oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 2, 2009 6:17:41 GMT -5
At what point is it OK to let people freeze to death?
When it's free, apparently. If it costs money, they die.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 2, 2009 6:22:33 GMT -5
Or maybe it's only those who are considered useful who should be permitted to live.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 9:36:57 GMT -5
"I think that when you send someone out for a limiter on a home, you check inside or ask some authority to do so. In this case, they would have found an elderly, confused man with no one in his life who paid attention and was in need of help."
How do you know they didn't? It's altogether possible they knocked and the old guy didn't make it to the home quickly enough to answer. He was 93. It's also possible he wasn't home. He could have been at the doctor.
Let's say the power company had a policy that the tech had to knock on the door to notify the resident before cutting power. Two things might happen. First, the the person might not answer the door. Second, they might.
Suppose the person does not answer the door. What should the power company do? Cut power? Then we'd still have incidents like this. Should they let the person continue to receive power until they contact them personally? Then no one would have to pay. All you'd have to do is sit on your couch and refuse to answer the door.
Suppose the person answers the door. What then? Does the tech decide not to cut the power because this person is in the not so unique position of not being able to live without power? OR does he call the state to take old men and women and children and whomever he sees fit, based on a single visit to someone's home? I don't think I'd be comfortable with FP&L coming to my door to pass judgment on me.
I think a much better situation is for friends, neighbors and families to keep an eye on each other. We had an old widow living across the street from us for 10 or 12 years. Her nearest living relative who cared to speak to her was in New York, but we'd have never let her freeze to death. When a 93 year old man freezes to death with neighbors living close by, this should send a message to the community to get involved.
The next best thing would be for the government to dole out social security itself for them- for example taking utilities and food directly out of the check.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 2, 2009 9:45:43 GMT -5
Wayne,
Elaborating on "What about transportation? Or clothing? Or medicine? There are a whole lot of businesses that would have to hand out free stuff," specifically "medicine," you overlooked hospitals being mandated by law to treat the uninsured. That's a particularly interesting point now that radical deregulation has created hundreds of thousands of newly uninsured families.
In any event, that aside, I think you do have a point. It's the "small government vs. big government" argument in disguise. You're right, where IS the line... it has to be drawn SOMEwhere... if "someone" is responsible for that 93-year-old man, then presumably "someone" is responsible for housing, clothing, and feeding the homeless, for example. But Beth also has a point, in that, at some point, "We Americans" needs to become more than a slogan and become a fundamental cultural imperative to take care of our less fortunate neighbors. Liberals may tend to go too far on one side, but I guarantee you the conservatives err too much on the other, as well.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 2, 2009 10:41:27 GMT -5
Wayne, regarding "What about transportation? Or clothing? Or medicine? There are a whole lot of businesses that would have to hand out free stuff," I assume in "medicine" you also include that hospitals should not be obligated by law to treat the uninsured... a particularly interesting point now that radical deregulation has caused hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed families to join their ranks.
Or perhaps your line does permit that kind of socialized view of medicine -- I don't want to make false assumptions on how much socialism you're willing to advocate.
In any event, you have a point. Where DOES it stop? "Stewards of each other" can be taken advantage of. I think that if the government removed all the consequences of bad behavior or bad planning, there would be no incentive for good behavior and good planning. On the other hand, there is a point where the government should be responsible, either directly or by enforcing for lack of a better word coporate "samaritan" laws, for protecting the people.
In this particular case, I don't know how this guy got to where he is. Depending on how it happened, I can actually fall on either side of the issue: If he'd had plenty of chances over his life to avoid this fate, then I really have no sympathy. If, on the other hand, he was a hard worker, and had saved some money in his better days, who had since fallen on hard times and otherwise become discarded and forgotten, I DO have sympathy and and think someone should have protected him.
One final point on the sympathy side: It strikes me as unlikely, but it is neverthess possible and should be noted, that this man may have been living on a meager income based on retirement funds themselves based in the stock market.
