You advocate right-wing ideals and personal responsibility, but what about personal liberty?

TextThe social safety nets are designed for people who really need it (mentally or physically disabled, short term unemployment until you get back on your feet, etc). Those people will get it if they need it. For anyone else…..let them fail. They will eventually figure it out.

So you are happy for people to be homeless and live in Tent Cities until they 'figure it out'? Im not.And I dont think some kid should die because their 'failure' parents dont have health insurance. Maybe its not that these people have failed but its governments that have failed them.

reply to post by theovermensch


I think I explained how the social safety net works. Enough said.

Please provide a reference of some kid dying because his parents didn’t have health insurance.

If it happened it wasn’t in America.

The government isn’t there to hold your hand while you pee. They are there to show you where the bathroom is and make sure nobody blocks your way. The rest is up to the individual to figure out. If you can't figure out how it works and you pee your pants that’s your fault, not the governments.

reply to post by seabag

TextI can tell by your responses that you think the country owes people something. You are only owed what the constitution provides. You should read it one day rather than trying to create a fantasy land where everything is free!

I am not American but I have read your constitution.If you read it and learn about your Founding Fathers you will see that they never intended corporations to dominate our lives the way they do now.They never intended government to dominate our lives the way they do.Why cant there be a place where basic needs are free? We have the technology to do it. And we can make it pay for itself.

reply to post by seabag


www.rawstory.com...

Thats what people like you want isnt it? Im not branding you a Tea Party Patriot. But it seems more and more Americans lack empathy and a social conscience. Its the way things are going.

prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by seabag

 

www.rawstory.com...

Thats what people like you want isnt it? Im not branding you a Tea Party Patriot. But it seems more and more Americans lack empathy and a social conscience. Its the way things are going.

prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com...

edit on 28-11-2011 by theovermensch because: typo

too many people are actually having "social conscience" this country was founded on Hard Work... If we aren't working anymore.. whats the point?

Originally posted by theovermensch

I am not American but I have read your constitution.If you read it and learn about your Founding Fathers you will see that they never intended corporations to dominate our lives the way they do now.They never intended government to dominate our lives the way they do.Why cant there be a place where basic needs are free? We have the technology to do it. And we can make it pay for itself.

You make bold statements with no reference or example? Where in the constitution does it say basic needs should be free?

The founders didn't subscribe to socialism.

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by seabag

 

Thats what people like you want isnt it? Im not branding you a Tea Party Patriot. But it seems more and more Americans lack empathy and a social conscience. Its the way things are going.

The article you provided is all speculation and conjecture. They didn’t take into consideration what the kids in each group were even being treated for.

Although the research was not set up to identify why uninsured children were more likely to die, it found that they were more likely to gain access to care through the emergency room, suggesting they might have more advanced disease by the time they were hospitalized.

As a matter of fact, the lead author not only admitted the uninsured kids that came in where indeed sicker, he also clearly stated that kids without insurance didn’t get any less care than insured kids! Which was my point! If you are sick…you will get treated. You’ve been groomed by the left, friend.

The paper’s lead author, Dr. Fizan Abdullah, assistant professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins, dismissed the possibility that providers gave less care or denied procedures to the uninsured. “The children who were uninsured literally died before the hospital could provide them more care,” Dr. Abdullah said. Furthermore, Dr. Abdullah said, indications are that the uninsured children “are further along in their course of illness.”

reply to post by seabag


I refer to the fact that your Founding Fathers kept corporations in check.They also only allowed corporations to exist if it was in the public interest.

reclaimdemocracy.org...

I am not saying the constitution is socialist but if corporations were only allowed to incorporate if it was in the public interest then thats alot closer to socialism than the crony/state capitalism that we have now.

reply to post by seabag


I didn't stress extreme personal responsibility. I stressed the idea that many people who stress extreme personal responsibility also do not seem to stress personal liberty nearly as much and that this seems hypocritical.

Further, my questions are addressing extreme right-wing people who want massive deregulation and removal of most, if not all, social programs and that the questions stem from my own experience with such people.

My question to you was that, suppose I own no land, do I have the right to live off the grid? Do I have the right to be homeless? Do I have a right to live outside the system if I'm willing to go about my business and not bother anybody?

And this is routinely where the ideas of extremists break down. They argue that people should take responsibility for themselves and harp on personal liberty. But when it comes to somebody taking full and undivided responsibility for themselves or engaging in an amount of personal liberty that they live outside the system, the extremists want those people punished.

reply to post by seabag

Text As a matter of fact, the lead author not only admitted the uninsured kids that came in where indeed sicker, he also clearly stated that kids without insurance didn’t get any less care than insured kids! Which was my point! If you are sick…you will get treated. You’ve been groomed by the left, friend. The paper’s lead author, Dr. Fizan Abdullah, assistant professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins, dismissed the possibility that providers gave less care or denied procedures to the uninsured. “The children who were uninsured literally died before the hospital could provide them more care,” Dr. Abdullah said. Furthermore, Dr. Abdullah said, indications are that the uninsured children “are further along in their course of illness.”

