Stop expecting others to take care of you.

[Bluth Corporation]

Except that after your money passes into the possession of the State, it no longer yours and can be spent however the State

It only passes into the hands of the state through an act of theft--which means that it's still legitimately mine.

Except it didn't, so it isn't.

Yes, it did. Taking something that is mine without my consent is the very essence of theft. Just because the gang of thugs arbitrarily happens to call itself "the government" does not change that fact.

I blew that argument to pieces a long time ago.

Trying to make the best out of a bad situation that I find myself thrust in against my well does NOT equate to accepting the legitimacy of that situation.

[Sleepington]

humans are hardwired to reciprocate generosity. we're hardwired to practice and praise altruism and subdue or scorn selfishness. the evidence is not only there on a biological level but also represented in the values of our myriad social structures.
just so as you're aware that to say 'stop expecting others to take care of you' is to fundamentally go against human nature. i could agree with this statement if it was qualified as a localized instruction to the idle, lazy, opportunistic elements of a specific society. but seeing as how the OP seems to be addressing humanity and society as a whole, i can only suggest doing some more research in the fields of sociology and biology!

[The Scandinvans]

People have a number of inherent rights that are derived purely from themselves...

No, they don't.

Depends on your cultural outlook.

You said they were 'inherent', now you're arguing that 'inherent' actually has a cultural qualification?

Nope. I am merely observing the fact some groups, including ideological viewpoints, tend to view things in a more collectivist mindset then the societies focused on individualism.

[Classical Liberal]

Hm, this is now my favorite thread.

[Grave_n_idle]

People have a number of inherent rights that are derived purely from themselves...

No, they don't.

Depends on your cultural outlook.

You said they were 'inherent', now you're arguing that 'inherent' actually has a cultural qualification?

Nope. I am merely observing the fact some groups, including ideological viewpoints, tend to view things in a more collectivist mindset then the societies focused on individualism.

Which is both irrelevant AND nonsensical.

There are no inherent rights. Ideological viewpoints can define how you feel about that - it won't change the objective reality.

[Orenge]

\
There are no inherent rights. Ideological viewpoints can define how you feel about that - it won't change the objective reality.

I support the guy saying there are no inherent rights. <3

[The Scandinvans]

So the only defining factor of government, as you see it, is the number of people it governs? Where's the cut-off? Three thousand people? Five thousand people? If it's four thousand, what makes an authority governing 4,000 people a government and one governing 3,999 not-a-government? Either you can take it all the way down, or you can not ascribe to the notion of government at all; but your definition strikes me as highly suspect.

Nonetheless, let's say there's an arbitrary cut-off at four thousand people. That makes the units of government large villages, small towns, cities, countries, religions, corporations with four thousand shareholders and employees or more, community sports centers, universities, and so on. These are still fundamental units built from smaller units in direct consequence of humanity's social nature; how can they be distinguished from any arbitrary notion of "society"?

There is no emotion there is peace. *hugs*

But to merely state, you assume a good deal too much about what I am saying.

You see that government exists at all levels, which it does, but fail to realize that I am implying the formation of a large entity in which a person is not likely to personally know the individuals who hold the lion share of the power. Which is purely a modern evolution of society as before that, before the emergence of larger scale agriculture, everyone knew each other on a rather personal basis, as they needed to in order to create a more efficient society.

Over time local societies, those formed on a tribal level, banded to form governments, entities that had the ability to control larger supplies of manpower and consolidate power then earlier forms of hierarchical societies based on a village. However, this increasing capability to muster resources came at the cost of the individuals having to give up most of their say in the governing of their communities.

Plainly put, it was more natural for people to live in smaller societies focused around a centralized area without a population going over a couple hundred. And governments, being a more recent invention of man as it evolved out the tribal societies of earlier times, came about in order to be able to gather the resources that a group wanted, but would otherwise not be able to get without having the aid of other communities.

Also, stop looking into my defitions, I merely gave them for reference so that I would be able to divide a society from a government.

