Abortion debate

The American Civil War? Indeed? The issue was which would predominate, federal or the states.
Federal won.

Two ides to bring us back to this thread, this idea of women having total control over their bodies and whether we really do give a damn about kids as a nation.

To both I say NO. Witness this welfare mother debate - sounds like punishment to me for having children, also this idea that right-to-lifers do not have support, in any way, the children they force women to bear or to adopt them after birth.
It reeks more like we care but only until they are born after which they and you their mother can go to perdition for all we really care. No child care, no insurance and so on.

You guys should know from personal experience that no one has total control over their bodies after all, you possess an automatic response yourself. Granted it isn't up there with being pregnant for nine months, and all that entails, but tis automatic for all that. You see someone who makes your blood sing and what happens? Hmmmmm?

So two points for you to have fun with:

1. total physical control

2. as a nation do we really give a damn?

Thank you for your kind attention.

Seems WebX is acting a bit funny these days.

I know jethro always counts his chickens before they hatch but, in answer to jethro - not until (s)he has been born. Before that the trimseter system prevails. Which balances competing
 'rights' as equitably as humans can, politics being what they are.

THX try thinking about it - you said women have total control over their bodies and I disagreed.
I gave you an example disproving your position.

The next point illustrated how persons soooo very concerned with proto-humans do not give a damn about actual kids. No child care support, no health care support - and all of the flack about 'welfare mothers' who keep being catisgated for having kids, costs us money you see. You get this 'I'm not paying for her kids' thing. Seems to me that we care more about money than we do about kids. Got it now, THX?

No, we don't care more about money than kids, we care about people taking responsibility for their actions. I see no reason at all for my hard-earned money to keep going to people who keep spitting out kids.

Ah, the gospel of personal responsibility. What a convenient excuse to not have to care about your fellow human beings.

Sounds like that to me too, Allison. Besides guys - after you've given the money away IT AIN'T YOURS ANYMORE. It is then a public fund for our elected officials to depose of as they see fit. You can squawk, of course, but the only thing you can effectively do is to try and get people of your own ilk elected.

Stay put!

what I wanted to finish up with, before my post went wild, was Imagine this:

You walk into the Treasury and demand 'your' money back! Kick up a ruckus, shout and holler.
What do yu think would happen? I would enjoy watching it.

Or do you think its one big vault and they have written your name on the actual folding so you can precisely pick it out of the bunch?

Besides guys - after you've given the money away IT AIN'T YOURS ANYMORE. It is then a public fund for our elected officials to depose of as they see fit. You can squawk, of course, but the only thing you can effectively do is to try and get people of your own ilk elected. The money is hardly given. It is taken by threat of punishment. fold, will like to see the word "ilk" used again!

Personal responsibility the key to societal order and stability!

Personal responsibility the key to societal order and stability!

That's like saying you can learn to speak, read, and write English perfectly if you just follow all the rules of the language. It's a nice dream, but there's just too many exceptions and you have to deal with the exceptions as well.

jethro, and his ilk, can't argue effectively without being inflammatory. It is because his blinkers pinch. You will remember those squares of leather placed on a horse's bridle to focus his attention and prevent him from seeing other than straight ahead are called blinkers.

regardless, jethro, once the money isn't 'yours', it isn't yours. If you have a problem with being required to 'ante up' then that is another issue entirely. Like some male once said to me 'if you don't like it, move'.

jethro, and his ilk, can't argue effectively without being inflammatory. No its that left wingers are just touchy or as you they would say "sensitive."It is because his blinkers pinch. You will remember those squares of leather placed on a horse's bridle to focus his attention and prevent him from seeing other than straight ahead are called blinkers. That is typical accessories for liberals.

Like some male once said to me 'if you don't like it, move'. The other option is to fight like h***.

as you can see only more useless rhetoric from jethro. certainly, fight like hell, then all of your energy will be wasted in useless endeavor and the rest of us will laugh and get on with our lives - quite nicely, thank you very much.

We aren't saying that you MUST, only that you MAY within certain guidelines. Those of jethro's ilk are saying you MUST NOT. Saying that of course, means one does not have to accept 'personal responsibility' for making such a decision since that decision was taken out of your hands. THEY decided for you. I do love the contradictions of conservatives! Talking about 'family values' whilst keeping mistresses! What a hoot!

as you can see only more useless rhetoric from jethro. As if yours is useful. Remember when you point a finger there are three pointing back at you!

We aren't saying that you MUST, only that you MAY within certain guidelines. Those of jethro's ilk are saying you MUST NOT. Saying that of course, means one does not have to accept 'personal responsibility' for making such a decision since that decision was taken out of your hands. THEY decided for you. I do love the contradictions of conservatives! There aren't as many as liberals have. Liberals support the killing of unborn children and then they say they are for human rights. Immoral and hypocrits. Can't get any worse than that.

I think it is the "within reason" part that liberals don't understand.

The problem is government will use such a program to expand its power exponentially. That is the nature of the beast.

jethro lives his life in constant fear of something. Anything! Has to be afraid for some reason. Jethro, if it doesn't kill you then there's no reason to be afraid.

Since we, and that includes you, are not perfect some slack must be in this 'lack of ambition' tilt and the 'parent's responsibility' thing you have. Are you willing to let the kids go to hell simply to prevent yourself having to 'par for their parent's irresponsibilty and lack of ambition'? You just said so. So you do actually care more about money than kids.

jethro lives his life in constant fear of something. Anything! Has to be afraid for some reason. Jethro, if it doesn't kill you then there's no reason to be afraid.

????????????????????????

Everyone deserves understanding, compassion and a second, or even, in the case of the Bible...

Really, fold, everyone?

Now I have been civil to you, fold. Why can't you do the same?

Maybe this isn't really the right thread to discuss this, but it's the subject at hand, so here goes anyway.

The mantra of personal responsibility makes a fine ideal for any person to strive for, but it's not a very good policy when it comes to dealing with others.

It seems to me at the heart of the personal responsibility philosophy is an egocentric worldview. That is to say you often see it accompanied by statements like "*I* didn't need help for the government," "*I* go to work and make my money honestly," or even, "I had that same problem and *I* got out of it all by myself." Fine, good for you. But to then go and project your personal experience onto others and assume what works for you must work for everyone seems naive at best if not just simply insensitive and unempathic.

First off, you can't assume that your situation is really comparable to that of everyone else. Other people may have social disadvantages that you can't even imagine. Have you ever had trouble keeping a job because you had to take time off work to bail a relative out of jail or had to visit someone close to you who's in the hospital because they got shot in a gang war? And even if you put social circumstances aside, different people have different personalities. Some people just may not have the mental capacity to accomplish the same things you have because they're simply different from you.

So you can't safely assume that just because you managed to do something, that everyone else should be able to do it also. And ultimately this includes the idea of personal responsibility. Perhaps you're able to look out for and be responsible for yourself and your family, but for various reasons, there will always be some people who simply can't. And trying to shame them into not being a burden on you isn't going to work because the problems go deeper than they themselves can handle.

