Basic needs -- right or privilege?

[Oceans11]

The Iraqis have guns and RPG's and stuff.
Theres lots of independents running about the place.

But they are a little pack, and less organised and specialised.

In a 'real' war in Iraq, if oil REALLY meant life or death, the US military would do a Nazi B52 job on the place and would wipe out every male Iraqi in the country and then take the oil.

The system you want -ownership leads inevitably to its most potent form (and the system you despise) hierarchical state organisational control.(In various forms. Egypt, Rome, Communism, Mixed Capitalism/socialism)

Thats the natural evolution of ownership.

As soon as you put up a fence, and say

"This is MINE !"

You start building the road to statism in all its various forms and guises.

[This message was edited by eek on May 16, 2004 at 09:49 AM.]

 

[DarrylParsons]

Wil,

My opinion on the vet issue is that these issues should be addressed as part of the contract between the individual and the armed forces. I believe those jobs should be highly rewarded since they come with a great deal of risk and sacrifice, and part of those rewards should include a pension and/or other compensation for various outcomes of events.

I would still separate it from the general safety net in society, though.

 

[DarrylParsons]

Interesting debate between eek and Phaedrus...

My impressions are that eek accepts the world around him as it is and works within that framework while Phaedrus believes (or imagines or hopes) that masses of humans can behave in ways which have no precedent in history. Of course everything that has happened happened once for the first time, so the fact that something has no precedent doesn't mean it can't happen. My jury is still out on which side I support and I hope to enjoy more verbal jabs and uppercuts from these two in the meantime.

An example of how seriously I take Phaedrus' opinions...I have switched flight reservations on my summer vacation to a more expensive ticket which does a stopover in Dubai. I am really curious about this place which is supposed to be an oasis of capitalism in the modern world. I plan to pick the brains of some locals and see if I can learn some truths which might be hiding behind the numbers.

As for my original question, my choice is D as my wording might suggest, but I find it interesting that most western countries operate at B while public opinion seems to be divided between C and D.

And finally, a question to eek:

What do you think of the demographic shifts that modern mixed systems tend to encourage? Here I am talking about the tendency for the lower classes to have more children than the upper classes. Does that not threaten to offset the equilibrium eventually?

 

[Oceans11]

The UAE (Dubai etc) is the Switzerland of the Gulf Region (Financial stuff, dodgy banking etc). The place also has a lot of oil/gas stuff too, so its wallowing in cash.

A lot of it is reclaimed land, so its as flat as a pancake.(Like an airfield with roads and skyscrapers)

----------------------------------------

DP:
What do you think of the demographic shifts that modern mixed systems tend to encourage? Here I am talking about the tendency for the lower classes to have more children than the upper classes. Does that not threaten to offset the equilibrium eventually?
------------------------------

I'm more inclined to 'blame' contraception and abortion for demographic changes like that.
The 60's baby boom came to a grinding halt once the pill got going.

More modern 'middle' classes also look at kids like a house or a BMW or a holiday, with that 'can we afford it?' mentality.

Anyway.
Assuming the poorer classes do have more kids, which I'm sure they do.
Plus, assuming a decent mixed system will ensure a higher survival rate through decent healthcare.

Most of the modern middle class family units of today were the poorer working class units 50 odd years ago.
In fact, with the great depression of the 30's, its highly likely that your grandparents were extremely poor.(Mine were.)
So your family, and millions of others did alright in a couple of generations.
With this in mind, I would not be inclined to worry about being buried in a tidal wave of poverty stricken eejits.

[This message was edited by eek on May 16, 2004 at 11:13 PM.]

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Iraqis have guns and RPG's and stuff.
Theres lots of independents running about the place.

But they are a little pack, and less organised and specialised.

In a 'real' war in Iraq, if oil REALLY meant life or death, the US military would do a Nazi B52 job on the place and would wipe out every male Iraqi in the country and then take the oil.

The system you want -ownership leads inevitably to its most potent form (and the system you despise) hierarchical state organisational control.(In various forms. Egypt, Rome, Communism, Mixed Capitalism/socialism)

Thats the natural evolution of ownership.

As soon as you put up a fence, and say

"This is MINE !"

You start building the road to statism in all its various forms and guises.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. It's not "this is mine" that leads to a propensity towards statism; it's "this is ours;" just another tragedy of the commons.

To say that a war fought over a resource, say over a river in ancient times, is evidence that private property causes war, is idiotic. The river wasn't being captured/defended as private property, but as state property -- although in the ancient and medeival sense it might be considered the personal property of the reigning monarch it is still "for the glory of ________" or even worse for some grotty god.


Phaedrus

 

[DarrylParsons]

I'm inclined to reverse the cause-effect relationship between lower birth rates and birth control. I believe lower birth rates came first because of various psychological and sociological reasons and then contraception came along as a convenience to satisfy the demand. I think need tends to precede inventions and products, although to a secondary extent well-marketed products can influence perceived need and therefore consumption.

The 'can we afford it' attitude is right on IMO and I find this depressing since I would like to think the question of introducing a new human life deserves a higher-order approach than that. It's as though we are all children of the system and our sense of purpose is to be identified first and foremost with the dry, economic goals of society and only as a distant second to our own individual identity -- unless of course your identity happens to coincide with current political trends.

