What about the needy?

[musashi]

Doesn’t this approach obviate the premise of all forms of insurance? Can insurance be a legitimate business? It is obviously collectivist, but voluntary

Hang on there.

How is this collectivist but voluntary? If it's voluntary it's not collectivist by nature. And since it is voluntary, it can be a good business.

Apologies, maybe my phrasing is not accurate. When I say collectivist, I see insurance as an institution where many join to spread the risk of injuries that happen to a few. Maybe to use that word there also has to be a compulsory aspect.

It is a collective type situation, but maybe there is a better word to describe it than collectivist. What would you suggest?

[musashi]

Wow this thread is heating UP

Lets say you are a fat old man Musashi, and you eat WAY too much sushi. Then you do not exercise for a year.

No fair you’ve been looking at my picture. You speak my truth, but hey I’ve got three-fused vertebra in my neck. In my case, exercise might not be just counter productive, but also fatal.

thats your own fault if you let your condition get to the point where exercise would prove fatal. You're supposed to get treatment BEFORE that happens (alas we can reduce medical costs that way).

Naw in my case I’m just broken down, high mileage I guess. I’ve broken just about every bone in my body. I don’t wanna leave anything on the table when I am finished with this shell. LET IT ALL HANG OUT BABY

The fusion was from a catastrophic injury - two severely ruptured disks. Not much I could have done to avoid it.

And Tolthar on your question Judo is highly configurable, particularly after you’ve made Black belt. There is risk of injury but it is minimal, I practice the throws up to the balance point and then set my opponent back down, I don’t take many falls and no high ones. I can still fight on the ground with the best of them (that’s a strength for me). I had to give up Karate fighting, which is my first love and what I am really good at, but that is a young man's art.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Does a civilized society have a responsibility to the unable? Of course.

Huh? Why? By what right?

Because we are civilized.

And what is civilized then?

If I become unable, I would not expect people to give charity when my life does not effect their's. In fact, I would look down upon them for doing such a thing and probably reject the money.

I'm sorry but that is just naive. In ten years time, if you have a family, and your child has a disease that requires a cure that you cannot afford are you really telling us that you would rather watch her painfully die over several years than to accept help from somebody else?

I would take a loan. Perhaps work another job. But I would accept money from people who have a reason for giving it to me. Also, I would not expect people to give me money, especially people that I have no connection with. I understand rights, I understand morals -- and I know that nothing in them says anything about sacrifice (other than its bad). Like I said, to really believe all that you are saying, you would have to take up Hume philosophy that says one's emotions are their only standard. This statement can be found about Hume on Wikipedia:

Unlike his fellow empiricist Thomas Hobbes, Hume argues that this is not in fact the case, abandoning Hobbes' attachment to psychological egoism. In addition to considerations of self-interest, Hume maintains that we can be moved by our sympathy for others, which can provide a person with thoroughly non-selfish concerns and motivations, indeed, what contemporary theorists would call, altruistic concern.

This seems to be your only argument that I can see. We are civilized because we have love for our "brother" or other humans. I have no love for people I do not know (and no love for many I do know). If by civilized, you mean some unreasonable connection, some universalism belief; then it is not logic you are using to feed your emotion generator (the subconscious) but rather mysticism.

You can not be an Objectivist and think that every man has a responsibility for every other man. That statement has no principles, is based on mysticism, is altruistic, and is not reasonable. To say that we have a responsibility for every other man (or just all the needy) just because we are "civilized" is not enough. In fact, the reason I do not feel that I must help those I do not know is because I am civilized. See? Just saying that word is not a reason, but a catch phrase that says nothing.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Apologies, maybe my phrasing is not accurate. When I say collectivist, I see insurance as an institution where many join to spread the risk of injuries that happen to a few. Maybe to use that word there also has to be a compulsory aspect.

It is a collective type situation, but maybe there is a better word to describe it than collectivist. What would you suggest?

You seem to say this like a bunch of people got together and agreed that they would all put funds into some account to help each other. This is not the case.

