Is poverty a moral failing...

Post Reply
Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:46 am

JimC wrote:
Seth wrote:

...you can starve to death in the gutter for all I care...
Says all that's needed about Seth...
You can be dunned to support layabouts and criminals if you like. I decline.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:47 am

pErvin wrote:
Seth wrote:
pErvin wrote:
Tyrannical wrote:They really should do a study on the cause of poverty racism in modern western nations. I suspect the top reasons, in no particular order......

Goofed off in school and did not get an education.
Drug / alcohol abuse to the point you can't hold a decent job
Low intrinsic intelligence.
Criminal background
Mental illness
Lazy
Promiscuity and too dumb to use birth control
:fixed:
Wrong. Poverty isn't a race. Rejecting immigration by poor people who will instantly become a burden on the economy isn't racism, it's sanity.
Are you on drugs? Your posts are getting more and more confused as time goes on. :think:
My posts aren't what's confused...
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:55 am

Brian Peacock wrote:Indeed. One wonders where any government derives it's legitimacy if not through the consent of its citizenry. Anyway, it seems to me that in the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism the poor are destined to become the fodder of the rich, and the rational failure here is to assume that you will always come out on the winning side if that equation.
Of course government derives its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. Indeed that's the ONLY way government derives any moral authority at all, ever.

But, aside from your complete ignoring of the bulk of my argument explaining things to you, the governed do not axiomatically consent to anything and everything that a "government" (which is of course comprised of people with their own agendas and biases) decides to do. Ongoing consent and approval of government actions is just as necessary to the legitimacy of government as is consent to be governed in the first place.

Thus, when government departs from obeying the will of the people, as governments ALWAYS do eventually, to one degree or another, mechanisms for retaking control of government and reversing poor decisionmaking on the part of those people who actually wield government authority are essential to a moral government.

And as our forefathers knew, and has been amply demonstrated by Marxist/Progressive actions in the US since 1911 or so, the potential for government corruption and abuse of power is so grave because government has grown too large to be effectively controlled by the Congress, it is therefore necessary for we, the People, to change the rules and revoke much of the regulatory authority of the federal government and devolve it to the states, where those wielding government power are much closer to those who are impacted by their actions and where those government agents are much more easily controlled and replaced at need.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:56 am

pErvin wrote:
JimC wrote:
Seth wrote:

...you can starve to death in the gutter for all I care...
Says all that's needed about Seth...
Yep. Civilisation is anathema to people like Seth. He was born 10,000 years too late.
That depends on how you define "civilization," and it's clear that your definition is not within light-years of reality. Marxism is the antithesis of civilization, as is it's evil spawn, socialism.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 22288
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Hermit » Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:59 am

Seth wrote:...the governed do not axiomatically consent to anything and everything that a "government" (which is of course comprised of people with their own agendas and biases) decides to do. Ongoing consent and approval of government actions is just as necessary to the legitimacy of government as is consent to be governed in the first place.
That is by and large what happens in Australia, and I do not put it beyond the realms of possibility that it is the only nation where it does happen. Periodically, we are faced with options on who represents us in parliament. Our political parties curry our favour by telling us what they plan to do if elected. If they win the election they have a mandate to put their plans into effect. If they start doing stuff they have no mandate for, and the electorate is sufficiently incensed by such transgression, they are turfed out of office at the next election. Of course exceeding its mandate does not necessarily meet with disapproval. At other times it is little more than a minor issue that does not warrant the governing party's dismissal.

By the way, I'd like to hear something from you about this post.
So you talk about mobs and the working classes as if they were the question. You've got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists. - G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 53605
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by pErvinalia » Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:04 am

Seth wrote:
pErvin wrote:
JimC wrote:
Seth wrote:

...you can starve to death in the gutter for all I care...
Says all that's needed about Seth...
Yep. Civilisation is anathema to people like Seth. He was born 10,000 years too late.
That depends on how you define "civilization," and it's clear that your definition is not within light-years of reality. Marxism is the antithesis of civilization, as is it's evil spawn, socialism.
I'm not a Marxist nor a socialist. :fp: Not that it matters as you have no idea what either are.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 65313
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by JimC » Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:05 am

"Evil spawn" is so last century... :roll:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 53605
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by pErvinalia » Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:08 am

Seth and his views are so last epoch.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 28772
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Brian Peacock » Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:33 am

Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Indeed. One wonders where any government derives it's legitimacy if not through the consent of its citizenry. Anyway, it seems to me that in the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism the poor are destined to become the fodder of the rich, and the rational failure here is to assume that you will always come out on the winning side if that equation.
Of course government derives its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. Indeed that's the ONLY way government derives any moral authority at all, ever.

