Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dadmonson

Should Children Be Able to Eat Free? (Parents don't have to pay)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Eiuol perspective or context requires compromise which is the problem.

The state has illegitimately acquired resources, therefore the state should give back those resources. Pretty simple. 

A compromise would be that the state has illegitimately acquired resources, therefore the state may use those resources in any utilitarian way. 

 

38 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

In the VERY RARE case it might be shown that the immoral acts of government caused innocent hard working parents to be incapable of supporting their child

Why would it be rare for the government to cause poverty to that degree? 

41 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

in which case they perhaps should receive the tax break (and at the same time be set free from government benefits as well) to enable them to be more self sufficient... ahead of other citizens not in such a dire situation.  Redress for injustice should be intelligent and might have to be paid in the order to avoid permanent harm which these innocents are at risk of, and which others might not be.

Exactly. This is what I'm arguing for. Or at least, discussing what intelligent redress would be. It is an important question for political action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

The state has illegitimately acquired resources, therefore the state should give back those resources. Pretty simple. 

A compromise would be that the state has illegitimately acquired resources, therefore the state may use those resources in any utilitarian way. 

Feeding the children is a utilitarian solution. It is not giving it back to those who it was stolen from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not see how the government violates the rights of children? Fine, be nitpicky that violating rights isn't always stealing, you know that I was talking about using those resources to make up for violating rights by paying them back to the people whose rights were violated (the children). 

SL agrees with me, but since agreeing with me for him is some great sin, he clicked like on your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you compel parents to surrender their children into your care for the day, then you are responsible for the teaching and feeding of those children. This of course costs money, which the government and public schools acquire through various means, including involuntary taxation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

If you compel parents to surrender their children into your care for the day, then you are responsible for the teaching and feeding of those children. This of course costs money, which the government and public schools acquire through various means, including involuntary taxation.

If you compel (force) anyone into anything, justice requires that you pay a price for it.

And Eiuol idea is that the "free lunch" is a reasonable price to pay a reparation for force that already has been used.

But you two have to admit that it is an arrangement that is (overall) not ideal.

The ideal solution is that the school/all schools should be private and go by free market private school rules. A private school in those circumstances is not an institution that "compels" parents to put the children there. So there is no crime that they have to pay for, then there is no reason for them to be obligated to provide free food.

You will probably come back with "well that's not the world we live in".

The problem is that the world that you see we live in "looting is eternally the norm. It will always happen. It has to be accepted. We have to get used to it." That is not the REAL world. Looting does not and should not happen. It will stop happening when it is not "believed in", when it is not surrendered to and supported by the population by false ideologies.

When we eliminate (in our minds) the possibility that we can live in a just society, justice becomes impossible.

Edited by Easy Truth
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

You will probably come back with "well that's not the world we live in".

It's far more simple than that.

Imagine an authoritarian mayor named Blike Moonberg says he's going to use $1 billion to make all kids go to public school. But you convinced him to give 20% of that money back. To some extent, this partially makes up for the force you initiated through the government. But not completely. 

That's all 3a was. 

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

It will stop happening when it is not "believed in", when it is not surrendered to and supported by the population by false ideologies.

This is right, so you would also want to articulate why you support a lunch program. I don't think it's because the government owes it to society, not at all. That's what I would articulate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

And Eiuol idea is that the "free lunch" is a reasonable price to pay a reparation for force that already has been used.

You're still under the assumption that my view is similar to Eiuol's. It's not. My view isn't based on reparations or justice. It's based on responsibility and possession. If you forcibly take a child from its parents, then you have to care for that child now, because you possess the child. You're responsible for it. You don't have to feed the child because you stole it from its parents. You have to feed it because children need food to survive. You also need to shelter and clothe them.

Reparations is an argument for continuing the cycle of violence. Who's going to pay for the free lunches? The parents whose children are forced into public schools? That's silly.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

To some extent, this partially makes up for the force you initiated through the government. But not completely. 

Yes, well articulated utilitarian measures may end up being the best of many corrupt choices.

The disagreement that you think exists, is not as severe as you see it. Let me explain.

We all compromise. I pay taxes that will be used for kill innocents that I never authorized etc. etc. But I pay it knowing that will happen. Nevertheless, I don't forget that it is wrong.

You are compromising here. But you don't' have to. If you were a senator and had to vote and you knew that you could not get rid of public schools, the free school lunch may be a good compromise for you.

But this is philosophical discussion,  it is wrong for you to compromise so quickly.

In your context, no matter what solution you come up with is going to be justice for "the most people" at best. 

Pure justice applies to all, not the most people. It is not as if "the most" should not be robbed, no ALL people should NOT be robbed.

So one ends up with a compromise solution that is going to be based on statistics and some sort of best return on investment (Utilitarian). 

Meanwhile, it is extremely important for you to agree, that your proposal must be temporary.
Otherwise, you would be proposing permanent obligatory charity.