Three of my four grandparents were indeed poor in the 30's but my maternal grandfather was born into a filthy rich Jewish family. In his early 20s, though, he told his family to shove it because they wanted to tell him who he should marry, how he should live his life etc. and in doing so he gave up a huge fortune. He did OK on his own but it's nothing compared to what he gave up. I seem to be following his footsteps in a lot of ways without using his example consciously.

My mentality, therefore, is quite the opposite of those who started poor and built something up from that. Those types tend to overcompensate and strive to financially insure themselves 50 billion times just to make sure they don't have to experience poverty again. After the 49.999 billionth time I think they should wake up and realize that there are other, more important goals than hitting the 5-0 mark. Of course they must decide what is important to them. A gerbil running in a hamster wheel thinks it's important to keep that thing a spinnin'. Who am I to question his judgment? He's the one who has to decide what's right for him.

The demographic situation is not disturbing because of any vision of poverty stricken eejits, but rather because more and more people will want to be net takers from the system and there will be fewer and fewer net contributors. A net contributor doesn't like the idea of having to support the others on a permanent basis. He feels depressed because the net takers are effectively ganging up on him and forcing him to contribute. This depression manifests itself in not wanting to have children IMO (using financial arguments for example). This will lead to major problems later on when the numbers become heavily imbalanced.

 

[Phaedrus]

This is a great old thread; ran across it looking for something else. Worth a bump in any event.

What the snarkgop happened to Darryl anyway?


Phaedrus

 

[eek.]

His posts became less frequent and he disappeared.
Been away a while now.

 

[D2bets]

Health care should be included. THe provididng of these things can be done in such a way as nobody with the means and ability to provide for themselves would choose the safety net. But it should be there. No reason for kids or adults to starve, freeze to death or die from no health care. It doesn't serve or represent an enlightened society. The argument others make is that if you give it for "free", nobody will work for anything and everyone will take what's given. Total red herring. Just doesn't work that way. The safety net will never be the preferred course for those than can provide for themselves. And this safety net doesn't even have to be more costly than the hodgepodege we have now. It's in everybody's interests to serve the needs of the homeless, the mentally ill, the disabled and kids not provided for. As great a country we are, we can figure out how to do it right. Conservatives that don't think so, it seems to me, don't have a lot of faith in our country. It also seems to me that this ought to be the position of those who truly "value every human life".

 

[D2bets]

And I anticipate some will say this is not the role of the govt or the govt doesn't do it well. If provate charities could or would fully provide what's needed, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Just doesn't seem to have worked.

 

[TheRightSide]

And I anticipate some will say this is not the role of the govt or the govt doesn't do it well. If provate charities could or would fully provide what's needed, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Just doesn't seem to have worked.

How high would the tax rate have to be on the working people in order to do this. It is true if you "give" people something for free they will never want to pay for it. Where are the incentives for these anchors on society to get out and do for themselves.


TRS

 

[AdamSelene]

This poll is flawed as you failed to define basic needs.

Rights are freedoms of action and not free products. The right to a product would imply an obligation upon someone else to provide it, which would be itself an infringement of basic rights.

So you have a right to work, but not a right to a job.

You have a right to educate yourself and seek education, you don't have a right to an education.

You have the right to drive, but not the right to a car.

You have the right to seek and provide medical attention, you do not have a right to free medical services.

You have the right to your own labor, you have the right to the product of your own labor, you do not have the right to the labor of others.

You have the right to freely speak your mind and print your mind, you do not have the right to a free printing press or microphone.

You have the right to travel freely, you do not have the right to free transporation.

You have the right to obligate yourself, you do not have the right to obligate others.

Groups have no more rights than individuals.

Governments have no more rights than groups or individuals.

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by D2bets:

... I anticipate some will say this is not the role of the govt or the govt doesn't do it well. If provate charities could or would fully provide what's needed, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Just doesn't seem to have worked.

Actually, it was working pretty well up to the turn of the 20th century and the dawn of the so-called "Progessive Era," when the state took up the reigns of attempting to be everyone's nanny from cradle to grave. The absence of incentive created by the state declaring that it will end poverty (or illiteracy, or senior medical issues, or whatever) created the situation that you now criticise as having "not seemed to work."

The idea of a safety net is a benign one, and it is disingenuous to suggest that arguing against it is tantamount to arguing in favour of people starving to death, freezing, or dying from lack of health care. Poverty is a real problem, it is serious and it is prevalent to varying degrees all over the world, even in the richest countries. But note that this is the case despite the fact that we have only recently exited what can only be called "The Century of State Planning" for every single country on earth. It's not like nothing has been tried. The state run social safety net, to borrow a phrase, does not seem to have worked.


Phaedrus

 

[JoeContrarian]

This poll is flawed as you failed to define basic needs.

Rights are freedoms of action and not free products. The right to a product would imply an obligation upon someone else to provide it, which would be itself an infringement of basic rights.

So you have a right to work, but not a right to a job.

You have a right to educate yourself and seek education, you don't have a right to an education.

You have the right to drive, but not the right to a car.

You have the right to seek and provide medical attention, you do not have a right to free medical services.

You have the right to your own labor, you have the right to the product of your own labor, you do not have the right to the labor of others.

You have the right to freely speak your mind and print your mind, you do not have the right to a free printing press or microphone.

You have the right to travel freely, you do not have the right to free transporation.

You have the right to obligate yourself, you do not have the right to obligate others.

Groups have no more rights than individuals.

Governments have no more rights than groups or individuals.

:aktion033