Comments on: A Philosophical Precipice

By: CarlM

CarlM — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:46:14 +0000

I'm somewhat less cynical than you about the forces seeking to fatten a herd of underclass, but I agree with your “pay-it-forward” bit. I'd not have phrased it like that, but when people are given help that allows them to extricate themselves from the cycle of poverty, society gains — we ALL gain.

By: Jack David Baucum

Jack David Baucum — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:21:49 +0000

I don't mean to say that they had no problems, but many problems we view as inevitable where unheard of. Hunger only existed because of droughts or other environmental problems.
There where of course many other problems such as absolutely no healthcare. People with mental varying issues where treated in varying ways, and women where treated like animals, so it was certainly no utopia.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:46:14 +0000

By: Jack David Baucum

Jack David Baucum — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:21:49 +0000

By: cooperati

cooperati — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:33:02 +0000

I'll go you one step further.

There are predatory forces that seek to fatten a herd of underclass, for multiple reasons.

This is one concept I failed to state clearly in this post. It's not just politicians, but opportunists that will monopolize the chances an underclass person can achieve more for themselves for pure exploitations sake.

Which is also something Daniel failed to address, though I am absolutely sure that he agrees that our help is necessitated to negate the consequence of leaving their endeavors unchecked.

The deck is stacked unfairly, and in the dealing it also is being manipulated. There is no justice where this happens, just intent. If I intend to look the other way, I leave them to the wolves. If I intend to help them, I'm participating in a kind of "pay-it-forward" brotherhood, for which I might also benefit.

-=T=-

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:02:28 +0000

I know that you've already stated that you don't wish to return to such a society, but I'm not sure that the society you describe really existed. It's a myth.

Certainly hunger is not the result of capitalism. It has always existed. The distribution of WHO is hungry has changed, but I'd be quite surprised if there weren't those who were favored or disfavored even in the distant past (the caste system in India being an example).

I'm skeptical that "Everyone did their share of work for themselves". I'm sure that most people were honest and did their share. This is true in OUR society too. In our society there are some who cheat & steal ... I suspect that this predates capitalism. I'd be surprised to discover that slackers haven't always been with us in one form or another.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:51:19 +0000

The idea of local control is one that I have struggled with. On the one hand, allowing local areas take the initiative to try new ideas can speed development of BETTER ideas. On the other hand, economies of scale make larger operations more efficient (not less).

So, there are benefits to both.

Small: easier to change quickly and having many small operations can speed development of new and better ideas

Large: much more efficient

The example of education (which is still largely under local control) is one that I think shows some of the perils of local control. There are local districts in the US in which local control has led in the past to things like teaching creationism in science classes or even more subtly to things like putting stickers in science books saying "Evolution is just a theory". I don't think that this is OK. At the very least, some oversight is necessary.

By: Jack David Baucum

Jack David Baucum — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:10:39 +0000

Here's another thought. In agrarian societies, before capitalism took place, problems such as alcoholism, poverty, hunger, environment etc. simply did not exist. Everyone did their share of work for themselves and the community and "elders" took care of disputes and problems that arose. In many cases these problems where invented by white capitalists that forced their ways of life on people who where doing just fine before.
I absolutely do not wish to return to such a society, but I think it does beg the question of how we can have our cake and eat it to. How can we have a modern society that progresses forward with technology, philosophy, science and social progressions (feminism, gay rights, racial equality, etc.) without going back to huts, high infant mortality rates, shorter life spans, etc?
I don't know, but I think about it pretty frequently.

By: Jack David Baucum

Jack David Baucum — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:05:18 +0000

I think the answer may be strong states rights. I would like to see a week national government that only cares for common causes like national security and return it back to only dealing with interstate commerce, and only as a facilitator between states as opposed to the current system of being a heavy hand between states.
I have been down the same path you are on. I simply do not believe that a nation as large as ours is capable of running efficiently given socialism or libertarianism.
Here in Florida we should be gathering up our own resources and preparing to be able to handle a major hit by hurricanes with minimal to no government resources. If, for example, Louisiana had been prepared itself it would not have needed to wait on the dysfunctional "Brownie" & Co. while thousands died helplessly.
We should send abortion, gun rights and drug laws to the states and let them deal with them the way that the people in those states see fit, within the guidelines of the Constitution.
Along these same lines, states should guaranteeing their citizens health care.
It is unreasonable to believe that my fellow Floridians know what's best for the residents of Washington (state) and vice-verse.
With strong states right tackling issues such as health care, welfare and other difficult issues should be much more likely.
Sure, with such a system we will have nation-wide disparities as some states get it right, and others don't, however I believe that the overall mission should be more manageable. We could have national programs that conduct studies and make recommendations, but ultimately lets keep it local.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:21:05 +0000

"The underclass is what it is because of what it can't do, and the upper class is what it is because of what it can."

If only it were as simple as that. Indeed, this has some truth to it, but leaves out an important element. To a large extent, what the underclass can't do reflects the lack of opportunity (lack of education, lack of role models, lack of decent local employment opportunities, etc.), and what the upper class CAN do reflects the greater opportunity (better role models, better educational opportunity, better and more varied employment opportunity, etc. ).

"... we already entrust our fates to what a combination of chance and work requirement opportunities, another resource limited by the state of the economy." Chance plays a role, but the cards are not well shuffled when the hands are dealt. Those born to the lower class rarely find themselves looking at a decent hand.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:52:06 +0000

I'll start fresh, because I don't think we really disagreed on any facts .. just about what to do about things -- whether it was worth TRYING. Anyway, I will focus on one sentence that I think contains the essence of our disagreement:

"But I’m having serious doubts about whether it’s possible given our unwillingness to condemn, as a society, behavior that will poison the whole."

I dispute this. Society at large DOES condemn this behavior. You are right to assert that there are subcultures that do NOT. (Side issue: I'm not convinced that this has much if anything to do with a PC culture -- see link below.) Changing attitudes is a part of fixing the problems. You're right that simply throwing money at one part of the problem may not help at all in the long run. I simply don't see accepting the cycle of poverty and ignorance as an option. It seems clear to me that this has higher costs to all of us down the road a bit.

By the way, I shouldn't have focused on the health care issue (I understand that you were using that issue as ONE example of many that you could have used) .. in fact, I think that there are compelling reasons for reforming the health care system in the US that go FAR beyond any aid to the poor.

---

Political Correctness Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

This is Wikipedia, but I do think that the bit headed "As an engineered political term" has merit (as do other parts of the page).

By: CarlM

CarlM — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:07:32 +0000

Daniel, I don't know how I can possibly be any clearer. I was offended by
your implication that this cycle was destiny and that since it was
impossible to change, we might as well not try. It was the implication of
DESTINY that offended me. That somehow the poor and uneducated (AND THEIR
FUTURE GENERATIONS) are beyond our help. I do indeed find this offensive.
I deny that the cycle being unbreakable is truth. I even deny that YOU
believe it to be truth. I'll admit to being puzzled at your resistance to
understanding my point.

It reminds me of those who say things like like: "There's no point in trying
to bring peace to the Middle East .. it's too big a problem .. not worth the
energy and it may not even be possible
anyway." Daniel, there are some problems that have so much inertia
behind them that they ARE cycles ... BUT ... some of these problems
are so important to solve
(for the mutual benefit of ALL of us), that it is our obligation to TRY to
solve them. Simply saying that they are cycles and implying that there's no
point in trying is not acceptable to me.

Carl

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:42:33 +0000

You stated you were offended by my insinuating that the poor and
uneducated were destined to be poor and uneducated, and that they
would be pulls on society.

That's what I was responding to. Becoming offended by an observation
of truth is a sign of an oversensitive PC muscle. My follow-up point
was an attempt to show you that the statements were not conjured out
of nowhere, and to remind you that I realize there are exceptions to
most of these types of realities.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:48:35 +0000

PS You know that I believe (as do you I think) that education is a big key to lifting someone out of the cycle. But, education requires someone ready to be educated .. someone who isn't hungry .. someone who isn't sick more than they need to be .. etc.

I know you didn't think that I needed to be shown evidence that there is a correlation between lack of education and societal problems, so I'm not sure what your point was there. Neither you nor I believes in destiny, but you seem to accept that it exists even if you don't believe in it. I believe in societal inertia, but THAT can be battled.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:41:19 +0000

tv, from what you've said, I still don't have any reason to doubt the numbers given on the page I linked to. The site refers to national averages. I have no idea if costs in your area are more or less than the national average. Further, you indicate that you've owned your own business and know what it costs, but the point being made is that the annual increases are causing the big problems. If the numbers seem big to you, it may be (at least in part) due to the increases that have taken place.

Here's another link:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/25/busines…

Rates are rising and coverage is decreasing (partly but not exclusively in the form of higher deductibles).

Here's a link from 2004 .. the fourth consecutive year of double digit percentage increases. In that year, premiums grew by five times the rate of inflation. Here's the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A…

Here's an article that talks about increases from 2000 to 2006. (Premiums rose by 73.8% while income rose by 11.6%.)

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/54522.php

If you tack on the 5% increases in 2007 and 2008, that makes for an increasefrom 2000 to 2008 of 91.6%. (Note to those wondering how I got that number: Percentages don't add the way you might think. A 10% increase followed by a 10% increase is equivalent to a 21% increase since the second increase was 10% of a larger number.) That's almost double in less than a decade. So, if the numbers seem high .. THAT'S the POINT! They are!

For some breakdowns of data in the 1999-2005 period:

http://kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm030808oth…

By: CarlM

CarlM — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:23:12 +0000

"Being resistant to saying the poor and uneducated are likely to destined to be poor and uneducated, and that the poor and uneducated tend to be drains on society is nothing short of an egregious denial of clearly documented truth. If you'd like to see statistics on a lack of education with crime, teen pregnancy, drop-out rates, or any number of other negative societal metrics, captured through any number of sources, I'd be happy to provide them to you."

Daniel, sometimes it seems that you deliberately miss my point. First of all, let's be clear, OF COURSE I agree that a cycle of poverty and lack of education exists. That's clear and doesn't need restating in every response. The point is that if our goal is to end (or at least minimize) that cycle of poverty & subpar-education then we need to do something DIFFERENT than what we have been doing. My criticism of your initial post was that it seemed to assume that this cycle was impossible to break so we might as well not try. I listed a few reasons that this cycle continues to exist. There are certainly more. If our goal is to break the cycle, then we need to identify reasons that the cycle exists and address those things that we have the power to address. This wasn't about being PC, though you are right to notice that the attitude that I cringed at is very similar to that of those who are racist or sexist or any other "ist."

I'll also note that in my followup posts (written before your edit to this post) I pointed out OTHER reasons for addressing the health care issue -- it's not a welfare issue. It's FAR more than that.

By: tv

tv — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:50:37 +0000

It's my and my wife right now. We are adding a little one in October. The plan only goes up a tad.

I am not self employed. But like I said, I've owned my own business and know what it costs.

My previous job was $500/month (had great dental but crappy health).

By: CarlM

CarlM — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:40:17 +0000

I do not know where they got those numbers, and I don't have the numbers
handy for my current job. The $400/month is for family coverage? Are you
currently self-employed? If so, you're getting an incredible bargain. I
know that the total premium (including what the employer pays PLUS what the
employee pays) was FAR more than that at my previous job for Employee+Spouse
coverage .. and NOT the top level coverage. The $400/month is $4800/year
which would be close to what the article indicated was the average for
SINGLE coverage.

By: tv

tv — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 05:01:15 +0000

"In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700."

Not only have I been on COBRA multiple times, I've owned my own business. Those numbers are VERY high. WTF?! I pay $400/month now for the very top end health and dental.

Any breakdowns of those numbers?

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:04:21 +0000

Agreed; I'm not sure the free market can fix this either. I'm not sure anything can, other than a society that doesn't need the services as much.