Public schools at it again

[Testosterone boy]

I am the insured that did not receive his rightful insurance from his insurer.
what a coincidence

Oh fuck...my neck feels like it has a knife in it. My right arm has numbness.

All from an 18 wheeler in '95.


A Jewish doctor did EVERYTHING he could to see that I got ZILCH.

I got $125,000 because I had some connections. Otherwise, I might have received nothing.

Doctors and insurance companies.....I have seen a dark side quite closely.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

However, if one group overwhelms another (poor vs rich), I could see one take matters into their own hands. After all, the most dangerous person would be one with nothing to lose.

That's why we have laws, and a judicial system: to protect the rights of others, which is the thing I said I would gladly contribute my taxes to.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Matt
You can have an individually isolated, self centered sense of morality, but you have to wake up to the cold fact that you actually DO live on this little planet with more than 6 billion other people and you live in your country with ~300 million other people.

I fully support the protection of their rights to the same extent that mine would be protected. Their rights are fully supported too.

Most members know I think about it this way and that you think about it your way but since you did too I will repeat myself...

I DO think people have the moral obligation to help others if it can be done in a constructive, humble way and I even think the right of people to basic help, outweighs the property rights of those who are not in need of money.

There is no such thing as a "right to basic help". A right is derived from man's capacity for rationality. This capacity means that man is free to choose what he does and does not do. When you speak about a right to basic help (or healthcare, or education) you speak of taking away the choice from the provider.

No rights are conferred by forcing another to act. That's theft.

Some will argue "need" is hard to define but I find it rather simple, personal need to me is what one needs to be healthy and safe and have the ability to develop skills or knowledge fitting to their capacities and motivation. When you think about it this is a humble, basic definition. These are not comfortable leeches sitting back mocking the working man... These goals are realistic with a small budget...

This is irrelevant to the concept of individual rights.

That said it should be taken into account that not all that much of the budget actually goes to programs to help poor people get into a better situation. People equate helping poorer people in the first world to 50% taxes... that's rediculously skewed. In reality it does/would only take very little money from the average working man.

there are charities to do this; most of America's richest people are its largest givers, and this was true even before it was tax-advantageous; ie Rockefeller, Carnegie, Duke, etc.

The difference is, it was voluntary.

So the pessimists will say what about those who lack all motivation or capacity and would simply stick in this system forever. Well freaking let them. If this system would be run well it would provide only the NEEDS for these people... cheap simple food, cheap (secondhand) clothing and small, basic housing. This costs so little it's almost more desirable to just pay this than to have these people walk the streets homeless.

People for whom living this way is not enough incentive to get a job if they can, I don't think will get a job if they otherwise starve. I'd sooner see them start stealing.

This has little to do with the concept of a system of laws that protect individual rights.

 

[Robert Jan]

There is no such thing as a "right to basic help". A right is derived from man's capacity for rationality. This capacity means that man is free to choose what he does and does not do. When you speak about a right to basic help (or healthcare, or education) you speak of taking away the choice from the provider.

No rights are conferred by forcing another to act. That's theft.

That's a subjective judgement. The right to property is not as simple as the right to free speech. Because my right to free speech does not stop you from having yours. But the fact you own a piece of land, prevents me from owning the same piece. Property rights can't be all black and white.

there are charities to do this; most of America's richest people are its largest givers, and this was true even before it was tax-advantageous; ie Rockefeller, Carnegie, Duke, etc.

The difference is, it was voluntary.

If charity was enough there would be no needy



This has little to do with the concept of a system of laws that protect individual rights.
True, this is utilitarianism, thinking about what will happen, to people, instead of some kind of kantian rationalisation of what you have or have not to do.

 

[manny78]

20 years ago, we had a ratio of 20 kids going at a puvlic school for every kid at a private school. Now the ratio is 8 for 1 here. Go figure why...

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

That's a subjective judgement. The right to property is not as simple as the right to free speech. Because my right to free speech does not stop you from having yours. But the fact you own a piece of land, prevents me from owning the same piece. Property rights can't be all black and white.

I see what you are saying, but my ownership of property does not stop you from owning a piece of property. It merely means that two people cannot own the same piece of property at the same time. This is the very definition of property rights - I am allowed to own something without others having claim to it.

This right also protects your things.


Utilitarianism - have you read anything by John Rawls about it? His best known work is "A Theory of Justice" - you are probably familiar with it.

For a critique of it, read Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" - the latter is a very academic read, whereas Rawls is not as dense.

 

[gotmilk]

How much were your property taxes this year?

Way too much and I am about to get crushed next year. 10,000 square foot home in Bar Harbor on the water. First year of ownership and a town in need of money.

Here in Maine they are trying to pass a tax cap where towns can only charge 1% of actual home values. This is going to crush every town if it passes.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Way too much and I am about to get crushed next year. 10,000 square foot home in Bar Harbor on the water. First year of ownership and a town in need of money.

Here in Maine they are trying to pass a tax cap where towns can only charge 1% of actual home values. This is going to crush every town if it passes.

In FL it is 2%.

It might actually make towns more efficient; either way, you've gotta have a way to shut off the confiscation.

Hope it passes.

 

[bluepeter]

In FL it is 2%.

It might actually make towns more efficient; either way, you've gotta have a way to shut off the confiscation.

Hope it passes.

While I agree, that would be against the free market ideal wouldn't it Matt?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

While I agree, that would be against the free market ideal wouldn't it Matt?

property tax is by definiton against the ideal; thus a supporter of a free market would support a lowering of this tax.