[The Scandinvans]

\
There are no inherent rights. Ideological viewpoints can define how you feel about that - it won't change the objective reality.

I support the guy saying there are no inherent rights. <3

The reality is that your inherent right, e.g. the more 'natural' state of things gives you the ability to act freely, it is by compromsing your ability to complete and utter freedom that socities emerge so that people can form a common sense that they can live in a peaceful setting.

So tell me do I have technical freedom of action?

[Czardas]

So the only defining factor of government, as you see it, is the number of people it governs? Where's the cut-off? Three thousand people? Five thousand people? If it's four thousand, what makes an authority governing 4,000 people a government and one governing 3,999 not-a-government? Either you can take it all the way down, or you can not ascribe to the notion of government at all; but your definition strikes me as highly suspect.

Nonetheless, let's say there's an arbitrary cut-off at four thousand people. That makes the units of government large villages, small towns, cities, countries, religions, corporations with four thousand shareholders and employees or more, community sports centers, universities, and so on. These are still fundamental units built from smaller units in direct consequence of humanity's social nature; how can they be distinguished from any arbitrary notion of "society"?

There is no emotion there is peace. *hugs*

But to merely state, you assume a good deal too much about what I am saying.

You see that government exists at all levels, which it does, but fail to realize that I am implying the formation of a large entity in which a person is not likely to personally know the individuals who hold the lion share of the power. Which is purely a modern evolution of society as before that, before the emergence of larger scale agriculture, everyone knew each other on a rather personal basis, as they needed to in order to create a more efficient society.

Again, this is a purely arbitrary definition.

Over time local societies, those formed on a tribal level, banded to form governments, entities that had the ability to control larger supplies of manpower and consolidate power then earlier forms of hierarchical societies based on a village. However, this increasing capability to muster resources came at the cost of the individuals having to give up most of their say in the governing of their communities.

Plainly put, it was more natural for people to live in smaller societies focused around a centralized area without a population going over a couple hundred. And governments, being a more recent invention of man as it evolved out the tribal societies of earlier times, came about in order to be able to gather the resources that a group wanted, but would otherwise not be able to get without having the aid of other communities.

Not really. "Large governments" (cities, countries and the like) operate on the same principle as "small governments" (families, tribes, villages and the like). Even in a government where everyone knows everyone else, there's still always someone making the decisions, and someone following them. Moreover, large governments developed not in order to bring civilization about, but as a consequence thereof: curiosity about the natural world led to the government of religion coming about, surpluses of food and resources and more universal forms of communication and language brought about cities and city-states, et cetera.

Also, stop looking into my defitions, I merely gave them for reference so that I would be able to divide a society from a government.

And my point is that you can do no such thing.

[Muravyets]

A little less than 200 years ago. Back in the glorious 1800s, up until the end of the Civil War, fire brigades were private "volunteer" organizations, usually run like and by street gangs who "volunteered' to charge steep fees to put out fires they might very well have started if it was as slow week (usually, back then, fires didn't need much help to break out in cities). They also reserved the right to pretty much loot the buildings they were saving -- so there goes that Ayn Rand collection. That is, of course, providing they had the time to save any buildings between looting them and fighting off other fire brigades who tried to muscle in on their fires.

In small towns, the majority of fire fighters are still volunteers---though I think they're probably led by salaried chiefs. Of course, in a small town, if someone's house catches fire, there's a good chance your house could be threatened. Helping the collective still helps the individual. Volunteer firefighters probably wouldn't work in, say, L.A. County.

Today's volunteer firefighters are trained by professionals who work for the state to make sure they learn and maintain the standards of safety, and that the they have the necessary temperament to be firefighters. Also that they are relatively unlikely to commit arson for profit. The article I quoted about Decker versus Engine Co. 33 during the Draft Riots was one of the events that led to society (you know, the "collective") deciding such a standard of professionalism was desirable.

