So, Geezer, rappy, in your ideal world, what should happen?
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:09
VIEWED: 12173
PAGE 8 of 15
In my ideal world, people are more interconnected with their community and live less self focused, individualistic lives. Community could include biological family or people who are connected non biologically, but there would be capacity for the very old and very young to be cared for. Services could also be available to support the most vulnerable of that community.
Somebody said on these boards that the permananent care for a disabled family member is beyond the resources of most families, both physically and financially. That's true when family means only 'mother' or 'sister'.
Our communities have become too large to care about the individual and families too small to cope.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- as far as the involvement of family is concerned, clearly it is part of the answer FOR SOME. And where family is involved, there needs to be support (money, regular time off from work, other people to help) for the primary caregivers.
But since family isn't even PART of the answer for EVERYONE, there have to be durable alternatives available EVERYWHERE, FOR EVERYONE.
You refer to several programs and mentioned that these wonderful programs can be found "in many places". Seeing as I'm familiar with both NY (state, not city) and CA, and I've done a little poking around on the inet, I can tell you that these programs are NOT available "everywhere", not even in the comparatively wealthy state of CA. Thinking otherwise is just a fantasy. Because I don't think a person's level of support should depend on where they live, the programs should be available through federal money.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It is wrong to initiate force against anyone.
Seems pretty simple.
But from that rule, you can derive others:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.
Get the idea?
For people who believe it's wrong to do any of these things, it seems apparent that they would believe that people have the right to be secure in their persons and property.
So consider what type of person would feel morally obliged to respect these rights. Seems to me that it would be a person who has quite a bit of consideration for other people - who is concerned about their welfare - since if they weren't concerned they wouldn't care if others were assaulted or swindled or robbed.
Once of the questions you didn't answer was whether a person could "freely" sell themselves into slavery or as body parts. You didn't answer it before, either, and it gets to the heart of the failure in your system of ethics.
A person can be ECONOMICALLY compelled- without any threat of "violence" at all- to do some very dangerous - even fatal- things. TONY asked us, once upon a time, what kinds of economic pressures could be brought to bear on people and how that could be accomplished, and I (and others) started with a list of about 20 different examples (what if there is a water monopoly in your area?) until he cried uncle.
That's why I think your system of ethics is childish: it is so primitive and so oblivious to other forces besides direct violence that it would allow other forms of coercion... even slavery.
Just as an aside, while your ethics stress the individual, I noticed there is nothing in there about family. And yet, you rely on family rather heavily.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Ah, more fantasy. Rappy's only "evidence."
Ah, more delusion. Storybook's claims blown totally out of the water.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
HA!
You'd have to actually post some evidence for that, son.
I know, you think repeating it over and over makes it so. That's why you're so hilarious!
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You always in these arguments ignore the Zero Aggression Principle and the societal principles that would derive from it."
I have four better principles for you:
the golden rule (how do we treat each other directly)
if everybody did it what would it be like (how do we organize ourselves socially)
if the person could go off and farm or hunt and had a source of water and could keep themselves alive without working for you, would they chose to work for you instead (economic organization)
if this was done for seven generations what would it be like (ecological, social, economic sustainability)
Your fantasy society assumes everyone has a CHOICE to be independent (number 3 on the list). If that choice isn't available, your fantasy falls apart. It also doesn't account for the commons, or the future.
To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis
OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.
"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I am impressed with the way you go back and edit your own words to try and make your argument stronger. Doesn't work, but it shows your character very well."
Hmmm ... let's see. I agreed with you that my original post wasn't as representative of your statements as it should have been. I did NOT go back and alter the original post. Instead, when I replied in a new post I altered one word of a quote (I substituted 'most' for 'all') of a statement to better match your statements, so as to better compare meanings and look for vital rather than casual differences. I POINTED OUT THAT I ALTERED IT, WHAT I ALTERED, AND WHY I ALTERED IT. And then I went on to examine the statements.
It seems to me like I was discussing ideas.
What were you doing?
To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis
OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.
"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Once of the questions you didn't answer was whether a person could "freely" sell themselves into slavery or as body parts. You didn't answer it before, either, and it gets to the heart of the failure in your system of ethics.
Because it's one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions.
But do you think that people who were morally opposed to using violence or intimidation against others, or taking advantage of them, would take someone up on his/her offer to sell themselves as a slave? In what situation would it morally benefit someone with that philosophy to buy a slave rather than to hire an employee or just help a fellow person?
I note that people currently donate organs, sometimes to complete strangers. If someone wanted to sell an organ they could do without, how is that different?
Quote:
A person can be ECONOMICALLY compelled- without any threat of "violence" at all- to do some very dangerous - even fatal- things. TONY asked us, once upon a time, what kinds of economic pressures could be brought to bear on people and how that could be accomplished, and I (and others) started with a list of about 20 different examples (what if there is a water monopoly in your area?) until he cried uncle.
