Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

Welfare benefits provided by the state are like any other insurance schemes except that for social welfare the state is not supposed to profit from the premiums people pay. National insurance took the place of charities administered by the Church(to which people paid tithes) or later on by philanthropic landlords.

[GE Morton]

Welfare benefits provided by the state are like any other insurance schemes except that for social welfare the state is not supposed to profit from the premiums people pay. National insurance took the place of charities administered by the Church(to which people paid tithes) or later on by philanthropic landlords.

No, Belindi. Welfare benefits provided by the State are NOT "like any other insurance scheme." All other insurance schemes are voluntary, where each person decides whether the risk insured is worth the cost of the premium and either buys the policy or declines it. No one is forced to join that insurance pool. That difference is morally decisive.

Before someone raises the "exception" of compulsory auto liability insurance, that is a conditional requirement imposed by the owner of the roads upon which you will operate your vehicle, which happens to be the public. If you wish to use another's property the owner thereof may impose any conditions he wishes. If you don't drive your car on public roads (as is the case with many farmers and ranchers who only use their vehicles on their own property) there is no requirement to buy insurance.

[GE Morton]

Of course we all want the government to benefit us. The question is: what government services DO benefit us? Public education? If public education (even if we don't personally use it) produces a more civil, economically viable society, don't we all benefit?

I agreed earlier there are both public and private benefits to universal education. Hence the costs thereof should be apportioned accordingly.

Health care? If public health care results in better health care for everyone at a fraction the cost (as it seems to, based on comparing the U.S. system to those of other nations), don't we all benefit?

Government provided or financed health care does NOT result in "better health care at a fraction of the cost." At least, not compared to health care provided via a true free market. The current outrageous costs of health care in the US are due entirely to mandates and constraints imposed upon that industry by government. And, no, laws which force taxpayers to pay the costs of others' health care cannot possibly benefit those taxpayers. That is an economic absurdity.

The only thing that ever forces the cost of anything down is an free, open, competitive market.

Welfare and social security? Perhaps they cut down on crime and make life more pleasant for everyone.

Well, I suppose we could cut down on crime by simply providing would-be thieves, robbers, swindlers, rapists child molesters, everything they would otherwise steal or plunder. But surely a more morally justifiable and far less costly solution would be to remove those predators from the streets and keep them off.

Also, based on Morton's reasoning above, if my neighbor can't force my children to go to school, can't make me pay a fine for exceeding the speed limit, can't force me to serve in the army (in the past), and can't enslave me for selling illegal drugs, then neither can the government. OK. We get it, GE. You don't think the government should do anything but protect property rights (which, for some bizarre reason, you see as sacrosanct).

Now, how do you derive that conclusion from your own premises (which are themselves gratuitous)? Is the right to use drugs a property right? The right not to be conscripted (enslaved) a property right? And yes, your neighbor could force you to pay a fine, or some other penalty, if you exceed the speed limit on his road, in violation of the conditions he imposed upon your use of it.

The "divine right of kings" is not so different from "the divine right of the first discoverer" advocated by Morton.

I'm amused at these off-the-wall analogies. There is no divinity or any other supernatural entity involved in the first possession principle. I think most would agree that counts as a significant difference.

[GE Morton]

I'll grant that there's nothing wrong with being rich. Especially not if you pay your fair share of taxes. However, it's irrelevant whether the rich somehow "deserve" their wealth through either merit or hard work. Who cares? Why should hard work and intelligence merit wealth any more than winning the lottery? The protestant ethic of wealth being a "just desert" ignores Ecclesiastes: . . .

Wow. Perhaps because hard work and intelligence is what brings wealth into existence?

What SHOULD concern anyone of a humanitarian bent is to make sure that the poor are fed and housed -- why should anyone care whether the rich are richer than we are? (I'll grant that the rich should help pay for the safety net, because they have the money to do so.)

