It's a paradox, so maybe this will help a bit. The possibility of being involved in an auto accident is known well in advance before you get in your car and drive, yet we still choose to drive. What we do not choose to do, is get into an auto accident. So just because you choose to drive does not mean you chose to get in an accident.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Mandantory Drug Tests
- Thread starter sandmangeck
- Start date
- Status
It's a paradox, so maybe this will help a bit. The possibility of being involved in an auto accident is known well in advance before you get in your car and drive, yet we still choose to drive. What we do not choose to do, is get into an auto accident. So just because you choose to drive does not mean you chose to get in an accident.
This still makes no sense to me. I read it as equivalent to "it's the users fault they chose to play Russian Roulette, but it's not their fault their brains are splattered all over the wall". There's a direct causal relationship between one and the other.
Everything else in your comment I agree with, though
There's a difference between choice and fault. Choice is what a person is capable of choosing at the moment. Fault is determined by a complex set of criteria including your past and present circumstances, and social approval or disapproval thereof.
Nobody's answered my question: Should people who take the homeowner's deduction on their income tax return, be required to take a drug test and to perform community service?
They are definitely at fault for buying a house without having enough money to pay cash for one.
I think the answer has to do with our beginnings as a puritanical society, along with the "gospel of prosperity." There is a social taboo against being poor in America. We assume that the poor must be at fault for their condition, because they would be rich if they were pious. Likewise, we assume that the rich are successful due to their virtue, even if their wealth depends on the economic infrastructure maintained by all of our taxes.
They are definitely at fault for buying a house without having enough money to pay cash for one.
I think the answer has to do with our beginnings as a puritanical society, along with the "gospel of prosperity." There is a social taboo against being poor in America. We assume that the poor must be at fault for their condition, because they would be rich if they were pious. Likewise, we assume that the rich are successful due to their virtue, even if their wealth depends on the economic infrastructure maintained by all of our taxes.
One of the saddest things I've read in a long time.
People like him are why people hate straight edge.
Yea big dog, because calling drug users subhuman isn't offensive to a lot of people here.
Taking this in reverse order:
Anyone who claims that poverty is largely down to choice is just as much of a fool as anyone who claims that wealth is largely a matter of luck. Some folks are poor because they made bad choices, some folks are rich because they were in the "lucky sperm club". But not all. No question that the playing field is far from level.
Which is why we transfer (not "steal") assets from one group to the other to provide necessities including education (and, in civilised countries, health care).
On the flip side, most median income or better folks are there because they are exchanging hours of their lives for money. Which makes taking their assets an evil that can only be justified by avoiding a greater evil (i.e. providing essential services). Assuming you're happy with the labour theory of value, of course.
So, yes, people have money because of the common economic infrastructure, but also because of their own hard work.
Well, they borrow the money, and receive some degree of subsidy due to government involvement in the mortgage market (hmm, best not go there.... ;-) )
I suppose there isn't a single objective "answer" to your question, just a number of different points of view. I'd describe myself as loosely "socialist about needs, libertarian about wants", which ends up as saying "only net producers get luxuries" In that framework, most - but not all - folks who are taking a mortgage interest deduction are putting in more than they take out. So they're entitled to 100% of any surplus to spend on luxuries.
(Now, the question of whether we're actually meeting all needs is a whole other topic, but it doesn't change the basic argument).
Other points of view may see things differently. If you believe in concepts like "relative poverty" then what I've said will make little sense.
Anyone who claims that poverty is largely down to choice is just as much of a fool as anyone who claims that wealth is largely a matter of luck. Some folks are poor because they made bad choices, some folks are rich because they were in the "lucky sperm club". But not all. No question that the playing field is far from level.
Which is why we transfer (not "steal") assets from one group to the other to provide necessities including education (and, in civilised countries, health care).
On the flip side, most median income or better folks are there because they are exchanging hours of their lives for money. Which makes taking their assets an evil that can only be justified by avoiding a greater evil (i.e. providing essential services). Assuming you're happy with the labour theory of value, of course.
So, yes, people have money because of the common economic infrastructure, but also because of their own hard work.
