On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote: Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.
See this isnt about a right but social mobility. The best way to get out of poverty is to get a good job. But you cant get a good job without money. You cant get money without a good job. This is why the rest of the world spends money on helping with education so poorer families can send there children to good schools where they make more money later in life.
If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.
You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.
It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.
It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.
Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.
Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.
Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.
The constitution also mentions nothing about "getting money from the government when you get really old since you can't work as well anymore", but we made that happen. The perceived rights that we ought to have continues to increase as we become a more developed society. Its seen all around the world and is nothing new to the USA. And every time, there are people who try to fight it, then it ends up happening a few years later after some whining and pouting. Rinse, repeat.
On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote: Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.
See this isnt about a right but social mobility. The best way to get out of poverty is to get a good job. But you cant get a good job without money. You cant get money without a good job. This is why the rest of the world spends money on helping with education so poorer families can send there children to good schools where they make more money later in life.
If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.
You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.
It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.
It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.
Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.
Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.
Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.
The constitution also specifically mentions there are rights people have that aren't in the constitution (9th or 10th amendment). If the only argument against something is it isn't in the constituion, there are no arguments against it.
On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote: Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.
See this isnt about a right but social mobility. The best way to get out of poverty is to get a good job. But you cant get a good job without money. You cant get money without a good job. This is why the rest of the world spends money on helping with education so poorer families can send there children to good schools where they make more money later in life.
If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.
You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.
It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.
It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.
Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.
Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.
Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.
Okay, well, there's your assumption: laws = rights. That's a pretty big one, and I'm glad you identified it.
I do not share your assumption that laws = rights.
On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote: Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.
See this isnt about a right but social mobility. The best way to get out of poverty is to get a good job. But you cant get a good job without money. You cant get money without a good job. This is why the rest of the world spends money on helping with education so poorer families can send there children to good schools where they make more money later in life.
If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.
You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.
It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.
It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.
Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.
Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.
Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.
Okay, well, there's your assumption: laws = rights. That's a pretty big one, and I'm glad you identified it.
I do not share your assumption that laws = rights.
On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote: Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.
See this isnt about a right but social mobility. The best way to get out of poverty is to get a good job. But you cant get a good job without money. You cant get money without a good job. This is why the rest of the world spends money on helping with education so poorer families can send there children to good schools where they make more money later in life.
If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.
You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.
It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.
It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.
Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.
Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.
Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.
Okay, well, there's your assumption: laws = rights. That's a pretty big one, and I'm glad you identified it.
I do not share your assumption that laws = rights.
On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote: Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.
See this isnt about a right but social mobility. The best way to get out of poverty is to get a good job. But you cant get a good job without money. You cant get money without a good job. This is why the rest of the world spends money on helping with education so poorer families can send there children to good schools where they make more money later in life.
If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.
You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.
It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.
It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.
Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.
Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.
Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.
Okay, well, there's your assumption: laws = rights. That's a pretty big one, and I'm glad you identified it.
I do not share your assumption that laws = rights.
Rights come from laws not laws = rights.
Sounds like any proponent of PIPA/SOPA/ACTA: "We have to protect our creations and what exist is not enough. Therefore we need "x" to protect our precious rights."
On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote: Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.
See this isnt about a right but social mobility. The best way to get out of poverty is to get a good job. But you cant get a good job without money. You cant get money without a good job. This is why the rest of the world spends money on helping with education so poorer families can send there children to good schools where they make more money later in life.
If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.
You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.
It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.
It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.
Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.
Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.
Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.
Okay, well, there's your assumption: laws = rights. That's a pretty big one, and I'm glad you identified it.
I do not share your assumption that laws = rights.
Rights come from laws not laws = rights.
Soooociaaaaaalllll Contraaaaaactt.
I was born here, I didn't sign anything 8)
I'm guessing that you've never studied political philosophy.
On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote: Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.
See this isnt about a right but social mobility. The best way to get out of poverty is to get a good job. But you cant get a good job without money. You cant get money without a good job. This is why the rest of the world spends money on helping with education so poorer families can send there children to good schools where they make more money later in life.
If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.
You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.
It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.
It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.
Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.
Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.
Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.