Pontificating on what people "should" be concerned with is otiose and futile. You might as well argue that people who prefer chocolate ice cream "should" prefer vanilla. It is also outside the scope of morality, which is concerned with human actions, not preferences. Persons who share that concern are perfectly free to devote some of their resources to that cause. Those for whom it is not a concern, or a very high-ranking one, have no duty to do so, any more than they have any duty to eat vanilla ice cream because you prefer it.

[GE Morton]

Ah yes, receiving benefits. We all, presumably, are familiar with how insurance works. We are all forced to carry car insurance, but only a few will receive a monetary benefit (from a claim). This brings up the concept of what one purchases with insurance. It isn't the benefit, it is the coverage (whether you make a claim or not).

See response to Belindi, above. We are only forced to carry auto liability insurance if we operate our cars on public roads. The public, like any property owner, may impose any conditions he wishes on the use of his property. If you rent a car from Hertz they will require you to have collision coverage, or will sell you a short-term policy at the time.

Thus if you or I pay taxes that goes towards welfare, but we don't ever need welfare, we still receive the coverage regardless of whether we happen to need it. We have the fire department available to save our home whether we actually have a fire or not.

Those parallels aren't apt either. Fire departments are rarely able to save, or prevent serious damage to, a home on fire. The public benefit of fire departments is preventing fires from spreading to neighboring structures, which they can usually do. Maintaining a public fire department reduces the risk that your home will burn.

And, of course, we purchase insurance of some sort when we determine the risk (which consists of the probable loss times the probability it will occur) is greater than the cost of the premium. For most people that calculation would not support paying for "welfare" insurance, and they would not buy it.

Public welfare programs are not "insurance." They are forced charities.

Additionally, commenting on various issues on moral grounds is an extremely low bar, since moral codes are individual and subjective. Thus whether an issue is moral is essentially an opinion.

Well, that is an odd comment to make in a thread devoted to a moral question.

[Ecurb]

Pontificating on what people "should" be concerned with is otiose and futile. You might as well argue that people who prefer chocolate ice cream "should" prefer vanilla. It is also outside the scope of morality, which is concerned with human actions, not preferences. Persons who share that concern are perfectly free to devote some of their resources to that cause. Those for whom it is not a concern, or a very high-ranking one, have no duty to do so, any more than they have any duty to eat vanilla ice cream because you prefer it.

You're prevaricating again, GE. That seems to be your favorite mode of communication, for which I can hardly blame you, since your positions would otherwise be untenable and even ridiculous.

Morality is (as anyone "should" know) concerned almost exclusively with what one SHOULD do. It is, in fact, concerned with moral and ethical preferences -- which of several actions is morally preferable. Since you seem obsessed with defining (rather than arguing in support of) "rights", one would think you would know that. HOwever, you need fear not. When I wrote, "What SHOULD concern anyone of a humanitarian bent is to make sure that the poor are fed and housed..." I was not including you among those of a humanitarian bent. So you're off the hook.

However, you SHOULD learn to write more more effectively (if you want to persuade anyone of anything). The notion that humanitiarians "should' be concerned about the welfare of others seems obvious: "humanitarian: one who seeks to promote the welfare of mankind by eliminating pain and suffering." Yet according to GE (who apparently was ignorant of the meaning of "humanitarian") saying that humanitarians should do that which, by definition, they are required to do is somehow like claiming people should prefer one flavor of ice cream over another.

It's impossible to reply to such silliness. If someone argues that one plus one is three, argument is futile (or even, as GE might redundantly say, "otiose"). Carry on.

[GE Morton]

You're prevaricating again, GE. That seems to be your favorite mode of communication, for which I can hardly blame you, since your positions would otherwise be untenable and even ridiculous.

Please look up the meaning of that word. You consistently use it incorrectly.

Morality is (as anyone "should" know) concerned almost exclusively with what one SHOULD do.

Exactly right. What they should do, not, "should be concerned with."

It is, in fact, concerned with moral and ethical preferences -- which of several actions is morally preferable.

That is a different sense of "preferable." It denotes which action is more compatible with moral principles and rules, not which one we like better.

