Growing Seniors Population Spell Trouble

[Renegade]

Do you think, for instance, that an urbanized society could survive without some form of government?

If I did I'd be an anarchist. Yes I do believe some form of government is necessary at least to govern codes of conduct and enforce them. I'm not convinced that a government is necessary or desired for mutual assistance.

[Bonam]

Look, a society is a collective. However it's grouped together, all societies, even non-human ones, require some sort of common codes of conduct and some way of enforcing them. As well, societies exist as a way of formalizing and assuring mutual assistance. What I'm asking, in a nutshell, is whether you think that the concept of government is simply a natural outgrowth of that. Do you think, for instance, that an urbanized society could survive without some form of government?

What is under debate is not the existence of government but its scope and role in society. Socialists believe that it should be there to equalize individuals as much as possible, providing a wide range of services to the poor with money obtained from the productive activity of those that are better off. Libertarians believe that the government should provide only minimal services that cannot be reasonably provided by private enterprise, such as providing for defense, police, upholding the law, etc, and not concern itself with equalization.

It is a matter of degree, not of opposites as you seem to like to frame it.

[Wilber]

Would I be sentencing my child to death? Not as I see it. I woudl have done everything in my power to ensure my child's health, however that power would not extend to forcing others to keep my child alive. That needs to be their choice.

I believe that my kid has the right to care that I provide him. Such is the contract. Any other care provide by others should be voluntary and is not his "right".

So in effect, your child is your property to be dealt with as you see fit. It would be reasonable to assume that if you could not afford the insurance premiums you could not afford the treatment either. By abolishing a system that could care for your child merely because of your own unwillingness to pay for it, you have clearly not done everything in your power to look after its needs. You have gambled and your child has to cover your loss.

[ToadBrother]

What is under debate is not the existence of government but its scope and role in society. Socialists believe that it should be there to equalize individuals as much as possible, providing a wide range of services to the poor with money obtained from the productive activity of those that are better off. Libertarians believe that the government should provide only minimal services that cannot be reasonably provided by private enterprise, such as providing for defense, police, upholding the law, etc, and not concern itself with equalization.

It is a matter of degree, not of opposites as you seem to like to frame it.

I was going back to basics here, not attempting to frame anything. We need to be sure we're talking the same language here.

So you do agree, then, that government, however complex it gets, is essentially an organ of society, correct? If a society, as part of moral or philosophical codes, accepts that certain things must be done or not be done, then the government's role is not exaggerated when it takes on the role as the agent of that public will, correct?

(Obviously there are governments that do exaggerate their roles in this regard, a Communist government might initially be empowered by the will of the wider society towards a certain socio-economic system, but ultimately may override that will by say, undermining the political process thus assuring it's own longevity at the expense of liberty and economic health. This is just an example, of course, there are certainly many ways in which ill-behaving governments can ultimate work against the society that initially empowerd them.)

Edited February 26, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

I was going back to basics here, not attempting to frame anything. We need to be sure we're talking the same language here.

So you do agree, then, that government, however complex it gets, is essentially an organ of society, correct? If a society, as part of moral or philosophical codes, accepts that certain things must be done or not be done, then the government's role is not exaggerated when it takes on the role as the agent of that public will, correct?

I don't know about your terminology "organ of society" or what precisely it is supposed to mean. I do agree that a government has to exist and has to do certain things. I would stay away from saying that it should take on roles according to "the public will" though, because that means that if the public gets lazy and complacent and wills the government to take on more roles, that the government should do so. I would disagree with this. The government should not be everything to everybody. It should provide only those services which cannot be reasonably done privately, and it should not be in the business of equalization.

(Obviously there are governments that do exaggerate their roles in this regard, a Communist government might initially be empowered by the will of the wider society towards a certain socio-economic system, but ultimately may override that will by say, undermining the political process thus assuring it's own longevity at the expense of liberty and economic health. This is just an example, of course, there are certainly many ways in which ill-behaving governments can ultimate work against the society that initially empowerd them.)

Again, it seems we agree on at least one basic principle but differ where we draw the line. Once given too much power, a government may start to do things which are not for the benefit of its people. The more services a government provides, the more areas of life it intrudes into, the more power it has, and the greater capacity it has to do harm. It can also do harm even when acting in accordance with the public will, not only when acting against the public will, because the public will is not always right. That is why the government should not have unlimited power and authority to enact the public will, it must be bounded by a set of principles and limits that are well thought out.