Now we could simply write such people off and say, "If you can't take care of yourself like everyone else does, then too bad, so sad." But unless you plan on executing them, they don't simply go away. Without a means to a comfortable living they could likely become criminals. Without access to healthcare, they could easily become the agents of disease. Without access to a good education, they will likely never contribute much to society. And when the criminal decides to prey on someone, it may be you. When diseases start to run rampant, it could be one of your kids that dies from it.

The philosphy of personal responsibility makes far too many assumptions about the perfection of humans and makes far too few allowances for human failings. It lets society's wounds sit and fester, expecting them to get better on their own. Consequently a society that relies on personal responsibility will never be a healthy one.

The best society will be one that takes human failings into account and makes provisions to deal with them so that they don't drag the rest of the society down with them. But doing so involves putting aside the desire to be selfish, and instead make an investment in the society, even if the benefits of those investments aren't obviously tangible.

Am I reading you right-- are you against personal responsibility?

Perhaps you're able to look out for and be responsible for yourself and your family, but for various reasons, there will always be some people who simply can't.

Aside from the physically and mentally disabled, this is not the case. The people who you say "can't" be responsible...well, they can. There is a series of actions that they could take, and it would amount to them being responsible. Their body is capable of making the motions needed, and their brain is capable of making the decisions needed.

Other people may have social disadvantages that you can't even imagine. Have you ever had trouble keeping a job because you had to take time off work to bail a relative out of jail or had to visit someone close to you who's in the hospital because they got shot in a gang war?

The fact remains that plenty of people who have had such disadvantages (and far worse) have overcome them and accomplished worthwhile things in spite of it. Helen Keller is a great example. So is Ice-T, for that matter. He used to rob jewelry stores. Now he lectures at colleges. These people are not superhuman...they do not possess powers that other humans don't. There are millions of people who get shit on by life, or who come from a bad background, and who rise above and succeed anyway. They do not possess unique powers. The people who get shit on or come from bad backgrounds and let that drag their life down the tubes are not composed of different materials. The ones who succeed do not have secret weapons.

By your premises, Allison, people would not be able to turn their lives around. You seem to think there are some people who simply cannot be responsible, even if they want to. I think that's a cop-out.

This is definitely off-topic to the thread, but I couldn't let your apologism slide without a response. The vast majority of people are fully capable of the same stuff that the rest of the vast majority of people are capable of. Most of what humans do lies in the power of the human mind...and we all have one of those.

Do you really think that Ice-T had some sort of ability to be responsible that his peers could not have tapped into had they decided to? I don't buy it.

By your theory, it would seem that someone who was raised by a single alcoholic parent (with three kids), and who was arrested three times, and thrown out of college, and who drank and used drugs, would have less ability to succeed than others who hadn't had such "disadvantages." And that just ain't true.

Bravo, Lance.

Allison, there are people who temporarily or permanently find themselves unable to cope. And there is a solution for that -- it's called charity. Americans are the most charitable people in the world. There are many private organizations that help people. Governments have no business getting involved.

Am I reading you right-- are you against personal responsibility?

I don't believe the doctrine of personal responsibility is sufficient to create a happy, productive society. I don't have a problem with anyone being personally responsible, I just think it's a mistake to assume everyone else will be (as most generalized assumptions are).

Aside from the physically and mentally disabled, this is not the case.

Well first off, there are physically and mentally disabled, so right off the bat you have people you're going to need to take care of and you'll need a system for doing so.

The people who you say "can't" be responsible...well, they can. There is a series of actions that they could take, and it would amount to them being responsible. Their body is capable of making the motions needed, and their brain is capable of making the decisions needed.

I could be a telemarketer too. I'm physically capable of making a phone call. I'm mentally competent enough to read a script. But you know what? I can't be a telemarketer. It just so violates things than run through the core of my being, that I can't bring myself to do it no matter how much someone may stand there and tell me I can. Similarly, there are people out there who, because of their personalties, and the values they hold, are simply not going to act the way you want them to act. Even if you punish them or neglect them, they will still make choices that will simply befuddle you. It's the diversity of human nature.

The fact remains that plenty of people who have had such disadvantages (and far worse) have overcome them and accomplished worthwhile things in spite of it.

So what? Now instead of comparing everyone to yourself, you're just comparing them to other people, but still making generalizations and assumptions about them. Just because a few people could, doesn't mean everyone is going to be able to. Again, people are quite diverse and you can't just forget about the ones that don't fit your mold.

By your premises, Allison, people would not be able to turn their lives around.

Some people can't. Let's take smoking for example. I can point at thousands if not millions of people who just quit smoking one day and never looked back. So would it be fair of me to go up to every single smoker and expect that they too could just quit right now if they wanted because all these other people have? If you've ever seen people try to quit smoking, many simply can't. They may quit for a day or two, and then they go back. But the ones who did just quit one day didn't have superhuman powers either. But people are all different. And even within a single person, it's possible that at one point in their lives, they're not able to turn it around, but later they may undergo a change and then they're ready to start doing things differently. Just like some people try to quit smoking and fail, and then one day get to the point where they really are truly ready to quit and then they do. So again, I say you can't force people to be personally responsible any more than you could force someone to quit smoking (while they still had access to cigarettes).

By your theory, it would seem that someone who was raised by a single alcoholic parent (with three kids), and who was arrested three times, and thrown out of college, and who drank and used drugs, would have less ability to succeed than others who hadn't had such "disadvantages." And that just ain't true.

No, that's not what I'm saying exactly. I'm saying everyone is different. Some people are born with a predisposition towards being responsible while others are not, and many are somewhere in between. The ones who are in between may be affected by their circumstances. But for the most part it has to do with who a person is on the inside. Some people, no matter how bad their background, will manage to become responsible and productive citizens. Others, no matter how good of a background they come from, will never manage to take care of themselves very well. So I'm saying as a society, it's foolish to not recognize that people are all different and expect them to all behave the same way. Some people are simply not going to be personally responsible in any society. But I think society is better off making a social investment to make sure those people are taken care of anyway than they are to just ignore them and let those people become a blight on society that will cost more to fix than it would have to prevent.

This is definitely off-topic to the thread

Actually, it has a peripheral relevance to the thread. If people are all supposed to just be personally responsible for themselves, than no one should be telling someone else they can't have an abortion. If people want to claim they have a responsibility to look out for each other, including looking out to protect the rights of unborn children to live, then the responsibility to look out for each other shouldn't end once the child is born. Pick one or the other.

I don't believe the doctrine of personal responsibility is sufficient to create a happy, productive society.

Society can be happy and productive even though every one in it is not.

Allison, there are people who temporarily or permanently find themselves unable to cope. And there is a solution for that -- it's called charity.

Charity is in incomplete and inconsistent solution. Can you imagine if senior citizens, instead of filing once and getting regular social security payments, had to go around to different charities trying to scrape up a living? And what if the charity says, "Sorry, the economy is bad and contributions have been down this quarter. We have nothing to give you."?

