posted
But, the top 400 individuals in the US deserve to have more than the bottom 50%. They deserve that share of the resources and to suggest otherwise is just mean. And if I didn't know that I could someday have more assets than a city full of people than why would I be motivated to work?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swampjedi, you would make no money without society (and if you did, whoever made the best weapon would pretty quickly take it) so yes, you do have obligations back to the society.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This derail over a bit of snark isn't worthwhile. The issue was over Rabbit's use of the word "give". A gift is something that is not earned. Therefore, the implication is that my labor earns me nothing, and that anything I get is a gift from the Master Society.
Now that the snark has been explained, it is no longer "funny". Nothing to see here, folks.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: This gets back to my question, then. What if you're adopted later in childhood? Do your bio parents as well as your adoptive parents have the same claim on you?
In order to adopt a child, the child's living parent(s) must either relinquish their parental rights or have them revoked by a court. Either way, since they no longer have any parental rights, they clearly wouldn't have the right to claim support.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: This derail over a bit of snark isn't worthwhile. The issue was over Rabbit's use of the word "give". A gift is something that is not earned. Therefore, the implication is that my labor earns me nothing, and that anything I get is a gift from the Master Society.
Now that the snark has been explained, it is no longer "funny". Nothing to see here, folks.
You are interpreting my word choice far differently than was intended. I've never suggested that your labour should earn you nothing so don't go all hyperbolic over it.
The real dilemma, as I see it, is determining what you justly earn through your labor, what is just compensation to the others who contribute to your productivity and what you owe to society. I'm unwilling to assign moral force to the "value" assigned by the markets.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: After all, the law is not to give a parent "special help" but simply to avoid actual impoverishment.
By "special help," I just meant help over and above what you give just by paying your taxes.
Nobody's suggesting it's better to allow actual impoverishment. But in situations with parents at risk of poverty, it seems obviously better and more fair to have everybody pay a bit to prevent that, rather than squeeze large amounts of money out of children who may have excellent reasons not to love or care about their parents.
I'm perfectly happy with the state forcing its way into my pocket book. What I don't like is the idea of the state forcing its way into my personal relationships.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* The state already "forces itself" into your personal relationships when you consider that there are laws on spousal support, child support, and even sperm/egg donors are potentially liable for their children even if they've never met their children.
As for the rest, if they have excellent reasons not to care for their parents, the court takes that into consideration. I'm not seeing a big issue here.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... it seems obviously better and more fair to have everybody pay a bit to prevent that, rather than squeeze large amounts of money out of children ...
Also, as the interview points out. In many of the growing number of cases in which the law applies, the seniors in question aren't qualified for state benefits in the first place.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One note from a bit back. It was mentioned that more poor are children than elderly, so why the big bucks to the elderly?
The answer is history. 100 years ago the majority of the poor were the elderly. There were no 401K programs. There were few retirement options. You worked hard and saved your money until the company you worked for, or your health, decided you shouldn't work any more. If you were lucky you had family that could support you, or the bank you put your money into didn't go bust--legally taking your life savings with you.
If you were unlucky--you could sit out in the weather with a can and beg for change, or find some quiet place to die.
Social Security and many other social programs have changed that, and changed how we view old age.
quote:As for the rest, if they have excellent reasons not to care for their parents, the court takes that into consideration. I'm not seeing a big issue here.
Like I said, they shouldn't have to prove it in court. Their excellent reasons might not be publicly documented. A lot of families keep their issues private.
quote:The state already "forces itself" into your personal relationships when you consider that there are laws on spousal support, child support, and even sperm/egg donors are potentially liable for their children even if they've never met their children.
I don't think the way we handle those things is ideal either, but at least parenthood or marriage are the result of your own choices.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Like I said, they shouldn't have to prove it in court.
Why not? Innocent before proven guilty after all.
quote:I don't think the way we handle those things is ideal either, but at least parenthood or marriage are the result of your own choices.
