So, Geezer, rappy, in your ideal world, what should happen?
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:09
VIEWED: 12173
PAGE 1 of 2
I was out shopping the other day and met an interesting woman. Mid 50s, well-dressed and stylish, obviously intelligent and well-educated. (Get your minds out of the gutter, boys.)
The thing that caught my attention was she walked with a walker, dragged one leg a little, her face was a little slack on the same side, and she had pretty obvious difficulties talking. We chatted for quite a while because I was curious what she had to say. Well, her speech was rather elliptical. It looked like she was having problems formulating what was in her mind into beginnings, middles and ends. The topics wandered a bit, one idea would associate with another, then circle back to the beginning. And every now and again, she'd look up and say with difficulty but conviction 'Look at the sky'.
'We live on such a tiny planet.'
'You never know what's going to happen.'
But as I understood her story it goes something like this: She was born on a lot of acreage, and spent her childhood riding horses. She then lived in Hollywood, then got married, and moved up to the mountains. Many years after that, something happened. She didn't say what that was and I couldn't tell. I didn't see any obvious divots like from major traumatic injury or brain surgery, but then, she wore a quirky cap over short hair. And now she lives with her mother, a very straight-laced and prudish 83 year old who looks after her.
What I understood from what the woman was saying was that she wanted to go to bar and get drunk. To pick up a man. To sit on a bench with a friend and watch people go by and comment back and forth. To sit on a hillside with friends and watch the clouds. To meet interesting people like the friends she used to have and associate with the adventures in their lives. To do SOMEthing fun, and human, and capable, and not just take a cab to the store and then go home to her stifling life with mother.
But, my opinion, aside from quietly going crazy, she's safe and cared for for the while.
At some point, though, her mother will pass away. And then what.
So, Geezer, rappy, in your ideal world, what should happen?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I read this post primarily because it was presented in your own words, with no 'links', and no spin as to what others were saying. I found that interesting.
I will sidebar and dispense w/ the usual sorts of comments which often accompany our replies on here.
And while I'll take the accounts posted at face value, and not question the validity, I must note, you did seem to obtain a fair amount of info about this person, her life, while you were out shopping. Was this a casual acquaintance ? First time meeting of happenstance ? Just wondering.
My first reply, though not to sound flippant - " Yeah, a real tale of woe "
And by that I mean, life ain't always fair. In the purest libertarian sense, I really don't know what to say. Stephen Hawking would like to do a lot of stuff too. And I could go on and on, but I'll stick to the matter of this woman.
Ideal world ? She'd have a clean, safe and happy place to live out her life. Based on what's posted, and due to the fact that I'm not by any means in a field which deals w/ individuals such as her, in terms of mental or physical care. And besides the basics, who can really say what she " needs " ? Is it our place to say ? Are we hoping to look after her interests, or ours ?
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"First time meeting of happenstance." We chatted for about an hour and a half on the sidewalk. She wasn't capable of finding her way to the nearest bar, and she wanted me to take her and be her wing-woman. I didn't privately think she should either go there, or drink (especially not knowing if she was prone to seizures or on any medication), or be left alone there, though I didn't express that. So we chatted on the sidewalk.
Also, she's had some type of brain injury. There are things about her that don't add up to the normal casual social encounter.
So, in your ideal world, how does she get a safe place where she can live out her life?
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:
She'd have a clean, safe and happy place to live out her life.
Clean and safe sounds basic. Happy sounds expensive.
I suppose in a purely libertarian world, society would meet her basic needs, but no further. Her care would not be stimulating, it would be minimal. If she were lucky there would be a private charity looking after her rather than a government program with a threadbare libertarian budget - but most likely she would not be so lucky.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KPO - in the purest form, her care would be up to her family and or local community, church, what ever. What takes place later in her life should be greatly determined by what took place before. All of us are the sum of our choices. Not all the results are happy ones. Even if we make the " right " choices, things can turn out pretty damn bad.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm reasonably sure you recognize that we all inescapably have times in our lives when we're dependent on people around us and receive more than we can produce - when we're young, when we're sick or injured, and when we're old. And that sometimes through no fault of anyone's there are people who are disabled. And that sometimes through no fault of anyone's there are people who lose their entire family before them.
That this happens is inescapable in the context of human life.
So, what is your answer for the woman? In your ideal world, when circumstances stack up and you're disabled and alone, what should happen?
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:
KPO - in the purest form, her care would be up to her family and or local community, church, what ever.
True. And lots of people (particularly in poor areas) would fall through the cracks, and none of that help would reach them, and they would be left to languish, and die.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not this ?
Quote:
An 89 year-old retired British art teacher, who was able to be admitted to the Dignitas assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland with the help of the Society for Old Age Rational Suicide (SOARS), has committed suicide.
The woman, Anne, from Sussex, who was neither terminally ill nor seriously handicapped, said in an interview with the Sunday Times just days before her death that she wanted to kill herself because she had had enough of “swimming against the current” of the world. The former art teacher and Royal Navy engineer said she had become exasperated with the modern world of emails, televisions, computers, and supermarket-ready meals.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/04/08/89-Year-Old-British-Woma
n-Helped-Into-Swiss-Clinic-By-SOARS-Commits-Suicide
I honestly don't know, 1kiki. It seems like you want to force me to give a fully inclusive answer, but to be honest, I have neither the experience in this area, the entire story of this woman's life, nor much inclination or incentive to say much more than I already have.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
KPO - in the purest form, her care would be up to her family and or local community, church, what ever.
True. And lots of people (particularly in poor areas) would fall through the cracks, and none of that help would reach them, and they would be left to languish, and die.
It's not personal. It's just war.
That pretty much happens already.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I honestly don't know, 1kiki. It seems like you want to force me to give a fully inclusive answer, but to be honest, I have neither the experience in this area, the entire story of this woman's life, nor much inclination or incentive to say much more than I already have."
Well, I was wondering if you had any place for her in your ideal world. What happens to her? Is she left to the whims of circumstance and time? Or is there notice taken that dependency is inevitable for all people some of the time, and for some people all of the 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
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
KPO - in the purest form, her care would be up to her family and or local community, church, what ever.
True. And lots of people (particularly in poor areas) would fall through the cracks, and none of that help would reach them, and they would be left to languish, and die.
It's not personal. It's just war.
That pretty much happens already.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
But not enough. We need to be MORE libertarian!
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
But not enough. We need to be MORE libertarian!
See, I view those 2 comments to be contradictory.
A more libertarian society would be where everyone is taught to do for themselves, so as to be in a better position to help others, when certain situations arise.
It may sound counter intuitive to you, as though I think everyone needs to be more selfish, and greedy, but that's not it at all. People need to be more self aware, of the choices they make and the things they do. The fewer able bodied folks we have to take care of , those with more legitimate needs WON'T fall through the cracks.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"A more libertarian society would be where everyone is taught to do for themselves ..."
Well, my first instinct is to poke that with a stick by rephrasing is as - WE NEED TO TEACH EVERYONE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!
