Poor People's Campaign Readies Nationwide Mobilization

[Curious George]

Some of the poor do indeed deserve blame.
But I'm sure they & others can benefit from better decisions.
The trick is how to assist them in this.
Perhaps there might be a cost effective use of taxpayer $ toward this end, eh.

I sense that you missed my point. All of us deserve blame. And people who like to wholly blame poor people instead of claiming their own share of the responsibility are shirking their responsibility.

 

[Curious George]

I'll sign up for that

Great, keep people out of poverty and save $$$.

 

[osgart]

Great, keep people out of poverty and save $$$.

I see it. Less crime, less waste, less disease, less across the board.

I watched a ted talk on YouTube about a UBI system. He said that it's proven to be cheaper to have such a system .

 

[sayak83]

If education, health and welfare are key considerations for all, what is your opinion about Finlands models in these areas, and to what extent do you see government dominance of them as problematic?

It's too small a population. That's the chief objection there.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's too small a population. That's the chief objection there.

More homogeneous too. Still, discarding segregation of society along wealth lines is a pretty interesting concept.

 

[sayak83]

More homogeneous too. Still, discarding segregation of society along wealth lines is a pretty interesting concept.

Yes. Lets suppose wealthy communities get large tax breaks on property etc. if they have around 15% housing for underprivileged families.

 

[BSM1]

So government should not look at any policy to arrest the falling social mobility?

The primary function of the government is to help citizens who require help. There is no reason to have a government otherwise.

That is not the primary function of any government, never has been, and hopefully never will be. If you believe that it is the responsibility of other entities for your well being then you will always be a slave.

 

[Mister Emu]

There is absolutely no shame in asking for clarification when someone points out a fallacy.

Please explain how the reasoning in "I did x, x is possible for others" is fallacious without reference to an inability to generalize individual experience to a larger population.

No, this is incorrect. This is the reason why I explained precisely what calling an argument fallacious entailed. In the discussion you are describing the person, showing the manner of achieving success is not available, would be proving the argument false.

You are conflating the reasoning with the conclusion. Showing that a larger group cannot use the same/a similar method as a particular individual does not show that people cannot achieve the same or a similar result. They very well could by another method.

If the person employed a fallacy, then they employed a fallacy.

Many informal fallacies are contextual. Should I employ Argumentum ad Verecundiam, I only commit a fallacy if the source I cite is not a proper authority.

 

[sayak83]

That is not the primary function of any government, never has been, and hopefully never will be. If you believe that it is the responsibility of other entities for your well being then you will always be a slave.

We differ radically regarding the proper role of the government. For me government is a service provider whose primary function is to provide for it's citizens basic safety, security, food, shelter, health, education opportunities and other logistical infrastructure by pooling some of the citizens resources in the form of taxes. That's the common consensus of 1 billion Indians and probably most of Europe, Japan as well.

What do you think the government is for?

 

[Revoltingest]

I sense that you missed my point. All of us deserve blame. And people who like to wholly blame poor people instead of claiming their own share of the responsibility are shirking their responsibility.

You might deserve some blame for their being poor,
but I don't. I've hired the poor, & worked with them
in coping with spotty rent payments.
But in doing so, I discovered that they sure do need
help in making better decisions, eg, don't get spendy
tattoos when you can't make the mortgage payments.

 

[BSM1]

We differ radically regarding the proper role of the government. For me government is a service provider whose primary function is to provide for it's citizens basic safety, security, food, shelter, health, education opportunities and other logistical infrastructure by pooling some of the citizens resources in the form of taxes. That's the common consensus of 1 billion Indians and probably most of Europe, Japan as well.

What do you think the government is for?

You seriously think the government should provide you with shelter, food, and health care? How about a car? A laptop? Girlie magazines? The government's first duty is to protect our Constitutional Rights. Secondly, the government has the duty to secure our borders and protect us from all enemies both foreign and domestic. These are the primary duty of the Government, Granted, the government has expanded to cover some of the safety and travel issues that we cannot provide for ourselves, but to expect the government to provide for you from "womb to tomb" is a recipe for disaster. Personally, the less government in my life the happier I am.

 

[BSM1]

You might deserve some blame for their being poor,
but I don't. I've hired the poor, & worked with them
in coping with spotty rent payments.
But in doing so, I discovered that they sure do need
help in making better decisions, eg, don't get spendy
tattoos when you can't make the mortgage payments.

This...

 

[Curious George]

Please explain how the reasoning in "I did x, x is possible for others" is fallacious without reference to an inability to generalize individual experience to a larger population.

