The White Ghetto

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

So only if someone is cared for do they deserve the care in the first place.

That seems quite convenient. It is

Does that mean if someone isn't getting proper care that, by definition, they DON'T deserve it? What is proper charity if it's not being given voluntarily? Care can be purchased. Charity that is forced is not charity and no one "deserves" the property of someone else just like they don't deserve to have anyone else as their slave.


The third question wasn't rhetorical.  I have volunteered, but I'm simply trying to gauge the logic of those who think the government's attempt to help people is actually toxic, much less not helpful.  If I have no duty to help someone, and any help could very easily breed dependency and poverty, then I don't see why we should encourage anyone to do something that is OUTSIDE their duty to do, or suggest that institutions dedicated to those support systems are a positive for society in the long-term. This is just more of the Excluded middle fallacy. Either we should have the government steal and redistribute to whom the law decides is needy or we shouldn't have charity. I'm sure everyone else understands why this doesn't make sense so I have to bow out. If anyone else see's where I'm coming up short in the explanation department please let me know.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

I'm not excluding the middle... I'M not saying we "shouldn't have charity."  I'm saying, by a logical conclusion of your premise that 1) we have no "duty" to those in need, and 2) There is a high likelihood that we will actually do damage rather than help them, then 3) Why encourage charities as a solution, rather than question the problem to begin with...

Maybe lack of help for those in need isn't even a problem.  Maybe it is just what it is.  Babies will die, disabled will starve, elderly will get sick... $HIT happens!

I mean you said it yourself:

no one "deserves" the property of someone else

If it would take my willing labor or a doctor's tools to help someone in need, then they don't DESERVE to be helped, given this assertion.

If people don't deserve someone else's property, and to help them would require someone's property, then you are contradicting yourself by saying they deserve it.

Maybe they don't deserve it.  Maybe a baby with dead parents doesn't deserve any help if it requires someone else's property to provide that help, which it would almost certainly require.

[Kshartle]

I can't continue this.

You're deliberatly drawing false conclusions.

Everyone should be free to help whoever they like.

No one should be forced to.

When people are forced to there are moral hazards which create dependancy, entitlement, laziness, etc.

All that nonsense about letting babies starve is just nonsense. More human shields to support the jackboot of the state and the desire to have everyone controlled.

Not supporting welfare has nothing to do with support for private charity or it's virtues.

[Mountaineer]

Kshartle,

I'm not excluding the middle... I'M not saying we "shouldn't have charity."  I'm saying, by a logical conclusion of your premise that 1) we have no "duty" to those in need, and 2) There is a high likelihood that we will actually do damage rather than help them, then 3) Why encourage charities as a solution, rather than question the problem to begin with...

Maybe lack of help for those in need isn't even a problem.  Maybe it is just what it is.  Babies will die, disabled will starve, elderly will get sick... $HIT happens!

I mean you said it yourself:

no one "deserves" the property of someone else

If it would take my willing labor or a doctor's tools to help someone in need, then they don't DESERVE to be helped, given this assertion.

If people don't deserve someone else's property, and to help them would require someone's property, then you are contradicting yourself by saying they deserve it.

Maybe they don't deserve it.  Maybe a baby with dead parents doesn't deserve any help if it requires someone else's property to provide that help, which it would almost certainly require.

I may be totally off base here re. someone needing/requiring help, but it seems you are confusing voluntary help with forced help for your argument. 

What did I miss?

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

I believe that Moda is responding to the argument that receiving help causes dependence, allows bad behavior, etc.  That part of the discussion doesn't differentiate between forced/government help and voluntary help.

he seems to be viewing help as an absolute to make his argument and discounting the difference between good help (the kind that actually helps) and bad help the kind that doesn't help or causes unintended harm (and often steals from others to do so)

[Kshartle]

I may be totally off base here re. someone needing/requiring help, but it seems you are confusing voluntary help with forced help for your argument. 

What did I miss?

... Mountaineer

You missed nothing. This is always the confusion. Escaping the paradigm of forced action has not happened for some. They don't think a voluntary society could exist because they can't think of a way to "enforce" it. Ponder that one

[Kshartle]

I believe that Moda is responding to the argument that receiving help causes dependence, allows bad behavior, etc.  That part of the discussion doesn't differentiate between forced/government help and voluntary help.

He is assuming what is true when the government engages in it is true for non-government persons also.