Also, most volunteer fire departments get tax-fund state subsidies for their equipment and training.

But without a state and taxes to maintain such a standard, we'd be back to the aptly named "Black Joke."

[Spectorland]

I am a Catholic; and I do believe in assistance to the poor. I was a fan of the Welfare Reform Act and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. I believe people should have temporary assistance (as was LBJ's idea back in the 1964 Food Stamp Act) unless permanently disabled by some condition (as was FDR's idea in the original 1935 Social Security Act). A two-year limit is good for Cash benefits. Encouraging people in getting jobs builds self-confidence and self-esteem. Prior to 1996, although not all of them, some of the Welfare System beneficiaries were given to laziness and dependence...I saw that in my own family. So, the system needed to be reigned in, which it was.

[Spectorland]

I am a Catholic; and I do believe in assistance to the poor. I was a fan of the Welfare Reform Act and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. I believe people should have temporary assistance (as was LBJ's idea back in the 1964 Food Stamp Act) unless permanently disabled by some condition (as was FDR's idea in the original 1935 Social Security Act). A two-year limit is good for Cash benefits. Encouraging people in getting jobs builds self-confidence and self-esteem. Prior to 1996, although not all of them, some of the Welfare System beneficiaries were given to laziness and dependence...I saw that in my own family. So, the system needed to be reigned in, which it was.

EDIT: Sorry, PC glitch.

[Ryadn]

Yes, it did. Taking something that is mine without my consent is the very essence of theft. Just because the gang of thugs arbitrarily happens to call itself "the government" does not change that fact.

Why don't you just stop paying taxes, then? If you're self-employed, no one's taking anything out of your paycheck--you're willingly handing it over each year. Seems like it would be easy to stop.

Oh, sure, eventually they'll catch on and try to make you. But then, in your new libertarian world, the 'gang of thugs' taking your money wouldn't be the government---it would be an actual gang of thugs. If you don't have the fortitude to stand up to what you consider 'theft' by the federal government, how on earth do you imagine you'd fare better against individuals bent on robbing you?

[The Black Forrest]

Yes, it did. Taking something that is mine without my consent is the very essence of theft. Just because the gang of thugs arbitrarily happens to call itself "the government" does not change that fact.

Why don't you just stop paying taxes, then? If you're self-employed, no one's taking anything out of your paycheck--you're willingly handing it over each year. Seems like it would be easy to stop.

Oh, sure, eventually they'll catch on and try to make you. But then, in your new libertarian world, the 'gang of thugs' taking your money wouldn't be the government---it would be an actual gang of thugs. If you don't have the fortitude to stand up to what you consider 'theft' by the federal government, how on earth do you imagine you'd fare better against individuals bent on robbing you?

Foolish mortal.

That would be the job of the mutual defense force/police. After all everybody will defend everybody since it's in their interest.

Then again you could get attacked by another groups larger mutual defense force. Hmmmm didn't we call that the middle ages?

never mind.....

[The Scandinvans]

And my point is that you can do no such thing.

Which is why we will continue to disagree.

[Tech-gnosis]

I quite agree, and no one here in opposition to Hiddenrun et al. is saying that. As I've pointed out at least twice in this thread, the "Welfare Reform Act" passed in 1996 by the Republican-led Congress and signed by President Clinton made major changes to welfare in the US, including setting limits on how long a person can actually receive benefits. There is no system in any state that simply hands out cash to people who claim to be needy.

The work disincentives in the AFDC, welfare pre-reform, were inherent in the design from the beginning. Back when it was created it was believed that mothers should be in the home and the disincentives were put into place to keep that up. Even so the median use by welfare mothers was about 3 years, basically meaning it was largely used as a safety net after divorce, loss of employment, or similar situations. Also, before 1996 cash welfare was a shrinking part of the safety net budget and made up less than 50% of that budget.