But, aside from your complete ignoring of the bulk of my argument explaining things to you, the governed do not axiomatically consent to anything and everything that a "government" (which is of course comprised of people with their own agendas and biases) decides to do. Ongoing consent and approval of government actions is just as necessary to the legitimacy of government as is consent to be governed in the first place.

Thus, when government departs from obeying the will of the people, as governments ALWAYS do eventually, to one degree or another, mechanisms for retaking control of government and reversing poor decisionmaking on the part of those people who actually wield government authority are essential to a moral government.

And as our forefathers knew, and has been amply demonstrated by Marxist/Progressive actions in the US since 1911 or so, the potential for government corruption and abuse of power is so grave because government has grown too large to be effectively controlled by the Congress, it is therefore necessary for we, the People, to change the rules and revoke much of the regulatory authority of the federal government and devolve it to the states, where those wielding government power are much closer to those who are impacted by their actions and where those government agents are much more easily controlled and replaced at need.
I ignored nothing - I asked some questions after accepting your points for the sake of argument, yet you're still not addressing the issue of the thread: the status of poverty - particularly in the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism as you characterise it. We all know you have a great deal to say on the perfectability of government - but this thread is not about that.

Still, you have said that "government derives its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. Indeed that's the ONLY way government derives any moral authority at all", but that of course comes with a set of condituons - consent only extends to that which you endorse or approve and which, you maintain, amounts to restrictions which reside in the realm of everpresent, absolute moral facts. These moral facts apply regardless of whether the majority consent to them or not. This in turn informs the longwinded section of your speech about the absolute moral illegitimacy of non-consensual taxation - which returns us to the as yet unaddressed point (aside from vague references to a 'dependency-class' and how those in dire need must first kowtow in abject abasement before even being considered for charitable assistance). So, by your lights, if those social institutions charged with overseeing and maintaining the well being of society--as indeed governments are, including the well being of those sections of society that object to that government's activities, including the vulnerable in society along with the invulnerable; those whose needs are met and those in dire need; the resilient and the feeble alike etc--what is the status of poverty and the impoverished under the set of moral ideals you advocate, and which I've called the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:03 pm

Hermit wrote:Alternatively, he could join a libertarian party - or start one himself - that will turn the USA into a nation run strictly on his principles. What could go wrong with his endeavour if it is as rational and attractive as he says? I mean, the idle dependent class is not numerous enough to outvote Ayn Rand style libertarians, is it, and Trump's victory has proven that the power of the communist media to mislead the electorate can be overcome. In fact, the promise to all but abolish taxation must be irresistible to the vast majority of the US voters. Once all social programs are funded exclusively by voluntary contributions there is no need for taxation bar the military, which in 2015 amounted to a trifling 1859 dollars per capita. With the efficiency gains of capitalism under a libertarian regime that amount would probably be halved. Every rational voter is bound to vote Libertarian. The idle dependent class would be left out in the cold, as would any government that depends on the idle dependent class. Easy peasy.
Actually, that's the problem. The idle dependent class almost large enough to outvote everybody else. I was frankly quite surprised that Trump won and had been predicting the end of the United States as a functioning nation. But, it appears that the problem was that the "forgotton voters" of the working middle class finally got fed up and turned out, whereas a lot of dependent class leeches simply didn't bother to vote at all, perhaps because they thought they had won. That's certainly what Hillary thought.

So, now we are set on a much more Libertarian path than before, which I find quite gratifying. We'll see how that works out under Trump.

The problem with the official Libertarian party is that like Hillary, it too focuses on the wrong things in a campaign...and because I didn't run for President as a Libertarian. Instead they nominated some numbnuts who didn't know what "Aleppo" was. But they almost reached the 15% threshold in a couple of places, so things are looking up. Maybe I'll run in 2020.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:03 pm

pErvin wrote:
Seth wrote:
pErvin wrote:
JimC wrote:
Seth wrote:

...you can starve to death in the gutter for all I care...
Says all that's needed about Seth...
Yep. Civilisation is anathema to people like Seth. He was born 10,000 years too late.
That depends on how you define "civilization," and it's clear that your definition is not within light-years of reality. Marxism is the antithesis of civilization, as is it's evil spawn, socialism.
I'm not a Marxist nor a socialist. :fp: Not that it matters as you have no idea what either are.
If it waddles like a Marxist and quacks like a Marxist, it's a Marxist.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:12 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Indeed. One wonders where any government derives it's legitimacy if not through the consent of its citizenry. Anyway, it seems to me that in the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism the poor are destined to become the fodder of the rich, and the rational failure here is to assume that you will always come out on the winning side if that equation.
Of course government derives its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. Indeed that's the ONLY way government derives any moral authority at all, ever.

