widows, entitlement, charity and all that...

[_sock puppet]

I am very familiar with Aristotle, but just as with Mormon or other religious scripture, I do not consider him beyond imperfection and thus I do not accept all Aristotle said without questioning it. I stand by my "BS".

OK, if you are so familiar with Aristotle, then tell me why he is pertinent to this conversation.

Part II... In my first answer, I addressed Aristotle's explanation and presumptions for the formation and legitimacy of government, and its trampling on individuality. This second part addresses another Aristotelian notion, koinion sumpheron, the common advantage, which Aristotle uses to justify the extent of government's intrusion into individual lives, order and the 'noble', 'good life'.

Aristotle spoke of the 'common advantage' of the political community. It is in the definition of 'common advantage' that lies the rub. Politics, VII.9.1329a23-4, 13.1332a32-8). If the government goes no further than those actions that advantage all over which rule is exerted, then I believe it to be legitimate. But what is the advantage of all? What merely most (a majority) wants? No. That's not all. A common defense from outside invaders? Hard to argue that's not in the interests of all. A bridge to no where in Alaska (thank you, the late Ted Stevens [/sarcasm]), hardly. Political "pork" spending is definition-ally at odds with the interests of all. The interests of all drives a lid on government to the lowest common denominators, thereby preserving the maximum individual liberty and latitude for individual freedom.

In my view, the calculus ought to go something like this for a governmental action under consideration. First, does the majority want it? If not, reject it. If the majority does, is it towards an objective that the majority may reach individually or as a subset? If so, then governmental action ought to be rejected. If it cannot be attained individually or as a subset, then to what extent (if any) may it be obtained without governmental action that would intrude on the minority. The difference between what can only be obtained for the majority through governmental action over what could be achieved by the majority individually or as a discrete subset, that majority delta, then needs to factored by the size of the majority.

Then, the burden to the minority of the governmental action and the size of the minority come into play in this calculus as well. The minority burden.

But also important in the calculus is a third factor, that is a conscious appreciation for the limitation on the moral authority of government to trample the interests of individuals. Individual freedom.

In my view, government action ought only be taken if the scales weigh heavier in favor of the majority delta rather than the minority burden and individual freedom.

[_Kishkumen]

Hey, sock-

Well, I can see this conversation motivated you to pour forth in mighty words. I read them, and appreciate better that we disagree on a number of points. The insight of Aristotle with which I was most concerned, and the reason I raised him, is the idea that people are inherently political, because, according to his Greek model, they come together to form the polis (city). Now, the reason I bring this up is not to suggest that he is correct in the strict particulars, because, if I were to do so, we would quickly run into the problem of what a polis is and why it should be that only Greeks--the only ethnic group to form the polis--should be considered fully human by Aristotle.

This was rather my shorthand way of saying that people naturally form communities. We might disagree with the crude anthropomorphism of Aristotle, and that is fine, but I think that the formation of communities is so inherent to the human make-up that one would have to say that to the species it simply is the normative way of being, and that without community human beings cannot survive.

This is why I have a difficult time with the radical individualism that seems to inform your naked assertion that government is coercion. It is not that coercion is not part of community, but that such assertions tend to be made by people who also ascribe to a kind of extreme individualism that I view as ultimately a dead end. It is, imho, completely unrealistic and contrary to the nature of the human species. I invite you to return to the Odyssey and reread about the island of the Cyclops. Even a culture as smitten with individualistic heroes as the Archaic Age Greeks saw that extreme individualism was a disaster waiting to happen. It seems to me that your further commentary reveals you to be more extreme in your individualism than I am, so maybe I was not too far off.

And I think this is the crux of my problem with your apparent attitude and, further, the ludicrous philosophies of Ayn Rand (whose disciple I do not assume you are). Any extreme individualist I have met routinely takes for granted and thus ignores the indispensable role that community effort plays in crafting a world that is livable and offers a fairly decent life for a large number of people. Where you strike me as seeing government as the enemy, I see numerous other bogeymen that include local governmental corruption, the apathy and ignorance of a poorly informed electorate, the pacification of the masses into a state of lethargy by the drug and deception of corporate media, and the list could go on, and on, and on.

I dislike Libertarians because they tend to look at themselves, say, "hey, I did it all on my own, and the world would be just fine if everyone would just be self-reliant like me!" What they tend to leave out of the picture is the plethora of things that helped them get there and were entirely contingent upon luck, the efforts of others, the existing system that they tend to demonize, and other things over which they had little choice or control. So, I have very little patience with the "rugged individualists" of the Libertarian world. I think it is a myopic view of the world that borders on the ludicrousness of the superstition these supposed rationalists ridicule.