Not necessarily. I suspect that immigrant couples from countries with forced marriages are still liable for spousal support. Also, in the United States, there is already precedent that a male rape victim is liable for child support to the female rapist's child.
quote:That biology, that is, parentage, will in all instances create child-support liability has been made clear in a number of different factual scenarios involving involuntary parentage. For example, if a woman or man deliberately lies about the use of contraception or fertility, child-support liability will nonetheless attach because the partners willingly engaged in sexual intercourse, which could result in conception and birth. Courts have been unwilling to accept an argument that the constitutional rights that a woman enjoys to terminate a pregnancy also give men the right not to procreate. Even if the child-support obligor was underage and thus a victim of statutory rape, child-support liability will attach.
The courts have even gone so far as to hold a biological father liable for child support when he was the victim of sexual assault.
I don't even necessarily see why "choice" should be an argument to shift responsibility from a child to other people. Surely, if a child didn't have a choice in being conceived by one's parent, then certainly other people didn't have a choice in merely happening to live in the same state.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The real dilemma, as I see it, is determining what you justly earn through your labor, what is just compensation to the others who contribute to your productivity and what you owe to society. I'm unwilling to assign moral force to the "value" assigned by the markets.
Who decides what this "just" amount is? Who decides what value your work is? Who decides how much you owe to society? The type of reasoning you describe always looks good on paper, but in reality could never work.
Look at most corporations. Most companies have job/pay grades. You have the opportunity based on your hard work to move up pay grades to make more money. The company usually decides the caps on each pay grade, which is fine.
It seems like what you are suggesting is that someone (presumably the government) tells the company how much they have to pay each of their employees. To a certain extent they already do this with the minimum wage. What it sounds like to me though (and please correct me if I misunderstood) is that you would want the government to define how much a person is allowed to make and how much they are taxed based on what job they hold.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Like I said, they shouldn't have to prove it in court.
Why not? Innocent before proven guilty after all.
I'm not sure how that maxim is supposed to apply here. The hypothetical parent is not being accused of a crime. They're being accused of not having been a good enough parent to deserve large amounts of financial support from their child, which shouldn't be a matter for parties outside the relationship to decide.
Further, if the innocent-until-proven-guilty maxim is applied to the case, it doesn't cut the way you suggest. The law allows parents to sue children for support. In that case, the parents should be obliged to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child is "guilty" of withholding support.
And finally, you're making this into a question about how a law like this should work. I'm saying any such law will always be less just than one in which the state provides for the impoverished parent instead. They don't qualify for other social services, you say? Well, they should. Whenever a parent is in bad enough shape to need support from their children to avoid poverty, they should qualify for welfare.
The injustice is easy to fix. Just take whatever system is used to determine when parents qualify for support for their children, and make it so that this qualifies them for state welfare instead.
quote:I don't even necessarily see why "choice" should be an argument to shift responsibility from a child to other people. Surely, if a child didn't have a choice in being conceived by one's parent, then certainly other people didn't have a choice in merely happening to live in the same state.
I merely meant that in the case of child support, a bad system is made more tolerable by the fact that in normal cases you only fall under the law as a result of risky behavior you could have avoided.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The hypothetical parent is not being accused of a crime.
Aren't they? The conditions that exempt a parent are abuse and abandonment. These are crimes.
quote:... which shouldn't be a matter for parties outside the relationship to decide.
You've said this before and I don't really see why. Parties outside the relationship regularly decide in the other cases, for example whether an annulment is granted or whether a divorce is granted. Child support payments can be changed by court depending on how the relationship between the child and the parent changes.
quote: They don't qualify for other social services, you say? Well, they should.
Why? At bare minimum, I think you need to establish that the reasons they don't qualify for other social services aren't good ones.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look at most corporations. Most companies have job/pay grades. You have the opportunity based on your hard work to move up pay grades to make more money. The company usually decides the caps on each pay grade, which is fine.
Let's consider Microsoft. Jokes about BSOD aside, there's no doubt that Microsoft has created a lot of value; people have been willing to pay untold millions of dollars for their products, and monopoly or not, unfair practices or not, nobody was holding a gun to their heads. So when Microsoft has X bazillions in revenue, fine. But is it really justice that Bill Gates should receive such a vast portion of that money? Microsoft is a cooperative venture between literally thousands of people. Is it really, truly likely that Bill Gates is personally responsible for even ten percent of the value it created? I think not; and thus it seems to me that the world would be a lot fairer if his hundred billions had been more like ten million, and the rest distributed as extra wages for Microsoft's workers.
