have not been negated.

I am concerned for their freedom; for me, and if I follow your conception of social benefit correctly, seemingly for you as well, rights are properly founded on freedom.

The fact that they consent to the deal does not mean that they are free, because they did not consent to the social circumstances in which the deal was made. This is crucial because the social circumstances in large part determine the balance of power between employer and employee, and thus the terms of the deal.

If the worker has little bargaining power, little control over the terms of her employment, she is hardly free, and it is easy to see how government intervention can make her more so. By regulating labor conditions, for instance, it may move the terms closer to her preferences.

Consumers don't have a gradient of rights: they simply have the choice of purchasing a product or not doing so.

They are in the same situation as the worker. They consent to the purchase, yes, but not to the social circumstances surrounding it. If the prices are extortative and the good is a necessity, how much freedom do they really have?

The members of the community are not effected by the factory in any way (except in terms of pollution, the ruining of scenic views, etc.); however, if such rights are "lost" they must have been possessed in the first place. However, unless pollution and the like are illegal, the community members never were entitled to such rights.

Still, though, if the level of liberties is part of your conception of social benefit, the maximization of the community members' liberties should be a matter of importance.

I assume that someone must pay for the medical care required to save the second person's life (or whatever the scenario was). Increasing the tax rate decreases personal freedom.

You misread my mistyped sentence. The "if" was correct; the problem was I left out an "is."

It should have read: "What if the sacrifice is required to defend the second person's freedom?"

Indeed, and this is acknowledged by a code of laws to prevent such a thing from occurring.

If you accept that basis for restricting freedom, then the real difference here does not lie on different valuations of freedom. It lies in different analyses of power.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Hmm, nor would I, on second thought.

I accept based upon my gut feeling

Yes, I can think of lots of "gut feeling" reasons to support property rights.

The problem is that, while the basis for gut feelings are often legitimate, the conclusions they lead you to are rarely correct... or at the very least, quite far from complete.

Should have called the ambulance.
Contractor probably thought "give me a chance" meant "give me a change to pay the bill".

You have to know that the power company involved was the one last year caused all the power to go out for 8 hrs in the Greater Auckland and Northland areas and all the power out in Auckland CBD for 8 weeks in 1998. The company are bastards to the highest order. If I could, I would go with another company but can't due to my landlord. I wish I could really swear here but I won't cause words willn't get anywhere near how I feel about Mercury Energy and what has happen.

First of all, I must apologise for posting my thread - had I seen this thread, I would not have posted. Also, I have deleted my earlier post (one merged into this thread).

Now, Morestead - it was not Mercury Energy that was to blame for last years power cut - that was Trust Power, and anyways, the power cut would not have happened had the 400kV line been built (I am personally still worried that line will not be built soon enough, with the extra load being put on our electricity supply and everything).

Secondly, the 1998 CBD power cut was not quite caused by Mercury Energy - at the time, what later became Vector was known as Mercury Energy, however, they were then, and still are, two separate entities.

She can't breathe. That's hardly debilitating. She could easily engage in some form of at-home employment if she is creative and diligent. For example, she could become a writer or an artist. She could intelligently invest in stocks. Of course, she may even be able to leave the house of her own volition but is precluded from doing so by her own self-pity and laziness.

She had only been out of hospital for the last fortnight; she was recovering and wanted to get back to work (she was a kindy teacher). It was not a case of self-pity or laziness.

To throw another spanner in the works, Mercury Energy is a Mighty River Power subsidiary - Mighty River Power is an SOE (State Owned Enterprise), so for all you Commies out there, this cannot be called a case of corporate greed; and I find it ironic that the unions are striking against themselves (because the present NZ government is mostly unionists and Commies)

*disclaimer - I am a Vector shareholder (Vector is an Auckland lines company)

What a shame Alexander P deleted his post - it had far, far more information on than the original - is there any way of getting back as it was valuable to this story and, well I guess I could go find it myself but if there's an easier way that would be nice :)

Bah well...

Some follow on facts (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501212&objectid=10442927).

The company has replied stating the events as follows according to them:

* The electrical supply to Mrs Muliaga's property was disconnected as per our instruction to electrical contractors at, or around, 11am.

* The electrical contractor spoke to a youth at the property (understood to be Mrs Muliaga's son) and advised him that the power was due for disconnection due to non-payment. Mrs Muliaga's son accepted that power was to be disconnected at the property and made no mention of Mrs Muliaga's medical condition. Following the disconnection but prior to leaving the property the electrical contractor was asked by the son to speak to Mrs Muliaga about the disconnection.


