Mans Intelligence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonedangerousli

Somehow I've managed to stay (mostly) out of this thread. But...


My parents instilled in me at an early age the importance of being responsible for myself and my actions. Many poor decisions later here I am. One correct decision I made was that to not have children. I vowed early on to not have them because I knew I could take care of myself, but I did not want to be responsible for having to take care of a child (or multiple children).

That being said, I've been in the position in my life where I could have accepted money from the government that they had taken (at the threat of gunpoint) from others. I've been hungry because I didn't. And not "I missed lunch" hungry. "Haven't eaten for 4 days" hungry. I've also (at a different time, obviously) donated tens of thousands of $ to various charitable organizations. The difference between that charity and the "charity" of the government is that I freely gave that $ of my own free will.

All that being said, here's my position: Don't have them if you can't afford them. Once you have them they are your responsibility, not mine or anyone else's. They are yours. Whatever your situation may be, however bad your luck has been, no matter how you get into a bad position, you do not have the right to another person's property.

---

I certainly respect your opinion but I haven't said anything in that post that you disagree with.

The fact that you gave all that money to charitable organizations shows that you have no problem with people receiving charity. Which was also my point. I also give money to charity of my own free will (though not that amount because I simply don't have that much money lying around) and I don't mind people accepting it.

If you are OK with giving to charity, that also means you are not fundamentally opposed to accepting charity either, just about when circumstances are dire enough.

I think we disagree about the situation with children. It is all fine to say that you should only have children if you can have them and I certainly agree. When we calculated the mortgage for our house, we took into account that we wanted to have at least 2 children, so we knew what was and was not possible, and acted according to that.

But we cannot control everything that happens to us in life. If is very well possible that by the time my children are 3 or 4 years old, something dramatic happens and I am left without money, property or job.
I would feel bad about accepting charity, but I would feel worse if my children would starve because of it.

Death or dishonor is a choice I can make for myself, not for my children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I certainly respect your opinion but I haven't said anything in that post that you disagree with.

The fact that you gave all that money to charitable organizations shows that you have no problem with people receiving charity. Which was also my point. I also give money to charity of my own free will (though not that amount because I simply don't have that much money lying around) and I don't mind people accepting it.

If you are OK with giving to charity, that also means you are not fundamentally opposed to accepting charity either, just about when circumstances are dire enough.

---

Obviously I don't have a problem with other people accepting help, that is true. It does not automatically follow that I am not opposed to accepting charity for myself. That logic does not hold. The fact that I have chosen to go hungry rather than accept charity should have been a clear indication of that.

Quote:

---

I think we disagree about the situation with children. It is all fine to say that you should only have children if you can have them and I certainly agree. When we calculated the mortgage for our house, we took into account that we wanted to have at least 2 children, so we knew what was and was not possible, and acted according to that.

---

There is nothing in this paragraph that I disagree with. You made a responsible choice, a conscious decision.

Quote:

---

But we cannot control everything that happens to us in life. If is very well possible that by the time my children are 3 or 4 years old, something dramatic happens and I am left without money, property or job.
I would feel bad about accepting charity, but I would feel worse if my children would starve because of it.

---

I think perhaps I misunderstood your description of "charity". If you mean from a church or other institution that exists solely on donations then I agree that in a case where something happened outside of your control and that could not have been reasonably predicted you should take help to feed your children. If by "charity" you mean anything from government that was secured by taxation then we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

Death or dishonor is a choice I can make for myself, not for my children.

---

True. And there I think you have absolutely nailed the reason for my decision to not have any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonedangerousli

Somehow I've managed to stay (mostly) out of this thread. But...


My parents instilled in me at an early age the importance of being responsible for myself and my actions. Many poor decisions later here I am. One correct decision I made was that to not have children. I vowed early on to not have them because I knew I could take care of myself, but I did not want to be responsible for having to take care of a child (or multiple children).

That being said, I've been in the position in my life where I could have accepted money from the government that they had taken (at the threat of gunpoint) from others. I've been hungry because I didn't. And not "I missed lunch" hungry. "Haven't eaten for 4 days" hungry. I've also (at a different time, obviously) donated tens of thousands of $ to various charitable organizations. The difference between that charity and the "charity" of the government is that I freely gave that $ of my own free will.

All that being said, here's my position: Don't have them if you can't afford them. Once you have them they are your responsibility, not mine or anyone else's. They are yours. Whatever your situation may be, however bad your luck has been, no matter how you get into a bad position, you do not have the right to another person's property.

---

Good point! In my view, if one is not careful government "charity" will leave you in a bigger hole than you started with when you reached out for help, leaving you dependent on government hand outs (forced tax payer handouts)! On the other hand, true charity comes from the heart and helps people to stand on their own two feet!
The old saying applies:"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime."

---

The way I heard it was:

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day.

:nj

I thought it was 'give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life' :D

I agree that charity should be handled by churches and specific charitable organizations. Anthing state organized is less efficient.

Locality also makes it easier for organizations to know the people they are helping, and judging their needs.
And conversely, people who want to donate have a better overview of how and where it will be spent.

Government charity is less preferable because it is prone to abuse, and inefficient. It should only exist in the absence of sufficient resources of charitable organizations.

The one exception I make for state sponsored charity is for people with disabilities. If you are really unable to work I think you should get the minimum to allow you to get by. But that probably ties in more with healthcare than with charity.

This is a tricky one, and quite apropos to some current situations in Australia with indigenous communities and single mothers. Does welfare create welfare dependency? Well yeah, if it's just a lazy hand-out with no other solutions in place, it probably does.

Money's not a long term solution for people on welfare IMO - building skills, self-esteem, providing opportunities is far better because it enables them to take control of their lives. Problem is it's easier, and cheaper, to just throw money at them and tell them to get off their ass and find a job. Australia's indigenous communities are reaping the "benefit" of a lazy and uncaring welfare system now, IMO.

When we lived in the UK we noticed the relative lack of social welfare and the increased number of charities in comparison to Australia. My wife actually worked as the research director of a charity for the families and children of prisoners while we were there. Try getting money out of the public when your charity has the word "Prisoner" in it's title! I guess my feelings about charities are that there are plenty of worthy causes out there, and a limited amount of money. So some of the less "sympathy-generating" causes get lost in the crowd. Govt. needs to provide safety nets for groups in the community who fall through the cracks - if it didn't, it would be failing in its duty as a government (IMO ;) ).

James.

give mhailey a dollar, and he will play powerball! yeah!!!

its up to $300,000,000 now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

give mhailey a dollar, and he will play powerball! yeah!!!

its up to $300,000,000 now!

---

Yeah, but 300 mil don't get you what it used to anymore ;)

James.

True dat. maybe i'z can big up meself out of the ghetto. Move on up to the east side, to a delux apartment in the sky, hi, hi. MOVE ON UP!


I just need my balls to drop.

The lotto balls you nasty people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Yeah, but 300 mil don't get you what it used to anymore ;)

James.

---

What's that quote from a congressman? "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money!"