Jump to content

Renegade

Members
  • Posts

    3,034
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Renegade

  1. Yeah rigtht. I'm sure that if we had a dictatoral government too, that would be refelection of "us" because in your view, "This is the way we've organized ourselves as a society" Smallc, with your attitude I'm surprised you have any issue at all with any policy regardless of how contemptable. Afterall, in your justification, a policy is passed by a government and a government is a reflection of "us" so that must mean that the policy is ok. right?
  2. B.S. The "we" you refer to is not the will of all of society it is only the majority. In the case of recent governments, not even that. The minority may hardly think that the governemnt is a reflection of who they are.
  3. That may be a an opinion, however I would dispute that that is a universal consensus. The government has the power to collect whatever is collectable. It can decide that it wants some part of your wages and takes it. It can decide that it wants some part of your wealth, and confiscates it. It decides that it wants a payoff in order to let you consume, so it takes a slice.
  4. OK. I'll accept that it is a moral, but I submit that it is the most basic and universally accepted one. It may not have always been accepted, and thus slavery was seen as acceptable, but as society stands today, I would say that it is a universally accepted one. Don't you agree? Land ownership may not be universally accepted or guaranteed and that is fine. If society couldn't come to a universal agreement that land should be owned, it still doesn't preclude me from owning my own labour and the fruits therof.
  5. "Sacred"? That is a completetely subjective term. All you have said is that it isn't the same without explaining (in objective terms) why it is different. I get that YOU consider it different. I don't get why the state should except for purely emotional reasons. I'm not saying that the children are property and should be taken away as property to punish the trangressing parents. I'm saying a contract is held between the parents and the kids. The state should act before the contract is executed to ensure that both sides are capable of living up to their obligations, and after the contract is enforced to ensure that they do. It is especially because the kids have no power of enforcement themselves, that state intervention is required. What I'm saying is that the state ALWAYS intervene to set the prequisites for parenthood, just like the state ALWAYS intervenes to set a standard on who can perform surgery on you. When the consequences of your screw up are bad enough the state intervenes before you screw up. Should the state wait until after a surgeon has killed someone before preventing him from operating on people? It would seem that you are comfortable even with proven child-molesters having kids, and would wait until their child was molested before acting, even when it is completely obvious that it will occur. So we finally come to the core of your argument. It is simply because the idea is repugnant to you. A very emotional response. You have not been able to justify it in rational terms. Personally I don' t find it repugnant at all. I find it sensible that babies be placed with families who can live up to their parental obligations rather than irresponsible ones who take on responsibilities they cannot fulfill. Is there any standard you can think of that hasn't evolved that way? You do not owe the state anything, and neither does the state owe you. What I'm suggesting is that the very same reasons for which the state is looked to in order to provide social services for kids, are the same reasons the state has in interest in the parental situation in which the kid is placed. The "contract" is not between state and parent, it is between parent and child. It is not currently a legal contract but it could be. There are many obligations of parenthood which are already codefied in law. What I am saying is that it likely makes good sense to qualify the parties to the contract before they enter it. That you find such qualification "repugnant" doesn't seem like a rational justfication not to do so.
  6. Well then, I'll take my own advice an respond to you another thread which is relevant to the topic being discused. Child Poverty
  7. I'm not seeing how it is any less of a personal invasion than vetting potential adoptive parents. There are many areas where the state intervenes without requiring prior cause. I've already given you the example of driver's licenses. The state now has imposed stricter rules on who can take a mortgage, it doesn't wait for proof that you are a bad borrowerer. The state forbids you from driving drunk, it doesn't require previous history of running someone over. As a libertarian, I'm not very happy with state intervention, but I can see some justification when it may be necessary to intervene to prevent an even worse outcome. I can think of few more important influences on the child's development that the parents. Do you agree that parents have obligations toward their kids and should be required to live up to those obligations? While it may be preferable that a child grow up in poverty rather than a foster family, it may be even more preferable that either the child be never born into the situation to begin with or alternatively that the child be placed with an adoptive family. As far as I am aware, there seems to be little trouble placing babies up for adoption. The placement of older kids is a somewhat different story. Now you are talking about how such a standard would be implemented, when I don't think you have agreed that there should be a standard at all. What is included in the standard is up for debate. IMV, history of violence, or child abuse, and financial fitness to support a child should all be part of the standard. I would agree that there is probably lots of areas which are up for debate, but the point is to start with a basic standard and refine it with time. I imagine that even with the first drivers licences, the state had to guess what skills were required of a fit driver. It refined that standard with time. As to the other situations you describe. (ie fit parents who with time become unfit, and unfit parents who later become fit), a standard doesn't guarantee outcome. A driver's licence doesn't guarantee you won't crash. Lack of a driver's licence dosen't guarantee you will. However given that parents are undertaking an obligation toward their kids, and parents seem to expect support from the state in bringing up their kids, I think it is reasonable that the state have a voice in deciding who is an adequate parent. Well, I don't really think my position is contradictory if you consider parenting a contract, but feel free to point out contradictions.