It is NOT pure justice to accept and CONTINUE the injustice and to work within that framework.

To get rid of injustice is to STOP IT. Don't continue it. The feeding of children is a form of compensation or making "some" things right. It is not making the victim of the robbery whole moving forward. 

With the school lunch proposal, or the giving back 20 percent proposal, the robbery is still happening and is to be continued.

The robbery (taxation-public-school) has to be stopped, and I think you agree with that. (maybe we will never see it in our lifetime, nevertheless, what is wrong should be stopped).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

You have to feed it because children need food to survive. You should also need to shelter and clothe them.

Yes, anyone in the custody of the state, be it a prisoner, an arrested person, a quarantined person should be taken care of.

Your own words are the best argument against the injustice of children forcibly being in the custody of the state.

18 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

an argument for continuing the cycle of violence.

Why continue that cycle of violence? Aren't parents obligated to put their children in tax funded school that may or may not teach what they want.

28 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

You're still under the assumption that my view is similar to Eiuol's. It's not.

Nevertheless, it is also a compromise that is not fundamentally necessary.

If you had a gun to you head and you had to do it, okay.

In fact this whole thing is like assuming you have a gun to your head and the robber wants all of your money and you want some of it to remain in you pocket. The robber says yes, you can keep 10 percent and you give him a medal ...  Forgetting, that all of the money belongs to you.

What I am saying is "don't forget that the money belongs to you" and you're saying "let go".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

You are compromising here. But you don't' have to.

I don't see how it is a compromise to say "Blike, I condemn you as a terrible human being, so give me something back. Oh, you are giving something back, so I will take that." 

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

You don't have to feed the child because you stole it from its parents. You have to feed it because children need food to survive.

I don't think anyone has understood so far what an externality is, and that the state can cause poverty, which leads to a lack of food. 

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Reparations is an argument for continuing the cycle of violence.

Fine, you disagree. "Nuh uh" is boring. 

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

It is not making the victim of the robbery whole moving forward. 

How so? The child, the victim, is being made more whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

How so? The child, the victim, is being made more whole. 

The victim is not just the child but all the taxpayers. Taxpayers should only pay for what they want as a service, a trade. Or not pay if they don't get anything. The 20% discount on your coerced tax is not justice even though it is better than 0% discount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Nevertheless, it is also a compromise that is not fundamentally necessary.

If you had a gun to you head and you had to do it, okay.

But you do have a gun to your head. What exactly are you proposing? That parents refuse to pay taxes and refuse to send their children to public school? What will that solve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

But you do have a gun to your head. What exactly are you proposing? That parents refuse to pay taxes and refuse to send their children to public school? What will that solve?

That parents refuse to pay taxes and refuse to send their children to public school? What will it solve? Atlas Shrugged describes what refusal does in these cases.

But you do have a gun to your head.

And you believe, falsely, that it is normal.

You choose to forget that you can live a life where there is NO gun to your head.

We are just reminding of the uncompromised ideal and you are kicking and screaming trying to avoid it.

What exactly are you proposing?

But first, let us first examine what you are proposing: 

  • Being a victim that sanctions the perpetrator. 
  • Keeping the door unlocked for the thief to come in.
  • Forgetting the possibility that things can change

I am proposing that you KNOW that when a gun is pointed at your head, a crime is being committed against you. That is an emergency, whatever you do is the best you can do at that point. Whatever you argue for in that circumstance, I propose that you acknowledge that it is NOT (necessarily) the absolute right thing to do.

But bottom line, think about it: Is it impossible, eternally impossible to stop having coerced schooling for children?

No, it is not impossible.

Therefore, you are accepting evil without a fight.

Edited by Easy Truth
added necessarily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Therefore, you are accepting evil without a fight.

So, are you in hiding or in prison for resisting statist oppression? Are there warrants for your arrest? What have you done to fight evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

So, are you in hiding or in prison for resisting statist oppression? Are there warrants for your arrest? What have you done to fight evil?

I could be doing more, like not paying taxes of civil disobedience but I don't. If that is in fact fighting evil and the only way to fight evil then I am not fighting it.

I could be employing some sort of violence, but as long as there is free speech, I would be the aggressor.

The first and perhaps most important element in fighting evil is the identification of it.

Free anything, (coercive funding) provided by a state is an indication of evil being perpetrated.

In this context and venue, I am identifying that which is evil and saying it. I am arguing against the evil being perpetrated. I am arguing for respect of individual rights and I am keeping tabs on what I do which is a compromise so that when i don't have to, I don't.

I am also recommending fighting this particular evil to others so that one day, as a majority we can eliminate the it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

That parents refuse to pay taxes and refuse to send their children to public school? What will it solve? Atlas Shrugged describes what refusal does in these cases.

