What is the justification for forcing anyone to financially provide for anyone else?

[dilloduck]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

 

[Big Black Dog]

You will have to ask a liberal Democrat that question. It's their way of doing business.

 

[007]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

"Justification?" As in what? Alimony? Child support? Social programs?

 

[FLGoldilocks]

I think it depends on what you're referring to. In a case like child support, no we shouldn't have to force a parent to provide for their child. But since so many parents fail to do so willingly, the other parent is forced to rely on the court system forcing the irresponsible parent to do what's right.

I can't really think of another situation in which it would be appropriate to force someone to financially provide for someone else. Providing for someone else, other than your child, should really be a choice. My boyfriend chooses to work hard to provide for me and the kids, but no one forces him to. If he decided he didn't want to provide for me, I would get a job and provide for myself.

I think there are situations in which it would be appropriate, when possible, to provide for someone else, such as aging parents, disabled siblings, things like that. But those shouldn't be required. It's one of those things where if you're a good person, and you can afford it, you should and would do it, but no one can or should make you.

 

[dilloduck]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

"Justification?" As in what? Alimony? Child support? Social programs?

Anything. What is the justification for taxing me and using that money to spend on anyone else ?
Why am I forced to provide for those who are deemed unable to provide for themselves ?

 

[dilloduck]

I think it depends on what you're referring to. In a case like child support, no we shouldn't have to force a parent to provide for their child. But since so many parents fail to do so willingly, the other parent is forced to rely on the court system forcing the irresponsible parent to do what's right.

I can't really think of another situation in which it would be appropriate to force someone to financially provide for someone else. Providing for someone else, other than your child, should really be a choice. My boyfriend chooses to work hard to provide for me and the kids, but no one forces him to. If he decided he didn't want to provide for me, I would get a job and provide for myself.

I think there are situations in which it would be appropriate, when possible, to provide for someone else, such as aging parents, disabled siblings, things like that. But those shouldn't be required. It's one of those things where if you're a good person, and you can afford it, you should and would do it, but no one can or should make you.

So I am required to help finance a system that forces a parent to take care of his/her own child ?

 

[Barb]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

Are you a "self made" man?
Were there public roads that took you to school, public schools to attend, public water your household had access to (publicly regulated to make sure you were protected from disease) that you brushed your teeth, showered, and cooked with? Did the buses or other automobiles that you rode in (or that your mode of transportation shared the public roads with) have to live up to public safety standards (the regulation of which is publicly funded)?

Were the doctors you went to subject to (publicly funded) oversight and state regulation?

Clearly, you came to your success in life within American society, one upheld by the economic structure that lent at least to some degree to the atmosphere within which you prospered.What if you were born instead in, I dunno, Darfur? You think your God given talent and rugged individuality would have made it likely that you would have even survived to adulthood, much less attained the status you have here in the US? Odds aren't that great. My point is, of course, that the social and economic structures that supported you also supports others.

The conservative complaint is a complaint as old as time

The influential men Nietzsche met at Leipzig helped Nietzsche gain access to professorship at Basel University, an endorsement rarely granted one as young as he was at the time (Stanford, 2007). Although his intellect undoubtedly warranted such dispensation, clearly Nietzsche enjoyed access and promotion other men, the masses, did not. That Nietzsche enjoyed the benefits of the upper classes is evident in his posture towards ordinary people, and perhaps his antipathy to democracy is a reflection of that status. That he considers the vagaries of chance smiling on him to be a mark of merit rather than dumb luck is a peculiarity of the “self made man” of any era.
me

 

[uscitizen]

We should never have built Hoover dam. We would have lots less Las Vegans and southern caliprunians that way.

rural elictrification was a mess as well.
Let those hicks get electricity and communications and the next thing you know they will be running the world from Facebook.

 

[AquaAthena]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

No, we as a country are not too selfish to be charitable. We used to be, until Woodrow Wilson, our first major progressive elitist president with a Ph.D, became president. He developed a program of progressive reform and asserted international leadership in building a new world order. Then in 1917 he proclaimed American entrance into World War I a crusade to make the world "safe for democracy.

