Welfare Limits

[Renegade]

If you and I aren't allowed to make moral decisions for ourselves, as you've suggested, then what is morality? Is there an absolute standard of morality out there somewhere that I've missed?

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my wording and you have misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that you and I aren't allowed to make moral decisions for ourselves. In fact we should be the only ones making moral decisions for ourselves. I'm suggesting we shouldn't be allowed to make moral decisions for others, and the government should be making those determinations for anyone.

Animals do not have rights. That's why we eat them with impunity. So what's the difference if you choose to fornicate with a sheep rather than roast it on a spit? This is strictly a moral issue.

Just because we eat animals doesn't mean they don't have rights. That is why we have animal cruelty laws. There are some that argue that roasting an animal and eating it should be a criminal offence. Animals have been accorded rights by common agreement. Those rights, while not as extensive as that provided humans, still do protect the animal from abuse and rape. It does not protect the animal from being consumed as a meal.

You're "we deem minors..." sounds an awful lot like a morally based decision as well. When does a minor become an adult? Why that particular age, when some may mature more slowly (or quickly, as the case may be)? It's all a lot more arbitrary than "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

Of course it is arbitrary. We all know that a newborn doesn't have the capacity to decide. We all know that an adult does ( or is presumed to anyway). Somewhere between being a newborn and being an adult we have to determine when people are competent to be responsible for their own decisions. We use a somewhat arbitrary age as the factor. As you point out this is not foolproof. (Witness the hoards of 18 year-olds who act irresponsibly). If there were a "maturity test" we'ed use it, but unfortunatly there doesn't seem to be a simple bias-free way to know when someone has developed the capacitiy to be responsible for their actions and make their own decisions.

I'm not sure that this makes your point. The activities we're discussing are made illegal because they're immoral, not immoral because they're illegal. If society is ready for a sea change in morality in a particular instance, it follows that the law should change as well. If we all wake up tomorrow and decide that doing your dog on the front lawn is perfectly acceptable behaviour, then I agree the law should change to reflect the new reality.

Our society did, and still does, for the most part consider public display of the breast to be "immoral". That has not changed. Yet the law has changed. My point is that we should not be drafting these laws upon which the sole basis is the morality of the act, even if we change the laws as morality changes. It is very rare you will get unanimous agreement on what is moral. Are you willing to let a majority impose its view of morality on the minority. If the government drafted a bill saying you MUST attend church every Sunday, would you not agree that the government has overstepped its bounds?

Prostitution, a "victimless crime", is directly related to numerous crimes that are committed in conjunction. Pimps regularly kidnap young girls (even underage (14!) girls) and force them to turn tricks, and assualt them for failing to deliver a satisfactory income. Fraud and theft are regular features of the act of prostitution, not to mention the deliberate infection of unwary johns by prostitutes who are aware of their infections but choose to spread them anyway. I'm deliberately ignoring the drug aspect out of respect for your arguments, though it can be added that pimps use drug addiction as another tool for controlling their charges.

To be honest we (society) is largely responsible for the crimes that are associated with prostitution. Our sense of morality has caused us to procecute it and drive it underground. The result is that pimps and other unscrupulous characters become involved. All of the crimes you outline above ARE criminal (kidnapping, assault, fraud, theft, etc). BTW, prostitution IS LEGAL in Canada. Solicitation is not. The Supreme Court has been inconsistent in its rulings. For example it ruled that lap-dancing is illegal.

IMO, we should only crimminalize the acts which actually cause or have a high potential to directly infringe on others rights. Prostitution doesn't fit in that category. Other juristctions agree, as you will note that there are many places where prostitution is permitted.

Criminal Law is actually based in the main on the protection of property and property rights.

You're right. I had omitted property rights, but just the same, it is not made to determine what is moral.

We've probably digressed for long enough. You have stated that society should be providing welfare for moral reasons. Does your logic not then follow that reciepients have a right to welfare?

