Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

A while ago you said "this is not right" concerning my view of fairness. So now I'm kind of right?

I get that fairness is difficult to quantify, but as the quote by Brooks in my signature implies it should be quite obvious that "spreading money around by force" is "an odd definition of fairness." And that's my point.

---

It's an odd definition if we see things through Brooks' eyes. But it is not odd if we see things through the eyes of someone who believes that we should use force to spread money around.

For example, does fairness mean?

fairness=force or fairness=reasonable distribution. We can plug in as many definitions as we like on the right hand side of these equations, it will make no difference. Fairness will always be an open question.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

I. Fairness will always be an open question.

Tut

---

Fairness is when all parties get equal advantage

Ex, As a retired highway engineer I have to comment on the equating help for the poor with providing roads.
Highways with maybe some rare exceptions are built and maintained with revenues from gas taxes. There are possibly more instances where those highway funds are diverted by some states for other uses like even to support social programs, and balancing budgets.
The trend in many areas is to build toll roads and expensive exclusive lanes for those who can afford them. It is becoming more a situation where the those who can afford it are paying for roads and/or express lanes that the poor can't use-especially during peak hours.
If it continues at the same rate as it has been in the states I drive in--the non-toll roads won't be fit
To drive on. In my state, 25% (about 5,000) bridges are structurally deficient. Folks must be OK with that, their representatives aren't doing anything about it--that is how it supposed to work, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

fairness is when all parties get equal advantage

---

So... A smart person should be handicapped down to the level of a retard... would you want YOUR doctor to be a retard that was given free passes to give them the same advantage as the smart med school student?

Or the lazy person should get all the same benefits of a motivated person?

What about a dumb poor person living in a rural area... who's going to give them the same advantage of the smart well connected person in the right Urban area?

Fact is life isn't fair... everyone doesn't have the same opportunities for a number of reasons.. advantages or chances... many times because of choices they make like not studying in school, or dropping out of school.


Fair is having the chance to advance the best you can within the limits of your abilities... We have that in the USA, you have it in Canada and I'd like to believe Australia too. You don't in places like India and a number of other places...

smoothy I didn't say my definition is perfect because this is an imperfect world. So you want to take the definition to the ridiculous but I happen to think that a system that allows an individual to amass great wealth whilst there are the disadvantaged, the homeless, the unemployed all around them and can say you can't ask me to contribute more is obscene and certainly unfair. You speak of India but the current indian prime minister understands fair, he instituted changes that have brought millions out of poverty. There are parts of my country where unfairness reigns despite our best efforts. This is because we have not reduced everyone to the lowest common denominator, that is not fairness, but have tried to elevate even those whose abilities might be lacking in some particular

So fairness is providing everyone with the opportunity to reach their potential and this means providing schools, health care, housing, food even if it means taking those recources from the rich that make it possible. This is not talking about free handouts but expecting everyone to contribute according to their means

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

smoothy I didn't say my definition is perfect because this is an imperfect world. so you want to take the definition to the rediculous but I happen to think that a system that allows an individual to amass great wealth whilst there are the disadvantaged, the homeless, the unemployed all around them and can say you can't ask me to contribute more is obscene and certainly unfair. You speak of India but the current indian prime minister understands fair, he instituted changes that have brought millions out of poverty. there are parts of my country where unfairness reigns dispite our best efforts. This is because we have not reduced everyone to the lowest common denominator, that is not fairness, but have tried to elevate even those whose abilities might be lacking in some particular

So fairness is providing everyone with the opportunity to reach their potential and this means providing schools, health care, housing, food even if it means taking those recources from the rich that make it possible. this is not talking about free handouts but expecting everyone to contribute according to their means

---

I completely disagree on some of those points, many of them in fact... most of the homeless are that way not from bad luck... but from drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness, or just plain bad attitudes that preclude them from keeping a job. THose who have just had really bad luck are a minority... At least in this country it's the case...

Being told I have to pay more from what I worked so hard to earn is patently unfair because the lazy refuse to make any sacrifices over and over throughout their lives...