Anyway, a society where everyone is taught to do for themselves would preclude hiring people for less than the full value of their work in order to make a profit - would it not? Making money off of other people's work strikes me as the ultimate parasitism.
In any case, just to let you know - care for even one permanently disabled person - child or adult - is beyond the resources of a single family. But you seem to think that social recognition of that is somehow fostering parasitism, in a way that profit from others' work is not. Anyway, I see the topic has lost its appeal. I was hoping to get your thoughtful appraisal of that kind of situation. Maybe next 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
In my ultra-perfect world she would be cared for in a communal home with people like her with whom she could relate. Like a modern village. We've lost the sense of caring for each other that used to exist. My Dad is 91 and living on his own due to that mentality. We wanted him to be near us, but he doesn't like snow. The pioneer spirit is great, but it does have its limits.
On the other hand, online meet-up groups!
Get that lady a laptop!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting question.
I had to deal with something similar, since my mother had Alzheimer's for the last ten years of her life. She lived in Atlanta when it appeared, and we were in D.C. and both working full time.
Early on we were able to get by with having two ladies look out for her in her home - there 18 hours a day and preparing meals, taking her out to visit and to church, and helping her bathe, etc. so she could retain a semblance of her normal life. This ran us around $2,000 a month (in the early 90s), which was just about the amount of the pension she got from my father's work. After a couple of years, she started to get up at night and roam he neighborhood and was getting too confused for the ladies to deal with, so we knew that we had to get her into a more controlled situation.
We visited several assisted living facilities in Virginia, and chose the one that asked "What does she like to do?" rather than the ones that asked "Will she take directions?". This facility was running about $2,500 a month and eventually went up to $3,500 over time. Since my dad was a Civil Service employee in the time before they had to pay into Social Security or Medicaid, we got no assisted living benefits from them, so any costs over Mom's pension were out of pocket for us.
Fortunately, our workplace was close to Mom's home, so we could go over on our lunch hour and visit a good bit. For a while she knew who we were, but then started thinking I was my father, and eventually just didn't know us at all anymore.
The folks at the assisted living facility who took care of the residents' day-to-day needs were generally very good and patient, but there was a lot of turnover, since many couldn't stand the emotional toll of seeing folks they knew sort of disappear before their eyes. The ones that could stay and still maintain a caring attitude were really amazing.
Eventually Mom's body just shut down and, since she had a living will and a 'do not resuscitate' order, she died quietly in her bed.
So that's what happened in my real world, and I'd think it was about as ideal as could be expected, given the Alzheimer's.
"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:
"A more libertarian society would be where everyone is taught to do for themselves ..."
Well, my first instinct is to poke that with a stick by rephrasing is as - WE NEED TO TEACH EVERYONE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!
You're pickin' nits now. Same coin, different sides. Before one can DO, they must THINK. One is no more exclusive than the other.
Quote:
Anyway, a society where everyone is taught to do for themselves would preclude hiring people for less than the full value of their work in order to make a profit - would it not? Making money off of other people's work strikes me as the ultimate parasitism.
Nah, it wouldn't. Work is a portion of an individuals life. Hence, time is money. And when it comes to WORK, those w/ more experience and education, generally speaking get more money ( Entertainers fall out of this model ) Not real sure what your point is in bringing up hiring anyone one for less than " full value " , how ever that's being determined. Seems unrelated to the issue.
Quote:
In any case, just to let you know - care for even one permanently disabled person - child or adult - is beyond the resources of a single family. But you seem to think that social recognition of that is somehow fostering parasitism, in a way that profit from others' work is not. Anyway, I see the topic has lost its appeal. I was hoping to get your thoughtful appraisal of that kind of situation. Maybe next time.
No idea where you get the idea of my views fostering parasitism. YOU brought that up, not I.
You got my answers.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I was hoping to get your thoughtful appraisal of that kind of situation. Maybe next time.
And this coming from the crazy bitch who has stalked every AURaptor post for months to assert that she doesn't give a shit is priceless. What a fucking psycho.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- Your mom had ideal care. She's lucky to have had a family who looked after her, and who were insightful and caring enough to find a living facility that was close by and attentive, and well-off enough to pay the eventual price tag. If there is a ideal arrangement for such a devastating condition, that would be it. You should be proud that you did so well. Chance and nature... they spit in the face of our plans.
But what about that lady that KIKI spoke to? It seems to me she lives a cramped life, subject to the whims of her (very elderly) mother... and that, after that, no support at all?
We tolerate caring for our young (although not so much anymore!) with the hope that they'll become productive members of society; that even if they don't take care of their parents directly they will fly and be free. But the demented and brain damaged and disabled... they represent a huge burden, both physical and emotional, with no hope of future productivity. Even if you worked a lifetime and raised a family and contributed to your church, does that pay for a decade of personal care? And some young people, of course, will never meaningfully contribute to society. What to do? It's a worry that I face as the parent of a brain-damaged child who will never, ever, be independent. And, if we're honest with ourselves, as we get older it's a situation we all may eventually face ourselves.
And, come of think of it... more and more children are being dx with autism. The risk is now something like 1 in 68. WE have all of those vets with PTSD and brain damage. And people who are living (their hearts are still beating) longer and longer.
I think this is a problem we will have to face socially as well as individually, because it's a problem that is getting bigger and bigger.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have my sympathy man. That's a rough way to have to say goodbye.
Originally posted by Geezer:
So that's what happened in my real world, and I'd think it was about as ideal as could be expected, given the Alzheimer's.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm more than happy to discuss topics with anyone who's capable of intelligent and honest discussion. That excludes a lot of you. And, you must think I spend time tracking down rappy's posts. No, I just reply to whatever's up top and particular threads I'm interested in. I hope that clears up any confusion you may have given yourself.
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I was hoping to get your thoughtful appraisal of that kind of situation. Maybe next time.
And this coming from the crazy bitch who has stalked every AURaptor post for months to assert that she doesn't give a shit is priceless. What a fucking psycho.
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
Rappy
WHOA there fella'! Chill.
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 1kiki:
Rappy
WHOA there fella'! Chill.
Chill ?
I think you have confused Jong's response for mine.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
But what about that lady that KIKI spoke to? It seems to me she lives a cramped life, subject to the whims of her (very elderly) mother... and that, after that, no support at all?
I don't know. Lots of maybes. Is she her mother's sole heir? What will her financial situation be after her mother is gone? Does she actually have the capability to take care of herself if she were out from under her mother's thumb? Does she have siblings who might take up guardianship? After her mother is gone, could she hire a companion to take care of the stuff she can't handle? She seems willing to try and make connections with other people. Could folks like KIKI become part of a circle of friends?
Pretty much every situation like this is going to have unique aspects. Makes it hard to propose an ideal solution, except in the most general terms.
"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
That was the question I was going to ask. So, I have to take her situation at face value.
She doesn't seem to be getting support services like vocational, physical, rehabilitation, or occupational therapy. I presume it's deemed either too expensive to pay for, or not useful enough, or both. When she talked about her past she never mentioned siblings. Her ex is out of the picture. The one and only person she talked about who's currently in her life is her mother.