Okay, well, there's your assumption: laws = rights. That's a pretty big one, and I'm glad you identified it.
I do not share your assumption that laws = rights.
Rights come from laws not laws = rights.
Soooociaaaaaalllll Contraaaaaactt.
I was born here, I didn't sign anything 8)
I'm guessing that you've never studied political philosophy.
Cute guess, but I have a bachelor in political science, I know what a social contract is, but I'm not particularly fond of the concept. I'm guessing you've never studied political philosophy - David Humes questioned the notion of "social contract" by saying that the social contract is already active when we're born - they didn't ask my opinion. There has been more criticism of that concept, for instance from Foucault notably, and Nicole-Claude Mathieu who argued that we're "forced" to consent anyway, and the only escape is moving from the State - which other contract do I agree to simply by breathing?
On February 27 2012 05:06 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]
See this isnt about a right but social mobility. The best way to get out of poverty is to get a good job. But you cant get a good job without money. You cant get money without a good job. This is why the rest of the world spends money on helping with education so poorer families can send there children to good schools where they make more money later in life.
If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.
You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.
It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.
It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.
Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.
Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.
Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.
Okay, well, there's your assumption: laws = rights. That's a pretty big one, and I'm glad you identified it.
I do not share your assumption that laws = rights.
Rights come from laws not laws = rights.
Soooociaaaaaalllll Contraaaaaactt.
I was born here, I didn't sign anything 8)
I'm guessing that you've never studied political philosophy.
Cute guess, but I have a bachelor in political science, I know what a social contract is, but I'm not particularly fond of the concept. I'm guessing you've never studied political philosophy - David Humes questioned the notion of "social contract" as said social contract is already active when we're born - they didn't ask my opinion. There has been more criticism of that concept, for instance from Foucault notably, and Nicole-Claude Mathieu who argued that we're "forced" to consent anyway, and the only escape is moving from the State - which other contract do I agree to simply by breathing?
I read an interesting piece about how the social contract is kind of a form of slavery. It was interesting, though it got a little crackpot-ish at times.
On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote: Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.
The majority of the western world thinks that you have a right to both proper health care and a proper education.
I wish someone had told me that before I signed the papers for my educational loans. Is this right retroactive? Will I be refunded my grad school loans? Will my friends who graduated with a half million dollars in med school debt by gifted $500,000 apiece by the federal government? If so, is it also the right of the rest of the populace to enjoy the inflation and loss of savings that the printing of new money to cover these debts will entail? What if they don't want to enjoy this right (which is a natural consequence of my right to an MD)?
Does this right to higher education entail just a junior college education, or does it extend to a full four-year university? If the latter, does the right to higher education also include a master's degree? If not, why not? What precisely is the distinction between the natural right to an undergraduate education and a master's-level education? If nothing, then what about a doctorate? Post-doctorate work? Is it my right to remain in graduate school for the rest of my life on someone else's dime? Does a homeless person have the right to approach a member of the UC Berkeley adcom and demand entrance into their Ph.D. program in philosophy? If not, what are your justifications for violating his rights?
Honestly the "right to higher education" isn't a thing. That sounds very odd. At the very least you're supposed to have to prove yourself to be worthy of higher education in most countries. You get up to high school for public funding. You might be able to consider high school education a right, I guess. That and basic healthcare sound more like things that depend entirely on our ability and capacity to handle it. At this point, we should be able to handle it at some level, so we should provide it.
We do want to make it so gifted people can get higher education even if they aren't rich though. But that's not a right. That's just trying to develop policies that allow gifted people to rise to the top.
I think it's a little silly though. Has Obama even said that he wants everyone to go to college? It sounds to me like he's just trying to thwart the very real problem of high tuition rates and lack of substantial financial aid.
The issue isnt even the "right" of higher education, its making higher education more affordable, so those that have what it takes to succeed at that level of education arent turned away for financial reasons. For example, in Canada, university education is subsidized heavily by the government. I go to the University of Toronto which ranks in the top 20 (sometimes 10) research universities world-wide. I only have to pay ~$5500 a year. If you compare that cost to the other universities on that list, it is FAR lower.
