Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:42 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm
Here's my answer, Gary.

Blah blah blah.....

I say, "By expanding the economy for all, and by the people in the country taking responsibility for themselves and others, and by limiting the role of government to the necessary."


Fair enough?

What the fuck does that even mean? Why do you bother with your disingenous word salads, old man? Go back to counting your pension money and writing letters to the editor whinging about the dollar a week increase in your local property rates or whatever you call it over there. I bet you spy on your neighbours too

Maybe he's referring to "trickle down economics".

No. To personal responsibility.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:57 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:50 pm One ought to know why one is taking a particular position.

And not just because some professors said so.

Well, is no one qualified to dismiss something someone says because academic opinion is largely against it?

you, "Gary childress", are the 'very one' that said and stated, 'I happened to believe what my professors said.'

And, just like you 'others' happen/ed to believe what "their professors" have said, also.

Which, by the way, some of said the exact opposite of what "your professors" said. So, if you had "those professors" would you have happened to believe what 'they' said, as well?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then why?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:57 pm I would think academics have put a lot of thought into things and from what I can tell my professors were right about Ayn Rand.

1. What did "your professors" say and claim about "ayn rand", exactly?

2. What you would 'think' is never ever necessarily true, nor right, nor even being necessarily remotely even close to being true, nor right.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:57 pm Is Ayn Rand an admirable intellectual?

To you, what even makes 'one' a so-called 'admirable intellectual'?

Is it one who you, happen, to agree with, by chance?

Some might say that a Truly admiral intellectual is just one who makes 'you' 'think more'. Or, maybe one who when questions and/or challenges 'you' gets 'you' to 'think more' about why 'you' 'think', or 'believe', in 'the way' that 'you' do.

So, what is 'it', exactly, that makes 'one' 'an admiral intellectual', to 'you', personally, "gary childress"?

And, why do 'you' 'think' 'this way', exactly, when 'another' would 'think' in 'another completely different way'?

Once 'you' find 'the ultimate answer/s', here, then 'you' will start 'seeing', and 'thinking', in 'different ways'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 9:57 pm We should not have Social Security? We should first ask friends and relatives if they can lend us money and then go to charities to get help? I've worked with the poor in the US and believe me, the biggest problem with small charities is that they can't really do anything substantial to help. Many charities refer you to other charities because there's nothing they can do and when you get to the other charities they just refer you back to the ones you just came from. In my experience private charities are not a realistic solution to help all those in crisis all the time.

Therefore, 'money' is obviously not 'a solution', in Life.

And, in fact, it could be said and argued that 'money is, actually, the root of all evil', But, if any one did say 'this', or did 'try to' argue 'this', then 'this' is also obviously False, and Wrong. As 'money' is just 'paper with numbers on it', or just 'digits on a screen with a monetary symbol', and both of these, in and of themselves, obviously do not cause not create 'evil', itself.

Now, it could be said and argued that 'the wanting of money, or wanting of more money, is 'a cause' of all evil'. Which, obviously, 'the wanting of money or of more money', is 'greed', itself. Which, obviously, is 'a cause' of all evil.

There are, however, two, prior, 'causes' of why all adult human beings end up 'wanting money', and thus why all adults have become 'greedy'.

Which, in turn, is why thinking that 'charities', 'taxing', and/or 'providing money' will somehow 'help' you human beings and be 'a solution' to all of 'your problems' is utterly False, Wrong, and misguided.

The actual Truth is, while you adult human beings keep 'wanting more and more money', then 'your problems and/or issues' will keep on increasing, and/or keep on getting worse.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:42 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm
Here's my answer, Gary.

Blah blah blah.....

I say, "By expanding the economy for all, and by the people in the country taking responsibility for themselves and others, and by limiting the role of government to the necessary."


Fair enough?

What the fuck does that even mean? Why do you bother with your disingenous word salads, old man? Go back to counting your pension money and writing letters to the editor whinging about the dollar a week increase in your local property rates or whatever you call it over there. I bet you spy on your neighbours too

Maybe he's referring to "trickle down economics". Give all the money to the wealthy and the poor will have more table scraps.

