Atlas Incensed
On the lack of equality of opportunity.
Of course a rich kid has a greater chance to succeed. But you are missing the most glorious point about capitalism: mutual trade for mutual benefit. Rich kids do not make it harder for others to succeed.
Billionare playboy Larry Ellison, for example, founded Oracle, which provides business software for thousands of customers. These customers felt they were better off giving their money to Oracle in exchange for its software, which greatly enriched Mr. Ellison. Every dollar in Larry's bank account is earned - that is, he enriched his customers at least as much as they enriched him.
Now if Larry weren't so busy sailing around $100m catamarans, he might have a son, who we'll call Fred. Now Larry, just as he is morally free to give money to his grocer, or to his Yacht-maker, is free to give as much money as he wishes to his son, Fred.
Now here is my question for you - how does Fred having millions of "unearned" dollars affect other children? Fred is not some medieval prince whose income was gleaned at the expense of the poor. Rather, Fred's wealth has no bearing on the opportunities for other children. The only reason to take Fred's money away, then, is naked envy.
"It is only humane that a country that can afford to, provides the very basic necessities to its people."
If I believed in welfare (which, of course, I don't), I would be disgusted by this statement. How is it humane to hand money to able-bodied people in Canada who can't work because they are "depressed", when 32 THOUSAND children die daily in Africa of malnutrition?? If you want to discuss what is "humane", you have lost your case for welfare in the developed world - because the money would be much more humanely spent elsewhere.
Besides, charities already handle this task very well. They provide the basic "necessities" - food, and a disgusting rag to sleep in. If you say this isn't enough, then we must play the "need" game - what is a need? Money for kids? Money for a TV? Money for booze? It's completely subjective.
"And there is enough social stigma against receiving money from welfare that most people who don't really need it do not receive it."
Ah - thank you very much for your assertion that welfare abuse does not occur. I suppose we can classify Matthew's friend Sean French (who collects $1000 a month from the government because he is deaf in one ear), with the likes of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, since he must not exist!!1
"And how, may I ask, can you claim to be interested in pursuing third world aid? Damn them, for being worthless! They must fend for themselves, or die trying! (They do). I would almost understand your philosophy, if not for this blatant hypocrisy."
"For every ten people who are clipping at the branches of evil, you're lucky to find one who's hacking at the roots." - Thoreau
I do not support 3rd world "aid" - that is, clipping at the branches. I think throwing money at worthless and corrupt infrastructures and feuding tribes is worse than useless - it encourages the very habits that are keeping Africa down. The solution to the problems of the third world is so blindingly simple - get rid of the tin-pot dictators. Africa doesn't need some brilliant macroeconomic policy or miracle loans - they just need to stop destroying themselves long enough to build a road! How this is done is another story, not for today.
"...basically, a person should not be forced into any decision that they do not agree to. The importance of tax dollars and their use in creating a livable, decent society is totally different issues."
Would you pay your taxes if you didn't have to? Would the rich hand their money to stinking bureaucrats if there wasn't the implicit threat of jail as the alternative? If you think people should not be forced into any decision to which they do not agree, you cannot support taxation.
"Besides, if what Matt says about your parents forking over all that money for your education, you are going against the fundamental principles of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Namely, that one should build their own empire, and not accept the help of others in order to do it. In fact, the most despicable characters in her novels are those who are born with money and those business people who scam money from other companies. Not those people who need the bare minimum in order to stay alive. But maybe you just choose the parts of her philosophy that already work with your closed mind. Ahem."
Dagny Taggart, the heroine of Atlas Shrugged, was born into riches. Wesley Mouch, the villain in the same book, rose from nothing to become chief bureaucrat of the USA because of nothing more than his incompetence. There a vast distinction between people "born with money" and people who "scam money from others": namely, the former situation took place without anyone being hurt.
Dagny, despite being the daughter of the President of Taggart Transcontinental, had to work her way up from switchboard operator to her exective position. You should have nothing against someone who has had breaks, as long as they were capable of fulfulling each position they were given. Of course it is immoral for the boss's daughter to be given a job if she can't handle it. But if she's great at it, why should her last name detract from her success?
As Ayn Rand said many times in her book, it does not matter that some people are given breaks while others are not, as long as the standard of success is the same for everyone. Even nepotism is perfectly justified, provided that the position is earned. There was nothing stopping my father from founding Microsoft in 1975 instead of Bill Gates. The reason he didn't was not because he was slighly poorer than Bill as a child! The world abounds with examples of rags-to-riches stories, and vice versa.
A Very Slippery Slope
Let's just chip away at the riches a little bit, shall we? The rich won't miss it, you say. Two reasons why that's wrong:
1) In order to make a difference (as well to pay for overcome bureaucratic inefficiency), a large sum of money must be extracted from the rich. If we were discussing negligible sums, we wouldn't be having this debate. If the sum is really small enough for the rich not to miss it, they will (and, when given enough freedom do) donate money to charity.
2) And I've made a case consisting of moral absolutes. No coercion, period. If you agree with this statement, you cannot support welfare.
I should mention that the majority of government (welfare) revenue comes from the middle class. This rich-poor dichotomy you lefties have goaded me into has distorted our perspective on the issue.
"And the next time you quote an author, do give them credit for the quote. Plagarism[sic] is quite disrespectful."
I thought it was obvious. Me claiming I wrote that would be like Al Gore claiming he invented the Internet.