  8. Actually I edited my post to add that at the end because IMV this thread got way off track. Since you don't want to persue the conversation in another thread, because you are afraid that I "can get the last word", it's no issue to me to continue in the current thread. I'm amused at how you take an administrative suggestion to confer some sort of debate advantage. Feel free to point out the contradiction as I see none. At the early stages of a child's development, from conception to probably sometime after birth, all you have are "potential" parents. Except in the strictly biological definition, inseminating an egg, or hosting a pregnancy, doensn't make one a parent. It makes one a potential parent. Also, no I don't believe that government should only act after the fact. In fact I think the bulk of the work in qualifying a parent should be done before the fact, in a similar way that driver's licences are used to filter qualified drivers even before they get behind a wheel. That's really quite funny. Not long ago you contended what a rabid liberttarian I was.
  9. I doubt you are more libertarian than me. I really don't see a difference in qualifying potential adoptive parents and qualifying potential natural parents. You need to be more specfic on what parental rights or responsiblities you are referring to. I do not think it is contrary to a libertarian position for the state use its power to enforce contracts. I'm even willing to say I can see how the state can intervene so that parties who cannot or are unlikely to live up to a contract do not enter into a contract. IMV when a parent chooses to become a parent they enter into a contract with the child. They agree to commit to the child certain obligations. It seems reasonable that the state can intervene to prevent those who cannot live up to the terms of those obligations from entering into such a contract. BTW, further discussion on this is better served in a separate thread.
  10. That you find it digusting is not a surprise. Do you also find it disgusting that adoptive parents are qualifed before they are allowed to adopt?
  11. If I take your definition that morals are what society agrees upon, I would say that society universally agrees on very little. The most baseline universal agreement, is that we own our own bodies and the fruits thereof, which is the basis of libertarianism. As you go up in more specifc values (ie morality) there is less and less universal agreement. You are left in a position where you have to define morality as the values of the majority which the minority may not agree with. If you define a the morality of the government as the morality of the majority, and requirem them to pass laws according to that morality, inevitably you will have opression of the minority.
  12. You may have heard that, but IMV it is not hte justification of why the minimium wage should be removed. The government should not be intervening to motivate people to work or disincenting them to work. That should be the justification. The observation that no minimium wage gives people additional motivation to work is simply a side-effect of the lack of government intervention.
  13. Yes I agree. That is why there is some redress of the disparity; not for moral reasons, but for practical ones to prevent violence.
  14. Your statement is not inconsistent with mine. I have simply said that a moral element is a side effect of any choice, and not the justification of it. Since you still seem to say that the government, at least to some extent should act on the basis of morality, you haven't answered the question. "If you permit a government to act on the basis of morality, what stops it from opressing those who have a different moral code by imposing the government sanctioned moral code upon it?"
  15. So, isn't that what I said? Yes, the majority should have their say, as should the minority. But a core aspect of any system should be not to trounce the rights of the minority, even if the majority wills it.
  16. I would agree that it is inivitable that a government is sometimes drawn to make moral choices, however my position is that it should not justify its actions based upon moral choices. The moraity of an action should be nothing more than a side effect of some other justification. For example, a government may arrange to feed starving Irish farmers, not because it is morally "right" to do so, but rather to prevent a far more disruptive riot. If you permit a government to act on the basis of morality, what stops it from opressing those who have a different moral code by imposing the government sanctioned moral code upon it?