One basis for such principles and limits are those outlined in Libertarianism. Perhaps they are too stark, perhaps not, but the power and authority our governments have now to create endless new social programs, is, in my opinion, far excessive.

[Renegade]

So in effect, your child is your property to be dealt with as you see fit. It would be reasonable to assume that if you could not afford the insurance premiums you could not afford the treatment either. By abolishing a system that could care for your child merely because of your own unwillingness to pay for it, you have clearly not done everything in your power to look after its needs. You have gambled and your child has to cover your loss.

So yet again no answer to my questions, eh willie? What a surprise.

My child is not my property. My child is my obligation.

Wow that is quite a stretch you are trying to make. According to you if I don't support healthcare I am a murderer, killing my child, did I get that right?

There are a lots of things I potentally *could* do but wouldn't in order to save my child's life. For example, I could forcibly takes some else's organs if my child needed them but I wouldn't. I guess that too makes me a murderer.

Yes when we have children we gamble. Even with the best healthcare it is still a gamble, isn't it? I'm not reckless in my gambling with my child's life. For example, if there was a 50-50 outcome that my child was going to have a fatal desease, I would not have kids. I'm satisified that when I have kids I can take care of their needs, including healthcare needs as much as reasonably possible. If you want certaintity of outcome, don't have kids.

Now that I've addressed your questions willie, how about you be a sport and address mine?

Edited February 26, 2010 by Renegade

[Oleg Bach]

The government is like a butler..and civil servants are like our house staff. Problem is they are like a child that has grown large, holding their masters in contempt...kind of like having them rebel against their noble masters which is each and everyone of us.

As we age it is unwise to be dependent on government..the weaker we get the stronger they will be unless, a person has teeth- they are no longer afraid of our bite. Government by nature is cruel and only reacts in a positive manner if under duress and justified coercion - seeing that old people pose no threat..then they become a non-issue..Better to go back to the old way where family takes care of family.

[Wilber]

So yet again no answer to my questions, eh willie? What a surprise.

My child is not my property. My child is my obligation.

But not a big enough obligation for you not to gamble with its well being.

Wow that is quite a stretch you are trying to make. According to you if I don't support healthcare I am a murderer, killing my child, did I get that right?

No, I said you are betting your kid's wellfare against your ability to pay.

There are a lots of things I potentally *could* do but wouldn't in order to save my child's life. For example, I could forcibly takes some else's organs if my child needed them but I wouldn't. I guess that too makes me a murderer.

Forceably taking someones organs would certainly make you a murderer but that is as far as I am going to go on this asinine tack.

Yes when we have children we gamble. Even with the best healthcare it is still a gamble, isn't it? I'm not reckless in my gambling with my child's life. For example, if there was a 50-50 outcome that my child was going to have a fatal desease, I would not have kids. I'm satisified that when I have kids I can take care of their needs, including healthcare needs as much as reasonably possible. If you want certaintity of outcome, don't have kids.

It's nice that you are financialy well off enough that you could afford hundreds of thousands in medical bills if your kid did wind up in such a position. If I knew there was a 50-50 chance that my child was going to have a fatal disease I wouldn't have one either but what the heck makes you think you know the odds going in. If you did, what odds would be acceptable to you, 60-40, 70-30, 80-20? Not gambling, my backside.

[Oleg Bach]

when my eldest child was ill...I expected 100% effort from myself- and 110% effort and funding from all others. The same can be said for our aged..it is distressing when I witnessed the transporting of aged people too and from hospital in rusty ambulances..staffed by rough handed workers who tossed the bodies about like dead wood.

[ToadBrother]

I don't know about your terminology "organ of society" or what precisely it is supposed to mean.

It means, essentially, that is is a part of society, an expression of society. Obviously that does not apply to every government. For instance, it would be hard to describe the military occupation governments of post-Germany and Japan as "organs of society", or at least of their society. But in general, I refer to the governments that we, as societies create by which organize ourselves.

I do agree that a government has to exist and has to do certain things. I would stay away from saying that it should take on roles according to "the public will" though, because that means that if the public gets lazy and complacent and wills the government to take on more roles, that the government should do so.

This seems very leading. You obviously want to end the argument at "Libertarians are right, government should be tiny", but you're trying to short circuit it by making a base definition of government. That seems odd to me. While I agree that government must have limitations, I would not agree that those limitations must be so great that the government is effectively stunted and incapable of carrying out the will of society.