He took it upon himself to make America into a nanny state and FDR and LBJ really liked that idea and carried this so-called benevolent mission forward, thus depriving Americans of being self-sufficent, beause the government would save their asses. This way Americans could become as irresponsible as they wished, because we're from the government and we are here to bail you out. Americans had handed their power over to elected representatives who wanted it. And now lookie...."can we say Greece?"

 

[Samson]

I think it depends on what you're referring to. In a case like child support, no we shouldn't have to force a parent to provide for their child. But since so many parents fail to do so willingly, the other parent is forced to rely on the court system forcing the irresponsible parent to do what's right.

I can't really think of another situation in which it would be appropriate to force someone to financially provide for someone else. Providing for someone else, other than your child, should really be a choice. My boyfriend chooses to work hard to provide for me and the kids, but no one forces him to. If he decided he didn't want to provide for me, I would get a job and provide for myself.

I think there are situations in which it would be appropriate, when possible, to provide for someone else, such as aging parents, disabled siblings, things like that. But those shouldn't be required. It's one of those things where if you're a good person, and you can afford it, you should and would do it, but no one can or should make you.

So I am required to help finance a system that forces a parent to take care of his/her own child ?

What's your fuckin' problem, dillo?

Can't get with the program?

Stop taking care of your kids, so the system can do it for you, bitch!

 

[007]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

"Justification?" As in what? Alimony? Child support? Social programs?

Anything. What is the justification for taxing me and using that money to spend on anyone else ?
Why am I forced to provide for those who are deemed unable to provide for themselves ?

The "justification" is called the "democrats," and they don't feel as though there's any need to explain anything further to you. They're going to "spread the wealth around" because that's what they do. A real modern day Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Problem is, that is regularly bastardized into take from the hard workers and give to the lazy, but they don't care, because the lazy vote for them and that keeps them in power.

 

[uscitizen]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

Pretty much, well that and buying votes.
Remember that corporations get govt help as well.

 

[lizzie]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

There isn't a justification for it, unless one believes he is responsible for that over which he has no control. It's not legislating morality. It's state-sanctioned theft.

 

[manifold]

The income most people earn wouldn't be possible without the supporting infrastructure, including the government. The idea that one owes nothing in return is not only selfish, it's completely illogical.

Now if you want to discuss HOW MUCH one owes in return and/or WHERE it get's allocated, that is a different debate altogether.

 

[boedicca]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

We're legislating a morality that is self-destructive.

The morality is one of altruism and elevating need above individual liberty. This is at the root of all of the major issues which are tearing apart our economy and society today.

In any system, "you get what you measure". In ours, the metrics are all set up to encourage growing dependency upon the government and less self-reliance - so we are getting more and more of dependency as the years go by. I'm afraid we are at or nearly at the tipping point where over half of the country feeds from the public trough filled by the labor of the minority. If so, it's likely irreversible and we have seen the last of Real America.

 

[Granny]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

Where is this coming from? American private citizens as well as government have always been diligent and generous in voluntarily helping others by giving to charities, providing emergency and/or disaster aid. How is that selfish?

Morality cannot be legislated - you either have it or you don't.

As far as TAKING money from the rich and giving it to the poor - there will always be exceptions to the rule. Those wealthy who worship at the feet of a dictator will always get special treatment on many levels ... but only because they are useful to the dictator.

 

[lizzie]

The income most people earn wouldn't be possible without the supporting infrastructure, including the government. The idea that one owes nothing in return is not only selfish, it's completely illogical.

Now if you want to discuss HOW MUCH one owes in return and/or WHERE it get's allocated, that is a different debate altogether.

The portion I bolded is a legitimate function of government, because all citizens benefit equally, due to equal access.

 

[Samson]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

Where is this coming from? American private citizens as well as government have always been diligent and generous in voluntarily helping others by giving to charities, providing emergency and/or disaster aid. How is that selfish?

Morality cannot be legislated - you either have it or you don't.

As far as TAKING money from the rich and giving it to the poor - there will always be exceptions to the rule. Those wealthy who worship at the feet of a dictator will always get special treatment on many levels ... but only because they are useful to the dictator.

The point isn't that "morality," or whatever, needs to be legislated, but that it is legislated regardless of need.

 

[daveman]

What is the justification for forcing anyone to financially provide for anyone else?

It makes liberals feel smug and superior.

 

[manifold]

Taxation now equates to "legislating morality?"


I've heard it all now!