I'm not sure what the numbers are exactly, but let's say between social security and federal, state, and county taxes that go to social programs, the average person pays like $3,000 a year. Now if the government did away with all these programs and instead let us keep that money, what do you think the chances are everyone would take all that money and donate it to charities that help people? Pretty slim I'd say. Even if by some miracle they did donate a lot of it to charity, some people may contribute it to the environment or PETA, or other things that don't relate to the original use of the money at all. But of course the more likely result is that people will just use the money to enhance their own lives. And isn't that what the whining is all about anyway? People want to keep the money for themselves instead of letting other people have it?

There are a lot of charities out there right now, and they're already struggling in just the supplemental role they play. Can you imagine what life would be like if they were bore the primary responsibility of the social net? If you can't, try reading some Charles Dickens maybe. That's what our society would be like. If someone lost their job, their life could well be devastated. Employers would start to take more advantage of their employees because they would know their employees lived in dread fear of losing their jobs. You'd see many more people out on the streets begging and would probably be hit up for your change everywhere you went. Children would grow up on the streets learning to be criminals from a young age because that's the only way they could survive. Because there's no way charities alone could give all the help that's needed using just voluntary contributions.

We are a civilized society and as such, setting up a reliable system to take care of our unforunate is the way we stay that way. If, instead of making it the responsibility of every citizen to look out for the unfortunate, we left them to the whims of those with disposable cash, our society would rot from within pretty quickly.

Feminazis Beware: Your Nuremberg is Coming.

I agree Allison. You're right, and your posts shows a level of compassion that we could use more of in this "Great Society" of ours.

Just remember, I'm a male, not a female, so I hope you're not flirting :-P

Otherwise I like your post.

As for jethro's assertion that not everyone in a society needs to be happy in order for the society to be happy, that's probably true. Still, I think there's a scale, and possibly even a point of critical mass. If something like 80% of the people in a society live pretty well and the other 20% don't, certainly there is room for improvement there. But also what I'm saying is that the 80% and the 20% aren't isolated from one another. If the 20% turns to a life of crime, the 80% will become their victims and that affects the happiness of the 80%. If the 20% become infected with diseases, they can spread them to the 80%, and that affects their happiness as well. And if the unhappy portion of society were to get large enough, you could well end up with some sort of social revolution.

Now I'm not saying we need to be communist and make everyone equal. Personally, I don't think you need to even necessarily speak from a standpoint of compassion to say it's best not to forget about those people. At heart, I'm a Utilitarian, believing in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. And the logic of that philosophy tells me that taxing people in order to make sure the bottom rung of society is cared for, not only makes that bottom rung happier than the rest is made unhappy, but it also buys happiness for the rest of society because now the bottom rung is nothing more than a small financial burden to them, instead of being a threat to their health, safety, and property.

Alison,

Let me preface all of my remarks by saying that there should be a saftey net, there should be support for those who cannot work due to mental and or health problems. There should be a saftey net and support for those who need help and are WILLING to get back on there feet. All those things are good to society as a whole and should and have been there. I don't think many will argue with you there.

I don't believe the doctrine of personal responsibility is sufficient to create a happy, productive society.

That's exactly what got us where we are today. This country was not made great by people getting government checks who have made bad choices. It was made great by those who have done the right thing(s). It is only through those who have been personally responsible are we able to support others who aren't. Take away the people that are and there's no support system for those who arent.

I don't have a problem with anyone being personally responsible, I just think it's a mistake to assume everyone else will be

You're right, we shouldn't assume they will be responsible, we should EXPECT it as a society.
If that expectation is taken away, then why be responsible at all ? If there are no consequences to the choices you make then why make good choices?

I know you dislike generalizations but as an example

Take 2 people of similar background and mental and social capacity. Person A decides to work his/her way through college after high school. He/she, works hard, makes a few mistakes but keeps striving and is in general personally responsible about their actions and decisions. Gets a decent job and continues to benefit society. Or that same person who for whatever reasons decides college isn't the best route and goes out, gets a job pays his/her bills is a good employee, gets promoted and in general is just as personally responsible. Both are productive and contributing memebers of society.

Now we have person B, that person gets out of high school and although he/she works, likes to party and really doesn't have the ambition or just dislikes work. He/She Is always late for work, he/she can't hold a job. The jobs are low paying due to little secondary education or doesn't do what they can to improve themselves or work harder to make a higher wage. Bills are unpaid and the person really has no desire or drive to better themselves or improve their own situation. Spends all their extra money on having fun. Let's say he/she eventually gets hooked on drugs or alchohol. Now they lose their job completely. And person A is helping to support that person. Person B continues that lifestyle because no one is really making them or EXPECTING more from that person.

Is that fair to person A ? Person A is now supporting someone who has made poor decisions, he/she does so because as a society we have decided that it is beneficial to help others in need. But at what point do we as a society expect that person to contribute back ? How long does person A do that willingly ? How many chances do we give person B ? At what point are we simply encouraging or supporting bad choices and rewarding in a way not excersizing personal responsibility ? When should expect someone is personally responsible ? If we don't expect people to be then with lack of expectations comes lack of results.

Remeber welfare reform and the predictions of mass riots and death in the streets ? What happened when those who are/were able to work were told that they were required to work ? Guess what, the welfare rolls are decreasing dramatically and they are actually working. Are they the CEO of 3M ? No, they aren't but they are working and becoming less of a burden on society and many excelling and feeling the satisfaction that comes from working hard and providing for yourself and family. Why...Because we as a society told them that if you have a sound mind and body that we EXPECT it. Or at the very least the effort. And what do you know, for the most part it's working, hmmm. see what happens when you raise expectations, the results will only ever match the expectations.

Greetings THX :)

It was made great by those who have done the right thing(s). It is only through those who have been personally responsible are we able to support others who aren't. Take away the people that are and there's no support system for those who arent.

Indeed, even in my own life I can see that those who make the community better are the ones who go above and beyond the call of duty and end up making life better for everyone. I have no desire to get rid of such people. Nor do I think what I'm proposing would get rid of such people. But I also think what helped get this country to where it is today is the fact that we did start taking steps to establish a social net. We recognized that a completely laissez-faire society left too large of a disenfranchised element that represented a threat to the stability of the rest of society. So I would counter by saying our social programs have also helped our society grow to what it is today.

(As an amusing side note, while looking up the spelling of "laissez-faire" I ran across this definition of "liberal": a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets)

You're right, we shouldn't assume they will be responsible, we should EXPECT it as a society.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. Certainly a society that encourages people to be unproductive isn't going to go far. But it's sort of like playing poker. You can encourage them to do things the way you want, you can even threaten them if they don't, but some people are going to stay to the end and call your bluff. At that point, do you really write them off or do you take care of them anyway? If you write them off, it may come back to haunt you. If you take care of them anyway, it will be harder to bluff the next time and others may start to assume you'll take care of them as well. I'll grant it's a tricky line to walk.

I know you dislike generalizations

Actually that's not true. I make generalizations all the time. I find them quite helpful in identifying overall patterns. The only time they really fail you is when you take something that's only generally true and then try to apply it to every single case. There will always be exceptions. So what I'm saying in this case is what are you going to do about the exceptions?

Is that fair to person A ?

