Question About Operation of Small Government

Why should it be the sole function of charity why shouldn’t it be a function of government, and why not both?

Also it must be remembered that the reason why social provision was demanded and fought for in many countries was because charity was unable to give the cover that was needed. This is why many charitable organisations can only function with the funding they receive from government grants.

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.

I think it is better in the hands of professionals, who can gauge which sections and members of society need assistance so resources can be targeted in those areas.


I’ve also pointed out the problem with the concept of people choosing who to give assistance to and who not.

 

So let’s see you’re saying my argument isn’t rational because “no two humans are exactly identical” Why?

I mean have I claimed they are, because I don’t think I have?

What I’m saying is that it is very difficult if not impossible to know the potential of a baby, but that potential would more likely to be realised if the child had access to the advantages that assisted in bringing out that potential.

So this means that one of the greatest effects on a person’s life will be where and to whom they are born. Because 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.

The judgments people are going to make will be shaped to a large extent on what advantages or disadvantages they had or have in life and very probably to whether they have a positive or negative outcome.

You haven’t put up any argument against that all you have said is ‘life is unfair’ and that you think it should remain unfair. Which as I’ve explained isn’t a rational or reasonable argument.

 

It's just that I'm used to working with people where precise language was a necessity.
I'll assume to be correct that "it" is the childs' lack of choice as to the wealth of the family it is born to. Close enough?

 

The answer should be obvious, but what you propose to be needed is an act of charity, not government. Charity is an act performed by choice, while government imposes without choice upon the providers at the behest of the recipients. That's democracy at work, and why our government was not based soley upon it.

Like Greece, Canada, Spain, the UK, etal? There are nearly 14 trillion reasons, and growing why this is the wrong path for government to take.

I take it you're anti-abortion? Actually it's quite difficult to determine which of some adults deserve assistance as well. Speaking of babies, you may make an effort, and depending on luck end up with a serial killer, a brain surgeon, or something in between. Hindsight is always much more accurate than foresight, and I have a great deal of the prior.

I don't see it so difficult a problem that we need to make a business out of it.

It must have got lost in the volume somewhere. You don't even give thought to the problems it eliminates, do you?

 

I simply disagree that it is the duty of government to act in ways to equalize the lives of citizens, especially at the Federal level. It only leads to greater fiscal irresponsibility nation wide.

 

so i would assume that means doing away with public education

 

Individual

Then please answer the question - Why should it be the sole function of charity why shouldn’t it be a function of government, and why not both?

Please explain?

As I’ve said you are happy to have what even you describe as an unfair system.

Please explain?

I know you disagree I’m just trying to find out if you have any rational reasons for the disagreement and so far the only argument you have put up is that you like the system being unfair because that fits in with your bias and prejudices.

And that you seem to want to make it even more unfair.

 

It seems to me that the whole ‘small government’ argument is a smokescreen, and once the smoke has been cleared it quickly become obvious that what its trying to hide is the same old right wing political agenda which is about preserving or increasing the power of those with advantage at the expense of everyone else.

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.

 

I would certainly like to see the U.S. Department of Education done away with, and allow States and parents to take full responsibility for education within their borders.

 

You can chalk the disagreement up to the great Left Right divide. I feel that a fair days pay for a fair days work is fair.

 

We have too much government as it is.
Yes, I fully support cutting taxes, and cutting government spending, cutting entitlement benefits by providing only a hand up, not perpetual hand outs. Being free requires facing ones own responsibility not passing it on to others.

 

well, that'll be fair

not that the fed has lived up to its responsibility to provide equal education to all, regardless of circumstance

but giving it back to the states?

 

Indie

But as I’ve said I know you disagree I’m just trying to find out if you have any rational reasons for the disagreement I mean just shrugging and saying it should be chalked up “to the great Left Right divide” isn’t a rational answer.

I mean so far the only argument you have put up is that you like the system being unfair because that fits in with your bias and prejudices.


Have I said that I don’t think people should be fairly paid, I don’t think so.

So you don’t want good government you just want less government.

How does a baby face its responsibilities?

So far the only argument you’ve put up for why a system that you even think is unfair shouldn’t be made fairer is that you like that unfairness and seem to want to increase it, which as I’ve pointed out doesn’t seem like a rational argument.