He must be at least a hundred then and well into dementia. Anyone with a normal brain knows that was always bullshit. What even IS it in a practical sense? So the heads of gigantic corporations sit around their polished meeting tables saying, ''Oh look, we've made 50 billiion dollars extra this year thanks to not paying any taxes. We MUST give it all back to 'the people'. 'Ummm, how do we do that??'

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:53 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:26 pm ...institutionalizing assistance programs to handle things more quickly (even if they cost a bit more).

Is that what you think happens? You think government is more efficient and fair at delivering people's needs? You won't find that's the case anywhere.

Helping people must happen here and now...

Well, it depends what we're "helping" them to do. In general, we're both in favour of that. We're just debating the means.

So it is your belief that if a family is suddenly struck losing their home that they can do what? Go to a church food pantry and get a few outdated groceries? Go to the Salvation Army and take a one night stay at their overnight shelters. What exactly are the private welfare programs that you find help people most who are struck by a crisis and become homeless? Apparently your experience as a missionary has made you a greater expert on social assistance than my experiences.

And of course, shareholders are reknowned for their generosity. They will happily part with the extra money in their bank account.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:54 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:42 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:56 pm

What the fuck does that even mean? Why do you bother with your disingenous word salads, old man? Go back to counting your pension money and writing letters to the editor whinging about the dollar a week increase in your local property rates or whatever you call it over there. I bet you spy on your neighbours too

Maybe he's referring to "trickle down economics".

No. To personal responsibility.

So is it your belief that the cause of poverty is lack of personal responsibility? All we need to do is encourage people to take "personal responsibility" and poverty will decrease? What they take now and end up in poverty isn't "personal responsibility". They failed somehow. They lack motivation for success and only "tough love" will get it back? Or what is this theory about "personal responsibility"?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:53 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:26 pm ...institutionalizing assistance programs to handle things more quickly (even if they cost a bit more).

Is that what you think happens? You think government is more efficient and fair at delivering people's needs? You won't find that's the case anywhere.

Helping people must happen here and now...

Well, it depends what we're "helping" them to do. In general, we're both in favour of that. We're just debating the means.

So it is your belief that if a family is suddenly struck losing their home that they can do what? Go to a church food pantry and get a few outdated groceries? Go to the Salvation Army and take a one night stay at their overnight shelters. What exactly are the private welfare programs that you find help people most who are struck by a crisis and become homeless? Apparently your experience as a missionary has made you a greater expert on social assistance than my experiences.

His wet dream is the 'age of the workhouse.' Nothing like a good bit of death and starvation to pull people up by their bootstaps. It gives all the power to good kristian charities, which are reknowned for their kindness and generosity

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:53 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:26 pm ...institutionalizing assistance programs to handle things more quickly (even if they cost a bit more).

Is that what you think happens? You think government is more efficient and fair at delivering people's needs? You won't find that's the case anywhere.

Helping people must happen here and now...

Well, it depends what we're "helping" them to do. In general, we're both in favour of that. We're just debating the means.

So it is your belief that if a family is suddenly struck losing their home that they can do what?

Who is this mythical family? How were they "suddenly struck"? Does the father have an alcohol and gambling problem? Is the mother an insane shopaholic? Did they plan badly, and overextend their credit? Or were they squatters? Or was there a house fire...

Different situations argue for different solutions. But maybe you can explain to me how handing more power to the government would convince them to help these people. Let's hear your plan.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 6:13 pm So our stubborn Christian friend IC thinks that all taxation is "theft", ALL OF IT. And governments should not commit theft.

My question is, if that is the case, then how will societies raise funds for projects that need to be collectively created and administrated?

Here's my answer, Gary.

Our difference is not over whether there should be such projects. We both agree that limited government and limited taxation are necessary evils,

Which is why 'the solution' had never been found previously, for thousands of years. People like 'these two' had not yet been 'readied', and so were never capable of uncovering the actual solution, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm and that they have a role in such things as building roads, maintaining civil defense, and so on. We're fine on all that.

