Politics-Ethics Question

[David Sklansky]

People disagree about things either because they disagree about initial axioms or because they agree about the axioms and disagree about their implications. Unfortunately many debates don't bother to distinguish between those two types of disagreement.

I've always thought that many political arguments are essentially about one basic axiom. Where do you stand on this question:

Assuming the US has a population of 300 million and the wealth it now owns, should a baby born with no arms and no legs, (with no chance of being fixed), but otherwise healthy, be kept alive and healthy by the government if no one else will do it?

If you answered yes to that question, my second question postulates that ten percent of all children are all of a sudden born that way. Same answer? If so what would the percentage have to be for you to change your answer?

[alphatmw]

ermmm no.

[ALawPoker]

Good post. I think most debates boil down to simply which you value greater: equality or autonomy. The rest is just details. Your question highlights this.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
kept alive and healthy by the government if no one else will do it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you live in a foreign country but in this country the government is us and we pay those that represent us to ensure that every citizen is provided for. It is the baby's "right" as a citizen to be taken care of. Consequently, you really need to come up with another example of just what in the hell you are trying to prove.

leaponthis

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you live in a foreign country but in this country the government is us and we pay those that represent us to ensure that every citizen is provided for.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do?

[ QUOTE ]
It is the baby's "right" as a citizen to be taken care of. Consequently, you really need to come up with another example of just what in the hell you are trying to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of the question is, if no one is willing to take care of this baby privately, should the government still find a reason to do so?

[jetfish]

No.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
The point of the question is, if no one is willing to take care of this baby privately, should the government still find a reason to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no point to this question, that is the point. This government must provide for it's citizens. Every child born in this country is a citizen. We, you, me and every other citizen in this country have already made it clear that we do not discard human beings because they are disabled. Why would anyone ask a question like this? It's as if Sklansky is afraid that the Nazi party is about to rise to power...somewhere. Sklansky usually uses religion in his pompous posts. I guess he must be bored so now he chooses the handicap as bait.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you live in a foreign country but in this country the government is us and we pay those that represent us to ensure that every citizen is provided for.


[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me, every citizen incapable of caring for themselves is provided for. Yes we do.

leaponthis

[alphatmw]

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me, every citizen incapable of caring for themselves is provided for. Yes we do.

leaponthis

[/ QUOTE ] it seems to be ridiculously easy to disprove this point right here, but to be sure, define "provided for" first.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you live in a foreign country but in this country the government is us and we pay those that represent us to ensure that every citizen is provided for.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we do not pay the government to ensure that every citizen is provided for.

The point of David's question is this. Which do you value more, the individual or society?

Clearly by taking care of such a baby the government is looking out for the needs of the individual. When this is expanded to include 10% or more of all children born I think David is trying to illustrate that at some point it becomes such a burden to society that we all agree that the individual should be sacrificed for the good of all.

I am sure that at some percentage everyone will say that the care of these children should not be undertaken by the government because of the burden it places on society. But what is so different between one person burdening society and 500,000? If 500,000 people is where society begins to break down because of the burden then clearly even one person is detrimental to society. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[creedofhubris]

the government should strongly encourage more folding preflop here