 

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND I NEVER HAVE AND I GUESS I NEVER WILL

please go to babelfish and translate that into martian

 

You're just saying that money is still money, no matter how it is acquired? Savings does not create the economic growth that spending does, so government prefers most of us to not save but instead spend, and don't worry, government will create the necessary social programs to care for you when you are broke.

 

Yep, that's where most of the parents of the school kids live.

 

With rights come obligations, one persons rights are not provided by obligating another, and the greatest right of all is to succeed which is meaningless if the right to fail is non-existent.

Outcomes are unequal but that is not unfair.

I didn't say you did.

Less government IS good government. As Jefferson said "Those are governed best who are governed least."

By accepting its' mothers breast, or a bottle as the case may be.

In my opinion the unfairness that exists is created by government. Opportunities abound as a result of inequalities, that provide advantages for those who recognize them, without regard of how wealthy they are, the family they were born to, or the school education they had.

 

Indie

But is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged.

You’ve said that is unfair but you think it is also justified, so the question arises why do you think some things are unfair and justified and some things you think of as been unfair are unjustified?

It seems to me that you are basically just deciding such questions based on bias and prejudice rather than having any kind of rational or reasonable argument to back up those decisions.

Can you put up reasonable and rational arguments for your views and if you can’t shouldn’t you be asking yourself why you can’t?

That is a statement, a slogan, not an answer, I mean what is small and what large, you seem to presume that large is necessarily bad but its seems to me that just being ‘small’ doesn’t mean it will be good either, in fact if it is so ‘small’ as to be weak it is more likely to govern badly and be under the influence of those with power and influence.

Please clarify?

Please explain?

 

Indie

But how is success and failure gauged and by whom?

Let us imagine a 100 metre race with four runners (A,B,C,D) all of which have the mental and physical potential to win, so that in a fair race it would be impossible to tell which one would win.

But just before the start one runner (D) is left at the 100m mark while another (C) is placed at the 80m mark and the next (B) is placed at the 50m mark and the last (A) is placed just 10m from the finish line.

They all have a good race and put in an equal amount of effort into winning.
Now from been impossible to say who’d be the winner it now becomes possible to work out the outcome, A followed by B followed by C with D coming in last.

The runner that only had to travel 10m ‘succeeded’ and the disadvantaged runners ‘failed’.

The question is was it a fair race, your answer is not it isn’t BUT you thing that it is justifiable and that doesn’t seem rational or reasonable.

I know some would argue that people are not all equal, some people have physical and mental advantages (or disadvantages), BUT the question then is how can someone gauge that in advance? You yourself have admitted that it is virtually impossible to gauge the potential of a baby; so much so that you think it not even worth trying.

So what you seem to be doing is gauging people on outcome.
But that is a bit like standing at the finish line of the race described above and declaring that the runner that only travelled ten yards and won is a much better runner and more worthy athlete than the loser who had the whole 100 metres to run.

Again that doesn’t seem reasonable or rational.

*

But you admit that you don’t know what the potential of any child could be and you also seem to agree that one of the greatest effects on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. That can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure.

In which case as I’ve said above outcomes can be unequal not because of merit but because of what you admit are unfairly distributed advantages and disadvantages.

 

Yes it is. And this question should be under the thread on Effort or Luck, instead of Small Government. There, it could be said that the person you refer to as having unearned advantages would be a case of luck, and those who you feel should be shared with could do so through the exertion of some effort.

Is it fair that some are born stronger, or brighter than others? Is that unjust? Obviously someone who has little can look at those who have much and consider it to be unfair, and/or unjust. By trying to introduce who actually earned something just indicates a need to find some means of justifying ones envy. It appears that in reality you feel it unfair for someone to earn more than you feel they need, as that provides them with control over who they can pass any excess to which only increases your feeling of unfairness.

And just what bias and prejudice would that be? I simply feel that what one earns is their property, and they have the right to as they please with it, keep it, spend it, or give it away.

I can and have, but envy is difficult to put an end to.

It's very difficult to make someone understand something that they don't wish to understand. Perhaps you are one of those who requires government, but many of us are capable of governing ourselves. The existence of just those two types of people is what makes government a necessary evil.

Government has absolutely nothing to give without first taking from another.
Laws that neither give anything nor take anything relate to ensuring that we treat and interact fairly with one another, and are applicable to all equally. Beyond that point government, as you would like it to be, has to take from some and give to others in an attempt to provide a form of equality that does not exist naturally.

Do you just sit around waiting on opportunity or luck to make you prosperous?