* It was explained to Mrs Muliaga, by the electrical contractor, that disconnection had occurred due to non-payment of her account. Mrs Muliaga enquired about the time it would take to have the account reconnected -- it was explained that staff were on stand-by to reconnect properties once payment had been arranged. A card detailing the telephone numbers to call to make arrangements for payment was provided to Mrs Muliaga. At no time was the issue of Mrs Muliaga's medical condition or her reliance on medical equipment made known to the electrical contractor. He did note that she had a medical tube in her nose but this was not connected to any equipment.

* The first direct contact with representatives of the family to Mercury Energy, through a Victim Support person at the Otahuhu Police Station, occurred just prior to 8pm. A request to reconnect power to assist a family preparing for a funeral was made.

* Attempts were made after being alerted to the tragic circumstance surrounding Mrs Muliaga's death to have power reconnected as late as midnight. But we were unable to reach the family at the phone number we had on file, power was reconnected prior to 8am the following morning.

With respect to disconnection, our processes require considerable communications to ensure that customers have every opportunity to make or arrange payment.

The following procedures were followed in Mrs Muliaga's case and are embedded into out business processes.

* The bill is due 21 days after it is mailed;

* 10-14 days after this they will receive an automated phone call;

* 7-10 days after this they will receive their next bill with a message for payment and a disconnection notice will be sent.


Advertisement
Advertisement* 7 days after this, a final disconnection notice is sent and a telegram is delivered by courier. The telegram states that they have 48 hours to make payment.

* Disconnection will then take place if no payment or arrangements to make payment are received.

Also this (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10442844)

My original two questions stand that I don't see how a contractor would simply disconnect without question if fully informed of the situation and I really don't see why the mother wasn't taken to the hospital or, failing that, why no other arrangements were made - surely a neighbour would gladly have allowed her to use electricity.

There's something fishy about this case - I fully accept that the company may be fully at fault but something strikes me as odd - just not sure what

There's something fishy about this case - I fully accept that the company may be fully at fault but something strikes me as odd - just not sure what

It is theoretically possible that the familiy is hoping to solve its monetary problems this way. Or that they are not entirely sane or have low intelligence.

I suspect the relative blew this all out of proportion.

Doctor's themselves are surprised she died so quickly, so she herself may not have been too concerned about the issue either, as shown by presenting herself to the engineer and asking only when the electricity could be turned on without being attached to the machine.

Thus, without any due concern, the engineer cut the electricity as expected.

It's a tragedy but I think the relative is trying to make a scapegoat out of the electricity company rather than any genuine error on either side.

I was suprised that the oxygen pump did not have a back up generator, perhaps it did but ran out.

The power Company should have exercised more discression as it's policy states that it can in cases where cutting power would endanger people with medical needs that rely on electricity.

With public health the way it is in NZ at the moment, it's not suprising that she wasn't in hospital, they probibly classed her as an 'out-patient' in order to save space on an already stretched waiting list for Hospital beds....

I was suprised that the oxygen pump did not have a back up generator, perhaps it did but ran out.

The power Company should have exercised more discression as it's policy states that it can in cases where cutting power would endanger people with medical needs that rely on electricity.

With public health the way it is in NZ at the moment, it's not suprising that she wasn't in hospital, they probibly classed her as an 'out-patient' in order to save space on an already stretched waiting list for Hospital beds....

That's the thing. I get the impression that it was in fact a communication problem. Despite the rather dickish stance of some of the NSG posters I have a hard time believing anyone could really be such a Scrooge (to borrow Kat's analogy) as to turn off the power to a woman who needed it to live without doing something. Maybe it's that spark of hope I have in basic humanity. I just think that it was a communication problem, a sad and unfortunate one, but I suspect that that was the underlying cause more than anything else.

Yes, I would be very concerned at the speed with which this woman died - two hours is not a very long time; imagine had there been a power cut (bearing in mind, winter is approaching, and parts of Auckland have regular winter power cuts due to storms and so on) - she could have easily died had we had a repeat of last years episode.

Also, I would be concerned at the lack of action by the family; there was two hours between when the power was cut off and when the woman died; an ambulance could have been called and responded very quickly (in the event, an ambulance only took twelve minutes to arrive) - I do grant that shock has a part to play and the effects of asphyxiation.

Also, I do agree, the companies in New Zealand (I am referring to the electricity providers as well as the telecommunications providers) generally do have a heart - if you fall on tough times, then they are generally merciful - it takes some weeks before the electricity provider can cut you off anyway.