But, aside from your complete ignoring of the bulk of my argument explaining things to you, the governed do not axiomatically consent to anything and everything that a "government" (which is of course comprised of people with their own agendas and biases) decides to do. Ongoing consent and approval of government actions is just as necessary to the legitimacy of government as is consent to be governed in the first place.

Thus, when government departs from obeying the will of the people, as governments ALWAYS do eventually, to one degree or another, mechanisms for retaking control of government and reversing poor decisionmaking on the part of those people who actually wield government authority are essential to a moral government.

And as our forefathers knew, and has been amply demonstrated by Marxist/Progressive actions in the US since 1911 or so, the potential for government corruption and abuse of power is so grave because government has grown too large to be effectively controlled by the Congress, it is therefore necessary for we, the People, to change the rules and revoke much of the regulatory authority of the federal government and devolve it to the states, where those wielding government power are much closer to those who are impacted by their actions and where those government agents are much more easily controlled and replaced at need.
I ignored nothing - I asked some questions after accepting your points for the sake of argument, yet you're still not addressing the issue of the thread: the status of poverty - particularly in the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism as you characterise it.
Don't put words in my mouth, it's intellectual dishonesty and I'd rather not think of you, of all people, as being intellectually dishonest.
We all know you have a great deal to say on the perfectability of government - but this thread is not about that.
Of course it is.
Still, you have said that "government derives its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. Indeed that's the ONLY way government derives any moral authority at all", but that of course comes with a set of condituons - consent only extends to that which you endorse or approve and which, you maintain, amounts to restrictions which reside in the realm of everpresent, absolute moral facts.
Um, please quote the passage where I say any of that.

These moral facts apply regardless of whether the majority consent to them or not.


Moral facts are facts and therefore are not conditioned upon majority approval. That is one of the cornerstones of both the US Constitution and Libertarianism.
This in turn informs the longwinded section of your speech about the absolute moral illegitimacy of non-consensual taxation
Let me be perfectly clear, since you didn't get it, it's "non-consensual redistributive taxation" only. And by "redistributive" I mean "for the purposes of transfer of property from one individual to another in order to meet the needs of the second person" and I do NOT include in that definition taxation intended to secure payment for that person's fair-share part of the costs of running a society, which is to say taxes imposed to pay for that individual's personal use or consumption of the benefits or services of government.
- which returns us to the as yet unaddressed point (aside from vague references to a 'dependency-class' and how those in dire need must first kowtow in abject abasement before even being considered for charitable assistance).


What unaddressed point, pray tell?
So, by your lights, if those social institutions charged with overseeing and maintaining the well being of society--as indeed governments are, including the well being of those sections of society that object to that government's activities, including the vulnerable in society along with the invulnerable; those whose needs are met and those in dire need; the resilient and the feeble alike etc--what is the status of poverty and the impoverished under the set of moral ideals you advocate, and which I've called the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism?
What do you mean "what is the status of poverty and the impoverished?" Poverty exists as do the poor. That is their status. The question asked in the OP is whether that status is a "moral failing" and I've already pointed out in detail that it certainly CAN BE a moral failing, but that it is not axiomatically so, and I have gone to great lengths to explain the difference between poverty as a moral failing and poverty qua poverty.

What better answer do you seek?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 28772
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Brian Peacock » Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:31 pm

Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Indeed. One wonders where any government derives it's legitimacy if not through the consent of its citizenry. Anyway, it seems to me that in the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism the poor are destined to become the fodder of the rich, and the rational failure here is to assume that you will always come out on the winning side if that equation.
Of course government derives its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. Indeed that's the ONLY way government derives any moral authority at all, ever.

But, aside from your complete ignoring of the bulk of my argument explaining things to you, the governed do not axiomatically consent to anything and everything that a "government" (which is of course comprised of people with their own agendas and biases) decides to do. Ongoing consent and approval of government actions is just as necessary to the legitimacy of government as is consent to be governed in the first place.

Thus, when government departs from obeying the will of the people, as governments ALWAYS do eventually, to one degree or another, mechanisms for retaking control of government and reversing poor decisionmaking on the part of those people who actually wield government authority are essential to a moral government.

