The Social Contract?

[Berzerker]

AS -

where'd you get that from... i was just pointing out that the welfare state didn't cause moral decay... we had moral decay in the 20's before the welfare state and we had great moral strength in the 50's with the welfare state... the 1960's was the cause of moral decay, not the welfare state.

Takes a while, one or two decades are not enough for the flaws with a welfare state to show up. The welfare state was still very small in the 50's and out of wedlock births still manageable. You said we are morally decaying, yet we've had several decades now of this ever growing welfare state which you claim enhances morality...

chegitz -

And people lived shorter, poorer, and more miserable lives. Oh, let's go back to the feudal system.

Because people owned the fruits of their labor or because someone else kept taking it away? That's like saying Pharaonic Egypt dis-credits socialism... These peoples had a different "social contract", to serve the needs of the their rulers. Hey, the more things change the more they seem the same...

[David Floyd]

AS,

che said it as well as I could. Inner cities are not mainstream America.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Unless it goes under before then (or, unless someone like me manages to get rid of it).

Despite conservative predictions, SS will neither go under nor be abolished. No politician will ever let their constituants' grandparents be kicked out onto the streets.

[David Floyd]

Yeah, you can always trust politicians to pander to special interest groups with money and vote-buying power

[Al B. Sure!]

berserker:

You said we are morally decaying, yet we've had several decades now of this ever growing welfare state which you claim enhances morality...

are you and dave stupid? where are you pulling this stuff from? where did i say the welfare state enhances morality. i was just saying the existance of a welfare state is irrelevent to morality... it's comparing apples and oranges. welfare can, however, help some of the effects of moral decay (such as poverty) but thats about it. theyre two different things.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -

Because people owned the fruits of their labor or because someone else kept taking it away?

While serfs had god-awful lives, even yoeman peasants didn't have lives we'd consider enjoyable. ****, just look at the plaines settler stories to see what a hell being a free land farmer was in the 19th Century.

That's like saying Pharaonic Egypt dis-credits socialism...

That's like saying frogs discredit fish. One has nothing to do with the other.

These peoples had a different "social contract", to serve the needs of the their rulers. Hey, the more things change the more they seem the same...

That's captalism for you. The only difference is that today you have a choice of masters and the master/salve relationship is masked with a money payment. You still don't own the fruits of your labor.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But that's exactly what you do when you support and vote for government social programs. You force me to help others.

No, you are required to indirectly pay for the benefits you received.

You received a free pre-university education, now it's your turn to pay for some of the costs.

You live in a society that is relatively free of mass contagions like the plague, small pox and typhoid. That's a direct benefit of public health care that helps prevent minor illness from developing into major illnesses.

These are two examples, but there are many more.

And if you want to skip out on the bill and dodge your responsibilities then you can. You are free to move to another country.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yeah, you can always trust politicians to pander to special interest groups with money and vote-buying power

That's their job, pandering to their "special interests," i.e., their constituants. Why is doing what the majority of people who voted for you considered pandering to special interests, but doing what business wants isn't?

[David Floyd]

i was just saying the existance of a welfare state is irrelevent to morality...

Whoa! Morality is the essence of my opposition to the welfare state!

I believe that when the government takes my money and gives it to people who didn't earn it, and says that if I don't comply I'll go to prison, that is functionally the same as YOU doing it. I see no fundamental difference. You see, I think the only person with a valid claim on my property is me, until I decide otherwise. Reasonable, I would think.

I also believe that stealing is immoral, because it coerces me - coercion, in my opinion, is immoral. Shocking, huh?

Given that, the essence of my opposition to any sort of welfare state is moral. The existence of a welfare state is, by definition, immoral.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Morality is the essence of my opposition to the welfare state!

Which is why most people think your morals are ****ed. Morality was the basis of the creation of the welfare state.

[Al B. Sure!]

fine... it's irrelevent to morality in terms of familial obligations... traditional morality.

[David Floyd]

Tingkai,

You received a free pre-university education, now it's your turn to pay for some of the costs.

Actually, I went to private school most of my life, which I assure you, wasn't free. Given that, how is it fair to expect me to pay for an education twice?

You live in a society that is relatively free of mass contagions like the plague, small pox and typhoid. That's a direct benefit of public health care that helps prevent minor illness from developing into major illnesses.

Yet, the US is NOT overrun by the plague, and yet, our health care system is private - certainly private in comparison to European nations.

And if you want to skip out on the bill and dodge your responsibilities then you can. You are free to move to another country.

Which is a joke, because that won't exempt me from having to pay the same taxes - or greater ones - there. I'm objecting to the morality and fairness of the system. If you're rebuttal is that I should leave if I don't like it, then I would make that same response to anyone who complains about, say, slavery.

che,

That's their job, pandering to their "special interests," i.e., their constituants.

Actually, special interest groups tend to be a minority viewpoint - take the environmental lobby, for example. Or lobbyists for attorneys. In some cases the special interests represent a majority in a certain constituency, that's true, but even then, I don't think that the job of a Congressman or Senator is strictly to do what their constituents want - it's to uphold the Constitution and to pass fair and moral laws.

Why is doing what the majority of people who voted for you considered pandering to special interests, but doing what business wants isn't?

I oppose pandering to businesses as well, chegitz - I've never been in favor of corporate welfare. Now, the types of things I support are generally beneficial to businesses, but that's because I believe in the free market.

[David Floyd]

Which is why most people think your morals are ****ed.

Not really. Do YOU support the legalization of armed robbery?

Oh, I see, you don't - you just think that it should be illegal for a private citizen to commit armed robbery. When the government (an organization presumably backed by a large number of people) does it, you call it something else.

Yeah, that makes sense

Morality was the basis of the creation of the welfare state.

Yeah, all sorts of people use "morality" to back their beliefs. Doesn't make all of them right. (Working hard to avoid invoking Godwin's Law here ). Most of these people also suffer from severe problems with the inconsistency of their beliefs, too.

[Ben Kenobi]

have it on record that Ben Kenobi does not support government mandated social programs.

This topic is social security.

There are many other government programs that we could discuss, but right now we are only dealing with social security.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Families, not neighbours, are the way that I've heard the social contract stated. Sure, the concept may have been broadened to include neighbours, but it all starts with family.

Neighbours, and countrymen too, Ben. That's why it is a social contract, not a family contract. That's also why it is a concept of the Enlightenment. People were banded together in families and small communities for a long time before it seemed wise to acknowledge that there are obligations beyond these small groups to the larger group of all citizens.