We are not as bad as the United States, and I believe it is due to the high level of accountability that firms face on giving the little man a tough time; we have a very strong consumer lobby in the form of the Consumers Institute as well as TV shows.

Then again, one must put yourself in the shoes of the contractor - the woman lived in Mangere in South Auckland and that is a reasonably poor area, the contractor would be used to hearing pleas to not cut the power off and would grow slightly insensitive to such pleas.

Finally, Barringtonia, here is the link to the original article that I posted - this was the article that greeted Aucklanders this morning

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501212&objectid=10442847

Also, for the people that think this woman was lazy, this article may help correct your opinions

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501212&objectid=10442845

The 44-year-old loved her job so much - and needed the money - that she tried desperately to keep working even as her health was failing.

*snip*

Rev Petaia Lokeni, chairman of the board of trustees at the Congregational Christian Church childcare centre in Mangere, said: "Eventually we had to tell her that she must stop working - that her health was too important."

Mrs Muliaga, who held a diploma in early childhood education and was a founding teacher at the centre, finally accepted that she would need time off to recover.

"She could no longer sit on the mat and read to the children, which she loved," said her colleague Toniga Hewitt. "But we always thought she would come back when she got better. It's so sad.

She loved her job and desperately wanted to work - she was not siting on her rear end expecting things to come to her.

Yes, I would be very concerned at the speed with which this woman died - two hours is not a very long time; imagine had there been a power cut (bearing in mind, winter is approaching, and parts of Auckland have regular winter power cuts due to storms and so on) - she could have easily died had we had a repeat of last years episode.

Also, I would be concerned at the lack of action by the family; there was two hours between when the power was cut off and when the woman died; an ambulance could have been called and responded very quickly (in the event, an ambulance only took twelve minutes to arrive) - I do grant that shock has a part to play and the effects of asphyxiation.*snip*.

I don't think anyone expected her to die at all. The doctor's were surprised she died as her condition wasn't that critical, she was recuperating.

I think that would explain a lot of this - the family weren't concerned, she wasn't concerned though she did want to know how quickly they could get it back on, and therefore the engineer had no reason to be overly concerned.

It simply wasn't expected that she should die within 2 hours.

The relative has made this into a massive issue, in my opinion it's a rather insensitive thing for him to do.

OK, I read the local links provided on page 10, but I still have to wonder, why didn't the family themselves do anything? Why is the company still responsible? If the company knew, wouldn't they have tried to make reasonable accommodations to help?

It sounds like there is generally more accountability in NZ about this kind of thing...

Here are two different passages that don't sit right in my mind and make me wonder why the family didn't call for help.

(Mr Sheehan) said although Mrs Muliaga's breathing had been getting worse she told her young teenage son not to panic and to wait until her husband arrived home.

"That is a typical Samoan thing. They don't like their kids to be worried.

"The dad arrived when it was too late. She was basically dead before the ambulance got there, as far as we are aware."

If she didn't want the children to worry, why didn't she notify her husband immediately or make the call herself to the emergency service line?

About 1pm, Mrs Muliaga asks her sons to sing to her as she feels unwell.

Hymns? How are hymns supposed to help her?

Why didn't she just ask for them to call for help and sooner?

That's the only part I truly don't understand. Even if the company knew, shouldn't the family have realistically called for help?

i wonder how many of you have considered how many died in the hospitals in iraq, lebanon and elsewhere when american and or american sponsered invasions (or anybody else's of any side for that matter) wiped out the power grid and other infrastructure, as the seem to have as a first order of bussiness in every one of them since the bush tyranny took office?

how many cirticly ill patients died in ambulances held at security checkpoints by occupying forces or new or recently created borders?

someone once said "it's all fun and games untill someone looses an eye".

well there's been a lot more then eyes, and a whole bunch more then a few, 'lost' since the psuedo-conservative rebrutalizing of the planet.

=^^=
.../\...

- SNIP -
And what does this have to do with the topic? :rolleyes:

And what does this have to do with the topic? :rolleyes:

It is comparing the outrage over the actions of the electricity company with the lack of outrage at other activities that caused similar misery.

It is comparing the outrage over the actions of the electricity company with the lack of outrage at other activities that caused similar misery.

It would be relevant if it was a "war zone", but it's one family and their electric company. Cameroi's comparison used military action against civilian targets to try and draw similarities. The only similarity is the fact that both lost electricity and there was a death. But the reasons are total different and that's why it doesn't look like it belongs in this topic.

The family in question wasn't targeted by the military; their electricity got cut by the company.

