Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, I've read the threads and I don't see your points proving that
They are taking out and not putting in. I've explained extensively in this thread why this is the case.
at all. To me you seem a bit peeved that someone has another
taking care of them, that they have a sheltered life and you want to
put a value on their lives making them less than someone else,
because that someone else has others to take care of.
You remind me of a supervisor that wanted to promote one eimployee
over another, not because they were better workers, not because they
showed up on time and could be depended upon to get things done,
but because one had kids and the other did not.
Kelly
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou are a scary person, I hope you never get authority in life.
Well, for example, they could work as nurses, in old people's home's, whatever. These sectors tend to have a shortage of people. More generally, the economic impulse would free up more resources for science and innovation, advancing mankind in general.
Kelly
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes the husband could provide the diamond dog collar without the help of society, by dealing only with those that deal in diamond dog collars, there may be others within society he would choose not to deal with in acquiring a diamond dog collar. Zahlanzi has said she would like to "beat up, tar and feather" anyone dealing in diamond dog collars The husband owes nothing to Zahlanzi, the wife owes nothing to Zahlanzi, and all Zahlanzi and you owe these two is to mind your own business(which I admit is what Z has been saying except for the "beating up,tarring and feathering" part).
Could the husband provide her with the diamond dog collar without the help of society? No. So why do you keep insisting he can? Are you that afraid of amending your unfounded dogmas?
I don't believe in zero-sum economics and I don't know how you got that impression.
As for unfounded dogmas, I once did think like you, society is an ant heap, if only we'd all pull together, we own society and society owns us.
That, KN is an unfounded dogma you have chosen.
The reason I ask about the one big cake is because that is exactly what you keep repeating. The husband has created a cake, which he chooses to share with his wife, the husbands cake does not some how magically become your cake (...or that portion which blah blah)
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMisunderstood? Are you for real?
I get misunderstood quite a bit in this thread, so I will post a more elaborate response during Easter holiday.
You expressed your wish to force housewifes to do work they don't want to, based simply on your superficial judgement that they don't do enough for society (whatever you mean by that) and that somehow we own something to society, and when other people disagree with your totalitarian utopia you say you were "misunderstood"?!
Take your time KN, because you'll have to think a lot before giving us another rubbish excuse.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOh boy, I can't wait for Easter Sunday when I get to read your justification for making housewives your slaves.
I get misunderstood quite a bit in this thread, so I will post a more elaborate response during Easter holiday.
Seriously though, why waste your holiday? We will not be convinced.
There are two kinds of people in society. Those who produce something, some service or some good, for others in society (or the rest of the world). And there are those who do not produce anything but rely on others to provide for them. Since self-sufficiency is virtually nonexistant, at least in a modern society, these are the only two groups that matter. Now in the second group, you can make a further subdivision into three groups. 1: those who rely on others because they simply cannot provide for themselves - children, the sick and disabled, the elderly. 2: those who could provide for themselves, but are not doing so because society has deemed it's useful for them not to do so, for example high school and university students. 3: those who can provide for themselves, but are not doing so because others are providing for them.
Of course, the group of interest in this discussion is group 3. Now I have argued that in general, regardless of the method in which the members of group 3 are being supported, it would be the better moral choice if they chose to support themselves instead. The reason for this is quite simple; if you can provide your own means of survival, why are you burdening others with doing so, if there is no long term gain for them? I don't see a moral justification. Now I have seen several attempted refutations of this line of reasoning, which I will address specifically.
1. If it's legal, it's alright.
This is easily refuted. Slavery used to be legal, and is clearly not alright.
2. It's none of your business.
I am being disadvantaged. Society in general is being disadvantaged. It's as much my business as caring about lazy people on benefits is.
3. You cannot force people to work if they don't want to.
Of course not, you cannot force people on benefits to work either. Does that mean it's alright to live on benefits if you can work? Of course not.
4. There is no moral obligation to do anything.
This one surely raised my eyebrows, and I refuted it with the example of the drowning baby.