Now, it may be that the means we'd have to employ to that end would be truly disastrous, that the cure would be worse than the disease. In fact I believe that's likely true. But this does not prevent me from noting that it is genuinely unfair that Bill Gates has captured such a large portion of the value that thousands of people coordinated to produce.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I wouldn't put Gates' contribution so low. Look at how Microsoft has become much less capable since he left office -- and Ballmer is pretty good at being a CEO. But Gates was a heck of a lot better, at least for Microsoft. He probably created at least several billion dollars worth of value. Now, how much of that it is reasonable for him to capture is a different question.
Of course, by giving him the money, it turns out he's redirected a huge proportion of it to help many of the poorest in the US, and the world, and committed to seeing the rest of it except for some nominal sums go to the same cause; that's probably been a more effective redistribution than if it had been shared more with other Microsoft employees (though other major Microsoft players have hardly gone uncompensated).
As far as I'm concerned, the idea that society can and should step in to determine "just" compensation for every sort of job is disturbing and bankrupt. I want to tax rich people more to provide extensive social support for those at lower incomes because poverty, easily preventable health problems, and the like are also morally horrible, and rich people are both better able to contribute and taxes on them are less likely to distort the overall economic situation negatively.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I'm concerned, the idea that society can and should step in to determine "just" compensation for every sort of job is disturbing and bankrupt.
Sounds like somebody needs to report to Juche re-education happy time camp!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, let me put together an example to illustrate the point I'm trying to make.
Joe's parents are extremely conservative Christians who home-school him to believe in young-Earth creationism and the sinfulness of masturbation and pre-marital sex. Later in life he realizes his parents beliefs were bogus, and that by raising him in this bizarre moral system they've done him a terrible wrong. He cuts off all contact with them.
Joe's parents never broke the law. They never abused Joe. But they were bad parents and don't deserve financial support from Joe, any more than they deserve it from a random stranger on the street. It would be unjust to force Joe to bear the lion's share of the cost for supporting them later in life, when they're the ones who foisted this terrible childhood on him.
That's the sort of example that upsets me so much about the law you're defending.
quote:Aren't they? The conditions that exempt a parent are abuse and abandonment. These are crimes.
Yes, those are the conditions that exempt parents, according to the unjust law you're defending. They should also be exempt if they were bad parents. Children don't owe bad parents anything more than random strangers do.
quote:You've said this before and I don't really see why. Parties outside the relationship regularly decide in the other cases, for example whether an annulment is granted or whether a divorce is granted. Child support payments can be changed by court depending on how the relationship between the child and the parent changes.
To be clear: my position is not that our current system of awarding child support and alimony is just. I don't believe that it is.
quote:Why? At bare minimum, I think you need to establish that the reasons they don't qualify for other social services aren't good ones.
People should qualify for welfare if they'll be poor without it. Same as the conditions that would qualify them for support from children under the law you're defending.
quote:As far as I'm concerned, the idea that society can and should step in to determine "just" compensation for every sort of job is disturbing and bankrupt. I want to tax rich people more to provide extensive social support for those at lower incomes because poverty, easily preventable health problems, and the like are also morally horrible, and rich people are both better able to contribute and taxes on them are less likely to distort the overall economic situation negatively.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You're adorable.
really? i dont even try to be adorable so it means so much to me that you noticed.
truthfully, i dont think you came from a north korean re-ed camp (surprise?) but i do have a suspicion that youre drunk and cant come up with a solid response to the issue being discussed.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Children don't owe bad parents anything more than random strangers do.
