|
Posted by Kris Krieger on November 21, 2007, 12:49 pm
> Kris,
>
> I think you need to see that there are two ways of looking at the
> issue.
No, I think you are missing the point. I *know* there are many ways of
looking at an issue - I'm not an idiot, for petesakes. I have thought,
and continue to think, a lot about issues of rights and
responsibilities, and I hold to my conclusion that rights mean nothing
if they do not apply to everyone, including children (rights such as the
right to live and the right to not be harmed). Opportunity is great,
but it is maximized when all children have a chance to learn/be taught
the things which allow them to both see, and then hopefully take
advantage of, opportunity.
>
> 1) I am required, by the use of force, to "help" others. I have
> little say in who, what or how I'm going to help. Nor do I have any
> ability to ensure that my "contribution" will be used efficiently
> and/or effectively. If I don't "help", my property is taken from me,
> by force.
> I have no recourse, no appeal and no way to rectify the problem.
FIrstly, it's obvious, or at least it ought to be so, that I've been
talking about basic issues, *NOT* merely describing a specific status
quo. I've said about 100 times that the status quo is morinic and IMO
untenable over the long term. Yet here you go once again about how
pissed you are because you are forced to pay taxes. What, you think I
don't have to pay them? THis household pays a *hell* of a lot in tax
money. I don't like it, either.
But that is a far cry from saying that innocent children should be
neglected, kept ignorant, etc., because it's "nobody else's business"
that some people who have kids are stupid a-holes.
I've been talking about the *issue* - i.e., theoretically re: ethics -
and *not* the status quo regarding education. My personal conclusions
remain that denying children eduucation, i.e. keeping the child
illiterate and innumerate, is abusive because, given the facts of human
psychology, it condemns the vast majority to an unfulfilled, and often
miserable, life, and of more interest to you, very often a life of crime
that can inmpact your property and personal safety.
>
> 2) I give, of my own choice, to those who need help. I can be sure
> that my help is used efficiently and effectively. I know that it will
> be used to help those truly needing the help, and not those who are
> working the system, lazy or simply take it because it's available.
Nothing wrong with that. VOlunteerism is a great thing, IMO.
>
> There are those that argue there aren't enough people who will do #2,
> so we must do #1. I am convinced that by doing #1, in *any* degree
> will dissuade many from doing #2. I also know that if #2 was the only
> option, we would be in no worse situation with regard to the number of
> people requiring help and be in a better situation with regard to the
> economic circumstances of everybody in general.
>
> The only successful long-term answer is to eliminate all forms of
> government welfare
*****I am not talking about welfare!!!*****
How many times do Ihave to say that? Once again: people who
abuse/neglect their kids have no right to those kids. THe kids should
be taken away and adopted out, period, and no reversals of any such
adoption. In a nutshell, it has to be a choice between kids, *OR*
crack. There shoule have *nver* been an option to simply, without
question, hand non-working people more money every time they pop out a
kid - after all, *working* people have to live withing their means, and
do not get extra money simply for having another kid. If you can't
afford to take care of the kids, adopt them out to people who will see
to it that the children *do* get an education, a chance at the
proverbial brass ring, a chance to live a decent life.
SO don't imply that I'm talking about socialism - it's insulting and
nowhere near the truth, totally misses the point, which is, education so
as to *minimize* welfare - which IMO is evil becasue of what it has done
to families (by rewarding broken homes) and because of what ti continues
to do to people.
> and provide it privately. Those who say it's not
> possible simply want to shift the guilt, and the burden, to somebody
> else. YOU should pay to help him, rather than, I will pay to help
> him.
> Government social programs are now, and always have been, a way to
> make yourself feel better buy stealing somebody's money to give a
> little of it to somebody else.
And what the bloody damn bleep does that have to do with trying to
ensure that all kids - who are not responsible for what their parents
dis/do - have a shot at learning to read, write, and do basic math?
>
> I have not and will not argue that I don't have a personal moral
> obligation to help those in need. I will argue until I die that
> nobody has the right to take my money without my consent regardless of
> how noble the purpose might be.
>
See my post to Don re: the question "What if you live in a community
which, through a direct democratic process, votes to have a school so
that *all* the kids in the community have a chance to learn the things
which are nnecessary for them to be employed, and seek
self-fulfillment/happiness?" If you vote against it, but 90% of the
community votes for it, well, you can either pay, or move, but if you
refuse to support the democratic process, you cannot claim to favor
democracy. OTOH there was someone who recently said (wish I could
recall who...) that "everyone favors democracy when things go their
way". THe true test is what people do when they're the minority vote.
And, *yet again*, just to be clear, I am talkng about the fundamental
ethics that IMO ought to be one of the foundational principles of public
service, NOT describing the current clown-college/collage that is
passing itse;f off as "the government".
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