[GetBert]

humans are hardwired to reciprocate generosity. we're hardwired to practice and praise altruism and subdue or scorn selfishness. the evidence is not only there on a biological level but also represented in the values of our myriad social structures.
just so as you're aware that to say 'stop expecting others to take care of you' is to fundamentally go against human nature. i could agree with this statement if it was qualified as a localized instruction to the idle, lazy, opportunistic elements of a specific society. but seeing as how the OP seems to be addressing humanity and society as a whole, i can only suggest doing some more research in the fields of sociology and biology!

I don't think we are hardwired to practice altruism, though that is not the same thing as saying we should never be altruistic. We are certainly hardwired to be social animals rather than individualistic loners.

[Ryadn]

humans are hardwired to reciprocate generosity. we're hardwired to practice and praise altruism and subdue or scorn selfishness. the evidence is not only there on a biological level but also represented in the values of our myriad social structures.
just so as you're aware that to say 'stop expecting others to take care of you' is to fundamentally go against human nature. i could agree with this statement if it was qualified as a localized instruction to the idle, lazy, opportunistic elements of a specific society. but seeing as how the OP seems to be addressing humanity and society as a whole, i can only suggest doing some more research in the fields of sociology and biology!

I don't think we are hardwired to practice altruism, though that is not the same thing as saying we should never be altruistic. We are certainly hardwired to be social animals rather than individualistic loners.

Actually, there's quite a bit of research about altruism in primates that suggests we are, in fact, "hardwired" for it. This article ("Putting the Altruism Back Into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy") discusses it in detail. It's a bit lengthy, although there's some good stuff right in the first few pages, so I'll just quote the abstract here:

Evolutionary theory postulates that altruistic behavior evolved for
the return-benefits it bears the performer. For return-benefits to play
a motivational role, however, they need to be experienced by the organism.
Motivational analyses should restrict themselves, therefore,
to the altruistic impulse and its knowable consequences. Empathy
is an ideal candidate mechanism to underlie so-called directed altruism,
i.e., altruism in response to another’s pain, need, or distress.
Evidence is accumulating that this mechanism is phylogenetically ancient,
probably as old as mammals and birds. Perception of the emotional
state of another automatically activates shared representations
causing a matching emotional state in the observer.With increasing
cognition, state-matching evolved into more complex forms, including
concern for the other and perspective-taking. Empathy-induced
altruism derives its strength from the emotional stake it offers the
self in the other’s welfare. The dynamics of the empathy mechanism
agree with predictions from kin selection and reciprocal altruism
theory.

[The Scandinvans]

humans are hardwired to reciprocate generosity. we're hardwired to practice and praise altruism and subdue or scorn selfishness. the evidence is not only there on a biological level but also represented in the values of our myriad social structures.
just so as you're aware that to say 'stop expecting others to take care of you' is to fundamentally go against human nature. i could agree with this statement if it was qualified as a localized instruction to the idle, lazy, opportunistic elements of a specific society. but seeing as how the OP seems to be addressing humanity and society as a whole, i can only suggest doing some more research in the fields of sociology and biology!

I don't think we are hardwired to practice altruism, though that is not the same thing as saying we should never be altruistic. We are certainly hardwired to be social animals rather than individualistic loners.

We all must remember that humans evolved in times of scarcity. Which basically rules out the possibility that we are purely altruist creatures. However, it still leaves a good deal of room for people to act in their own self-interest, that we evolved to ensure our survival be ensuring that those who would helps, our friends and family, would survive.

[Ryadn]

humans are hardwired to reciprocate generosity. we're hardwired to practice and praise altruism and subdue or scorn selfishness. the evidence is not only there on a biological level but also represented in the values of our myriad social structures.
just so as you're aware that to say 'stop expecting others to take care of you' is to fundamentally go against human nature. i could agree with this statement if it was qualified as a localized instruction to the idle, lazy, opportunistic elements of a specific society. but seeing as how the OP seems to be addressing humanity and society as a whole, i can only suggest doing some more research in the fields of sociology and biology!