You and I have argued about to what extent processes should be put in place to try to prevent such economic collapse, or to try to blunt its effects when it occurs. I've said the government has a responsibility to at least try to protect the innocent victims of such collapse. You've said in essence that it's tragic but it is nevertheless better to let any collapse run its course unaided. Indeed, you've said government should do absolutely nothing to try to prevent such collapses from occurring, trusting in financial self-interest to keep the financial system stable, despite clear evidence that that alone doesn't work given the evidence of our six month old and still rapidly deepening recession caused directly by the invention of financial instruments whose only real purpose (intentionally or not) was to hide the catastrophic risk your argument 100% depends on.
My final point on the economic tie I'm making: While this particular guy may turn out not to have frozen to death as innocent collateral damage from radical deregulation, it stands to reason that others literally have. Radical deregulation and economic collapse affect real people in real ways, and I DO think that the government is very much responsible for trying to help prevent collapse through reasonable regulation and/or blunt economic collapse when it occurs.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 11:20:33 GMT -5
"In this particular case, I don't know how this guy got to where he is. Depending on how it happened, I can actually fall on either side of the issue: If he'd had plenty of chances over his life to avoid this fate, then I really have no sympathy. If, on the other hand, he was a hard worker, and had saved some money in his better days, who had since fallen on hard times and otherwise become discarded and forgotten, I DO have sympathy and and think someone should have protected him."
Either way I have sympathy for him. I had an uncle who died of hypothermia. He died as a drunk living in a house with a dirt floor. It's sad, but everyone in the family who could do something did something. He was just one of those guys who had gone his whole life without ever getting it together. He was smart and talented, but he had a disability and a drinking problem. It's sad, but life just doesn't work out for some people.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Feb 2, 2009 12:02:46 GMT -5
You feel the power company should hand out free power to 93 year old men. Does this apply to all the elderly? Then what of single mothers who can't afford power? What about water? Should municipalities be able to cut off water from people who don't pay their bills? Who would pay their water bills? What other businesses? Food is obviously essential for life. Should grocery stores give out free food? What about transportation? Or clothing? Or medicine? There are a whole lot of businesses that would have to hand out free stuff. Neither power nor water should be private businesses. Until Maggiebloodythatcher messed things up, both of those were provided by local authorities. When she privatised these, other countries took her lead. In urban countries (which both the UK and the USA are) it is not possible to get either fuel or water other than through the utility companies. For that reason both should be provided by society, not business. Yes, people need to pay for it - and if an individual (whether old or a single mother or anyone else) is unable to pay, the rest of us should pay on their behalf. In the UK it is illegal to disconnect either electricity, gas or water, never mind outstanding bills. The worst you will get here is a pre-payment meter fitted for gas or electricity. Does the tech decide not to cut the power because this person is in the not so unique position of not being able to live without power? OR does he call the state to take old men and women and children and whomever he sees fit, based on a single visit to someone's home? I don't think I'd be comfortable with FP&L coming to my door to pass judgment on me. The next best thing would be for the government to dole out social security itself for them- for example taking utilities and food directly out of the check. In the UK, we would expect the local social services to call and assess the situation. The result might be someone being charged with paying the man's bills if he is physically unable to. It might be an application on his behalf for welfare payments, if he was too poor to pay the bills. It might be a referral to a doctor to ensure the man got any medical attention he needed. Free hot meals being delivered at no cost, basic shopping being done, someone calling every day to make sure nothing is worse than it was. There is a lot society can do without reducing the man's independence or dignity. It is just a matter of valuing people enough.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 2, 2009 13:21:05 GMT -5
Wayne, you're making the assumption that the 93-year-old had family.
Assuming he had no family support of any kind, who was responsible for this man?
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 2, 2009 13:31:12 GMT -5
The same ones who were responsible for the widow across the street from me.