but why do random strangers owe bad parents anything at all? dont you think that random strangers are relatively far down the list when assessing obligations of support? im exploring this idea myself but, shouldnt obligation of support coincide with channels of influence? meaning, those closest to an individual are more likely able to influence the behavior of that person. family, extended family, neighborhood, community, town/city, state, country, etc. thats a simplified interaction, obviously, there is much that takes place in a family (or community, city..) and a sphere of influence can be large, but, for example, its nearly impossible for me to influence what happens in a georgia trailer park many states away yet im obligated to financially support someone (good parent, bad parent, it doesnt matter) from that community? how is that just? i can think of many more constructive ways to help needy individuals than to simply throw money at them.
and i still dont see how i came to be moral obligation to provide for random strangers. the humanistic response would be to better the country/humanity/world, but i can think of many better ways to do that if thats the goal.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... But they were bad parents and don't deserve financial support from Joe, any more than they deserve it from a random stranger on the street.
Right, but thats where the logic breaks down.
We can both agree that they don't deserve it from a random stranger from the street, then why would we prefer to take it from the random stranger on the street?
At bare minimum, in your story Joe still got food, housing, and was taken care of as a child to the best of his parents beliefs. He might not agree with what his parents believe, but there's nothing in your story that indicates that his parents were malicious.
quote:
quote:Why? At bare minimum, I think you need to establish that the reasons they don't qualify for other social services aren't good ones.
People should qualify for welfare if they'll be poor without it.
They wouldn't be poor without it because their children would be supporting them. The "if they'll be poor without it" doesn't apply.
I can understand the argument that the state should step in if the child is *unable* to provide for the parent. But you seem to basically assume that Canada doesn't have a good reason for structuring it's Old Age Security system in such a way that it prefers that a capable child care for a parent when the parent doesn't qualify for OAS.
That seems to be incredibly arrogant.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:there should be one. it would be more moral and more just than what we have now - random strangers supporting random strangers.
Ha. We're not supposed to be just random strangers, we're supposed to be at the very least fellow Americans. Sharing some sort of common bond. You're a conservative, capax, unless I'm very much mistaken so I know you believe in the notion that we're not just random strangers to one another-there are things you feel some Americans owe other Americans. You just don't feel like these particular things are in that category.
So don't go playing that 'we're random strangers' card now, otherwise it'll get played on you next time some conservative starts crowing about 'supporting the troops' (usually as a means for some crass political objective) or 'tightening the belt' (for some people), just to name a couple of the common little things that get trotted out as a means of shutting down opposition complaints by suggesting we should all stick together.
-------
Geraine,
quote:Who decides what this "just" amount is? Who decides what value your work is? Who decides how much you owe to society? The type of reasoning you describe always looks good on paper, but in reality could never work.
As has been said, we as a society already are quite comfortable making these sorts of decisions all the time about all sorts of things, and even weightier issues-we've just decided, for arbitrary reasons, that this particular set is off the table. It's not really a third rail, that's a decision we've made for ourselves.
'Could never work'? How do you know? Has it been tried? I'm not suggesting this is how you personally mean it, but there are those who say that sort of thing - say that it could never work - that, to me at least and perhaps to others - it sounds like what they mean is, "I'm afraid it might work, and if it works then that's the new reality-and we don't want that."
Except in this case the new reality isn't a toll road that was supposed to be for awhile and ends up being forever (come to think of it, I don't actually know if that happens, it's just something I've heard-although I wouldn't be surprised). The new reality would be a few more percentage points worth of tax on the very most (and I mean the hugely most) wealthiest Americans with which we as a society would take the sharpest edge off our most desperate, grinding poverty.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:but why do random strangers owe bad parents anything at all?
Basically, for the reasons that fugu laid out. Because poverty is a cause of great suffering, and it's better if we alleviate the suffering of others when the cost to us isn't comparably bad.
The classic thought experiment is: if you see a child you don't know about to fall into a well, don't you owe it to that child to save him/her from falling? Since obviously you do, we have obligations to prevent death and suffering on the part of random strangers. Once you grant that, well, that's enough to justify state welfare in my book (again, for the reasons fugu said).
quote: We can both agree that they don't deserve it from a random stranger from the street, then why would we prefer to take it from the random stranger on the street?