Personally, I don't think she can live on her own. The next day I talked with one of the workers at the store where I met her. (btw I complemented her on her outfit and her cap in particular, which is how we met.) This worker said she has a hard time dialing the cab that takes her around when she needs to get somewhere, and that's despite the fact that, according to the worker, she's known the cabbie well enough and long enough to have a mutual interaction where they kid each other. FWIW that's what I've seen with other people with brain damage. When a particular area of the brain is damaged, practice does NOT make perfect. Some things are just gone and won't come back. So, she has significant disabilities in handling life's essentials.
I personally have too many responsibilities to my own family, which includes elderly siblings and disabled youngsters, to take on any more. And I see my situation reflected around me - many people are working as hard as they can just to keep afloat. I don't expect there are too many angels who will be able to make the significant and long-term sacrifices it would take to ensure this woman's future.
So, if you wysiwyg her situation with the information I've added - What room does your ideal society make for her?
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 1kiki:
So, if you wysiwyg her situation with the information I've added - What room does your ideal society make for her?
In my ideal society - assuming she had not previously made arrangements to pay for her care when she was no longer able to care for her self (Insurance, voluntary mutual assurance groups, etc.), and had no family or friends willing to take on the role of guardian - a voluntary charitable group would provide whatever assistance she needed.
"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
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-po
verty-statistics.aspx
In 2012, 46.5 million people (15.0 percent) were in poverty
In 2012, 59.4 percent of food-insecure households participated in at least one of the three major Federal food assistance programs –Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamp Program), The National School Lunch Program, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. [ix] Given the average household size if 2.55 http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/traditional/american-households-are-
getting-smaller-and-headed-by-older-adults-24981/ the Federal government is supplying 70 million people with continuing food assistance.
Feeding America provides emergency food assistance to an estimated 37 million low-income people annually.
Now, this isn't an apples to apples comparison.
The statistics for Federal programs refers to HOUSEHOLDS. And while the website doesn't say whether they're a sole, major, or supplemental source of food, looking elsewhere, SNAP for example, provides about $168 per person per month for a family of 3. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226
Meanwhile, charitable organizations refer to PEOPLE. I find their statement hard to evaluate. It makes sense, knowing the mechanics of how they operate, that they're talking about PORTIONS or MEALS - ie, they provide 37 million individual MEALS per year. And while Federal programs are geared toward food insecurity, charities are geared toward low-income people.
I bring this up because there's nothing stopping people from donating to food banks and kitchens. And certainly the need is there. But of people who really NEED food, 70 million get ongoing government assistance every day, while private charities provide 35 million meals, or about 96,000 per day. In other words, people can't really depend on charity to survive.
So, do you think charity will provided for all people in need in your ideal society, or will many be allowed to slip into complete destitution a la Dickens?
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 1kiki:
So, do you think charity will provided for all people in need in your ideal society, or will many be allowed to slip into complete destitution a la Dickens?
So, as I sort of expected, after asking what our opinion of what our ideal society would do, you ignore what Auraptor and I consider an ideal society, and impose your own opinions on us. How usual.
"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
No.
But you seem to think that people will behave the way you want them to. Ideal society = ideal people. If you assume that people will somehow behave differently than they do now, or than they have in the past like Dickensian England, how do you propose they get to that new standard?
Meanwhile, I was evaluating how people like that woman I met would fare without public assistance ie solely on voluntary charity, as per your ideals. To do that I looked at figures: how many people are helped by voluntary charity, what is the total need, and, for comparison, what is the public effort. Voluntary charity is nowhere near meeting the need, or matching public assistance.
Do you have a problem with looking at the adequacy of voluntary charity in keeping people from starvation?
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 1kiki:
No.
But you seem to think that people will behave the way you want them to.
Yep. You asked for my ideal society, so people would behave as I wanted them to.
Quote:
Ideal society = ideal people. If you assume that people will somehow behave differently than they do now, or than they have in the past like Dickensian England, how do you propose they get to that new standard?
A lot of it is in pretty standard libertarian philosophy. Folks who espouse libertarianism would be aware that it is their responsibility to provide for their future and the future of those for whom they are responsible. Seems to me that such folks would also be wiling to provide for folks of the same mind who, through no fault of their own, might have problems.
Quote:
Meanwhile, I was evaluating how people like that woman I met would fare without public assistance ie solely on voluntary charity, as per your ideals. To do that I looked at figures: how many people are helped by voluntary charity, what is the total need, and, for comparison, what is the public effort. Voluntary charity is nowhere near meeting the need, or matching public assistance.
Of course, you're looking at statistics based on a society where lots of folks consider it the government's, or society's, responsibility to take care of them. How well does that seem to be working?
Quote:
Do you have a problem with looking at the adequacy of voluntary charity in keeping people from starvation?
Nope. In my ideal world, the vast majority of folks would understand that it was their responsibility to plan to have something in place to take care of themselves when they couldn't, and that voluntary associations would be in place for the folks whose plans didn't work out.
And KIKI...
In YOUR ideal society, how would people such as your friend be cared for?
"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
So, you base your society on a notion that everyone thinks just like you. That doesn't sound like freedom. Meanwhile, the societies with the greatest government input and the highest taxes have the longest lifespans, highest standards of living, most educated populations, and highest happiness indexes
http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013/
The report identifies the countries with the highest levels of happiness:
Denmark
Norway
Switzerland
Netherlands
Sweden
... I think that compares well to meager charity left-overs any day.
In my ideal society everyone would be paid the full value if what they actually produce. There would be no 85 people controlling 50% of global wealth, while billions toil in poverty. People would be able to have personal financial security based on a reasonable amount of work. But people would also recognize that some burdens are too great for an individual, or a family. And the things that the woman needs - therapy, a job she can do, a society where she's included - would be available to her.
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 assume folks will follow common sense and some basic laws. How outrageous of me.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And that means ... ? I have no idea what you're trying to say.
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
Greatest govt input = greater govt control, which means less individual freedom.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, you base your society on a notion that everyone thinks just like you.
No. I base my ideal society on the notion that most people in it will share certain principles (pretty much the definition of a society). The folks in the countries you list obviously share certain principles, or their countries wouldn't run the way they do. Do you consider that everyone in Sweden, for example, thinks just alike, or thinks just like you do?
"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:Is it possible to have an intelligent conversation about this???? Or will this be just another fruitless attempt??
Greatest govt input = greater govt control, which means less individual freedom.
Let's take the notion of driving a car. There are all kinds of rules. Yanno, street lights, traffic lights, stop signs, road striping! The roads... funny, but they need to be built and maintained.
So let's imagine the situation WITHOUT government input and control:
No streets in front of MY house, because, yanno, I don't drive and I don't want it. So if you want to get to the person past me, you'll have to go the long way around, through the warren of alleys and whatever it is that people decided should be in front of their house. And you better come during the day- there won't be any lighting.
And your neck had better be on a swivel! Everyone will be driving every kind of vehicle every which way: donkey carts, bicycles, pedestrians, big delivery trucks- none of them stopping at intersections, which are clogged because everyone is trying to force their way through. But you're in a hurry. If ONLY you could get to that toll-road, which will cost you a crap-ton of money!
