Topic: Too Much Faith in Humanity? (Read 23356 times)

Vespertine · « **on:** October 19, 2005, 11:31:56 AM »

You can thank TeraHammer for something, because I've got a question that will hopefully give rise to an intelligent conversation. It's mostly for Demo, but anyone else is welcome to join in. I am a registered Libertarian, and my beliefs fall in line with the party platform more than they don't. Personally, I feel that welfare should be abolished.

The following quote is from the front page of the Libertatian Party website.

Quote

The proper source of aid to the poor is voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

Here's the question. Are we putting more faith in the goodness of humanity than we ought to? Put another way, if governmental aid were to end, and the tax dollars were returned to the individual, do you really think there would be a corresponding rise in private donations?

xolik · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2005, 11:48:56 AM »

Quote from: Vespertine

Put another way, if governmental aid were to end, and the tax dollars were returned to the individual, do you really think there would be a corresponding rise in private donations?

No, I personally don't think we would see a rise in private donations. To me, this ties in closely to the nature of humans. I believe that humans are inherently evil, and as such a large percentage of them would sooner splurge on material possessions for themselves rather than to donate their newly acquired extra cash to charity.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #2 on:** October 19, 2005, 11:50:09 AM »

Does libertarianism place too much faith in humanity? Not at all, V.

In numerous debates, I have been confronted by statists and authoritarians, trying to tell me that libertarianism is inherently flawed because it "puts too much faith in people to do the right thing".

On the contrary, that's not even close to the case. Libertarianism, in practice, removes power from government and hands it to individuals, not "the people".

This is largely because of a LACK OF faith in "people" and/or "humanity" to do the right thing.

Handing power to those governing us places a TREMENDOUS amount of faith in "the people" to "do the right thing".

Instead, we advocate keeping power where it belongs. In the hands of individuals.

It is that inherent mistrust of people that keeps us suspicious of governments, rule-by-mob democracy, and bait-and-switches the combination of the two love to present us in the name of "liberty".

I have zero faith in people. Because of that, I am a staunch advocate of individual responsibility.

The only political philosophy that is consistent on that concept is libertarianism. Which is why I'm a card-carrying LP member myself.

On the subject of charity... Would less taxation lead to more charitable giving by individuals? Maybe... maybe not. I really can't say.

But that's ultimately for individuals to decide, not governments. In short, libertarianism doesn't "place faith in individuals" when it comes to charity as much as it spurns the use of force to help others.

Quote from: xolik

Quote from: Vespertine
Put another way, if governmental aid were to end, and the tax dollars were returned to the individual, do you really think there would be a corresponding rise in private donations?

No, I personally don't think we would see a rise in private donations. To me, this ties in closely to the nature of humans. I believe that humans are inherently evil, and as such a large percentage of them would sooner splurge on material possessions for themselves rather than to donate their newly acquired extra cash to charity.

While that's probably true, Xolik, that's still ultimately the choice of individuals to do that.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if I have the needs of myself and my family met, I am more than happy to give whatever I feel I can afford to help those less fortunate.

But that's my choice. I will not be told how much and when, particularly by those claiming to be my "moral" superiors who clearly are not such.

TheJudge · « **Reply #3 on:** October 19, 2005, 12:05:01 PM »

Quote from: xolik

No, I personally don't think we would see a rise in private donations. To me, this ties in closely to the nature of humans. I believe that humans are inherently evil, and as such a large percentage of them would sooner splurge on material possessions for themselves rather than to donate their newly acquired extra cash to charity.

I can accept this agrument if you can illustrate how you came to the conclusion that humans are inherently evil.

Quote from: Vespertine

Put another way, if governmental aid were to end, and the tax dollars were returned to the individual, do you really think there would be a corresponding rise in private donations?

