Who’s morality? There are a lot of activists running around claiming that they are the arbiters of Morality when they are nothing more than lazy, feckless, and envious. See: anyone who went to university and majored in any course ending in the word “studies” and who couldn’t then support themselves and therefore declared people that made better life decisions as “Morally Inferior”.
There are many, many jobs that pay very high wages because they are hard, dangerous and dirty. By the time you are 45 your knees and back are a mess and you may be missing a finger or two but you will make a lot of money. You may also develop mental health issues from isolation and stress. High rise construction. Offshore oil rigs. Mining. Deep sea fishing. When I see half of those jobs filled by women I will be impressed. Because to me the idea of the “Gender pay gap” looks awfully like letting the men die in the workplace keeping the infrastructure of civilisation running while complaining about not getting a corner office and a couple of assistants to run to Starbucks and the dry cleaners.
Not sure if you missed Julie's subtle humour there. I'll have to remember that one in future and use it.
OMG. Just looking at the title i can see that the OP is the sort of person that thinks those that spend thousands on education and betterment or risk thousands on starting a business should make sure that those people that risk NOTHING should have homes just as nice as us and the same sort of toys as it is a human right? LOL. If you do not work hard and are not physically or mentally disabled then YOU DO NOT DESERVE S$$T.
Aside from the truth that various groups in society will use legislation to feasther their own nests, the rest of the argument is completely subjective. Johnston (and JulieW) has drawn a line in the sand at what he considers an acceptable amount of wealth that an individual could earn without it being considered excessive or immoral. He doesn't seem to have an issue with a joint income in excess of USD350000 (which puts his family in the top 1%), no, he aims higher. He is simply attempting to force his values on to others. Which is typical of those ideologues that look to the State for control. It's not even worth discussing anymore.
Obviously noblesse oblige is a foreign concept here at SS along with the simple obligations arising from the "protestant" work ethic of care, consideration and charity to those less fortunate than oneself. Reminds me of gratitude to the Romans.
5 pages to the contrary. https://www.silverstackers.com/forums/index.php?threads/the-good-person.52446/
Life and society has changed now Julie. It is not a case of helping those less fortunate anymore it has become a case of those not willing to work being ABLE TO TAKE what they need to survive and prosper. I am more than willing to help those in need (and my family does) but i resent hearing about people popping out kids and then telling me their ENTITLEMENTS from the government are not being met and they need more. I do not know what it is like in Aus, but every other day here in NZ we read stories of poor homeless mums being put up in motels at a cost of $1050+ a week with their 4 or 5 or 6 kids and they have had all of these kids while n the benefit. When does it stop? If a working family with 6 kids comes into trouble and needs financial support i say GIVE GIVE GIVE, but when i see these people that have had all their kids while taking a benefit it makes me sick.
More's the pity. Apart from the "game of mates" twisting regulatory frameworks to benefit privateers, the transfer of the workforce into the "public Service" has given truth to the adage that the devil makes work for idle hands. Put together a table of middle managers and a packet of Tim Tams and every crackpot idea and new regulation will get a hearing - subjects such as emergency accommodations long term in hotels. (Btw: Or the latest in Victoria - latex gloves for Thai foot massages. Yes after 5000 years, the Victorian Public Service has improved it by demanding a new standard.)
^ I wouldn't characterise it as "hostility to living wages and income equality", I would classify it as a much stronger preference for upholding human rights and civil liberties. As per your posts, doing the latter will naturally address many drivers of income inequality and living wages, but using the government to try and force the former will undoubtedly mean a greater loss of the latter. So we prefer a win-win versus a win-lose (with the win part of the win-lose most likely to only be a near-term win and a longer term lose-lose).
Because equality can only be created by absolute tyranny forcing every person down to the level of the slowest, weakest or laziest. It puts the inept at the top of the tree and the capable at the bottom arbitrarily. In every case it has been enforced on a society (because it can only ever be enforced at gunpoint) the result has been mass starvation, secret police dominance and a bloodbath. So forgive us if we don’t have time for the Comunist Manifesto.
There is no such thing as human rights. The irony is that human rights is a concept developed and spread around the world by the “Evil Western Patriarchy” that the SJW’s complain about. But it is nothing more than a concept. If you have a “Human Right” you only have it until the mugger in the alley or the corrupt politician decides that you don’t. And if you have a “right” then someone else has an obligation to provide that right for you. What happens when they decide that they won’t do so any more? Therein lies the dangerous game that the Post Modernists are playing: if you want to tear down Western Civilisation because you feel oppressed at its inequality because you can’t afford to buy a 4 bedroom house at age 23 then you may find out what inequality really is and you won’t like it one bit.
^ Natural (or negative) rights do not require an obligation from anyone else. In contrast positive rights do require the infringement of another person's negative rights. But I think you already know this.
Bordie I have to admit I don’t know what natural or negative rights are. I think of a right as something that cannot be take away arbitrarily by another person.
BS. I pay my taxes, and 35% of that is donated to welfare recipients. Is that not enough? Because equality of outcome is immoral and relies on thievery. Just because you can vote to make that legal, does not make it in any way moral. If you want what I have, go and fkn earn it like I had to.
I'm so glad you asked that question, it gives me an opportunity to sprout. From my perspective, there are 2 reasons. 1. Poor economics. Cost savings on welfare aside, raising everybody's income by say $1000/month does nothing more than inflate an individual's money supply. When every individual's money supply in society is inflated then naturally, prices also rise. Furthermore, wealth is enhanced when we seek to exchange value with others. In order to do so we must create something of value that can be exchanged in the first place. Being paid to create something that has no value to anyone else ie a living wage is a waste of scarce resources. 2. More insidiously, it increases our reliance on the State. Let's look at an analogy. We all love our kids and want the best for them and we would all love to gift them everything their heart's desire. But we know that is not in their best interest so we encourage independence. Being reliant on a benefactor breeds slothfulness and other vices that would certainly conflict with your protestant work ethic.
Basically: Negative rights are those that can be defined as "The right from..." eg "I have a right to freedom from aggression". Positive rights are those that can be defined as "The right to..." eg "I have a right to an education". Probably the easiest way to see the difference is the second relies on the presence of others giving you something, whereas the first relies on the absence of something. Obligation v inaction.
Reminds me of when the government announced a 14% first home buyers grant and within a couple of weeks all of the properties for sale in the inner west in Sydney went up by about that same amount. People were calling it the “first home buyer’s vendor’s grant”.