---------------------
When people live together, rappy, there ARE limits on individual behavior. And when people get together and do things collectively ... even if it's the "government" which is creating this collective ... a lot more things can be accomplished, making life easier for EVERYONE.
The point is, with collective effort and some rules, people can experience MORE freedom and a BETTER life than if they were to just have to muddle along individually. You failed to take that into account.
So if you could be SPECIFIC as to what you didn't want "the government" doing, and also come up with a reasonable alternative to replace critical functions (something that has a prayer of working) you'd have a lot more credibility. But when you make highly global statements (ALL government is bad) you lose a lot of people. If you want to convince people... I'm not sure you do, you seem to not have learned what it takes to even have a relevant conversation, after all of these years on a discussion board... you'll do something more than just throw in slogans.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" In my ideal world, the vast majority of folks would understand that it was their responsibility to plan to have something in place to take care of themselves when they couldn't, and that voluntary associations would be in place for the folks whose plans didn't work out."
"So, you base your society on a notion that (most) think just like you."
"No. I base my ideal society on the notion that most people in it will share certain principles (pretty much the definition of a society)."
So, I threw these up together to see how they fared. Took out the everybody from my summary and substituted most, as that's more accurate - and it comes out the same as far as I can see. I'm not sure where the dispute is. To understand the same things is to think the same things is to share the same principles (thoughts).
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 think the thing that Geezer fails to recognize is that people may simply not WANT the future he proposes. It's very possible that they understand the basis of his ideal society (I'm not sure I do... he's never been able to explain how it's supposed to work or even what it's supposed to achieve or what it's supposed to "look like" when it's done) but who the fuck wants a society of everyone against everyone, with all significant interactions reduced to property ownership and sales? It sounds like a fucking propertarian dystopian nightmare to me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I see rappy hasn't responded to my post, and I bet he never answers the question. Or he'll come up with his infamous rappy-dodge, which he's had to resort to a half-dozen times recently- "I never said that".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Siggy - let's be honest here, for a change.
1kiki said GREATEST govt control. To me, that implies govt all up in one's life, 24/7.
I do not hold to that , one bit.
Do you ?
However, LIMITED govt control does NOT mean ZERO govt.
How can you, and damn near everyone on the Left keep from making the same false premise that cutting back govt doesn't mean ELIMINATING it ? It's the perpetual false narrative the Left makes, that it's either " Julia's world ", or complete anarchy, and no where can there be anything in between ?
Our Founders had the right idea. LIMITED govt does not mean NO govt.
Are we at least clear on THIS issue ?
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"1kiki said GREATEST govt control. To me, that implies govt all up in one's life, 24/7."
No, WE have that, thanks to the NSA. That thing you so famously defended by saying if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't bother you.
Oh, here are some relevant quotes about your love of privacy and freedom from government:
"I think the Patriot Act was a needless expanse of US Gov't. True. But so far, it's not denied anyone their rights."
"Why is it when ever this President tries to do something which helps protect this country from a very real threat of ISLAMIC terrorism, a specific group of whiners tries to portray it as a fate worse than getting your head cut off ? Whether it's disrupting the financial transactions of terrorist groups, intercepting their phone calls or trying to get relevant information out of those who have sworn to murder as many innocent men/women and children as possible, some still see it as a violation of OUR rights that this Gov't should take steps to protect its citizens"
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:
"1kiki said GREATEST govt control. To me, that implies govt all up in one's life, 24/7."
No, WE have that, thanks to the NSA.
That's part of the equation, yes, but I also see that as an offshoot into a different topic all together. One area is how much should we rely on govt to be a part of our every day lives, while another would be the intrusive nature of govt.
It's one thing for govt to feed, house, educate, and " provide " for us, and quite another for it to be tapping our phones, e-mail and tracking us where ever we go.
The NSA seems to be one area where pretty much all sides can at least have SOME agreement.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They are so obsessed with the whole good guy vs. Bad guy GAME that they can't see the reality that they have crossed the line themselves into a threat to National Security by taking focus off REAL (potential) problems in favour of perpetuating and GROWING their organization.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The NSA seems to be one area where pretty much all sides can at least have SOME agreement.
That's like MI6 having OO7, OO17, OO3056....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's one thing for govt to feed, house, educate, and " provide " for us, and quite another for it to be tapping our phones, e-mail and tracking us where ever we go.
The NSA seems to be one area where pretty much all sides can at least have SOME agreement.
"I think the Patriot Act was a needless expanse of US Gov't. True. But so far, it's not denied anyone their rights."
"Why is it when ever this President tries to do something which helps protect this country from a very real threat of ISLAMIC terrorism, a specific group of whiners tries to portray it as a fate worse than getting your head cut off ? Whether it's disrupting the financial transactions of terrorist groups, intercepting their phone calls or trying to get relevant information out of those who have sworn to murder as many innocent men/women and children as possible, some still see it as a violation of OUR rights that this Gov't should take steps to protect its citizens"
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
"Why is it when ever this President tries to do something which helps protect this country from a very real threat of ISLAMIC terrorism, a specific group of whiners tries to portray it as a fate worse than getting your head cut off ?"
Whomever said this originally was correct. I spend 2 to 3 days a week fighting off ISLAMIC terrorists in my OWN Condo complex. It's such a chore.
If I wasn't a trained Ninja, I know I'd be dead by now...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
"Why is it when ever this President tries to do something which helps protect this country from a very real threat of ISLAMIC terrorism, a specific group of whiners tries to portray it as a fate worse than getting your head cut off ?"
Whomever said this originally was correct. I spend 2 to 3 days a week fighting off ISLAMIC terrorists in my OWN Condo complex. It's such a chore.
If I wasn't a trained Ninja, I know I'd be dead by now...
All the wire tapping and dropping of eaves didn't stop the Boston Marathon bombing, did it ?
Or the Time Square bomber from nearly completing his task of taking out 100's , if not 1000's of New Yorkers.
I guess I could be like the Lefties here, and say " NO COPS, ANYWHERE ! " as some sort of sane, rational response to over reaches of the NSA ?
Despite what some make it out to be, it's not an All-Or-Nothing proposition.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, Red Pill Addict, just GOOD ones not micro-managed by bureaucratic know-nothings. Fill & expand the agencies with yes-men morons and you get 9-11 & the Boston Bombing. NOTHING replaces GOOD people effectively.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I guess I could be like the Lefties here, and say " NO COPS, ANYWHERE ! " as some sort of sane, rational response to over reaches of the NSA ?
Did you even SEE Skyfall? The message in that film regarding the intelligence communities is absolutely spot on.
Print outs, spread sheets, computer assessments & predictions of likelihood are worthless, as we have seen. Human decision and intent is best interpolated by well trained & seasoned PROFESSIONALS, not computers & sociology majors or Presidents. Guidelines must be in place, but the chain of command is what beats us to our defeat in many cases.
Hire the BEST & trust them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Did you even SEE Skyfall? The message in that film regarding the intelligence communities is absolutely spot on.