LOL
LOL
LOL

See how absolutely 'this one' 'tries' so, so very hard to be absolutely 'deceptive', here?

Notice how it talked about 'building roads' and 'maintaining civil defence', and then 'tried to' slip in 'the claim' that "gary childress" is 'fine' on 'all of that, and that "gary childress" agrees with the 'taking', or 'taxing', of money for 'those things'?

Also, notice how it, still, did not mention healthcare, education, or community projects as being things that 'taxes' are 'necessary for'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm Where we disagree is on whether or not government can be a saviour.

What the actual disagreement is on 'the above', and not necessarily on any 'red herring' word, known as 'saviour'.

"immanuel can" was the most 'slight of hand', 'deviant', and 'deceptive' poster, here.

Which, really, was quite funny and humorous to watch it 'try' to trick, fool, and deceive the readers, back when this was being written.

1. Because it did not even know how deceptive it really was.

2. Because it, laughably, claimed that it was 'the' "christian", and 'tried to' appear as though it was 'the' most knowledgeable in regards to "christ", 'God', and living "christian"-like. When, in fact, it was the most distorted and twisted one, and who, at times, was the most 'devilish one' of them all, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm That is, can we commission government to feed our poor, raise our children, handle all our health concerns, give us a guaranteed income, create a sustainable welfare system, and not to collect taxes from those who cannot afford it, and not use those funds collected in irresponsible and corrupt ways.

What?

you add in so many unnecessary, untrue, and confusing and deceptive words, here, which makes answering 'your question', properly and Correctly, here, near impossible.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm You think you can trust the State. I think we cannot.

Yes "Gary childress". you can, only, 'trust the state', when they are using more and more of 'your taxes' on 'defence' and on "Christian teachings", like for example, God has a penis, and created absolutely every thing all at once.

Then, and only then, 'you' can 'trust the state'.

But, if 'the state' every uses 'your taxed money' on absolutely any thing like healthcare, housing, aid, food, and/or education for absolutely every one, then 'the state' can never ever be 'trusted'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm I think that most social needs are best met by community effort and voluntary societies, not by government force.

LOL Even just the use of the word, 'force', here, is an 'attempt' to manipulate you readers to believe that this 'then means' that 'that', [community effort and voluntary societies] being met by 'governments' is some how Wrong, or bad.

But, again, in regards to building roads, weapons manufacturing, and/or defence is perfectly fine and acceptable to spend money 'governments' have 'taken', or 'taxed', from 'the people'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm You think that if we allow the government to extort enough through taxation, it will miraculously become staffed by saints, and will use the additional revenues in ways more responsible than private citizens, community groups and voluntary associations could.

Again, 'this one' adds in the word, 'extort', to manipulate, and to control, the reader, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm So our disagreement is not over whether or not the needs of the poor should be met; on that, we 100% agree. It's over HOW they are going to be met. It's over the means that will achieve the goal we both desire.

So, when you are informed that through 'private organisations or enterprises only' that the so-called 'needs of the poor' are not 'getting met', or will not 'get met', you, still, 'try to' defend 'your fixed position', that 'governments' and 'taxed dollars' should play no part at all in helping the so-called 'poor' get just basic human needs like healthcare, aid, food, nor shelter.

But, again, for roads and weapons are perfectly fine and okay, with you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm This distinction is nicely worked out in a book buy a guy you'd like: a Democrat sociologist named Jonathan Haidt, who in his book "The Righteous Mind," give fair treatment to both sides.

LOL Here, is 'another one' who thinks, or believes, that there are actual "sides", here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm I suggest we replicate his analysis of the situation, and recognize the problem as one of means, not of ends. We both want to see people get what they need; we're only disagreeing over how that is best achieved. You say "by Big Government and forcible taxation." I say, "By expanding the economy for all,

LOL How does one, or more, so-call, 'expand the economy for all', when there is only so much money, and where fewer and fewer people are obtaining and gaining more and more of that 'limited amount of money', exactly?

