[catzaa]

> You know nothing about poverty.

I grew up in a relatively poor family in a third world country (in a rural area). So, don't make baseless assumptions.

> but we do want a world where people are free from worries about health care (due to our third-world health care system) and meeting basic needs.

These (healthcare, education, etc...) are privileges. You are lucky to have it – but it is still a privilege and not something that you can demand. Btw, Europeans go to the USA for advanced health care (such as Cancer treatment). Ever heard of the MD Anderson cancer centre? It is the best in the world.

Guess what, hospitals and doctors do not just pop into existence. They have to be paid and everything costs money. You want all this to be free (at least for you). I am quite sceptical of this – someone has to pay for it. It looks like everyone wants free healthcare and no-one wants to pay for it.

> You simply have a better society (more innovation, more creativity, happier and healthier people) if peoples' lives aren't clogged up by maintenance.

It seems that the list of entitlements only gets longer and the list of responsibilities gets shorter.

Wasn’t the USA founded on the principle that everyone can pursue their happiness? It seems more like you want government to guarantee it. I think that this says more about the current generation of young Americans than of the American system.

[pwnstigator]

I grew up in a relatively poor family in a third world country (in a rural area). So, don't make baseless assumptions.

Correction: You know nothing about poverty in the United States.

These (healthcare, education, etc...) are privileges. You are lucky to have it – but it is still a privilege and not something that you can demand.

The discrete right/privilege distinction is a meaningless distraction from the more subjective issue of social justice. If the resources exist to give everyone healthcare, then everyone should have healthcare. If the resources don't exist, well... there's no such thing as a right to something that doesn't exist. Obviously, no one has the right to live to be 200. On the other hand, we shouldn't have people dying of third-world diseases in the U.S. just to keep insurance bureaucrats rich; that's not a reasonable trade-off.

Guess what, hospitals and doctors do not just pop into existence. They have to be paid and everything costs money. You want all this to be free (at least for you).

Wrong. I want to pay for it through the tax system. We're spending trillions on "defense"; why not spend money to be defended against things like cancer, which are far more likely to kill most of us than any terrorist?

It looks like everyone wants free healthcare and no-one wants to pay for it.

Ridiculous assertion. No one with half a brain considers that possible. Someone has to pay.

It seems that the list of entitlements only gets longer and the list of responsibilities gets shorter.

That's what happens as society improves. On the list of responsibilities shrinking: are you arguing that we should go back to an era when people spent a substantial fraction of their time making their own clothes, instead of buying cheap factory-made clothing at the store?

Wasn’t the USA founded on the principle that everyone can pursue their happiness? It seems more like you want government to guarantee it.

The idea that the government could guarantee anything about a person's emotional state is patently ridiculous, and you know this.

Also, how can someone pursue happiness if he can't afford treatment for basic medical conditions, and can't work because, untreated, that condition is too painful? People wouldn't get into messes like this in a more reasonable society.

[catzaa]

> Correction: You know nothing about poverty in the United States.

I guess America is special then.

> The discrete right/privilege distinction is a meaningless distraction from the more subjective issue of social justice.

The word “social justice” is a misnomer for a list of entitlements and an enforcement of equality of outcome.

> If the resources exist to give everyone healthcare, then everyone should have healthcare.

The only problem you face is that these “resources” belong to private individuals. So you only have to coerce these “resources” away from them and somehow force them to keep working and creating these resources.

One guy once said what you are trying to implement: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need”. Was it Marx?

> spending trillions on "defense"; why not spend money to be defended against things like cancer, which are far more likely to kill most of us than any terrorist?

You are justifying one bad idea with another bad idea. This is a stupid line of reasoning. For a government with an incredibly large amount of debt, it is not a good idea to spend trillions on anything.

> > It looks like everyone wants free healthcare and no-one wants to pay for it. > Ridiculous assertion. No one with half a brain considers that possible. Someone has to pay.

Yes. And the answer is always, “not us”. The argument is usually that “rich people” will pay for it.

> > It seems that the list of entitlements only gets longer and the list of responsibilities gets shorter. > That's what happens as society improves.

Now, that is when society declines and decays.

> On the list of responsibilities shrinking: are you arguing that we should go back to an era when people spent a substantial fraction of their time making their own clothes, instead of buying cheap factory-made clothing at the store?

This has nothing to do with government entitlements or personal responsibilities and duties. Here are some example responsibilities and duties:

- Save for your retirement (don’t push this duty on the government).

- Save to send your children to school and hopefully university.

- Raise your children well.

- Volunteer to become an army reservist, police reservist or any other civic duty.

- Take care of your parents when they are old. Etc…

Here are some entitlements: - Free healthcare

- Free welfare payments

- Cash payments for each child born.

- Free education and university

- Gauranteed salary throughout your life (whether employed or not). Some countries call this a "basic income grant".

[pwnstigator]

I guess America is special then.

My point is that you have no idea what it's like for those who are poor in the US. To claim that they have abundant opportunity is ludicrous. I know this society inside and out, I've got friends at all social levels-- from dirt-poor to three-digit millionaires-- and I know that you're impossibly naive.