" Oh dear lord, he's confusing HOLLYWOOD with real life !! "
See, this is the sort of response I'd get if I were to make such a comment.
No, not seen Skyfall yet, but I'd be there are a plethora of movies I could bring up and point to as having similar messages, which we'd likely both agree. Or not.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's just an okay Bond film IMHO, but the message is pretty stellar.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, not seen Skyfall yet
Trust the best; second guess/micro manage them to your peril.
(The movie made a billion dollars because of that statement indicating a major distrust of said nonsense in all walks of life both corporate & civil service)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I guess I could be like the Lefties here, and say " NO COPS, ANYWHERE ! " as some sort of sane, rational response to over reaches of the NSA ?"
Please find a quote for that.
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 1kiki:
"I guess I could be like the Lefties here, and say " NO COPS, ANYWHERE ! " as some sort of sane, rational response to over reaches of the NSA ?"
Please find a quote for that.
Don't have to, because it's an obvious simplified example, and not a direct quote. It's been implied, time and time again, when ever those who want to argue falsely make a claim about my position , on damn near anything.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You never do.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Don't have to.
That's a train don't come.
Mostly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So rappy, when we QUOTE YOU DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD we're somehow 'misrepresenting' you.
And when you can't find a single quote for what YOU claim we're saying, what are 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 chrisisall:Quote:You never do.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Don't have to.
That's a train don't come.
Mostly.
I usually do, but not for mundane crap like gay wedding cakes and photography for gay weddings, which is in the current news.
Whether it's lies about the GOP on Healthcare - " And with that, a Republican wants federally subsidized hospitals to turn away ill human beings who lack insurance. Certainly customary of the “pro-life” party, right? " , which is nothing but an intentional distortion of the facts...
Or you claiming crap about Ninja skills and mocking the point of fighting against Islamo Jihadists who want to kill Americans ( 9/11, Ft Hood, DC Sniper, Times Square bomber, Boston Marathon bombers, Shoe bomber, Panties bomber , etc... ) , there is a real clear and present danger, regardless of what your WISH were true.
There IS a place for NSA to be doing SOMETHING to try to connect the dots before another 9/11 happens, but it doesn't have to include granny being felt up by the TSA or everyone being watched 24/7.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So rappy, when we QUOTE YOU DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD we're somehow 'misrepresenting' you.
And when you can't find a single quote for what YOU claim we're saying, what are YOU doing?
You're going anal here, simply because you can't win the discussion. I've given examples a plenty, so there's no need for a direct quote. Only thing is, you intentionally do this shit, so then you can go on arguing what the definition of IS is, and continue to NOT deal w/ the issue.
( And no, I never claimed you asked anyone for the exact definition of IS, dumb ass. That is an obvious and clear reference to Bill Clinton, and his obfuscating from having to simply admit he and Monica did in fact have sexual relations. He hyper twisted the language, so as to try to get out from having to simply admit what he'd done. The Left ALWAYS does this, so it's no surprise that you're trying to do it as well )
I suppose, TECHNICALLY, I should have use italics, and not quotes, but fuck, this isn't a god damn thesis. It's an informal internet forum.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I've given examples a plenty" Where?
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 1kiki:
" In my ideal world, the vast majority of folks would understand that it was their responsibility to plan to have something in place to take care of themselves when they couldn't, and that voluntary associations would be in place for the folks whose plans didn't work out."
"So, you base your society on a notion that (most) think just like you."
"No. I base my ideal society on the notion that most people in it will share certain principles (pretty much the definition of a society)."
So, I threw these up together to see how they fared. Took out the everybody from my summary and substituted most, as that's more accurate - and it comes out the same as far as I can see. I'm not sure where the dispute is. To understand the same things is to think the same things is to share the same principles (thoughts).
The dispute is that people can share principles about a particular societal goal without having to share opinions about everything ("...think just like you"). Lots of folks in the U.S. and other democracies share the idea that representative democracy is a good thing, but differ greatly in how they see it applied, or the goals such a democracy should have.
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.
"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:
I think the thing that Geezer fails to recognize is that people may simply not WANT the future he proposes. It's very possible that they understand the basis of his ideal society (I'm not sure I do... he's never been able to explain how it's supposed to work or even what it's supposed to achieve or what it's supposed to "look like" when it's done) but who the fuck wants a society of everyone against everyone, with all significant interactions reduced to property ownership and sales? It sounds like a fucking propertarian dystopian nightmare to me.
So we've had a lot of "that won't work", reductio ad absurdum arguments arguing things no one has said, and general insult from you, but no response to KIKI's original question.
So, SignyM, in your ideal world, what should happen to KIKI's friend and folks like her? How would you set it up so that she'd be cared for?
"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
Ideally??
Drawn from real people, this is what I've seen, where it worked, where it fell short, and where it would need to be filled in:
Ideally, there would be family members nearby. Children, younger siblings, nieces and nephews. The family members who take on caring for an elder or disabled relative are carrying a TREMENDOUS burden, financial, physical and emotional. The fewer people who are involved, the worse it is. At my age and situation, I speak both from experience (daughter, MIL) and observation (mom, parents of people that I work with). But in today's society, when families split up by thousands of miles just to find work and there are fewer and fewer children, it's not always possible. Family is NOT the answer now, it won't be the answer in the future. (And it won't be the answer in YOUR envisioned future either... unless your envisioned future has families living in self-sustaining enclaves where the whole family doesn't have to hive off to find work.)
Some elderly people like to continue to live at home.
For the alone-and-mainly-functional elderly, how about minimally-intrusive help to start? Meals on Wheels, for example, is excellent minimally-intrusive assistance- they bring meals, sit and chat, do a subtle "welfare check" when they visit. It was a Meals on Wheels person who detected a gas leak in our mom's house (being elderly, her sense of smell wasn't good). Visiting nurses (part of the universal single-payer healthcare in my ideal society), even visiting GPs. (They do that in France, and pay less per person for healthcare. Why cant' we do that here?) Drivers to help take people around.
When live-in help is required, pay family members to do it. Add as necessary government-paid household assistants (housecleaners, people to help with personal care) for people who could be maintained in their own homes. When living at home is not longer possible (and it CAN be possible, under some circumstances, with enough support: My MIL lived with us to her death from cancer, our mom lived at home with our eldest sister's help until her death from COPD) or desired (some elderly prefer assisted-living) government-run assisted living. The fact that you could find a decent facility tells me that it's possible to staff one. There are programs in NYS that allow the development of small group homes or assisted-living facilities in the familiar community- in this case, they're private but they receive real-estate tax credits. Being nearby, where family members can visit often, patients are less subject to neglect. Obviously there would have to be good oversight. When we hire people to take care of our daughter, we interview a number of people who work at elder-care facilities. Some are well-meaning but ignorant, some are just callous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I've given examples a plenty" Where?
Like every time he makes that claim - nowhere. That won't for a second stop him from claiming he did, over and over.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well I just answered that question. And what it boils down to is... if you can find that kind of care commercially, it can be done by the government.
