Question About Operation of Small Government

I think it is clear by now that the whole ‘small government’ argument is a smokescreen, for a right wing agenda

It’s not about better government but cutting their taxes, it’s not about efficient government but about cutting the benefits going to the disadvantaged and it’s not about ‘freeing’ people but about trying to perpetuate their own wealth and influence.

And it also seems to be about teaching the ‘irresponsible’ (eg the disadvantaged) the lesson that ‘life is not fair’ and they should know their place and shouldn’t even think about trying to make things fairer.

 

I think I've answered this question six ways to Sunday already. If you didn't like my answer, sorry but asking the same question over and over only results in the same answer.

If there is another question, maybe you should try it now.

 

On that one point we appear to agree, "a baby can't be blamed for the decisions to have it." That leaves us with the question, "who should the resultant adult the child becomes, place blame upon?"

If you wish to promote the event as unjust, should it not be unlawful or result in some form of just punishment for the perpetrators?

What's happened to your empathy for the children, who through no choice of their own are in a position of never being able to succeed in life?

I'll leave the choice to you. I didn't consider it to be a problem requiring a government solution to begin with.

What's your solution?

Are you now calling me a Libertarian?

I don't try.

That's where you can find a job to do.

We ALL have biases and prejudices with which we form our opinions.

I think your record player is broken, or the record you're playing is defective.

Ditto, above response.

I would agree if they were spending their own money and not that of others.

Aren't all opinions?

Perhaps you just have difficulty understanding.

Then you admittedly are having difficulty understanding. Essentially I only claimed that wealth created is most often left to heirs who are blood related to the creator of it, which is a genetic link. You appear to think that the advantages of wealth are greatly linked to success, while I feel the individual effort put forth can provide self produced advantages that wealth cannot. I would be on welfare or homeless if this was untrue, based on your premise.

Then do so.

By continually expounding that wealth is the primary source of success in life. If you're born poor you might as well resign yourself to being a failure and living off what ever entitlements the government will provide you? Doesn't sound like a message that builds fortitude, or motivates in any way at all.

 

do you think a person can be born incapable of "fortitude"?

 

I see no reason why not, but to what end do you ask?

 

i just picked the word out of your post

let's say that fortitude was a key element of success in a competitive system

would not a person incapable of fortitude thus be incapable of competing?

note: i'm not sure if fortitude is the exact quality i want, but it will do

 

Not necessarily, I don't think you can define an exhaustive set of key elements or components that produce certainty of success, while there are many key components that lack of could assure failure. Sometimes it's just a case of being able to recognize what we possess, and how it can best be put to use. A major part of education and maturing is learning about our self in ways to best benefit from the capabilities we possess.

 

and if one possesses no marketable capabilities?

 

Everyone except those totally physically and mentally incapacitated have some marketable capabilities.

 

really? totally?

no partials? no psychology?

we can't all be janitors, you know . . .

 

So what's your point? That some people just have no value at all?

 

We can't all be rich either.

 

Individual

A real insight into your thinking – you see that doesn’t deal with the problem of the lost potential that can be associated with disadvantage; you seem to be saying the damage should be done so blame can be proportioned, not very helpful really.

It is interesting that your mind thinks in terms of punishment rather than in trying to alleviate what even you see as being unfair.

Again this is a fascinating insight into how you think – so to you the empathic thing to do in such cases of a child been born into disadvantage is to forcibly remove the child from is parents?
Why not try and alleviate the situation so even that even the very disadvantaged have a chance to fulfil their potential?
*
How do you determine a baby’s potential?

Thank you that was exactly the point I was making
You claimed that people like you are much more capable of determining who deserves help and who doesn’t. But you can’t even try to determine which baby deserves help and which one doesn’t.

*

As I’ve told you before the trick to learning is to try and put aside biases and prejudices and to look at things rationally, question them to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
*

In what way am I being a harbinger of failure?

But I don’t, I do point out that one of the greatest effects on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

I don’t think I’ve ever said anything like that and I think you know that.

Well it’s not a message I’ve ever given so I wouldn’t know. I do think however that you seem to want to limit people potential while I want to increase it.

 

no, i guess you and i have different ideas about what 'value' is

 

You're the one who sees a problem, not me. You threw out the word "blame", and I don't feel a need to blame anyone for the existence of advantages or disadvantages that are exposed as a part of life.

I only agree that many things can appear unfair in life, and though we can talk about them, and question why they occur, your solutions appear to suggest treating others unfairly or unjustly as a means of rectification.

Perhaps I do, you assume that I don't. But when I do, it is of my own choosing.

I already said, I don't try.

That leaves an area for you to deal with. Actually you have to make an awful lot of assumptions to base your arguments on me.

But I'm not obligated to please you.

You claim I avoid answering your questions, but when I answer them you just ask the same questions over again.

Again?

Who else might help them if not government? You seem to feel that people will not help others unless forced to by government.

Do you feel that money is the solution to all problems?

 

Quite likely.

 

Individual

But my point is that it doesn’t have to be part of life, and you haven’t put up any rational argument why it shouldn’t be changed.

So it is unfair that some are born into advantage and others not but it is also unfair to try and help the disadvantaged, why?

You wish to choose who to assist and who not, but you admit you can’t even try to determine which babies deserve assistance and which ones don’t.

But if you are always ruled by bias and prejudice and ignore rational argument you can hold onto irrational and flawed viewpoints. As I’m sorry to say you seem to be doing.

 

It?, meaning disadvantage? or advantage? It's difficult to respond rationally or intelligently without knowing exactly WHAT "it" is you wish to change, and HOW you would propose changing "it".

Responsible parents try to give their children a competitive advantage in life, is that unfair? Some parents have adequate financial resources to do so, and others make sacrifices in order to give their children advantages they did not have when growing up. The type help you propose is needed is the function of charitable organizations, where people can choose to make donations to fund those types of efforts. It does not have to be nor should it be a political organization.

Can you make that type determination?

Try putting forth a rational argument. No two humans are exactly identical, so we're not dealing with scientific provable facts, but judgments which can have unlimited outcomes, some positive and some negative, on a case by case basis.

 

Are you honestly trying to con people into believing you have suddenly become dumb or have conveniently forgetting what we’ve been discussing these pass weeks?
If you want me to spell out to you what ‘it’ means here then you are either trying a trick or you clearly haven’t been paying attention and to both I would ask why?

 

You’ve said this several times and I’ve given the same reply every time which is - I agree - but no child can choose to whom they are going to be born and you agree with that so why do you keep bringing this up?