Is there abuse and coercion in community? Yes. Is there an easy answer? Hey, no. Do some individuals use government illegitimately to squeeze others and get what they want? Yes. But, I don't think that at present one can find a better arrangement than a participatory democratic republic like the one we live in. If anything, what we need is a doubling down on the participatory aspect of it, along with education to help the participants make informed choices. The last thing we need is a cult of extreme individualists who throw the bulk of the populace to the wolves, because those individualists will quickly discover, to their horror and regret, that they are screwed.

[_sock puppet]

Hey, sock-

Well, I can see this conversation motivated you to pour forth in mighty words. I read them, and appreciate better that we disagree on a number of points.

Mighty words? Pouring forth? RFLMAO. I do try to keep my political views to myself, but you asked... .

The insight of Aristotle with which I was most concerned, and the reason I raised him, is the idea that people are inherently political,

* * *

This was rather my shorthand way of saying that people naturally form communities... so inherent to the human make-up that one would have to say that to the species it simply is the normative way of being, and that without community human beings cannot survive.

I think just as innate in humans is the yearning to be individuals, as the natural state puts them. I think a government system of limited geography as the Greek city-state system was, gives those that tend to be more on the individual end of the spectrum than the society end of it inherently respects the different concentrations in individuals between individuality and society. Those that wanted to live in a city could, those that chose to generally live beyond the reach of government could do so. Since the Greek classical period, government's reach has snuffed out most of the individual possibility. But it remains in people, as attested to by the fascination by so many (primarily in rural America) with the Wild West days of the 1800s. To wit, cowboy boots, hats, and buckles, and rodeo--man vs beast rather than so much man v man.

This is why I have a difficult time with the radical individualism that seems to inform your naked assertion that government is coercion. ... such assertions tend to be made by people who also ascribe to a kind of extreme individualism that I view as ultimately a dead end. It is, imho, completely unrealistic and contrary to the nature of the human species. I invite you to return to the Odyssey and reread about the island of the Cyclops. Even a culture as smitten with individualistic heroes as the Archaic Age Greeks saw that extreme individualism was a disaster waiting to happen. It seems to me that your further commentary reveals you to be more extreme in your individualism than I am, so maybe I was not too far off.

To the extent government takes a tax dollar, imposes a regulation that causes an individual to do other than as he would choose, government is coercion.

I am not an anarchist (at least not today). I am a libertarian, which I understand to be someone who thinks that the reach of government, both its breadth and depth, has failed to give proper account to the just as universal human desire of individuality, in the name of catering to that desire of society. I think that the real American Century was the 19th, for that was what formed the basis for America to be the dominant nation in the 20th Century. That is, the balance struck in the 19th Century created conditions for America to shine in the 20th, but the imbalance of government encroachment in the 20th Century has led to why America will not repeat. The 21st Century will likely be the Chinese or perhaps Indian Century.

And I think this is the crux of my problem with your apparent attitude and, further, the ludicrous philosophies of Ayn Rand (whose disciple I do not assume you are). Any extreme individualist I have met routinely takes for granted and thus ignores the indispensable role that community effort plays in crafting a world that is livable and offers a fairly decent life for a large number of people.

Not an Ayn Rand fan, not an Ayn Rand critic. Like everyone else, my views are complex. I'll leave Rand at that.

A role for community is one thing, when that role becomes so large and bloated it snuffs out individuality, then it is killing off that part of each of us that yearns for individuality. I think that the current confused mix of Republicans and of Democrats illustrates that there is a need for each to appeal to certain subsets of individual yearning in order to attract and keep adherents. Republicans claim to be for individuality when it comes to fiscal matters and business regulation. Democrats are typically appealing when it comes to individual lifestyle liberties. I like it best when there's a standoff between the parties, one controlling the executive and the other controlling the legislative. They check each other's attempts to expand government.

Where you strike me as seeing government as the enemy, I see numerous other bogeymen that include local governmental corruption, the apathy and ignorance of a poorly informed electorate, the pacification of the masses into a state of lethargy by the drug and deception of corporate media, and the list could go on, and on, and on.

I dislike Libertarians because they tend to look at themselves, say, "hey, I did it all on my own, and the world would be just fine if everyone would just be self-reliant like me!" What they tend to leave out of the picture is the plethora of things that helped them get there and were entirely contingent upon luck, the efforts of others, the existing system that they tend to demonize, and other things over which they had little choice or control. So, I have very little patience with the "rugged individualists" of the Libertarian world. I think it is a myopic view of the world that borders on the ludicrousness of the superstition these supposed rationalists ridicule.

Power corrupts. So I have stepped back and take my stance against reducing the amount of power in the first place.