Also, why do you not write, the words, 'Big Government and forcible taxation', when you talk about and mention building roads and defence creation?

Why do you only write like 'that', in relation to 'helping', what you call, 'the poor'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm and by the people in the country taking responsibility for themselves and others, and by limiting the role of government to the necessary."

Once again, those who believe that "capitalism" is the best, for all, very quickly like to turn on to 'those', with less, as being 'the ones' who do not 'take responsibility for themselves, nor for others'.

Which is a very, very easy, and simple, thing for 'one' to do, when 'they' consider "them" 'self' to be 'more than', or 'better than', some 'others'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm That's where we need to begin, because that's the real difference. Impugning each others motives will not answer the question and get us very far.

Why do you dispute "gary childress's" motives, here?

And, why do you not want 'others' to 'look at' your actual motives, here, "immanuel can"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm I accept that your desire to help the underprivilged is genuine, even if I find your methods unworkable and perilous; and I trust you can accord me the same respect of believing I also recognize the problem of the genuinely needy and have sympathy for them, even if you doubt the methods I advocate.

So, if both of 'your methods' do not actually work, then why not both just 'stop' 'trying to' argue and/or fight for 'your positions', and instead just let go of 'your positions' and just 'find out' what actually does work?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm Fair enough?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am
Who is this mythical family? How were they "suddenly struck"? Does the father have an alcohol and gambling problem? Is the mother an insane shopaholic? Did they plan badly, and overextend their credit? Or were they squatters? Or was there a house fire...

Different situations argue for different solutions. But maybe you can explain to me how handing more power to the government would convince them to help these people. Let's hear your plan.

We aren't going to make much progress if you believe the majority of the poor are poor by their own fault. I take it then that you don't KNOW poor people, or are looking at propaganda, not real statistics.

PLEASE NOTICE -- I am NOT saying that your examples of "undeserving poor" don't exist. They do, and part of what is shitty about our existing social service programs is how much wasted, the terrible hoops all poor must navigate, to prove they aren't among the undeserving. Never mind that this costs more than just letting the undeserving gate away with it.

OK --modest proposal (not original with me) that will have both you and the traditional leftists up in arms. Guaranteed Annual Income. There of course would be taxation to support this, it is a redistribution, BUT TO ALL. That's right, the poor get this, whether deserving or not, but also the not poor, even the very rich. All get the same. No government bureaucracy trying to weed out the unworthy. No prying into people's lives.
BTW -- some of the classical period city states had this. A common butt of comedy the miser who bothered queuing to receive his citizen's dole.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:44 pm because you people do not want to just 'hand over' money, to others, and get no service in return, it is only when you people feel like you deserve money, from others, like in retirement for example, do you people then want others, like the government, for example, to just 'hand over' money.'[/b]

That's a pretty low opinion of ordinary people.

Who, and what, are so-called 'ordinary people', exactly?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:49 pm Do you think it applies to everyone, that we all just want government to "hand over money" and not give anything to others ourselves, as you seem to put it.

1. Why does your thinking jump from either/or, or black or white? Why when I some times use the 'you' word, you then infer that it refers to you, personally, and only, but then other times when I use the 'you' word, you jump to then inferring that it refers to absolutely every one?

Let 'us' 'go back' and 'look at' what was said and written, and in what context, exactly?

Firstly, you said and wrote, the words,
Are we just shit out of luck if we want the postal service or social security? Or should only people who want to pay for postal service or social security fund social security and the post office?

I then said and wrote, the words,
It could be said and argued that if people want to 'post some thing', then they can pay for that service, "themselves", and not rely on 'taxed dollars' to do so.

But, because you people do not want to just 'hand over' money, to others, and get no service in return, it is only when you people feel like you deserve money, from others, like in retirement for example, do you people then want others, like the government, for example, to just 'hand over' money. So, it could be said, and argued, then for some services, like healthcare and/or education, then paying for them is a shared responsibility. For the very simple fact that some jobs, in Life, are not paid equally, or as much as others are.

