Nobody would want to moderate.

ABGE - excellent - exactly the thought that I was thinking.

So...woudl you say that what makes one person better than another might include whether or not they do harm to another, or likewise whether or not they benefit another (even when not required to do so)? (i.e. these would be characteristics of a doctor versus a murderer)

LocateMyAnus - are you lurking? Perv.....

http://www.waynetothfx.com/images/LARGEpage_images/Movie_images_LG/lurking_fear1.gif

Abge.....just gonna jump ahead here.....
-----

OK – so would you say the average janitor is capable of more? I.e. they have within them the potential to do more, to contribute more to society, but choose not to? They choose to not succeed in school (not try), choose through inaction to not improve their lot in life?

Therefore, as it is arguably true that a janitor contributes less to society (certainly pays more taxes), and would be much more prone to “require” government assistance at some time – i.e. take of the wealth and work of others (against their will) – would you not say that this make the janitor less than you, because he willfully takes (harms) others when he has the capability not to?

Now – caveat – of course there are some (few) who may be intellectually perfect for being a janitor for one reason or another – which makes them no less than you because they are what they can/should be. Also, it is true that if everyone became what they “could” be, we may have a janitor shortage (or more robots)….but thee hypotheticals are irrelevant. What we have is what is – that there are a plethora of janitors (admittedly doing a necessary job) that are in fact less than they could be, are arguably in some form a burden to others (financial assistance in one form or another) and are therefore less than you.

"certainly pays LESSe taxes)"

I agree that contributions to society are a basis for judging a person's worth.

However, as janitors do in fact contribute to society, I don't think any contributions they need from the government vilifies them. That is an artifact of society not properly reimbursing someone for a job that is needed. Not a failing of the person them self

"That is an artifact of society not properly reimbursing someone for a job that is needed. Not a failing of the person them self "

That's where we disagree. They are properly reimbursed, as they accept what they are given. If they want more, they will stop being a janitors and SELF-IMPROVE.

The problem with government assistance, and (forgive the use fo teh word) Liberal policy is that is tends to want to artificially equalize people under this phiosophy that no man is better than another, and we all deserve some equal standard. I say bullshit -- we can both agree that most janitors are capable of more, but choose to be where they aer. therefore, why should Abge, who has worked his ass off to get his Master's degree, who is swimming in debt, and did it all both for the love of knowledge, and for the lifestyle such knowledge will allow him to have -- why shoudl Abge have his wealth and success -- and the hard work of 18 years of top-notch education - diminished because someone else choose to skip classes and smoke dope?

As for the use of teh word "villify" -- I dont' think accepting the check villifies the janitor, any more than I think any individual union employee is a villian when they are overcompensated for putting in the same screw all day long with robotic assistance. I think the government that takes from you to give to them is the villian, and the union organization as an entity and their "leaders" that use the power of "collective bargaining"....wait....let's rephrase that....the power of BLACKMAIL...is the villian.

I'm lurking :D

In theory, I agree with you. People should work hard to get better things. However, I think it's pretty clear that not everyone has equal opportunities, and this must be accounted for.

The best solution would be to make sure children had access to good education, healthy food, and safe homes. A single mother working 2 minimum wage jobs can't go to school to better herself. And likely her kid will suffer because of it. That isn't a failing on their part. It is a failing if society to make sure everyone has a minimally decent standard of living and have realistic opportunities to better themselves.

" why shoudl Abge have his wealth and success -- and the hard work of 18 years of top-notch education - diminished because someone else choose to skip classes and smoke dope?"

I shouldn't and I would gladly kick such people to the curb. The issue is I don't believe that describes most people on handouts. Most people, I think, would better themselves if there were actual oppurto to do so.

I guess you could summarize like this: society should help those who need help, even if that means accidentally helping some people who are just lazy.

I dont' think most people would, because so many people don't. I think most people are content where they are - not that they just don't know how to do better. Maybe that's a difference in philosophy, or maybe that just a difference in life experiences.

