In Toronto, people go hungry all the time

[Renegade]

So would you propose sterilization, infanticide, or kidnapping to "preclude" irresponsible parents?

I haven't proposed anything yet. I'm simply proposing the idea that if indiviudals expect that society should bear the costs of their bad decisions, then they should also expect that society intervene in their ability to make bad decisions. In some ways society already does this. In certain situations if a parent is deemed to be be unfit, CAS an intervene to take away that child. Similarly potential adoptive parents are screened to determine if they are fit. It is logically consistent if we are ok to screen potential adoptive parents, that we screen all potential parents.

BTW, we adopt a similar qualifcations based approprach to allowing people to drive. We have imposed penalties on those who drive despite being unqualfied. We have not had to resort to chopping people's limbs off to prevent them from driving and the current system is pretty effective.

BTW, I prefer the opposite approach. I prefer that the state not intefere with people's ability to make bad decisions, but then it should also force people to live with the cost of those bad decisions. I don't thnk you should have one without the other.

[benny]

Perhaps those irresponsible parents should be precluded from being parents to begin with.

I understand easily how you can be uncertain about that.

[Renegade]

I understand easily how you can be uncertain about that.

What is certain is that with the freedom to choose should come with responsiblity to endure the consequences of that choice. Conversely when others are asked to bear the cost of one's choice, others become stakeholders in the decision-making process.

[benny]

What is certain is that with the freedom to choose should come with responsiblity to endure the consequences of that choice. Conversely when others are asked to bear the cost of one's choice, others become stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Narrowly, or negatively, freedom is thought of as the absence of constraint: ‘Freedom’, said Hobbes, ‘is the silence of the law.’ Positively, freedom is a condition of liberation from social and cultural forces that are perceived as impeding full self-realization.

http://www.answers.com/topic/positive-negative-freedom

[Renegade]

Narrowly, or negatively, freedom is thought of as the absence of constraint: ‘Freedom’, said Hobbes, ‘is the silence of the law.’ Positively, freedom is a condition of liberation from social and cultural forces that are perceived as impeding full self-realization.

http://www.answers.com/topic/positive-negative-freedom

The relevance of your quote is not clear to me. It is not up to the state to liberate onself "from social and cultural forces that are perceived as impeding full self-realization" but as your quote goes on to say... " To become free is therefore a challenge that is only met by personal transformation".

[benny]

The relevance of your quote is not clear to me. It is not up to the state to liberate onself "from social and cultural forces that are perceived as impeding full self-realization" but as your quote goes on to say... " To become free is therefore a challenge that is only met by personal transformation".

Here the full quote:

To become free is therefore a challenge that is only met by personal transformation, in Romantic and individualistic thought, or by social transformation, for instance in Hegel.

[Renegade]

Here the full quote:

To become free is therefore a challenge that is only met by personal transformation, in Romantic and individualistic thought, or by social transformation, for instance in Hegel.

So? what does that mean in light of the topic we are discussing. Your one-line replies do not provide any better understanding of your position.

[benny]

To me, hunger comes from living in cultures where too many persons commit the fundamental attribution error, that is they predominantly over-value dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for the observed behaviors of others, thus under-valuing or acknowledging the potentiality of situational attributions or situational explanations for the behavioral motives of others.

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

[CANADIEN]

Government actions are not the cause of poverty. If people are impacted by the changes to the social saftey net, it is because the were already poor enough to require that safety net. The government didn't make them poor it simply helped them mitigate the effects of their poverty. It is up to the discretion of the populace at large to determine how extensive a safety net they want, but they are under no obligation to provide one.

Changes in E.I. eligibility, to cite one example have meant it was more difficult to obtain E.I. payment. Which meant that people who could have obtained a sufficient (and temporary) amount of money while looking for another job ended up with welfare payment which in many case (Harris cuts being an example) were lower and insufficient.

Many people have not fallen into poverty despite a reduced saftey net. That means that there is something different about those who do. Understanding that, will help determine why those people are poor. It isn't necessarily the lack of a government social safety net, as they all operate under the same governmental safety net.

Key elements of the safety nets that come into play when someone falls on hard time are EI and welfare/workfare. Somebody who is fully employed is not affected by cuts in EI or workfare/wlefare because he/she does not need them. Someone who has lost his/her job is far more likely to be affected by those cuts. A safety net that provides just enough money to that person keeps him/her out of poverty. A safety net that does not is far more likely to rsult in this person becoming poor.

Same with another key element of a safety net is minimum wage. When the Harris Government froze it for years, it did not negatively impact on most of the population, since they eran more than minimum wage. But it sure imoacted on those who had to rely on it for a living, Food banks have reported that the fastest growing group of clients in the late 1889's were working families.

[CANADIEN]

Perhaps those irresponsible parents should be precluded from being parents to begin with.

And how should we do that?

Edited May 1, 2009 by CANADIEN

[benny]

Somebody who is fully employed is not affected by cuts in EI or workfare/wlefare because he/she does not need them.

Cuts in EI or workfare/welfare may trigger a fiercer competition for jobs such that somebody who is currently employed may see his/her wage increase less rapidly or may even be replaced by a workfare recipient.

[Muddy]

Here is another morning and still no poor people looking for work! Maybe there are no unemployed poor people? From the crying left you would think there would be resumes piled high upon my desk. But not one since this thread started. Where are the poor people?

[Renegade]

To me, hunger comes from living in cultures where too many persons commit the fundamental attribution error, that is they predominantly over-value dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for the observed behaviors of others, thus under-valuing or acknowledging the potentiality of situational attributions or situational explanations for the behavioral motives of others.