To compare a company cutting electricity to the bombing a civilian target that provides electricity doesn't make sense because one is done in a case by case basis and the other one is an umbrella attack.

And check points? What do check points have to do with anything? Or the Bush administration? As much as I hate them and think they're the worse administration in modern American history, their actions have no relevance to the topic.

Personally I think the family was the negligent party

They knew of her need AND they knew the power was in jeopardy of being shut off but left her there un attended anyways

That is not true. Two of the sons were there.

Here is the latest news article

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10442927

Latest news acticle. Local Auckland Paper

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10442927

Latest news acticle

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10442927

Perhaps they didn't know that the occupant of the house was on an oxygen machine? :confused:

That's the most likely reason. A nameless bureaucrat in a government utility received instructions to cut power to a list of homes because were not paying, and he faithfully executed his duty. What he didn't know is that someone died as the result of his actions.

That is not true. Two of the sons were there.

The two sons were there watching their mother die while doing nothing about it.

The family had made two fortnightly payments and the bill which arrived less than a week before Mrs Muliaga died, gave the outstanding balance as $168.40 and a June 13 date by which it should be paid.

Now this statement of the article confuses me though. If the due date was June 13th...why did they cut her power off?

I must be missing something....:confused:

That's the most likely reason. A nameless bureaucrat in a government utility received instructions to cut power to a list of homes because were not paying, and he faithfully executed his duty. What he didn't know is that someone died as the result of his actions.

He does now.

He does now.

I doubt he even knows about it now. He's probably going about his business totally oblivious to the consequences of his actions.

I doubt he even knows about it now. He's probably going about his business totally oblivious to the consequences of his actions.

No, he does - they say in the articles that he's devastated.

That is not true. Two of the sons were there.

Here is the latest news article

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10442927

And they left her in the house to die? that makes them even MORE negligent

Not only did they leave the woman in the house when the KNEW that power disconnection was a possibility but they did not make ANY preparations for other standby systems

Hell personally I think it was stupid of them to let her be in that house without a power backup system to start with or a backup oxygen system

And they left her in the house to die? that makes them even MORE negligent

Not only did they leave the woman in the house when the KNEW that power disconnection was a possibility but they did not make ANY preparations for other standby systems

Hell personally I think it was stupid of them to let her be in that house without a power backup system to start with or a backup oxygen system

Negligence and stupidity are possibilities. But the simplest possibility is, quite simply put, lack of funds. This was a family struggling to pay their power bill. If the woman had recently been hospitalized, they were likely facing medical bills. They may not have had the funds to purchase or rent any kind of backup system. And the woman herself may have downplayed her symptoms after the power was cut off out of the fear of racking up more medical bills if she were to be taken back to the hospital.

It is not necessarily what happened, but it certainly is a possibility.

Negligence and stupidity are possibilities. But the simplest possibility is, quite simply put, lack of funds. This was a family struggling to pay their power bill. If the woman had recently been hospitalized, they were likely facing medical bills. They may not have had the funds to purchase or rent any kind of backup system. And the woman herself may have downplayed her symptoms after the power was cut off out of the fear of racking up more medical bills if she were to be taken back to the hospital.

It is not necessarily what happened, but it certainly is a possibility.
I can understand that to an extent but why did she live on her own? Why was she not living with them

I mean yeah maybe in this situation a combination of events could have made things bad but it still seems negligent to have her normally on her own, there are accidental power outages all the time

In the end they really should have sold the house and put her either A in a care facility or B with them and consolidated their living expenses

One would think that if bills are a problem and her health had to be watched that something could have been done besides her living on her own with no backup systems when they knew what could happen on purpose or accidentally even in advance.

I can understand that to an extent but why did she live on her own? Why was she not living with them

I haven't read anything that suggests she was living alone. Where are you getting that? It would appear that she lived with her husband (who worked) and two children. Several articles state that one of her sons thought about calling an ambulance, but she said not to.

I haven't read anything that suggests she was living alone. Where are you getting that? It would appear that she lived with her husband (who worked) and two children. Several articles state that one of her sons thought about calling an ambulance, but she said not to.
Hmmm maybe I missed that part about the husband that makes it seem a lot less negligent

Negligence and stupidity are possibilities. But the simplest possibility is, quite simply put, lack of funds. This was a family struggling to pay their power bill. If the woman had recently been hospitalized, they were likely facing medical bills. They may not have had the funds to purchase or rent any kind of backup system. And the woman herself may have downplayed her symptoms after the power was cut off out of the fear of racking up more medical bills if she were to be taken back to the hospital.