I think the thing that Geezer fails to recognize is that people may simply not WANT the future he proposes. It's very possible that they understand the basis of his ideal society (I'm not sure I do... he's never been able to explain how it's supposed to work or even what it's supposed to achieve or what it's supposed to "look like" when it's done) but who the fuck wants a society of everyone against everyone, with all significant interactions reduced to property ownership and sales? It sounds like a fucking propertarian dystopian nightmare to me. -signy
So we've had a lot of "that won't work", reductio ad absurdum arguments arguing things no one has said, and general insult from you, but no response to KIKI's original question.-geezer
As far as the rest of your comments
The idea of HOW a libertarian "society" would work as been addressed, over and over and over, and you have NOT ONCE been able to provide a description or process by which your propertarian assumptions would turn into a functioning society. In fact, in at least one thread (the "show me a single society in which libertarianism works" one) you repeatedly disavowed the ability to do so. The only explanation you've been able to come up with is... in my ideal world, with ideal people, society would be ideal. So the only person who's engaged in reductio ad absurdum arguments, as far as I can tell, has been you.
So let me once again re-address that concept about how a functioning society can be created from propertarian assumptions, and maybe if you could finally address my concerns and questions we can get somewhere.
The essential right- in fact, the ONLY right- of people in your society is the right to own property and the right to enter into contracts and to have them enforced. Even your relationship to YOURSELF is one of ownership... And somehow, amidst this profound emphasis on property, ownership, and contractual obligation (enforced by private courts), people are supposed to have a deep familial loyalty, respect for the individual, AND a compassion for the unpropertied.
In your society, there is no minimum guarantee of property. So, one of the questions that I asked (which you never answered) was: For people who have nothing left to own or to sell- can they sell themselves into slavery? Can they sell themselves as body parts? If the contract was entered into "freely"... albeit economic compelled ... technically, in your society, I supposed it would be possible because I have not heard once about the right to liberty or right to life. Maybe it was an oversight on your part. If you meant to include it, let me know.
There is also no UPPER bound on the property that one can own. So despite the literally millenia of history in which entities get larger and larger by swallowing up smaller units (hamlets to villages to cities to duchies to kingdoms to empires; mom-and-pop shops to chains to monopolies) you imagine that people will somehow resist monopolization/ collectivization and maintain an economy of small units. So my other question would be: If that is the case, what is the additional ethic (besides a propertarian one) that limits the size of an enterprise?
The third problem I have is with the nature of people themselves, and whether they could ever start out with your assumptions and develop a society that you envision. The society that you envision is highly individualistic- atomized into independent buyers and sellers of goods and services. You see every person as a self-sufficient "unit" who can approach the remainder of society on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. As I've said, I don't think it would remain in such a state for very long due to economic forces- and since a collective is ALWAYS more powerful than an in
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I've given examples a plenty" Where?
Like every time he makes that claim - nowhere. That won't for a second stop him from claiming he did, over and over.
And every time I have an example, y'all bitch out of the discussion and pretend it didn't happen.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Ideally??
Drawn from real people, this is what I've seen, where it worked, where it fell short, and where it would need to be filled in:
Ideally, there would be family members nearby. Children, younger siblings, nieces and nephews. The family members who take on caring for an elder or disabled relative are carrying a TREMENDOUS burden, financial, physical and emotional. The fewer people who are involved, the worse it is. At my age and situation, I speak both from experience (daughter, MIL) and observation (mom, parents of people that I work with). But in today's society, when families split up by thousands of miles just to find work and there are fewer and fewer children, it's not always possible. Family is NOT the answer now, it won't be the answer in the future. (And it won't be the answer in YOUR envisioned future either... unless your envisioned future has families living in self-sustaining enclaves where the whole family doesn't have to hive off to find work.)
Okay, so do you have to have a one-size-fits-all solution? Just because families can't always be there, that's not an acceptable part of the plan for you?
Families do work for the care of the elderly or infirm in a lot of situations. I was able to provide care, through financial support, of my mother from 600 miles away. That takes some of the burden off other solutions.
Quote:
Some elderly people like to continue to live at home.
For the alone-and-mainly-functional elderly, how about minimally-intrusive help to start? Meals on Wheels, for example, is excellent minimally-intrusive assistance- they bring meals, sit and chat, do a subtle "welfare check" when they visit. It was a Meals on Wheels person who detected a gas leak in our mom's house (being elderly, her sense of smell wasn't good).
Interesting that your first example of a program that works is one that is mostly either supported by voluntary organizations or local (City and County) governments. Even the government supported units rely heavily on volunteers to provide their services. The voluntary organizations are funded largely by contributions through the United Way and other charitable organizations.
Are you suggesting that such organizations be co-opted by larger governments (State/national) and stop soliciting for volunteers and donations?
Sticking to the volunteer theme...
Quote:
Drivers to help take people around.
Also plenty of voluntary organizations that do just this.
Quote:
Visiting nurses (part of the universal single-payer healthcare in my ideal society)
http://vnaa.org/
Quote:
even visiting GPs. (They do that in France, and pay less per person for healthcare. Why cant' we do that here?)
I can go on line and find doctors who make house calls pretty much anywhere in the country. As to cost, convince doctors to earn less money, and we could pay less.
Quote:
When live-in help is required, pay family members to do it.
So family IS the answer now.
Quote:
Add as necessary government-paid household assistants (housecleaners, people to help with personal care) for people who could be maintained in their own homes.
What if the family is able to pay for it?
Quote:
When living at home is not longer possible ... government-run assisted living.
Why government run? Many families who can pay or folks who can afford it on their own could, and do, use private facilities quite well.
Quote:
The fact that you could find a decent facility tells me that it's possible to staff one.
With, as I noted, pretty high staff turnover.
Quote:
There are programs in NYS that allow the development of small group homes or assisted-living facilities in the familiar community- in this case, they're private but they receive real-estate tax credits. Being nearby, where family members can visit often, pNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The essential right- in fact, the ONLY right- of people in your society is the right to own property and the right to enter into contracts and to have them enforced. Even your relationship to YOURSELF is one of ownership... And somehow, amidst this profound emphasis on property, ownership, and contractual obligation (enforced by private courts), people are supposed to have a deep familial loyalty, respect for the individual, AND a compassion for the unpropertied.
And, as usual, you pick one aspect of something and ignore the others.
You always in these arguments ignore the Zero Aggression Principle and the societal principles that would derive from it.
You should understand what the ZAP is since I've mentioned it several times, but since you tend to forget it, here it is again:
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.
And if they're that concerned about the welfare of their fellows, would they not be willing to assist them in time of need?
"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
Geezer's penchant for engaging in masterbatory tete-a-tetes with the libtard psychos is something that needs to be studied at the clinical level in Vienna.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So basically you hate our governments past & present?
Originally posted by Geezer:
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:So basically you hate our governments past & present?
Originally posted by Geezer:
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.
So do you have an opinion on the subject, Chris, or just the usual sad try at a bon mot?
"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 Geezer:
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.
And if they're that concerned about the welfare of their fellows, would they not be willing to assist them in time of need?