Insurance companies (good ones) do not get together is such a way. They look for a large market of people, and then advertise their services as an insurance company -- for selfish reasons. When one gets insurance, one should not say, "I am doing good for my fellow men", one should say, "I am protecting myself in case something bad happens".

You seem to be taking it from the opposite perspective. The only insurance company that comes to existence in the way that you described is an government one. And those bastards would be ruining all other private insurance companies.

While you are right about how insurance companies do "spread the risk", that is not an insurance companies goal, so it can not be anything even pertaining to collectivism.

[Emizzon]

o.o;

Way too much stuff to read, I'll just stick with I do what I do because I want to and be on my merry way. 8)

[Trilori]

Tolthar has some interesting beliefs, I have some questions for him then.

Tolthar you are obviously aware of Katrina? Indonesian Tsunami, hurricanes wiping out an entire town to rubble (small towns as a matter of fact in Texas) we're talking about events that have happened in the past 10-15 years.

What about the infamous 1989 San Francisco earthquake? Lots of people needed help, died, etc etc etc. Are you saying you wouldn't go help them and helplessly watch them all die? You are one cold stone hearted person if that's the case.

I agree I'm not going to just throw money at someone I don't know for nothing (I might give a homeless a pocket full of change if its mostly dimes and nickels and a few quarters but if its full of quarters then no. Would I help someone get gas for their car? sure would I help an elderly driver who has a flat tire on the freeway change a tire or assist them calling for roadside assistance? yes infact I'm required to as an honor code to the Civil Air Patrol it would be goodwill gesture to do so and that includes having first responder capabilities (which I don't atm, but if I do I'd be mandated by law to assist even if paramedics are already on the scene.

You are right though I would not just give money to a poor person or let them stay in my home unless I had some kind of connection to them and I knew their situation otherwise I might give them a pocket full of change which I will only do once.

Being a part of the Civil Air Patrol I help anyone who needs it, I joined because I wanted to not because I had to and I didn't join just because I wanted to help but because I have had wanted to join for some years now and I have had always wanted to fly small airplane and it has been working out that way so CAP has fulfilled my personal interests while I support theirs (a two way give/take).

[Oleksandr]

Trilori, I agree with Tolthar, so I'll add the reply to your questions.

Tolthar isn't talking about never helping anybody.

He's is making a point that you can help if you wish but you are not morally obligated to.

And Raaz is talking specifically about being morally obligated.

[Trilori]

Well morally obligated to is actually tricky because you're forgetting that many religions come into play and require you to do so.

Now if you want to look at the bigger picture and step back before diving into religion and self beliefs beyond religion then no nobody is morally required to help, share, etc etc etc they aren't even morally required to sell or buy from someone either.

When it comes down to personal or religion morals that can change and the answer to the above would be different. I know I am not morally required to join any organization to help people or help people period, but it seems to me that Tolthar points out that you are being immoral by helping somone... (thats not how he said it word for word, but it goes along the lines like that).

[Raaz Satik]

He's is making a point that you can help if you wish but you are not morally obligated to.

And Raaz is talking specifically about being morally obligated.

I also think you are morally obligated not to rape and kill people as well.

[Oleksandr]

Well morally obligated to is actually tricky because you're forgetting that many religions come into play and require you to do so.

No, it's not tricky at all. I'm not talking about what some people can call moral.

I'm talking about rational morality grounded in reality.

---

I also think you are morally obligated not to rape and kill people as well.

Are you kidding me? I'm not talking about doing actions, I'm talking about not-doing something.

[Raaz Satik]

Kidding you about what?

[Trilori]

wowzers some twisted minds!

well moral is a big topic it extends to the basics also it also goes along with what society "calls" morally correct.

[Oleksandr]

Kidding you about what?

About actually adding this statement to my reply:

Oleksandr wrote:
He's is making a point that you can help if you wish but you are not morally obligated to.

And Raaz is talking specifically about being morally obligated.

I also think you are morally obligated not to rape and kill people as well.

How does this reply concern the discussion at all based on the preceding posts?

[Raaz Satik]

There is a significant difference between somebody being unable to help themselves and somebody being unwilling to help themselves.
Does a civilized society have a responsibility to the unable? Of course.

Huh? Why? By what right?

Because we are civilized.

And Raaz is talking specifically about being morally obligated.

I also think you are morally obligated not to rape and kill people as well.

Are you kidding me? I'm not talking about doing actions, I'm talking about not-doing something.

Kidding you about what?

How does this reply concern the discussion at all based on the preceding posts?

How does your last reply concern the discussion at all based on the preceding posts?

You've asked one question, implied something that might or might not be out of context and then have posted two barbed comments.

I sense you disagree with me, but don't want to categorize you. You've said you agree with Tolthar but I'm not sure whether you were refering specifically to his insurance post or whether you also in agreement with everything he has said.

Although the original question was "What social concessions to the needy deserve?" you will see that I specifically answered the question "Does a civilized society have a responsibility to the unable?". I am against subsidizing others. I am also against a lot of practices that are veiled as charity. Just because you are needy doesn't mean you are entitled to concessions. If you are truly unable though, you will die if you don't recieve support.

civ·i·lized
adj.
1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.

A civilized society, doesn't tolerate rape, murder, or unlawful pillaging. It also does not advocate genocide or exterminating the unable. Hence I believe a civilized society has an obligation to the unable. If it doesn't its not civilized.

Again I belive there is a significant difference between the unable and the unwilling or the needy. The unable aren't lazy. They're not scavengers. They don't want to steal from you. In most cases they were just unlucky.

Maybe you could enlighten us all and explain what "rational morality grounded in reality" means to you?

[Tolthar Lockbar]

If everyone should help the unable, then it would be morally bad that one does not help the unable. This is a conclusion that can be drawn from what you are saying. (If I am wrong, then the rest of this does not apply)

What you are saying there is: a society is above individual rights. This is what the declaration of independence was against. The decl. of Indep. said that rights are based on natural laws and that a society is not above these natural laws. You are saying that we should give up our money for, "the good of the country". This is wrong.

[musashi]

There is a significant difference between somebody being unable to help themselves and somebody being unwilling to help themselves.
Does a civilized society have a responsibility to the unable? Of course.

Raaz’s statement kind hits the core issue. It seems that Objectivism is a great individualistic philosophy, but how does it govern the relations among people?

Olek and Tolthar are correctly relating the philosophy as far as I’ve been able to read. She’s written in many different ways that society should not abridge individual rights.

But when you attempt to extrapolate Objectivism to a society, I just don’t see how anything other than genocide can occur for the needy. Even though it was not specifically in that definition Raaz posted, I think you have to consider genocide as an un-civilized trait.

[musashi]

You heard wrong. Their health care is poop. Most their doctors are Indian who are under paid. Their waits are horrible. Statistics have shown that many more people die waiting for health care in Canada than in US.

I will do some more research on these statistics, but the dozens of stories I’ve heard from the people that have lived in these countries have been completely positive.

Well it is a big subject, and I am sure there are many different outfits studying the issue each with their own bias and focus. Here is a recent report produced by the Commonwealth Fund. The report provides no glowing endorsement of the US system. The US came in last.

Summary report
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica ... _id=482678

What seemed odd to me was this graph.


It showed that the US spends vastly more on a per capita basis than these universal healthcare-type countries and we get less. Where is the free market efficiency? It appears that hundreds of payers (ala the medical insurance companies) are less efficient than a single payer. Isn’t this simply the efficiency bump you get from any merger?

So far I haven’t come across the “US has the superior healthcare system” reports. I’ll keep looking.

Full 24 page report
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc ... ction=4039

[Tolthar Lockbar]

This is of course a different subject. But anyways, I looked through the study, the long version. It suddenly dawned on me that what you are seeing isn't socialized vs not socialized, its totally socialized vs partial socialized.

This is the problem with our medical field. How many of those people had Medicare/Medicaid? How many were on a HMO? How many had a doctor that took care of both socialized patients and private ones too. I can guarantee that a doctor that takes socialized patients and non-socialized patients is also gonna effect the non ones in a negative manner. From this study, and probably a little more research, I might agree that totally socialized is better that partial socialized. Piekoff, who's brother is a doctor, observed that the partial socialization of the medical field has brought down the quality for everyone AND brought up the price.

One last thing to take into account is that many American's are against the American way of life for some reason. These questions where largely based on asking the patient. That is a dumb way to study something.

But that is all a matter of efficiency, and not morals. Just because something works does not make it right.


The statistics I saw were on a speech I sat through, I did not remember the actual sources; hell, he could of just made them up.

[Oleksandr]

But when you attempt to extrapolate Objectivism to a society, I just don’t see how anything other than genocide can occur for the needy. Even though it was not specifically in that definition Raaz posted, I think you have to consider genocide as an un-civilized trait.

First of, let's be clear on the terms we are using here.

Genocide, according to Merriam-Webster, is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group."

I will assume this is the meaning you use, if not I need to know what it is.

What is the deliberate action here? Not giving up what is your own property?

A death of a person (b/c he didn't have food) is not a genocide. A death of many people who didn't have food isn't one either.

What makes genocide genocide is the action of somebody who kills them. Not giving away your property so that somebody else can eat is not an act of killing.

Ayn Rand had written many articles on this matter, including this topic, if you want I can direct you to them for more explanations on this matter.

----

And, finally, Musashi are still assuming that needy HAVE to be fed. Why? I'm still yet to see an explanation as to why one person has to give up his food in order to feed another one who doesn't have food. Individual Rights are the primary, society (which is only a group of individual) cannot have any more rights than individuals it is made of. Thus, nobody can claim food from another person just b/c of his need.

----

Also, taking your conclusion: does this mean we ought to "feed" newbs in Eve as well? (b/c they are needy and unable very often)

[Trilori]

But when you attempt to extrapolate Objectivism to a society, I just don’t see how anything other than genocide can occur for the needy. Even though it was not specifically in that definition Raaz posted, I think you have to consider genocide as an un-civilized trait.

First of, let's be clear on the terms we are using here.

Genocide, according to Merriam-Webster, is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group."

I will assume this is the meaning you use, if not I need to know what it is.

What is the deliberate action here? Not giving up what is your own property?

A death of a person (b/c he didn't have food) is not a genocide. A death of many people who didn't have food isn't one either.

What makes genocide genocide is the action of somebody who kills them. Not giving away your property so that somebody else can eat is not an act of killing.

Ayn Rand had written many articles on this matter, including this topic, if you want I can direct you to them for more explanations on this matter.

----

And, finally, Musashi are still assuming that needy HAVE to be fed. Why? I'm still yet to see an explanation as to why one person has to give up his food in order to feed another one who doesn't have food. Individual Rights are the primary, society (which is only a group of individual) cannot have any more rights than individuals it is made of. Thus, nobody can claim food from another person just b/c of his need.

----

Also, taking your conclusion: does this mean we ought to "feed" newbs in Eve as well? (b/c they are needy and unable very often)

If you forcibly starve them, you are committing genocide if they are starving because you essentially ran out of food isn't "direct" genocide its called "carelessness". If you DELIBERATELY starve them... you ARE committing Genocide.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

If you forcibly starve them, you are committing genocide if they are starving because you essentially ran out of food isn't "direct" genocide its called "carelessness". If you DELIBERATELY starve them... you ARE committing Genocide.

Who are you saying this to?

If you are saying that we have a responsibility give food to the starving, and to not do this means we are forcing them to starve; then, isn't that forcing food from us? If I have an individual right to do as I please with the money that I have earned, then how can that be?

Individual rights and responsibility to the starving is a contradiction.

If I chose to go on a vacation, instead of paying money to the unable or starving, this would not be a morally bad choice.

[Trilori]

If you forcibly starve them, you are committing genocide if they are starving because you essentially ran out of food isn't "direct" genocide its called "carelessness". If you DELIBERATELY starve them... you ARE committing Genocide.

Who are you saying this to?

If you are saying that we have a responsibility give food to the starving, and to not do this means we are forcing them to starve; then, isn't that forcing food from us? If I have an individual right to do as I please with the money that I have earned, then how can that be?

Individual rights and responsibility to the starving is a contradiction.