Well, they borrow the money, and receive some degree of subsidy due to government involvement in the mortgage market (hmm, best not go there.... ;-) )
I suppose there isn't a single objective "answer" to your question, just a number of different points of view. I'd describe myself as loosely "socialist about needs, libertarian about wants", which ends up as saying "only net producers get luxuries" In that framework, most - but not all - folks who are taking a mortgage interest deduction are putting in more than they take out. So they're entitled to 100% of any surplus to spend on luxuries.
(Now, the question of whether we're actually meeting all needs is a whole other topic, but it doesn't change the basic argument).
Other points of view may see things differently. If you believe in concepts like "relative poverty" then what I've said will make little sense.
Let me say that people are free to have their own opinions and viewpoints, and to say what they want- that's one of the things our country is built upon. And if you want to be straight edge, have at it hoss. But in my opinion, it's sad that anyone would look at compassion as a "weakness". Given sonic's opinions he's shared on this topic, if he would have said something along the lines of "compassion towards addicts is a weakness", it probably wouldn't have surprised me. But he says that compassion is weakness, which were his exact words meaning compassion in general. It's his opinion, but it's just sad. Count me as part of the crowd that thinks addicts need help, and shouldn't be kicked to the curb.
I agree with what cassanova's had to say on the subject. The choice to try drugs is totally up to the user, but the change in the way the brain operates to where it becomes an addiction isn't a choice. For society to turn its back on these people who obviously need help, or to blast them into oblivion like they're some deranged dingbat zombie, isn't what they need.
All in my opinion.
Peace.
Good question. Let me rebut with this: Isn't paying taxes already a form of government service? Is paying for permits at the state/county/city level? Anything that can be considered a service or goods given (either by choice or by force of law) can be considered a community service. Just ask older people who don't have kids who have to pay for school levies.
As far as the social taboo aspect, I'm gonna tag that as BS. People make choices - whether it's to hit the books or hit a crack pipe. Or hit a bong. I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying there's gaping big holes in the system, and when I see someone on state assistance that I know have 3 smart phones and gets her rent paid for by my taxes, and I'm taking care of her kids - but yet complains about how little she gets. Eh - I'm just not buying it. Too much victim mentality.
Again, I'm not arguing someone shouldn't or should smoke pot, I'm saying if you do, don't use tax money to pay for it. Just like condoms, just like booze, just like the anecdote I told earlier: If something's being done enough, they're going to change it.
Here's another analogy - when I was growing up, I mean like when I was like 4, I was able to ride in the front seat of my parents car without a seatbelt. Now I have to strap my kids in like they're riding in the space shuttle. Why? Because people saw a cause (kids riding in the front seat without a seatbelt) and an effect (kids flying out of the car's windshield and becoming mush on the pavement). So first it was kids have to ride in the backseat, then babies have to ride in carseats, then toddlers, then older kids. A friend of mine got a warning because in my state you have to be 11, at least 4'9", and weigh a 100 pounds to not be in a booster. His 10 year old is 5'3" and weighs 108. Logically, there is no way he could ride in a booster, but that didn't matter. Same logic.
I know lots of folks here in Michigan that know several skilled trades and are either working for minimum wage or not working.
Our country absolutely CAN sustain it's spending behaviors, as long folks are willing to get realistic about paying for that spending.
How early one experiences it isn't necessarily all that relevant. Your brain is STILL physically changing. Doesn't end development until around 25.
An 18 year old ISN'T fully mentally functional.
True, up in Michigan its hard to find work...but part of that is location. I'm sure there are plenty of actors in Utah, Iowa, and South Dakota that can't find work in their craft. You have to go where your work is. I wouldn't be able to find work in my trades where your at. As far as I know, you don't have much call for structural hull insulation on ships there. Then again, I could be wrong on that. I don't live where you do. I may retire to Michigan though - I saw houses that would go for here around 200k go for about 15k...
Just out of curiousity, are you on the Upper Peninsula, or? I'm not familiar with where you're at.
Now THERE is naivete.
Yes, society is so much more accepting of horrible things now than they've ever been. I mean - racism, sexism, spousal/child abuse... those things are all way more acceptable today than they were 50 years ago...
64% of Americans drink alcohol.
64% of 307,000,000 = 196,480,000 folks who drink.
One in a million?
So there are only about 200 people in the entire USA that can handle their alcohol?
Stats isn't your strong point, is it?
You don't know that.
Even with hard drugs, addiction and use are not that causally linked.
See: Early American Calvinism and the idea of material success being evidence of God's grace.
- Status