I don't think anyone in this smothering system has had the opportunity to sink or swim on his own. So I agree with you, it is fallacious for anyone to think that he has. On the other hand, there is something different about those that have succeeded financially, especially those that have done so spectacularly, than those of us that have not. I think that they have been more willing to take an opportunity when one opened up, like a running back who sees a hole open up in the line where it was not even planned. I think others of us don't realize there was an opening until it was too late, others of us are frozen from taking the opportunity by our own ethics, standing there debating if it is okay or not to run through the opening or is that just too opportunistic.

Is there abuse and coercion in community? Yes. Is there an easy answer? Hey, no. Do some individuals use government illegitimately to squeeze others and get what they want? Yes. But, I don't think that at present one can find a better arrangement than a participatory democratic republic like the one we live in.

Perhaps. But I think that if so, we should not be sitting on our laurels. I am dismayed that America is in the longest era, I believe, without its states having amended the federal constitution, or having called for a convention to craft a new one. Courts have been buckling under to what is expedient for material progress since at least the Supreme Court's shame about the Dred Scott decision. The eminent domain case that arose from Atlantic City that I mentioned is an example. From my perspective, the Supreme Court is in a constant retreat from protecting individual liberties. So now, all of us as individuals are left to the vagaries of the majority.

If anything, what we need is a doubling down on the participatory aspect of it, along with education to help the participants make informed choices. The last thing we need is a cult of extreme individualists who throw the bulk of the populace to the wolves, because those individualists will quickly discover, to their horror and regret, that they are screwed.

Ah, now here you will truly be dismayed with me. On the participatory aspect, my personal motto is that I will not tread on you (paraphrase of 'don't tread on me'). I will not vote. I will not participate in the majoritarian tyranny over individuals. Insignificant? Sure, my not voting is one person not voting. It's as insignificant to the outcome as your one cast vote is. But it allows me my distance. My heroes? Patrick Henry for three times turning down an invitation to the constitutional convention in Philadelphia. Thoreau for obvious reasons. And Reuben 'Hurricane' Carter for finding an inner peace that imprisonment, even wrongful, could not disturb.

Radical? Fringe? You bet. That's the very essence of individuality, after all.

[_Kishkumen]

Yes, I can see that we are miles apart and never the twain shall meet, so to speak.

It was the ability to congregate in larger groups that gave homo sapiens an edge over competitors.

I think individualism to a certain degree is fine. I think turning it into some kind of cult of "me first" is a complete disaster.

You would be hard pressed to demonstrate otherwise.

[_keithb]

"In fact, I have heard it said that God wants us to give to the poor not for their sake but for our sake--you know--so we can grow spiritually (not for their sake?? really? barrf). It seems to me that if we are giving for any other reason than that the other person is indeed a person in need or in pain then we are shallow spiritually."

An experience that caused me a great deal of reflection on charity occurred during college. A rather affluent friend of mine from high school working in his father's construction business came to Utah to visit. He wanted to treat me to a steak dinner at Diamond Lil's. It was early December, and by 7 pm it was already dark. A light snow was falling. We parked and got out of the car, heading into the restaurant.

As we approached the door, a 60-ish woman in an older coat was 'selling' fake roses for $10 each. My friend gave her a $50 bill and told her to sell the roses to someone else.

We went in, were seated and began looking over the menu. This friend was seated so that he was facing out the window, looking in the very direction of this woman. All of sudden, he got upset and angry. He left the table and soon those of us left behind at the table noticed he was outside and there was a late model Lincoln Continental speeding off from the front door, through the parking lot, to the street entrance. Our friend was trotting after it, yelling something we could not make out. Within 2 minutes he was back, seated at the table, but making no sense.

When he calmed down, he told us he gave her the $50 because he thought she was homeless. He was incensed to see her get right into the Lincoln as soon as it pulled up, so quickly it had to have been a prearranged ride. He had went out to get his $50 back.

Over dinner, the rest of us were trying to calm him down. We guessed that perhaps she was really needy, and that this might be one of her regular johns, that she was turning tricks to raise money--and what a wonderful thing it was that he had given her $50 without expecting anything in return. My friend was so piously judgmental, the thought the Lincoln ride might be prostitution made him angrier than simply the notion that he'd been duped by someone not really in need.

One of the others at our table suggested, to calm down the agitated one, that charity is not about helping another in need, but about how it makes the giver, the charitable one, feel.

I thought that quite un-empathetic, even a narcissistic approach to charity. It sounded, and still does sound, hollow, in the way Tarski points up. I have not fathomed on my own nor heard a good explanation why an all good god would care if you felt good as a result of giving the $50 bill to someone (needy or not, but perceived by the giver to be needy)if it does not fill another's need, as compared to spending that $50 on a fancy shirt that makes you feel good about yourself when you wear it.

What good is one having a charitable attitude if the underlying act of charity is not itself the virtue? Sure, a charitable attitude precedes a charitable act, but are Mormons so caught up in this 'test' business that they think it may mechanically be applied with no true empathy for the target of the charity, and score brownie points with god?