The notion that humanitiarians "should' be concerned about the welfare of others seems obvious: "humanitarian: one who seeks to promote the welfare of mankind by eliminating pain and suffering." Yet according to GE (who apparently was ignorant of the meaning of "humanitarian") saying that humanitarians should do that which, by definition, they are required to do is somehow like claiming people should prefer one flavor of ice cream over another.

You need to think that through a bit further, Ecurb. Per that definition (which is perfectly good), a person who is an humanitarian WILL be concerned with others' welfare. "Should be" is redundant.

[Ecurb]

You're prevaricating again, GE. That seems to be your favorite mode of communication, for which I can hardly blame you, since your positions would otherwise be untenable and even ridiculous.

Please look up the meaning of that word. You consistently use it incorrectly.

Morality is (as anyone "should" know) concerned almost exclusively with what one SHOULD do.

Exactly right. What they should do, not, "should be concerned with."

It is, in fact, concerned with moral and ethical preferences -- which of several actions is morally preferable.

That is a different sense of "preferable." It denotes which action is more compatible with moral principles and rules, not which one we like better.

The notion that humanitiarians "should' be concerned about the welfare of others seems obvious: "humanitarian: one who seeks to promote the welfare of mankind by eliminating pain and suffering." Yet according to GE (who apparently was ignorant of the meaning of "humanitarian") saying that humanitarians should do that which, by definition, they are required to do is somehow like claiming people should prefer one flavor of ice cream over another.

You need to think that through a bit further, Ecurb. Per that definition (which is perfectly good), a person who is an humanitarian WILL be concerned with others' welfare. "Should be" is redundant.

"Prevaricate: to speak or act in a deceptive, ambiguous or evasive manner." When you split hairs between what one "should" and "will" do (a humanitarian should behave in a humanitarian manner to deserve the title) you are acting in a deceptive, evasive and ambiguous manner, and when you question whether I know what "prevaricate" means you are simply being a twit. One action which is "compatible with (my) moral principles" is to quit prevaricating. You "should" try it.

[Leontiskos]

I am falling behind in this thread and my time is a bit short at the moment, but here is a short reply. In general I think GE Morton is offering excellent arguments all throughout.

So are you claiming that interpersonal justice can't exist without, say, paying reparations to blacks for slavery that happened 150 years ago? What is your argument here?

Now, I can be more just or less just in my interactions with others one on one. I can treat people well and fairly, but I am only able to do so within an inherently unfair system.

First, let's suppose for the sake of argument that what you say is true: the "deck is stacked" against some demographics. We could have a society of just interactions and laws in a "stacked-deck" society, or in a society with no inequalities that people are born into. My point is that even if you think the second is better, the first is still good. For people to act justly towards one another regardless of their relative advantages or disadvantages is a good thing. It is still good even though we don't live in your "ideal" society. The classical conception of rights and law establishes a form of equality and mutual respect that would not exist without it. A basic error of progressivism is this fallacy which says that if the state of society is not perfect then it is not good and must be overthrown.

Second, just because it is not perfect does not mean it is not good. It is easy to take a glass-half-empty approach and focus on things like wealth disparity, but what if you looked at things like absolute wealth? Access to food, clean water, shelter? Starvation? Automobiles, television, and internet? Objectively speaking the average western citizen enjoys a life far beyond what kings enjoyed 150 years ago. The whole "stacked deck caste system society" claim is not only remarkably pessimistic, it is also factually and historically false.

I'm not sure that reparations are a practical or effective solution. But, I am sure that an actual socialist government is a good and effective way to start. Again, the people that live under this style of government: Finland, Denmark, Switzerland... are among the wealthiest in the world, so they are not suffering as a result of government spending. More importantly, they report being the happiest people on the planet. They have the ideal mix of freedom and protection from disaster. They are free but not afraid, and therefore happy and productive.

I saw you make this claim earlier in the thread. All it takes is a quick Google search to disabuse someone of the notion that the Nordic countries are Socialist. They obviously aren't. They are capitalist societies with strong welfare programs. They are also remarkably insular and xenophobic, and this strong group identity is a big part of why they are so successful.