Like I just said, I don't agree that they deserve nothing from the random stranger. Depending on how much money the stranger has to spare, they deserve a small amount of help in the form of taxes paying for welfare.
quote:At bare minimum, in your story Joe still got food, housing, and was taken care of as a child to the best of his parents beliefs. He might not agree with what his parents believe, but there's nothing in your story that indicates that his parents were malicious.
I think you underestimate how much it can damage someone's life to be raised in a religion that doesn't work for them. For example, many people with this sort of upbringing end up with some sort of sexual dysfunction due to deeply-ingrained subconscious guilt.
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from here. Are you seriously saying in every case where parents have provided for their children financially and not broken the law by abusing them, they deserve major financial support from their kids? You don't have any friends who've been majorly messed up by bad parents?
quote:They wouldn't be poor without it because their children would be supporting them. The "if they'll be poor without it" doesn't apply.
I'm trying to make it clear what I'm saying. It's wrong to force children to pay for their parents', so when the parents need help, society at large should pay instead. When I said "if they'll be poor without it," I meant "if they'll be poor without help from someone, either their kids or state welfare."
quote:I can understand the argument that the state should step in if the child is *unable* to provide for the parent. But you seem to basically assume that Canada doesn't have a good reason for structuring it's Old Age Security system in such a way that it prefers that a capable child care for a parent when the parent doesn't qualify for OAS.
What's the good reason? (I'm asking for a good reason why the money to support the struggling parent should come from a child rather than taxes.)
quote:That seems to be incredibly arrogant.
I've presented a sound argument to the effect that this Canadian law is unjust. Is it arrogant for me to conclude that the law is therefore unjust?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You're adorable.
really? i dont even try to be adorable so it means so much to me that you noticed.
truthfully, i dont think you came from a north korean re-ed camp (surprise?) but i do have a suspicion that youre drunk and cant come up with a solid response to the issue being discussed.
I know, that's what makes it adorable! You're expending a lot of effort really, really trying to jump in and take potshots at me, but this time around you couldn't even keep it connected to anything else.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can understand the argument that the state should step in if the child is *unable* to provide for the parent. But you seem to basically assume that Canada doesn't have a good reason for structuring it's Old Age Security system in such a way that it prefers that a capable child care for a parent when the parent doesn't qualify for OAS.
What's the good reason? (I'm asking for a good reason why the money to support the struggling parent should come from a child rather than taxes.)
This is where understanding begins.
Learn more about how foreign countries work before broadly denouncing them as immoral. It's a good idea whether you're a tourist or a media pundit
quote:Are you seriously saying in every case where parents have provided for their children financially and not broken the law by abusing them, they deserve major financial support from their kids?
No, in most cases seniors qualify for state support.
In the cases where they don't, then they deserve (at least) the minimal support from the child required to avoid poverty. e.g.
quote:"A father, by the law of God and nature, is bound to support his son and č contra, in case the father is impoverished."
The law, whether in spirit or in practice doesn't really touch on major financial support.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is an estimate that having kids causes a loss of a million dollars in lifetime earning potential. So, maybe someone raised their kids in the wrong religion or screwed them up in some other way, but most likely those parents would be in a massively better financial position if they had not had those kids. And while maybe the kids are screwed up, but they are alive because of their parents.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without arguing the waste, the fraud, and the trap of government-sponsored charity, there's something humiliating as a citizen of the U.S. to be forced into giving. Not for the reasons you expect. Rather, I'm moral enough, smart enough, and compassionate enough to help when help is needed, doggone it. If I can't be trusted as an individual to do my part in the face of great need, then there is something gone so wrong, no amount of government benevolence can fix it.
I live in a small community where charity is rampant. People do not go hungry. People are not left in the cold. Even when the government is useless (because said needy person doesn't fit the government's criteria of "needy"), the community steps in and helps.
But then, we see each other and recognize each other as human beings, which is how charity should always work.
It's impossible to do this with a nameless, faceless welfare recipient living on the other side of the state. So the entitlement programs dehumanize the ones suffering, assume the worst of taxpayers, create animosity towards the poor, and fail to effectively tackle the needs of the needy.