Sure it is an informal fallacy that is so because if you were to draw out the argument you would find that it affirms the consequent.

If all people can escape poverty, then I can escape poverty.
I escaped poverty.
Therefore all people can escape poverty.

You are conflating the reasoning with the conclusion. Showing that a larger group cannot use the same/a similar method as a particular individual does not show that people cannot achieve the same or a similar result. They very well could by another method.

Umm, I am pretty sure that the claim was that he did it by his own efforts, therefore they could by their own efforts. If I were to show that they couldn't use his method (their own efforts) another method, others helping out would leave his statement false.

Many informal fallacies are contextual. Should I employ Argumentum ad Verecundiam, I only commit a fallacy if the source I cite is not a proper authority.

No you commit a fallacy even if it is a proper authority. The reason it is a fallacy is not because the authority isn't proper. Appeal to authority is fallacious because a person saying so does not make it so. It is a jump in reasoning that does not necessarily preserve truth.

 

[BSM1]

Sure it is an informal fallacy that is so because if you were to draw out the argument you would find that it affirms the consequent.

If all people can escape poverty, then I can escape poverty.
I escaped poverty.
Therefore all people can escape poverty.


Umm, I am pretty sure that the claim was that he did it by his own efforts, therefore they could by their own efforts. If I were to show that they couldn't use his method (their own efforts) another method, others helping out would leave his statement false.

No you commit a fallacy even if it is a proper authority. The reason it is a fallacy is not because the authority isn't proper. Appeal to authority is fallacious because a person saying so does not make it so. It is a jump in reasoning that does not necessarily preserve truth.

Let's clear the air on the semantics of the issue. Being "broke" is a physical and fiscal reality; being "poor" is a state of mind only. I have met many people who were broke and still managed to be rich. Also some of the poorest people I know live in mansions and drive Lexus'.

 

[sayak83]

You seriously think the government should provide you with shelter, food, and health care? How about a car? A laptop? Girlie magazines? The government's first duty is to protect our Constitutional Rights. Secondly, the government has the duty to secure our borders and protect us from all enemies both foreign and domestic. These are the primary duty of the Government, Granted, the government has expanded to cover some of the safety and travel issues that we cannot provide for ourselves, but to expect the government to provide for you from "womb to tomb" is a recipe for disaster. Personally, the less government in my life the happier I am.

That's your view. If that is the majority view in US, then fine. I am overjoyed then that I don't live in US. Is it the majority view though?

And what are constitutional rights if they are not the right to live safe, secure, sheltered, clothed, healthy and free lives for all?

 

[Underhill]

Income equality is a looming problem.
And I predict it will get worse as automation replaces workers.
I don't have a solution, but I think guaranteed income & single
payer health care will happen, & mitigate the problem.
Interesting times lay ahead.

As for ideology, I only advocate that whatever public policies address
the problems, they should maximize social & economic liberty.
The best ideological approach to any political problem is a pragmatic one.
Without pragmatism, you get ignored....or assassinated.

Why haven't we shortened the work week yet? In the 70's they were saying it was inevitable that the work week would be 20 hours a week by 2000. Well, we've had the productivity increases... all we are seeing is stagnant wages and increased profitability at the top...

 

[Curious George]

Let's clear the air on the semantics of the issue. Being "broke" is a physical and fiscal reality; being "poor" is a state of mind only. I have met many people who were broke and still managed to be rich. Also some of the poorest people I know live in mansions and drive Lexus'.

Lol. Sure thing. I might slip up, but I will try to use this language for this thread. Is poverty ok?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why haven't we shortened the work week yet? In the 70's they were saying it was inevitable that the work week would be 20 hours a week by 2000. Well, we've had the productivity increases... all we are seeing is stagnant wages and increased profitability at the top...

You can't put much faith in what people believed in the 70s.
Remember that they loved disco.

 

[BSM1]

That's your view. If that is the majority view in US, then fine. I am overjoyed then that I don't live in US. Is it the majority view though?

And what are constitutional rights if they are not the right to live safe, secure, sheltered, clothed, healthy and free lives for all?

You might want to Google the Bill of Rights. The first and foremost "right" of an American is freedom FROM the government. The government does not give you these rights, they are yours just for breathing. But these rights are not free, you have to be willing to fight to protect them. Is it the majority view? You bet your life it is. You're happy where you are, that's fine, but any time you want a taste of freedom just drop on by; we'll leave the light on for you.

 

[BSM1]

Lol. Sure thing. I might slip up, but I will try to use this language for this thread. Is poverty ok?

Poverty is quantitative for the purpose of discussion, lol.