Refusing to pay taxes and refusing to send your children to public school is going to stop the motor of the world? It's going to spell disaster for America? You realize that Atlas Shrugged is romanticized fiction, right? There is no Galt's Gulch. Petty rebels get thrown in jail, ruined and forgotten in the real world. We need to persuade our leaders to change the system from within the system--or we can start preparing for civil war. Civil disobedience is fine, if that's your thing. But speaking out and protesting and making smart choices at election time is good too. You need to consider whether it's worth going to prison over taxes and food for children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Refusing to pay taxes and refusing to send your children to public school is going to stop the motor of the world? It's going to spell disaster for America? You realize that Atlas Shrugged is romanticized fiction, right? There is no Galt's Gulch. Petty rebels get thrown in jail, ruined and forgotten in the real world. We need to persuade our leaders to change the system from within the system--or we can start preparing for civil war. Civil disobedience is fine, if that's your thing. But speaking out and protesting and making smart choices at election time is good too. You need to consider whether it's worth going to prison over taxes and food for children.

Refusing to pay coerced taxes would stop the state as we know it. But this is getting off on a tangent. 

Bottom line coercion (force), in any form is wrong. To tolerate it is to accept some degree of evil. If toleration is the best of bad choices, it has to be identified as such rather than being touted as the best possible solution.

The best possible solution is to stop the evil permanently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Refusing to pay coerced taxes would stop the state as we know it.

No, it wouldn't. The state will garnish your wages or throw you in prison. If there were ever a popular movement against involuntary taxes, then we wouldn't have them, because our leaders would change the Constitution. But you seem to believe that a few people not paying taxes can solve the problem. They can't.

19 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

The best possible solution is to stop the evil permanently.

You're preaching to the choir here. The issue isn't whether we should have involuntary taxes. We shouldn't. That's a given around here. The issue is whether taxes should be used to feed children who can't afford to buy food. 

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

The issue isn't whether we should have involuntary taxes.

But that is the issue (the wrong, the evil).

In effect you are arguing, we should continue with the involuntary taxes but ... distributing in this or that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Easy Truth said:

In effect you are arguing, we should continue with the involuntary taxes but ... distributing in this or that way.

No, I'm not. That's your straw man. I think I've explained my position well enough for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

That's your straw man.

The free food argument is a tendency toward socialism.
Mandatory charity always sounds good as long as we take most of the money from other people.

If you said something like:

  • Feeding the children is partially corrupt policy. It keeps in place the evil that is coercion.
  • But it is a temporary reparation.
  • It is causes less damage than without it (which may have to be confirmed later on and allow for modification/removal).

It might have some legs.

But you are selling it as "the right solution", as if it is equivalent to not having any coercion in place. 

If it is the "right solution" in that sense, it is socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

The free food argument is a tendency toward socialism.
Mandatory charity always sounds good as long as we take most of the money from other people.

Public schools in California are partially funded by the California lottery, a voluntary system. So it's not even the case that free lunches for poor schoolkids will necessarily be paid for by involuntary taxes. Thus your straw man is wrong on theory and in practice.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Public schools in California are partially funded by the California lottery, a voluntary system. So it's not even the case that free lunches for poor schoolkids will necessarily be paid for by involuntary taxes. So your straw man is wrong on theory and in practice.

If the lunch was NOT paid for by the lottery money, then it would be free.

Since it is voluntarily paid for, it is fine.

You are correct, in that case, involuntary taxation is not the issue.

The lottery buyers are agreeing to whatever is done with their money so whatever is done with it is okay. Be it they give them medical attention, lunches, clothes, provide them beds, helping their parents etc.

As long as "free" means voluntarily paid for, there is no issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The 20% discount on your coerced tax is not justice even though it is better than 0% discount.

Can you repeat back my argument? I didn't say discount. 

30 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Feeding the children is partially corrupt policy. It keeps in place the evil that is coercion.

How is it any different than a court ordering a company that defrauded thousands of customers to provide money for damages? Clearly it is not compensation for public schooling with what I'm saying, I'm specifically saying that offering free school lunch is partial retribution for causing poverty. It is not retribution for public schooling.

As for whether free lunch is an appropriate form of partial justice for poverty caused by the government, I can see several concerns for why you might think this could expand statism:

increased involuntary taxation - it is not always the case that an additional program requires more money. The budget for public education would either stay the same or even decrease.

increase in government data collection - If there is a maximum threshold for receiving free lunch, the government would have to collect data on families were how much they make, changes in income, and where they go to school. This is not a requirement if the program is universal.

Adding a program may make the populace more open to collectivistic policies - if you say nothing, this will probably happen. But if you vocalize that you believe the state is causing poverty, and that coercion must end, people will be able to see the less obvious benefit. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

As long as "free" means voluntarily paid for, there is no issue.

To clarify, regarding the taxation there is no issue.  But there are other issues obviously.

The better thing to do may in fact be to take the lottery money and give to the parents to choose the school they want or to home school. But even with that, the government is still forcing them to put it into schooling., coercion, as in public school still exists. The right solution still is to get rid of the public school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...