US, poverty, tent cities and kids.

[Juana]

Basically it's a "Type A personality" country... either be type a or struggle. That is the bottom line in the US. Personally if people do not want to suck it up and work their ass off to get the things they think they deserve, then fuck them... let them starve.. heartless yes, but those people can get a job they just think they're above things... if you're eating rats you're above nothing.

[Hype]

Basically it's a "Type A personality" country... either be type a or struggle. That is the bottom line in the US. Personally if people do not want to suck it up and work their ass off to get the things they think they deserve, then fuck them... let them starve.. heartless yes, but those people can get a job they just think they're above things... if you're eating rats you're above nothing.

I fucking hate Type As. They suck at philosophy. (Not even a joke... a few political philosophers here have noted that there simply isn't such a thing as a "libertarian intellectual tradition" (though there is a "liberal intellectual tradition" stretching back to Hobbes). Their entire movement is intellectually vapid. The closest they come to intellectual respectability outside of Hayek (who isn't all that sophisticated) is Nozick, and he was never primarily a political guy.

[Desri]

The life expectancy for low-income individuals mentioned in the first article is actually way more suprising than the homeless figures it quotes. There are many obvious reasons for dramatically reduced lifespans in homeless populations but only 51/72% F/M reaching 75 in low income situations... that seems hard to believe.

[Hype]

The life expectancy for low-income individuals mentioned in the first article is actually way more suprising than the homeless figures it quotes. There are many obvious reasons for dramatically reduced lifespans in homeless populations but only 51/72% F/M reaching 75 in low income situations... that seems hard to believe.

Yeah. It's that kind of stuff that I think people don't know or don't even think is possible that motivates academics on the left to find ways to implement progressive policies without appearing paternalistic. Frankly, I've started thinking that, in fact, we should just try harder to take back the word 'freedom' from the libertarians and keep emphasizing statistics like that to justify things like living wages and effective health campaigns that aren't only reliant on individual will-power, but in a way "force" people to do what really is in their interest. I think of it this way: is requiring low-income housing to be more widely distributed (not ghettoified as it has been since the 60s), and to be zoned so that there is real access to healthy food and education (not merely a bus-route, but actual community stores that sell more than canned/boxed garbage) really so difficult? This is the sort of regulation that would have real world effects that no sane person could possibly claim isn't for the benefit of every individual.

But instead we argue about whether taxing the rich slightly higher will result in less job creation.

[Larry B.]

This is the sort of regulation that would have real world effects that no sane person could possibly claim isn't for the benefit of every individual.

I think the problem in the US (amongst other countries, for sure) is that a significant part of the population really couldn't care less about benefits for other individuals, especially if it means changing something in their daily routines that allow them to have two cars, a big house with a pool, etc. They wouldn't be happy. They were raised in a 'you work, you get; you don't work, you don't get' environment. 'So, what, now you can get even if you don't work!??? Has the world gone crazy?!'

[Hokahey]

I was just pointing out that clearly there are a lot of people who seem to be out of options

And that's where you're wrong, again. The options are there. If you want to debate or discuss why they're not taking advantage of them then we'll be having a reasonable discussion.

I think the problem in the US (amongst other countries, for sure) is that a significant part of the population really couldn't care less about benefits for other individuals, especially if it means changing something in their daily routines that allow them to have two cars, a big house with a pool, etc. They wouldn't be happy. They were raised in a 'you work, you get; you don't work, you don't get' environment. 'So, what, now you can get even if you don't work!??? Has the world gone crazy?!'

You really are clueless.

World Giving Index: US Ranked Most Charitable Country On Earth
The Huffington Post Eleanor Goldberg First Posted: 12/20/11 Updated: 12/20/11

The United States climbed from fifth place to the rank of most generous country in the world, according to a recent global study.

In its second annual study of 153 countries, the Charity Aid Foundation concluded that the U.S. has demonstrated "strong" behavior across all three criteria measured -- volunteering, helping strangers and donating money. The U.S. has increased its charity by 3 percentage points this year, up to $212 billion.

"The point to leave with American leaders is the world really needs America; it needs its generosity, its resource and spirit, and though times are really hard, this is the time we need to keep giving as much as we possibly can," Richard Harrison, director of research at the UK-based Charities Aid Foundation told The NonProfit Times.

Ireland and Australia trailed behind the U.S. in giving, but the study noted that the most affluent countries aren't necessarily the most philanthropic. Only five of the countries featured in the World Bank's top 20 GDP made to the Charity Aid Foundation's top 20 list.

