[ckingalt]

(Original post by TheIronist)
What kind of civil liberties am I trampling by making sure that people do not get unfair advantages in life? (advantages for which they can not be held responsible). I do not know what you mean by communism lite and I do not know whether communism lite would be a bad thing (where bad thing = (according to you) "trampling everyone's civil liberties").




Sure there is. I was born in a relatively well off family. Another kid was born in a relatively poor family. Our social institutions have made it so. It's not a natural fact that we can do nothing about.

Now I made certain choices in my life which were partly determined by the choices my parents made for me when I was growing up. Same was true of that other kid. If these choices were (say) very well made for me but not for him due to those inequalities in the access to the resources mentioned before, and if these choices determine to a great extent who in the future is going to get a university education, and if a university education partly determines our station in life, then in what sense can he be held personally responsible for his lack of university education and subsequently the station in life which a university education (or lack thereof) makes possible?

If he is not personally responsible for his lack of university education (and station in life) and as I said, our social institutions ultimately determine this, then our social instiutions are unjust and ought to be revised.

Again, I am entirely unsure how making sure that our institutions do not allow this to happen means totalitarianism (you have to first give me a definition of totalitarianism ofc).



I do not understand this paragraph at all. Why is it near pointless for me to make better choices? that happens all the time within members (siblings) of the same family which were brought up in an enviroment where (presumably) they had access to the same opportunities, resources and liberties.



I think my solution is a viable one. And it's not pointless to point out that other people's principles are incoherent (even if you think that mine are impossible to achieve without trumping people's civil liberties or implementing communism lite/totalitarianism). The point is to show that he is wrong and the fact that you think I am wrong does not make him right.

Once again writing a few paragraphs about what is unfair, and implementing a set of enforceable policies that will fix the unfairness is two different matters. I suspect you understand that but you pretend not to for the purpose of debate.

INHERITANCE
- Do you plan to abolish it all together? (Civil liberties include being able to pass on what we fairly acquire. I have the right to give gifts.)

- What if I die before my kids are 18? What happens to my house? What happens to my assets?

- What if I build something with my own two hands? What if am an renowned artist and my works are worth capital? Can I pass those on to my family? If they are worth money how are they any different from other investments?

- How does a society with a hundred million people determine which types of property can be fairly passed on without giving someone an unfair advantage.

You don't get to just write a sentence saying "I'll just do what makes sense". Your social justice would require a set of guide lines, policies, to direct institutions how to determine every situation. You would then require a set of penalties for those who don't comply and a method to execute those penalties. How do you appropriately punish a child for having their parent find ways to syphon wealth to them? When you consider the methods that would be necessary is where you realize the freedoms we would have to lose.

Inheritance is one issue among many. You would have to consider inequalities such as allowing people during their life using money to provide better schools, safer neighborhoods, more opportunities to participate in clubs/sport/travel, etc.. Also how would these massive equality insurance institutions deal with the issue of good parental situations vs bad parental situations. Having bad parents is the worst inequality of all. What monetary figure do you put on that? Who pays it? Maybe you could have a "quality of parents committee". They would be in charge of deciding how good your parents are. If you have good parents you owe money to the people who have bad ones.

The truth is that there is no viable way to make society equal by giving everyone more opportunity. The only way to make society equal would be to give everyone less opportunity. The only way to accomplish that is by limiting what you will permit people to do with the advantages they have, regardless of if they deserve those advantages or not. Like I said before, I suspect you know that but you just don't want to confront it.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by chefdave)
don't believe we have obligations to one another (socialism)

I would like to see your dictionary.
"Having obligations to one another" does not define socialism.
To me, having such obligations is just being a decent human being.

[chefdave]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
I would like to see your dictionary.
"Having obligations to one another" does not define socialism.
To me, having such obligations is just being a decent human being.

No, unlimited obligations to one another form the bedrock of tyranny and slavery. A slave has an obligation to serve his masters needs, free men freely enter into contracts with one another. No contract no obligation. The trouble is you lefties want to determine all the obligations without offering anything in return.

[A Mysterious Lord]

Yes but only to those who can't for themselves.

[Clip]

This is how cats think - that humans have a duty to feed, house and look after them.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by chefdave)
No, unlimited obligations to one another form the bedrock of tyranny and slavery. A slave has an obligation to serve his masters needs, free men freely enter into contracts with one another. No contract no obligation. The trouble is you lefties want to determine all the obligations without offering anything in return.

Oh christ Not another one.

[chefdave]

(Original post by Clip)
This is how cats think - that humans have a duty to feed, house and look after them.

Hehe, true!

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by chefdave)
No, unlimited obligations to one another form the bedrock of tyranny and slavery. A slave has an obligation to serve his masters needs, free men freely enter into contracts with one another. No contract no obligation. The trouble is you lefties want to determine all the obligations without offering anything in return.

Where did I say unlimited?
And in terms of contracts, what if those fail to ensure people get what they NEED?

[chefdave]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Where did I say unlimited?
And in terms of contracts, what if those fail to ensure people get what they NEED?

You didn't say 'unlimited', but your model provides no safeguards because it's based upon subjective values rather than anything tangible. What happens if the government dictates that I need to provide you with a house, food, clothing and transport because you're unable to provide these things for yourself, under such circumstances is it not reasonable to consider me your slave?

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by chefdave)
You didn't say 'unlimited', but your model provides no safeguards because it's based upon subjective values rather than anything tangible. What happens if the government dictates that I need to provide you with a house, food, clothing and transport because you're unable to provide these things for yourself, under such circumstances is it not reasonable to consider me your slave?

What if everyone decides you're a c*nt? What then eh? Eh?

[chefdave]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
What if everyone decides you're a c*nt? What then eh? Eh?

Then if you're unlucky enough to have no wealth you end up destitute. The government won't save you, not under the current socialist setup.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by chefdave)
Then if you're unlucky enough to have no wealth you end up destitute. The government won't save you, not under the current socialist setup.

Oh you are a card