By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 24 September 2013
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

 



Because medical coverage under the health insurance system is WAY too expensive to afford for yourself let alone pay for someone else's

My entire post was pointed an individuals who claim coersion and theft as reasons for not having government assistance.  I was arguing turning it on its head to get someone arguing coersion and theft to come out and say why they wouldn't give to help others.



you mean you were using sarcasm? i don't think your post is legible.

In response to the coersion comment, I wrote this:

If you are willing to give the money to help others, then it isn't forceably taken.  So, one can argue the problem isn't the fact the money exchanges hands, but you lack of willingness to give it up.  In this, it isn't theft either.  So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

One could go onto other aspects of what is really your stuff anyhow, but that is a different issue.

 

It wasn't sarcasm, but pointing out that the coersion (cousin to the "it is theft") argument goes away if a person willfully gives money.  So, I then asked, why the person wouldn't want to willfully give to help others?


Except you know... it sort of depends WHAT Your willing to give money to.  That's like saying "Your willing to spend money, so if i rob you and give you a candy bar, it's not robbery.

I'd rather give money to "Feeding America" then I would donate to the govermnet for food stamps. 

Why?  They get 10 meals for every dollar, while food stamps is lucky to get 1 meal for 5.

Let me jump in here with this bit, regarding the entire "no coersion" or "no theft" argument.  

As I have written in this thread here, it is entirely possible for a person to end up not giving the government a cent for taxes for welfare programs, if they manage to give away enough of their money, to take sufficient deductions, so they don't pay a cent.  They are more than capable of picking where the money goes.  The tax code permits this.  If an individual who complains about the money going to welfare, via taxes, isn't choosing to give to charity and do the issue as they choose to, then the person flat out doesn't want to do anything to help anyone.  They have the ability to do so, but they choose not to.  

In this argument, choosing is elevated above everything else and treated so sacred that going against this principle for ANY reason, is seen as an end to an argument.  "You can't make people do what they don't want!"  People in life have to do things they don't want.  People don't want to pay more for gas when the price goes up.  People don't want to have to do long commutes.  People don't want to have to put up with toxic environments.  Life is full of things that people don't want to do, but are compelled to do.  Heck I have to listen to an elderly father verbally abuse my mother and so on, and disrupt sleep.  Do you think I want to?  No.  It isn't what I want, but it is what I have to put up with.  Want to has nothing to do with this.

Another issue with the whole, "but I was coerced" and "it wasn't my will" is that people want a lot of bad things.  Stupidity, in and of itself, is not something to be enshrined, neither is culturally bad behaviors which are harmful to everyone in the big picture.  There is the libertarian argument of "So long as it doesn't hurt other people, it is ok! Go kill yourself for all I care".  Well, an individual does the said suicide, and say things could of turned around.  Let's say there is a future self out there, who could of had it better.  Does this said future version of self approve of suicide and robbing them of the future?  So, no it isn't an acceptable answer, eventhough it is a person's will.  And one didn't even get to the impact it would have on other people by taking one own's life.  

I can also go with the whole "sins of omission" argument in regards to this "but it is coersion" also.  In this, people NOT doing something can be more harmful than what they do.  So, we are to go and enshrine individual's will over everything else, including them not choosing to help someone for whom it would make a bigger difference?  So, in no time ever, failing to act is NEVER a wrong thing to do.  The bystandard effect is not really relevant, and people standing around watching have no more responsibility to do something to act, because that would violate their will:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

The reality is, the whole theft and coersion argument is a weak one, and at best, secondary for determining policy and whatnot.  It is a useful guide to provide ideals to strive for in society on how it organize itself, but fails to provide any positive guidance on what to do.  Merely not punching someone in the nose is not sufficient guidance for society, when one's apathy and ignorance could cause someone to cause much harm.  LIke, mind your own business and someone falls into a pit, because you didn't tell them.  What if you didn't want to tell them?  Why should you suffer any copability in regards to not warning someone of a problem? After all, all that matters is what one wants, so long as you don't negatively impact things.

 

As far as how this relates to the original topic, if one wants to argue the "no coersion or theft", you need to show that a society of people without government intervention is going to suddenly cause the people being helped now to not get hurt, and that EVERY SINGLE person who will get impacted deserves to be impact by the removal of government help.  Otherwise, you will and what you want IS harming others, causing people even to die.