They are NOT entitled to the property the wealthy earned... that is nothing short of theft and strong-arm robbery.

Most of the successful made sacrifices... went into debt to further our educations... took our public school educations seriously while they didn't. Worked hard years and even decades taking the hard route to get ahead while they cruised through life doing as little as they could get away with... thus they are somehow entitled to take what those of us worked far harder to gain?

They can go straight to hell. They had the opportunities and never took them every chance they had. And I don't feel I'm entitled to anything from those who took even bigger risks and made more efforts than I have myself.

You are only entitled to what YOU earn yourself... not that PLUS a chunk of what someone else earned too.

When I mentioned India... though I did not say so explicitly I was meaning the Caste system... which is still very much alive and well... despite news of its death.. I got that FROM Indian immigrants I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

You are only entitled to what YOU earn yourself...not that PLUS a chunk of what someone else earned too.

---

So my bipolar uncle should not have been allowed public aid (Medicaid) after he ran through $250,000 of his own money, paying that out to two nursing homes over six years' time? Not every disadvantaged person is lazy. Some people are born disabled and disadvantaged. Do we throw them out onto the street?

Somewhere in the range of 50 to 60% of patients in nursing homes are funded by Medicaid, most after they have been required to spend down their assets, and there are strict guidelines on giving away any assets for the five years prior to needing to be admitted to a nursing home.
Are we prepared to stepback to the pre-Medicare/Medicaid days of taking care of our elderly relatives in the parlor?
I don't know-I'm asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

So my bipolar uncle should not have been allowed public aid after he ran through $250,000 of his own money, paying that out to two nursing homes over six years' time? Not every disadvantaged person is lazy. Some people are born disabled and disadvantaged. Do we throw them out onto the street?

---

Not talking Public aid, except welfare (which should be one year and your out)... I'm talking the Jones with Masters Degrees in the big house down the street being raped and a chunk of their earnings being redistributed to the Thompson's down the street in the trailer park that never bothered to finish high school that work flipping Burgers at the Gag and Choke in the Industrial park.

Lazy is a personal choice... being born blind or without arms isn't. I see several severely handicapped people (yes it's that obvious with them) with electric wheelchairs going to work everyday, seem to work the same hours I do (yes the same ones too). Yet there are fat lazy people who expect to get a free ride on SSI because their legs hurt to walk... yeah at 350 lbs I'm not surprised... I see those every day too... I see people limping into the SSI office, experience a miracle because they are walking out quite spiritedly an hour or so later... crutches or cane unused under their arm, when they were using them to hobble in earlier like a cripple.

Yes I can see a SSI office from my office window across the street... and have for 18 years. It's a daily event... not once in a blue moon. It IS that frequent.

For every fake SSI applicant you see, there are probably ten who are legit. So what is the solution? Better vetting? The same problem exists with handicap cards/hangers for parking. Chicago and suburbs are cracking down on those who are hale and hearty and who use Grandma's hanger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

For every fake SSI applicant you see, there are probably ten who are legit. So what is the solution? Better vetting? The same problem exists with handicap cards/hangers for parking. Chicago and suburbs are cracking down on those who are hale and hearty and who use Grandma's hanger.

---

Yes... they should be vetted far more strictly... and cheats punished harshly.

Never said there wasn't legit ones... but you see LINES of people that are nowhere near retirement age waiting to get in every day of the week, many of them very overweight.. and its always the young ones I see doing this.

No wonder SSI is almost bankrupt... most of them never contributed a dime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

Somewhere in the range of 50 to 60% of patients in nursing homes are funded by Medicaid, most after they have been required to spend down their assets, and there are strict guidelines on giving away any assets for the five years prior to needing to be admitted to a nursing home.
Are we prepared to stepback to the pre-Medicare/Medicaid days of taking care of our elderly relatives in the parlor?
I don't know-I'm asking.

---

Most people in nursing homes have worked their entire life and actually contributed into SSI.. for 40+ years.

I feel they earned it... those that didn't pay in most of their adult lives (the welfare bums... not the housewives or the truly severely handicapped)... didn't earn it..

