Individual Debt to Society

[stebo0728]

Ok, so some things that have been troubling me, that I am trying to rationalize. I commend some of the liberal minds that post here, in not holding completely illogical positions, as many other liberals do. I would say the one point of contention that I find even worth addressing in liberal thought is what comes around in the form of an individuals debt to the society he populates.

If I am to understand this liberal position correctly, every man OWES a portion of his wealth to the society which he populates, in that he USED said society to acquire such wealth.

I reject this position, but only currently for the reason that it just doesnt "feel" right, meaning as of yet I have not formed a logical counter position to it. Thats not to say one doesnt exist, I have just not come to the realization yet. I would instead like to open that for discussion, as to possibly help me further my logic to this end.

Additionally, one BIG problem I have is this whole "birth right" notion that has been floating around in the posts of late. I understand that everyone's origins differ, and that some may have a more tenable start on life than others, but heres my take on that.

First, just for the sake of argument, lets concede that we have this problem of "birth right". Lets also concede that it seems inhumane to straddle the responsibility of lower class birth right on the shoulders of the person born into it, as they had no control of who their parents would be. So then the question becomes, where do we lay this blame? Or rather than using the word blame, lets ask more directly, where to we seek to correct this imbalance? Or more aptly, from WHOM do we seek to correct this imbalance? The immediate answer, and the part where my contention comes in, seems to be that society holds the duty to fix this persons life, or at least aid them in such. But by saying society, what does that mean? That means government, that means law, but does government PAY bills? Does law PAY bills, no, in actuality, the taxpayers pay the bill, henceforth, the taxpayer is assumed to shoulder the burden of aiding. So once again, we have encountered an intersection of rights, at least thats the position forwarded, but I would argue one sides rights are actually non existent. But the individuals right to rise from their lowly standard, versus the liberty, and property rights of the person expected to foot the bill for this raising of standard. In actuality, and it leads into my "Secondly" part. The parents. Did the parents arrive in the same place their offspring did? Is not the goal of a responsible parent, to try and leave their next generation better off than the last? We attribute this to a duty we share collectively, but we dont seem to recognize it on the individual level. How can a collective achieve any goal without the same goal existing on the individual level? No, we have gotten lazy as a people, we are complacent to make it through life, and let our offspring fend for themselves. This is why the cycle continues. But even worse, its epidemic. Immigrants, who arrive here, the first generation of their individual family, they work themselves silly, and are most often quite successfully in achieving the American Dream, then its down hill from there. Their next generation starts the slide down the hill to what seems to be self condoned poverty. Instead, if we would instill the American Spirit into our offspring, the joy of getting a job done RIGHT, and pride, and self worth, just on the individual level, then we could be the greatest nation once again, and the collective would better for it, and the collective would be successful in its goal, ONLY because the individual level shows the same success.

Thats what is meant when a conservative pleads for a return to personal responsibility, to greater liberty, and to government levels only as high as absolutely necessary. Its not a goal of degrading society, on the contrary, its to better society, and society can not better unless the individuals that compose it better themselves, of their own doing. Its not something a nanny state government will ever be able to coax into existence.

[IBCoupe]

So, would you propose, say, providing an adequate education to every child in this country?

Stebo, I think you're still seeing walls of disagreement where there aren't any, there are only different paths. I don't think there are any liberals, except those searched out for the sake of argument, that would propose that the government should provide for everyone, say, a car. Similarly, nobody's going to say that government should, on a weekly basis, issue toothpaste.

When you get down to it, Stebo, your principles are pretty lefty. Where you go conservative is where you start to propose specific (and, in this case, quite paradoxically simultaneously vague) policies. Yes, it's the goal of a responsible parent to get their kids in a better position than they themselves wind up. Think that impoverished parents are poor parents? Is there some genetic link? Or maybe part of bad parenting comes from being poor in the first place. [EDIT: Could it be that being a good and responsible parent can be seen as a luxury of sorts?]

It's one thing to say, "Parents should become more responsible," and it's another thing entirely to say, "Parents should become more responsible by ______________." How do we get there? I'll look forward to your proposals.

[heliochrome85]

So, would you propose, say, providing an adequate education to every child in this country?