I would disagree with this. The government should not be everything to everybody. It should provide only those services which cannot be reasonably done privately, and it should not be in the business of equalization.

That is a theory of a certain kind of government. I think it's debatable whether that is a superior kind of government. I guess that's what we're trying to do. But I'm not really trying to establish which kind of government is best or worst, but rather trying to establish that, with a few exceptions (like an occupier's regime or a protectorate), that in general a government, whatever its form and the extent of its powers, is still essentially an organic component of society.

Again, it seems we agree on at least one basic principle but differ where we draw the line. Once given too much power, a government may start to do things which are not for the benefit of its people.

Oh I would agree to that. The problem that a government, any government really, has is that it cannot possibly help everyone. Governments, historically, who have given more weight to the aristocracy, or even the landed or property-holding classes, has often bred an enormous amount of discontent in the underclasses.

Latin America is an awfully good recent example of that (though history is filled with things like peasants revolts). While many Latin American countries basically adopted constitutions in many ways quite similar to the United States (it's hard to imagine it now, but there was a time when the US was viewed with great admiration by the intellectual classes in Latin America), somehow or other the old Spanish signeurial system managed to survive. While everyone was theoretically free, relieved from bondage by high-sounding constitutional language, in the end the landed classes, who controlled the wealth, the land, the government and the army, were able, despite all the theoretical liberties afforded the general populace, to maintain a monopoly on power (a similar thing happened in the American South, where the southern landed gentry managed to keep many of the former slaves in an effective state of peonage via Jim Crow laws, all in a country where the 13th Amendment had made the slaves equal citizens).

The problem with Libertarianism is that it equates theoretical freedom with actual freedom. As we can see from places like Latin American, liberties are meaningless if there is no effective way for the people, all the people, to gain some economic power and political expression (and I'd argue these two things are inextricably linked, even in states where ostensibly liberties are guaranteed for all).

The more services a government provides, the more areas of life it intrudes into, the more power it has, and the greater capacity it has to do harm. It can also do harm even when acting in accordance with the public will, not only when acting against the public will, because the public will is not always right. That is why the government should not have unlimited power and authority to enact the public will, it must be bounded by a set of principles and limits that are well thought out.

I cannot argue with this.

One basis for such principles and limits are those outlined in Libertarianism. Perhaps they are too stark, perhaps not, but the power and authority our governments have now to create endless new social programs, is, in my opinion, far excessive.

I have three chief problems with Libertarianism.

One is that it, in a way, is a overly idealistic political philosophy. It makes assumptions about behavior (ie. social services will be replaced by charities) that I do not think hold out. Libertarians, as I've stated previously, tend to point to historical precedents, in particular in Medieval Europe, where the Medieval Church did indeed act as the deliverer of a sort of basic social services (helping the poor and the sick, running orphanages and the like). What Libertarians tend to leave out is that the Medieval Church was, in effect, a government. Bishops in many feudal states were essentially landed lords, commanding fiefdoms and generating revenue from them. The Church also had means of taxation, like tithing, as well as generally enjoying freedom from various forms of taxation. In other words, the Church was very much a government, and so you cannot reasonably apply the notion that it was a charitable agency. It would be rather like breaking a provincial government into two; one with a wider set of responsibilities and wider taxation powers, and the other with a somewhat more restrictive responsibilities (social services, basically) and a somewhat more limited ability to tax.

The other problem I have is that like any purist political ideology (and this would apply equally, I think, to Marxism, anarchism and so forth), I don't think it would create a viable, stable state. I do not think Libertarianism would deliver a society that would be capable of looking after the underclasses. It would be impossible to predict what proportion of those with sufficient wealth beyond their needs would donate it back, and since any charitable institution would have the responsibilities of the Medieval Church, but no capacity to raise a predictable amount of income, an economic downturn would prove disastrous (ie. the Potato Famine in Ireland). At the very least this could create a potential humanitarian crisis, at the very worst it might lead, as has all too often happened in the aforementioned Latin American countries, to rebellion, revolution and political, social and economic instability.