It is not necessarily what happened, but it certainly is a possibility.

Hmm... does anyone know if New Zealand has a national health service or obligatory insurance system ?

Hmm... does anyone know if New Zealand has a national health service or obligatory insurance system ?

That, I don't know, and it would definitely be pertinent to the discussion.

The two sons were there watching their mother die while doing nothing about it.

That is a lie. If you read the article, she said to the sons "don't ring the armulamce". They respect their mothers wishes. Even when she stopped breathing, they did call for one and did CPR with no use. The sons were trained so don't say that they won't doing it right.

That, I don't know, and it would definitely be pertinent to the discussion.

To answer your question. Yes, we do have a free health system and you can get health insurance but it is so damn dear that of some people, it is way of of reach. I have insurance and just for me, it's $19.89 per week and its really tough for me to get that sort of money. As I have said in previous threads, I work with the husband and he is the hardest working guy you will ever meet. He loved her and went round to the house last night. He is a shell of himself now. No smiles, no laughter, just tears. He didn't drink or smoke and he really watched every cent.

To be quite blunt, Like any other Western country, if you are in the hospital, you are taking up a bed that someone else might need.I was hit by a car (don't ask, long story, not my fault) and broke my hip socket and I was put in hospital only overnight and was kicked out. I couldn't even walk but I still had to go. I got my revenge cause I was back in 3 weeks later for my hip op and stayed in there for 5 months. I could make after 1 month without aid but they kept me in there!!

That is a lie. If you read the article, she said to the sons "don't ring the armulamce". They respect their mothers wishes. Even when she stopped breathing, they did call for one and did CPR with no use. The sons were trained so don't say that they won't doing it right.

Then why all the outcry? "OH NOES THE POWER COMPANY KILLED HER!"

She basically refused treatment..killing herself.


....Either way, even if it was their mother's wishes..what I said is true. They did nothing that would have prevented her death.

Hmm... does anyone know if New Zealand has a national health service or obligatory insurance system ?

As Morestead said, we have a free health system, provided by the government. Unfortunately, like most state run things in this country, it is in a complete mess - the government vowed to cut waiting lists, for example, however, the waiting lists have grown - it is just that the criteria has changed

I can understand that to an extent but why did she live on her own? Why was she not living with them

The family were living together

Negligence and stupidity are possibilities. But the simplest possibility is, quite simply put, lack of funds. This was a family struggling to pay their power bill. If the woman had recently been hospitalized, they were likely facing medical bills. They may not have had the funds to purchase or rent any kind of backup system. And the woman herself may have downplayed her symptoms after the power was cut off out of the fear of racking up more medical bills if she were to be taken back to the hospital.

In New Zealand, we do not pay hospital bills (AFAIK), so that would not have been the issue. However, it is possible that she did downplay the symptoms - the Pacific Islanders are generally a very hard working group of people, and some amongst them do not like to feel like an unnecessary burden on society

I doubt he even knows about it now. He's probably going about his business totally oblivious to the consequences of his actions.

I believe the contractor has been given councilling and possibly time off, however, according to another NZ Herald article, the contractor just the day before had not cut off the power to another family as they fronted up with the money as he came to cut their power off

Now this statement of the article confuses me though. If the due date was June 13th...why did they cut her power off?

I must be missing something....

Yep, you are missing something - June 13th was the date that they had to pay the recent months power bill to be eligible for a discount (Mercury Energy gives discounts to all early payers). A copy of the bill was on yesterday's Herald, however, no date was given as to when the $168 had to be paid

It sounds like there is generally more accountability in NZ about this kind of thing...

Much of the accountability over these events has to do with the political nature of it - Mercury Energy is an SOE and therefore the government faces the risk of being tarred with negative sentiment - it does not help that the government is facing crisis after crisis and the main opposition party is now getting 55% in the polls.

I think it is also due to the very strong consumer lobby here - anything that does not benefit the consumer gets on national news very quickly.

Being a diligent worker, I would not be in the woman's situation in the first place. Furthermore, if I was physically incapable of providing a valuable service to the state, I would not expect for the state to do the same for me. In the words of John F. Kennedy: "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for you country." The difference between me and her is that she does the former whereas I do the latter.
That's astounding. Why has this medical secret not been released to the general public?

It's also very revealing. I for instance stupidly thought that all the time and effort my father put into work, family and community was a manifestation of his diligent work. Clearly I was wrong since he (just like the lazy arse in this story) became ill, financially destitute and eventually dead. In fact a lot of people I could have sworn were dilligent workers are obviously lazy arses.