However recent arrivals from foreign countries that are already old... should not be entitled to collect when they never contributed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

However recent arrivals from foreign countries that are already old....should not be entitled to collect when they never contributed.

---

What do we then do with them when they need more help than their families can give?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

What do we then do with them when they need more help than their families can give?

---

Send them back to their home countries... I am not willing to give up MY benefits I've worked my entire life for so they can have a free ride... at least I paid for mine... SSI and Medicare is running out of money for those who actually paid into it... who's going to take care of MY needs when they pi55 away all the money on people that never earned their benefits?

I've been paying 32 years now and counting... I have more of a right to it then someone who never contributed does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

So...A smart person should be handicapped down to the level of a retard....would you want YOUR doctor to be a retard that was given free passes to give them the same advantage as the smart med school student?

Or the lazy person should get all the same benefits of a motivated person?

What about a dumb poor person living in a rural area...who's going to give them the same advantage of the smart well connected person in the right Urban area?

Fact is life isn't fair....everyone doesn't have the same opportunities for a number of reasons..., advantages or chances....many times because of choices they make like not studying in school, or dropping out of school.


Fair is having the chance to advance the best you can within the limits of your abilities....We have that in the USA, you have it in Canada and I'd like to believe Australia too. You don't in places like India and a number of other places...

---

Hi Smoothy,

You fail to distinguish between advantage and opportunity. Fairness and difference only makes sense when we provide the opportunity for poor people to take advantage of situations that provide an opportunity provides for success. When it comes to education no one is arguing that qualifications should be scaled down in order that they can be qualified.

I remember you provided this example once before and I will answer it the same way. Show be a poor person who has medical qualifications that are of a substandard nature. In other words, they were allowed to sit for an easier exam.

More importantly, why keep equating poor with being dumb. I put this proposition to you in another post and you avoided it.

Tut

Hey wondergirl they are no worse off than they were where they came from and if they are let them return. I agree smoothy that citizenship is an important prerequisite, economic migrants take their risks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

where is the virtue if charity is compelled ?
charity which is expected or compelled is simply a polite word for slavery(Terry Goodkind)

---

Hi Tom,

The problem is that virtue ethics and justice/fairness are both deontological theories. Basically, this just means the two theories are rule based ethics. In other words, the individual has a certain a feeling that he/she has a self-imposed duty to try and make a difference. The important point of course is that it cannot be compelled.

Justice and fairness principles also occupy the same ground, so to speak. The big difference here is that society, not the individual is duty bound to try and make a difference. I think this amounts to a rejection of consequentialist theories that try to account for fairness. I haven't read Rawl's book A Theory of Justice, but I think this is what he is getting at. If this is the case then it would seem that Terry Goodkind doesn't understand that it is possible to have two competing theories occupying the same moral ground. Both being equally applicable.


Tut

Do you really want me to give my cynical definitions of "fairness" again ? It goes back to that negative and positive rights debate. As you know ,I'm a negative rights kind of person. I'll go so far as to say that positive rights are used as control and suppression of the individual by the big state in the name of liberty . But liberty and fairness cannot occupy the same plane... at least not in the way the progressives define it.

And obviously not as you define it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Do you really want me to give my cynical definitions of "fairness" again ? It goes back to that negative and positive rights debate. As you know ,I'm a negative rights kinda person. I'll go so far as to say that positive rights are used as control and suppression of the individual by the big state in the name of liberty . But liberty and fairness cannot occupy the same plane....at least not in the way the progressives define it.

---

Well, I'd rather a logical discussion rather than a cynical one, or a logical cynical one.

As I said before, I haven't actually read the book although I have heard of his theory. If Rawls is saying what I think he is saying then I tend to reject his argument.

But one thing that is true on every account (including yours) is that society has many competing theories occupying the same plane. Your example of positive and negative liberty is a good one.

What some people fail to understand is that history is littered with one theory societies. One defining feature of these types of societies is that they are anti-democratic. To push one particular type of theory out of contention because it doesn't fit an ideology is to repeat the errors of the past.

Tut