The third problem is more of a philosophical issue, which is why I tried to get your opinion on the nature of government as a part of the wider society. If government is not an imposed alien structure upon a society, then in a way it is society's tool, society's way of creating structures to deal with large scale organization that comes from urbanized civilization (hunter-gatherers tend to small groups where government is simply inherent in the way that society organizes itself). That being the case then government is inevitably also a part of the society's moral landscape, and cannot legitimately be declared some independent entity. All choices ultimately have a moral aspect. If we choose to utilize taxes to help the lower classes, that is a moral choice, just as choosing not to is also a moral choice. If we choose to extend some basic minimum standard of living, then that is a moral choice. If we choose not to, that is also a moral choice. This is why Libertarians try so very hard to assert that government cannot have a moral aspect, but if government is indeed an organic component of society, then it is bound by moral precepts just as much as every other component.

On these three points I cannot agree with Libertarianism. That individual liberties must in many arenas take precedence does not mean that they can take precedent in all arenas. If a government cannot achieve some general (even if dispersed) good in the wider society, then that government loses the underlying support of the society, and at that point either must fall or must begin defying the society.

Edited February 26, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

Charity at one time was giving to the needy through your own free will. Today charity is done through taxing..against your will in most cases and the money goes to support bureaucrats and causes such as abortion..things that some do not believe in. The difference now is that originally you gave to those that you approved of and liked..now you are forced to give to those you do not approve of and do not like.

[Renegade]

But not a big enough obligation for you not to gamble with its well being.

So, since when has having a kid ever NOT been a gamble? Even with the best technology some babies die. Even with the the best technolgy some mothers die in childbirth. Your contention that it can somehow not be made a gamble is ludicrous.

No, I said you are betting your kid's wellfare against your ability to pay.

As I said that is my obligation to my kid, not yours or anyone elses.

Forceably taking someones organs would certainly make you a murderer but that is as far as I am going to go on this asinine tack.

Interesting now you are backing off your suggesting that I would "sentence your child to death", because if I did that would make me a killer, wouldn't it. I'm really glad you have finally come to realize that your suggestion that eqating my position that others do not have an obligation toward my kid, is like "sentence your child to death", is indeed asinine.

It's nice that you are financialy well off enough that you could afford hundreds of thousands in medical bills if your kid did wind up in such a position. If I knew there was a 50-50 chance that my child was going to have a fatal disease I wouldn't have one either but what the heck makes you think you know the odds going in. If you did, what odds would be acceptable to you, 60-40, 70-30, 80-20? Not gambling, my backside.

Well willie, I would tell you but since you refuse to answer my questions, I'm done answering yours.

[Oleg Bach]

So, since when has having a kid ever NOT been a gamble? Even with the best technology some babies die. Even with the the best technolgy some mothers die in childbirth. Your contention that it can somehow not be made a gamble is ludicrous.

As I said that is my obligation to my kid, not yours or anyone elses.

Interesting now you are backing off your suggesting that I would "sentence your child to death", because if I did that would make me a killer, wouldn't it. I'm really glad you have finally come to realize that your suggestion that eqating my position that others do not have an obligation toward my kid, is like "sentence your child to death", is indeed asinine.

Well willie, I would tell you but since you refuse to answer my questions, I'm done answering yours.

Too many questions and not enough statements. Try being more statesman like..you can do it.

[msj]

Too many questions and not enough statements. Try being more statesman like..you can do it.

Yes. He. Can!

[Oleg Bach]

We live longer and are stronger and stay smarter. It is important that we review how we percieve aging..this is not the 1800s when by the time you were 40 your were a broken down mess--people work less physically and do not wear out as fast.

The human body is a machine - old machinery works just fine if respected and maintained--it is personal responsiblity to keep that machine going--not so much about physical exersise and diet but in the future..it will be about attitude- the mind and above all the spirit...older people will finally become more generous..It will be a type of de-evolution and a reverting back to the time where age is not looked on as a disease..the wisdom that will be generated by the old will save the world-- the young are NOT our future---as it likes to be said--this is a cop out..The aged should NOT toss the world over to young twits to run..we must do our job right to the bitter sweat end.

Retirement does not exist..working should not be about the generation of cash but the generation of sustainable power for all.

[Renegade]

Too many questions and not enough statements. Try being more statesman like..you can do it.

OB, I'm not sure who that is directed to. If it to me, I've both made statements and answered question. About time for reciprocation, n'est pas?

[Wilber]

So, since when has having a kid ever NOT been a gamble? Even with the best technology some babies die. Even with the the best technolgy some mothers die in childbirth. Your contention that it can somehow not be made a gamble is ludicrous.

