Are we all just children?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So there seems to be a growing number of people that believe that the government is obligated to provide for us from the day we're born to the day we die. It must also insulate us from the consequences of or descisions because as experts the world over agree, the general population is too stupid to take care of themselves (After all if an Ivy League professor says it, it must be true).

So here's question, if we do succesfully create a society wherein nobody wants for anything and the hardest choice you'll ever be allowed to make is which pre-approved organically nutritious selection from the tax-payer funded cafe to have for breakfast, do we have a utopia or a distopia?

Me? I moved out of my parent's house for a reason.

I like being able to make my own choices and live my own life (even I fuck it up) and I have no real interest in outsourcing my decision making process (or my fuck ups) to someone else.

In my mind being able to handle life/responsibility is what separates a child from an adult.

So if you by chance are one of those who've professed the opinions in the opening paragraph, is there anything that you consider to be "off limits"? (even in the name of protecting people?) Do you draw a line? If so, where? Is it hard and fast, or kinda squishy?

I'm legitimately curious.

Comments

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Is not having to worry about severe financial instability (or any) if you get sick or worse a sign of being a child? Is having emotional stressors that cause bad financial decision-making a sign of being an adult?

I thought that being an adult meant making smart decisions, not just being able to make any decision.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Being adult means accepting responsibility for the effects of your decisions, regardless of whether they are smart or not.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

(http://media.photobucket.com/image/brave new world/navyblue182/BraveNewWorld.jpg?o=6)

It was a cautionary tale, not a blueprint.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Some would disagree.

In fact I seem to remember Enders_Shadow arguing that the civilization in Brave New World was in fact a Utopia, give me some time to dig through past comments.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

If government doesn't provide a service to you what is the point of having government at all? It should exist solely to benefit its citizenry.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ok but which services should it provide?

Are any that it absolutly should not?

As the final paragraph asks, do you draw a line? if so where?

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

I read the linked article to see where the professor says that people are to stupid to take care of themselves only to find that he didn't say that.

Ideally, all adults in the U.S. would be able to always hold onto employment that provides income sufficient for their needs. We do not live in an ideal world.

When an adult is not able to hold onto employment that provides income sufficient for his needs, it isn't always because he's stupid or he fucked up. Sometimes situations are the result of forces outside of an individual's control.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

TRUE: Ageism is alive and well!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

So there seems to be a growing number of people that believe that the government is obligated to provide for us from the day we're born to the day we die.

I stopped there.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

When on the topic of healthcare for the senior citizen patient, I will never forget how one man put it - he said, "is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's failure to prepare for his/her financial future?"

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I don't know, man. Conservatives seem fine with every invasive measure of government as long as it names "terrorism" or some other bogeyman of the moment and I'm constantly told that the only valid use of my tax dollars is to kill some people and imprison others.

But I sense you want to talk about broccoli and social safety nets.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'd make a distinction between republicans and Conservatives but only because the FBI/TSA/DEA/ATF/RIAA's trampling of the fourth and fifth amendments pisses me off too.

[weswilson]

Government can and should provide services when private enterprise is failing to adequately provide basic services, when the profit motive is not enough to inspire private investment in necessary services, and when exploitation is occurring against portions of our populace.

In the case of healthcare, private industry has promoted the most expensive and least efficient healthcare systems in the first world. And in doing so, it has not provided superior service. This fits criteria one. If, for some reason, large swaths of our people were suddenly unable to find housing, I would expect the government to step in.

In the case of postal delivery, private industry would not strive to provide universal service, even to remote areas. The mail is an important enough resource to demand a higher motivation than profit. This fits criteria two. I think research in sustainable energy production and pollution control also fit in this criteria.

In the case of worker exploitation, where workers are unable to protect themselves from capital owners exploiting their work effort, there is no one but government to step in. These government is the prime resource when money colludes to ensure those without are denied fair treatment. This fits criteria three. To me, this criteria also covers consumer protections, as we humans do not live long enough to do in-depth research on every product we intend to buy.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I think I could get on board with most of that on the condition that some form of empirical standards are adhered to.

In other words, if a Law or Program is not accomplishing its stated objectives it should be scrapped and it's resources re-allocated.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> So there seems to be a growing number of people that believe that the government is obligated to
> provide for us from the day we're born to the day we die.

I don't ask the government to provide for ME. I'm doing fine. I intend to design it such that it collectively maintains those who cannot maintain themselves, and to help those who need temporary help to get back on their feet.

Why is hope for a welfare society always twisted an re-interpreted as selfish entitlement?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Because, as Alexis De Tocqueville hypothesized, one often leads to the other.

