The Social Contract?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Did black people have a social responsibility to be slaves 150 years ago? But I sure will remember the "love it or leave it" mentality y'all have, just another thing in common with the warmongering right.

Did the slaves have freedom? No.

You're also twisting my words. I never said love it or leave it nor anything to this conservative concept.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Albert Speer

as for what causes moral decay, my finger is pointed to what happened in the 1960's with the feminists, new ageists, hippies, druggies, etc. they ****ed it all up...

Nah, the moral decay when they started putting floride in water.

[Al B. Sure!]

Tingkai:

i think it is not a stretch of logic to claim that our modern moral decay comes from the late 1960's... certainly 'recreational' drug use skyrocketed during the period and has been high ever since... sexual activity, particularily that whole free love thing also has had long-term effects on modern society.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
FDR was such a clever man for keeping the welfare state going... we can't stop s. security now because the old timers already paid for it and it wouldn't be fair if they didn't get their money back.

But we're paying for it and it'll be stopped before we claim it. IMHO the fairest thing is to phase it out gently. The best way in the UK to do that would be to freeze the state pension. Because of inflation, it will become less and less valuable until it's worth so little we can remove it completely. We cannot afford to reconnect the link between earnings and pensions, it would be unfeasable in the long term, so we'll pay a *lot* for it now, but won't be able to claim anything.

[Tingkai]

It's been distorted by ideology and myth.

The late-60s saw a counter-response in the United States to the 1950s myth of the nice, clean urban middle class families popularised by television shows.

People were doing drugs and boozing it up before the 60s, they were screwing around like rabbits.

The difference is that befoe the 60s, American films and TV would never mention any of this. The media presented a fake straight-laced world. Ths started to fall apart in the 60s, but only slightly.

I'm babbling. My point is that you are measuring morality using the 1950s as a benchmark when the 50s were an unusual abberation.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Drogue

But we're paying for it and it'll be stopped before we claim it.

And the reason that it will be stopped is because we need to stop it because it's going to be stopped before we claim it.

[Berzerker]

If you use something and you don't pay for it, then in this context, it is fair to call you a leech.

Confessions of a left winger? Arguing that other people in "society" must pay for what you want from government and calling it a social contract is akin to the Mafia extorting money from business owners and calling it protection.

If you don't want to pay taxes, then you're trying to be a leech.

But not the people "taxing" me to enrich themselves and their "friends"? Turn the binoculars around...

AS -

blah? i'm not understanding where you getting this stuff from...

first of all, YOU were the one that claimed that our moral decay was a result of the welfare system, claiming that the welfare state broke up the traditional family, etc.

And you disagreed, so what's the problem?

(which, as Imran pointed out, was already broken what with the industrial revolution and the end of family farming and what not).

A key indicator of this damage done to families by the welfare state is out of wedlock birth rates and that translates into poverty rates. Industrialisation didn't cause that...the state trying to play Daddy did...

To respond to YOUR claim that the welfare state causes moral decay, i pointed out that prior to the welfare state there was moral decay, meaning immorality occured when there was no welfare state... I proved the welfare state is not the main cause of immorality.

That's nice, but I never said the welfare state is the main cause of immorality. I believe I said it's a major cause of the moral decay we see in the US.

Then i noted that the 1950's saw great moral decency as well as the welfare state... unlike as you claimed, the introduction of a welfare state didn't cause moral breakdown. therefore, a welfare state does not cause immorality, at least not in the first two decades.

therefore, your claim that the welfare state is the cause of present immoralities is not true when considering pre-welfare and post-welfare (the first 20-30 years) america.

You mean if immorality has existed in the past, no government action or program in the future can result in immorality?

as for what causes moral decay, my finger is pointed to what happened in the 1960's with the feminists, new ageists, hippies, druggies, etc. they ****ed it all up...

But not the welfare state that decided to wage a war half way around the world where millions died?

damn... i thought i had made my point clearly before with no room for interpretation yet both you and dave came up with crazy mess. i dont know what's going on.

You were clear - welfare states don't induce immorality, they enhance it. And the proof for this is that immorality existed before welfare states,

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Tingkai
And the reason that it will be stopped is because we need to stop it because it's going to be stopped before we claim it.

