Answer to conservatives arguments on Social security
re responsibilities to social Security
Let
me start by rejecting as emotively biased unhelpful spin the term. No
state by definition can be ever “ a nanny state” literally ,
figuratively or functionally. It's not a matter of common speak, it's
an aggressive loaded term to stifle a objective two way conversation.
It is a n old old sales technique call closed discussion. Essentially
it's designed to WIN a sale not negotiate where there is a possibility
of an unfavorable result … it's simply a dominance (bullying) technique .
One that most women understand who have dominating or over bearing
husbands or bosses. The sub text is “I'm the dominant one here now here
this ( I know best) .” My stance is and always has been “ I’m
examinator I examine not proselyte... what works for me may not work for
anybody else... more on that later.
This might be a bit nuanced and expressed before but it's worth repeating. *I
always go back to REAL basics *. Social Security is part of a society
so I ask “what is the purpose of societies?” The fundamental answer is
MUTUAL benefit and protection. the key word is *mutual* as in everyone.
It is an empirical fact: that societies generally fail when they
stop doing that either from insurrection and or external help. The
obvious exception is conquest but that is another topic.
Simply
put a society that excludes its own members builds lethal internal self
destruction. There hasn't been a society ever that hasn't been subject
to those conditions and factors. Logic clearly dictates that one
person living in an absolute profligate life style while others in
abject hopelessness doesn't meet the above criteria. In equality must be
relative to others in that society. What constitutes abjectness in
America is different to that of African villages. However, combine the
the two value systems and the more luxurious one takes precedence. i.e.
the Africans want American life style. And an now you've created in
equity and hostilities hence national conflicts.
In a pragmatic
sense social security (welfare) is simply the price one has to pay if
one lives in a society/country/state city et al. Realistically the
only way to avoid the responsibility is to become Robinson Crusoe and
even then there is a price to pay, lack of amenities and technology.
We
then advance the argument to the concept of Equity (not equality). By
that I mean fairness/justice . And To some this is where (Objective)
reasoning become gets very complex because emotional perceptions and
self-interest kicks in.
Again I go back to the basics . Here one must read a bit to understand the nature and make up of homo sapiens. At
this point many people find the logic all too much and put in a
coverall....religion because on the surface the answers are clear.
Even there Christians and Muslims et al INSIST that “we
are our brothers keepers” and that judgement is mine sayeth the Lord .
And then comes a range of commandments most of which man generally
tries his had at “attorney reasoning” using 'the letter of the law' from
arcane unrelated texts to conveniently justify breaking those
commandments. He also instructs us to forgive other trespasses ....
etc. In short God commands us to look after the poor and unfortunate not
just those we know and feel they're worthy (what ever that means) Even
in the echelons of the highest religious intellectuals/ thinkers most
brilliant and competent theologians they wrestle with real mind cracking
conundrums. i.e. at what point does Science and logic cease and
god(s) begin? Most Christians by number don't believe in “intelligent
design” / creationism per se.
Almost every month new science
comes out blurring the boundaries between how much ability we have to
determine our life path. i.e. Are you aware that some of your
actions prior to puberty ( the time of sperm creation) potentially
effects the physicality and mental capacity of your children.... and
maybe your grand children. No! it doesn't mean my genes made me do
it... it does mean that some factors in your health and development may
have been effected by some physical activity of your Grandpa. ( it's
called epigenetics those actions may effect the WAY the genes express
themselves.) its no longer just a mix of genes and your environment.
Anyone who breed animals knows that a gene or genes affect multiple
factors i.e. blue eyed pure white cats are deaf. Even Mensa The
organization for people that have IQs in the top 5-10% of all people
Acknowledge that there are achievers and non achievers. The reality
is making broad judgements about who to help and who not to with out
specific and individual knowledge is a bit like saying help those with
say strain XYZ flu but not someone with MS or Downe's Syndrome. because
the latter two are currently incurable or may have genetic triggers. How
do you know that the 18 yo single mother while born pretty/sexy
looking wasn't born with sub optimum IQ ( with all the urges but not the
skills?) and the baby was due to some smart ass uni jerk on Summer
break taking advantage of him. Or she's been a serial victim. Mum and
dad are fundies and thrown her out what as a society are you suggesting
we do ? Lock her up, Sterilize her? She's not bright not incompetent ?
Seriously, who's going to adopt a child that may or may not be retarded or worse? Parkinson's, Huntington's, MS or XX factor .
As a side issue the Tea party and are anti abortions and Chad is
for being able to fund a child for their rest of their dependent life.
Who plans for a foetus that is Downes, cisticfibrosis or a myriad
other disorders ? Most of which can't be predicted before the foetus
exists. In the conservatives' reasoning no one but the super rich would be entitled
to have children. By both your reasoning why should you pay taxes that
may or may not go to maintaining those mandated births and their life
time maintenance ? By your standards most average families would be
under the US system would be condemned to a life of poverty and
derision, in ignorance of their specifics. Like trained (university
trained)social workers etc can't be relied on to recognise a chancer
from a person needing help. But some watch Pox News and read bald
numbers and axe grinding senstionalizing MSM and thus feel themselves
In a position to swing the financial/moral axe.. I think that is the
definition of bias/ prejudice and bigotry.