The problem that our society is creating right now is that everyone's expectation is on the government. When people expect someone else is going to help, they are far less likely to jump in and help out. Liberals sit around, figuring it's the government's job, and people die.
|
|
|
Post by crazielollie on Feb 2, 2009 14:01:27 GMT -5
It's never OK to let people freeze to death. Nonetheless, it does happen. So do accidents, etc.. Even with our present attempts to save everyone from everything at increasing costs, death still manages to win a good number of times. If the neighbors were different, if there was contact with the power company, if he had a relative who cared....a whole lot of ifs - the same as in any accident or mishap in life, many that result in death.
One of my uncles was found dead in his apartment after 5 days. Mom kept in touch but he was a bachelor and didn't want all the "caring for him" that many wanted to provide. He lived the life he wanted and came and went as he pleased. He exchanged hello's with the neighbors but that was about it. The landlady kept a pretty good eye on the tenants who were alone but cared enough about privacy not to use a pass key when they weren't home. Unc was often gone for a couple days or a week with friends and he didn't share this with anyone beforehand. Could he have been "saved" when he first went down? Maybe, but since no one knew, no one made the attempt. Mom beat herself up over this one for years but in truth, there was nothing she could have done. He died as he lived, keeping his privacy (which was supremely important to him) intact. It was sad but dying alone and not being found for days was a price he payed for his privacy and knowing him, one he would have willingly paid.
Your assumptions that the person who installed the limiter knew the man was 93, actually still residing there and in trouble is a huge assumption. Plenty of people would object mightily if the city was allowed to go in to check everytime someone who wasn't paying their bill didn't answer the door. Is the power company also at fault for the deaths of the elderly who are capable of paying a bill but chose to not use their air conditioning during times of extreme heat in order to save money? Maybe we should make it a law that if one is elderly, they must have their thermostats regulated by the power company in such a way that they will have sufficient heating and cooling as designated by law making them one of the "parents in charge of everyone over 65" when it comes to any part of the physical welfare they have any control over. Of course, the money should come right out of their social security or paycheck. We could also hire people to make the rounds everyday to make sure the "elderly" take any prescribed medication in the proper dose (many don't you know to save money - and many who don't have more than sufficient funds). Grocery stores should be alerted that some customers are diabetic and make sure what they purchase is a proper diet for them (maybe we could microchip 'em and have 'em scanned at all check out counters.) Hah! No more twinkies for you!
There's a very fine line between caring and preserving one's privacy and personal choices. Then, too, there's a point where someone should step in and help when someone is not mentally capable of caring for themselves. One of the neighbors thought this fellow was "going around the bend". In that case, he's the one who should have stepped in and alerted someone. He didn't and the rest is history.
|
|
|
Post by firefly on Feb 2, 2009 19:57:33 GMT -5
[The limiter I know of installed by utilities is hung on the pole not the meter, the men that hang them are not social workers and are not required to contact in person as the utility generally has sent notices with each bill for a minimum of 90 days and a average of 120 days. I am certain this man had a phone, if not he did have neighbors that do and when the power went off he should have called the company to find out why; quite possibly he knew why and did not want the embarrassment of doing so. He did have a nephew why not call him, call anyone he knew? If he was 'Not right' mentally why did his nephew leave him in the home? This is far from a singular "Evil Utility" event, it is a chain of unfortunate circumstances that left an old alone man to die.
I am far from non-compassionate, but I do live in a real world with real expenses and for a company that writes tens of thousands of dollars off annually due to those that cannot pay but continue to get service anyway. We do not refuse service to those indigent that cannot pay and have health or children with health issues, we do not cut power to those that are aged and living on limited incomes, we do ask they pay as they can when they can to offset the costs our company incurs to support them.[/quote]
Not only is the man who puts the limiter on not a social worker, in this case, I find it questionable if he/she was human.
In your real world, there may be debts written off or waiting to be collected, but the service remains ON. In this 93 year old's real world, the service DID NOT REMAIN ON.
One size does not fit all. At 93, it is quite possible that his nephew is a man of 60-80 years old and not exactly a college preppy who can jump on his motorcycle and scoot over to see old Uncle About to Freeze to Death. The word "nephew" suggests someone youthful. If the 93 year old's older sister or brother sired that nephew, he might well be in his eighties.
just a couple of observations.