Furthermore, for those in need of loans to cover that cost, we have OSAP, which allows students to take loans with no interest on the money for something like 6 years (this gives them plenty of time to work and pay that off) and a low interest rate on the money after that.
These are good things if you ask me. I dont think every person should go to university, university is not for everyone. However, its sad when someone that could truly benefit from it is denied the ability to go because they cant afford it.
On February 27 2012 05:13 xavra41 wrote: [quote] If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.
You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.
It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.
It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.
Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.
Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.
Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.
Okay, well, there's your assumption: laws = rights. That's a pretty big one, and I'm glad you identified it.
I do not share your assumption that laws = rights.
Rights come from laws not laws = rights.
Soooociaaaaaalllll Contraaaaaactt.
I was born here, I didn't sign anything 8)
I'm guessing that you've never studied political philosophy.
Cute guess, but I have a bachelor in political science, I know what a social contract is, but I'm not particularly fond of the concept. I'm guessing you've never studied political philosophy - David Humes questioned the notion of "social contract" as said social contract is already active when we're born - they didn't ask my opinion. There has been more criticism of that concept, for instance from Foucault notably, and Nicole-Claude Mathieu who argued that we're "forced" to consent anyway, and the only escape is moving from the State - which other contract do I agree to simply by breathing?
I read an interesting piece about how the social contract is kind of a form of slavery. It was interesting, though it got a little crackpot-ish at times.
Yeah, well I see his point, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's slavery as for one it's possible to "escape" it. There's definitely a social link no doubt, and you can like or dislike it, but it's in no way a contract. As for me, I accept it as long as - well - as long as it's acceptable, although I'm not impressed with my current government.
On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote: Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.
The majority of the western world thinks that you have a right to both proper health care and a proper education.
If you want to live in a liberal world, then go ahead and go to canada or europe, but this is america. We (used to) value free markets and limited government and that's the way it is here. I happen to think that I can run my life better than the government can so living here is wonderful for me.
As long as you've been alive, "we" haven't valued free markets and limited government the way Republican rhetoric says, so I don't know what your point of comparison is. If you think post-WW2 was a lovely time (ignoring the overwhelming amount of social problems), keep in mind that Eisenhower was called a pinko by deep conservatives and was accused of constantly tearing down American rights.
The American free market is a myth.
And to say that the middle class receive no financial benefits from redistributive policies is flat out wrong. A rather large portion of redistributive policy is directed exactly towards the middle class, because it's the group of choice for a stable society. It's simply disguised as things like tax credits, refunds and benefits. On top of that, there's social security payouts being skewed towards the rich and against the poor.
On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote: Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.
The majority of the western world thinks that you have a right to both proper health care and a proper education.
If you want to live in a liberal world, then go ahead and go to canada or europe, but this is america. We (used to) value free markets and limited government and that's the way it is here. I happen to think that I can run my life better than the government can so living here is wonderful for me.
As long as you've been alive, "we" haven't valued free markets and limited government the way Republican rhetoric says, so I don't know what your point of comparison is. If you think post-WW2 was a lovely time (ignoring the overwhelming amount of social problems), keep in mind that Eisenhower was called a pinko by deep conservatives and was accused of constantly tearing down American rights.
The American free market is a myth.
And to say that the middle class receive no financial benefits from redistributive policies is flat out wrong. A rather large portion of redistributive policy is directed exactly towards the middle class, because it's the group of choice for a stable society. It's simply disguised as things like tax credits, refunds and benefits. On top of that, there's social security payouts being skewed towards the rich and against the poor.
I did say 'used to' and Ronald Reagan is within my lifetime and he ran on the idea of free markets. Plus nobody agrees on anything in this country, but compared so others we are definitely the biggest proponents of free markets in the western world. Our economic performance is great overall wheres europe has incredibly long periods of high unemployment.
I never said they didn't receive anything, and considering how the middle class pays the most they certainly get the least return for their money. Rich people and corporations are good at getting out of taxes and poor people barely pay any. Cut out the majority of all taxing and spending and the middle class will benefit.
Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want.