I don't think we are hardwired to practice altruism, though that is not the same thing as saying we should never be altruistic. We are certainly hardwired to be social animals rather than individualistic loners.

We all must remember that humans evolved in times of scarcity. Which basically rules out the possibility that we are purely altruist creatures. However, it still leaves a good deal of room for people to act in their own self-interest, that we evolved to ensure our survival be ensuring that those who would helps, our friends and family, would survive.

Do you mean that humans first arose during a time of scarcity, or that scarcity provided evolutionary pressure during our journey from primate ancestor to modern day?

No one has made the claim that we are "purely" altruistic creatures. A creature that cared nothing for its own survival would quickly be extinguished. The argument is that altruism is a part of human nature, as it is a part of many mammals' natures.

Furthermore, your attribution of altruism to "ensuring survival by ensuring those who help us would survive" has two problems. One) it distorts the very definition of altruism. Altruism is defined by biology as "behavior that increases the recipient’s fitness at a cost to the performers". Two) it confuses the ultimate cause of altruism (which, of course, must ultimately help survival in some way) with the "trigger", or the proximal cause.

I'll let de Waal speak for himself here, because I couldn't paraphrase it any better:

Cooperation and altruistic behavior are thought to have evolved to help family members and those inclined to return the favor (Hamilton 1964, Trivers 1971). Regardless of whether this is the whole explanation or not (see Sober & DS Wilson 1998, EO Wilson 2005), the point is that ultimate accounts stress return-benefits, i.e., positive consequences for the performer and/or its kin. Inasmuch as these benefits may be quite delayed, however, it is unclear what motivational role, if any, they play. This becomes clear if we consider more closely what drives directed altruism, i.e., altruistic behavior aimed at others in need, pain, or distress. There are three ways in which directed altruism may come about:

1. Altruistic impulse. Spontaneous, disinterested helping and caring in reaction to begging or distress signals or the sight of another in pain or need.

2. Learned altruism. Helping as a conditioned response reinforced by positive outcomes for the actor.

3. Intentional altruism. Help based on the prediction of behavioral effects. One prediction could be that the help will be reciprocated, hence that the act will produce a net benefit. Since the actor seeks to benefit itself, we may call this intentionally selfish altruism. The second possibility is help based on an appreciation of how one’s own behavior will help the other. Since the actor seeks to benefit the other, we may call this intentionally altruistic altruism.

Some directed altruistic behavior is promoted by built-in rewards, such as the oxytocin release during suckling that may underpin maternal care (Panksepp 1998). Empathy-based altruism may have similar intrinsically rewarding qualities in that it offers the actor an emotional stake in the recipient’s well-being, i.e., if helping the other ameliorates the helper’s internal state (see Empathy as Evolved Proximate Mechanism, below). Extrinsic rewards, on the other hand, are less likely to play a role. By definition, altruism carries an initial cost, and positive consequences occur only after a significant time interval (e.g., the recipient reciprocates) or not at all (e.g., care for dependent kin), making for rather poor learning conditions.

Intentionally selfish altruism would require the actor to explicitly expect others to return the favor. Despite the lack of evidence for such expectations in animals, they are often
assumed. The common claim that humans are the only truly altruistic species, since all that animals care about are return-benefits (e.g., Dawkins 1976, Fehr & Fischbacher 2003, Kagan 2000, Silk et al. 2005), misconstrues reciprocity as a motivation. It assumes that animals engage in reciprocal exchange with a full appreciation of how it will ultimately benefit them. Helpful acts for immediate self-gain are indeed common (Dugatkin 1997), but the return-benefits of altruistic behavior typically remain beyond the animal’s cognitive horizon, i.e., occur so distantly in time that the organism is unlikely to connect them with the original act. This applies to most reciprocal altruism in the animal kingdom.