This is the first time I am using the "quote" feature and I hope I did it correctly
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 3, 2009 14:53:14 GMT -5
"The same ones who were responsible for the widow across the street from me."
Who are those people, exactly, Wayne -- the ones who are responsible both for that widow and for the 93-year-old popsicle -- so I can write them a letter? Seriously, I want to know, because you're apparently clear on it, and I'm not.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 3, 2009 14:57:19 GMT -5
ps., It is true, there is a lack of personal responsibility in this country -- we look too much to the government for more and more things. I recognize that it is hard to suss out what the government should be respoinsible for and why, vs. what it should not be responsible for and why. However, uttering ideological truisms in place of thought is the lazy way out. The government should NOT be responsible for everything and anything -- but it also should NOT be responsible and accountable for nothing.
There IS a line for what the government should be responsible for vs. not -- but putting no thought into where that is means pulling the lever 100% of the time for no line at all. That's not good citizenship.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Feb 3, 2009 15:14:29 GMT -5
Perhaps the best option is for society to be responsible, rather than the government. In England, such things as are discussed here are the responsibility of the local authorities - at county level in fact. But regardless as to what level of society/government you wish to invoke, some things should be the formal responsibility of someone - bearing in mind that being responsible does not necessarily mean acting. But when the preferred mechanism fails - whether that be family, neighbours, friends - we should not just wash our hands of the matter. There should be a final mechanism that cannot wash its hands.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Feb 3, 2009 18:07:58 GMT -5
For all this discussion about the line (and I agree it should be a vigorous debate), the fact remains that the most likely safeguard was the utility company. In this part of the country, the RECs promote themselves as "the eyes and ears of the community." If something seems amiss, they stop and check it out, and if they can't figure it out, they call the sheriff for a welfare check. It's excellent PR at very little cost.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Feb 3, 2009 18:34:21 GMT -5
It's excellent PR at very little cost.
And the right thing. Imagine, people doing the right thing and not making excuses. Gotta love it !
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 3, 2009 21:14:16 GMT -5
"Who are those people, exactly, Wayne -- the ones who are responsible both for that widow and for the 93-year-old popsicle -- so I can write them a letter? "
The widow? Me, my wife, her tenant, the garbage man, the mail man, John, next door, the lady on the other side of me, etc.
Who's responsible for your life, Pax? Could you find one person to write a letter to?
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 4, 2009 10:11:51 GMT -5
Wayne, we were speaking in the context of where "the line" is on who, if anyone/anything, is ultimately financially or legally responsible for that old man's life, or your widow's. I'm going to assume that you did not mean that you, as a neighbor, are ultimately financially or legally responsible for your widow's life.
So, I ask you again: Where is that line? Who or what, if anything, should be ultimately financially and/or legally responsible for that old man, or your widow? Or are you saying that the only person who is ultimately responsible financially and/or legally, under any and all circumstances, for your life is you? Even in a case, for example, where you were a hard worker, you got laid off due to the consequences of radical deregulation, you quickly run through your meager savings, you lose your home, you have no family beyond your wife and children, your friends can't take you in because they're in the same boat, there's no room in homeless shelters because it's full of hundreds of thousands of other victims of radical deregulation, and it's December? He, his wife, his children freezing is a tragedy, but he is, after all, ultimately responsible for his life, and that's the breaks?
That is a very specific case, I agree, but just for the sake of argument, let's say that there is such a family. Do they freeze to death? Or should the government be mandated to take care of people in a circumstance like this?
Is the government's mandate really only to deliver mail and defend we the people from foreign powers? Or does the government have ANY responsibility AT ALL to protect and defend american citizens from ANY other circumstances that are likewise beyond those citizens' control? In the preamble to the US Constitution, which reads, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," what tangible responsibility, if any, do the words, "promote the general Welfare" imply for the government to protect the people from circumstances like this?
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 4, 2009 13:49:23 GMT -5
So, I ask you again: Where is that line?
