Mutually Exclusive Concepts (Ranty Questions)

[Big Daddy]

So self sufficiency also means I got mine sucks to be you. These concepts you're talking about worked back in the 1800s. They don't work now. I would be a lot more concerned about how much of my tax dollar goes towards killing people in foreign countries than what they spend to help a woman in need. Not everyone wants to go to a church for charity. I would like to see hat would happen if conservatives controlled everything and there was no more welfare or help for anybody except the rich. Somehow I don't think churches could handle it all.

 

[patandchickens]

"Spontaneously help your neighbors" works okay when there's just a few folks needing help, living amongst many who don't (and are better-than-average generous)

However it demonstrably doesn't work so well in regions where practically everyone is seriously needy, or in places where (however you may disapprove of it) in reality people just DON'T help those in trouble. Both of these situations are, alas, fairly common.

If you believe in self sufficiency, how can you also believe in wealth re-distribution? To me these are mutually exclusive concepts

And yet, to others they are not mutually exclusive, believe it or not

"Self" sufficiency? The self is never utterly sufficient. Even weird hairy mountain men who saw another human being only every five years still used guns and ammo and metal knives that were made *by other people*. We all depend on each other for a myriad of things in a myriad of ways. So it depends what you MEAN by self sufficiency, as the literal thing does not really exist.

Also, some people consider there to be additional moral imperatives of equal or greater importance to self-sufficiency. Don't we get to have more than one principle in life if we want? I'm sure you do

If you are spending time, effort, money, etc... learning to provide for yourself and your family, why should you be forced to have your efforts redirected to someone who took vacations, bought expensive cars and bought two houses and is now broke?

Nobody's argued that that would be a good thing! The idea being espoused involves doing as much filtering as possible to weed OUT that sort of situation, and direct aid to those as *need* it.

Pat

 

[Wifezilla]

The self is never utterly sufficient. Even weird hairy mountain men who saw another human being only every five years still used guns and ammo and metal knives that were made *by other people*

Buying something made by someone else is voluntary interdependence. Having government take from you and give to someone else isn't even remotely the same thing.

So self sufficiency also means I got mine sucks to be you.

Being able to take care of myself doesn't automatically make me some kind of evil jerk. If everyone who can take care of themselves does, it leaves only a few who actually need help. Not having a system that is easily exploitable by those who WONT also frees up money, time and effort for the truly needy.

Also, some people consider there to be additional moral imperatives of equal or greater importance to self-sufficiency.

I believe in your right to follow your principles. I do not believe in your right to force me to follow your additional moral imperatives.

I don't know of any organization whether it's a Forbes 500 company, government run facility or religious sanctuary that's without some kind of graft or corruption.

Which is why charity should be one on one. I am afraid that people want a government run entitlement system so they don't have to feel accountable or face the consequences for their actions. Easier to use the government to steal for you.

 

[tamlynn]

Balancing justice and mercy is not an easy task is it? But I do think that penalizing people for working hard and making good choices is wrong. If you are familiar with the Bible story of the prodigal son, think about the prodigal son's brother -the one who didn't squander his inheritance. Sometimes it is hard to be the prodigal son's brother when you see others receiving help when you made good choices/had different circumstances and didn't need that help.

 

[MorelCabin]

In my experience it is the most needy people who can't get assistance anyway. Homeless people cannot get welfare...how many of you know that? You need a place of residence to be able to collect, and to have a place of residnce you obviously need money, so it is a catch twenty two for many many needy people out there

 

[patandchickens]

Wifezilla, remember you are ALREADY doing all this stuff, have been all your life, it is not a new idea, it is an intrinsic part of the tax code. You can of course object to the whole thing and believe none of it should ever have happened, but that is in no way specific to the current administration or its plans.

I believe in your right to follow your principles. I do not believe in your right to force me to follow your additional moral imperatives.

There is the crux of the problem. If a person has no right to say 'boo' to anyone no matter what the other person's ideas or principles or ideas are, Bad Things Happen. Absolute true anarchy has never been a successful mode of social structure in, like, the history of the human race

And furthermore it is not even POSSIBLE for everybody to just completely live and let live, because sometimes (not necessarily in the healthcare debate, mind you, but I mention this to demonstrate the non-viability of hardcore everyone-does-their-own-thing ideas in general) two peoples' wishes or principles will turn out to be in complete conflict, and it is simply impossible for them not to interfere with each others' rights to do what the other wishes.

So, in both cases... at *some* point, there is a line drawn where you say "well, individual freedom is good, but there are some things more important, and at this point I have to step in and interfere with your right to do whatever the blazes you feel like".

Therefore, like it or not, it is simply not possible to have a system where nobody can/should ever try to require other people to obey rules that the other people don't happen to want to.

Everybody has a different idea of where this line should be drawn. But, everybody HAS a mental 'line'. It's just that some peoples' line happens to be here, w/r/t the healthcare thing. You know?

That is what makes society a delicate, ever-changing balance; and that is why nobody will ever be 100% happy with the rules

Pat

 

[Wifezilla]

In my experience it is the most needy people who can't get assistance anyway. Homeless people cannot get welfare...how many of you know that? You need a place of residence to be able to collect, and to have a place of residnce you obviously need money, so it is a catch twenty two for many many needy people out there

I have seen the same thing. I have a friend with serious mental problems. She can't get help because she comes off as "too normal" during interviews. She is high functioning autistic and a multi. Fortunately she found a job working from home on the computer. Face to face with strangers is incredibly difficult for her. Her ability to function varies from day to day. She is struggling her hardest to stay employed.

 

[Wifezilla]

Everybody has a different idea of where this line should be drawn. But, everybody HAS a mental 'line'.

You can freely and voluntarily give away as much of your money, hard work, time and effort as you want without interfering in my life one bit. You cross the line when you try to, through government surrogates, decided how MY time, MY money and My efforts are spent.

I guess we could all stop arguing if people would just admit that they want the right to control the lives and fortunes of others since that is what it boils down to. Be honest about it at least and quit pretending it is something else.

 

[reinbeau]

Envy is as bad, if not worse, than greed.

 

[Blackbird]

WZ, just by saying that, no one is forcing anything onto you, just as you ranting about the government isn't forcing your opinions on us just by your believe.
Not sure what makes you think that.