But when it came to measuring volunteering, the age demographic came into play. The number of people who volunteered among the 50 and over age group increased 2 percentage points from last year.

"More people gave their time to help others over the last year...a compelling and inspiring reminder of human kindness," wrote John Low, chief executive of the Charity Aid Foundation. "The fact that donations became less frequent in many countries is one of the real tragedies of the financial crisis."

[Larry B.]

OK, then let me ask you directly: would you be in favor of raising your taxes if it would mean better, "free" and prompt healthcare for those who're worse-off than you?

[Hokahey]

OK, then let me ask you directly: would you be in favor of raising your taxes if it would mean better, "free" and prompt healthcare for those who're worse-off than you?

No.

1. I don't believe an entity as beaurocratic as government is at the federal level to implement sucg a program in an effective manner. All of the welfare and assistance programs are rife with mismanagement and abuse. This pie in the sky ideal that the good ol government will take my money and provide wonderful things for those poor saps that just cant get a fair shake is asinine and naive.

2. I don't believe I should have my money/property forcibly taken away from me to be given to other people without my consent. It should be my choice to decide who to help and win and through which agency.

3. There are free clinics everywhere as it is.

4. There isn't enough money to go around as it is for those that want to work to fund those that don't.

Those that can't are another story, but many of these programs are abused in to the ground by those that won't because the abuse cant be weeded out or managed properly by such a large and lumbering entity.

[Larry B.]

OK, then let me ask you directly: would you be in favor of raising your taxes if it would mean better, "free" and prompt healthcare for those who're worse-off than you?

No.

I think the problem in the US (amongst other countries, for sure) is that a significant part of the population really couldn't care less about benefits for other individuals, especially if it means changing something in their daily routines that allow them to have two cars, a big house with a pool, etc. They wouldn't be happy. They were raised in a 'you work, you get; you don't work, you don't get' environment. 'So, what, now you can get even if you don't work!??? Has the world gone crazy?!'

You really are clueless.

You say it quite honestly in the rest of your post, though: you don't believe in the capacity of your government. There's mismanagement and theft there. And you don't believe in the honesty of your fellow citizens. There's abuse there.

You also say that there's not enough money to fund those who don't work. Isn't the US supposed to be the richest country in the world...?

There are free clinics everywhere, you say. So, all the people who complain about their relatives dying because they can't get proper healthcare are what... just plain dumb? People so confused by the overabundance of clinics that they went to a different one for their doctor's appointment?

In general, it seems like people don't really care for other people (because they don't trust other people). Or they care in concept, but don't really want to do much about them. Maybe donating in a telethon here and there... but allowing a kid whose parents never worked a day to study in the same college my kid is studying, when I busted my ass to get him where he is? Wait... I busted my ass to get BOTH OF THEM where they are now!?!?! Fuck that. Right?

[Juana]

Basically it's a "Type A personality" country... either be type a or struggle. That is the bottom line in the US. Personally if people do not want to suck it up and work their ass off to get the things they think they deserve, then fuck them... let them starve.. heartless yes, but those people can get a job they just think they're above things... if you're eating rats you're above nothing.

I fucking hate Type As. They suck at philosophy. (Not even a joke... a few political philosophers here have noted that there simply isn't such a thing as a "libertarian intellectual tradition" (though there is a "liberal intellectual tradition" stretching back to Hobbes). Their entire movement is intellectually vapid. The closest they come to intellectual respectability outside of Hayek (who isn't all that sophisticated) is Nozick, and he was never primarily a political guy.

I wasn't saying its right or wrong because when I'm not trying to make money I'm very laid back and easy going for the most part. But basically the old saying that if you want something work for it holds true.

[Larry B.]

Am I just too idealistic? I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if there aren't any people eating rats because they have nothing else to eat, or if more people get the education they want, or if more people can promptly heal their illnesses. And I'd happily take money off my pocket to help such cause.

[Hokahey]

You say it quite honestly in the rest of your post, though: you don't believe in the capacity of your government.

Correct

And you don't believe in the honesty of your fellow citizens. There's abuse there.

Correct. But I do believe in the generosity of the rest of us as evidenced in the article I posted saying no one gives more than us.

You also say that there's not enough money to fund those who don't work.

Correct.

Isn't the US supposed to be the richest country in the world...?

And? Richest country means no one has to work? I can be the richest guy on my block but starving. The term is relative.