It's not about what's fair or not. Life never was fair. It's about doing what makes sense. So let's look at the alternatives. One is to put the person on welfare or something and let them continue their lifestyle without having to make a useful contribution to society of their own. Well, it's not an ideal situation for a few reasons, but it works to a degree. Life on welfare is hardly the life of the idle rich, but if the person's ambitions don't go any higher than that, you can't do much to change that.

So what are the alternatives?

We could execute people who don't take care of themselves. It would be fairly efficient, but I doubt anyone really favors that.

We could throw them into a debtor's prison, but keeping them in prison will cost a lot more than putting them on welfare.

We could do nothing at all for them. In that case they're likely to either simply die, which we already decided on the first point wasn't a good choice, or they may turn to a life of crime in which case we're still looking at the second alternative.

But let's cut away the hyperbole and understand that this whole debate is really just about a very small group of people. We're talking about people who are capable of supporting themselves in theory, but instead opt for something like welfare. Now like I said, welfare is hardly a grand living. It allows you lots of free time but little else. Someone who consciously chooses that lifestyle and has no ambition for anything better isn't likely to be a very good worker anyway, but it's also likely that they've got something going on that's inhibiting them whether it be drug use, depression, undiagnosed disabilities, or whatever.

But the real question is, is there a way to get these people off public assitance? I don't think threatening them with being cutoff is the best answer. Yes, it will work on some, but what about the others? If we really cut them off just to be "fair", it will cause other problems down the line. Our money might be better spent treating their addictions or depressions or whatever else keeps them from being productive than just blindly writing checks forever, but in the meantime, let's not forget them.

and wasn't found to be at all effective. Only exaberated the problem, in fact. Work houses, or don't you read your history? Most of the 'solutions' have been tried before. Mankind hasn't really changed all that much during the past 5000 years. Thoughts and ideas come and go and may come again somewhat modified but new? No.
We remain left with the choices as set forth by Allison above.

Allison:

Allison Wonderland 4/14/02 9:13am

I don't believe the doctrine of personal responsibility is sufficient to create a happy, productive society.

First of all, society cannot be happy, or sad, or any other emotion. Emotions are for people. As far as productive goes, I would dare say that personal responsibility is at the core of almost any instance of productivity you could point out.

Of course, there is something in addition to personal responsibility that society needs to be productive: individual liberty. It's the flip side of personal responsibility-- you can't ask a person to be responsible and then restrict their ability to make decisions for themselves. If I don't own myself and my means, then personal responsibility is almost an oxymoron.

I just think it's a mistake to assume everyone else will be (as most generalized assumptions are).

Absolutely. I don't think anyone does assume that. I certainly have never met anyone who argued that everyone will be responsible, in the meaning you intended.

However, it is possible that everyone could be responsible by its 1st definition: expected to account (for); answerable (to). Luv2Fly discussed this type of responsibility, and our society (our whole system of this forced, government-run "safety net") gives too many people a "get-out-of-screwing-your-life-and-society-up-free" cards...except they aren't free. They are paid for by the people who (by and large) made their way through their own toil, and (by and large) paid the piper for their errors and bad decisions.

I've screwed up plenty in my life. Hoo boy, have I ever! I should not be able to fill out a form, or con some government "counselor" or whatever, to get a second chance for my mistakes. I should have to fix my mistakes through hard work and personal development. The only benefit of making mistakes is the opportunity to learn from them. It's because of that learning that mistakes aren't even such a bad thing. What better way to learn how to live life well than by actually being forced to live it?

Well first off, there are physically and mentally disabled, so right off the bat you have people you're going to need to take care of and you'll need a system for doing so.

While I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "system," I'll grant that the physically and mentally disabled need help. They aren't capable of being entirely responsible for themselves. However, I can envision a scenario where a family has a mentally disabled person in it, and they simply take care of that person, as a family. I'm not sure what role your "system" would play in that scenario, or in any other scenario where people, not a "system," helped other people.

I could be a telemarketer too. I'm physically capable of making a phone call. I'm mentally competent enough to read a script. But you know what? I can't be a telemarketer. It just so violates things than run through the core of my being, that I can't bring myself to do it no matter how much someone may stand there and tell me I can.

I can practically see you stomping your feet and pouting as you say that. What you are saying is that you do not choose to be a telemarketer. You said yourself that you could. You could bring yourself to do it. If someone put a gun to your head or threatened your family, you'd telemarket for a week without sleeping I bet, if you had to. If it was telemarket or starve, you would telemarket.

Similarly, there are people out there who, because of their personalities, and the values they hold, are simply not going to act the way you want them to act.

The only way I "want them to act" is to not physically harm other people. If they don't do that, we already have a "system" for them-- the criminal justice system. As far as lifestyle and choices and such goes, I don't have a way that I want others to act. I want them to decide that themselves. Unless they are physically harming others (including theft, etc.), then however they choose to act is how I want them to act.

Even if you punish them or neglect them, they will still make choices that will simply befuddle you. It's the diversity of human nature.

It's a beautiful thing, too. Those zany humans...you never know what they're gonna come up with next! Unless you mandate half or more of their options into law...then you can narrow it down some, I suppose.

The fact remains that plenty of people who have had such disadvantages (and far worse) have overcome them and accomplished worthwhile things in spite of it.

So what? Now instead of comparing everyone to yourself, you're just comparing them to other people, but still making generalizations and assumptions about them.

I'm comparing everyone to what humans are capable of. Aside from physical limitations, humans are remarkably similar in their potential. It's almost all in the brain, and we all have one. If Person A can do it, then Person B can do it, given similar circumstances. And by now it's clear that people of the most extreme disadvantages have been capable of overcoming them. If all circumstances are generally equal, and Person B is claiming that they can't do what Person A can do, then Person B does not understand his/her own potential. He/she cando it. They may not know it, or be willing to take the steps needed, but the Person B's of the world have the capability. They are just taking paths and making decisions which keep them from making use of it.

Just because a few people could, doesn't mean everyone is going to be able to.

See above. If the worst of the worst can happen to someone, and they can rise above it and triumph, and become a strong, productive, successful, happy person, then people who have had less of the worst happen to them can do the same. If not, then they are either disabled, or copping out.

Again, people are quite diverse and you can't just forget about the ones that don't fit your mold.

I don't have a mold, and I revel in the diversity of people...wouldn't ever dream about forgetting any of them. I actually tend to prefer the screw-ups over the successes in a way, because there's way more room for growth.

Some people can't. Let's take smoking for example. I can point at thousands if not millions of people who just quit smoking one day and never looked back. So would it be fair of me to go up to every single smoker and expect that they too could just quit right now if they wanted because all these other people have?

Yes.

If you've ever seen people try to quit smoking, many simply can't.

I've seen me try to quit smoking for 12 years, and that is bullshit. Again, picture the gun to the head. You are telling me you think there are smokers out there who would take a bullet to the head, because they simply couldn't resist having another cigarette? I was about as grossly addicted to smoking as anyone, and I can tell you, nicotine is not thatstrong. Any smoker can quit right now (mentally disabled excepted).

Ever read Stephen King's short story Quitters, Inc ? (SPOILERS AHEAD) It's about a company who put your theory to the test, by enforcing their clients' desire to quit with corporal punishment. Smoke once, you get a warning. Smoke again, and you watch your wife hop around on an electrified floor for five minutes. Smoke again, your wife loses a finger.