5. Everyone involved in the process is involved voluntarily.
This is perhaps the most serious challenge of my argument. But I don't think it really matters. It just shows a shortcoming of the system of trade we happened to have adopted. It's possible to acquire money even if you have not really done anything for it. People who sell products and services cannot tell if you have personally contributed to society to acquire your money, or that it was given to you (or that you have stolen it), even though it's implicitly assumed in the transaction that you have (or that you somehow deserve financial compensation because you are dependant on society). Besides, if you don't want to contribute to tax-based benefits, you can always move to Somalia or live somewhere else as a hermit. Furthermore, the taxation is determined through a democratic process. If you don't like it, you can vote for someone else. At the end of the day, it comes down to the fact that someone who is not contributing to society is riding on the backs of the people who are. This is true regardless of the method in which the whole process works in detail. And even though housewives at first glance appear to be doing no harm, they are doing equally as much harm as those who can work, are too lazy for it, but depend on the state for financial aid.
Originally posted by KellyJayFollow the money.
Has it ever occured to you that much of what our (U.S.A.) government
does is pii one segment of our society against another and mainly
it is done to push an agenda where the government gains more and
more control over our lives?
Shouldn't the main push of the govenment be to level the playing
field so everyone is treated equally? I do mean everyone, and I do
mean treat them all the same way from taxes to rights!
Kelly
Originally posted by KazetNagorra1. If it's legal, it's alright.
There are two kinds of people in society. Those who produce something, some service or some good, for others in society (or the rest of the world). And there are those who do not produce anything but rely on others to provide for them. Since self-sufficiency is virtually nonexistant, at least in a modern society, these are the only two groups that matte ...[text shortened]... those who can work, are too lazy for it, but depend on the state for financial aid.
This is easily refuted. Slavery used to be legal, and is clearly not alright.
Agreed, which makes me wonder why it is this exact argument you fall back on again and again, you refute it here but use it when it suits your purposes - a form fo hypocrisy. A mob of people getting together in a gang then forcing their idea of morality on another gang, their qualification? Their gang is bigger than the other gang. That may be legal but it is clearly not alright.
2. It's none of your business.
I am being disadvantaged. Society in general is being disadvantaged. It's as much my business as caring about lazy people on benefits is.
This one stands.The husband has chosen his values, he wishes a life with his wife such that she does not have to work, that is not your business. It can never be proven that the husband puts extra effort into producing wealth that he may not otherwise have bothered had he not married this woman.(no disadvantage 'suffered' by you) It cannot be proven that what he has chosen to spend on his wife, he might not have otherwise just stashed under his pillow if he did not have a wife.(no disadvantage suffered by you). It cannot be proven that what he has chosen to spend on his wife he might not otherwise have chosen to spend it on something else that you consider a waste, or something else again that I consider a waste but you do not. You have no claim on society, It's like saying the music of Flo Rida disadvantages society therefore I am disadvantaged or if someone has purchased an Estwing 16oz claw hammer but it sits in the back of their tool box unused or they put a frame around it and hang it on the wall. Mind you own business.
If your logic wasn't faulty enough there you once again try to sneak in people on benefits, now, this does become my business because I am being forced to support them. Note the use of the bad 'f' word and not the good 'f' word - free.
3. You cannot force people to work if they don't want to.
Of course not, you cannot force people on benefits to work either. Does that mean it's alright to live on benefits if you can work? Of course not.
Fine as long as you can choose whether or not to support those beneficiaries.
4. There is no moral obligation to do anything.
This one surely raised my eyebrows, and I refuted it with the example of the drowning baby.
The drowning baby scenario is a "life boat situation" and is not relelvant to this discussion..We do not derive morality from these scenarios because we do not live as half a dozen people adrift in a lifeboat, with an endless stream of "what ifs" tacked on until your point is 'proven'. Like the PD.
5. Everyone involved in the process is involved voluntarily.
This is perhaps the most serious challenge of my argument.
Waffle, waffle, same old shy te, go and live on the moon, nothing more substantive than "But I don't think it really matters". The most serious challenge and all you do is evade.