widows, entitlement, charity and all that...

[Guest]

Towards the end of Lone Survivors, Chris Stringer brings in the ideas of both human co-operation and competition. It seems to me, they are both there in our nature, sociality and individuality, however much they conflict. Both as human abilities and needs. And there's no one but us humans to work them out.

A preferential option for the marginalized is just a simple ethical requirement even if it checks some individualism. Whether that's self interest or altruism is still above my pay grade.

But for the foreseeable future, there are going to be marginalized people, whether because of mental ability or the lack thereof, psychological issues, the accidental location of birth, unpredictable economic cycles, health, intractable prejudices or what have you.

But you have to be careful about the checks that are put on individualism in the name of society because competition and individualism are of enourmous benefit to individuals and society.

So societies struggle with finding an equalibrium. But there have been far more poor people in human history than there have been well off and powerful.

I can't decide if I'm moderately moderate or radically moderate

[_Kishkumen]

But you have to be careful about the checks that are put on individualism in the name of society because competition and individualism are of enourmous benefit to individuals and society.

So societies struggle with finding an equalibrium. But there have been far more poor people in human history than there have been well off and powerful.

I can't decide if I'm moderately moderate or radically moderate

Sounds about right to me. I can't say I disagree with a word you said there. I think finding that equilibrium is important. I just don't think that Randians and Libertarians are looking for a balance that will actually work. That is why I don't count myself among their number.

[_Euthyphro]

I am not exactly sure why it makes sense to attempt to ensure that every person who participates in a community has a certain warm feeling in his or her heart when they cooperate with the system. We cooperate because it is in our mutual interest to cooperate. Our choice is the vote that we cast in the ballot box. We agree to live with the outcome of that voting process, and seek through the ballot box to make the necessary changes to keep the system viable. Part of the deal is that those who break the laws we all implicitly or explicitly agree to live by as citizens are punished for breaking the contract, so to speak.

You're a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen tonight. And, you seem to be confusing me with others in this thread who saw it as an appropriate occasion to express displeasure with forms of government assistance to needy people.

Let's get this exchange back on track. Tarski's original post was about how the Christian crypto-Randian concept of the virtue of charity lacks systemic action, later clarified to mean government programs. My main objection was that I can believe there is no such thing as a non-personal virtue of charity, while particpating in charitible acts, while understanding and appreciating my self-interest in doing so, and still think there is a place for government welfare even though I don't think of welfare as the same thing as charity, and experience no cognative dissonance in any of this. I don't call government welfare charity, because it is missing features that make it so. The ones I mentioned are:

An option to not participate.
A somehow more direct connection between most of the participants (who merely have money removed from their earnings) and the needy.

This is not to say that welfare programs should be remade to include these features, only that it is hardly an act of charity to be taxed. This is not to say that we should do away with welfare programs or cease to seek desirable outcomes from them, only that it does not enhance my charitibility to engage in social engineering. Things that produce similar or even same outcomes are often not the same thing.

If it is not contextualized within a framework of the importance of community and its benefits, "compulsion" sounds like Libertarian or Randian nonsense to me. I find both schools of thought to be hopelessly impractical.

We're now straying into the land of off-topic in my opinion, but it looks like this thread has already gone to hell, so here goes.

Having your money separated from you by your goverment without any choice on your part other than to de-camp to the wilderness, or launder it mafia-style, or be violently placed in prison (or worse), is a fact of life for everyone. It can be fairly described as compulsion. That's the context. It's not an opinion; it's all demonstrably true. Just to head of your objection, this is not to say that there is something wrong with the arrangement I've described, only that it really is compulsion, not nonsense. Also, I find acknowledging facts isn't impractical at all.

[_Kishkumen]

[My main objection was that I can believe there is no such thing as a non-personal virtue of charity, while particpating in charitible acts, while understanding and appreciating my self-interest in doing so, and still think there is a place for government welfare even though I don't think of welfare as the same thing as charity, and experience no cognative dissonance in any of this. I don't call government welfare charity, because it is missing features that make it so. The ones I mentioned are:

An option to not participate.
A somehow more direct connection between most of the participants (who merely have money removed from their earnings) and the needy.

Fair enough. I guess I am not all that interested in defining charity. I can see that this important for you to nail down, and I can respect that.

I am more concerned with our community solutions to large scale poverty, health, and educational issues. Those who seek to tackle these problems do not lack for virtue in their choice to do so, even if you prefer not to call their decisions and actions "charity."

This is not to say that welfare programs should be remade to include these features, only that it is hardly an act of charity to be taxed. This is not to say that we should do away with welfare programs or cease to seek desirable outcomes from them, only that it does not enhance my charitibility to engage in social engineering. Things that produce similar or even same outcomes are often not the same thing.

OK. I respect that. Distinctions are important in communicating ideas effectively. At the same time, I am interested in results, and I am not overly troubled if someone wants to deny those results the name "charity" so long as they solve some of the problems that lead to human suffering.

Having your money separated from you by your goverment without any choice on your part other than to de-camp to the wilderness, or launder it mafia-style, or be violently placed in prison (or worse), is a fact of life for everyone. It can be fairly described as compulsion. That's the context. It's not an opinion; it's all demonstrably true. Just to head of your objection, this is not to say that there is something wrong with the arrangement I've described, only that it really is compulsion, not nonsense. Also, I find acknowledging facts isn't impractical at all.

Yeah, OK, I get that. Never thought otherwise. What I was saying is that I responded to what I assumed to be the subtext of your focus on "compulsion." If you are just saying that people don't get to opt out of paying taxes, then, yes, that is true. But they also have a say in the shape of their government and its laws called a vote. As a voting citizen you participate in the government that exercises this compulsion. This, too, is an important distinction.

What rankles me about Libertarians, Tea Party nuts, and Randians is that they act as though not getting their way on a whim is the equivalent of living in a totalitarian state or under an occupying army. When you focus on compulsion without enough context, that is what I read. I appreciate you clarifying your position.

[_lulu]

I think finding that equilibrium is important.

But will we know it when we see it? A firm grounding in the humanities is sure to help the analysis and the, most likely always, imperfect identification of it.