Could it be they are further along in their illness because they cannot afford regular check ups to nip things in the bud before its all too late?

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by seabag

 

I didn't stress extreme personal responsibility. I stressed the idea that many people who stress extreme personal responsibility also do not seem to stress personal liberty nearly as much and that this seems hypocritical.

Further, my questions are addressing extreme right-wing people who want massive deregulation and removal of most, if not all, social programs and that the questions stem from my own experience with such people.

My question to you was that, suppose I own no land, do I have the right to live off the grid? Do I have the right to be homeless? Do I have a right to live outside the system if I'm willing to go about my business and not bother anybody?

And this is routinely where the ideas of extremists break down. They argue that people should take responsibility for themselves and harp on personal liberty. But when it comes to somebody taking full and undivided responsibility for themselves or engaging in an amount of personal liberty that they live outside the system, the extremists want those people punished.

edit on 28-11-2011 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)

Here's what I think: YES, you have the right to do whatever you want to do as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights.

I DO think there should be social programs in place for those who absolutely can't take care of themselves. The elderly, mentally and physically disabled, and children. But I think that if you are able-bodied, the government should not take care of you. Our community has many programs (run by charities and churches) that help out the needy. I've participated in many of them as a volunteer and by making donations. America has a lot of heart, and wants to help those in need. BUT, we have heard so many stories of people "milking" the system, that we are jaded by the thought of government assistance.

Unfortunately, the over regulation and excessive manipulation of many aspects of out economy by the government has made a mess of things right now.

I consider myself to be a libertarian. I'm a Christian, but I don't think it is the place of government to impose my morals on anyone else.

reply to post by g146541


If the status quo owes me nothing in terms of an economic safety net or a certain amount of survival assistance, then it has no right to dictate to me how I will go about supporting myself economically or how I survive.

With power comes responsibility. If the government has the power to dictate certain things of this nature to me, then it has a certain responsibility to me in that arena.

If it dictates certain things to me and yet says that I have full responsibility for myself, this is both hypocritical and contradictory. After all, full responsibility of self means that one must make one's own decisions. If I am bound from making certain decisions, then I am not making all my own decisions, and thus cannot have full responsibility for myself.

Good thread op

Personal responsibility sure looks good on paper, but we live in a society that doesn't have enough jobs for everyone. Red states are less free than blue states, this has been proven as fact, red states also kill more through executions than blue states. Red states are also poorer than blue states, worst education and public works projects....the redder the state the worst there roads and bridges are.

So how can you preach personal responsibility, when there are not enough jobs for everyone?

The conservative movement has never been about freedom or liberty, there more about security and limiting rights of minorities. Add the religious side to conservative politics, and means even less choice and freedom. We have freedom of religion but not freedom from religion, if the majority of a state is religious and vote, you can expect stores to be closed on Sunday and limited alcohol sales based on a groups religious views.

Conservative values do not nor has it ever meant freedom or liberty. I keep waiting to hear the tea party to come out against sin taxes, but so far they are silent on the matter.

Conservationism seems to lead to fascism, and that's pretty much where this movement is at. They wish to limit freedoms and personal choice because they think they know better.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

TextThe elderly, mentally and physically disabled, and children. But I think that if you are able-bodied, the government should not take care of you. Our community has many programs (run by charities and churches) that help out the needy. I've participated in many of them as a volunteer and by making donations. America has a lot of heart, and wants to help those in need. BUT, we have heard so many stories of people "milking" the system, that we are jaded by the thought of government assistance. Unfortunately, the over regulation and excessive manipulation of many aspects of out economy by the government has made a mess of things right now.

Do you think the government created the mess by accident or by design? People like you that do charity work are awesome people because you care but charity is the devil.Charity is accepting there are no real solutions and continuing on with a flawed system.It is a capitalist idea designed to keep the status quo intact. Charity is not a solution. It is a problem.

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
If society has no responsibility to me, then society has no right to claim dominion over me against my will.

I think you may have taken comments about people needing to take responsibility for their own lives and actions to the extreme. Every person who lives within society has some duty to the rest of the people in that society. Not in that they have a duty to feed and clothe every person, but that they have a duty to not harm others with their actions. Of the three examples you listed, the first happens every day (the Amish and others) and the third affects no one but the people who want to marry. The second, however, is a person who is often sleeping on private or government property (trespassing). There is no law that states you have to have a house, but it is illegal to trespass whether you are homeless or not and regardless of whether you choose to be homeless or not.

As for society's responsibility towards the individual, that's where it gets tricky. Society as a whole does have a general duty to care for those who can't care for themselves. However, it should not be construed as a free pass for those who could care for themselves but choose not to. The job market is utter crap right now, and has been for years, but that does not mean that everyone should just stop trying to take care of themselves. Where society has a duty to care for those who can't care for themselves, the individual also has a duty to provide for their own needs. That duty to self doesn't disappear with the job market. It makes it hundreds of times more difficult, but it doesn't remove a person's responsibility to care for themselves.