Perhaps, perhaps not. Most people don't steal or hurt others, most people also don't go out of their way to offer others help. Watch how many cars drive by a broken down car on the road sometime.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Those standards are laughable. No government or corporation could exist much less function well sticking to every one of them.
Originally posted by Geezer:
So do you have an opinion on the subject
They happen to be part of my own personal philosophy though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I've given examples a plenty" Where?
Like every time he makes that claim - nowhere. That won't for a second stop him from claiming he did, over and over.
And every time I have an example, y'all bitch out of the discussion and pretend it didn't happen.
Ah, more fantasy. Rappy's only "evidence."
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
The paralysis sounds like the cokeheads I know. The erratic brain function sounds like the potheads I know. Drinks don't connect me to what you described.
Under Obamacare she will be warehoused and any financial reserves attached to her will be confiscated to redistribute to young perpetually unemployed voters. Not a perfect world, but Obamacare is what we are stuck with.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
GEEZER
Well, Geezer, I noticed you've changed your ideals in response to my post. Specifically...
Quote:
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. -signy
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....
Apparently your ethics include not "taking advantage" of people. That goes a lot farther than simply not threatening people with direct physical violence.... but it was a statement you never made before. Hmmm.... did you???
Quote:
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.
NOPE! Nothing in there about not taking advantage of people! If you had simply mentioned that... oh, about 20 posts ago... this whole discussion could have gotten a lot farther.
So, how do YOU define "taking advantage" of people, because that opens up a whole new dimension in your ideal world.
Quote:Well, I didn't think YOU thought so, because you never said so before. I mentioned it quite a few times!
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?
And it's not like that aspect of violence wasn't brought up before either, especially in relation to the dangers that monopolies pose individuals. Your continuing answer to that conundrum was simply to keep insisting that monopolies don't exist, or aren't inevitable, or can be competed against by smaller companies like Ben&Jerry's and Burt's Bees (which were infamously bought up by monopolies). Do you remember those examples? I certainly do!
Quote:Nope. YOUR conception of violence is (was?) very one-dimensional. Because I've always known that siege is just another form of war. But, hey, glad you came around to seeing that POV!
Nope. Your conception of violence is just very one-dimensional.
In the past, you've always been against dishonesty. After all, how can you have an enforceable contract if one side is misrepresenting itself?
So ASIDE FROM dishonesty, what are the various ways of "taking advantage" of people that would be frowned on?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nope, it will be redistributed to the PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES which are so famously a part of Obamacare.
Under Obamacare she will be warehoused and any financial reserves attached to her will be confiscated to redistribute to young perpetually unemployed voters
------------
RAPPY: It's not ME! I didn't say it! It was that article! That no-account author of that ridiculous article (that I posted because I so clearly disagreed with!) Don't talk to ME! Talk to the AUTHOR!
...
OK, we WON'T talk to you!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GEEZER
Quote:Same way you deal with any company: fire the people who aren't doing their jobs. But, yanno, as a former government employee, I'm sure you've seen even government employees who were interested in doing a good job. I work with many of them myself... absolutely stellar self-starting professionals who've instituted many improvements in our processes. Possibly even yourself and madam belong in that category.
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.?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER
Well, Geezer, I noticed you've changed your ideals in response to my post. Specifically...Quote:
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. -signy
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....
Apparently your ethics include not "taking advantage" of people. That goes a lot farther than simply not threatening people with direct physical violence.... but it was a statement you never made before. Hmmm.... did you???Quote:
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.
NOPE! Nothing in there about not taking advantage of people! If you had simply mentioned that... oh, about 20 posts ago... this whole discussion could have gotten a lot farther.
So, how do YOU define "taking advantage" of people, because that opens up a whole new dimension in your ideal world.
First, that wasn't an all-inclusive list, just (as I noted) some things to give you the idea of rules that might derive from the ZAP.
Second, you don't consider taking peoples stuff (and "stuff" could cover more than physical possessions - reputation for example) by dishonesty to be "taking advantage"?
"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:
Same way you deal with any company: fire the people who aren't doing their jobs.
But when it's the entire system that's not doing its job? I can hear you say "Just replace the entire thing". And you say my solutions are impractical.
And what about that meals-on-wheels czar and his "one-meal-fits-all" idea?
"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:
Second, you don't consider taking peoples stuff (and "stuff" could cover more than physical possessions - reputation for example) by dishonesty to be "taking advantage"?
The word "stuff" usually means "things". The right to freedom or a good reputation doesn't automatically spring to mind.
Going to online dictionaries...
Stuff:
1.the material of which anything is made: a hard, crystalline stuff.
2.material to be worked upon or to be used in making something: wood, steel, and other stuff for building.
3.material of some unspecified kind: a cushion filled with some soft stuff.
4.Chiefly British . woven material or fabric, especially wool.
5.property, as personal belongings or equipment; things.
Several dictionaries say the same thing. I tried working that usage into a sentence... Life, liberty, privacy, and all that stuff. Not working, except ironically. Having beat the question to death, the answer is
"NO, I don't consider intangibles (more than physical possessions) to be 'stuff' and neither do most people"
Also, you're limiting this dispossession of .... whatever ... to loss by dishonesty.
But yanno, I can imagine killing someone without ever being dishonest or outwardly violent. It's the problem of the monopoly, again. I can takes someone's "stuff" ... his things, her freedom, their lives... very openly. Corporations are doing it today. They've been doing it for years. Every time you break the seal of a software package or get it pre-loaded on your PC, you've given up many rights per the EULA (end user license agreement, helpfully written our for you) and apparently given up your right to privacy. Every time you click on google, use Youtube, gmail, or any other of the google services, your information is harvested whether you want or not. It's all spelled out in that new "privacy" policy. Don't like it? Don't use the internet!
Download a Cheerios coupon? You've just given up your right to sue, even if an employee deliberately tampered with a product. See? It says... right here
New provisions about how you become bound by these legal terms and how you can opt out of them. Your use of any of our sites or services, or participation in any other General Mills offering, means that you are agreeing to these Legal Terms. You may terminate this agreement at time by notifying us by email of your intent to do so, but only if you also cease to participate in any of our offerings.
http://generalmills.com/Legal_Notice_Summary.aspx
In fact, MANY companies have these kinds of terms baked into their contracts... If you use our products in any way, you no longer have the right to sue, Oh, and BTW- you can't enter into a class-action lawsuit, either. (If you don't believe me, look it up.)
No dishonesty there! Perfectly up-front and inescapable.
So, what do you think of these examples of "taking advantage" which involve neither dishonesty nor violence? Do they belong in your ideal world? If not- what ethic would prohibit them?
I feel that your earlier emphasis on property rights and non-violence might have obscured the REAL ethics of your ideal world. That there may be underlying ethics which might be hard to describe but are more fundamental than what you've talked about so far.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy, you spell things out SO clearly- I don't know why Geezer can't 'get' it...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, AFA a government system not working...
We do analyses. We follow procedures, we check back to see if they're "working" on the micro scale: Did the instrument run consistently from beginning to end? Are the analyses repeatable and fully documented?
