Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the biggest part of your challenge - showing how the self-centeredness of opposing society fulfilling its obligations to its most vulnerable members isn't self-centeredness.
The most vulnerable members of our society are those who are genuinely incapacitated and legitimately have no ability to provide for themselves. All others are just abdigating responsibility for themselves and the children they bear. That's not "vulnerable." That's a choice they chose to make in various different ways: didn't study and learn in school, didn't plan out a viable career whether a trade or a profession, made foolish decisions along the way like committing crime or bearing children without the means to support them, etc. Those were all choices. Doing little to nothing about planning one's future is a choice.
Let me rephrase that...what is your solution to involuntary renters?
And isn't it ironic that it costs more to rent than to buy and that the property taxes are a lot higher on rentals than on owner-occupied homes?
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the logic of the higher tax...renters have half the median income of homeowners, therefore rental property should be taxed up the wazoo??? Greedy landlords are getting wealthy so we need to tax them more?
Look at the rental as a business.....of the owners.
BTW.....I do not believe the average homeowner is "getting wealthy"....but, if so good for them.
Look at the rental as a business.....of the owners.
BTW.....I do not believe the average homeowner is "getting wealthy"....but, if so good for them.
If you do not like it....do not rent.
There are nonprofits that specialize in providing affordable housing...that should be taxed at a higher rate because it's a business???
I didn't mean to suggest that homeowners are getting wealthy - I was guessing that the higher tax rate on rentals might have something to do with the percepion of some that landlords are getting wealthy.
How might an involuntary renter not rent other than by being homeless?
There are nonprofits that specialize in providing affordable housing...that should be taxed at a higher rate because it's a business???
I didn't mean to suggest that homeowners are getting wealthy - I was guessing that the higher tax rate on rentals might have something to do with the percepion of some that landlords are getting wealthy.
How might an involuntary renter not rent other than by being homeless?
Perspectives that are exclusively "logic"-based, such as those you've outlined, rather than reflecting a balance between "logic" and compassion for others, don't necessarily conflict with some of that. However, to understanbd what I've been saying to you, you should focus on the universal aspects of morality underlying the words "avoid selfishness or self-centeredness", and "recognize the connectedness between all people", and "to serve humankind", and "to be caring, respectful, compassionate, tolerant, and forgiving of others...". Remember: You've said that you believe strongly in community and human interaction. What I said in response is that saying things doesn't make them true, and that "antisocial" is generally considered to a negative thing, so it isn't unusual for those expressing such negative perspectives to attempt to deny the accurate characterization of that which they prefer. The way to refute my comment, therefore, would be to outline all that which you believe in terms of fostering and furthering the connectedness between you and all people, rather than just those you want to care about; to outline how what you're saying (i.e., the nonsense about taxation being society "taking" your money) fits into concepts of connectedness with all people; how that comment demonstrates your respect and caring for them rather than just for you and what's yours; how it fits with the concept of avoiding self-centeredness; how it exhibits compassion; and most of all, how it fits with the idea of the Golden Rule - how refusing to acknowledge the critical, positive value of taxation supporting society's efforts to exhibit basic human decency to its most vulnerable members is a perspective that a reasonable person would prefer society hold to, if that person had no money to tax. That's the biggest part of your challenge - showing how the self-centeredness of opposing society fulfilling its obligations to its most vulnerable members isn't self-centeredness. If you find the challenge to be insurmountable, then that should help you understand that the perspective you prefer does indeed happen to be an antisocial one.
Having a balance between logic and compassion: One concept that comes to mind is making decisions based on principle vs results. If you believe in a principle, such as the non-aggression principle, you stick to that principle no matter what (or else it isn't a principle anymore). If you make your decisions based on the result alone, you will have many contradictions in your beliefs and actions. Believing that people should have free speech, slavery is wrong, theft is wrong, etc. are principles, and if you accept them you apply them to every situation.
So let's take welfare for example. Two people want to help others in need. The one who is principled will say "We need to help them, as long as it doesn't violate such and such principles", and the one who looks at results alone will say "Those people need help no matter how it's done. Stop being selfish." I live by the non-aggression principle, so I don't think government is an option when it comes to helping people. Therefore, I believe we need to find other ways to do it, and one major way I believe it will work is by teaching the value of family and community. Everyone should be willing to help others if they can (Golden Rule, as you mentioned, comes into play here). If they don't, don't expect that treatment in return. People will then say "Well if the government doesn't force them to do it, it won't get done." If people still look to government to solve their problems, then yes, they won't be looking at what they can do about it themselves. If they make that switch in their mind though, I completely believe people will be taken care of. If the government was in control of food production and distribution, nobody would believe it if you said "Let people do it themselves." But it's happening right now and we even have a surplus of food.
So.....it's not that I think it should be every man for himself or opposing society. There will be society without government, and it can function much like it does now. All government is is people saying "We give this group of people the right to use violence to force others to do things." As I said in an earlier post, you can't delegate a right that you don't have to someone else, so having a ceremony and saying "we give you the right to do what we aren't allowed to do ourselves" doesn't magically change anything. So, I think that with a small shift in thinking we can live in a society where people can go to friends, family, or a larger community or group for help, and be accommodated.
I read over your response again and I believe I covered everything, but I apologize if I missed something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