Stebo, I think you're still seeing walls of disagreement where there aren't any, there are only different paths. I don't think there are any liberals, except those searched out for the sake of argument, that would propose that the government should provide for everyone, say, a car. Similarly, nobody's going to say that government should, on a weekly basis, issue toothpaste.

When you get down to it, Stebo, your principles are pretty lefty. Where you go conservative is where you start to propose specific (and, in this case, quite paradoxically simultaneously vague) policies. Yes, it's the goal of a responsible parent to get their kids in a better position than they themselves wind up. Think that impoverished parents are poor parents? Is there some genetic link? Or maybe part of bad parenting comes from being poor in the first place.

It's one thing to say, "Parents should become more responsible," and it's another thing entirely to say, "Parents should become more responsible by ______________." How do we get there? I'll look forward to your proposals.

nerd-gasm.

[audtatious]

If I am to understand this liberal position correctly, every man OWES a portion of his wealth to the society which he populates, in that he USED said society to acquire such wealth.

He would only "owe" if he received without supplying (or if his product was mandated to each individual). If the individual creates something that society wants, and he gains riches from it, then he is being rewarded for providing something society values. It's a wash.

[IBCoupe]

That assumes he starts from nothing (or at least, from an equal, standard level of something), which is a great starting point for philosophical theory, but it's a lousy starting point for analyzing the real world.

And being that no philosophical theory worth entertaining has its basis in anything other than reality, I suppose it makes for a lousy starting point for philosophical theory.

[audtatious]

Who cares where he starts from? It's not like his success steals from someone else unless you believe the economy is a single pie and the bigger the slice one individual gets then the less others have access to.

[IBCoupe]

The theory that you've put forward ("You get what you give") only makes sense if the circumstances of your birth have no effect on you. In the real world, a more accurate estimation would be "You get what you give, along with what's left to you."

[stebo0728]

So leave more for your kids then, stop looking to the taxpayer to even things out.

[audtatious]

The theory that you've put forward ("You get what you give") only makes sense if the circumstances of your birth have no effect on you. In the real world, a more accurate estimation would be "You get what you give, along with what's left to you."

I have no such theory as "you get what you give" as that means some form of equality. There is no such thing in human existence. By a "wash", in my first post, I simply mean both sides get something back. As there is no "limited resource", like the pie theory, then him receiving more than society or society getting more from him would be fine.

[audtatious]

So leave more for your kids then, stop looking to the taxpayer to even things out.

Why shouldn't the kids be able to do on their own and make their own way? It should be your choice what and how much you leave where as you are the one who accumulated "it".

[stebo0728]

So leave more for your kids then, stop looking to the taxpayer to even things out.

Why shouldn't the kids be able to do on their own and make their own way? It should be your choice what and how much you leave where as you are the one who accumulated "it".

I agree, Im just saying if he's getting his pants in a wad about how much he was left by his folks, then just leave more for his own. The government should not have the power to seize from one and give to another.

[audtatious]

Gotcha....

The Gov tries to get a piece of everything....in the case of goods they get a piece of it from every step and stage from creation to sale.

[AZhitman]

That assumes he starts from nothing (or at least, from an equal, standard level of something), which is a great starting point for philosophical theory, but it's a lousy starting point for analyzing the real world.

And being that no philosophical theory worth entertaining has its basis in anything other than reality, I suppose it makes for a lousy starting point for philosophical theory.

Copied / saved.

Thanks, IB.

[stebo0728]

Was that a philosophy inside a philosophy, inside yet another philosophy?



Philosophical Inception attempt?

[IBCoupe]

So leave more for your kids then, stop looking to the taxpayer to even things out.

You missed the point, which might explain why you've yet to actually address my first response to you. Go back and try again.

And my pants aren't wadded. Both of my parents are very much alive, thank you very much, and the fact that you think this has anything to do with my personal circumstances proves that your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

I have no such theory as "you get what you give" as that means some form of equality. There is no such thing in human existence. By a "wash", in my first post, I simply mean both sides get something back. As there is no "limited resource", like the pie theory, then him receiving more than society or society getting more from him would be fine.

But this is a conversation about societal debt; if it's all a wash, then you should reject the concept outright, and probably wander over to a conversation whose premise you accept. Equality of opportunity is the only context within which a conversation about "societal debt" exists: inheriting anything from your parents puts you above an equal, base plane, and can be seen to increase your debt to society. It could be reasonably argued that to further the purpose of the estate tax, it should be at 100%. You have started out with something and have given absolutely nothing back by virtue of being born, thus you haven't yet gotten your wash.