Once evolved, behavior often assumes motivational autonomy, i.e., its motivation becomes disconnected from its ultimate goals. A good example is sexual behavior, which arose
to serve reproduction. Since animals are, as far as we know, unaware of the link between sex and reproduction, they must be engaging in sex (as do humans much of the time) without progeny in mind. Just as sex cannot be motivated by unforeseen consequences, altruistic behavior cannot be motivated by unforeseen payoffs.

The altruistic impulse is to be taken very seriously, therefore, because even if altruistic behavior were partially learned based on short-term intrinsic rewards or long-term extrinsic
rewards, this by no means rules out the altruistic impulse. In fact, it presupposes this impulse given that a behavior’s consequences cannot be learned without spontaneously engaging in it in the first place.

[GetBert]

We all must remember that humans evolved in times of scarcity. Which basically rules out the possibility that we are purely altruist creatures. However, it still leaves a good deal of room for people to act in their own self-interest, that we evolved to ensure our survival be ensuring that those who would helps, our friends and family, would survive.

I agree helping people we are close to can be a selfish act because it is in our best interest to do so.

Ryadn

Interesting stuff, thank you for pointing it out.

[Cabra West]

2: With private insurance, I have a choice whether or not I participate. With government programs, the government holds a gun to my head and forces me to participate. Therefore, private insurance is inherently and infinitely superior to government insurance, no matter what else may happen.

As I understand, even in the US uninsured people aren't left to die in emergencies, their costs are covered by the government. So mostly, it's the government saying "We're not going to cough up just because you can't be arsed to pay up for insurance." Which I think is very fair on everybody, much fairer than it is now.

Your argument would only have a leg to stand on if it was your choice if and when you'll be sick. As it isn't, someone will have to pay for it when it happens. As many people aren't responsible enough to do so, and as private insurance is a big fail for not taking on a great number of people, what do you suggest to do with those who can't be arsed or simply can't get insurance? Where's the money for their treatment to come from?

[Ryadn]

2: With private insurance, I have a choice whether or not I participate. With government programs, the government holds a gun to my head and forces me to participate. Therefore, private insurance is inherently and infinitely superior to government insurance, no matter what else may happen.

As I understand, even in the US uninsured people aren't left to die in emergencies, their costs are covered by the government. So mostly, it's the government saying "We're not going to cough up just because you can't be arsed to pay up for insurance." Which I think is very fair on everybody, much fairer than it is now.

Well, the average Randite probably thinks we should be kicking the uninsured out of ERs and letting them bleed out in the street. Then, of course, we'd have to pay the streetcleaners more to sort out and dispose of the bodies... we're just buggered any way you look at it!

[GetBert]

As I understand, even in the US uninsured people aren't left to die in emergencies, their costs are covered by the government. So mostly, it's the government saying "We're not going to cough up just because you can't be arsed to pay up for insurance." Which I think is very fair on everybody, much fairer than it is now.

Your argument would only have a leg to stand on if it was your choice if and when you'll be sick. As it isn't, someone will have to pay for it when it happens. As many people aren't responsible enough to do so, and as private insurance is a big fail for not taking on a great number of people, what do you suggest to do with those who can't be arsed or simply can't get insurance? Where's the money for their treatment to come from?

Imagine if New Orleans had been a city entirely populated by libertarians before Katrina struck.

[Ryadn]

Your argument would only have a leg to stand on if it was your choice if and when you'll be sick. As it isn't, someone will have to pay for it when it happens. As many people aren't responsible enough to do so, and as private insurance is a big fail for not taking on a great number of people, what do you suggest to do with those who can't be arsed or simply can't get insurance? Where's the money for their treatment to come from?

Let 'em be sick. If I lose my job and health insurance, why should someone else have to pay for my seizure medication, just because I went into a line of work that was advertised as being in desperate need of employees, only to find out after a year of credentialing (which I paid for from my savings, without a loan) that there was no money to pay the employees it needed? Clearly I should have predicted the economic crash way back in December '05 and changed plans accordingly. I should have had the good sense not to be epileptic, too.