If every smoker in the world entered that program, the world would be smoke free in very short order. Given motivation and full exposure to potential adverse consequences, people can do almost anything they put their mind to.

(note: I don't advocate the Quitters, Inc. program being mandated for all smokers. It was just an example.)

They may quit for a day or two, and then they go back.

Right, they choose to go back, and then they take actions to pursue that choice. Not smoking is the default setting for humans. If a smoker simply sits and does nothing, they have quit. In order to smoke, they have to a) decide and b) take the steps needed. Not smoking is as simple as not grabbing a cigarette with one's fingers, not applying flame to it, not inhaling it. Those are not involuntary actions-- they are willful. And stopping them is as simple as not doing them.

If I told you I couldn't stop hitting myself in the head with a hammer because I was just sooo used to it, you'd tell me I was crazy. And the only way I would be right in that case is if you were too, if you get my drift. Unless I was nuts, I could stop hitting myself by simple inaction.

But the ones who did just quit one day didn't have superhuman powers either

This is true.

And even within a single person, it's possible that at one point in their lives, they're not able to turn it around, but later they may undergo a change and then they're ready to start doing things differently.

To me it sounds like they were able to turn it around. It was just a long process. A person who turns it around is obviously able to do so. And unless they switched persons somewhere along the way, then you are talking about one person here. One person who, given enough time and room to work with, was actually able to turn it around, even when they had previously thought they weren't.

So again, I say you can't force people to be personally responsible any more than you could force someone to quit smoking (while they still had access to cigarettes).

You could force someone to quit smoking. I wouldn't make it law, but it's certainly possible. If you think you know someone who would smoke knowing their most loved one would get killed the second they took a puff, then trot 'em out here and let's talk about 'em. My guess is that they fit in that mentally ill category. Any sane person could certainly be forced to quit smoking. So, I don't know where that leaves your syllogism.

And anyway, I have no desire to force people to be personally responsible in the way you mean. I don't think you can do that, but for different reasons than you. People cannot be truly responsible unless they have the liberty to make their own choices. Thus, real responsibility is something that must be achieved by the exercise of free will.

Some people are born with a predisposition towards being responsible while others are not, and many are somewhere in between.

Is there scientific evidence of this? I've never heard of people being born with a predisposition toward being responsible. Do you mean to say there is a responsibility gene? Is personal responsibility biologically inherited from one's parents?

So I'm saying as a society, it's foolish to not recognize that people are all different and expect them to all behave the same way.

Aside from the fact that society can't recognize things-- only people can-- then of course you're right. It's certainly foolish to expect everyone to behave the same way.

Some people are simply not going to be personally responsible in any society.

Do you have proof of that? That seems a bit fatalistic to me, and unprovable to boot. Unless you mean the disabled...and even then, I can envisions a society somewhere down the road where even they could be empowered to be personally responsible, what with medical technology being what it is and all.

But I think society is better off making a social investment to make sure those people are taken care of anyway than they are to just ignore them and let those people become a blight on society that will cost more to fix than it would have to prevent.

I agree. As long as no one is forced to help others, and society isn't making decisions for people that they can make on their own, then I'm in agreement with you. Any smart person, or smart society if you wish, would see that it makes sense to help others, for a variety of reasons.

So Allison, perhaps I'm not clear here. You say you are fine with personal responsibility in individuals, and you even are inclined to agree that society should expect it from people, else people won't have the natural motivation of having to be accountable for their choices and actions. What's more, injustice would result if one person was allowed to live irresponsibly while another didn't, and society took the fruits of responsibility from Person A and forcibly redistributed them to irresponsible Person B, which was what Luv2Fly was saying, and you seemed to agree with that too.

And the logic of that philosophy tells me that taxing people in order to make sure the bottom rung of society is cared for, not only makes that bottom rung happier than the rest is made unhappy, but it also buys happiness for the rest of society because now the bottom rung is nothing more than a small financial burden to them, instead of being a threat to their health, safety, and property.

Community assistance and private charity would have the same effect. Your concern seems to be that the money/help needs to flow from those who have it to those who need it. Fine. But taking money from people by force is wrong-- without cover of government, it's called robbery, or extortion. The bum on the corner may need 5 bucks-- but does that justify you exerting physical force on someone else to get that 5 bucks? And if it does, then why are there laws against you doing so-- no matter how just the cause? I can guess that there are a great deal of robberies that were committed by folks who were down on their luck, and simply trying to enforce a little of the income distribution model you profess, on a personal scale. Why is that wrong? Shouldn't a really really poor person be able to take some money from a really really rich person, if it will help them avoid hurting someone or dragging down society in the future?

My answer is "no". And the reason why is because it is immoral to take property from someone who has done no wrong, and who is not willing. I don't care who's doing the taking...the act itself is not right. Would you kill the rich guy to get the bum that $5? If he insisted on keeping his money, would you think it was ok to beat him up for it? After all, he would recover, he'd have enough money left for doctor bills and therapy, and he'd still be successful and rich probably...so it seems to fit your formula. (Which seems to be that taking money from people is ok, as long as the reason is applaudable, and the victim won't suffer too much unhappiness due to the theft.)

Charity is in incomplete and inconsistent solution. Can you imagine if senior citizens, instead of filing once and getting regular social security payments, had to go around to different charities trying to scrape up a living?

We don't need to imagine it. Look at the first many thousand years of humanity's time on earth. Remember then? There was a world that did alright before FDR, you know. In fact a lot of people might say that old people had it better back then than they do now. From what I've heard, old people used to live with their family all the way 'til they died, and many generations would live together in a big loving family unit, and old people would be taken care of by the people closest to them, the ones who loved them the most.

But how could that ever compare to a warm, shiny $1000 monthly check from the government, right?

Think back and ponder...about when did that large, warm family tradition start breaking up? Hmmm...the 50's, maybe? Hey, wait a minute! That's like a half a generation after the start of Social Security. How strange. Well, it must be a coincidence.

And what if the charity says, "Sorry, the economy is bad and contributions have been down this quarter. We have nothing to give you."?

Then go to the other charity. Or maybe get a job.
That's what most senior citizens are doing when they find out how miserable they got stiffed by Social Security.

The plain fact is that if you force people to help people, against their will, then you are curbing their ability to be personally responsible. You are saying, "We disagree with your decisions on where to allocate your resources, and so we are going to take over the decision-making process (a little more each year, as it turns out)." So you are screwing Peter to pay Paul.

The saddest part is that it makes everybody involved weaker. Peter the theft victim is clearly weaker-- you are taking away the fruits of his efforts, taking away a part of his life, and taking away some control of his future. Paul the recipient is weaker because he never had to bump heads with the true consequences of his actions. He was never held responsible for his decisions, and he was given a free pass through immoral means. The screwer/robber/conductor of this "transaction," in our case society via government, is weakened by committing the immoral act of taking someone's property by force.