  17. Don't know about you whowhere, but most of the retail stuff I see seems to come from China not the US. If a retailer is shipping stuff from the US, it woudl seem he can just cut out the middleman and ship directly from China.
  18. So then TB, is it your contention that rich were kind to the poor out of the goodness of their hearts and thus formed the existance of the welfare state? The British Poor Laws you refer to were not driven out of any montivation to create a welfare state and help the poor, it was driven out of an interest to maintain a labour pool. The makings of a true welfare state was not there until the poor started to assume some measure of control.
  19. It is only owned by those who employ us after we sell it. Your response implies that you at least agree that you agree that it is owed by us before the sale. If you agree with that do you not also agree that we own the proceeds of the sale? Frequently rights are being interpreted by human beings. As much as they may try, the probably can't separate their interpretations from their own morality. That is why the rules of society should specficly provide for provisions to separate out morality as much as is possible. I would argue that corporations don't have rights, only people do. If the contention that people have rights is a value judgement, I'm willing to acept that, however it is a value that is universally accepted. I don't fault you for having rights. I fault your advocacy in imposing your value system on the rest of society who may not agree with your values. I don't take the US system as the ideal. They are infected with many of the same imperfections as we are. Yes but baseline is somewhere else because it is derived from possibly the only universally agreed upon value. That we own our own bodies. The welfare system appeared as people at the bottom assumed power within society. They acted out of self-interest and took wealth from those who had it. That trend is driven out of self-interest rather than some overarching aim to have a "fairer" society.
  20. Whowhere you said this: And this: Yet in all your ranting, you refer to the $3 difference in minimium wage with the US. Since you believe we should be competitive globally, why not have the wage reflect global competitiveness? I've looked at your posts. You don't address this inconsistancy. Perhaps you don't want it pointed out. You've also said this: What makes a minimium wage "realistic"? Any minimium wage no matter at what level will at some point will be "at the expense of everyone else".
  21. It is nothing new willie. It has always been my position. You can judge, others can judge, it matters not to me. It is because of people like you who would steal for self-benefit that laws are required to protect personal property. So am I willie.
  22. That's funny willie, I don't think I ever tried to hide my position. Excactly how much a person should have or earn before being allowed to have chlidren is up for debate? As to penalties, I liken the analogy to the state requireing people have a licence to drive. The state cannot physically prevent people from driving but will apply a variety of penalties to those who transgress. If a person unfit for parenthood, decides to become a parent anyway, IMV they should be subject to penalties even up to the placement of children with suitable parents. Yes, willie, I'm not willing to steal even from you for my own self interest. That you would makes me question your suitability as a role model and parent. Since you don't think I would make a suitable parent, you should deifinitely enact laws which define what a suitable parent is, and hold me and everyone accountable to those laws. Hmmm, I think I've heard that idea before.
  23. Yes, kids don't choose their parents, parents choose their kids. I would agree with rules which constrain only those who are not capable of living up to their obligations as a parent, from being a parent. Didn't I already answer? No wille, I wouln't comtemplate stealing money to save my kids life. That really why I was asking the analogy. You would resort to some crimminal activity (ie violation of people's rights) to act in your own (or in this case your kids) self-interest. I would not. Thanks willie, but I didn't need your permission.
  24. Yes, and I am comfortable with my my choices and my actions. It is up to be parents to be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions, and that includes the decision to have kids. BTW, in an insurance-based medical system, I think one way to deal with the medical risk of having kids, is to purchase additional coverage prior to birth which covers the risk of the unpredictable risks of birth. If in your scenario you are contending that the risk that parents incur shoudl be shared, then this is a way that parents can mitigate the risks at birth. Of course if you can't afford the additional premiums, don't have kids. Not really. It ensure that someone else has to live up to the cost of my actions and visa versa. Bravo willie, you finally answered something. You and I agree. Neither you nor I would resort to assult of one party to provide for the health of another. The difference is that I wouldn't resort to theft either, and you would. Now, now, wille. We already talked about how much your opinion of me means to me, and thank you for sharing, but neither me nor I guess anyone else really cares
  25. You may find it of interest that in some Asian states, they enforce the financial obligations of kids to take care of their parents. 172 file for parent maintenance in last 12 months
×
×
  • Create New...