You don't think "I'll deny you water, and prevent anyone else from providing it to you, until you die, unless you do what I want." is violence?
Quote:
That's why I think your system of ethics is childish
Nope. Your conception of violence is just very one-dimensional.
Quote:
Just as an aside, while your ethics stress the individual, I noticed there is nothing in there about family. And yet, you rely on family rather heavily.
Nothing in there about same-sex marriage or drug use either. It wasn't part of the point I was trying to make.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"You always in these arguments ignore the Zero Aggression Principle and the societal principles that would derive from it."
I have four better principles for you:
the golden rule (how do we treat each other directly)
Sort'a the point of the ZAP. Treat folks as you'd like to be treated.
Quote:
if everybody did it what would it be like (how do we organize ourselves socially)
Seems more like a question than a principle. How do you think we'd be organized socially if we kept to either the Golden Rule or the ZAP?
Quote:
if the person could go off and farm or hunt and had a source of water and could keep themselves alive without working for you, would they chose to work for you instead (economic organization)
See above. Exchange 'economically' for 'socially'.
Quote:
if this was done for seven generations what would it be like (ecological, social, economic sustainability)
See above.
Quote:
Your fantasy society assumes everyone has a CHOICE to be independent (number 3 on the list). If that choice isn't available, your fantasy falls apart.
No one has complete choice. You can step off a cliff and choose not to fall, and that won't work too well. However, in a society where folks will not coerce you into doing anything, seems you would certainly have some choice as to what you want to do and who you want to associate with. You can also make bad choices, like deciding to manufacture buggy whips in a world where there are no buggies.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Because I don't think a person's level of support should depend on where they live, the programs should be available through federal money.
So how do you propose to deal with the inefficiency and downright incompetence that occurs in many current federal aid programs and that would pretty much inevitably occur in federally operated meals-on-wheels, transportation, etc.?
Would you have everything run top-down, with no allowance for local conditions and existing volunteer efforts, or would you just hand out money?
When the meals-on-wheels czar decides it's more cost-effective to serve the same meal on the same day everywhere in the country, regardless of climate, regional eating habits, or the desires of the folks being fed, will that be okay with you?
(See. I can ask "Have you stopped beating your spouse?" questions too.)
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
the golden rule (how do we treat each other directly)
Sort'a the point of the ZAP. Treat folks as you'd like to be treated.
These aren't QUITE the same. ZAP indicates * ONLY * no DIRECT PERSONAL PHYSICAL aggression or coercion FIRST. But the golden rule goes further. How would you feel if someone was spreading untrue and unpleasant rumors about you? How would you feel if someone divulged your foibles that were entrusted in confidence? How would you feel if you were injured at the side of the road and no one stopped to help? The golden rule covers so much more than 'don't personally physically hurt (or threaten to hurt) someone first'.
if everybody did it what would it be like (how do we organize ourselves socially)
Seems more like a question than a principle. How do you think we'd be organized socially if we kept to either the Golden Rule or the ZAP?
It could be phrased to be an affirmative statement rather than a question. Also, the golden rule is more inclusive than ZAP (see above), they aren't equivalent. So getting those points out of the way, a more vital question is - are there social organizational principles not covered by the golden rule? I'd say the answer is yes. FOR EXAMPLE: maybe your mom never said this to you, but mine did - if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too? This goes to the issue that how we directly treat each other (by some common preferred standard) doesn't address the standard we commonly choose. The Spartans had a common standard for their infants and young boys. Just b/c it was how they expected to be treated, and how they treated each other, is that a standard we wish to adopt? This rule sets treatment of each other out there as a system, where one can look at results, to see if those are the results we want.
if the person could go off and farm or hunt and had a source of water and could keep themselves alive without working for you, would they chose to work for you instead (economic organization)
See above. Exchange 'economically' for 'socially'.
So often these discussions end up in mutual incomprehension at this point: if both people agree, it must be OK v circumstances can coerce people into agreement and that's not OK. I framed it this way to create a definitive point of comparison - one of the person perfectly free to choose one way or the other. I think it's a good standard by which to assess a proposed economic arrangement.
if this was done for seven generations what would it be like (ecological, social, economic sustainability)
See above.
In previous discussions you couldn't address protecting common resources, like wild fish hatcheries, forests that remove CO2, and water resources. In your previous discussions, anything that wasn't owned was up for grabs by the first/ strongest person to access it, and ownership conferred rights to destroy the resource no matter how commonly useful. You have yet to explain how a system based solely on property rights and 'no direct personal physical aggression first' can protect common resources in the present and over time; or recognize social injustices over time; or address economic unsustainability over time.
To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis
OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.
"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME