Why do so many liberals consider materialistic possessions a human right?

[Mensch]

Here is the US, there are more than enough resources to "satisfy the needs" of all people.
No one credible has ever suggested that the wants of all people should or can be fulfilled.

One of the luxuries the wealthy expect in this wealthiest of all nations we live in is the luxury of not being exposed to third-world contagions, epidemics, and plagues, because even the poor are immunized against them, and are provided with clean water, in order to practice basic hygiene.
Another luxury the affluent expect is not to have to see- first-hand- starving people. Especially starving children, elderly people, and handicapped people.
This is very different from many third-world countries, where even the wealthy have to kick starving children out of their way in order to go about their business each day.

But these are the luxuries money can buy, in a country so obscenely wealthy as ours.
Lucky for us, eh?

It's interesting that you don't see the connection between "satisfying the needs" of all people through governmental means and third world poverty. Natural disasters are a major contributor to the impoverishing conditions. You have to ask yourself why we are as economically stable as we maintain. Does centralized bureaucracy and distributing largesse to special interest groups the way to go about eliminating poverty and disease? Perhaps other, poorer countries should copy our materialistic, evil capitalist policies rather than the old socialist routine of empowering government to provide everyone with everything. It ultimately leads to shortages, price controls, and rationing. That is the negative economic consequences.

 

[Mensch]

is housing and medical care included in the universal declaration of human rights?

yes................

 

[Mensch]

I agree.



I agree.



I believe this is where our opinions diverge.

And why? When has it helped anyone?

 

[samsmart]

yes................

So what are you opposed to? Government housing programs and socialized medicine? Or that such is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

 

[Mensch]

So what are you opposed to? Government housing programs and socialized medicine? Or that such is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Both...............

 

[Slartibartfast]

And why? When has it helped anyone?

Seriously? :roll:

Oh well, no point in chatting with someone engaging in dishonesty.

 

[Andalublue]

The first rule of economics is scarcity. There is never enough resources to satisfy the needs and wants of all people. The first rule of politics is to disregard the first rule of economics.

Who wrote that this is the first rule of economics? When there are more than enough resources to satisfy the needs of all humans on planet Earth, the issue ceases to be scarcity and becomes distribution: who decides who benefits and who suffers?

 

[Mensch]

Seriously? :roll:

Oh well, no point in chatting with someone engaging in dishonesty.

I don't see how welfare helps in the long-term. I don't see how depending on the government for services will help individuals realize their own ability to obtain them.

Why do you disagree with the last point?

 

[Mensch]

Who wrote that this is the first rule of economics? When there are more than enough resources to satisfy the needs of all humans on planet Earth, the issue ceases to be scarcity and becomes distribution: who decides who benefits and who suffers?

Are you serious?

HERE WE ARE LADIES AND GENTLEMAN. THIS POST TAKES THE CAKE! HERE IS THE UTOPIAN FANTASY THAT SIMPLY DEFIES REALITY.

Please, you need to learn about scarcity quickly. It's not exclusive to human beings.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't see how welfare helps in the long-term. I don't see how depending on the government for services will help individuals realize their own ability to obtain them.

Why do you disagree with the last point?

It was due to welfare type programs that I was able to get higher education and be able to generate more money through employment. I am a living example of welfare helping someone.

Chances are, in my lifetime, because of the salary I can now command, I am going to pay back what was given to me and more.

 

[Andalublue]

Are you serious?

HERE WE ARE LADIES AND GENTLEMAN. THIS POST TAKES THE CAKE! HERE IS THE UTOPIAN FANTASY THAT SIMPLY DEFIES REALITY.

Please, you need to learn about scarcity quickly. It's not exclusive to human beings.

I see. That would be "I say scarcity is the first rule of economics, AND I LIKE TO WRITE IN CAPITALS, IT MAKES ME SEEM MORE CONFIDENT!"

 

[samsmart]

I don't see how depending on the government for services will help individuals realize their own ability to obtain them.

Depending on corporations for services won't help individuals realize their own ability to obtain them either.

 

[1069]

i see. That would be "i say scarcity is the first rule of economics, and i like to write in capitals, it makes me seem more confident!"

CAPS LoCK: UNLEASH THE POWER.