As a matter of clarification, would you include those who are actively self destructive in the category of "those who cannot maintain themselves"?

[lyssna.livejournal.com]

What exactly is it people should be supposed to decide for themselves? Whether to be born into a financially stable family or not?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Two words.

Boot.

Straps.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

...we are, essentially, exactly the same creatures, psychologically speaking, that rebelled against the British more than 200 years ago.

that may have been and might still be the majority to-date, but what happens when that majority shifts??

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Government is a necessary evil put in place to counter-act the non-necessary evils perpetrated in a sinful and fallen world. At least that's how the grown-ups who founded this country saw it. That is, capitalism has certain features which make it impossible to provide for people's needs, which is the point of society in the first place. There will always be more people than jobs, for instance. Capitalism must make this true, or it doesn't work. If you have a funny little village with 100 people, there will be 50 jobs, and those 50 jobs will have to support all 100.

I know I know, wouldn't it be nice if life was perfect and we all lived in funny little villages and grew our own food and lived in a land of milk and honey and everything was great. But that isn't the real world, and the defining marker of an adult is someone who lives, reasons and reacts to the real world. Not endlessly whine about how they're very offended at the presence of the government.

Biblically speaking, which is the standard to which all adults are subject (har-har), taxes are the just wages of government paid out by people to pay those in charge to do things they don't want to. But then again, Christianity really is a childish endeavor full of promises of plenty, paradise and a loving, doting, obsessive Father.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Where did religion come into this?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

We might rightfully differentiate between "a society wherein nobody wants for anything" and one where there is, say, a tax-funded public school system that educates the children of the poor.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It is a continuum, the question posed is how far down that road is "too far"?

When it comes to providing for people or protecting them from themselves, do you think that it is possible to go "too far"?

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Well, you do outsource your decision-making process to someone else, though you don't always realize it. Clean water, sewer lines, roads, power lines, schools, food inspections, police/firefighter/military protection, etc. Part of the point is that providing these services is often more efficient when done via government, whether because of scale or monopoly issues or market failures. Part of it is also that rather than being an expert in all the things I mentioned, you can focus your energies on something more productive.

In theory that could be the case if everyone just started out with enough money to pay others to do that stuff for them, but in practice it doesn't usually work out that way.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Education. Healthcare. Food. Housing.

Those should be provided--or at least there should be a safety net for those who cannot provide them for themselves. Sometimes the best way to have such a safety net is for the default to be govt provided--education or healthcare come to mind. Can't afford a private school? There's still a place to send your kids. Can't afford private insurance? There's still a doctor that will see you. [Can't buy groceries? The govt will give you food, so that you may live. Can't buy a house? The govt will make sure you are not sleeping on the street]

Fucking up life is part of living it, true. But do we not wish to learn from our mistakes? We will never get rid of them all--as we solve some, new ones arise. But that's no reason to keep making the same old mistakes.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

You said this better than I would have, so I just won't repeat you.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

"The government should control every aspect of human life except for gay marriage and women's reproduction -- in those cases the government should just pay all the costs associated with the wedding and health care involved respectively. " -- Left-wing position.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

[citation needed]

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way you do about making my own decisions.

So my view on this is rather simple. The services which I consider off limits to government are any service which is forced upon people through coercion (otherwise known as "law") rather than agreed to voluntarily and supported in the same spirit. In other words, if a service is needed, then those who need to use it or those who want to should support it, whereas those who do not want to use it because they feel they can do it on their own, are not forced to support it. It sound quite obvious. Organization should be treated like sex--it must be between consenting persons, not forced (is that an offensive comparison I wonder?) and when it starts to abuse us, we need to be able to leave the relationship.

An obvious addition to this is, however, that this should be done at the local level where people can be expected to have a chance to know the less able among them and thus help, rather than some national statistics board which many people, with it voluntary, will simply not care about thinking it doesn't affect them.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The American political culture has always been based around ignoring hard decisions. Americans don't have the ability to make them on a mass scale.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Is any mass amount of people able to make hard decisions in an efficient manner, given the vast amount of different opinions?

Eventually there's going to have to be a leader somewhere to step up and say "Ok, we're doing this thing."

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

So there seems to be a growing number of people that believe that the government is obligated to provide for us from the day we're born to the day we die.

So you don't believe governments should provide services?

So here's question, if we do succesfully create a society wherein nobody wants for anything and the hardest choice you'll ever be allowed to make is which pre-approved organically nutritious selection from the tax-payer funded cafe to have for breakfast, do we have a utopia or a distopia?

It's a hollow question, mainly because it's just another iteration of the "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question.