A basic error that I see in the would-be-Socialists is that they think there is an "easy button" that is just waiting to be pressed. It's really not that simple, and the classical theory of rights that GE Morton has been defending is an essential staple of western civilization (which many eastern countries are rightly trying to emulate). Throwing out that understanding of rights seems like a very, very bad idea.

[AverageBozo]

Few people will not need medical services in their lifetimes. That makes the need for healthcare nearly universal.

Certainly there are people who can get by without healthcare, just as there are people who can get by without refrigerators or clothing.

But on the whole, healthcare coverage is as necessary as having a fire department.

If someone chooses not to purchase healthcare insurance and runs up a bill he can’t afford to pay, such as after a motor vehicle accident, then he is choosing for me to pay a higher premium.

If someone can’t afford health insurance and qualifies for government assistance, then a portion of my taxes pays for his medical care.

Paying for someone who is feeding from the government’s trough is galling, but to pay for someone who is intentionally freeloading off me is beyond description.

[GE Morton]

There are three Waltons of the Walmart clan on that list. I've already shown how they are stealing from all of us right now:

https://www.jwj.org/walmarts-food-stamp ... easy-chart . . .

Er, no, chewy, you can't refute my claim (that no one on the Forbes list gained his fortune via slavery or stealing) by re-defining "stealing." Even your own silly chart does not accuse Walmart of stealing; it accuses the company of "cheating" (and it is not cheating, either).

Stealing (again) is the taking of another's property without right or permission.

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=steal

Here are the three "sins" your chart accuses Walmart of committing:

1. "Pay your employees so little they are forced to rely on food stamps to survive."

Paying someone a price for a good or service he has agreed to accept is not taking anything from anyone. And if someone offers his services for a certain price, he has obviously granted permission to the buyer to make use of those services for that agreed price. So #1 is not "stealing."

Neither does Walmart "force" its employees to rely on food stamps. What "forces" them to rely on food stamps is their lack of any skills which would earn them a higher wage. That sort of "force," BTW, is not morally relevant. Only force --- physical coercion or the threat of it --- exerted by one moral agent against another is morally relevant; the forces of nature or the "force of circumstances" are not.

2. "Exploit loopholes to avoid paying billions in taxes that fund food stamps."

Egads. Government is clearly the taker-without-permission here, not Walmart. Walmart has no moral obligation to pay anything to fund food stamps. Nor does anyone else. Refusing to submit to a taking is not itself a taking (unless you're indulging in Newspeak). So #2 doesn't constitute "stealing" either.

3. "Reap billions in profits when food stamps are spent in your stores."

Making a profit on sales freely entered into by the buyers hardly constitutes "stealing" either. Three strikes and you're out.

Warren Buffet is on the list, and he owns $2 billion worth of JP Morgan stock. JP Morgan profited from the slave trade, along with many other major corporations still in existence who were never asked to return such profits . . .

"JPMorgan Chase recently admitted their company’s links to slavery. 'Today, we are reporting that this research found that, between 1831 and 1865, two of our predecessor banks—Citizens Bank and Canal Bank in Louisiana—accepted approximately 13,000 enslaved individuals as collateral on loans and took ownership of approximately 1,250 of them when the plantation owners defaulted on the loans,' the company wrote in a statement."

LOL. Really? Buffet's current $100 billion fortune arose from a minor investment by two small banks 150 years ago, because they were later acquired by a predecessor bank of JP Morgan (current assets of $3.4 trillion), whose stock makes up 2% of Buffet's portfolio? REALLY?

I suppose you could accuse the bank of murder, too. One of the founders of the Bank of Manhattan, the earliest predecessor bank of JP Morgan, founded in 1799, was Aaron Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a pistol duel.

"Progressive" ideology largely consists of such laughable sophistry as this.

[Sy Borg]

Aren't the Chinese trying to make islands in the South China Sea, and didn't some rich people in Dubai make islands ?

