Originally posted by KazetNagorrasociety is not an organism that needs sustenance. society exists to take care of its citizens. now if a citizen chooses to take care of another citizen all by himself, what does society looses?
The involuntary loss is the loss of society.
a husband, instead of employing a babysitter that might neglect the children employs his wife. instead of employing a maid that may do a crappy job employs his wife who has an interest in making the house shine. a wife that would cook what the family likes and not what is more convenient. the wife that might do the groceries without stealing money. the wife that might make the children do their homeworks instead of allowing them to watch TV as long as they keep quiet. and instead, he pays taxes for the both of them(or the whole family), and works to provide enough income to cover their needs. what is society's loss here? and why should society have the right to intervene in how a family is living as long as no laws are broken.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOh dear, like the relapsed alcoholic you've slipped back into denial.
If the resources required to make diamond dog collars were not spent on diamond dog collars, they could have been used for something else. Ergo, the housewife is using resources provided by society. Why is this so hard to understand?
Society did not provide the resources, individuals provided the resources, people that owned their own time and traded that time voluntarily provided the resources.
Originally posted by WajomaYes, they voluntarily provided the resources. Does that mean the resources were not provided?
Oh dear, like the relapsed alcoholic you've slipped back into denial.
Society did not provide the resources, individuals provided the resources, people that owned their own time and traded that time voluntarily provided the resources.
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf a citizen chooses to take care of another citizen all by himself, there is no problem. But this never happens, other than in an extremely primitive society, so I don't see the relevance of this point.
society is not an organism that needs sustenance. society exists to take care of its citizens. now if a citizen chooses to take care of another citizen all by himself, what does society looses?
a husband, instead of employing a babysitter that might neglect the children employs his wife. instead of employing a maid that may do a crappy job employs his w ...[text shortened]... ld society have the right to intervene in how a family is living as long as no laws are broken.
And, once again (how many times do I have to repeat this?), I never argued housewifes should not have the right to be lazy freeloaders. This is not essential for acknowledging they are (under the conditions I mentioned before).
Originally posted by KazetNagorraErgo, the housewife is using resources provided by society. Why is this so hard to understand?
If the resources required to make diamond dog collars were not spent on diamond dog collars, they could have been used for something else. Ergo, the housewife is using resources provided by society. Why is this so hard to understand?
dude why is it so hard to understand? the wife is not using resources provided by society, everything the wife uses is paid for. by the husband. who works for it. who is in return rewarded with a well kept house and hypothetically well raised children. who gets scrwd here? someone is making an offer and another one is accepting that offer. simple as that.
and about the diamond dog colars. i would like to have those that buy them beat up. and tarred and feathered. but it is their money. are you thinking to forbid them to use their money? would you like to make Ferrari only build cars worth 7000$? sure, you are supposed to tax it. if you want a ferrari, you pay 10% of its value to the state in addition to what the car is worth so that the state could build roads for your faithful steed.
what you are basically proposing is a hive society, everyone dressing the same and having the same properties even if some are working harder. and the work you are performing for the hive will only cease when you are unable to work anymore. at which time the government takes care of you in exactly the same way as everyone else.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrathe husband is taking care of the wife, all by himself. it is very relevant to this case.
If a citizen chooses to take care of another citizen all by himself, there is no problem. But this never happens, other than in an extremely primitive society, so I don't see the relevance of this point.
And, once again (how many times do I have to repeat this?), I never argued housewifes should not have the [b]right to be lazy freeloaders. This is not essential for acknowledging they are (under the conditions I mentioned before).[/b]
have you been a housewife? have you met one? do you think is easy taking care of a household everyday without hope of promotion, without a pay raise, trusting your husband will take care of you because you cannot support yourself? i am not supporting this lifestyle. but a housewife is anything but a lazy government freeloader. get that through your noggin.
Originally posted by ZahlanziOption A: riding on the backs of others.
Ergo, the housewife is using resources provided by society. Why is this so hard to understand?
dude why is it so hard to understand? the wife is not using resources provided by society, everything the wife uses is paid for. by the husband. who works for it. who is in return rewarded with a well kept house and hypothetically well raised children. who get ...[text shortened]... nymore. at which time the government takes care of you in exactly the same way as everyone else.
Option B: helping other people.
Which is the morally better choice?
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo. My hypothetical housewife, if you had read my posts, had no children living at home. Instead of watching As the World Turns all day, she could do some volunteer work or a part-time job while her husband is working so he would not be disadvantaged. Doing cleaning takes 10 hours per week, tops.
option b.
the housewife is clearly choosing option B.
It's impossible to argue that the housewife is doing the morally right thing, and the lazy freeloader on benefits isn't. Either both are, or both are not. I'd say both are not.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraif you put your hypothetical wife to not do anything and sit on the couch doing nothing then she is not the housewife acknowledge by all people. she doesn't need to stay at home because nobody is there to take care of. your "housewife" is lazy. happy now? now that that is out of they way, your "housewife" is not hurting society either. all her needs are being taken care of by the husband. if you maintain your claim that she is hurting society, then so is the brilliant brain surgeon that chooses to be a small town doctor, or the scientist that chooses not to research cancer but to teach highschool kids in Brooklyn.
No. My hypothetical housewife, if you had read my posts, had no children living at home. Instead of watching As the World Turns all day, she could do some volunteer work or a part-time job while her husband is working so he would not be disadvantaged. Doing cleaning takes 10 hours per week, tops.
It's impossible to argue that the housewife is doing t ...[text shortened]... he lazy freeloader on benefits isn't. Either both are, or both are not. I'd say both are not.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell, people don't need to work 100 hours per week. But they at least have to have some good intentions, there must be good balance between hedonism and morality.
if you put your hypothetical wife to not do anything and sit on the couch doing nothing then she is not the housewife acknowledge by all people. she doesn't need to stay at home because nobody is there to take care of. your "housewife" is lazy. happy now? now that that is out of they way, your "housewife" is not hurting society either. all her needs are bei ...[text shortened]... the scientist that chooses not to research cancer but to teach highschool kids in Brooklyn.
Originally posted by KazetNagorranot doing harm is what society can enforce. nobody can force you to jump in a lake to save a drowning person. nobody can force you to donate half of your 1 gazilion fortune to greenpeace and save the children.
Well, people don't need to work 100 hours per week. But they at least have to have some good intentions, there must be good balance between hedonism and morality.
you can discuss of course what is moral and what is not and guidelines to a fulfilling life. but you cannot enforce morals on anyone.