Perhaps if they like you knew that diligent work would make illness an impossibility, they'd have been less lazy. After all, the only thing this lazy arse did was educate young children for low pay while nuturing and tending to her own family and giving of her time and love to her kin, friends, community, students and church.. Clearly an unworthy lazy arse.

Again, to repeat myself, those who cannot provide a valuable service to the state should not expect the state to support them. Such people may rely on their family or private charities, but if they don't give anything to the state (via a private corporation, of course), the state should not give anything to them.
Ah, well, here is her crime. Instead of working for a private corporation she worked for a state owned school. Instead of trying to serve her community and the state by working for the state, educating the state's children at low pay, she should have been off chasing the dollars of a private corporation. What a lazy arse she was. Selfish too.

A "valuable service" is, quite literally, a "service of value." That is, a monetary value is attached to one's work by the market. Any paying job is considered a "valuable service" by me.
Any job? Not just jobs for private corporations? So the woman concerned wasnt a lazy arse after all? Then how did she get sick?

Oh, I get it, she wasnt a lazy arse when she worked but when illness over-came her, then she was a lazy arse.....er, but how did she get ill if she wasnt a lazy arse to begin with? Surely if she were a dilligent worker she'd never have gotten ill in the first place. After all that's why you'll never be in her place. What a conundrum. She only got in this situation for not being a dilligent worker, which means since her illness caused the situation she only got ill because she was a lazy arse, but she only started being a lazy arse after she got ill.
Mmmm, oh, I get it, the cause (being a lazy arse) is able to effect a person before it occurs, obviously this is a cause that doesnt need to preceed its effect. And there was silly me thinking this only occured at the qauntum end of the size scale.....ooohhhh, you may just have made an important discovery. Being a lazy arse is quantum sized! Who'd a thunk huh?

She can't breathe. That's hardly debilitating. She could easily engage in some form of at-home employment if she is creative and diligent. For example, she could become a writer or an artist. She could intelligently invest in stocks. Of course, she may even be able to leave the house of her own volition but is precluded from doing so by her own self-pity and laziness.
Of course, because anyone can profitably write, do art or successfully invest in the stockmarket. Why do people who want to be writers, or artists often work in some other profession because they cant sell their work? Who cares? Despite the empiracal evidence, it is very clear anyone can make their fortune writing or drawing from home regardless of how crap they are at either, even though many very talented and hard working writers/artists cannot make a living through their writing/art despite their dilligent efforts.

As for stock market investing, yep, anyone no matter what they dont know about stock markets can invest. This is true even if (as is the case where this woman lived) they are required to use an expensive stock broker to access the market, but are too poor to even pay their electricity bill. The realism of your perspective is awe-inspiring.

A service is only as valuable as the price the market places on it; the effort involved in producing it is of no consequence. Thus, if such artists were destitute, the public did not place a high monetary worth on their services. If a service was given at all, it had very little value; however, it may not have been entirely worthless.
What?! So do you mean to say that it is possible from the perspective of your limited knowledge that this lazy arse was attempting to make a living by writing or drawing from home but that regardless of the effort applied no one valued her work enough to cough up the dough? Can you explain quite how you are certain she could have earned money writing or drawing while you are also certain that no one would necessarily pay for her writing or drawing regardless how much time and effort (aka dilligent work) she put into it? It's all getting as bit confusing for me.

Who is "we"? The market apportions its resources as is dictated by the laws of economics and profit maximization; it is an impersonal entity which does not place any "value" on an item other than its monetary worth. Individuals who operate within that market are given the unalienable right to freely establish a legal business, and, by extension, to serve whichever segment of the population they desire. To allocate resources in order to achieve such a non-market goal would necessitate stealing the tax money of many people in order to provide services from which many do not benefit. Such an action would be equally reprehensible as common burglary. It is the burden of private charities to aid the poor, not your average tax-payer.
A society apportions its resources as dictated by its values and laws, it's an impersonal entity that places value in accordance with the history and current predisposition of its constituent parts. Individuals who operate within the society are given whatever rights the society gives. To have a market, you first must have a society. While you can have a society without a market, you cannot have a market without a society. It should be obvious to anyone with good sense which superceeds which. Just as the leaf does not rule the tree, the market should not rule the society without which it cannot exist. Money is a tool, and just as it is better that the hammer be under the authority of the carpenter than the carpenter under the authority of the hammer, so too the market should be under the authority of society rather than society under the authority of the market. Existence preceeds essence and the tool should not rule over the craftsman.
Which of your other tools do you feel bound by the authority of? Your toilet perhaps? If so, when it gives you your orders, does it speak with a potty mouth?