And as our forefathers knew, and has been amply demonstrated by Marxist/Progressive actions in the US since 1911 or so, the potential for government corruption and abuse of power is so grave because government has grown too large to be effectively controlled by the Congress, it is therefore necessary for we, the People, to change the rules and revoke much of the regulatory authority of the federal government and devolve it to the states, where those wielding government power are much closer to those who are impacted by their actions and where those government agents are much more easily controlled and replaced at need.
I ignored nothing - I asked some questions after accepting your points for the sake of argument, yet you're still not addressing the issue of the thread: the status of poverty - particularly in the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism as you characterise it.
Don't put words in my mouth, it's intellectual dishonesty and I'd rather not think of you, of all people, as being intellectually dishonest.
We all know you have a great deal to say on the perfectability of government - but this thread is not about that.
Of course it is.
Still, you have said that "government derives its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. Indeed that's the ONLY way government derives any moral authority at all", but that of course comes with a set of condituons - consent only extends to that which you endorse or approve and which, you maintain, amounts to restrictions which reside in the realm of everpresent, absolute moral facts.
Um, please quote the passage where I say any of that.
OK.
  • "Redistributive taxation, which specifically includes taking money (fruits of labor) from one person in order to give it to another person without the express consent of the person it's taken from is absolutely immoral."
See: conditional consent based on the assertion of an absolute moral fact.
Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:These moral facts apply regardless of whether the majority consent to them or not.


Moral facts are facts and therefore are not conditioned upon majority approval. That is one of the cornerstones of both the US Constitution and Libertarianism.
What is the factual basis of this moral viewpoint? It is certainly a strongly held belief among those with proto-anarchist leanings, sometimes even held with the fervour of something akin to an article of faith, yet the factual basis seems to reside wholly in expounding the moral argument itself - these are facts because they are right and as they are right they are facts. What I am saying above is that these claimed for and asserted facts are an erection - something raised to immunise the argument from due criticism, something to justify ignoring the will and concerns of the society if-and-when that appears out of step with proto-anarchist dogma and doctrine.
Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:This in turn informs the longwinded section of your speech about the absolute moral illegitimacy of non-consensual taxation
Let me be perfectly clear, since you didn't get it, it's "non-consensual redistributive taxation" only. And by "redistributive" I mean "for the purposes of transfer of property from one individual to another in order to meet the needs of the second person" and I do NOT include in that definition taxation intended to secure payment for that person's fair-share part of the costs of running a society, which is to say taxes imposed to pay for that individual's personal use or consumption of the benefits or services of government.
Yes, I get this, the poor must starve to death, the homeless must die of exposure, and the sick must succumb to their treatable conditions in order to maintain the integrity of your moral domain.
Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:- which returns us to the as yet unaddressed point (aside from vague references to a 'dependency-class' and how those in dire need must first kowtow in abject abasement before even being considered for charitable assistance).


What unaddressed point, pray tell?
The one you finally got round to skirting at the bottom of the page.
Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:So, by your lights, if those social institutions charged with overseeing and maintaining the well being of society--as indeed governments are, including the well being of those sections of society that object to that government's activities, including the vulnerable in society along with the invulnerable; those whose needs are met and those in dire need; the resilient and the feeble alike etc--what is the status of poverty and the impoverished under the set of moral ideals you advocate, and which I've called the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism?
What do you mean "what is the status of poverty and the impoverished?"
Perhaps I was a little lax in assuming you had grasped the thrust of my interests - the moral status of poverty and the poor - but you figured that out didn't you?
Seth wrote: Poverty exists as do the poor. That is their status. The question asked in the OP is whether that status is a "moral failing" and I've already pointed out in detail that it certainly CAN BE a moral failing, but that it is not axiomatically so, and I have gone to great lengths to explain the difference between poverty as a moral failing and poverty qua poverty.

What better answer do you seek?
And yet, even for those you might consider to be morally untarnished or compromised by their deprivation, who we might nominally refer to as 'the deserving poor', you still think the government has no role in overseeing, maintaining or securing their well-being, nor any legitimate grounds for so doing, don't you - The vulnerability of those in dire need is something to which the government must, necessarily, remain stoically deaf and blind if they are to retain the requisite moral authority needed to govern you?