With that assumption in mind, if welfare is bad then so is private charity.

It's the exluded middle fallacy.

[moda0306]

I can't continue this.

You're deliberatly drawing false conclusions.

Everyone should be free to help whoever they like.

No one should be forced to.

When people are forced to there are moral hazards which create dependancy, entitlement, laziness, etc.

All that nonsense about letting babies starve is just nonsense. More human shields to support the jackboot of the state and the desire to have everyone controlled.

Not supporting welfare has nothing to do with support for private charity or it's virtues.

If you can't answer the question, or the answer is something that doesn't sound nice, that is ok, Kshartle... no need to go on a tirade about how I'm a statist.  This isn't about government... this is about whether people are "deserving" or whether it's healthy for me to help anyone at all.  Forget for a second that government exists at all or that anyone is advocating it.

You said yourself that "NOBODY deserves the property of somebody else."

If it takes the property of somebody else to feed a baby or take care of the disabled, then, by logical conclusion, they do not deserve that help.

I'm not talking about government.  I'm talking about personal moral philosophy.  If you would stop with your straw men and ad hominem attacks against me and my positions , and concentrate on the moral logic around what we "deserve," then you'll find yourself thinking more clearly and able to discuss this topic, rather than whether government should be involved with taking care of people.

[Kshartle]

You said yourself that "NOBODY deserves the property of somebody else."

If it takes the property of somebody else to feed a baby or take care of the disabled, then, by logical conclusion, they do not deserve that help.

I said that deserve was not the correct word. If by "deserve" you mean "implies a duty on behalf of others", then no, they do not.

If people voluntarily give to someone that they value......then that person has done something to demonstrate that they are "worthy" of charity.

Does that make it more clear? Does worthy carry enough distinction from deserve that we can establish that no one "deserves" the property of others but might in fact be "worthy" of charity? That "worthiness" is on display when charity is voluntary (which it has to be to still qualify as charity).

[moda0306]

I believe that Moda is responding to the argument that receiving help causes dependence, allows bad behavior, etc.  That part of the discussion doesn't differentiate between forced/government help and voluntary help.

That, and whether there is any form of deserving in the first place.  If there is, and it takes property to help, then that means "they deserve someone else's property."  (Deductive logic)

If they don't deserve the help (because it requires someone else's property), then let that be your premise upon which you say "stop stealing from me to help the poor because none of them deserve help" rather than trying to explain how great charities and churches work at helping people.

All I want to accomplish with some of these discussions is to find certain valid premises on top of which to build our arguments.  If people don't deserve help, then we're WAY over-complicating the discussion of help for the needy, babies, disabled, etc.  Just say they don't deserve it.

[Kshartle]

I believe that Moda is responding to the argument that receiving help causes dependence, allows bad behavior, etc.  That part of the discussion doesn't differentiate between forced/government help and voluntary help.

That, and whether there is any form of deserving in the first place.  If there is, and it takes property to help, then that means "they deserve someone else's property."  (Deductive logic)

If they don't deserve the help (because it requires someone else's property), then let that be your premise upon which you say "stop stealing from me to help the poor because none of them deserve help" rather than trying to explain how great charities and churches work at helping people.

All I want to accomplish with some of these discussions is to find certain valid premises on top of which to build our arguments.  If people don't deserve help, then we're WAY over-complicating the discussion of help for the needy, babies, disabled, etc.  Just say they don't deserve it.

Before agreeing on premises it's best to agree on definitions, specifically the definition of "deserve".

To you it implies an obligation on the part of another. That's fine....but this obligation must arise from a voluntary agreement. Example - If I sell something on Ebay, the customer "deserves" to have the goods shipped to them by me.

Just being poor doesn't make you deserving.

[moda0306]

You said yourself that "NOBODY deserves the property of somebody else."

If it takes the property of somebody else to feed a baby or take care of the disabled, then, by logical conclusion, they do not deserve that help.

I said that deserve was not the correct word. If by "deserve" you mean "implies a duty on behalf of others", then no, they do not.

If people voluntarily give to someone that they value......then that person has done something to demonstrate that they are "worthy" of charity.

Does that make it more clear? Does worthy carry enough distinction from deserve that we can establish that no one "deserves" the property of others but might in fact be "worthy" of charity? That "worthiness" is on display when charity is voluntary (which it has to be to still qualify as charity).