I beleive that humans are generally greedy based on first account observations and therefore I anwser no. However this beleif of humans being greedy is not scientific because my observations were not made in within and environment that had established variables, nor is the pool of observation representative of the human race. I can therefore not use it to support my position. So what I have is simply an opinion that can easily be ignored.

heretofore · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2005, 12:14:47 PM »

Okay, I just came out of college and away with several "ethics" classes which are ultimately useless, but good to put on a resume. I have to say that in each of these classes, we discovered that humans are in fact born bad and learn good. However, "bad" isn't necessarily the "bad" that means we're all infants that prefer to be robbers and murderers. We're simply born with self-preservation as our SOLE intent. Over the course of our childhoods, our parents (hopefully) return this set of morals to the store and instill "good" ones, being share and play nice, speak only when you've something nice to say. Sadly, these values are dwindling as parenthood loses its spine and whacking paddle, but that's beside the point - the fact of the matter is that we're taught to conform to society's perception of acceptable behavior, and some of us grasp the concept of assist thy neighbor in time of hurricane, some of us take it to excess, and some of us skate by not doing it at all.

Sigh.

I believe that an effort from common people would arise for more people to be involved in helping their community, but those whose parents were most successful would become the primary private donors, in which case any volunteer and fund requests would more than likely rely on these few, generous souls.

It's hard to say whether there would be a rise in voluntary effort or not, but I do know that with less regulation, less progress is made.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #5 on:** October 19, 2005, 12:17:20 PM »

I think it is also worth pointing out that without the cesspool of idiocy ruling our economic and social lives right now in this country, there would arguably be far less NEED for charity.

Government never creates prosperity. It only impedes it.

This is also central to the libertarian argument, I should mention.

There will always be natural disasters, this is true... but their economic and human impacts will be quite different if I had my political druthers.

TeraHammer · « **Reply #6 on:** October 19, 2005, 12:28:42 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Government never creates prosperity. It only impedes it.

Government can divide prosperity among its citizens. We must help eachother.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #7 on:** October 19, 2005, 12:31:11 PM »

Quote from: TeraHammer

Quote from: Demosthenes
Government never creates prosperity. It only impedes it.

Government can divide prosperity among its citizens. We must help eachother.

Ah, a supporter of authoritarianism. Put a gun to people's heads and take what doesn't belong to you in the name of "doing the right thing".

How droll.

TeraHammer · « **Reply #8 on:** October 19, 2005, 12:32:40 PM »

How honorable

Demosthenes · « **Reply #9 on:** October 19, 2005, 12:36:57 PM »

What are you referring to as "honorable"?

Using force to push your morality on others? I beg to differ. That seems a little too "might makes right" for me. Personally, I think a civilized approach is probably a lot more "honorable". One that doesn't involve theft and the use of force on individuals.

BizB · « **Reply #10 on:** October 19, 2005, 12:50:27 PM »

Didn't I already win that debate?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #11 on:** October 19, 2005, 12:51:36 PM »

Quote from: BizB

Didn't I already win that debate?

Yeah, pretty much. Though considering your opponent never really even stepped into the ring properly, I'm not certain you can really call it a "win" other than by default.

He has yet to do so here as well.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #12 on:** October 19, 2005, 01:03:57 PM »

I'd like to point out that charity, whether given out by government or by private institutions, is almost always useless unless accompanied by education/information/teaching/something more.

A world food bank, for instance, would probably be the greatest failure in history. 'Poor' countries would continue to take food, and 'rich' countries would continue to put food in. Unless you assist the 'poor' countries with their own generation of food supplies, it's actually harmful to feed them.

You don't try and feed cancer do you? You treat it, and you treat a lot of problems with education and getting people (individuals or populations, take your pick) self-sufficient.

You can't throw money at everything and expect it to go away.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #13 on:** October 19, 2005, 01:59:13 PM »

If I had to pay no taxes I would definitely give more to charity. I already give a good portion to charity.

The big problem with government is they assume that a lack of funds is the reason for their failures. So what do they do? They allocate even more funds the next fiscal period. And guess what? They still fail. Doing the exact same thing over and over again and expecting to see different results is pathological according to the DSM.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #14 on:** October 19, 2005, 02:06:09 PM »

And we all know what happens when you make an assumption.

You make an "ass" out of "u" and.... uh.... "mption". Or something.

xolik · « **Reply #15 on:** October 19, 2005, 02:08:15 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

I beleive that humans are generally greedy based on first account observations and therefore I anwser no. However this beleif of humans being greedy is not scientific because my observations were not made in within and environment that had established variables, nor is the pool of observation representative of the human race. I can therefore not use it to support my position. So what I have is simply an opinion that can easily be ignored.