I'll answer that one when one of you answers me.
"Who or what, if anything, should be ultimately financially and/or legally responsible for that old man, or your widow?"
Why do you imagine one entity is responsible? An entire community failed. Who should pay? No one. Why do we have to reduce life to a monetary value and sue? Hopefully this weighs heavily in the conscience of everyone involved and they find a solution to this problem in the future.
"Or are you saying that the only person who is ultimately responsible financially and/or legally, under any and all circumstances, for your life is you?"
No.
Everyone here seems to want to point a finger at someone. It's the government's fault, or it's the family's fault or it's the power company's fault, etc., etc. Anyone could have stopped it and no one took action. But everyone involved seems to want to point blame somewhere else so that they don't have to change. With that attitude, nothing will change.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Feb 4, 2009 14:04:51 GMT -5
So, I ask you again: Where is that line? I'll answer that one when one of you answers me. "Who or what, if anything, should be ultimately financially and/or legally responsible for that old man, or your widow?" I've already answered that one, Wayne - society. That might be society in its guise as the national government or as local government - but that is where the buck should stop. That is the point where no more excuses should be made. When all else has failed, society as a whole is responsible.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 4, 2009 14:06:19 GMT -5
Wayne, again, I am not aware of any questions you have asked, and to be honest, since you legitimately called me out for not always reading your entire posts, I have been trying to make sure I read your entire posts. Please give me a post # you made with a question you would like me to answer, and I will answer it.
As for your latest response, I am not saying that anyone deserves to be sued, or even necessarily that one entity should be responsible for a case like this, though I suppose I am arguing that the government IS ultimately responsible (see below). As for depending on people's conscience for taking care of strangers with whom they have no personal relationship, I look to Kitty Genovese, and I know better.
In any event, If someone "needs" to be sued, it's too late, who cares about a financial pittance, especially when it's awarded as it would be in this case to the estate of a man with no apparent next of kin, where the award ends up remanded back to the state anyway. I'm not talking about lawsuits. I'm talking about before that, BEFORE the guy died, and I'm talking about what exactly do YOU think the Constitution means when it says, "to promote the general Welfare."
|
|
|
Post by crazielollie on Feb 4, 2009 14:09:58 GMT -5
what tangible responsibility, if any, do the words, "promote the general Welfare" imply for the government to protect the people from circumstances like this?
That's a big question and at the base of a lot of differences in this country. To me it means that the government is responsible to make sure I have the "blessings of Liberty" which means the right to do as I please with my life, finances, etc. as long as I am not doing anything to harm others.
I don't believe it is the government's job to feed, clothe, doctor or house anyone. In a free society, that should be left to the population thru charity. We often end up in all sorts of disputes simply because the government takes on things it has no business in. Abortion is a medical procedure best decided between a doctor and patient. If we weren't busy trying to regulate a medical procedure, the question of abortion would go back to being just that. It's the same with regulating euthanasia. It's been done all thru history. If we'd get out of the business of regulating, the government would be out of it. (Don't bring up the cases where the doctor euthanizes someone mentally aware without their consent - that's murder and not a medical procedure).
The results when the government steps over the line are usually poor. No one is responsible for the elderly on a personal basis because the impersonal "they" of government has taken over the responsibility. No one is responsible for the family next door that doesn't have food on their table because the government is supposed to see to that (most aren't even aware that this situation exists many times where the rules set up by the government prevent this help from being available thru the government).
Depends on what one wants in the way of Liberty. The government making laws to prevent me from hurting myself is not liberty. Yes, for the common good, speed limits are necessary. Seat belts are not. The government has taken on education and under that guise have crossed the line into personal and even family choices. My health is not the government's problem nor is it any of their business if I choose to see a doctor or ignore a health problem. It's also not their problem to finance any of it.
Do I want the government to, in this case, insist my house can be opened to whoever THEY choose simply because I don't pay an electric bill? If I'm not home when someone comes, then that would give them the right. I'm sure there would be a number of charges filed for theft if this were allowed. In putting total responsibility for everything on the government, Liberty and any hope of privacy goes out the window. The government doesn't belong in every aspect of my life.