There are free clinics everywhere, you say. So, all the people who complain about their relatives dying because they can't get proper healthcare are what... just plain dumb? People so confused by the overabundance of clinics that they went to a different one for their doctor's appointment?

I didn't say everyone gets the extensive care they need because of the free clinics. But there is also Medicare and Medicaid that help people afford healthcare.

And where are all these people with relatives dying because they cant receive care? Sure it happens (no system is perfect), but there aren't people dying in the streets everywhere.

In general, it seems like people don't really care for other people (because they don't trust other people). Or they care in concept, but don't really want to do much about them.

Which is why we're the most charitable nation on Earth? Do you read what I provide you or continue with your preconceived notions and only read what you want to see to bolster them?

Maybe donating in a telethon here and there... but allowing a kid whose parents never worked a day to study in the same college my kid is studying, when I busted my ass to get him where he is? Wait... I busted my ass to get BOTH OF THEM where they are now!?!?! Fuck that. Right?

Answer this: Why do I have to pay for my kids and your kids (through my taxes) to go to college when you're just as capable as paying for them as I am? You find it moraly acceptable to have the government confiscate my money to provide for you and yours simply because I am willing to go out and earn that money and you are not? If you do, then fine. I'd believe you to be morally bankrupt and a thief but at least your position would then match your character as I would then see it. Furthermore, why would ANYONE bother working? It's a ridiculous notion and one that has bankrupted Greece.

[Hokahey]

Am I just too idealistic? I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if there aren't any people eating rats because they have nothing else to eat, or if more people get the education they want, or if more people can promptly heal their illnesses. And I'd happily take money off my pocket to help such cause.

I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if everyone had flat screens, cell phones, fast cars and chocalate water fountains.

Someone has to pay for that. If you want to, then by all means do so. Every single person I know donates to charity in some fashion, and would donate more if the government wasnt stealing our money to fund their own mismanaged charity programs.

[Hype]

Basically it's a "Type A personality" country... either be type a or struggle. That is the bottom line in the US. Personally if people do not want to suck it up and work their ass off to get the things they think they deserve, then fuck them... let them starve.. heartless yes, but those people can get a job they just think they're above things... if you're eating rats you're above nothing.

I fucking hate Type As. They suck at philosophy. (Not even a joke... a few political philosophers here have noted that there simply isn't such a thing as a "libertarian intellectual tradition" (though there is a "liberal intellectual tradition" stretching back to Hobbes). Their entire movement is intellectually vapid. The closest they come to intellectual respectability outside of Hayek (who isn't all that sophisticated) is Nozick, and he was never primarily a political guy.

I wasn't saying its right or wrong because when I'm not trying to make money I'm very laid back and easy going for the most part. But basically the old saying that if you want something work for it holds true.

The problem with truisms is that they don't get you very far. No one disputes the idea that certain things should be earned. The underlying dispute involves two facets: one is about which things should be earned; the other is about whether or not if there are things that should be earned, everyone is, or ought to be, given equal opportunity to earn them (or access to opportunity, or preconditions for the capacity to earn them, or any number of disputed variations).

A major work on the issue of "equality" and the various ways of cashing it out is Amartya Sen's famous "Equality of What?". Here's a PDF of it: http://www.uv.es/~mperezs/intpoleco/Lec ... 20what.pdf

We're still arguing about what exactly it is that *should* be equalized, if we are egalitarians. Not only this, but egalitarians (I am one) are arguing with libertarians about what Justice IS.

Libertarians say that justice is, plain and simple, freedom from federal constraints. Egalitarians say that justice is equality of... something (or many things).

Cashing these things out involves going beyond truisms like "Work harder, you lazy piece of shit homeless/poor people!" and tries to understand what is actually going on.

[Larry B.]

Answer this: Why do I have to pay for my kids and your kids (through my taxes) to go to college when you're just as capable as paying for them as I am? You find it moraly acceptable to have the government confiscate my money to provide for you and yours simply because I am willing to go out and earn that money and you are not? If you do, then fine. I'd believe you to be morally bankrupt and a thief but at least your position would then match your character as I would then see it. Furthermore, why would ANYONE bother working? It's a ridiculous notion and one that has bankrupted Greece.

Let's say you, me and Brabo live in the same country and are equally capable of working. We have jobs, and we work. We pay taxes. We have kids. Suddenly, Brabo is laid off. How is it morally acceptable to let him drift away and just leave him 'in god's hands', when he is indeed a part of our society'? He's not our friend, but he's not our enemy either. He's our compatriot. We're just going to say 'hey, good luck, things will get better...' and walk and look away? We're going to say 'hey, go to that shelter! i donate money to that one, it must be good'?