Because that is the value of one's contribution to society. Society benefits from an individual based on how much that individual gives to society; this, in turn, is measured accorded to market prices. The value society places on an individual is the pertinent value that should be taken into consideration here.
Yes of course, society unniversally values Marilyn Manson well above and beyond the value it places on a qualified, dilligent and dedicated educator of its children. This includes all the parents who want their kids educated but refuse to let their children listen to Marilyn Manson. And why wouldnt any society value Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton a great deal more than an educator of its young who also gives of her time and resources freely to benefit her community and through them the wider society in which she lives? Compared to some bimbo drunk driving about risking all our lives, someone who educates our children is valueless. They might as well have their electricity cut off when they require it to keep them alive for the all the value they bring to soceity. Quite why when you actually ask members of society whether they value a dedictated and competent educator of their children or some drunken sleaze who endangers all our lives by driving about the place off their faces more, the vast majority of people claim to value the teacher more than the dangerous drunk, I dont know. I guess their all just liars.

What some cultures may consider an unalienable right might not be thought of that way by others; nobody is born with any rights, but are given them by the law.
Which is to say the claim that anyone is given an inalienable right is wrong since the law is not unchangable and is in fact the source of rights.

Nonsense. The well-being of society is not dependent on the well-being of any of its members. Instead, it is derived from the rights afforded to its citizens coupled with the value of the goods produced within that society. The well-being of one individual (who does not positively contribute to society) is immaterial to society as a whole.
Then murder shouldnt matter. It's only an individual being killed and that's irrelevent to the well-being of society. Clearly laws against murder are immoral, in fact since sometimes people might want to pay for one person to kill another, they are an affront to capitalism.

As long as such people have not been deprived of their rights, why should the state intervene on their behalf? People in such conditions are a dead weight on society; when you're being dragged down in such a manner, the solution is not to sacrifice resources in order to help such people.

Aha, I've always wondered why we dont just take our elderly and dump them somewhere in the wilderness once they become less than self-sufficient. I've also always wondered why parents look after their young. I mean you dont get much more dead weight than a bawling shitting costly bundle that cant feed itself, take care of its own bodily wastes or even not puke on you after every meal. Hell they cant even burp for themselves. Children and the elderly along with those who have served until illness overcomes them, should all be thrown out into the wilderness so they dont drag society down.

My views are generally not absolute. For example, I believe that the state should actively support orphans, neglected children, and abused children, regardless of the fact that such children do not contribute positively to society. This is based on the expectation that they will make a positive contribution in the future which will outweigh their current drain on society. Similarly, the punishment for stealing may be mitigated by certain circumstances, although the guilty party must pay, at least, for the full damages.
The market says otherwise. It doesnt place value on orphans unless you sell them to someone as a slave (or perhaps as meat and hide for eating and skinning). As a slave they will serve whatever person is able to afford to buy them and pay for their upkeep so they will be made of value to society that way. It is highly immoral for you want to interfere in the market's valuation of these people. By not endorsing the selling of these people into slavery (where their value would be realised with certainty, unlike your wishy washy hope that they'll contribute in the future) you are complicit in the interference by the state with individual liberty. People like you who dont support slavery are against personal liberty. Remember the market measures the value. Sell orphans and we'll know what they are worth and be assured of their contribution to society. Your immoral desire to interfere in the measurment of their value, it is a barrier to individual freedom that threatens to divert my resources against my will!

Social utility must take a secondary role to personal freedom. In fact, I don't see social utility as a statistic that needs to be maximized at all. Society benefits when individuals are allowed to freely participate in unhindered enterprise, regardless of the resultant allocation of resources.
Exactly. This is why we must insist that if people want to trade in orphans that they be allowed to do so. What right have we or the state to put the social utility of not selling people above the personal freedom of those who want to enter into such trade. More so for parents who have provided all the resources by which their children live.

Why should one individual's freedom be sacrificed in order to aid someone else? The concept of freedom is imperative; what comes of it matters little to me.
Exactly, why should my individual freedom be sacrificed to save some orphan's freedom. I'm the one with the money so I'm the one who directs the measurement of their value and that value is about 20 to 30 dollars (depending on the quality of their teeth). Should a parent want to sell me their child for a price agreeable to us both, why should their and my freedom be sacrificed to the freedom of the child/product at issue?

Why should the state measure social contribution in the first place?
Exactly. It's just silly to suggest that the governing authority of a society ought to concern itself with what is and is not contributed to that society.