You said that "deserve" didn't imply a duty of another. I thought we were proceeding on that definition until you mentioned the property thing.

But the definition to the word "worthy" includes "deserve":

deserving effort, attention, or respect.

So if one disabled person is nice, but has lost anyone who cares about him, and nobody in town cares, he isn't "deserving" of help?

While another disabled person is an @sshole, but has a daughter who feels the obligation to help him, he is "deserving" of that help?

Or replace "deserving" with "worthy" if you wish, though it is essentially the same...


This is ok if it is your opinion, but I think some moral philosophers would take issue with your method for determining worthiness.  In this world, a baby with bad parents who don't care for him properly wasn't "worthy" of their care, but a spoiled kid on the other side of town is "worthy" of all the stuff he gets that he didn't need.

Of course, I can't prove my moral position here.  I'm just quite sure yours has some screws loose .

[moda0306]

I believe that Moda is responding to the argument that receiving help causes dependence, allows bad behavior, etc.  That part of the discussion doesn't differentiate between forced/government help and voluntary help.

That, and whether there is any form of deserving in the first place.  If there is, and it takes property to help, then that means "they deserve someone else's property."  (Deductive logic)

If they don't deserve the help (because it requires someone else's property), then let that be your premise upon which you say "stop stealing from me to help the poor because none of them deserve help" rather than trying to explain how great charities and churches work at helping people.

All I want to accomplish with some of these discussions is to find certain valid premises on top of which to build our arguments.  If people don't deserve help, then we're WAY over-complicating the discussion of help for the needy, babies, disabled, etc.  Just say they don't deserve it.

Before agreeing on premises it's best to agree on definitions, specifically the definition of "deserve".

To you it implies an obligation on the part of another. That's fine....but this obligation must arise from a voluntary agreement. Example - If I sell something on Ebay, the customer "deserves" to have the goods shipped to them by me.

Just being poor doesn't make you deserving.

I totally agree we need to establish definitions!!!  I've spent pages with you in other debates trying to do so.

I don't 100% believe that "deserve" MUST imply duty... but it's something I guess I was inclined to believe. I actually think there is some scholarly debate on this based on a couple sites I've hit on while searching.

This is pretty important though.  The way you define "deserving" seems to make it much more a function of the individual providing the charitable service than the one receiving it.  Usually we ask ourselves "is he deserving of some help?"  But nowhere in that do we try to determine whether he's getting help as the DECIDING factor as to whether or not he deserved it in the first place.

[Kshartle]

I don't 100% believe that "deserve" MUST imply duty... but it's something I guess I was inclined to believe. I actually think there is some scholarly debate on this based on a couple sites I've hit on while searching.

This is pretty important though.  The way you define "deserving" seems to make it much more a function of the individual providing the charitable service than the one receiving it.  Usually we ask ourselves "is he deserving of some help?"  But nowhere in that do we try to determine whether he's getting help as the DECIDING factor as to whether or not he deserved it in the first place.

Why is it important?

What different action do you take based on your thoughts on this subject?

It's only important if you think some people should take from others with force and give to others.

I do not so it's irrelavent.

I decide who's worthy of my help. Everyone does that and is free to do that.

When charity is perverted into welfare via theft...the consequences are predictable and what we see before us.

This stuff is simple I think.

How do you think the poor should be helped? Who is deserving of help in your opinion?

[Pointedstick]

I think it's pretty simple: when you give someone your own resources, you'll be choosy about who you think will make a good recipient; you don't want to give away the wealth and goods that you worked hard to accumulate on a bum who's going to just squander the gifts on booze and cigarettes (unless you're their mother, maybe! ).

…But if you have the power to safely take other people's resources without their consent, that significantly lowers the barrier to acquiring valuable resources, which accordingly lowers the reason to carefully choose how to spend them because you didn't have to work as hard to acquire them (this is the same reason why trust fund kids are so spoiled and free-spending). Heck, just give stuff away to people who maybe you think will vote for you as a result even though they don't deserve the stuff at all (because they're able-bodied, of sound mind, have plenty of opportunities, etc).

[Kshartle]

I think it's pretty simple: when you give someone your own resources, you'll be choosy about who you think will make a good recipient; you don't want to give away the wealth and goods that you worked hard to accumulate on a bum who's going to just squander the gifts on booze and cigarettes (unless you're their mother, maybe! ).