Sadly, the islands have some problems. Since desert sand was too coarse, they dredged up sand from the ocean floor, which destroyed vast tracts of marine ecosystems. Further, the sand islands themselves were built atop coral reefs, now buried. The islands appear to be a lesson in what not to do.

https://youtu.be/SacQ2YdVOyk?t=170

[LuckyR]

Ah yes, receiving benefits. We all, presumably, are familiar with how insurance works. We are all forced to carry car insurance, but only a few will receive a monetary benefit (from a claim). This brings up the concept of what one purchases with insurance. It isn't the benefit, it is the coverage (whether you make a claim or not).

See response to Belindi, above. We are only forced to carry auto liability insurance if we operate our cars on public roads. The public, like any property owner, may impose any conditions he wishes on the use of his property. If you rent a car from Hertz they will require you to have collision coverage, or will sell you a short-term policy at the time.

Thus if you or I pay taxes that goes towards welfare, but we don't ever need welfare, we still receive the coverage regardless of whether we happen to need it. We have the fire department available to save our home whether we actually have a fire or not.

Those parallels aren't apt either. Fire departments are rarely able to save, or prevent serious damage to, a home on fire. The public benefit of fire departments is preventing fires from spreading to neighboring structures, which they can usually do. Maintaining a public fire department reduces the risk that your home will burn.

And, of course, we purchase insurance of some sort when we determine the risk (which consists of the probable loss times the probability it will occur) is greater than the cost of the premium. For most people that calculation would not support paying for "welfare" insurance, and they would not buy it.

Public welfare programs are not "insurance." They are forced charities.

Additionally, commenting on various issues on moral grounds is an extremely low bar, since moral codes are individual and subjective. Thus whether an issue is moral is essentially an opinion.

Well, that is an odd comment to make in a thread devoted to a moral question.

Well I agree with you that "welfare" insurance would be deemed unpopular by many, if not most. Hence why my previous posting addressed popularity directly, relevant after all it appears.

Unemployment insurance doesn't require quotation marks since everyone knows it's insurance. Welfare is more similar to than different from unemployment insurance (everyone pays taxes over a long time and a few receive benefits when an unfortunate event occurs), and it is nothing like a charity (since everyone including those who receive benefits doesn't pay into a charity).

As to the thread, whether a condition is a crime or not is a legal, not a moral issue.

[Belindi]

Welfare benefits provided by the state are like any other insurance schemes except that for social welfare the state is not supposed to profit from the premiums people pay. National insurance took the place of charities administered by the Church(to which people paid tithes) or later on by philanthropic landlords.

No, Belindi. Welfare benefits provided by the State are NOT "like any other insurance scheme." All other insurance schemes are voluntary, where each person decides whether the risk insured is worth the cost of the premium and either buys the policy or declines it. No one is forced to join that insurance pool. That difference is morally decisive.

Before someone raises the "exception" of compulsory auto liability insurance, that is a conditional requirement imposed by the owner of the roads upon which you will operate your vehicle, which happens to be the public. If you wish to use another's property the owner thereof may impose any conditions he wishes. If you don't drive your car on public roads (as is the case with many farmers and ranchers who only use their vehicles on their own property) there is no requirement to buy insurance.

But who other than the state will look after needy people? The churches can no longer do it, and private charity is unfair to donors and inadequate for recipients.

We force would-be criminals to be civilised, and sometimes force is needed to make apathetic people to be civilised.

[Steve3007]

When this topic deviated slightly onto the nature of property law, and the concept of the legal ownership of land, I think one thing that might have happened was the blurring of the distinction between laws in the legislative sense and laws which attempt to describe what is ontologically the case (natural laws).

As I see it, laws in the legislative sense don't say anything at all about the ontological status of things like land. A law which says "Bob owns this piece of land" says nothing about that land. That's not what it's for. It's purpose is to attempt to encourage some human behaviours and discourage others, as with all laws in the legislative sense. But I suppose the form of a sentence like "Bob owns this piece of land" or "This land is Bob's" superficially looks as though it's saying something about the land, because it resembles sentences like "This land is fertile" or "This land is rocky", which do say something about the land itself.