How does a government protect on from circumstances other than by taking complete control as well as responsibility? Where they have stepped in, they don't usually do it very well and with a lot of waste if not outright theft in every program they institute. A child drowned in a plastic bucket. Circumstance. What can the government actually do about it? They can insist that all the plastic buckets have warnings placed on them (adding to production cost) which isn't a whole lot. When you expect the government to protect you from "circumstance", you're asking for a parent who will wrap you in cotton at your expense both financially and in denying the very liberty that are at the basis of this country.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 4, 2009 14:19:33 GMT -5
that should be left to the population thru charity.
The charities are starving and with both those "charities" and governments and all the rest, there still isn't enough.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 4, 2009 14:24:18 GMT -5
I can see your points, Lollie. I don't necessarily agree with all that, but I'd agree that there IS no good place for the "line," there are pros and cons no matter where it is placed. I'm just curious where other people would put it, and why. On the flipside, I get annoyed with people who fall back on ideology as self-evident and take that as reason enough not to think about it further.
I certainly agree that the government can't do anything about kids drowning in buckets. You can't protect people from everyday nonlethal objects used according to what they're designed to do.
I agree that it isn't the government's job to feed, clothe, house, etc., healthy people. That's socialism. I think people who CAN take care of themselves SHOULD take care of themselves. That's why I'm careful to use the words "ULTIMATELY responsible." 93-year-olds, depending on circumstances, do not have the resources to take care of themselves, and SHOULD be helped, indirectly or directly, by the government. In this case, "directly" means financial assistance, "indirectly" means passing laws preventing utility companies from freezing them to death.
I think seat belts and general health are very much the government's problem... I definitely disagree with you there. A lack of seat belts -- and of general health care -- reduce the number of productive workers in this country, indeed, many of them actually end up a permanent financial burden to their families or on the public dole, therefore, there is a direct impact on the economy, therefore, it is the government's problem.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 4, 2009 17:20:32 GMT -5
"As for depending on people's conscience for taking care of strangers with whom they have no personal relationship, I look to Kitty Genovese, and I know better."
You know, that's the perfect example of the problem with the mentality we have today as a society. We increasingly expect to be able to leave things to the government. With Kitty Genovese and the 93 year old, everyone sat around figuring it wasn't their problem and watched someone die.
"That's why I'm careful to use the words "ULTIMATELY responsible." 93-year-olds, depending on circumstances, do not have the resources to take care of themselves, and SHOULD be helped, indirectly or directly, by the government."
With the old man, everyone sat around and figured he's getting medicare and social security; old people are cared for by the state when they get too old to do it themselves. They figured it wasn't their problem.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 4, 2009 18:00:58 GMT -5
So, Wayne, you're saying that we SHOULD make SOMEone financially and legally responsible for at least one other person... for example, we start a registry where every single person in the United States has at least one "buddy," someone who is financially and legally on the hook for that person's welfare? VERY interesting idea. Now that you mention it, I don't think there's a better way to keep people's welfare from slipping through the cracks -- the liberal way requires too much government, it's too high-level. The conservative way, well, people can either take care of someone or not, and again, that leaves a lot of "not." Your idea has a LOT of merit in its hybridization of the two views, where the government only mandates and regulates that people take care of each other, but leave the actual taking-care-of to the people. Wow.
Regarding Kitty Genovese, you would be correct about that if anyone had actually bothered to call the police (the government) to help -- they would have figured that the government was taking care of it, and that was it. Nope, instead, everyone thought that everyone else had called the police, nominally satisfying your "counting on the conscience of the people" requirement, but as a practical matter falling down.
|
|
|
Post by crazielollie on Feb 5, 2009 8:49:59 GMT -5
reduce the number of productive workers in this country
It doesn't matter since our government did nothing to keep production in this country. We don't need the productive workers. Didn't you listen while they were all telling us this is a "service economy" and it would work just fine. Do you understand that the reason we no longer make TV's and most electronics had a lot to do with our government hampering our businessmen at a time when Japan's government was helping theirs mightily? No, we don't want productive workers here.