Nonetheless, assuming the perfectability of government along the lines of the aforementioned Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism is even possible, what becomes of those who lack the resources necessary for life - where and how do the poor exist in that glorious State of Anarchy?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:19 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Seth wrote:Still, you have said that "government derives its legitimacy through the consent of the governed. Indeed that's the ONLY way government derives any moral authority at all", but that of course comes with a set of condituons - consent only extends to that which you endorse or approve and which, you maintain, amounts to restrictions which reside in the realm of everpresent, absolute moral facts.
Um, please quote the passage where I say any of that.
OK.
  • "Redistributive taxation, which specifically includes taking money (fruits of labor) from one person in order to give it to another person without the express consent of the person it's taken from is absolutely immoral."
See: conditional consent based on the assertion of an absolute moral fact.
Um, fail. You wrote, "but that of course comes with a set of condituons - consent only extends to that which you endorse or approve and which, you maintain, amounts to restrictions which reside in the realm of everpresent, absolute moral facts."

I said that there is, in this case, ONE absolute moral fact, which is that it is immoral to take "money (fruits of labor) from one person in order to give it to another person without the express consent of the person it's taken from." This does not mean, as you claim, that my "consent only extends to that which you endorse or approve." This is not the general case. It is the case in this specific situation because it is an absolute moral fact that it is immoral for ANYONE to take that which belongs to another for his own benefit without the consent of the owner of the property absent a moral justification for doing so that is based in some behavior (wrongdoing) by the owner that morally justifies the taking. This is the simple concept that thievery is morally wrong. And thievery is no less morally wrong just because someone appropriates the force of government to accomplish the theft.

But as I said, this is not an absolute rule, as you suggest. It's not an argument that ALL consent is conditional upon the individual's agreement, as I have previously pointed out. A person consents to a taking of his property if he creates a contractual obligation with the government to surrender such property through the use or consumption of benefits provided by the government. If you choose to camp in a public campground where a fee is charged, then you must pay the fee because you contracted with the provider (the government, which is to say the taxpayers) to do so as a condition of camping there. Your consent is given by your occupancy in the campground, or the use of the sewer system, or by driving on a public highway. Such consent to an obligation to pay your fair share of providing that benefit occurs when you voluntarily choose to make use of that benefit. No express consent in another form is required.

But that is not the case with redistributive taxation. In that case the individual does not make use of some government-provided benefit that creates a contractual obligation to pay for it. Rather, the government decides that he should be dunned for some amount to support others regardless of whether or not he has accepted financial responsibility for their economic welfare. Sans his consent, that is thievery just as much as if the person who benefits from it would be robbing him by coming to his door with a gun and threatening to kill him if he doesn't hand over his wallet. And I've never, ever seen a socialist even attempt to justify this sort of government-facilitated theft. Just as you evade the essential question by diverting into specious arguments about well-poisoning "Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism," leftists always evade the moral issues involved because they know that the socialist stance is simply morally indefensible.
Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:These moral facts apply regardless of whether the majority consent to them or not.


Moral facts are facts and therefore are not conditioned upon majority approval. That is one of the cornerstones of both the US Constitution and Libertarianism.
What is the factual basis of this moral viewpoint? It is certainly a strongly held belief among those with proto-anarchist leanings, sometimes even held with the fervour of something akin to an article of faith, yet the factual basis seems to reside wholly in expounding the moral argument itself - these are facts because they are right and as they are right they are facts. What I am saying above is that these claimed for and asserted facts are an erection - something raised to immunise the argument from due criticism, something to justify ignoring the will and concerns of the society if-and-when that appears out of step with proto-anarchist dogma and doctrine.
Simple. What's mine is mine, it is not yours and you have no moral basis for taking it from me absent a contractual agreement obliging me to give it to you. Now you justify your stance that it is moral for you to take what is mine without my consent absent a contractual agreement permitting you to do so.

Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:This in turn informs the longwinded section of your speech about the absolute moral illegitimacy of non-consensual taxation
Let me be perfectly clear, since you didn't get it, it's "non-consensual redistributive taxation" only. And by "redistributive" I mean "for the purposes of transfer of property from one individual to another in order to meet the needs of the second person" and I do NOT include in that definition taxation intended to secure payment for that person's fair-share part of the costs of running a society, which is to say taxes imposed to pay for that individual's personal use or consumption of the benefits or services of government.
Yes, I get this, the poor must starve to death, the homeless must die of exposure, and the sick must succumb to their treatable conditions in order to maintain the integrity of your moral domain.
More well-poisoning hyperbole and deliberate mischaracterization of what I am saying. You can't succeed in this argument by presenting a fallacious appeal to pity. You need to rationally justify why it is morally acceptable for you (wearing the cloak of government) to take from me by force that which you think is needed to relieve the plight of the poor, homeless and sick. I don't have to morally justify why I maintain that what is mine is mine, not yours, and that I am under no moral obligation to you to give up what is mine just because YOU think someone else needs it more than I do.