The word “social justice” is a misnomer for a list of entitlements and an enforcement of equality of outcome.

Wrong. Equality of outcome is an impossible goal, and would be undesirable even if it could be achieved. More desirable is a world in which people have the ability to maximize their contributions to society, because they're given the resources necessary to realize their potential.

I don't think everyone deserves to have a big screen TV or a new car, but I do think everyone should have a chance to make something of him- or herself.

Yes. And the answer is always, “not us”. The argument is usually that “rich people” will pay for it.

Everyone pays taxes. Rich people pay more. I have no problem with this. They get more out of society; why shouldn't they put more back into it?

Here are some entitlements: - Free healthcare

- Free welfare payments

- Cash payments for each child born.

- Free education and university

- Gauranteed salary throughout your life (whether employed or not). Some countries call this a "basic income grant".

The only one of those that's been demonstrated to be a bad idea is the cash payment for having children (which encourages people to have kids they can't support).

Nice flame-bait, but weak on the logical argument.

[catzaa]

> My point is that you have no idea what it's like for those who are poor in the US. To claim that they have abundant opportunity is ludicrous. I know this society inside and out, I've got friends at all social levels-- from dirt-poor to three-digit millionaires-- and I know that you're impossibly naive.

I think you are being deliberately deceptive. I have friends that went to work in the USA. One worked for a harvesting company and received a good salary. Another did long distance trucking. All of these are “low paying” jobs, yet in the USA they receive excellent salaries.

Many people in low paying jobs (such as plumbers) can own their own home – which is unheard of in many countries. The salary for manual labour is incredibly high.

> More desirable is a world in which people have the ability to maximize their contributions to society, because they're given the resources necessary to realize their potential.

You view someone earning money as a “gift from society”. If someone works or has a business, he owns his own money with no obligation to any other party. A lot of people on the left wants to view individuals as servants of society (as you do).

> Everyone pays taxes. Rich people pay more. I have no problem with this.

You do not have a problem with this, because you do not fall in the top tax bracket. That is the “not me” phenomenon in action.

> They get more out of society;

Again, you view any money an individual makes as a gift from society. This is not so. For a voluntary transaction (where there is no coercion) no one owes a third party anything.

> The only one of those that's been demonstrated to be a bad idea is the cash payment for having children (which encourages people to have kids they can't support).

Free universities tend to be of much worse quality. Two good examples are Germany and Greece. The qualities of Universities in these countries are much lower than countries such as the United States. Greece has the highest number of foreign students studying abroad for its population size.

The Basic Income Grant causes a lot of people to work and places an incredibly high burden on tax payers. In my country they want to introduce the basic income grant. Currently there are 13 million people on welfare (child grants which stretches until a child is 16, unemployment,) while there are only 3 million tax payers (i.e. four people getting grants for every one person on tax). BIG will push it to ten people receiving grants for every one person paying tax.

[pwnstigator]

One worked for a harvesting company and received a good salary. Another did long distance trucking. All of these are “low paying” jobs, yet in the USA they receive excellent salaries.

That's not poverty. Not even close.

You do not have a problem with this, because you do not fall in the top tax bracket. That is the “not me” phenomenon in action.

I probably will.

Again, you view any money an individual makes as a gift from society. This is not so. For a voluntary transaction (where there is no coercion) no one owes a third party anything.

Society enables that transaction to happen. What happens if people stop doing their jobs? Shops close down, infrastructure fails, and no one can get any work done. Those transactions can't happen, because people can't get in to work.

The qualities of Universities in these countries are much lower than countries such as the United States.

That's because the US put a lot of money into universities/research in the 1940s-60s, which attracted a lot of talent. It's self-perpetuating, for now.

[catzaa]

> That's not poverty. Not even close.

In the USA even an unskilled person can get a fairly good job (as the above example shows). How exactly do you then have severe poverty (like the thing you talk about) when even unskilled people get work?

In my country you are dirt poor even if you work 8 hours a day. What you label poverty is not poverty at all. They show photos of poor Americans – eating a McDonalds hamburger.

I ate my first hamburger at a shop when it was my birthday. Poor people usually eat staple foodstuffs (not McDonalds).

> What happens if people stop doing their jobs? Shops close down, infrastructure fails, and no one can get any work done.

Shops stay open because the shop owner sells his goods for a profit. An open shop is not a gift from society; it is a shop-owner acting in self-interest by selling things for a profit. The same goes for people working in infrastructure (e.g. those employed by municipal roads agencies, etc…). As soon as people stop doing their jobs (as unionists often like to do) they stop getting paid.

Except in the basic income grant world that many of the left like to live.

> That's because the US put a lot of money into universities/research in the 1940s-60s, which attracted a lot of talent.

Not really. One reason is that the USA has high tuition fees that enable good universities. If people pay the tuition fees themselves they are more inclined to actually work (instead of the 4 years of party in many countries). You also have private universities (which are not government funded) which are very good.