I think the effects of this weakening are pretty apparent. Many of the rich see taxes as what they are and do whatever they can to avoid them. They resent the poor, and resent the government, and our twisted system has probably made it so they feel guilty and resent themselves for resenting the other two. They still give to charity quite a lot, but it's surely greatly reduced due to the taxing effects of the well-meaning thieving they are regularly subjected to.

. Now if the government did away with all these programs and instead let us keep that money, what do you think the chances are everyone would take all that money and donate it to charities that help people?

The chance that everyone would are zero. There's nothing that everyone would do. We're all different, dontchya know. But not everyone pays that $3000 now. Tons of people use tons of loopholes, and tax shelters, and what have you. Your parallel is not correct.

On top of that, how much of that theoretical $3000 per person is being pissed away by our government, which is one of the most inefficient organizations on earth? (Answer: Most of it.) How much of that $3000 per person would private charities need to provide equal or better services than the government provides with that money? (Answer: Way way less than $3000.)

Over 50% of our income goes to taxes. With the remaining 50%, people still donate plenty of money to charity, and charities still get plenty done. The vast majority of people helping people in the U.S. is taking place by non-governmental entities-- private individuals, charities, non-profits, and churches. Think of what they would do if they had access to even half of what the USG spends on "helping" people. Even a quarter of it.

Even if by some miracle they did donate a lot of it to charity, some people may contribute it to the environment or PETA, or other things that don't relate to the original use of the money at all.

If they do that, we shoot 'em. They should know better than to support non-approved causes with the money they earned through their time and effort. ;-)

But of course the more likely result is that people will just use the money to enhance their own lives.

This is pretty cynical, and it shows a misunderstanding of society and people that you point this out in this way, I think. First of all, one of the main points of life is to be happy, and people have every right to pursue that goal. Remember? The pursuit of happiness? So, enhancing one's own life is permissible. I'd dare say that it's what all of us try to do all of the time, in our own personal way. To me, my life is enhanced by increasing my capability to spread goodness (for lack of a better word) and freedom around the world. You seem to imply that you would not want me to spend my $3000 pursuing that enhancement. I think that's screwed up, because all I want to do with my life is help others...it's just that I want to do it the way I want to. It's me living it, so it makes sense to me that I should call the shots. Part of my plans to spread goodness and freedom involve me getting my hands on lots of money. The more money, the better, really, and there isn't a much better place for the money to be going, because almost all of it goes straight back into the helping of others. The more money I get, the better off society will be, IMO. But you would rather that I override my own opinion and knowledge and hand my money over to the most wasteful organization on earth, to help people I never see, in ways that I don't know about, and even (very likely, in fact) in ways I disapprove of?

And isn't that what the whining is all about anyway? People want to keep the money for themselves instead of letting other people have it?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, see above. I guess it's you say tomayto, I say tomahto, kinda. I don't think of myself as whining. I think of myself as sensible, and moral, and wanting to do good. And putting Big Brother in charge of fixing society is none of those things.

There are a lot of charities out there right now, and they're already struggling in just the supplemental role they play. Can you imagine what life would be like if they were bore the primary responsibility of the social net?

Hell yes! It sure wouldn't be like Dickens novels. No more than medicine is like it was then, or sanitation.

Our country grew from being non-existent to being the world's greatest success story without a government-provided safety net. Not to mention the advances in medicine and sanitation. :)

Employers would start to take more advantage of their employees because they would know their employees lived in dread fear of losing their jobs. You'd see many more people out on the streets begging and would probably be hit up for your change everywhere you went. Children would grow up on the streets learning to be criminals from a young age because that's the only way they could survive.

This is all conjecture, and could be taken right out of a Dickens novel. Society has moved way on since then, Allison, and not just because the government has spent 60 years shuffling some of our money around. Charities keep getting more and more done, they keep raising more and more money, and there keeps being more and more of them, every year. And that's with whatever percent of the 50% of our income that's left. There is every reason to believe that the non-profit sector would fill in the void, and just as much reason to think that people would send money their way.

Because there's no way charities alone could give all the help that's needed using just voluntary contributions.

Prove it.

If, instead of making it the responsibility of every citizen to look out for the unfortunate, we left them to the whims of those with disposable cash, our society would rot from within pretty quickly.

Prove it. Our country was built from zero to greatness without mandated charity. Football stadiums full of scholars would agree that the cultural decline in this country, if there is one, began in the late 50's or so, which is just about 1/2 a generation after the implementation of the widespread income tax, and all those glorious social programs. Those same scholars would say that the decline increased with each subsequent decade. Guess what else has increased with each subsequent decade? Those glorious social programs.

This is probably the longest post I have ever written on a message board. I should probably read through and edit it, but I really have to get to sleep. ;-\

OK. I used to work for Cath. Charities in Mpls. at the food-shelf, drop-in center on Franklin. There was never enough to go around and there was always a line out the door and down the street,... That always happens when things are given away.

It is a fundamental fact that there are more people in need than there is resources to supply them with the things they truly need... Food, clothing, Health Care and Shelter...things that without some form of Government aid, there will never be enough of from "Private" sources. Still no proof just allegations.

To what extent are we as a society responsible to others? To what extent are they responsible for themselves and their own family members?

These are questions which will be debated for many generations to come, and the world may never come to agree on them. Which is exactly why it's not proper to codify the answers of these questions into law. Government is not some social engineering tool, where all we have to do is keep adjusting the knobs, and eventually, we'll force it all to get right somehow. The use of government force is not a small thing, and it should only be exercised under the most clear and strict guidelines. "When in doubt, leave it out" should be the rule, because government should not be forcing people around on society's behalf unless there isn't a shadow of a doubt that that's the right way to do it. Forcing people around is extraordinarily serious business. It amounts to taking away a person's right to live their own life.

Wow, I didn't realize posts could even be that long.

First of all, society cannot be happy, or sad, or any other emotion.

Well I think that's one difference between the two views. Those who tend to believe the personal responsibility doctrine seem to take a micro view of society whereas those who who believe more along the lines I do tend to take more of a macro view of society. And I say one can take a kind of "soft" measurement of the overall happiness of a society.

Luv2Fly discussed this type of responsibility, and our society (our whole system of this forced, government-run "safety net") gives too many people a "get-out-of-screwing-your-life-and-society-up-free" cards...

So? Do they cease to have value as a human life just because they screwed up? Is it really your opinion that anyone who makes a bad choice in life should be made to suffer for it? What's wrong with helping people turn their lives around or at least help keep them alive until they do? Well, I already know your answer but I'll get to that in a bit.

I've screwed up plenty in my life. Hoo boy, have I ever! I should not be able to fill out a form, or con some government "counselor" or whatever, to get a second chance for my mistakes. I should have to fix my mistakes through hard work and personal development.

Again, comparing everyone to yourself and assuming they are just like you. Just because you didn't need extra help, you assume no one else should either.

However, I can envision a scenario where a family has a mentally disabled person in it, and they simply take care of that person, as a family.

Why is putting such a burden solely on the family any more fair than putting it on society as a whole? What did the family do to deserve such a burden? And what if the family didn't want to or they didn't have a family?

I'm not sure what role your "system" would play in that scenario, or in any other scenario where people, not a "system," helped other people.

