|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:20 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:24 pm
|
|
|
|
Der Fluch des Pharao It really boils down to the general populations concept of taxation and to whom the money actually belongs to.
Our system has us trained to believe that the money we earn is strictly ours and therefore belongs in our hands rather than being put more effective and efficiently into something such as healthcare.
America is rather self-centered in this sense.
It could be seen that way, or it could simply been seen as one of two opposing definitions of fairness.
Definition 1: Everybody gets the same thing, that's fair, right?
Definition 2: Everybody gets what they earn, that's fair, right?
The first definition stresses an unconditional equality of resource distribution. It's good for those with disabilities and other disadvantages, because it takes from the wealthy and privileged to care of those people who are not able to properly care for themselves. It's bad for innovators and hard workers, because it takes the fruit of their labor away from them and gives it to people who won't make an effort.
The second definition stresses creative thinking and pulling your own weight. It's good for innovators and hard workers, because it doesn't allow lazy people to take from others without ever trying to help themselves or anybody else. It's bad for those with disabilities and other disadvantages, because it makes it difficult for them to get what they need while rich people sit around with excessive amounts of wealth.
Both definitions contain valid considerations, and both definitions contain flaws. Sadly, whatever system of fairness a society chooses to operate on will be good for some people and bad for other people. The fact that America operates on Definition 2 while most European countries operate on Definition 1 is not an indication of any immorality or selfishness in either case. It is simply a reflection of the fact that those societies have contending, though equally justified, perspectives on a difficult and essentially unsolvable ethical issue.
There is also the very serious question of whether government spending is ever, as you put it, "efficient", but that's a whole other can of worms.
With all that said, I'm not attacking you. I agree that this is a worthy cause that deserves support. I just posted this because I wanted to point out that the ethics surrounding questions of wealth distribution are not necessarily as black-and-white as you appear to believe.
P.S. I signed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|