While the quote tags were screwed up there, I get the idea. She asked for an opinion and I gave one. She did not ask for a scientific case study, therefore I did not try to present it as such. Hence my use of the words "Personally" and "To me."

I love you too!

TheJudge · « **Reply #16 on:** October 19, 2005, 02:17:09 PM »

Perhaps, but I am still interested on how you reached the conclusion that humans are inherently evil. Care to elaborate while I go fix my quote tags?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #17 on:** October 19, 2005, 02:20:31 PM »

I'm of the opinion that human beings are inherently selfish... whether or not one interprets that as "evil" depends largely on one's point of view, and how that selfishness manifests.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #18 on:** October 19, 2005, 02:23:25 PM »

I believe that some are inherently evil and others are inherently charitable. Well not really inherently, but more socially conditioned. If an organism has enough to eat and there is no obvious danger in sharing what one can't consume with another, the organism will share. All organisms have survival instincts, but when survival isn't an issue most organisms will be amicable. And yes humans fall into this category too.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #19 on:** October 19, 2005, 02:25:24 PM »

Humans are also social creatures and will operate using social norms. So if one has more of a resource that they can't possibly consume in a lifetime, they can be guilted into giving some of that resource up. Even Larry Ellison has been guilted by his peers to cough up some charity.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #20 on:** October 19, 2005, 02:25:26 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus

I believe that some are inherently evil and others are inherently charitable. Well not really inherently, but more socially conditioned. If an organism has enough to eat and there is no obvious danger in sharing what one can't consume with another, the organism will share. All organisms have survival instincts, but when survival isn't an issue most organisms will be amicable. And yes humans fall into this category too.

I think that's a good way of looking at it. The sheer amount of money and resources donated to charities by individuals of their own free will already is enough to demonstrate that to at least some extent.

reimero · « **Reply #21 on:** October 19, 2005, 02:32:33 PM »

The other side of this argument is that if you take welfare out of the hands of government (with corresponding tax cuts), you give the economy the opportunity to create more wealth (and the creation of wealth requires jobs.) Put another way, done correctly, while charitable contributions may or may not increase, the number of people who need to live off those contributions WILL decrease.

GenStyx · « **Reply #22 on:** October 19, 2005, 03:16:34 PM »

I am about to draw many ties between the idea of libertarianism and Taoism, particularly excerpts from the Tao te Ching. You'll have to wait though because I have to attend a lecture on African Poverty and Oil.

If you are at all familiar with the Tao you'd know that it faces criticism on putting too much faith in humanity. I don't think either are too idealistic, accepting that there will always be complications when dealing with these issues.

Complications can be good though. In the Tao it states that when everyone thinks good is good, it is no longer good. By this it can be meant that rigidity is detrimental. If we all follow groupthink then we would be blind to problems. If we all accept without thinking then we are no longer thinking.

Well...I gotta run.

TeraHammer · « **Reply #23 on:** October 19, 2005, 03:17:59 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

What are you referring to as "honorable"?

Using force to push your morality on others? I beg to differ. That seems a little too "might makes right" for me. Personally, I think a civilized approach is probably a lot more "honorable". One that doesn't involve theft and the use of force on individuals.

I call people who do not want to share their money with their the poor dishonorable, selfish. What do you call a "civilized approach"? The right of the strongest, the richest? To share is civilized, to want to have everything for yourself is barbarian.

But back on-topic, there are a lot of different people in the world, and everybody is different, born and raised. If we raise our children to share, no tax is needed.

Min · « **Reply #24 on:** October 19, 2005, 03:20:55 PM »

Sharing is fine, to an extent. I give alot of my time to help people who are elderly, handicapped, etc. Not to people who sit around watching Jerry Springer because they know that the government will give them money at the end of the week anyway.

I bust my ass working two jobs to make ends meet. Maybe I should just stop and let you guys all pay my bills for me.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Too Much Faith in Humanity? (Read 23356 times)