For all those and
many more reasons I'm not inclined to judge who deserves help and who
doesn't. Nor am I inclined to follow some dogmatic (polarised ) notion
of absolutes.... I examine not proselyte... what works for me may not
work for others. Hence I'll challenge what a person says but resist
attacking them personally with silly challenges like "You want to...." I
don't and frankly neither should anyone else. Any body want to challenge the logic or want further proofs of concept ? Don't hesitate to comment Like
the Buddhist Abbotess ( she's got 2 Doctorates one in religion, the
other in sociology and a degree in psychology.) said on TV the other
night I would welcome proofs that Buddha was wrong. The other religions
all said that they were right and it is a matter of faith.... really?
Let me start by rejecting as emotively biased unhelpful spin the term. No state by definition can be ever “ a nanny state” literally , figuratively or functionally. It's not a matter of common speak, it's an aggressive loaded term to stifle a objective two way conversation. It is a n old old sales technique call closed discussion.
Essentially it's designed to WIN a sale not negotiate where there is a possibility of an unfavorable result … it's simply a dominance (bullying) technique . One that most women understand who have dominating or over bearing husbands or bosses. The sub text is “I'm the dominant one here now here this ( I know best) .”
My stance is and always has been “ I’m examinator I examine not proselyte... what works for me may not work for anybody else... more on that later.
This might be a bit nuanced and expressed before but it's worth repeating.
*I always go back to REAL basics *. Social Security is part of a society so I ask “what is the purpose of societies?” The fundamental answer is MUTUAL benefit and protection. the key word is *mutual* as in everyone.
It is an empirical fact: that societies generally fail when they stop doing that either from insurrection and or external help. The obvious exception is conquest but that is another topic.
Simply put a society that excludes its own members builds lethal internal self destruction. There hasn't been a society ever that hasn't been subject to those conditions and factors.
Logic clearly dictates that one person living in an absolute profligate life style while others in abject hopelessness doesn't meet the above criteria. In equality must be relative to others in that society. What constitutes abjectness in America is different to that of African villages. However, combine the the two value systems and the more luxurious one takes precedence. i.e. the Africans want American life style. And an now you've created in equity and hostilities hence national conflicts.
In a pragmatic sense social security (welfare) is simply the price one has to pay if one lives in a society/country/state city et al.
Realistically the only way to avoid the responsibility is to become Robinson Crusoe and even then there is a price to pay, lack of amenities and technology.
We then advance the argument to the concept of Equity (not equality). By that I mean fairness/justice . And To some this is where (Objective) reasoning become gets very complex because emotional perceptions and self-interest kicks in.
Again I go back to the basics . Here one must read a bit to understand the nature and make up of homo sapiens.
At this point many people find the logic all too much and put in a coverall....religion because on the surface the answers are clear.
Even in the echelons of the highest religious intellectuals/ thinkers most brilliant and competent theologians they wrestle with real mind cracking conundrums.
i.e. at what point does Science and logic cease and god(s) begin? Most Christians by number don't believe in “intelligent design” / creationism per se.
Almost every month new science comes out blurring the boundaries between how much ability we have to determine our life path. i.e. Are you aware that some of your actions prior to puberty ( the time of sperm creation) potentially effects the physicality and mental capacity of your children.... and maybe your grand children.
No! it doesn't mean my genes made me do it... it does mean that some factors in your health and development may have been effected by some physical activity of your Grandpa. ( it's called epigenetics those actions may effect the WAY the genes express themselves.) its no longer just a mix of genes and your environment. Anyone who breed animals knows that a gene or genes affect multiple factors i.e. blue eyed pure white cats are deaf.
Even Mensa The organization for people that have IQs in the top 5-10% of all people Acknowledge that there are achievers and non achievers.
The reality is making broad judgements about who to help and who not to with out specific and individual knowledge is a bit like saying help those with say strain XYZ flu but not someone with MS or Downe's Syndrome. because the latter two are currently incurable or may have genetic triggers.
How do you know that the 18 yo single mother while born pretty/sexy looking wasn't born with sub optimum IQ ( with all the urges but not the skills?) and the baby was due to some smart ass uni jerk on Summer break taking advantage of him. Or she's been a serial victim. Mum and dad are fundies and thrown her out what as a society are you suggesting we do ? Lock her up, Sterilize her? She's not bright not incompetent ?
Seriously, who's going to adopt a child that may or may not be retarded or worse? Parkinson's, Huntington's, MS or XX factor .
For all those and many more reasons I'm not inclined to judge who deserves help and who doesn't. Nor am I inclined to follow some dogmatic (polarised ) notion of absolutes.... I examine not proselyte... what works for me may not work for others. Hence I'll challenge what a person says but resist attacking them personally with silly challenges like "You want to...." I don't and frankly neither should anyone else.
Any body want to challenge the logic or want further proofs of concept ? Don't hesitate to comment
Like the Buddhist Abbotess ( she's got 2 Doctorates one in religion, the other in sociology and a degree in psychology.) said on TV the other night I would welcome proofs that Buddha was wrong. The other religions all said that they were right and it is a matter of faith.... really?