…But if you have the power to safely take other people's resources without their consent, that significantly lowers the barrier to acquiring valuable resources, which accordingly lowers the reason to carefully choose how to spend them because you didn't have to work as hard to acquire them (this is the same reason why trust fund kids are so spoiled and free-spending). Heck, just give stuff away to people who maybe you think will vote for you as a result even though they don't deserve the stuff at all (because they're able-bodied, of sound mind, have plenty of opportunities, etc).

Even a charitable organization will have to be selective because significant donars will want to know where the money is going and the criteria.

This is how people who might not have someone directly in their life who loves them can recieve help....if they are worthy of it.

It's all very simple and moral because it's based on a volutary solution to a problem and not the violation of people's rights.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

It's important if I'm to try to decide in my lifetime how to interact with charities and personal decisions about how to help people.

Certainly, some forms of charity breed dependence and feelings of entitlement, which is exactly what is so toxic, in your mind, about the government creating any sort of safety net.  I don't want to be part of the problem if that is the case.

If people are literally not deserving of my help until I've somehow decided they're deserving of my help, that seems like a circular definition. It seems very useless to me.  If a baby dies in a dumpster because his crack-head mom didn't want to take care of him, perhaps I should not feel a "duty" to make sure that happens to as few kids as possible, but I surely would feel he "deserves" better than that.



Personally, I think a large amount of what you see as "property" is simply partially theft from society backed by the force of government, which happens to result in enough order and productivity, though, that it is extremely useful, since we're all in this big moral dilemma of being forced to bump shoulders with each other and compete for resources...

So if we're going to have this social tool called property, it appears that some benefit far more than others by it, so creating a social safety net below which you don't fall I think is a perfectly reasonable balance for everyone else.  If the government is going to protect property for the wealthy, I don't think there's anything wrong with creating a base-line of human dignity.

But that is just my opinion.  More importantly, I want to have a guiding principal with which to live my personal life by, and if I am to do some positive good for others, I'd rather not be doing more harm than good by being a source of dependency and poverty, as you say.

Just curious, how do you define "poverty?"

[Kshartle]

Just curious, how do you define "poverty?"

Unable to afford basic needs:

Shelter, food, clothing, perhaps the tools to earn income (health, car or computer or whatever is neccessary to produce value they can trade for money)


Here are my questions again:

How do you think the poor should be helped? Who is deserving of help in your opinion?

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

I told you I was in favor of government creating a safety net... if you need more detail than that:

- Free education
- Subsidized healthcare
- Help with housing
- Help with food costs

... essentially the same thing you mentioned regarding poverty.

So if government provides "basic needs" such as shelter, food, clothing, and those other tools you mention, which our governments (various levels of it, anyway) in many ways DO provide for people, how can you say that government aid creates poverty.

I received a government education for free (to me)... how did that create poverty for me?

Even if it does breed "dependence," that is very different than "poverty" given your definition.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

I told you I was in favor of government creating a safety net... if you need more detail than that:

- Free education
- Subsidized healthcare
- Help with housing
- Help with food costs

... essentially the same thing you mentioned regarding poverty.

So if government provides "basic needs" such as shelter, food, clothing, and those other tools you mention, which our governments (various levels of it, anyway) in many ways DO provide for people, how can you say that government aid creates poverty.

I received a government education for free (to me)... how did that create poverty for me?

Even if it does breed "dependence," that is very different than "poverty" given your definition.

I missed where you said that first part.

I would like to see if anyone else would prefer to answer your questions before I add a coment on how the government creates poverty doing this stuff. I don't think it's very interesting because it seems so obvious to me. That makes it boring to write about and I'd rather read what others think.