The political and economic system in which there are 'free' services (say health care and education) is -of course- based on the fact that people capable of working should be working and that companies (as well as people) must pay their taxes. And those who work and earn money, provide temporarily for those who can't. It's a cooperative concept. In this type of society, if you lose your job it's not the fucking end of the world. You don't necessarily have to start trying to sell your car, lose your medical insurance or change your kid into a crappier school. Who's paying for it? Companies, other people, and yourself, with your tax money.

Of course that a system in which most people don't work and thus generate no taxes, wouldn't work. That's pretty obvious, so it's not a subject that should be up for discussion. I'm not saying the opposite. I'm saying that usually between 7% and 13% of the population are out of work and that the country shouldn't just say 'hey, here are some food stamps. got a cold? a headache? a mild case of gangrene? go to that free clinic and take a number... but just in case, don't make too many plans past next Sunday. oh, lost your house? well, sell your mattress and get a tent. geez, the nerve of some people.'

So, why NOT do something to help? I'm not talking about charity or helping the poor and dying, but about helping a society grow and mature. About building a society in which if you, your wife, your kids, your nephew, whomever, won't be instantly ruined if they lose their jobs. A society in which one of your grandkids could dream of being a shoe shiner and still make ends meet and send his kids to college, should they want to go.

Am I just too idealistic? I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if there aren't any people eating rats because they have nothing else to eat, or if more people get the education they want, or if more people can promptly heal their illnesses. And I'd happily take money off my pocket to help such cause.

I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if everyone had flat screens, cell phones, fast cars and chocalate water fountains.

Yes, having no food to eat is the same as watching the Superbowl without Full HD.

[Hype]

Am I just too idealistic? I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if there aren't any people eating rats because they have nothing else to eat, or if more people get the education they want, or if more people can promptly heal their illnesses. And I'd happily take money off my pocket to help such cause.

I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if everyone had flat screens, cell phones, fast cars and chocalate water fountains.

Someone has to pay for that. If you want to, then by all means do so. Every single person I know donates to charity in some fashion, and would donate more if the government wasnt stealing our money to fund their own mismanaged charity programs.

Hoka, that form of reasoning is invalid. It simply doesn't follow from the fact that everyone you know does something that the same phenomenon would be true of other groups. (This is called an inductive fallacy... basic logical fallacy... they used to think that "All swans are white." was a universally true statement because no one had ever seen a non-white swan. Then they found some black swans in Australia.)

[Larry B.]

And also, if you're connecting 'free health care', 'free food' or 'free education' with 'charity', I think you're pretty much validating my point that, in general, people in the US don't really care a lot for other people.

[Hype]

And also, if you're connecting 'free health care', 'free food' or 'free education' with 'charity', I think you're pretty much validating my point that, in general, people in the US don't really care a lot for other people.

That's false too Larry... It doesn't follow from the fact that Hoka, a self-professed libertarian (or libertarian sympathizer), thinks that justice doesn't extend to social welfare/distributive justice that "people in the US don't really care a lot for other people". Most Americans aren't libertarians. In fact, the largest social welfare projects in the history of this planet are funded by the American federal government regardless of who the president is (Medicare and Medicaid). No other country's spending even comes close to these. The fact that the United States is an extremely populous and geographically large country has some effect on the ability to implement social welfare efficiently from a centralized federal government.

[Hokahey]

Am I just too idealistic? I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if there aren't any people eating rats because they have nothing else to eat, or if more people get the education they want, or if more people can promptly heal their illnesses. And I'd happily take money off my pocket to help such cause.

I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if everyone had flat screens, cell phones, fast cars and chocalate water fountains.

Someone has to pay for that. If you want to, then by all means do so. Every single person I know donates to charity in some fashion, and would donate more if the government wasnt stealing our money to fund their own mismanaged charity programs.

Hoka, that form of reasoning is invalid. It simply doesn't follow from the fact that everyone you know does something that the same phenomenon would be true of other groups. (This is called an inductive fallacy... basic logical fallacy... they used to think that "All swans are white." was a universally true statement because no one had ever seen a non-white swan. Then they found some black swans in Australia.)

I understand it's anecdotal evidence, and you'll notice I made no broader claims to it's regard beyond the people referenced.