Further, the only way you can assume a "wash" is if you take it as a given that everybody born with some kind of leg up becomes useful to society in some way - if they've given more to society (even over time) than they themselves received. We pride ourselves on individual liberty, not the liberty to set up long family lines of wealth. Which is why we're talking about "individual debt."

[stebo0728]

Your presumption is that society trumps the individual. Thats the whole problem, and where we disconnect. Society does NOT trump the individual, without the individual there would BE NO society. The society can only be what it is based on what the individual is. Any attempts to improve society on the society level is futile. Its trying to change the results of something by actually changing the results, instead of changing the circumstances. It cant be done. And until we stop trying to go about it this way, we are doomed to repeated failure. You have to affect change at the individual level, by creating a subset of responsible individuals that can function independently and can think for themselves, feed themselves, and grow old for themselves, its at the individual level that you will ever hope to see any meaningful results.

[audtatious]

So, I take it you see Paris Hilton as having a debt to society since her money comes from her family?

[IBCoupe]

The society can only be what it is based on what the individual is. Any attempts to improve society on the society level is futile. Its trying to change the results of something by actually changing the results, instead of changing the circumstances.

These two back-to-back sentences show where I believe you're not getting it, and it's probably my fault.

1. The society can only be what it is based on what the individuals are. There's an important distinction to make - there's no such thing as a society of one. If an individual deserves certain considerations, thirty individuals each deserve the same, and in some situations, that might add up to something more important than any of them independently.
2. Liberals are absolutely dead set on changing the circumstances, in order to change results. That's all they're focused on changing. Welfare isn't supposed to help poor people. It was intended to help poor children by making it so that their single mothers could stay at home and raise them properly. If you f*** up your life, liberals aren't always there to catch you. If your f***-ups are going to have a negative impact on someone completely unrelated to your f***, then that's where a liberal comes in. Sometimes a f***-up will earn you a liberal's aid - unemployment benefits are there to make sure that you don't get screwed over forever because you lost your job. It might take you more than a day to find a new one, and maybe you should get help in being able to afford to go find it. But it's not always a given. If you don't need help in a liberal's determination (I say this because "needing help" is something no two people are going to agree upon), that liberal isn't going to want to help you.

EDIT:
Again, Stebo, you agree with liberals on where the problem usually needs to be solved. The problem is that you're still being extremely vague on how to solve it. We need to instill responsibility? How do we do that?

[IBCoupe]

So, I take it you see Paris Hilton as having a debt to society since her money comes from her family?

Sure. I think most of her debt to society could be repaid by staying the frak away from it.

[audtatious]

Lol...I can't argue that.

So, I came from a good family and had my education fully paid for, thus, no debt. Do I have a debt to society?

[AZhitman]

You missed it - You owe us ALL.

The silliness of this whole "birthright" argument is that there's a continuum, not a cutoff point. I mean, under IB's example, it's only the impoverished mixed-race foster care child with his heart born on the outside because his mom is a crack whore whose grandparents were killed at Auschwitz that gets a free pass.

I owe society nothing, other than to do no harm. Anything above and beyond that is of my free will, which IS my birthright.

[audtatious]

I'm just trying to slowly figure it all out and determine what I personally am supposed to owe society for being successful. Even with that being against my belief.

[stebo0728]

Again, Stebo, you agree with liberals on where the problem usually needs to be solved. The problem is that you're still being extremely vague on how to solve it. We need to instill responsibility? How do we do that?

By realizing that its not the job of the government to fix. The government NOT being responsible for individuals forces the individual to be responsible for themselves, and if they dont figure it out, as cold as it may sound, they have to live with the consequences of it.

With that said, Im not saying we drop this gauntlet down tomorrow. That wouldnt be fair, to spend almost a century creating a dependent class, then just all of a sudden throw them to the wolves when they dont even know what a wolf looks like in most cases. But steps need to be taken to get the government out of our personal lives, to stop holding our hands, to stop trying to dictate how we live our lives, and how we conduct our business. We have no debt to society other than, as AZ says, do no harm. And Society owes us no debt either, other than to punish those who may do us harm. Actual definable harm, not warm fuzzy "philosophical" harm.