 

[Mensch]

It was due to welfare type programs that I was able to get higher education and be able to generate more money through employment. I am a living example of welfare helping someone.

Chances are, in my lifetime, because of the salary I can now command, I am going to pay back what was given to me and more.

It was due to a welfare type program that helped you get higher education? It wasn't you? I'm sure you're talking about a state school or the Pell Grant. Though it is true that many individuals succeed using governmental aid for education, it is also true that A) the higher education has been seriously devalued due to the Pell Grant system and B) The new overhaul of the Pell Grant will likely see the taxpayer undertaking more liability. That's great it worked for you. But our state school system is in really bad shape. 50% failure rate and a 6 year average rate for obtaining a bachelor's degree.

But since you decided to jump to education, let's revert back to general welfare for a moment. My mother currently lives with her mother. She went from making almost 100K a year to now working at McDonalds. She has made many mistakes. So, when she laid off from her last, she sucked on the government feeding tube until it ran out, and then she moved in with Grandma. Only AFTER years of government insurance ran out did she make the conscious decision to back to school and receive some new training. The program she's in does not take long at all, yet she's been unemployed for 3 years. It would have been easier, and more dignified, had she made the decision to go to school right after she realized no one would hire her. Instead, she rode the gravy train until the funds ran out. A similar situation has developed with my uncle who recently obtained a degree in computer science.

 

[Slartibartfast]

CAPS LoCK: UNLEASH THE POWER.

 

[Mensch]

Depending on corporations for services won't help individuals realize their own ability to obtain them either.

Why not depend on yourself to help yourself?

 

[Mensch]

I see. That would be "I say scarcity is the first rule of economics, AND I LIKE TO WRITE IN CAPITALS, IT MAKES ME SEEM MORE CONFIDENT!"

No, what was so astounding was the denial of scarcity.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It was due to a welfare type program that helped you get higher education? It wasn't you?

It was both. However, I wouldn't have had the opportunity without the funding. It was up to me to make use of it. Take either ingredient away and it wouldn't have happened.

I'm sure you're talking about a state school or the Pell Grant. Though it is true that many individuals succeed using governmental aid for education, it is also true that A) the higher education has been seriously devalued due to the Pell Grant system and

Whether true or not, its still the key to most high paying jobs, even if it is devalued, it is still far more valuable than the alternative of no education.

B) The new overhaul of the Pell Grant will likely see the taxpayer undertaking more liability. That's great it worked for you. But our state school system is in really bad shape. 50% failure rate and a 6 year average rate for obtaining a bachelor's degree.

Thats great, but it has no direct bearing on my life and the fact that there are cases where welfare does work.

But since you decided to jump to education, let's revert back to general welfare for a moment. My mother currently lives with her mother. She went from making almost 100K a year to now working at McDonalds. She has made many mistakes. So, when she laid off from her last, she sucked on the government feeding tube until it ran out, and then she moved in with Grandma. Only AFTER years of government insurance ran out did she make the conscious decision to back to school and receive some new training.

Different people will react differently. :shrug:

The program she's in does not take long at all, yet she's been unemployed for 3 years. It would have been easier, and more dignified, had she made the decision to go to school right after she realized no one would hire her. Instead, she rode the gravy train until the funds ran out. A similar situation has developed with my uncle who recently obtained a degree in computer science.

I agree, those people show a lack of morals.

 

[samsmart]

Why not depend on yourself to help yourself?

You built your house yourself, did you?

 

[Goobieman]

You built your house yourself, did you?

He -paid- others to build his house, so, effectiveely, yes.

 

[Mensch]

It was both. However, I wouldn't have had the opportunity without the funding. It was up to me to make use of it. Take either ingredient away and it wouldn't have happened.



Whether true or not, its still the key to most high paying jobs, even if it is devalued, it is still far more valuable than the alternative of no education.



Thats great, but it has no direct bearing on my life and the fact that there are cases where welfare does work.



Different people will react differently. :shrug:



I agree, those people show a lack of morals.

1) You mean you couldn't get a loan to pay for some rudimentary certification that could get you a decent-paying job which later could afford higher education? You act as if it would be completely impossible to get a higher education without having the government fund it.