This idea goes back to my statements about charity being a type of "lust" that people have. There are other reasons for charity, sure, but there is also a significant portion of it that is given so that people can experience the look-up-with-watery-eyes expression from another person. If we were to relate it to sex, maybe that's the ejaculatory part of the experience, followed by the afterglow where someone gets to revel in how good of a person they are and brag about it to others (again, not unlike sex).

I hate to say it, but I really do feel like most charity -- at least on a personal level -- has it's origins and primary motivation in selfish reason. Maybe I am just cynical though.

[_Kishkumen]

I hate to say it, but I really do feel like most charity -- at least on a personal level -- has it's origins and primary motivation in selfish reason. Maybe I am just cynical though.

I don't give a crap about the sentimental aspects of charity. As science is demonstrating, charity is about the success of the group. Self-interested? Damn yes! And wisely so.

All the more reason to conclude that Libertarianism is a loser strategy.

[_keithb]

I hate to say it, but I really do feel like most charity -- at least on a personal level -- has it's origins and primary motivation in selfish reason. Maybe I am just cynical though.

I don't give a crap about the sentimental aspects of charity. As science is demonstrating, charity is about the success of the group. Self-interested? Damn yes! And wisely so.

All the more reason to conclude that Libertarianism is a loser strategy.

Kish,

I actually agree with you and Tarski in this thread. The main problem with individual charity is that it is typically motivated by selfish and not logical reasons. Thus, when the motivation to give ends on a personal level for similar selfish or arbitrary reasons (i.e. the person is an ungrateful bastard), the charity does as well.

This is one reason, among many, that I support charity in the form of governmental assistance over personal charity.

[_Euthyphro]

I reject utterly the notion that in a free republic voting for social programs for the poor as paid for with taxes one pays is a form of "compulsion." It is only the same kind of compulsion I endure when the people of my state vote a bald crony capitalist as governor and I am stuck listening to that idiot and enduring his policies for the period of his term of office. But, somehow I don't equate that with coercion, as awful as I find him.

Are government programs systematic action? Yes. Is this less charity because we voted for the government, an agent of the People, to handle the job of distributing the largesse? No.

Let me make sure I understand you. If a person is forced -- and take your pick: payroll, income, sales tax, whatever; threat of violence ultimately underwrites all forms of taxation -- to pay for a government program that pays disability or welfare money to people who don't work, and that person doesn't like the program as it's formulated, that person still has the same quality of charity in his heart than someone who works in a soup kitchen voluntarily or a person who regularly helps out a family in need.

If different person who is also taxed to pay for a government program totally agrees that welfare programs are great and doesn't have any significant problems with how they are implemented then concludes that no further charity-related efforts in his life are necessary because he does all his giving with every pay stub, then that person also has the same quality of charity in his heart as someone who works in a soup kitchen voluntarily or a person who regularly helps out a family in need.

Kish, for some of us remembering that we were a bondman in Egypt requires a more personal touch than being taxed to pay for welfare. At the risk of sounding too Randian, charity done right has something for the giver too.

This BS about the government essentially being treated as though it were a foreign occupying power is stupid and it needs to stop.

Well now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say any of that. My take away from this post: the word compulsion is a hot button for you.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish,

I actually agree with you and Tarski in this thread. The main problem with individual charity is that it is typically motivated by selfish and not logical reasons. Thus, when the motivation to give ends on a personal level for similar selfish or arbitrary reasons (i.e. the person is an ungrateful bastard), the charity does as well.

This is one reason, among many, that I support charity in the form of governmental assistance over personal charity.

I agree with you. Although, I think individual charity has a place. It is, in my opinion, not up to the task of addressing large-scale and sustained problems.

My apologies for being feisty. I had a bad day.

[_Kishkumen]

Let me make sure I understand you. If a person is forced -- and take your pick: payroll, income, sales tax, whatever; threat of violence ultimately underwrites all forms of taxation -- to pay for a government program that pays disability or welfare money to people who don't work, and that person doesn't like the program as it's formulated, that person still has the same quality of charity in his heart than someone who works in a soup kitchen voluntarily or a person who regularly helps out a family in need.

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.

Obviously it makes sense that I don't get to choose to arrange all aspects of my life in a community according to my personal whim, and I should expect consequences when I diverge significantly from community rules.

The same Athens that produced the very classically liberal funeral oration of Pericles also condemned Socrates to death.

Kish, for some of us remembering that we were a bondman in Egypt requires a more personal touch than being taxed to pay for welfare. At the risk of sounding too Randian, charity done right has something for the giver too.

I support the idea of personal charity. It is simply not up to the task of dealing with larger and more sustained problems.

Well now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say any of that. My take away from this post: the word compulsion is a hot button for you.

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.