That being said, I do believe that if you look at things like Inner City culture, we truly have generational poverty and distitution, and we have kids that honetly don't have a clue that they can be better, and their expectations are set to a minimum at such an early age they have psychological barriers to success.

For example, when a black man succeeds and is labeled an "Uncle Tom"...this is a cultural (and racial) barrier to success that is self-imposed by a corrupt cultural institution.

----

As for kicking peole to the curb -- you need to go back and look at various examples of changing tax policy, welfare policy, etc. In Michigan about 20 years ago there was a chagne in the way Welfare woudl be implemented -- i.e. they were going to stop giving it out to people that didn't meet certain criteria. "Kick them to the curb" if you will.

Naturaly, the Liberal politicians and advocacy groups said that Michigan was ging to become a state of destitution. We were going to have thousands of new homeless, and people literally starving on the streets when their benefits were cut off.

Low and behold, the deal went through, the generous welfare state was trimmed back and....huh, funny thing happened...all those people that were supposed to be starving on the streets as the new homeless....they foudn some personal motivation and found jobs...

Same thing happened nationally when Clinton singed welfare reform.

So the rpboelm with handouts is that when I strip you of the need for motivating yourself by rubbing your belly, telling you it isn't your fault and giving you a cookie, you stop trying.

--

anecdotally, have kids, and expirement with chores for pay, versus just a weekly allowance separated from a chore list.

The kids want a clean house and understand the value of a clean house, clean dishes, etc. If they get paid for it, they do. If they don't get paid for it, it's a fight to get them to do it, unless some external force pressures them to do it (i.e. Mom and Dad set dirty plates on teh table in front of them, or maybe friends are coming over and they don't want to be embarassed by a dirty house). But one thing that has consistently been demonstrated is that if they don't have to clean the house because someone else does it, they will almost never do it on their own. It's human nature.

"society should help those who need help,"

NEED.....and there's the kicker. Define "need" and we'll solve a lot of problems.

What is need, and what is "needed". (I.e does anyone "need" a cell phone for example??? Modern Liberalism says "YES!!")

bump

Holy fuck!

A telephone of some sort is certainly a need. I would argue that it makes much more sense to pay for a pre-paid flip-phone than a landline.

One land line cost far less than than flip phones for a family.

Regardless - without quibbling over the specifc details of what is a "need" and what is not a "need". A need is something that I can not survive without....food, shelter, clothing. A cell phone? No...that is a convenience. Nobody died for lack of a cell phone. IN fact, many Americans go without. Hell, Americans used to share a line...

The idea of motivating people to be the best they can be (or at least better themselves to the point of self-sufficiencyh) is to acknowledge that INconvenience is a motivator. A cell phone is a convenience, not a need.

If you are going to make the argument that "Well, what if they need to dial 911" then you might as well say we should provide a car to everyone as well, and on it goes from there.

I see what you're saying, krellin, and on many things I would agree. For instance, they don't need cable. A phone, though, is not only for safety, as you mentioned, but also a way to better oneself, such as by getting job interviews.

You obviously never studied Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Cell phones were right there at the bottom of the pyramid.

I'm not saying a phone is needed in the way that food is needed. I'm saying it's needed to get oneself out of poverty.

My reply was actually to Krellin we cross-posted. I agree with you.

abge- I understand. I honestly don't begrudge a phone to someone that is **truly** in need. Key word(s)...truly and need. Necessary for getting interviews, receiving calls for jobs (especially for temp workers), etc. But generally, yes, I think we are on the same page.

Mapu - no, I've not studied whatever. Actually, all one needs is to live life and exercise THE LONG LOST ART of COMMON SENSE to understand what a "need" is versus a "want".

Modern Liberalism is much more interested in provide "comfort" than they are in supplying true needs. Because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or make them feel inferior, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

Why not....BUMP.

Krellin, can you explain the difference between socialism and modern liberalism? Please, is for a friend.

And phrase it in the form of a question.

A cell phone is in no way necessary. It might be more convenient, but a land-line with an answering machine worked fine for EVERYONE for 50+ years. Cell phones rock, but I would never want my tax dollars paying for someone's cell phone texting addiction.