What frequently happens is that people who are otherwise capable of caring for themselves decide it's far easier to let the government do it because why not? If I can get a free ride, why should I work my fingers to the bone? That's the lack of personal responsibility. The way our social service programs are set up only serves to reinforce this mentality. Those who do nothing are rewarded with food stamps, cash assistance, free housing, and free healthcare, those who try to support themselves and just need a hand when they get in a tight spot get nothing. Reforms are sorely needed and have been needed for years.

Back to the title of your thread, because I suspect I'm starting to ramble, being responsible for your own needs does not automatically exclude you from participating in society unless you leave society. That doesn't mean our programs work correctly, and it doesn't mean that everyone should be left to fend for themselves. But it does mean that people should rely more on themselves and look for ways to improve their own lives before looking for someone else to fix it for them. Each person in this country should have just as much liberty as the next, but that liberty does not have a direct correlation with taking responsibility for yourself and your own actions.



Don't know if I explained that very well, but those are my thoughts on the subject. And now for the disclaimer: All references to 'you' are meant in general, not specific. I recognize that not all homeless persons are homeless by choice. Further, I recognize that not all persons on welfare are on it by choice. There are no hidden meanings behind anything I have stated above.

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

TextThe elderly, mentally and physically disabled, and children. But I think that if you are able-bodied, the government should not take care of you. Our community has many programs (run by charities and churches) that help out the needy. I've participated in many of them as a volunteer and by making donations. America has a lot of heart, and wants to help those in need. BUT, we have heard so many stories of people "milking" the system, that we are jaded by the thought of government assistance. Unfortunately, the over regulation and excessive manipulation of many aspects of out economy by the government has made a mess of things right now.

Do you think the government created the mess by accident or by design? People like you that do charity work are awesome people because you care but charity is the devil.Charity is accepting there are no real solutions and continuing on with a flawed system.It is a capitalist idea designed to keep the status quo intact. Charity is not a solution. It is a problem.

I don't know if the government did it by accident or design. That's a great question (and since I am open to conspiracies, I'm open to either possibility.) The optimistic side of me wants to think it's just been a comedy of errors, led by the bumbling politicians who pander for votes and give deals to their cronies....they have accidentally done exactly the WORST things possible for our nation, leading to the mess we are in now. The conspiracy side of me realizes that there could definitely be some sort of master plan that even most of the politicians don't realize they are playing into. I lean toward the bumbling-and-greedy viewpoint, however.

I *like* capitalism. Unfortunately, we haven't been practicing it here for many, many years. Many of the evils attributed to capitalism are actually the fault of the bastardized system we've been operating under. I don't know how to fix it...

reply to post by LDragonFire

Personal responsibility sure looks good on paper, but we live in a society that doesn't have enough jobs for everyone. Red states are less free than blue states, this has been proven as fact, red states also kill more through executions than blue states. Red states are also poorer than blue states, worst education and public works projects....the redder the state the worst there roads and bridges are.

Do you have any research to back up this assertion or is this just another example of liberal elitism? As I stated before, the state that runs a $25billion deficit (California) has bad infrastructure while a state that runs a budget surplus (Texas) has nowhere near the same infrastructure problems. Texas also has one of the lowest unemployment rates in America. Can you explain these things??

So how can you preach personal responsibility, when there are not enough jobs for everyone?

unemployment is at 9%. Historically, the normal rate of unemployment is 4%. So tell us, what percentage of our workforce are illegal immigrants? Yup!! There you go!!

The conservative movement has never been about freedom or liberty, there more about security and limiting rights of minorities. Add the religious side to conservative politics, and means even less choice and freedom. We have freedom of religion but not freedom from religion, if the majority of a state is religious and vote, you can expect stores to be closed on Sunday and limited alcohol sales based on a groups religious views. 

Conservative values do not nor has it ever meant freedom or liberty. I keep waiting to hear the tea party to come out against sin taxes, but so far they are silent on the matter.

You're entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make it fact. 

Originally posted by seabag

Do you have any research to back up this assertion or is this just another example of liberal elitism? As I stated before, the state that runs a $25billion deficit (California) has bad infrastructure while a state that runs a budget surplus (Texas) has nowhere near the same infrastructure problems. Texas also has one of the lowest unemployment rates in America. Can you explain these things??

Texas is ranked 28th in unemployment hardly one of the lowest in the country according the to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Bureau of Labor Statistics So you are incorrect here.
Here is a link to states with the worst roads in the country:
Worst Roads in the US If your not seeing a trend then the next few links might surprise you.
The next two links shows the poorest states:
America's 10 Poorest States and List of US states by income surely by now your seeing a trend??
Last but not least Education: State Education Rankings Not one red state made it to the top of this list, the best they could do is average, I often wonder why people support certain political groups, but this makes things very clear to me.

Please do provide any research you have done to refute what I have said and listed.