Are you trying to argue that if the government is more involved in paying for healthcare coverage (for random example), you're too controlled and not adult anymore? Do you feel infantilized because police and fire departments are generally paid for by taxes, as well?

[michael barnett (from livejournal.com)]

Is there anything the government could do which would make you feel too controlled and not adult anymore -- I mean, of course, besides banning gay marriage and put limitations on abortion?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Hate being late to the party.

I draw the line at my skin. What goes on inside a body, or mind, is no place for a government to prohibit or regulate.

The rest of it can all go to hell. In the end, all we really own is our personal bags of water, sealed under layers of dermis.

The rest is merely borrowed.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

But a government can claim to own those bags of water.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

I grew to have the conclusion that governments are meant to protect us and our interests, that it should he there more for it's citizens and not more for the other way around. Governments were not born in a vacuum they are put in place with a purpose. It's at least a lot better then the alternative.

The alternative is that a government's subjects are meant to protect the government and it's interests. The government figure is ordained by god to be the big guy on top and we are obliged to serve his every need. (And yes, this kind of concept has been associated with the patriarchy.)

We are only making plans for Nigel, we only want what's best for him. We set up a dominating figure and become it's slaves. Ultimately the role of this government is to be a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

I don't think we as a people choose this though, we set up a government to serve us, but eventually due to greed that government demands that we serve it.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

One thing I've observed about the "I've got mine, screw everyone else" crowd: they nurture the idea that people get into financial or medical situations due to stupidity or some moral failing of their own making. My wife and myself had excellent jobs, raised two kids to become responsible adults, and cared for our parents in their old age. Then my wife developed chronic illnesses that we dealt with for 20 years - with no help from anyone. It devoured most of our savings. I then managed to get a disease (RA) that was not brought on by my own actions. In short - shit happens.

I don't advocate 100% cradle to grave financial security for everyone - particularly for those who continually make bad decisions that place them in the crapper. But I appreciate the help I get from Social Security and the Veterans Administration. I'm not sure what I would do without it. I haven't seen a massive amount of empathy coming from the conservative sector.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

the idea that people get into financial or medical situations due to stupidity or some moral failing of their own making

And blind to the help they have received. They act like they built the universe themselves.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I see what you mean. Like, I know a guy who was in a serious traffic accident and -- can you believe it? -- he actually expected OTHER PEOPLE to get him to the hospital and give him a blood transfusion. What a baby!

Why can't we all just learn to perform major surgery on ourselves, build and maintain highways, fight fires, and make the incredible amount of money required for true medical security like grownups?

[the-s3ntinel.livejournal.com]

I'll start by agreeing with the commenter who said that the state should provide for those who (like the aged and the disabled) are incapable of providing for themselves. But let's now restrict attention to the rest of the population.

If everyone or nearly everyone provides enough X for themselves, or if you could show that state provision of X would be less efficient and/or lead to worse negative externalities than private provision, then I'd happily say the state shouldn't provide X.

As for personal responsibility: having to face the consequences of their own mistakes helps to motivate people to be more thoughtful and make fewer mistakes. And behaving more intelligently in turn means that less of our society's resources are spent (by whoever) on correcting or compensating for things that go wrong. However, I don't regard personal responsibility as an end in itself, so when a situation arises where mistakes and irrational behaviour are wholly predictable (sans state intervention), and the state can do something to limit the potential for harm without causing greater pain in the process, then I think it should. I could care less whether you think this means adults are being treated as children.

Healthcare is one such situation.


See, here's where you - your ideology - goes wrong: Say there's some complicated process involving many people, in which eventually person A makes a mistake (however trifling) and suffers the consequences (however terrible). You look at it and say "as long as the node in the causal graph immediately preceding the tragedy is labelled 'A's free will', then it's A's fault and all is good" roll over, and sleep like a baby. But decisions aren't made in a vacuum, and it's quite possible that someone earlier in the process (B) could have done something differently which would have caused A not to go wrong. You don't even want to look for such possibilities, or if they're discovered, you'll deny that B should have done anything differently.

(I recommend reading An Inspector Calls.)

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

In this case, doesn't A have at least some responsibility to report B's wrongdoing to the proper authorities and to seek redress?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

if we do succesfully create a society wherein nobody wants for anything and the hardest choice you'll ever be allowed to make is which pre-approved organically nutritious selection from the tax-payer funded cafe to have for breakfast, do we have a utopia or a distopia

All I know is that there are kids living in abandoned cars under the I880 freeway. One is a mentally disabled child.

Given that is the reality, I find it hard to think of feeding each other as distopian.

Cooperation is hated and competition uber alls.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

ITT people think building a world where nobody wants for anything is A Bad Thing(tm).

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Are you sure it's a good thing?