Last edited by Beestonplace (2015-11-01 08:03:02)
Last edited by formby1 (2015-11-01 08:16:37)
Are we talking about Prince Harry now?
/\ I do not endorse pernicious actions by moths against privately held woolen clothing although I recognize that the species has a legitimate right to survive.
there is no single nostrum but I do recommend A Theory of Justice by John Rawls .........
An update of this is now being played out in Germany and Sweden, what price justice for all and a German or Swedish lifestyle and prosperity for all: If Germany and Sweden cannot afford it and/or at a cost of reducing the benefits and lifestyle of those who have contributed into those societies for thirty or forty years? Is it morally right that some nearly arrived refugee should receive only marginally less than a family in Germany who have fallen out of work after paying and contributing into that society all their working lives?
/\ it was assigned reading for us in college.
as to the supposed problems with the Difference Principle, even assuming that people deserve certain economic benefits in light of their actions and that there exist compelling explanations of how people come to be in the more or less advantaged groups when such explanations are relevant to the fairness of these positions, ultimately the position that it is beneficial both to the advantaged and to society in general to provide benefits to the disadvantaged remains unchanged.
While an individual does deserve advantages he has earned fairly through non-harmful actions, the obligation to share some of the wealth/advantages/goods for the benefit of the disadvantaged does not disappear. Deciding how much of the pie has to go to the disadvantaged then becomes the question, not whether the disadvantaged should get any pie at all.
Last edited by stanshall (2015-11-02 10:13:31)
Last edited by doghouse (2015-11-02 10:17:25)
I like pie too. I never said anybody here was advocating that there should be no pie for the poor.
Anyway, Formby's questions have been answered, and the answer is that people do deserve advantages they have fairly earned, but it is to their advantage to share some of them with the disadvantaged.
in this way the property-owning democracy can be sustained
as to 4F's point, refugees cannot practically be entitled to the same cash benefits as people who have longer-standing ties to a society but at the same time basic necessities and health care should be provided for them while they try to get back on their feet.
Right, but you still haven't come up with how much should be divvied up, and on what level, which for the US is just as important.
And I never doubted your pie fondness my friend. If I run for President, my platform will be pie for everyone.
how much should be divvied up is indeed the question, but it's one that can be addressed once the central premise that there should be sharing because it is beneficial to all is settled.
but give me 15 minutes, I'll come up with a perfect taxation plan that will appeal to everybody ........
Splendid news Doggy, now I have to see what my staff is making me for lunch and give them instructions for dinner.
The fairest system is that which gives all what they deserve. We cannot work that out, so forget it. It's too complex and the factors too opaque. It's always imperfect and ever in need of adjustment.
A more reasonable system is to give me everything and I'll decide who gets what. It's also not perfect, but it is easy to work out.
/\ system must include ice-cream sundaes for everyone not just the favored few.
All would have equal access to sundaes, but some would be more equal than others.
Ha!
I suppose that answers the question, who will police the police?