Reagan raised taxes over 10 times during his Presidency. He publicly promoted free markets, but in reality it only applied to certain markets and they're also why the American auto industry fell apart under his terms. It's in vogue to blame UAW, but really it's because the operating costs for Toyota, Honda and Nissan were much lower because of their government and they had much more advanced plants, also paid in large part by the Japanese government.
Free markets fall apart incredibly quickly when introduced to any sort of external competition. It doesn't matter how free and untouched our industries are, if a competing country's same industries are being bolstered by their government. There's a certain balance to be met, and that's what strategic trade theory is about. The US has subscribed to it for decades, even under Reagan. The main difference between a 'free' market somewhere and a subsidized market elsewhere is how it's presented and used to score political points. The GOP has been much better at doing that, but when you actually dissect what's gone on, you'll find that large portions of the US economy are incredibly unfree and have been heavily subsidized for decades.
On February 27 2012 13:26 BlackJack wrote: Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want.
True, but there's also something to be said for being the bigger party, especially when you have overwhelming power. Truth be told, the little guys and the big guys never play by the same rules. Especially when in this case, you've knowingly done something disrespectful that caused the tantrum, and I don't believe in this case it's particularly irrational. God knows what would happen if mass bible burning took place in the US, and the amount of shit it'd stir up from people like Santorum.
You can argue that it's just a book without any external significance but what you're really making is an anti-religion argument, which is just a fruitless, impertinent ideal and has no context or pull in real life situations, even if it's logically correct. If you're sticking with the tantrum argument, I think the better comparison is between an older and younger sibling. For the older sibling, proving yourself right feels good emotionally, but it doesn't help you accomplish your goals.
On February 27 2012 05:06 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]
See this isnt about a right but social mobility. The best way to get out of poverty is to get a good job. But you cant get a good job without money. You cant get money without a good job. This is why the rest of the world spends money on helping with education so poorer families can send there children to good schools where they make more money later in life.
If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.
You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.
It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.
It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.
Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.
Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.
Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.
Okay, well, there's your assumption: laws = rights. That's a pretty big one, and I'm glad you identified it.
I do not share your assumption that laws = rights.
Rights come from laws not laws = rights.
Soooociaaaaaalllll Contraaaaaactt.
I was born here, I didn't sign anything 8)
I'm guessing that you've never studied political philosophy.
Cute guess, but I have a bachelor in political science, I know what a social contract is, but I'm not particularly fond of the concept. I'm guessing you've never studied political philosophy - David Humes questioned the notion of "social contract" by saying that the social contract is already active when we're born - they didn't ask my opinion. There has been more criticism of that concept, for instance from Foucault notably, and Nicole-Claude Mathieu who argued that we're "forced" to consent anyway, and the only escape is moving from the State - which other contract do I agree to simply by breathing?
Cute guess, but I'm actually a history and philosophy double major with focuses in political history and political philosophy. My point was by simply saying "I didn't sign anything" makes you sound incredibly ignorant of the entire concept. It's far more complicated than that.
I wish someone had told me that before I signed the papers for my educational loans. Is this right retroactive? Will I be refunded my grad school loans? Will my friends who graduated with a half million dollars in med school debt by gifted $500,000 apiece by the federal government? If so, is it also the right of the rest of the populace to enjoy the inflation and loss of savings that the printing of new money to cover these debts will entail? What if they don't want to enjoy this right (which is a natural consequence of my right to an MD)?
]Does this right to higher education entail just a junior college education, or does it extend to a full four-year university? If the latter, does the right to higher education also include a master's degree? If not, why not? What precisely is the distinction between the natural right to an undergraduate education and a master's-level education? If nothing, then what about a doctorate? Post-doctorate work? Is it my right to remain in graduate school for the rest of my life on someone else's dime? Does a homeless person have the right to approach a member of the UC Berkeley adcom and demand entrance into their Ph.D. program in philosophy? If not, what are your justifications for violating his rights?
My apologies, I worded that incorrectly. Most of the developed world (not even just the western world) believes that everyone has the right to equal access to proper healthcare and education, meaning money shouldn't be a limiting factor, whereas currently it is a very large limiting factor.
EPT