[BHS]

We've probably digressed for long enough. You have stated that society should be providing welfare for moral reasons. Does your logic not then follow that reciepients have a right to welfare?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've mischaracterized my statement. What I said was:

...I agree with the sentiment expressed as a moral argument in favour of welfare. I think it behoves a just society to see that the down and out are taken care of. I am reticent, however, about codifying unlimited welfare for all who apply for it.

In other words, it's my opinion that acting on the sentiment that the rich should take care of the poor is a feather in our cap as a society, but I have misgivings about making laws to that effect. If the government wants to set up programs to give basic, temporary assistance to the needy I'm all for it. When people suggest this should become a right (with inherent Constitutional implications) I am definitely against it. This is an area of government activity that calls for flexibility, not Supreme Court challenges.

[Renegade]

In other words, it's my opinion that acting on the sentiment that the rich should take care of the poor is a feather in our cap as a society, but I have misgivings about making laws to that effect. If the government wants to set up programs to give basic, temporary assistance to the needy I'm all for it. When people suggest this should become a right (with inherent Constitutional implications) I am definitely against it. This is an area of government activity that calls for flexibility, not Supreme Court challenges.

Sorry, BHS, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I take what you are saying as welfare is a system which as a society is a "nice thing to do" but not an obligation. I agree with you that welfare is not a right.

My only deviation from you is that I think there is a practical reason to pay welfare (ie to keep the peace), and that any other purpose of welfare is basiclly charity. IMO charity should be the realm of voluntary giving and not forced taxation.

[geoffrey]

One main argument for welfare is that, well, its fair that everyone has a minimum standard of living. But explain to me how it is fair that I have to work and Mr. (or Miss or Mrs or whatever you may be) Welfare doesn't.

Lets limit welfare to shorter time, like 3 months. You can't find a job, then tough. I have younger siblings that aren't even adults that have had no problem finding a job that if they worked full time at would make as much as welfare.

Mentally sick or physically disabled is different. And I don't classify druggies into either, they don't deserve my money no matter what they claim. These people need to be helped, but only if they truly can't find employment due to their impairments. No one should die because they were born a quadrapaligic (sorry spelling), however, someone who likes their cocaine and meth really doesn't deserve a penny from me.

[Renegade]

Lets limit welfare to shorter time, like 3 months. You can't find a job, then tough. I have younger siblings that aren't even adults that have had no problem finding a job that if they worked full time at would make as much as welfare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then it's not much different than EI, right?

Mentally sick or physically disabled is different. And I don't classify druggies into either, they don't deserve my money no matter what they claim. These people need to be helped, but only if they truly can't find employment due to their impairments. No one should die because they were born a quadrapaligic (sorry spelling), however, someone who likes their cocaine and meth really doesn't deserve a penny from me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Disabled doesn't mean unemployable. We shouldn't write them off, just because they have a disability. There will of course be some disabilities so severe that they preclude the person working in any capacity. The disabled do face much larger challenges than the reset of us, not just because of their disability, but also because of biases in society, so they are due special consideration.

[err]

Disabled doesn't mean unemployable. We shouldn't write them off, just because they have a disability. There will of course be some disabilities so severe that they preclude the person working in any capacity.  The disabled do face much larger challenges than the reset of us, not just because of their disability, but also because of biases in society, so they are due special consideration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yah... maybe we could make work camps for them... where they could do laundry for the hospitals or something, like at the Bernardo orphanages... but you could pay them $3/hour so they feel useful. Then they could fire that overpaid bastard who makes $16/hour doing the job now...

[Renegade]

Yah... maybe we could make work camps for them... where they could do laundry for the hospitals or something, like at the Bernardo orphanages...  but you could pay them $3/hour so they feel useful. Then they could fire that overpaid bastard who makes $16/hour doing the job now...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good idea. Now your on to something.

Bernado orphanages?? What the heck is that?

[BHS]

Bernado orphanages?? What the heck is that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

English orphan boys were brought to Canada in the early part of the twentieth century to work on farms. I have a friend who's grandfather was a Bernardo boy.

[BHS]

Actually, it's apparently spelt "Barnardo".

[Guest eureka]

My next door neighbour's father was a Barnardo Boy.