But we also check back to see if they're "working" on a macro scale... Are these analyses telling us what we need to know? Is pollution being reduced? Are people getting healthier? Is less property damage being done? Are we looking at the right things or is there a form of pollution that we haven't noticed, or a new form of pollution being created by new technology (eg nano particles) that's sneaking up on us?
I guess what I'm trying to say is... changing procedures, changing systems, changing metrics isn't new to us. If "the system" isn't working, you change it until it does.
My boss once told me.. and this has really stuck... that there is a difference between efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency is doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the right thing. I think every process needs feedback. The problem is engaging the feedback before interests become too entrenched. Now, we have corporate interests fully entrenched in government, and politicians mostly cozily snuggled in.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, AFA a government system not working...
We do analyses. We follow procedures, we check back to see if they're "working" on the micro scale: Did the instrument run consistently from beginning to end? Are the analyses repeatable and fully documented?
Right.
So who does this? The government? A GSA analogue? Citizens' groups with no actual power to require change? The Effectiveness Fairy?
Perhaps you should provide a bit more detail about how this would work and how we would get there from here.
Also governments and governmental organizations, being groups of people with their own ideas of what's effective, not mechanical devices, are a bit harder to both analyze and correct, especially if their definition of "working" differs from yours. The Meals-on-wheels Czar and his directors are sure that they are more effective if they provide the same meal to everyone in the country on the same day.
"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:Quote:
Second, you don't consider taking peoples stuff (and "stuff" could cover more than physical possessions - reputation for example) by dishonesty to be "taking advantage"?
The word "stuff" usually means "things". The right to freedom or a good reputation doesn't automatically spring to mind.
Use whatever word you like. If you're honest, you understand my meaning. The fact you play such word games makes me doubt it.
Quote:
Also, you're limiting this dispossession of .... whatever ... to loss by dishonesty.
No. It's an example, not all inclusive. Sort'a like I haven't brought up how money might work in such a system.
Quote:
But yanno, I can imagine killing someone without ever being dishonest or outwardly violent.
Yeah. You really seem to have a fixation on killing people.
Quote:
It's the problem of the monopoly, again. I can takes someone's "stuff" ... his things, her freedom, their lives... very openly. Corporations are doing it today. They've been doing it for years. Every time you break the seal of a software package or get it pre-loaded on your PC, you've given up many rights per the EULA (end user license agreement, helpfully written our for you) and apparently given up your right to privacy. Every time you click on google, use Youtube, gmail, or any other of the google services, your information is harvested whether you want or not. It's all spelled out in that new "privacy" policy. Don't like it? Don't use the internet!
So? What part of don't aggress and don't take people's stuff/data/right to sue/other rights/whatever if they don't want you to do you not understand? If you're taking from someone without their consent, you're violating the ZAP and the moral rules that derive from it.
Quote:
I feel that your earlier emphasis on property rights and non-violence might have obscured the REAL ethics of your ideal world. That there may be underlying ethics which might be hard to describe but are more fundamental than what you've talked about so far.
I noted above the (to me) similarity between the Golden Rule and the moral rules that can be derived from the ZAP. Actually, property rights seems to fit right in with the GR as well. If I have property and you have property and we want to exchange some of it, I want you to be treated as fairly as I would like to be treated.
"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 Storymark:
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!
Suck on it.
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57863
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes. A twelve year old...
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Suck on it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, I've been staying out of your conversation with Signy b/c she's far more patient than I. But I have to say, when you stop using normal meanings for words, to claim we should just all accept what you MEANT - and, uh, not what you SAID - it seems to me you don't even know what you mean. Not really. If you did, you could find the words and explain to the rest of us what you mean.
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:Geezer, I can only understand what you're SAYING, I can't psychically absorb your feelings and intentions. We use words because they have meanings by which we communicate our thoughts and feelings. It matters which words you use and which words I use.
Use whatever word you like. If you're honest, you understand my meaning. The fact you play such word games makes me doubt it.
On this problem, you're like other right-wingers..using words like "freedom", "human", "life", and "stuff" which have been inadequately defined by the people using them.
Quote:I use it as the most extreme example of taking someone's "stuff", and a test for how well your system would work in preventing it. If I can think of a simple way to kill someone without violating any of your "rules" then your system doesn't work very well (no matter how well-intentioned).
Yeah. You really seem to have a fixation on killing people.
Quote:
So? What part of don't aggress and don't take people's stuff/data/right to sue/other rights/whatever if they don't want you to do you not understand? If you're taking from someone without their consent, you're violating the ZAP and the moral rules that derive from it.
Oh, but now there are OTHER rights? BESIDES the right to own property and enter into contracts? Rights which, in fact, supersede those propertarian rights which you've described more than once? Well, why don't you explain what THOSE rights are, then?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Yes. A twelve year old...
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Suck on it.
He started it, I ended it.
Shows why it's not worth responding to some folks.
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
Funny. This topic again?
It was quite clear a few of these libertarian-themed threads ago that geezer's ideal "government" system is nothing of the sort - it's not a system of social order. It's a lobotomy of the human race. If only that could happen, that everyone could be programmed to think exactly like him with the same principles expressed in exactly the same way, then the system he proposes would work fine. Duh! ANY system would work, because there would be no conflict.
Hello real world! You can argue the ZAP and the golden rule all you want, but humans are real and flawed and even the principled ones do bad stuff. Very few "agressors" do it for the hell of it: they do it because they think they have reason. And those like Geez and Rap who are incapable of self reflection probably do it more than most folks. Kinda like how they cheer on the failing of some poor schmoe's health care if it means they can stick to their hated Obama.
Whatever. One of the major points of societal structure is to resolve conflict in a fair way. There will ALWAYS be conflict. If you chase down geezer and get him to start proposing ways of actually addressing the inevitable conflict, as I did a few of these threads ago, he ends up describing the system we have now. Laws, law-makers, and juries.
Well, he'll get there eventually, with prodding to get him past that: "But in my world everyone just wants peace so there is no conflict!" fantasy.
I think that what Geezer really doesn't like is NOT really the govt, it's that people think differently than he does and they won't just shut up and do things his way. That is what he would "fix." Reprogram every brain on the planet, then he can sit back being happy that his "political" ideas work, not giving a damn that he had to squash all individuality to bring his personal utopia into being.
*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Is it possible to have an intelligent conversation about this???? Or will this be just another fruitless attempt??
Greatest govt input = greater govt control, which means less individual freedom.
Sig, I'm curious. When was the last time you had a fruit*ful* attempt with Geezer, Rap, or Jongs? Just curious. Has it ever happened for you?
I recall Jongs becoming reasonable for a brief spell after the 2008 election, but I think that was just our resident headcase being on her meds and deciding to make on of her socks walk the other side for awhile. The attempt long since fell apart and Jongs reverted to that other voice I recognize easily.
But I am seriously asking you, and I'd love to see links: have you ever had a reasonable back-and-forth conversation about a topic other than Firefly or puppies with any of these three posters?
*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME