Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The pursuit of happiness
The government of the united states has one main purpose, to create an atmosphere where people can best pursue their own happiness. However through programs like welfare and social security they take your money and give it to others. How can we best provide for our own happiness when it is also expected that we provide for everyone else as well. This is not to say that Charity to the poor and destitute is wrong but is the government the right actor? If I want to give money to the poor I would rather give it to a private organization that I trust to do its job. In other words should the government force people to help people or should it be a matter of choice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
good thinking nnmte
governments really have no idea how to be efficient with money and private organizations are really the only way to go. btw, i deserve kudos for posting on your blog. soy numero uno. ps sorry about today... hehe have a wonderful evening
libertarian means you're anti gov't in social AND economic perspectives.... so you can't be libertarian only in the economic sense :P
Since "libertarian" was mentioned, I thought that I would give you an interesting tidbit (By the way, I got this from wikipedia).
By finding an average of several sources' rankings, Wikipedia found that Warren G Harding was the worst president overall that we've ever had. However, the eyes of libertarians, he was the best. What does that tell you about how our country looks at libertarian views?
I don't know if you've ever seen someone in need being ignored...
and maybe I'm misreading you,
but I am pretty sure your Idea about the U.S main purpose is very limited..
Also, where did the atmosphere of happiness come from? I mean, the understanding that the founding fathers probably were trying to protect their right to property is an interpretation I can follow. This I don't really get, and that could be rooted in my heartfelt disagreement with everything you said before and after "this is not to say that Charity to the poor and destitute is wrong."
Where are you coming from on this idea... do you pay taxes or even have income?
please explain,
I don't mean to be stand-offish
I just really need to know why you're thinking what you are.
as for michaels comment well first off I have libertarian views and conservative views just like many people have multiple views on issues.
OWA first your source is wikepedia and second Warren Harding was president for a very short amount of time and did very little, not to mention the way things worked in the 20's is almost incomparable to the way they work now.
And finaly for Mr. Philistine. I believe in helping the poor and i have a job that makes me money. Every paycheck I get the state and the feds steal a chunk of my paycheck that I earned to "help the poor". This money goes to a corrupt system that is not doing what it was designed to do. Im merely saying that instead of being forced to support a system that has failed I shouold be allowed to help the needy in my own way. the government has no place telling me how to help people or who to help. I can decide that for my self only they dont give me a choice
As near as I can tell, Nixon, you are a conservative. What you should probably say on your "About me" section is that you are a conservative on the economic issues and a conservative on the social issues . . . which makes you a conservative. You should probably just say you are a conservative. Your screen name gives you away, anyway.
Something I learned recently: Jefferson put in "pursuit of happiness" rather than "property" because he knew he would not get popular support for the right to property, mainly because the majority of the population didn't own any. But anyone can relate to "pursuit of happiness". Quite an ingenious bit of framing to garner support FOR the revolution, wouldn't you say?
Now then, DO NOT USE MY BLOG SPOT TO PUBLICIZE YOUR BLOG SPOTS!
well I put libertarian because most conservatives find the economic beliefs of libertarians like Ayan Rand to be extreme. I completly agree with them. another thing is I oppose government invasions into privacy (patriot act) and as you can see my views on welfare and social security are very different than most conservatives
I totally agree with everything you said, which was really cool because in our government class I agree with hardly anything that people say. It's definitely a nice change to not really have issues with what you've said. :)
But, then, isn't that one of the primary purposes for the Government to exist in the first place? By regulating such funds the government can ensure that anyone, regardless of socioeconomic of physical stature, is supported in some way and not completely dependent upon themselves; interdependency is obviously the methodology.
Would you not gladly accept the monetary payout from the government when you become retired or disabled in some way? How would you like it if you were disabled and were not allocated funds because others had protested a small taxation to support other members of the community?
How much can you do with a private organization, anyway? If it is a profitable organization, then you certainly cannot trust them with your money. If it is a non-profit, then they still are receiving the majority of their funds from the government, and, therefore, your tax dollars. You could argue that the privatized organizations could run it better; however, wouldn't a unified, federal system be far more stable than hundreds of privately run charities? You may have some people who have problems with the federal system, but, for the most part, they are standardized and have far increased potential for catering the needs of more people.
People really do need to be forced into helping one another; the "Good Samaritans" of our time are becoming fewer and farther in between. Don't think that just because you have good intentions towards helping others that everyone else in the community is the same way.
first of all thank you for respondingin an intellegent well thought out way. There are several arguments against what you said. First if people save the money the government doesnt take absent the welfare program if they are disabled theyd be able to afford as much if not more as they would have with welfare. Another is that if we took half of what the govenment gives to its own programs and gave it to NPOs it would be more effective than the current system. You may be right about there being a lack of good samaritans but at the same time can we really trust the government to be one for us.
Doc, please take no offense in me saying this, but what you said in your previous comment seems to me a bit communistic about the allocated money, and especially about people being Good Sumeritans "People really do need to be forced into helping one another".
Don't take that the wrong way, communism as an ideology is a perfect society, but I don't think that you should automatically steal money from people who work for it. Especially when that money isn't even being used to its full potential.
also...
(i love this new blog site..nixon bravo..)
considering welfare. i ask you this...what does everyone think about a time alloted welfare system? say six months to "get your feet back on the ground"?
because that i would not oppose...
but people using welfare for years and years, especially when such vices as alcohalism are disability factors and people recieve checks for them, however..if six months was the case...maybe it would benefit society, because the welfare users would have a reason to be a working part of society again...
Oho, but, are elements of communism necessarily always the greatest evil? Obviously, neither a Utopian democratic or a communist state has the possibility to exist; although, in concept, they are the two most powerful systems of government. Wouldn't it make sense, then, to create a government that draws upon the best aspects of each one?
Rather than a pure capitalistic or communist economy, why not provide for both - not economic equality for all, but economic stability? The rich can still become as rich as they please, but the poor are not completely left out to fend for themselves. Doesn't that seem a more perfect system than either the democratic or communist ideologies?
Although, I suppose, most Americans are so inclined and programmed to despise and loathe even the barest mention of communism and want to have nothing to do with it. Think about it, though; what elements of communism are evident in our own governmental structure? Are we hypocrites for speaking out against anything communist while, at the same time, utilizing some of its concepts in our own government?
Things to ponder...
The Idea of forcing people to help others sickens me proffesor. I would give money to the needy without the government shoving it down my throat and so would most people given the oppurtunity and sufficient tax incentives. The problem with todays economies is that countries are trying to utilize both communism and capitalism. The problem is that they ar eopposites and were never ment to work together. Given time Capitalisms can solve its own problems, socializing programs does more to hurt than help.
Post a Comment