I never said, and I was never meaning, in regards to, 'what I seem to be saying, to you'.

2. What I was actually saying, and am still meaning, is, that people do not like to 'hand over money' to governments, who then 'give' 'that money' to, some, others who choose not to work.

However, when those 'same people, who did not previously like to 'hand over money', to governments, choose, "themselves", to retire, and thus choose not to work, then 'they' want 'others' to 'hand over money', to the government, so then 'the government' 'hands over money', to them.

Which, coincidentally, ended up aligning, more or less exactly, like "ayn rand", and with what you were saying "ayn rand" did.

In other words, there are people like "Immanuel can" who believe, wholeheartedly that governments should not help and support those 'less fortunate', with 'tax payer's dollars. Unless, of course, it becomes 'less fortunate', and then 'we' all know where "immanuel can" will 'go to', and what it would 'expect', if it had nowhere else to go to.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:58 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:44 pm because you people do not want to just 'hand over' money, to others, and get no service in return, it is only when you people feel like you deserve money, from others, like in retirement for example, do you people then want others, like the government, for example, to just 'hand over' money.'[/b]

That's a pretty low opinion of ordinary people. Do you think it applies to everyone, that we all just want government to "hand over money" and not give anything to others ourselves, as you seem to put it.

I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying. He's saying that IC is fine with it as long as it's being handed to HIM.

I was not thinking of "immanuel can" when I wrote 'that'.

But, I can see how "immanuel can" would be one of the first whining and whinging about the government and about 'needing money', if, and when, it ended up as some do.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am
Who is this mythical family? How were they "suddenly struck"? Does the father have an alcohol and gambling problem? Is the mother an insane shopaholic? Did they plan badly, and overextend their credit? Or were they squatters? Or was there a house fire...

Different situations argue for different solutions. But maybe you can explain to me how handing more power to the government would convince them to help these people. Let's hear your plan.

We aren't going to make much progress if you believe the majority of the poor are poor by their own fault. I take it then that you don't KNOW poor people, or are looking at propaganda, not real statistics.

Au contraire: if you're the average, I've encountered many, many more poor people than you have. What's more, I know the difference between no-fault poverty and poverty that is the responsibility of the person who has impoverished himself. Do you?

Never mind that this costs more than just letting the undeserving gate away with it.

Let's have the statistic you have for that, please.

Guaranteed Annual Income.

Where does the money come from?

All "free" money comes from people who work. Keep that in mind.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:53 pm
Is that what you think happens? You think government is more efficient and fair at delivering people's needs? You won't find that's the case anywhere.

Well, it depends what we're "helping" them to do. In general, we're both in favour of that. We're just debating the means.

So it is your belief that if a family is suddenly struck losing their home that they can do what?

Who is this mythical family? How were they "suddenly struck"? Does the father have an alcohol and gambling problem? Is the mother an insane shopaholic? Did they plan badly, and overextend their credit? Or were they squatters? Or was there a house fire...

Different situations argue for different solutions. But maybe you can explain to me how handing more power to the government would convince them to help these people. Let's hear your plan.

So is it your belief that an "irresponsible" person should not receive assistance if their "irresponsibility" causes them to become homeless? Or is your point to send him to alcohol addiction counseling while he's homeless and living in a shelter, so that he can eventually get back on his feet? What if he and his family are homeless due to a housefire? What private charity will help them?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:20 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:58 pm
So it is your belief that if a family is suddenly struck losing their home that they can do what?

Who is this mythical family? How were they "suddenly struck"? Does the father have an alcohol and gambling problem? Is the mother an insane shopaholic? Did they plan badly, and overextend their credit? Or were they squatters? Or was there a house fire...

Different situations argue for different solutions. But maybe you can explain to me how handing more power to the government would convince them to help these people. Let's hear your plan.

So is it your belief...

No, no...you answer first. Explain how the government is going to help these people.