Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Sticks And Stones! We're an HTTYD fan forum. Feel free to have a look around and stay awhile; whether you want to talk about the movie, post some fanwork, or just kick back and relax with us, we can't wait to have you!

If you'd like, join our community!

If you're already registered, just log in below:


Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Healthcare mandate passed
Topic Started: Jun 29 2012, 12:06 PM (2,735 Views)
Eyes Wide Open
Member Avatar
Gronckle
Az,

To answer your question, I would provide 90 impoverished people with food and water. To provide 100 people through a mandatory tax would be coercion and not take into account my situation. It could be that providing food to those extra 10 people at the point of a gun, which is how I would consider a mandatory tax, would impoverish me. What good would that be to me and my family?

The problem is that I am a firm believer in charity AND a firm believer in knowing how much I can comfortably give for others. A bureaucrat in a distant location who just decided to take my resources to pay others has no clue as to the effect his or her actions would have on my family.

Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Eyes Wide Open
Member Avatar
Gronckle
Backroads,

By the way it is the Declaration of Independence which has the following:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --


The reason I highlight this here is that we as American citizens have this and the Constitution as our founding documents. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a noble and inspiring document is one that we as American citizens do not have to abide to. Aspire to, yes...abide to, no. There is a difference.

Now in Article 25,

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


Again a noble goal, but you have to take into account the preamble which states:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

So Az, I would agree with you that Article 25 is something that we should all ASPIRE to, through such efforts as education AND by taking into account the charitable nature of people in general.
Edited by Eyes Wide Open, Jul 17 2012, 10:42 PM.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Azdgari
Member Avatar
Founder + Goofball

If the world can function on charity alone, why doesn't it?
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Night Fury
Member Avatar


Modern society is probably too complicated to function on charity alone. Most people already have enough to worry about in their daily lives. That's why the majority of us have decided that certain services are more efficiently funded by taxation.

Examples of these services include:

-Police
-Military
-Fire department
-Roads
-Library
-Parks
-Public Schools
-Health care (?)

The only two of those that you could argue as constitutionally required are police and military. You could in theory privatize everything else, so where do you draw the line?

I'm very curious to hear how Americans against health care feel about public schools. If you're against public health care, shouldn't you be against anything that could be provided by charity or the private sector?

How about roads? There are many roads in my town that I don't use, therefore should all roads be private toll roads, so that I only pay for the ones I use? That sounds like an inefficent system to me, but I don't doubt that some people would find it preferable.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
AvannaK
Member Avatar
Agent of the Alterverse

Azdigari
 
If the world can function on charity alone, why doesn't it?


Because it can't. Humans are social creatures and we'll migrate into societies by nature, but e're also selfish creatures. We'll act in our own self-interest or that of people we care about before strangers (in most cases). I wish I could believe in charity and human goodness, and I think we're all capable of it, but we certainly can't rely on it. The more people we have living together, the more we need government to bring about harmony. It's messy and annoying and people will complain, but we still need it to coexist, especially when we're talking about a country-scale population.

I'm keeping my opinion of the healthcare mandate to myself. I see the pros and cons to it and I want to observe it a bit more before I make any final decision. I found that video EWO provided informative but too blatantly bias to take very seriously. It was riddled with more opinions than facts. I think I'm going to sit on the back burner for this one.
Posted Image

*Compliments of Gumdrop Ch4rms
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Eyes Wide Open
Member Avatar
Gronckle
AvannaK
 
I found that video EWO provided informative but too blatantly bias to take very seriously.

Hi Avanna,
What part of the video was biased?
I didn't think it was so that is the reason I'm asking.
EWO
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Eyes Wide Open
Member Avatar
Gronckle
Azdgari
 
If the world can function on charity alone, why doesn't it?

The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.(Matthew 14:7)
Faith and how we are raised are the signs of 'civilization' within a society. The amount of charity that one gives of their own free will makes that person feel good about themselves. By forcing, or compelling, people to give involuntarily creates ill will within a society. Those that give, the producers if you will, will not look at those that receive, the takers, with a good compassionate feeling.

So I would agree with Avanna that yes, humans are creatures that are selfish. It is done out of self preservation, as in, look out for one's self first before rendering aid to others. Even airliners tell you in the pre-flight briefing to put one's own air mask on first before assisting one's own children or others. Why would one be willing to help out others first? If that person felt that the survival of his or her own family and 'genes' would be better by assisting someone else then they would do that. It is survival.

Now Az, I do want to say God Bless You for the wonderful volunteer work that you've done and are doing, what with the benefit show for the orphanage in Honduras, organizing a relay for life at your school, and volunteering to play music for patients at the hospital that saved your life.

How would you feel if instead of volunteering you were forced to do that?

EWO
Edited by Eyes Wide Open, Jul 18 2012, 08:11 AM.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Azdgari
Member Avatar
Founder + Goofball

If I, and everyone else, were forced to do our own small part to end the suffering of a lot of people? I don't see myself minding very much.


Some reallllly cool thoughts going on here by the way. Loving it! :)


Quote:
 
I wish I could believe in charity and human goodness, and I think we're all capable of it, but we certainly can't rely on it. The more people we have living together, the more we need government to bring about harmony. It's messy and annoying and people will complain, but we still need it to coexist, especially when we're talking about a country-scale population.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Backroads
Member Avatar
Proclaimer of Book Wisdom

EWO, thanks for the explanation! Tracy is a little harder to listen to... she actually called me and spent forty-five minutes trying to explain.
Posted Image

*Thanks to Gumdrop Ch4rms
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Backroads
Member Avatar
Proclaimer of Book Wisdom

As a Mormon, I do believe in what we refer to as the Law of Consecration. Right now we more or less live it as a more spiritual/philosophical sort of thing, but it does have some practical and social applications. When it was practiced (before Utah became a state) more practically, it did consist of giving to the needy in a slightly-more-than-just-charity fashion, but it was still not forced in the same nature as a mandatory tax or gun-to-the-head fashion. I personally wouldn't quite call this "government" but the fact is there was an organization that was committed, in part, to taking care of the needy. There was order, but it was still voluntary and those recipients of charity were still expected to do their part in return in the community. Pure hand-outs was (and I suppose still is) a foreign concept.

The way the U.S. welfare system is set up, as far as I can tell, little is expected from recipients. There's a time limit and people are usually expected to job hunt, but they don't seem to be expected to contribute back to the society at the time. My husband has the idea that welfare recipients could do community service in return (not enough to impact a job search, but enough to make up for what they were given and even build up skills.) I personally think it might work if tweaked correctly.

You're right, the way human nature is, relying entirely on charity is implausible. But from my perspective coming from the jobs I've had to work with struggling people, we do have a sense of entitlement with many people. I do believe charity could work when everyone is willing to do their part--without cohersion. And if not, I don't think it's right to rely entirely on a heartless government system. Oh, this generation might comprehend the goodness of it, but my fear is that few generations down the road, hands-outs for not working will be the status quo and the concept of "helping" will be long gone.

I sincerely do not believe in the concept of something for nothing.
Posted Image

*Thanks to Gumdrop Ch4rms
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dragon's Den · Next Topic »
Add Reply