I'm not against welfare or safety nets in general, but nor do I subscribe to the notion that being against them makes you heartless. (Not saying anyone is stating that here.) There is more to it than not wanting to "do your part." Some of us wonder if it's doing more harm than good.
And, to quote and link a blog:
quote:If the government then decides what help you need based on these broad models and statistics about you, then it is determining what is best for you without really knowing you. Many unintended effects may come out of this. But one effect is obvious: when a person who actually is capable is consistently helped, that person will eventually be broken and reduced to a state of perpetual victimhood...
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ha. We're not supposed to be just random strangers, we're supposed to be at the very least fellow Americans.
the 'random strangers' comment is because im trying to discover the basis for your reasoning. nothing you have said identifies the source of the moral obligation. if its a moral imperative simply because some citizens say so then its wholly within the rights and power of other citizens to counter that opinion.
quote:Sharing some sort of common bond. You're a conservative, capax, unless I'm very much mistaken so I know you believe in the notion that we're not just random strangers to one another-there are things you feel some Americans owe other Americans. You just don't feel like these particular things are in that category.
some sort of common bond, yes. the problems arise when attempting to defining the bond and its terms and conditions. i do believe we owe each other some things, but if we were each to enumerate these things, our lists would vary, perhaps to a large degree. so yes, its likely i dont believe these particular things are in that category.
but even that is only the first part of the problem. though we are all citizens, we still dont all share a common and equal obligation one to another. like i said, obligations of the sort we're discussing should be dictated by proximity and channels of influence. all family members are citizens but that doesnt mean every citizen has the obligations of a family member. likewise, two people living in the same town have much more in common (and i dont mean they simply share interests) and therefore should be more obligated one to another than two people living on opposite sides of the country would be.
this view is justified because if im going to pay the consequences for someones actions, i sure as hell better have the power to make sure they dont make the same mistake twice - or are unlucky twice, if thats the case. in this instance you could say im a conservative until my libertarian leanings take over.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The classic thought experiment is: if you see a child you don't know about to fall into a well, don't you owe it to that child to save him/her from falling? Since obviously you do, we have obligations to prevent death and suffering on the part of random strangers. Once you grant that, well, that's enough to justify state welfare in my book (again, for the reasons fugu said).
this is an oversimplified thought experiment. the fatal flaw when applied to this context is that stopping the accident before it happens is preemptive - much preferred - and it implies that im the only one who could have done so. if the child falls into the well, there are people much more accountable than i. where is the parental supervision? why are open wells legal in that county? when the child falls in, do they bring a rescue crew from the other side of the nation? no. what if its not a child but an adult? if i repeatedly tell the person to be cautious of the well, they dont heed my warnings and fall in, i think you believe i should feel guilty and further assistance is my duty, but its not. assistance in this case shouldnt go beyond my means and it shouldnt be forced by the government. a pure accident would obviously entail different obligations.
so if there is an impoverished individual living on state assistance 6 states away, i didnt put them there, i have no power over state lawmakers, enonomies, and education 1000 miles away. that person is in a well and those nearest to him - in blood, relationship, and proximity - have the larger obligation to help him.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: What's the good reason? (I'm asking for a good reason why the money to support the struggling parent should come from a child rather than taxes.)
This is where understanding begins.
Learn more about how foreign countries work before broadly denouncing them as immoral. It's a good idea whether you're a tourist or a media pundit
You didn't answer my question. Again, what's the good reason?
Also, I'm not broadly denouncing Canada as immoral. My position is that Canada has one unjust law (the one we're talking about).
Every country has unjust laws.
quote:No, in most cases seniors qualify for state support.
In the cases where they don't, then they deserve (at least) the minimal support from the child required to avoid poverty.
If they need more money to avoid poverty, why doesn't that fact by itself mean they deserve state support?
That's my view. If you need money to avoid poverty, you deserve state support. Not in most cases. In all cases.
quote:•First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.
•Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
•Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
•Conclusion: Therefore if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: You didn't answer my question. Again, what's the good reason?