[Pointedstick]

Here is how "free" government education causes problems (pastebomb incoming):

A major problem with government schools is that their structure is often set up to exacerbate existing inequalities. In the United States, for example, government schools draw both their students and their tax revenues from specific geographic areas. Originally intended to create “neighborhood schools,”? the true result is a perverse segregation by income level. Wealthy areas, full of high earners able to pay hefty property tax bills, receive in return well-funded public schools that are mostly safe and attract top teachers eager for students who are generally non-violent and high-achieving. These good school districts attract more wealthy people and upwardly-mobile professionals, inflating neighborhood real estate prices and pricing out poorer people.  The same factor in reverse starves the schools in more impoverished neighborhoods of vital funds and leaves them with students from difficult and unsafe social situations. As the bad schools become a turn-off for home buyers, housing prices fall, and families who value education move elsewhere, starving the schools of the kinds of students that teachers actually want to teach. As a result, these schools gradually see their teaching staff replaced with the bottom of the barrel.
In most American cities, there is a shockingly stark contrast between the well-performing schools filled with the children of upper-middle-class professionals taught by skilled and caring instructors, and the poor schools filled with the children of impoverished and working-class laborers or the unemployed, taught by graduate school washouts and brutes. In this manner, well-off children attend schools that propel them to success, while children dealt worse cards in the game of life find themselves trapped in schools that teach them more about gangs and drugs than writing and math. In many of these places, government schooling is designed less to educate students and more to “get kids off the streets.”? Unfortunately, where street violence is a problem, this simply means that the violence migrates into the schools, since the gangsters-in-training and their victims alike are forced into the same buildings.
As a result of these perverse realities, public education in the United States is a tragic farce that mostly exists to perpetuate pre-existing class distinctions.

[Kshartle]

government creating a safety net...

- Free education
- Subsidized healthcare
- Help with housing
- Help with food costs

Good plan in theory. Abuse of this plan = poor execution in reality.

People who are really in need should receive. Enormously stricter criteria is essential to qualify for, and continue to, receive benefits.

I think the critera should be decided by the ones providing the benefits. This is not the government, they are only providing a portion of what they steal.

[Pointedstick]

In other words, if the "free" (not really free) government education was beneficial to you, it's highly likely that your parents had enough money to live in an area where the schools were of high quality, signaling that in a system without property taxes and neighborhood schools that distort real estate prices, they would have had enough money to afford even an expensive private school. And it is my contention that the absence of "free" (not really free) government primary education would result in a flowering of private schooling options, many of them extremely cheap or even free. What would be the reason to offer schooling for free? Why, to try to tilt dumber students in favor of your point of view, of course. Does this sound monstrous? Well then what do you think the government is getting out of educating kids for free? (not really free)

[moda0306]

Here is how "free" government education causes problems (pastebomb incoming):

A major problem with government schools is that their structure is often set up to exacerbate existing inequalities. In the United States, for example, government schools draw both their students and their tax revenues from specific geographic areas. Originally intended to create “neighborhood schools,”? the true result is a perverse segregation by income level. Wealthy areas, full of high earners able to pay hefty property tax bills, receive in return well-funded public schools that are mostly safe and attract top teachers eager for students who are generally non-violent and high-achieving. These good school districts attract more wealthy people and upwardly-mobile professionals, inflating neighborhood real estate prices and pricing out poorer people.  The same factor in reverse starves the schools in more impoverished neighborhoods of vital funds and leaves them with students from difficult and unsafe social situations. As the bad schools become a turn-off for home buyers, housing prices fall, and families who value education move elsewhere, starving the schools of the kinds of students that teachers actually want to teach. As a result, these schools gradually see their teaching staff replaced with the bottom of the barrel.
In most American cities, there is a shockingly stark contrast between the well-performing schools filled with the children of upper-middle-class professionals taught by skilled and caring instructors, and the poor schools filled with the children of impoverished and working-class laborers or the unemployed, taught by graduate school washouts and brutes. In this manner, well-off children attend schools that propel them to success, while children dealt worse cards in the game of life find themselves trapped in schools that teach them more about gangs and drugs than writing and math. In many of these places, government schooling is designed less to educate students and more to “get kids off the streets.”? Unfortunately, where street violence is a problem, this simply means that the violence migrates into the schools, since the gangsters-in-training and their victims alike are forced into the same buildings.
As a result of these perverse realities, public education in the United States is a tragic farce that mostly exists to perpetuate pre-existing class distinctions.

This is a problem with locally-funded education.  You'll notice that countries with much more centralized education infrastructures don't have as much of this inequality. 

If you think this inequality is bad now, wait until everyone has to pay for their own education.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

So a government that provides housing, education, healthcare and food for the poor (many countries do this to varying degrees) is actually promoting poverty even though it is providing the very things that, by your definition, eliminate poverty??

I know that's not what you're saying, but it's what your contradictions are implying.

If those things are provided for people, how is that expanding poverty?  It really is not that obvious to me...