[Hokahey]

And also, if you're connecting 'free health care', 'free food' or 'free education' with 'charity', I think you're pretty much validating my point that, in general, people in the US don't really care a lot for other people.

That's false too Larry... It doesn't follow from the fact that Hoka, a self-professed libertarian (or libertarian sympathizer), thinks that justice doesn't extend to social welfare/distributive justice that "people in the US don't really care a lot for other people". Most Americans aren't libertarians. In fact, the largest social welfare projects in the history of this planet are funded by the American federal government regardless of who the president is (Medicare and Medicaid). No other country's spending even comes close to these. The fact that the United States is an extremely populous and geographically large country has some effect on the ability to implement social welfare efficiently from a centralized federal government.

God, thank you.

[Hype]

Am I just too idealistic? I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if there aren't any people eating rats because they have nothing else to eat, or if more people get the education they want, or if more people can promptly heal their illnesses. And I'd happily take money off my pocket to help such cause.

I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if everyone had flat screens, cell phones, fast cars and chocalate water fountains.

Someone has to pay for that. If you want to, then by all means do so. Every single person I know donates to charity in some fashion, and would donate more if the government wasnt stealing our money to fund their own mismanaged charity programs.

Hoka, that form of reasoning is invalid. It simply doesn't follow from the fact that everyone you know does something that the same phenomenon would be true of other groups. (This is called an inductive fallacy... basic logical fallacy... they used to think that "All swans are white." was a universally true statement because no one had ever seen a non-white swan. Then they found some black swans in Australia.)

I understand it's anecdotal evidence, and you'll notice I made no broader claims to it's regard beyond the people referenced.

Yeah. I just think it's an empirical question whether social welfare programs administrated by a federal government (and paid for by taxes) are more effective/efficient/whatever than private charities. You can't really extrapolate at all from your own experience... you have to look at large amounts of data.

[Hokahey]

Am I just too idealistic? I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if there aren't any people eating rats because they have nothing else to eat, or if more people get the education they want, or if more people can promptly heal their illnesses. And I'd happily take money off my pocket to help such cause.

I just think my neighborhood/town/city/country/etc. would be better if everyone had flat screens, cell phones, fast cars and chocalate water fountains.

Someone has to pay for that. If you want to, then by all means do so. Every single person I know donates to charity in some fashion, and would donate more if the government wasnt stealing our money to fund their own mismanaged charity programs.

Hoka, that form of reasoning is invalid. It simply doesn't follow from the fact that everyone you know does something that the same phenomenon would be true of other groups. (This is called an inductive fallacy... basic logical fallacy... they used to think that "All swans are white." was a universally true statement because no one had ever seen a non-white swan. Then they found some black swans in Australia.)

I understand it's anecdotal evidence, and you'll notice I made no broader claims to it's regard beyond the people referenced.

Yeah. I just think it's an empirical question whether social welfare programs administrated by a federal government (and paid for by taxes) are more effective/efficient/whatever than private charities. You can't really extrapolate at all from your own experience... you have to look at large amounts of data.

You're obviously 100% correct. I wasn't trying to make any larger claims based on my personal experiences, but I appreciate you trying to keep between the lines so to speak. I am much more mindful of how I debate and attempt to get my points across because of you, and not just on here

When no one calls you on your invalid reasoning you never improve.

[Hype]

I think in these types of debates, even among trained philosophers, people on both sides see certain things that really are true, and it's never quite clear where or why people are disagreeing. It's easy to be wrong when you try to fit things into a theory... and political issues are notoriously difficult to make clear. Sometimes it's better to step away from the theory and just ask common sense questions like: what do the data really show is happening, what things do we want to be the case, and why should we divide up responsibilities the way we intuitively think they should be divided? But doing that without referring to your pet theory (be it socialism or liberalism or whatever) is very difficult. I think that that's the only way to make progress in politics though -- instead of trying to get people to accept your theory, try to make sense of the facts, and then worry about the theory later.

I am with you on consistency as a virtue -- hell, I'm obsessed with it. (as Emerson put it, a FOOLISH consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...) But I think that theories can obscure or even intentionally leave out real inconsistencies that you can only see if you step back a bit, and yet claim that they are just being "consistent" (but narrow!).

Larry's not wrong to wonder about how a "great" country can have certain facts be the case (child poverty rates of such and such a percentage, or whatever), and that's when the common sense questions I listed above can come in. We can ask why there are still children living in poverty (at all, or at the level it is at in the United States). It's another question to ask whether anything can be done about it, and how... and so on.