No, the reason it will be stopped is because it is unsustainable. Even given all political pressure to keep it, eventually it will make us go bankrupt, since we can't afford it as it currently is. The only way to make it affordable would be to pay it from a later age, or only for a certain period. At some point, it will have to be reduced. I favour reducing it slowly, over a couple of generations, rather than a sudden shock which will hit one generation.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Tingkai
If you don't want to pay taxes, then you're trying to be a leech.

Only if you want the services too. If you don't want to pay taxes or have the services, then you're not a leech, since you're not taking anyone elses money. It's the people who want better services and lower taxes (read: Tories) that I have a problem with.

[Tingkai]

Admit it Bezerker, you want all the benefits of living in the great society of the United States, without paying for it. You want to be a freeloader.

And you know as well as I do that this stuff about "I'm the only one being taxed and I'm being robbed" is just crap.

As for the people taxing you, you're one of them. You live in a democratic country so if you don't like it then you can try to change the system, but don't be surprised when people quickly realise that your plan is completely unworkable.

[Drogue]

He is trying to change the system, and from what he's said, I'd presume that he doesn't want the benefits, at least not when he's better off not paying tax and paying for them himself. Healthcare is workable like that, so's education and social security, as a 'pay at point of service' service. It would be a disaster IMHO, but it would mean that everyone would get what they pay for, which is what the Libertarians seem to want. We all know we're not the only ones being taxed, but that still means we are being taxed, against the will of some.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I don't agree that people who want to criminalize porn can be classified as "reasonable". There is no "reasonable" justification for the existence of any victimless crime (a point on which I think both of us agree, though I could be wrong).

There is plenty of research to show that the production of pron is not victimless, that it depends on women who suffer from varying degrees of mental problems and previous abuse. I may not share all the conclusions that some conservative feminists have, but I don't simply dismiss their arguments as unreasonable. In any event, I think people have the right to engage in self-harmful behavior.

But the point can easily be made that in the absence of having to pay for public education - that is, in the absence of a public education system - the costs of private education would fall drastically (the free market at work)

Because this is born out historically and in reality? The sad fact is, unless public education exists, the majority of children do not get educated. Education not only benefits the educated, it benefits the rest of society. People with educations are much less likely to turn to violent crime for a living. They are more productive, and they invent all kinds of interesting stuff. There is a reason the U.S. leads the world, and despite the claims of its detractors, it's because our education system is one of the best in the world.

There is a difference between taxes and user fees. Taxes are used to fund wealth transfer programs, while user fees force users to pay for what they use. Toll roads, for example.

So justice only for those who can afford it and everyone else has to suffer from crime?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Drogue

No, the reason it will be stopped is because it is unsustainable. Even given all political pressure to keep it, eventually it will make us go bankrupt, since we can't afford it as it currently is. The only way to make it affordable would be to pay it from a later age, or only for a certain period. At some point, it will have to be reduced. I favour reducing it slowly, over a couple of generations, rather than a sudden shock which will hit one generation.

Ah, nope. As far as I know, Britian's pension system has a very healthy surplus, as does the US and Canadian systems.

Besides, pensions are a tiny percent of government spending. Even doubling pension payments would not bankrupt the government.

And if you say there will be too many old people in the future, well that's what they said in the 80s and then along came the so-called Y-generation that is as big as the baby boom generation. Predicting future populations is not a science

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
che,
I don't care - like I've said many times, I'm not picky about how you select a government. I'm only picky about what powers that government has.

Democracy is more than just a method of selection. It is litterally, "rule of the people." If people want their government to provide services for them, they have every right to demand it does so.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Drogue
He is trying to change the system, and from what he's said, I'd presume that he doesn't want the benefits, at least not when he's better off not paying tax and paying for them himself. Healthcare is workable like that, so's education and social security, as a 'pay at point of service' service. It would be a disaster IMHO, but it would mean that everyone would get what they pay for, which is what the Libertarians seem to want. We all know we're not the only ones being taxed, but that still means we are being taxed, against the will of some.

He and other Libertarians ignoring the indirect benefits of social programmes and that is the fatal flaw in their ideology.