Our Chinese Finger Trap

Comments

6 responses to “Our Chinese Finger Trap”

1. 

   mackenzie

   2008-02-17

   It is a compassionate society that provides a net for those with fewer resources. True giving is not based on expectations of receiving something in return, – that is bargaining. I prefer to live in a society that cares about the less fortunate, but compassion is not a method for controlling individual choice.

   The rational that says one should be obligated to wear a seatbelt because if one has an accident, the cost of medical care will in one way or another become the burden of society, is a purely monetary argument, and is in opposition to the indivdual freedom on which our constitution is based and at the same time is not motivated by compassion. If the person not wearing a seatbelt is dead on impact, the monetary argument for wearing a seatbelt no longer applies. There are no medical expenses just burial expenses, which are ultimately unavoidable, and so such an argument ultimately is not compassionate. It is not motivated by value placed on human life.

   Reply
2. 

   mackenzie

   2008-02-17

   What if the same argument that Really is applying to the mandatory wearing of seat belts were applied to all the other “what ifs” that exist. What if there were laws that said one had to be tested for every possible disease that exists because if one gets the disease the medical expense will, in one way or the other, become society’s burden. Judging from the number of advertisments on TV, one’s life would be consumed with doctor’s appointments, possibly to the point where there would be no time left over to even think about making a living.

   We live in a world of endless possibilities. How we deal with all the possibilities is a philosophical choice.

   Reply
3. 

   David

   2008-02-17

   I absolutely agree that “It is a compassionate society that provides a net for those with fewer resources.” I simply don’t think that government is the proper vehicle to provide that safety net. I have never encountered any Christian church that did not have some welfare or charity program – I say that to show that there are other means of providing a safety net.

   I may not have been clear in my intent when I talked about people feeling “no urgency to improve their situations or to repay the kindness they have received.” Let me illustrate my meaning with a true story.

   As a young graduate student with a couple of kids and no money to speak of, my car broke down (as in – tow it away, it’s dead). My wife’s parents had an extra car at the time and they allowed us to use it for a few months. Now, if I feel an “urgency to improve [my situation] or to repay the kindness” that does not necessarily mean that I go back and pay rent on the car they let me borrow, or that I loan them my car at some time in the future. That would certainly be bargaining as you said. What it means is that, in gratitude for the help I received I try to improve my situation so that I will be prepared to help someone else when they need it – perhaps a cousin or a neighbor. I’m thinking something more along the lines of Pay It Forward.

   Now ask yourself if I or anyone else would be better off if, rather than wanting to improve myself, my in-laws had helped foster an expectation in me that someone would be there to give me something whenever I had a need. Creating such a culture of dependence is exactly what a government safety net does better than private and voluntary giving.

   Reply
4. 

   Reach Upward

   2008-02-18

   “…but compassion is not a method for controlling individual choice.”

   That depends on your definition of “compassion.” If compassion entails government programs chucking money at people that are thought to be disadvantaged, then it is definitely a method for controlling individual choice. Specifically, the individual choice of the givers.

   This type of “compassion” is nothing more than being generous with other people’s money. I cannot understand how we have any such right. If I want to be generous with my own resources, that is my privilege and right. But if I want to force my neighbors to also be similarly generous — because it achieves a social good — I have used a virtue to justify reducing another’s liberty. Nor is forced generousity virtuous. The fact that 51% vote to make the other 49% be generous in no way amounts to virtue.

   Like M, I want to live in a society that cares for those that are less fortunate. But I want the people of that society to freely choose their exercise of compassion.

   Reply
5. 

   mackenzie

   2008-02-22

   I basically agree withthe idea of less government and less government spending, which is an idea that formed our country.

   But I remember New York City when the city decided to let people out of the mental institutions. Shanty towns at Columbus Circle, and below the Brooklyn Bridge and homeless everywhere living in cardboard boxes. Some people may be lazy and could work, but there are many people who are either too far gone or disabled. I see your point about private giving but I don’t mind government providing a net as well. There are times when there is a great generousity of spirit among the populous and then there are times more callous. There is allways going to be government spending that somebody doesn’t want to fund. Government can’t please all of the people all of the time.

   Reply
6. 

   David

   2008-02-22

   Government does not need to please all the people all the time but Washington and our society at large have become way too comfortable with the practice of attempting to create a solution to every problem they can imagine rather than expecting more local groups to bear up under the challenges they face.

   Reply