Of course I didn't. You immediately leapt to phrases such as "WTF", denounced the law as being unclassy and immoral when it is now clear that you don't actually know who the law now applies to and what the consequences are.
I've actually linked to background already if you want to have an informed opinion.
quote: That's my view. If you need money to avoid poverty, you deserve state support. Not in most cases. In all cases.
I really doubt you're thinking "in all cases" through. Do you really think its politically feasible for the United States to give state support to everyone thats in poverty? Current UN estimates say that roughly 1 billion citizens around the world currently live in poverty.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course I didn't. You immediately leapt to phrases such as "WTF", denounced the law as being unclassy and immoral when it is now clear that you don't actually know who the law now applies to and what the consequences are.
I've actually linked to background already if you want to have an informed opinion.
I don't care who the law applies to in particular. That doesn't matter to my argument. My claim is that, if it applies to anyone at all, it's unjust.
My opinion is that no law which forces people to provide for their parents is just when compared with a law which provides those parents state welfare instead. In my previous posts I've given you a sound argument for that opinion (which in my book makes it informed).
Now that I've staked out a position and supported it with evidence (as in my "Joe" example), it's your choice whether to offer evidence against my position or not.
ETA: Sorry my rhetoric was a little flippant earlier. I never meant to imply that Canada is overall a bad country or anything like that. My gripe is with this one specific law.
quote:I really doubt you're thinking "in all cases" through. Do you really think its politically feasible for the United States to give state support to everyone thats in poverty? Current UN estimates say that roughly 1 billion citizens around the world currently live in poverty.
No, of course I don't think that the United States, or any country, should provide state support for every poor person in the world, given the present state of affairs.
My position is that in a wealthy country like Canada or the US, every citizen of that country who is at risk of poverty should be given state support.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: That's my view. If you need money to avoid poverty, you deserve state support. Not in most cases. In all cases.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: My position is that in a wealthy country like Canada or the US, every citizen of that country who is at risk of poverty should be given state support.
I don't see how you square these two positions.
In the latter, you claim that only citizens that are at risk of poverty should be given state support (which is actually pretty conservative).
In the former, you claim that all people that need money to avoid poverty deserve state support.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The second statement was a more precise re-statement of the first (an attempt to clarify it).
What I meant in both cases was, if you're Canadian and you are at risk of poverty (that is, you need money to avoid poverty) you should be given state support from the Canadian government.
I'm not sure why you see this position of mine as conservative, since according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government. That strikes me as more conservative than the position I'm advocating.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ... since according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
quote:After all, the law is not to give a parent "special help" but simply to avoid actual impoverishment.
quote:Also, as the interview points out. In many of the growing number of cases in which the law applies, the seniors in question aren't qualified for state benefits in the first place.
quote:I can understand the argument that the state should step in if the child is *unable* to provide for the parent. But you seem to basically assume that Canada doesn't have a good reason for structuring it's Old Age Security system in such a way that it prefers that a capable child care for a parent when the parent doesn't qualify for OAS.
As you said, the law applies in cases where:
-citizens are at risk of poverty -they don't qualify for other state support.
So, like I said, according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've switched out the word "parent" for the word "citizen" in your summary. Thats a major change in the meaning of the sentence.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As you said, the law applies in cases where:
-citizens are at risk of poverty -they don't qualify for other state support.
So, like I said, according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
to this:
As you said, the law applies in cases where:
-Canadian parents are at risk of poverty -they don't qualify for other state support.
So, like I said, according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians [the parents] who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a bit of a side issue, don't you think? We were originally discussing whether the filial responsibility law was just. Whether or not it counts as "conservative" is a separate, and less interesting, question about semantics.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. Non-citizens qualify for welfare benefits?
In that case, let's retcon again, to this:
As you said, the law applies in cases where:
-parents resident in Canada are at risk of poverty -they don't qualify for other state support.
So, like I said, according to the law you're defending, at least some Canadians [the parents who also happen to be citizens] who are at risk of poverty should receive support from their children rather than the Canadian government.
--
Like I said, I'd be happy to get off this side issue and back to discussing whether the law itself is just.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