Personal behaviours are not independant of situational causes. The situation is deffierent for each of us, and while it is true that the circumstances is more difficult for some than others, the onus is still on the individual to adapt to the situations that they are in. This is true in nature and this is no less true in life as we know it.

[Renegade]

Changes in E.I. eligibility, to cite one example have meant it was more difficult to obtain E.I. payment. Which meant that people who could have obtained a sufficient (and temporary) amount of money while looking for another job ended up with welfare payment which in many case (Harris cuts being an example) were lower and insufficient.

Personally I don't agree with the way the EI program is run, but regardless, if a person finds that the government provided employment insurance program is not sufficient to provide an employment cushion, they are free to supplement it with other means, such as saving a nest egg for such situations or suscribing to private income replacement programs. The fact that they do not means that they assume their own responsibilty for their situation.

Key elements of the safety nets that come into play when someone falls on hard time are EI and welfare/workfare. Somebody who is fully employed is not affected by cuts in EI or workfare/wlefare because he/she does not need them. Someone who has lost his/her job is far more likely to be affected by those cuts. A safety net that provides just enough money to that person keeps him/her out of poverty. A safety net that does not is far more likely to rsult in this person becoming poor.

Same with another key element of a safety net is minimum wage. When the Harris Government froze it for years, it did not negatively impact on most of the population, since they eran more than minimum wage. But it sure imoacted on those who had to rely on it for a living, Food banks have reported that the fastest growing group of clients in the late 1889's were working families.

See my answer above. If an individual wants to mitigate risk from job-loss, critical-illness, death, disaster, etc, there is no shortage of means that they can use to do so. Many of the programs in the social safety net are not "insurance" programs they pretend to be, but rather disguised charity programs, and charity is always at the discretion of the donor.

[Renegade]

And how should we do that?

See my answer to charter above:

BTW, I prefer the opposite approach. I prefer that the state not intefere with people's ability to make bad decisions, but then it should also force people to live with the cost of those bad decisions. I don't thnk you should have one without the other.

But let us suppose that we accept the trade-off that in order to accept benefits of the state, one submits to be regulated by the state there are a couple of measures which can be taken:

1. Determining suitable qualifcations of parents and licensing parenting. This would be similar to driver-license programs, with penalties for non-compliance.

2. Potentially removing infants, from unsuitable parents.

3. Societal pressure by changing attitutes. (eg similar to drink-and-drive) campaigns.

I'm sure that there are more measures which can be taken, but the first obstacle is for people to accept that state-aid should come with strings attached.

Simply put, if you believe poverty is the problem, then one way to effectively solve that problem is to stop people afflicted by poverty from passing their povety on to future generations.

[benny]

Personal behaviours are not independant of situational causes. The situation is deffierent for each of us, and while it is true that the circumstances is more difficult for some than others, the onus is still on the individual to adapt to the situations that they are in. This is true in nature and this is no less true in life as we know it.

In Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas wrote:

. . . whatever some have in super-abundance is due, by natural law, for the purpose of succouring the poor. . . . Each is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things so that out of them he may come to the aid of those in need. But if the need be so manifest and it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means are at hand . . . then it is lawful for a man to meet his own needs by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly, nor is this theft or robbery.

[M.Dancer]

Natural law was repealed and ruled undemocratic on a vote of 23 to 12 with 5 abstaining.

[benny]

Natural law was repealed and ruled undemocratic on a vote of 23 to 12 with 5 abstaining.

Then Rousseau wrote in his Social Contract (1762):

The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone and remain as free as before.

Edited May 1, 2009 by benny

[Renegade]

In Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas wrote:

. . . whatever some have in super-abundance is due, by natural law, for the purpose of succouring the poor. . . . Each is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things so that out of them he may come to the aid of those in need. But if the need be so manifest and it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means are at hand . . . then it is lawful for a man to meet his own needs by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly, nor is this theft or robbery.

Then Rousseau wrote in his Social Contract (1762):

The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone and remain as free as before.

Benny, how about you start using your own words instead of borrowing those of philosophers. Those you quote aren't here to explain their positions or intent.

As to the contention that it is "lawful for a man to meet his own needs by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly" , it most certainly is not, and it is theft. If a person takes the property which doesn't belong to him based upon his percieved need, then the victim of the robbery is defmitely justfied in actions he takes to protect his property.

[benny]

As to the contention that it is "lawful for a man to meet his own needs by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly" , it most certainly is not, and it is theft. If a person takes the property which doesn't belong to him based upon his percieved need, then the victim of the robbery is defmitely justfied in actions he takes to protect his property.

The victim of the robbery is definitely not justified to protect his property since the initial appropriation of nature has still to be legitimated (see my posts on the Lockean proviso).

[g_bambino]

The victim of the robbery is definitely not justified to protect his property...

Tell that to a hungry dog when you try to take away its dinner.

[benny]

Tell that to a hungry dog when you try to take away its dinner.

You prove my point: hunger gives (natural) rights (over owners).

[M.Dancer]

The victim of the robbery is definitely not justified to protect his property since the initial appropriation of nature has still to be legitimated (see my posts on the Lockean proviso).

The thoughts of dead philosophers do not impede the velocity of my bat when the covetousness of living scoundrels try to absond with what is not theirs.

[g_bambino]

You prove my point: hunger gives (natural) rights (over owners).

That's going to cause some difficulty when both are hungry and each claim to be the owner. You think that dog's going to politely share it's dinner with you?

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited May 1, 2009 by g_bambino

[benny]

Food has to perish in hungry stomachs.