Of course a rich kid has a greater chance to succeed. But you are missing the most glorious point about capitalism: mutual trade for mutual benefit. Rich kids do not make it harder for others to succeed.
Billionare playboy Larry Ellison, for example, founded Oracle, which provides business software for thousands of customers. These customers felt they were better off giving their money to Oracle in exchange for its software, which greatly enriched Mr. Ellison. Every dollar in Larry's bank account is earned - that is, he enriched his customers at least as much as they enriched him.
Now if Larry weren't so busy sailing around $100m catamarans, he might have a son, who we'll call Fred. Now Larry, just as he is morally free to give money to his grocer, or to his Yacht-maker, is free to give as much money as he wishes to his son, Fred.
Now here is my question for you - how does Fred having millions of "unearned" dollars affect other children? Fred is not some medieval prince whose income was gleaned at the expense of the poor. Rather, Fred's wealth has no bearing on the opportunities for other children. The only reason to take Fred's money away, then, is naked envy.
"It is only humane that a country that can afford to, provides the very basic necessities to its people."
If I believed in welfare (which, of course, I don't), I would be disgusted by this statement. How is it humane to hand money to able-bodied people in Canada who can't work because they are "depressed", when 32 THOUSAND children die daily in Africa of malnutrition?? If you want to discuss what is "humane", you have lost your case for welfare in the developed world - because the money would be much more humanely spent elsewhere.
Besides, charities already handle this task very well. They provide the basic "necessities" - food, and a disgusting rag to sleep in. If you say this isn't enough, then we must play the "need" game - what is a need? Money for kids? Money for a TV? Money for booze? It's completely subjective.
"And there is enough social stigma against receiving money from welfare that most people who don't really need it do not receive it."
Ah - thank you very much for your assertion that welfare abuse does not occur. I suppose we can classify Matthew's friend Sean French (who collects $1000 a month from the government because he is deaf in one ear), with the likes of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, since he must not exist!!1
"And how, may I ask, can you claim to be interested in pursuing third world aid? Damn them, for being worthless! They must fend for themselves, or die trying! (They do). I would almost understand your philosophy, if not for this blatant hypocrisy."
"For every ten people who are clipping at the branches of evil, you're lucky to find one who's hacking at the roots." - Thoreau
I do not support 3rd world "aid" - that is, clipping at the branches. I think throwing money at worthless and corrupt infrastructures and feuding tribes is worse than useless - it encourages the very habits that are keeping Africa down. The solution to the problems of the third world is so blindingly simple - get rid of the tin-pot dictators. Africa doesn't need some brilliant macroeconomic policy or miracle loans - they just need to stop destroying themselves long enough to build a road! How this is done is another story, not for today.
"...basically, a person should not be forced into any decision that they do not agree to. The importance of tax dollars and their use in creating a livable, decent society is totally different issues."
Would you pay your taxes if you didn't have to? Would the rich hand their money to stinking bureaucrats if there wasn't the implicit threat of jail as the alternative? If you think people should not be forced into any decision to which they do not agree, you cannot support taxation.
"Besides, if what Matt says about your parents forking over all that money for your education, you are going against the fundamental principles of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Namely, that one should build their own empire, and not accept the help of others in order to do it. In fact, the most despicable characters in her novels are those who are born with money and those business people who scam money from other companies. Not those people who need the bare minimum in order to stay alive. But maybe you just choose the parts of her philosophy that already work with your closed mind. Ahem."
Dagny Taggart, the heroine of Atlas Shrugged, was born into riches. Wesley Mouch, the villain in the same book, rose from nothing to become chief bureaucrat of the USA because of nothing more than his incompetence. There a vast distinction between people "born with money" and people who "scam money from others": namely, the former situation took place without anyone being hurt.
Dagny, despite being the daughter of the President of Taggart Transcontinental, had to work her way up from switchboard operator to her exective position. You should have nothing against someone who has had breaks, as long as they were capable of fulfulling each position they were given. Of course it is immoral for the boss's daughter to be given a job if she can't handle it. But if she's great at it, why should her last name detract from her success?
As Ayn Rand said many times in her book, it does not matter that some people are given breaks while others are not, as long as the standard of success is the same for everyone. Even nepotism is perfectly justified, provided that the position is earned. There was nothing stopping my father from founding Microsoft in 1975 instead of Bill Gates. The reason he didn't was not because he was slighly poorer than Bill as a child! The world abounds with examples of rags-to-riches stories, and vice versa.
A Very Slippery Slope
Let's just chip away at the riches a little bit, shall we? The rich won't miss it, you say. Two reasons why that's wrong:
1) In order to make a difference (as well to pay for overcome bureaucratic inefficiency), a large sum of money must be extracted from the rich. If we were discussing negligible sums, we wouldn't be having this debate. If the sum is really small enough for the rich not to miss it, they will (and, when given enough freedom do) donate money to charity.
2) And I've made a case consisting of moral absolutes. No coercion, period. If you agree with this statement, you cannot support welfare.
I should mention that the majority of government (welfare) revenue comes from the middle class. This rich-poor dichotomy you lefties have goaded me into has distorted our perspective on the issue.
"And the next time you quote an author, do give them credit for the quote. Plagarism[sic] is quite disrespectful."
I thought it was obvious. Me claiming I wrote that would be like Al Gore claiming he invented the Internet.