"So, Wayne, you're saying that we SHOULD make SOMEone financially and legally responsible for at least one other person... for example, we start a registry where every single person in the United States has at least one "buddy," someone who is financially and legally on the hook for that person's welfare? "
That's not what he's telling you. A REGISTRY? That's insane and again, your answer is with the nanny government supervising the whole thing.
Actually, we had such a system. Parents were responsible for children. Adults were responsible for the parents that raised them when they could no longer fend for themselves. It was called FAMILY. When one didn't have that, they had friends. Children who had no one went into state care usually in an orphanage but that was definitely less acceptable than the life the children who were adopted had in most cases. Then, again, government helped when necessary but not to the point where they insured everyone a comfortable lifestyle. Then, again, they weren't IN the family to a point where parents had to answer to the government if they chose to spank a child. On a personal level, we are paying much for the government's interference.
Today the government is in the business of making excuses for people who except no personal responsibility for anyone, in many cases not even themselves.
This is an extreme case of someone who fell thru the cracks. He didn't need money, just someone who gave a damn. The woman who just had 8 babies also "fell thru the cracks" and the children will pay the bill along with the rest of us. The govenment was supporting her. If she could afford help at a fertility clinic, she didn't need government support. The government continued to support her, probably paid for her education and all the while she was busy producing more children for the rest of us to support. Still waiting to hear if we paid the bill for the fertility clinic too.
For every one woman we insist needs further education and government help because she has a child or 2 or 3, there are 10 families living on the same salary she was able to get in jobs that don't require further education and are raising their children without government help. Financial poverty isn't something anyone likes to live with but it's not deadly and many have not only survived it but gotten out of it without the help of the government. The biggest problems we have in welfare populations is in the cities and states that pay and give out the most money and the biggest benefits. Why is that?
I have a 71 year old friend living about 20 miles from here. Power went out mid-afternoon in her area. 3 people had stopped to see if she was OK on the way home from work because they didn't see her lights on. They didn't even notice that NONE of the lights were on but they did see hers because they tend to look out for her. How one trains people to care so much about others they don't know (and they're not big friends, just neighbors who are aware that she's elderly and alone) isn't an easy answer. All I know is her neighbors cared while this fellow's didn't. There's not a government system to replace personal responsiblity and do it efficiently. Maybe it's time Obama started calling on individuals to do just that - start caring for each other. Only thing is, I don't think he understands that this has to come from the heart of individuals and paid government workers won't have the same effect. If you're saying the government should oversee a "registry", evidently, neither do you.
|
|
|
Post by crazielollie on Feb 5, 2009 8:59:42 GMT -5
oskar,
The reason there's never enough is that half of what's given to most large institutions, be they charities or government is wasted or filched. The charities are "bleeding" - note, those running them, often at outrageous salaries, are still taking home paychecks.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Feb 5, 2009 8:59:43 GMT -5
This has to be one of the most ridiculous discussions ever seen on this board. The length to which some people will go to justify their excuses ...
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 5, 2009 9:26:21 GMT -5
Well, of course I don't believe that's what Wayne meant. I just got emotional, and frankly, I'm tired of the whole thing. All I really hear is a bunch of whining, with no solutions. "Oh, too bad," is not a solution. I also see an absolute lack of thought from too many people. Anyone can come up with ideologies, but what's backing them up, what are the consequences of the principles of those ideologies, how do they really apply in real world settings, how do they affect real people? And I don't accept the big daddy of "oh, too bad," which is, "Oh, seven million people are affected by the power we gave 100 people with deregulation, and they're going to be losing their homes, their retirements, their families, their lives? Oh, too bad." It's intellectually lazy, and given that these people vote, their intellectual laziness has real consequences for the rest of us.
Sorry -- I got emotional -- and I'm done with this one.
|
|