[stebo0728]

You seem to want me to pen down some definite game plan, and thats understandable from a liberal stand point because micromanagement is the norm. But my point is, no definite gameplan is necessary because its not the government who needs create the gameplan. The only bullet point on the government side of the equation is "- butt out". The individual is to create their own gameplan for their lives.

[audtatious]

But...but...but.... "General Welfare"

[stebo0728]

"General Welfare" - roads, water treatment, DEFENSE, law enforcement

"General Handouts" - TANF, food stamps, Section 8, and the like ...

[AZhitman]

With that said, Im not saying we drop this gauntlet down tomorrow. That wouldnt be fair, to spend almost a century creating a dependent class, then just all of a sudden throw them to the wolves when they dont even know what a wolf looks like in most cases. But steps need to be taken to get the government out of our personal lives, to stop holding our hands, to stop trying to dictate how we live our lives, and how we conduct our business. We have no debt to society other than, as AZ says, do no harm. And Society owes us no debt either, other than to punish those who may do us harm. Actual definable harm, not warm fuzzy "philosophical" harm.

BRILLIANTLY stated.

And, in doing so, you may have left IB a perfect explanation (I hesitate to use the word "excuse") for his position - It's all he's known. I mean, if the existence of a dependent class is all you've ever witnessed, all you've ever known, then anything else must appear alien. From a sociological standpoint, it makes perfect sense. He can't HELP but believe what he believes, and we can't fault it - it's "the way things are". Now, Isaac is a dynamic individual - he can learn, grow, and change (we all can). But this is SUCH good insight from stebo, it would be foolish to dismiss it out-of-hand.

We can't "eat the wounded". We've evolved past that, probably irretrievably. But we can sure as hell begin weaning them, humanely, from the enabling resources that have sustained their weaknesses.

[audtatious]

"General Welfare" - roads, water treatment, DEFENSE, law enforcement

"General Handouts" - TANF, food stamps, Section 8, and the like ...

"General Welfare" of the US vs. "General Welfare" of each individual citizen.

[IBCoupe]

Thanks for trying to make my arguments for me, Greg, but I'm much better at it. Might want to stick to your own.

So, I came from a good family and had my education fully paid for, thus, no debt. Do I have a debt to society?

Maybe some. You might have paid it back, though. Do you pay your taxes?

The silliness of this whole "birthright" argument is that there's a continuum, not a cutoff point.

There's nothing about what I've said that's inconsistent with a continuum.

By realizing that its not the job of the government to fix. The government NOT being responsible for individuals forces the individual to be responsible for themselves, and if they dont figure it out, as cold as it may sound, they have to live with the consequences of it.

Great, I'm right there with you. Not the job of the government to fix. There are still people who are irresponsible. Now what? Despite what you think, Stebo, I'm not trying to pin you to a specific policy for the heck of it. I'm trying to pin you to a specific policy because you're criticizing specific policies with vague philosophies.

And believe it or not, Stebo, inherited poverty in the United States didn't start only a hundred years ago. This notion of a created "dependent class" you've conjured doesn't find much support in history. We've had long lines of wealthy families, and we've had long lines of impoverished families for some time now, and while it would probably be ideologically convenient for you if none of that ever existed before 1932, it just isn't the case.

But steps need to be taken to get the government out of our personal lives, to stop holding our hands, to stop trying to dictate how we live our lives,

And, just to show that I'm not dismissing you out of hand, I'll address this: the federal government mostly doesn't.

[audtatious]

Maybe some. You might have paid it back, though. Do you pay your taxes?

Yes, but being in the top "x-percentile" of wage earners I probably need to be paying much more? The only bill we have, besides utilities, is a small house payment and we make appx 6x or more the median income for this area. I'm putting money left and right into the stock market, interest accounts, IRA's, etc. I'm taking a minimum of 3 large vacations each year (cruises, weeks at a time in the mountains). I have every convenience I would want. I can buy anything I want (within reason...obviously I don't live outside the means of my income) and I have everything I need. Based on "owe to society", I assume you would expect me to pay quite a bit more in taxes based on how comfortable I am financially and how my success can directly be attributed to society allowing me?

Maybe I'm making assumptions here based on what I read, thus I'm asking.