The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

The force here is taking the money (at risk of imprisonment) from person A to pay Person B to provide Service C to Person Q.

It is definitely a form of "violence" by the society against the individual. It just isn't analogous to slavery.

Oh, is THAT what the author was saying? Wow, such a bad analogy that it's hardly even decipherable.

Yeah, Alex said it best, money is not equivalent to labor or people.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Yeah, Alex said it best, money is not equivalent to labor or people.

Really?

So if I decided to just trade my labor for another mans and cut "money" out of the equation the government won't mind?

The IRS won't assign a monetary value to the labor we traded?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wow, I can't compete with that many question marks. I give up.

[Prudence]

So, instead of the government using legal force to require monetary contributions the church uses spiritual force to the same end. I don't see how this is any different or disproves my theory that individuals, without some sort of external coercion (whether by threat of jail or threat of eternal hellfires), generally leave the public service to someone else.

Now, you may feel that this coercion is more appropriately left to the churches. However, not everyone belongs to churches, and churches are not interested in helping all people. We are, on the other hand, all residents in this country, and the government is theoretically supposed to treat us all equally. I realize that the government isn't the poster child for efficiency and fiscal restraint, but I'd rather take my chances there.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Prudence

So, instead of the government using legal force to require monetary contributions the church uses spiritual force to the same end. I don't see how this is any different or disproves my theory that individuals, without some sort of external coercion (whether by threat of jail or threat of eternal hellfires), generally leave the public service to someone else.

When you see someone in trouble do you help them?

Why?

Now, you may feel that this coercion is more appropriately left to the churches. However, not everyone belongs to churches, and churches are not interested in helping all people. We are, on the other hand, all residents in this country, and the government is theoretically supposed to treat us all equally. I realize that the government isn't the poster child for efficiency and fiscal restraint, but I'd rather take my chances there.

So basically, you trust the government more than the people?

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am just aksing for clarification. I realize you are actually giving me thoughtful responses and I thank you for that.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

When you see someone in trouble do you help them?

Why?

Honestly? It depends. But, I also don't have the time or resources to help people efficiently. I can't tell who has already been helped and who didn't know how to or was uncomfortable asking for help. And, honestly, why should I be the one to help? Why, when I'm struggling to pay rent here and a mortgage back home, should I help, when there are people in big shiny houses using $100 bills as coasters? I'd like to say that I'd give the shirt off my back to anyone in need, but realistically I won't. I might if I knew you, but no, I don't just wander about handing out money to people who need it.

And I'll tangent here to say that I have issues with the initial analogy. Lawn mowing is not quite the "essential" task I'm concerned about. That particular task I do think is better handled at a community level. But what about the rent? The medical bills? Is it more realistic to expect the her doctor to provide free medical care out of a sense of human compassion or to collect funds from everyone to pay for medical care of similiarly situated individuals?

I'm not disputing that many individuals have altruistic leanings, but working as individuals is inefficient and ineffective.

So basically, you trust the government more than the people?

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am just aksing for clarification. I realize you are actually giving me thoughtful responses and I thank you for that.

In this situation, yes. And I realize that this is the fundamental point on which we will differ. It's not that I think people are essentially bad, but I think people have a fundamental desire to shirk responsibility. And maybe that's just me projecting my own failings onto the world around me, but in a society as spread out as ours has become, it's easy to convince one's self that someone else will clean up the messes.

Perhaps in a different time, I would have had a different response. If our world was still more community-oriented and we knew our neighbors and there would be a real social shaming of those who skipped out on their share of the community support I would choose to trust people over the government. (Still, even then I would view the social pressures to provide charity as the required coercive factor.) And if "the church" were an inclusive organzation to which all belonged and which did not discriminate in its selection of charity recipients, perhaps I would concur that "the church" was the right venue for charitable giving. But it's not, and and therefore of the options open to me I choose the government. Also, although it is an organization made up of people, I have greater hope that the government can improve its effectiveness than that human nature will become less responsibility-adverse.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Prudence

I'm not disputing that many individuals have altruistic leanings, but working as individuals is inefficient and ineffective.

Perhaps....but a bag of groceries handed over the back fence to one's neighbor is 100% efficient. How full will that bag be after being passed around by our "charitable" politicians and bureaucrats?

In this situation, yes. And I realize that this is the fundamental point on which we will differ. It's not that I think people are essentially bad, but I think people have a fundamental desire to shirk responsibility. And maybe that's just me projecting my own failings onto the world around me, but in a society as spread out as ours has become, it's easy to convince one's self that someone else will clean up the messes.

Perhaps in a different time, I would have had a different response. If our world was still more community-oriented and we knew our neighbors and there would be a real social shaming of those who skipped out on their share of the community support I would choose to trust people over the government.

I think you are right but perhaps the reason we shirk responsibility and are less community-oriented can be blamed on the government.....and perhaps not. I suppose it might be a chicken and egg thing.

Again, I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful, honest response to my posts.

[Gemini Cricket]

lol!

THAT although we didn't think it would be possible to silence Ann Coulter, the leggy reactionary broke her jaw and the mouth that roared has been wired shut

Source
Hmm, NYP Page Six... gossip... but if it's true, there is a god!

[Strangler Lewis]

Every human endeavor involves a pooling of effort towards an agreed upon goal. Sometimes that effort is pooled into a corporation or other association. Sometimes it is pooled into government--by the consent of the governed. All of these collectives are prone to folly and abuses. I truly do not see a difference.

[JWBear]

Sleepyjeff,

Prudence's very eloquent response above is exactly how I wanted to respond.

I just want to add that I am in the government social services field. I can't tell you how many people have come to us after being turned away from church charities because they weren't the right religion, color, marital status or sexual orientation. Even private secular charities sometimes discriminate to a degree. Government does not, can not.