We're speaking of your actions, you're choices and the possible consequences for your child. No one controls what life deals them, including parents.

As I said that is my obligation to my kid, not yours or anyone elses.

And fortunately universal medical care helps make sure you live up to those obligations in spite of your actions.

Interesting now you are backing off your suggesting that I would "sentence your child to death", because if I did that would make me a killer, wouldn't it. I'm really glad you have finally come to realize that your suggestion that eqating my position that others do not have an obligation toward my kid, is like "sentence your child to death", is indeed asinine.

Forcibly taking someones organs for any reason would make you guilty of aggravated assault if they survived and first degree murder if they didn't. That is why the whole idea is asinine and I can't believe I actually responded to it at all.

Well willie, I would tell you but since you refuse to answer my questions, I'm done answering yours.

I think it is pretty obvious that the contents of your wallet is the number one consideration in your life. By the way, if you are using "willie" because you think it bothers me, you couldn't be more wrong. It is a measure of your frustration, not mine.

[Oleg Bach]

OB, I'm not sure who that is directed to. If it to me, I've both made statements and answered question. About time for reciprocation, n'est pas?

No, it was not directed to anyone person..it was arrogantly directed by me at all persons. It is time to actually reciprocate I guess--- me..well - I might be too lazy and making statements with out providing helpful answers is a sign that I am a hobbyist at this game and really have no aspirations at being a professional professor. It might be a different story if I benefited by the interaction..but I really don't- the plight of a layman mouth piece I suppose.

[Renegade]

We're speaking of your actions, you're choices and the possible consequences for your child. No one controls what life deals them, including parents.

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.

And fortunately universal medical care helps make sure you live up to those obligations in spite of your actions.

Not really. It ensure that someone else has to live up to the cost of my actions and visa versa.

Forcibly taking someones organs for any reason would make you guilty of aggravated assault if they survived and first degree murder if they didn't. That is why the whole idea is asinine and I can't believe I actually responded to it at all.

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.

I think it is pretty obvious that the contents of your wallet is the number one consideration in your life. By the way, if you are using "willie" because you think it bothers me, you couldn't be more wrong. It is a measure of your frustration, not mine.

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

Edited February 27, 2010 by Renegade

[Wilber]

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.

You are comfortable with them, your kid is stuck with them.

Not really. It ensure that someone else has to live up to the cost of my actions and visa versa.

Yes really, the kid is covered no matter what kind of jackass they have for a parent. They didn't get to choose their parents after all. Everything isn't about you.

Bravo willie, you finally answered something. You and I agree. Neither you nor I would resort to assault of one party to provide for the health of another. The difference is that I wouldn't resort to theft either, and you would.

Then why did you bring it up? For one thing I know the difference between assault and theft but this brings up another question. Are you saying you wouldn't contemplate stealing money to save your child's life? I would. Somethings are more important than my wallet or my own freedom.

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

Your continued use of it indicates someone cares. Feel free.

[Renegade]

You are comfortable with them, your kid is stuck with them.

Yes really, the kid is covered no matter what kind of jackass they have for a parent. They didn't get to choose their parents after all. Everything isn't about you.

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.

Then why did you bring it up? For one thing I know the difference between assault and theft but this brings up another question. Are you saying you wouldn't contemplate stealing money to save your child's life? I would. Somethings are more important than my wallet or my own freedom.

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.

Your continued use of it indicates someone cares. Feel free.

Thanks willie, but I didn't need your permission.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Renegade

[kimmy]

I am confident that this issue will work itself out. Everything will turn out fine.

-k

[Wilber]

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.

Now your true colours are showing. What are you suggesting, a minimum net worth and income before a person is allowed to have children? What will be the penalty if they don't meet the criteria but go ahead anyway. George Orwell wrote a book about you.

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.

Now we know how your children would fit in your life. Not worth as much as someone else's money or your own personal freedom. Perhaps it is a good idea that you don't have any.

[Renegade]

Now your true colours are showing. What are you suggesting, a minimum net worth and income before a person is allowed to have children? What will be the penalty if they don't meet the criteria but go ahead anyway. George Orwell wrote a book about you.

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.

Now we know how your children would fit in your life. Not worth as much as someone else's money or your own personal freedom. Perhaps it is a good idea that you don't have any.

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.

[Wilber]

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.

I am quite happy you are clarifying your position for everyone. I'll let others be the judge.

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.

You're the only one here who wants to enact laws. I was just making an observation.