Re: MD Individuals and Collectives

From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 18:21:07 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    [Case]
    >> Well... namely because I don't think "welfare" is "redistribution of
    >> income". I think of it as a moral social obligation to not let poor
    >> people
    >> starve, or go shelterless, or die due to illnesses they don't have
    >> capital
    >> to treat. Now, as far as saying that the bureaucratic system of "welfare"
    >> needs fixing and tweaking and redress in certain areas, I'd completely
    >> agree. Calling it a "redistribution of income" is like condemning public
    >> libraries for "taking knowledge from the rich and giving it to the poor".

    [Platt]
    > Haven't we been around this barn before? Libraries, roads, parks, etc. do
    > not normally come under the meaning of "welfare" which is comprised of
    > such items as food stamps, aid to families with dependent children,
    > Medicaid and the like. In other words, the government redistributes income
    > earned by those who work to those who don't. Social security is a prime
    > example.

    [Case]
    This was not addressed in my earlier post but: Notice that all of your
    examples of "welfare" are directed at children, the elderly and the infirm
    not healthy adults. We as a society are saying that individuals should get
    something of an even break. Children are not responsible agents and
    certainly deserve to be fed and educated regardless of how creepy their
    parents are. How can conservatives seek to deny these loser parents to right
    to terminate their unwanted children then visit the sins of the parents on
    the unwanted offspring? You should take a look at these people who don't
    work. They are not who you think they are. Once again I see a disconnect
    between a party that espouses religious values then twists them into
    something unrecognizable.

    As for other public services like Libraries, roads, parks, etc., they have
    been condemned by the libertarians, who are the archetypes of liaise fair.
    Not sure you are one Platt but if you favor even these concessions to public
    purpose doesn't that make you just a little bit pregnant?

    Social Security is set up as a trust fund, not as a redistribution of wealth
    in the sense you are using it.

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 20 2005 - 20:13:19 BST