If I chose to go on a vacation, instead of paying money to the unable or starving, this would not be a morally bad choice.

You obviously did not read what I said, if you CHOOSE NOT to give food to someone needing it you are not forcing them to starve they have other options available to them.

The DIFFERENCE is IF you FORCE them to starve by cutting off EVERY food option available to them in a given enviornment then you are DELIBERATELY causing thus committing Genocide.

[Oleksandr]

The DIFFERENCE is IF you FORCE them to starve by cutting off EVERY food option available to them in a given enviornment then you are DELIBERATELY causing thus committing Genocide.

This is right, but you have to be careful with one option here.

What would you say to a person who claims that their only option is to get food from you?

Would you say that by refusing to give your food away you are morally responsible for their death?

[musashi]

Maybe some vignettes might add some flesh to these bones.

Andy is born with Downs Syndrome and Autism. As a young adult his parents die, and he has no other siblings or grand parents. Does Andy get the dole?

To bring back the total-need vignette. Olek is right if a single person withholds aid to the needy there may be other alternatives. But in an Objectivist society all people would withhold aid, so no alternative exists for Andy right? Andy is, and the people like Andy are, dead yes?

Is the choice to take no action still an action?

• Let’s put Andy somewhere… Let’s say Andy’s parents were friends of yours. Andy recognizes only you among all the strange faces he sees. He comes to the only refuge his mind can conceive. Let’s put him in the gutter right in front of your house. We’ll give him water in the gutter, so it will take about 30 days for him to die from hunger and exposure. Of course he’ll bang on your door with increasing frequency as he wastes. And the trauma from being alone in the world will cause him to scream like a banshee day and night. Maybe the action for aid is not taken for exclusively moral reasons. Maybe you just have to act for your own piece of mind.

I’m not sure the definition of genocide you set out is complete enough. I’ll use ghettos as an illustration. Historically Jews have been corralled into ghettos during pogroms and of course during the holocaust. At first it wasn’t so much that the societies creating these ghettos were directly killing Jews. They were just creating a structure where Jews were confined and starved. The ghetto form of genocide can be indirect.

This concept of compassion is deeply rooted in western culture. Quid pro Quo comes to my mind. The concept of compassion (to some degree) for the needy just seems to run so deeply within the context of all the cultures I’ve experienced. Visualizing a world devoid of compassion is difficult for me.

Some Native American’s routinely practiced the execution of undesirable and unfit persons. Short supply of natural resources was often a driving factor. Maybe we should be considering an Objectivist society within the context of these tribes, say the Apache or the Aztecs?

But then we’d be constrained by the use of force. You’d have to initiate force to carry out the executions.

[Oleksandr]

But in an Objectivist society all people would withhold aid, so no alternative exists for Andy right?

No, actually. Oist would not always withhold aid.

As Ayn Rand wrote in Ethics of Emergencies article: (paraphrase) [I highly suggest reading it.]

Oist would help his friends b/c they are of value to him.

And just the same Oist would help total strangers according to their value to them. This value isn't zero. It's a positive small value actually.

It is a positive value, b/c Oist knows what a human is capable of, and such Oist holds all people before knowing more about them as some small positive value, and responds to them with appropriate help.

Keep in mind, this is all about hierarchy of values. A total stranger has much less value than a friend, and much less then personal life.

I would spend all money easily for my lover, for example, but wouldn't spend the same for a total stranger. It would be morally right for me to spend all my money for my lover, b/c of her value to me. While doing the same to a stranger, would be a sacrifice.

----

Oist society would be FAR more wealthier than our modern one, as such people could easily help a stranger to survive, since what they would need to give away would worth little to them b/c of their wealth.

For example, if I can spend one cent to help a dying human being next to me, I would. If I have to spend 1,000 bucks, though, I wouldn't; and it would be morally bad for me to sacrifice myself by giving away too much of myself (or my property) for a lower value.

----

Again, this is all explained in much more detail in Ethics of Emergencies by Ayn Rand.

EDIT: The article I'm referring above is

Ethics of Emergencies (book: Virtue of Selfishness) http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodin ... mber=AR09B
7$