The employee has the option of declining the job offer; however, she does not have the right to decline to pay taxes. If she is not satisfied with one job, she can look around for another one; however, if she is not satisfied with the system of taxation, she does not have the luxury of looking for another one.
That's her own look out really. There are in fact plenty of systems of taxation and if she were sufficiently valued, she would have the pick of competing systems. If some other competing tax system isnt accessable to her, it is because she is not sufficiently valued by the arbitrators of that system, who's fault is that if not her own? Tax systems are subject to the market too. They compete for tax payers and tax payers can compete to have access to tax systems. What could be more fair or free?

Consumers don't have a gradient of rights: they simply have the choice of purchasing a product or not doing so.
Wrong. In my society they have the right to not be misled about a good or service. They have rights to return (reverse the purchase) goods or services, in some cases even if the good or service is exactly as advertised, fit for purpose and the consumer attempted to contract out of the right at issue. To be blunt, as per your own claims, consumers have whatever rights the society they are constituents of, grants them. This remains true even where a society has chosen to grant rights in a gradient (whatever the frig you mean by that).

I assume that someone must pay for the medical care required to save the second person's life (or whatever the scenario was). Increasing the tax rate decreases personal freedom.
As does prohibiting the sale of orphans or preventing parents from abusing the children they created and that their resources provide for. As does laws against murder. More so laws against paying someone to murder on your behalf.

Indeed, and this is acknowledged by a code of laws to prevent such a thing from occurring. However, I do not consider the ability to commit murder to be a meaningful "freedom."
I dont consider the ability to choose between sending your kids to work in a sweatshop or seeing them starve to death a meaningful freedom. The market disagrees with us both here and it is the ultimate measurement of value, so I guess we'd both better reconsider.

Yes, and the free market distributes the benefits, not the state.
Right and the market distributes no benefits to the volunteers at the soup kitchen, obviously they make no social contribution. It also values someone stripping off in playboy more than it values someone saving the life of their drowning neighbour's child, so clearly saving the life of your neighbour's child is not a social contribution. This is true even if the child goes on to make some important and valued contribution to society, unless the kid then turns around and pays you for saving their life those many years ago of course.
Why is an act of rescuing a drowning child valued as per how much you get paid for it? Because it's the market silly. If you rescue a mass murderer who pays you 10 dollars, then this is a greater social contribution than if you rescue someone who goes on to discover a cheap efficient cure for cancer but only gives you 5 dollars. If this doesnt make sense to you then clearly you are not as skilled at valuation as the market.

Zagat, the woman was not working for a state run education provider - the kindy that she worked for, like most kindies in New Zealand, were community run/owned facilities - in her case, it was a church kindy. Therefore, she was working for the private sector.

Also the idea that has been perpetuated in this thread that she could have invested in the stock market is ludicrous - the New Zealand Exchange only has 200 listed companies, and its Top 50 index is dominated by Telecom and Fletcher Building; people invest in these companies to get a steady income, not a capital gain - indeed, we are the only stock market that has still not recovered from the 1987 Stock Market Crash - the old Barclays Index (now known as the NZSX40 Capital Index and only quoted on request) has still not reached the elusive 3969. As I also said before, she had only been out of hospital for two weeks. She would not have made a fortune from stocks in this country; although I do grant there have been some very good gains lately.

Ok, WTF?

I work in a hospital. All life support type equipment has a battery back-up. I'd assume even home use equipment would also. That should give plenty of time to transport someone to a safe place if a loss of power occured.

There has to be more to this story. She died two hours after power was cut. So why didn't someone transport her to a hospital? Did they all just stand around and watch her die, too busy arguing with the power company to take the obvious action to save her life?

Ok, WTF?

I work in a hospital. All life support type equipment has a battery back-up. I'd assume even home use equipment would also. That should give plenty of time to transport someone to a safe place if a loss of power occured.

There has to be more to this story. She died two hours after power was cut. So why didn't someone transport her to a hospital? Did they all just stand around and watch her die, too busy arguing with the power company to take the obvious action to save her life?

The 'more to this story' is that she wasn't in a critical condition - she wasn't required to permanently be on oxygen. That's why everyone acted so unconcerned, no one expected her to die.

Ok, WTF?

I work in a hospital. All life support type equipment has a battery back-up. I'd assume even home use equipment would also. That should give plenty of time to transport someone to a safe place if a loss of power occured.


Not true.. The oxygen machines where I work do not have a battery back-up. In fact, when the power goes out it sounds off a rather loud alarm. That is why we also have portable tanks.