This does NOT mean, contrary to your fallacious argument, that the poor, homeless and sick do not need assistance nor does it mean that I, or any other Libertarian, is unwilling to provide that assistance. What it means is that we have the moral right to refuse to be compelled by force to do so. We get to decide how much, when and to whom we donate our labor, not you and not the government.

The essence of Libertarianism is contract and consent and you provide no sort of argument at all, as is typical of liberals, as to why consent should not be required for such redistributive taxation. You have not demonstrated that consensual taxation or voluntary donation is not up to the task of caring for those who need and deserve our assistance, you merely dispute that I have a right to resist being compelled to pay whatever the hell you think I ought to pay to support others. That's not a moral argument, it's the argument of liberal fascism and tyranny.

Seth wrote: Poverty exists as do the poor. That is their status. The question asked in the OP is whether that status is a "moral failing" and I've already pointed out in detail that it certainly CAN BE a moral failing, but that it is not axiomatically so, and I have gone to great lengths to explain the difference between poverty as a moral failing and poverty qua poverty.

What better answer do you seek?
And yet, even for those you might consider to be morally untarnished or compromised by their deprivation, who we might nominally refer to as 'the deserving poor', you still think the government has no role in overseeing, maintaining or securing their well-being, nor any legitimate grounds for so doing, don't you - The vulnerability of those in dire need is something to which the government must, necessarily, remain stoically deaf and blind if they are to retain the requisite moral authority needed to govern you?
Absolute nonsense. The government certainly has a role. But the question is whether government has the moral authority to compel redistributive taxes from the unwilling or whether its moral mandate is to solicit voluntary, consensual donations to meet the needs of the poor.

You seem morality-blind to the prospect that government coercion of property by way of taxes is not inevitably and inviolably moral and just. You appear to hold the position that I am obligated to shut up and pay whatever the government demands from me simply because the government demands it of me and that it is somehow immoral for me to expect government to morally justify it's requests for funding and politely ask people if they wish to contribute.

Government does not, at least around here, gain absolute, unquestionable moral supremacy in all things merely because those in charge have been democratically elected to office. It is not only not immoral to question governments acquisition and use of private property for public use, it is essential to the proper functioning of our republic that we constantly do so and constantly challenge the moral authority of government to take from the people and demand that they do so within the bounds of reason, law and morality.
Nonetheless, assuming the perfectability of government along the lines of the aforementioned Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism is even possible, what becomes of those who lack the resources necessary for life - where and how do the poor exist in that glorious State of Anarchy?
I wouldn't know since I have nothing whatever to do with this fictional state.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 22288
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Hermit » Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:29 am

Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:Alternatively, he could join a libertarian party - or start one himself - that will turn the USA into a nation run strictly on his principles. What could go wrong with his endeavour if it is as rational and attractive as he says? I mean, the idle dependent class is not numerous enough to outvote Ayn Rand style libertarians, is it, and Trump's victory has proven that the power of the communist media to mislead the electorate can be overcome. In fact, the promise to all but abolish taxation must be irresistible to the vast majority of the US voters. Once all social programs are funded exclusively by voluntary contributions there is no need for taxation bar the military, which in 2015 amounted to a trifling 1859 dollars per capita. With the efficiency gains of capitalism under a libertarian regime that amount would probably be halved. Every rational voter is bound to vote Libertarian. The idle dependent class would be left out in the cold, as would any government that depends on the idle dependent class. Easy peasy.
Actually, that's the problem. The idle dependent class almost large enough to outvote everybody else.
Almost, huh? So you should succeed in creating a libertarian regime of your description, if only just. Why haven't you?

Also, please furnish some evidence supporting your assertion that idle dependent class is of the size you claim. I'd like to see a definition of "idle dependent class" first, such as, say, "idle" means "not working for one's upkeep" and "dependent" means "relying on government largesse to survive". Then you need to provide links to statistics that show just how many people in the US are not working for their upkeep and are relying on government largesse to survive. If the figures you are to link to are correct, I shall agree that the idle dependent class almost large enough to outvote everybody else. Until then, I won't. So go to it.
So you talk about mobs and the working classes as if they were the question. You've got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists. - G.K. Chesterton

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests