The Law

[stebo0728]

.... prove how easy it should be ....

And I dont believe I EVER claimed it to be easy. Certainly not. And the deeper in the hole you are the harder it is to climb out. My only point, Bastiat's main point, is that it is NOT the objective of the law, or SHOULD NOT be the objective of the law, to supplement one man, for whatever the reason, at the expense of another.

[AppleBonker]

Great point, but we do have many example of people who HAVE made it to the peak of Everest. Have many failed? Yes, but with good planning, and a good portion of human persistence, it is possible. So is the climb from poverty.

Under 5000. So yes, it can be done. Though not for most people. And, to stay with this analogy...

Most of the more recent successful summit attempts have been made by amateurs. Oddly enough, they got there through the help and support of others around them. These folks would've likely died on the mountain 50 years ago. But now, guides and other workers do an excellent job of attaching safety lines (etc) to the mountain to work as a support system. This, in turn, helps the weaker climbers make it through.

.... prove how easy it should be ....

And I dont believe I EVER claimed it to be easy. Certainly not. And the deeper in the hole you are the harder it is to climb out. My only point, Bastiat's main point, is that it is NOT the objective of the law, or SHOULD NOT be the objective of the law, to supplement one man, for whatever the reason, at the expense of another.

I never said you claimed it was easy. But, again, because one has done it does not mean all CAN do it. Also, it is a bit more complex than that. I'm not sure what your situation was, but I can guarantee that plenty out there had it worse.

[stebo0728]

Ok, well guess what. Life has tour guides too. There are entire foundations, private sector mind you, whose expertise is to educate and aid downtrodden individuals, and give them tools necessary to succeed in life. Many of these are free services, all supported by private charity. The claim that everyone is just money hungry and wont help others is just asinine. Charity does not need the all powerful government to function, in fact, the government really just gets in the way with its forceful nature.

Here's the thing, this discussion really gets side tracked with red herrings involving magnitude of plight. The problems individuals face, their magnitude, and their source matters not to this discussion. The whole point is that regardless of these things, as sad as they may be, its not the proper responsibility of law to be involved with it.

[IBCoupe]

To truely hold a socialistic stronghold, you must be able to admit that you do not value liberty and private property.

You were close with the rest of your post, Stebo, but it's statements like these that show you just don't get it.

Imagine two households: the Smiths and the Smythes.

The Smiths are a poor, black family in urban Detroit, MI.
The Smythes are a rich, white family in suburban Fairfax, VA.
Jimi Smith is a fourteen-year-old boy, with an IQ of 140. He's a good kid, with a good head on his shoulders. He stays away from trouble, and keeps his grades up as best as his home life will allow. After he comes home from his inner-city school, he helps out his father at the family auto parts store.
James Smythe is a fourteen-year-old boy, with an IQ of 140. He's a good kid, with a good head on his shoulders. He stays away from trouble, and keeps his grades up as best as his home life will allow. His parents are affluent, so he goes to a prestigious school, and spends the remaining hours of his day finishing up schoolwork, and then hanging out with other children of affluent families (also known as "networking").
At age 17, Jimi Smith doesn't think he will go to college. His father's not in such great health, because he can't afford to close down the store for any extended period of time, and someone needs to be around to take care of the family.
At age 17, James Smythe has already been accepted to Harvard, Princeton and Yale, and his most difficult decision is which school blazer he'd look best in.
At age 30, Jimi Smith is in roughly the same spot as his dad, when he was his age.
At age 30, James Smythe is already surpassing where his father was at this age.

In the classic liberal sense of the world, these two young men should end up in the same place, if we're to judge them by the merits of their individual efforts and abilities. You'll notice that I've crafted a world without mention of government services, and so there's no need to throw in a red herring about dependency on handouts - this hypothetical need not be an illustration of two actual people. It needs only to tell a remotely believable story to point out the fallacy in conservative thought.

We all bear the chains of our birth. For most of us, the chains mean little. For others, the chains hold us back, and for others still, the chains pull us forward. That's why Bastiat was wrong - in a perfect world, individuals grow up in their own little globes, where, on an individual basis, they develop their own strengths, and are released into the world to be judged by it. But we don't live in that perfect world, and removing government limitations on individual liberty will not bring it to us. So back to your comment:

To truely hold a socialistic stronghold, you must be able to admit that you do not value liberty and private property.

"Socialistic" thinking values liberty - it just sees it in a different, arguably broader context. "Socialistic" thinking values private property - it just sees it in a different, arguably broader context.

If the world is at all anything like I've written, where our lives are, in part, dictated by the chances of our births, then how can anyone honestly say that we are all truly at liberty to be free? Leftist thinking seeks to level the playing field, not by breaking the legs of those that run fast, but by making sure that everybody who wants to compete at least has some shoes within which to do so. And how can they accomplish this? By taking a pair from those who have two.

[IBCoupe]

I want to be clear:
I'm not suggesting that you should pity anyone. I'm not suggesting that you should be in favor of government handouts. I'm only suggesting that if you're going to presume to talk about how liberals think, it'd be nice if you got a glimpse of it. Even if it only exists on the margins, you cannot deny that circumstances conspire against certain, otherwise entirely worthy individuals. You cannot deny that there are certain people who, were they born to any other family, would rise to the very top of our society, and that there are some who, by mere accident of birth, sit at the top of our society and have no right to be there.

There are rich geographic and social clusters, and there are poor geographic and social cesspools in our society. If the course of your life can be determined by your birth in either extreme, then even a non-existant government couldn't create an equality of opportunity, as classic liberals would have it.

[stebo0728]

And how can they accomplish this? By taking a pair from those who have two.

And this sums up everything about your position that I am against. I mean literally, that one sentence says it all. Its not as if I am against charity, against helping someone who got dealt a lousy hand, but Ive said it countless times, and I'll say it again, philanthropy is NOT the job of the law, plain and simple, because, as you've rightly stated, your answer is "TAKING one pair from someone who has two". Taking is a strong word, yet it perfectly describes legalized plunder. The law has NO justification whatsoever in TAKING, aside from demanding taxation for the natural responsibilities of protection of life, liberty, and property. That one phrase, "Taking from those who have two" should be clear enough evidence that the position you argue does NOT respect private property.

Now to your life scenario. Another aspect of life is 98% composed of a summation of YOUR OWN CHOICES. Yes theres 2% or so environmental influence, but choices decide everything, and the lower classes of society have ALWAYS, throughout time, had an inability to comprehend consequences to everyday choices. In your example, it seems to me Jimi Smith has decided to carry on his fathers (probably failing) business. Thats admirable, commendable, and possibly a choice I would also make, as it is a family business. However, that is one HUGE decision in the course of someones life, a decision that will in most cases play a large part in determining the rest of Jimi's life. Next he may decide to take out any number of loans, in another attempt to save the business, which when it ultimately falls, will cause even greater financial ruin for him. But what you seem to be missing, is that Jimi made this choice, of his own free will. Our society has grown accustomed to disregarding consequences, even for some of life's greatest decisions.

One essential ingredient for my world view is personal responsibility. Our society has been garnished to disregard this trait, as its no longer necessary because our progressive social policies are there to catch your fall. We are greatly to blame for our own misfortune in this. But do we continue to watch the snowball roll down the hill toward the town? No. Certainly there will be a phase in which people hardwired to have very little, if any, personal responsibility, will have problems as we roll back the progressive policies, but that is why we roll them back, not snatch them off. Personal responsibility is not something you leave up to the discretion of the individual, its a trait that society must demand of everyone.

Can government rally for, and persuade for greater private charity? Sure, that would be applauded, but taking it to the point of plunder, to forcefully abridge one mans life, liberty, or property for the sake of another is an egregious practice to adopt.

[IBCoupe]

I know, Stebo. That was me throwing you a bone. I actually went back and edited it in. That was the only way to finance it as far as I could tell, but if you want to go ahead and propose another method, we could give that a try.

...and the lower classes of society have ALWAYS, throughout time, had an inability to comprehend consequences to everyday choices.

Accepting your premise as true: this doesn't strike you as notable? Unless you think poor people are simply genetically inferior, what explains the difference between the upper and lower classes of society?

If this has been true, throughout time, where is the equality of opportunity, Stebo?

Imagine that each of the Smith/Smythe boys had fathers who suffered from the same illnesses. Mr. Smythe, being wealthier, could afford to take time off, and could afford better quality medical care. He got better, and little boy Smythe got to keep eating. Mr. Smith did not, and the family started to struggle. Class dictates a lot more of our lives than I think you're willing to admit, Stebo. Do you just enjoy looking down your nose at people?

[C-Kwik]

Now to your life scenario. Another aspect of life is 98% composed of a summation of YOUR OWN CHOICES. Yes theres 2% or so environmental influence, but choices decide everything, and the lower classes of society have ALWAYS, throughout time, had an inability to comprehend consequences to everyday choices. In your example, it seems to me Jimi Smith has decided to carry on his fathers (probably failing) business. Thats admirable, commendable, and possibly a choice I would also make, as it is a family business. However, that is one HUGE decision in the course of someones life, a decision that will in most cases play a large part in determining the rest of Jimi's life. Next he may decide to take out any number of loans, in another attempt to save the business, which when it ultimately falls, will cause even greater financial ruin for him. But what you seem to be missing, is that Jimi made this choice, of his own free will. Our society has grown accustomed to disregarding consequences, even for some of life's greatest decisions.

Look at this from a statistical standpoint. Take 100 Jimi's and 100 James' and you probably won't get each of them making the same choice as the other. But of the 100 Jimi's, less of them will likely have gone to college than James. Its likely that more more of the James' will also have better GPA's and test scores as they have more time to study. So more will get into better colleges and many may even get full rides. Those that don't may still have the opportunity to go to a great school if they can get accepted and their parents can and will pay for it. On the other hand, Less Jimi's will probably get into the better colleges. Less of them will have full rides to such a school (assuming no programs that help such people). And still less of them would be able to afford to go if they can't get covered fully by grants and scholarships. A simpler analogy would be to take a group of 100 people. Give them a mundane task to complete. A large number will succeed. Give them a more difficult task. Less will succeed. Give them an even more difficult task. Even less will succeed.

I'm a bit bothered by:

"but choices decide everything, and the lower classes of society have ALWAYS, throughout time, had an inability to comprehend consequences to everyday choices."

While choices do indeed have consequences, consider in the hypothetical that if Jimi lets his father's business fail, perhaps his family will lose their home. What then? Do you really expect him to go off to college if he knows his family will end up on the street? While it is indeed a choice, that's not an easy decision. For most, it probably wouldn't even be a choice. Reality is a whole lot different than ideologies. And a huge reality is that our environment affects our choices. Choices you make are going to be made from the choices made available to you.