A system would be able to make sure that everyone was cared for, not just the cute, the tragic, or the politcally expedient. It could do so with less bias and on a more consistent and comprehensive basis. If it was solely up to the families of the disabled to take care of them, there would be far too much incentive to let them just die or be neglected.

I can practically see you stomping your feet and pouting as you say that. What you are saying is that you do not choose to be a telemarketer. You said yourself that you could. You could bring yourself to do it. If someone put a gun to your head or threatened your family, you'd telemarket for a week without sleeping I bet, if you had to. If it was telemarket or starve, you would telemarket.

First off, I specifically said I could not bring myself to do it. I risked losing a job once because I refused to telemarket. But that's not really the point. Yes, if you want to point a gun to my head, perhaps I would consider telemarketing then. But that's not the point either. The point is, do you really want to advocate a society where to get people to behave the way you want, you're willing to figuratively point a gun at their head? I'm not going to telemarket for anything short of that. Some people aren't going to quit smoking unless you severely threaten them. And some people aren't going to be personally responsible unless threatened with the most dire consequences. At the same time you talk about personal liberty. What kind of liberty is it when someone is putting a gun to your head and then giving you a "choice"? I can't imagine you're in favor of such tactics to get people to quit smoking, so why are you in favor of using them to get people to become more responsible?

For one thing, I don't want to be a part of such a heartless society that would rather let people starve and say it was their own choice rather than lend them a hand. Secondly, such a thing isn't a good strategy anyway, because when pushed to that point of desperation, you can't predict how people will react. If you put a gun to someone's head and tell them to stop smoking, are they going to stop, or might they just decide to jump you instead, pry the gun out of your hand, blow your head off, and light one up over your bleeding carcass? People make mistakes in life and get themselves into bad situations. If you don't do anything to help them get out of that situation in a civilized way, then you've given up any hope of being able to control their response. And I still say it's cheaper to keep someone on welfare than to keep them in prison.

I'm comparing everyone to what humans are capable of. Aside from physical limitations, humans are remarkably similar in their potential. It's almost all in the brain, and we all have one. If Person A can do it, then Person B can do it, given similar circumstances.

And what good does it do to compare people by their potential? Very few people ever manage to reach their full potential. Just because Person A & B share some traits in common, doesn't mean they are idenitcal. Person A may have a personality and upbringing that allows them to deal with adversity well. Person B may not. Without help, Person B may just run their lives into the ground. Yet with help, they may manage to turn it around. So why not help them?

To me it sounds like they were able to turn it around. It was just a long process.

And do they not deserve any help during that process? Of course you can't know ahead of time who's going to suceed in the end and who isn't.

Is there scientific evidence of this? I've never heard of people being born with a predisposition toward being responsible.

It's a personality trait. All you need to prove it is to know enough people, including people who aren't necessarily like yourself. For some people it comes naturally and they would actually have trouble *not* being responsible. For others it requires a conscious effort and isn't quite so easy. Some may not even really know how to be responsible.

Aside from the fact that society can't recognize things-- only people can

I don't even agree with this. I think when something achieves a certain status in pop culture, or gets governmental backing, it's about more than just the number of individuals that support it. To go back to the Civil War, there was a time where some individuals were against slavery, and some were for it. Today, I don't think it's just a matter of most people being against it. There's a kind of collective awareness of the subject where if you're against slavery, you don't merely feel that it's *your* opinion. You feel that it's *the* opinion as far as society goes. I'll explain this more in a bit under the social contract.

I agree. As long as no one is forced to help others, and society isn't making decisions for people that they can make on their own, then I'm in agreement with you. Any smart person, or smart society if you wish, would see that it makes sense to help others, for a variety of reasons.

I'm sure as a Libertarian you're likely to argue this but in economics there is something that is referred to as an "externality". Basically what it means is there are some things where the benefit (or cost) to the individual exists, but it's not possible to establish a market price to get the individual to pay the right amount. The classic example is roads. You can build roads, and people would benefit from them, but to try and pay for them by turning every single road into a toll road is impractical. Instead, the individuals of the society are better off acting as a collective, collecting taxes from each citizen to pay for the roads with the understanding that all citizens will benefit from them. And I say the social net is also an externality. There is a benefit to society to keep people from becoming desperate. But you can't expect to collect the cost of that benefit by having people purchasing a part of the social net based on their own perceived benefit. Whether I decide to contribute or not, I would still get the benefits from what others contributed, and that is what's not fair. What's more fair is to realize that this is something that benefits everyone, and thus everyone should contribute their share of the cost. And this is done through the government because that's the sort of thing governments are there for.

So Allison, perhaps I'm not clear here. You say you are fine with personal responsibility in individuals,

Sure. There's no benefit to discouraging people from being responsible.

and you even are inclined to agree that society should expect it from people,

Not expect exactly. I would say society should encourage it. But I don't think you can expect it in the same way you expect people to obey the laws.

else people won't have the natural motivation of having to be accountable for their choices and actions.

I don't think that's the only motivation at play here. Like I said, life on welfare or whatever is hardly living it up. Some people will want more in life and taking responsibility for themselves is the way to get it. Some people just want to have a sense of pride and would rather do things for themselves than take a handout. Survival is also a motivation, but they may not take the course to it that you might hope they would.

What's more, injustice would result if one person was allowed to live irresponsibly while another didn't, and society took the fruits of responsibility from Person A and forcibly redistributed them to irresponsible Person B, which was what Luv2Fly was saying, and you seemed to agree with that too.

No, I don't agree with that. I'm saying that in any society, you're always going to have people who mess up and lose control of their lives, whether it be a permanent or temporary condition. Maybe they're suffering from depression, maybe they're on drugs or alcohol, maybe they just don't value responsibility. Now I believe that the social compact includes the notion that if you want to live in this society, you have a responsibility to look out for your fellow citizens, just like they will look out for you if something happens to you. So we're not forcibly taking money from anyone or "robbing" them. It's just part of the cost of living in this society and as a citizen of this society, it's your duty to pay your share. It's not much different from the notion that if you live in this society, you're expected to not steal or murder. You're expected to obey traffic laws. You're expected to not dump your trash wherever you please. Yes, these all interfere with your personal freedoms, but it's part of the cost of living in a society. And in this society, so is ensuring the well being of all citizens, even if their lack of well-being was due to their own mistakes. And while some individuals may disagree, "the society" has decided this is how it will be by proxy of the government.

Now if you want to claim your money isn't being well spent, and there are more efficient ways to solve this problem, like finding ways to get people off welfare and back to taking care of themselves, that's fine, but don't try to claim that it's simply not your problem. Move to South America or something if you want to be in a society where it's everyone for themselves.

We don't need to imagine it. Look at the first many thousand years of humanity's time on earth. Remember then? There was a world that did alright before FDR, you know.

People died a lot younger back then too. And I'm sure a big part of the reason for that was that people either worked until they dropped because they had to, or if there was no one to take care of them, they simply died of neglect.

From what I've heard, old people used to live with their family all the way 'til they died

I'm sure there are many such stories around. But who's going to tell the story of the old people that died alone and forgotten? I very much doubt that it was better back then.