2) Of course it is more valuable than no education, for those that pass! But you are condoning the devaluing education and dumbing down the system. Pushing everyone to get a B.A. in some field (and fields of work are often created because individuals need to pass some sort of half-ass degree) wastes a lot of money. And what's better? 50% of dropout students with student debt or no education and no debt?

3) I think we have to outweight the costs and the benefits.

5) No, they show a lack of personal responsibility.

 

[Mensch]

You built your house yourself, did you?

I actually rent an apartment. You're turning my views of personal responsibility into hyper-protectionist isolationism. I'm for Globalizaton. Hardly isolationist. But I absolutely do agree with freedom and personal responsibility as a living foundation.

 

[samsmart]

I actually rent an apartment. You're turning my views of personal responsibility into hyper-protectionist isolationism. I'm for Globalizaton. Hardly isolationist. But I absolutely do agree with freedom and personal responsibility as a living foundation.

No I'm not.

 

[Slartibartfast]

1) You mean you couldn't get a loan to pay for some rudimentary certification that could get you a decent-paying job which later could afford higher education? You act as if it would be completely impossible to get a higher education without having the government fund it.

I had failed out of college in my first go and I doubt that I was an acceptable risk.

2) Of course it is more valuable than no education, for those that pass! But you are condoning the devaluing education and dumbing down the system. Pushing everyone to get a B.A. in some field (and fields of work are often created because individuals need to pass some sort of half-ass degree) wastes a lot of money. And what's better? 50% of dropout students with student debt or no education and no debt?

Students dropping out has no bearing on welfare that I can see, so that point is moot as it is up to them whether they take advantage of the opportunity. For the second point, as something becomes more wide spread, of course it becomes less valuable, but I think that is an acceptable trade-off as I am guessing that the devaluation is less of a factor than the value of having a more educated society overall in regards to stuff like innovation and the ability to generate wealth. The devaluation in monetary terms is simply supply and demand.

3) I think we have to outweight the costs and the benefits.

As we should do with everything we do in life.

5) No, they show a lack of personal responsibility.

Which I believe to be immoral.

 

[Mensch]

I had failed out of college in my first go and I doubt that I was an acceptable risk.



Students dropping out has no bearing on welfare that I can see, so that point is moot as it is up to them whether they take advantage of the opportunity. For the second point, as something becomes more wide spread, of course it becomes less valuable, but I think that is an acceptable trade-off as I am guessing that the devaluation is less of a factor than the value of having a more educated society overall in regards to stuff like innovation and the ability to generate wealth. The devaluation in monetary terms is simply supply and demand.

1) You failed at college on your first try? That is the problem with the educational thinking in this country. I specifically mentioned certification. There are more avenues to generate wealth than getting a B.A. at some four-year institution. You can start making 22K a year almost immediately, just take three courses and receive a certification in preschool development. Spend a little bit more, go to school for six months, and get a certification in medical coding and billing. You could start making 40K starting easy. From there, you'll be able to afford perhaps a higher education if you so wished to do so. The point is that the world is not dependent on a society full of "educated" sociology majors. Obviously, the devalued education hasn't been doing a lot for the innovation in this country. I would like to see things change. The majority of 18 year olds in this country can not undertake genuine, college-bound material. People hate it when you say that, but fifty years ago it was taken for granted. It is better to be trained as a mechanic or some other skill without proper education than it is to be a loser with a B.A. in sociology. Have you ever taken a sociology/gender studies/race studies/etc. class? It is simply the easiest class on earth. These degrees, IMHO, were created to expedite the graduation rates of young students who were having difficulty in the math and science fields. That is part of the devaluation process. In addition, the state schools still see 50% of students fail and leave the school with only debt.

2) Yes, and the artificial spike in supply created by government subsidies ends up driving up the price of the commodity, and the taxpayer is there to pay the bill. So we end up with a devalued educational system where the price goes up, quality goes down, and the ones footing the bill had nothing to do with the investment.

But more importantly, my point was that it would be worse to be a college dropout with x amount of student debt and no degree rather than a young man who has no college debt and has no degree. Both could very well be impoverished if they don't decide to restart their ambitious pursuits. But it's more difficult if you're consumed in debt.