But how could that ever compare to a warm, shiny $1000 monthly check from the government, right?

The government isn't saying they can't live with their family. But they are saying if no one else will take care of them, at least they have a shot at taking care of themselves.

As for charities being able to provide a social net, the math seems obvious enough to me. Right now some is provided by charity, some is provided by the government. If the goverment stopped providing it's share, some of the money people saved would go to charity still, and some of that would go towards the social net, but obviously the overall amount would be diminished. As for charities being far more efficient than the government, I doubt it. They have plenty of overhead as well. And while some charities will be legitimate, there are certainly many out there that are not. Look at how many scams arose out of the 9/11 thing. And what's to keep someone from applying to several charities and getting money from all of them? How will the charities even know who actually needs what they're offering and who's just looking for a free handout? You'd almost need some sort of huge overall network they could all connect to. So if you need this huge network, and you need the government to regulate the charities, and they have all this overhead anyway, and there's no way to make sure that everyone gets what they need, well then tell me again why this is so much better than having the government do it?

Our country was built from zero to greatness without mandated charity.

We didn't become a superpower until after these programs were put in place. They were largely begun in the 30's and we weren't considered a superpower until after WWII.

Football stadiums full of scholars would agree that the cultural decline in this country, if there is one, began in the late 50's or so, which is just about 1/2 a generation after the implementation of the widespread income tax, and all those glorious social programs.

What cultural decline? People on average are living better and longer now than they ever have before. The equality of all people is closer to being true now than it ever was. People feel more free now to express their true selves instead of living in fear of being different than ever before. Society is changing, and we now have some different problems than we did before, but I fail to see how we're really worse off than we were in the 50's (life back then wasn't really like it appeared on TV). One could also blame television & radio, the United Nations, jet airliners or the space program if coicidence of timing is your only evidence.

And finally, to tie it back into the abortion debate, what I fail to see is how anyone who claims that taking care of their fellow citizens is not their responsibility, can then turn around and claim that a woman has a responsibility towards a child she conceives. If you don't think society has a right to dictate your responsibilities, then abortion must be legal.

My issue has always been to what extent. I agree that people sometimes need help but, there comes a point where helping actually hurts.

I believe there is a social benefit to the social net that helps you personally. It reduces crime, reduces people in prison, reduces people bothering you for a handout, not to mention more direct benefits you may receive should you yourself become unemployed, crippled, etc. What you should be required to pay is up to the amount that you benefit. Unfortunately, it's rather difficult to put a dollar amount on that, but there is at least a theoretical limit.

But these days there is less fish to even give out for a day and the crowds who need them have grown bigger, as anyone with the ability to read, knows. I disagree. I think there are more "fish."

JETHRO... Notice how I engaged the debates now going on, without calling the other people names, instead of just blurting out..."That's the way it always is", or "It's people like you that...". Did I call you a name. No. The phrases "That's the way it always is", or "It's people like you that..." are not name calling, anyway.

Allison,

Your post certainly has been a hot topic.
Please don't bring up the war of 1812, I can see the thread now, LOL.
Personally I do think it's very apllicable to the abortion debate because it's all about personal responsiblity. And taking responsiblity for your choices and actions.

It's about doing what makes sense. So let's look at the alternatives. One is to put the person on welfare or something and let them continue their lifestyle without having to make a useful contribution to society of their own. Well, it's not an ideal situation for a few reasons, but it works to a degree.

You're kidding right ? Welfare has more delitirious effects on people then it helps in many cases. It has lead to a viscous cycle. People on it temporarily probably being the exception (those whom it was designed for)

Life on welfare is hardly the life of the idle rich,

It was never intended to be, like many social programs it was meant to be a temporary safety net. That's why it was called assitance. ie; to assist someone. and had good intentions gone awry.

but if the person's ambitions don't go any higher than that, you can't do much to change that.

Yes you can. Take a peek at Wisconsins welfare reform. Gee what happened when they told them that if you were an able minded and bodied person that you had to find work ? Guess what , they did, were they happy about it, no probably not at first and then many of them who were saw the satisfaction and pride that comes with earning a living and providing for yourself. But the predictions of mass starvations and riots didn't come true. Raise the expectations and the results will follow. Let's say your kids don't want to go to school and have no desire or ambition to do their homework. Tell your kids you don't care what kind of grades they get and see how they do.

Oh and in regards to your many assumptions that taking people off welfare would turn them into criminals. So under the threat of someone doing criminal activities we shouldn't change the rules or requirements ? That's essentially blackmail and is saying or admitting that those who are poor would commit crime. I thought we weren't supposed to be judgemental?
Minnesota has dropped many from the welfare rolls and crime is down so I don't see how you can make that leap.

You questioned Lance about his assumption that things were better or diferent before all the social programs were introduced. You sighted how people live longer now etc. so let's go back to your assumptions about helping people out with welfare reduces crime. O.K ..............Since welfare and other social spending programs have gone into place, has crime risen as a total since welfare went into effect ? It has and you know that, so the giving them a welfare check keeps em' outta jail argument simply doesn't hold water. The exact reverse is true. For that matter look at many other areas that have gotten worse since then. Juvinille crime, out of wedlock marriage, drug use, and many other things, can this be atributed to that ? I don't know I think some can but I don't see it as neccisarily helping either. except for the afore mentioned cases ie: disabled, temporary etc.

I am tired of the assumption (not saying you personally) that well if you're for welfare reform or personal responsibility than you must not care. And that somehow someone is more caring or noble because it's easy for them to be generous with your money. Does it mean that you don't care about kids or people in need. Not at all. Teaching someone to fish instead of giving them that fish has far greater benefits. Take a look at numerous studies of the bad effects welfare has on a person. Then take a look at the success stories of the people who were caught in that vicious cycle and got out of it through hard work. They would never go back to welfare because they know what it does.

Should there be that net, you bet. For those who are misplaced, laid off, mentally disabled and physically disabled. etc. Absolutely it should be there. But you say we are forcing those others who just have no ambition to work as a bad thing. I say it's just as bad forcing those who are responsible and do the right things to pay for that person. You are right that we as a society have a role and a duty to look out for others in times of need, you bet we do. There is also the duty of all the citizens to do thier part to do what's neccesary to insure that that help isn't needed as well, it has to be reciprocal. As in all things there has to be a balance.

I can't reply at length right now, but suffice it to say that almost all the attriubutes and things you are trying to lay on me or claim I represent are not right. I haven't said the things you claim I have said, and I am not the person you are describing me to me. Nor do I believe most of the things you are acting like I believe. You are making up an evil heartless me that doesn't exist.

I'll point-by-point it out when I have the time, but in short, please show me where I said I don't think people who need help should get it, where I said that people shouldn't need help, where I said that I don't have a responsibilty to others, etc.

I'll list the whole bunch out later, but you get the idea. Oh, and where did I say we should actually point guns at people's heads?

It would save a lot of time if you would respond to what I actually said instead of jumping to pre-formed conclusions and falsely demonizing me. Hopefully someone here actually read my words and comprehended them as written, because I feel like you hardly heard a thing I said.