What is LIBERTY?

[Denarius]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

...Why do you all keep saying that? Of course the government should provide BASIC services. I have never denied that.

If you want more than basic then you should be expected to pay for it.

Look at the last bit on my post there. The thing of it is not all plants are beneficial. Do you encourage the growth of invasive and destructive plants in your garden? Like say kudzu or quackgrass?

[thalassa]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Ah, but kudzu is actually edible, and tasty.

Even so, I'm still not aware of any pretenders to the species that would apply to such a flawed analogy and should be culled from our human garden. Which starts to sound just as much like Chairman Mao as it does the Nazi regime...and still is the very antithesis of liberty.

[Denarius]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

An invasive species is a weed. [1] The only time a cull would be appropriate is if those subject to it were a direct and uncontrolable threat to the population at large.

Perhaps a garden was a bad example, because that implies a gardener.

Is there any reason why favouring beneficial genetic traits is enherently evil and of no value? (Positive eugenics) Or discouraging the spread of genetic diseases, inbreeding, and unfavourable traits? (Negative eugenics)

Also, why is it that everyone assumes I mean the worst possible thing? Do I project an aura of evil? Do I have a red right hand that I am unaware of?

[thalassa]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Is there any reason why favouring beneficial genetic traits is enherently evil and of no value? (Positive eugenics) Or discouraging the spread of genetic diseases, inbreeding, and unfavourable traits? (Negative eugenics)

There are inherent problems with this line of thinking from a strictly biological standpoint, before bringing it up in a conversation about liberty. Genetics isn't as simple as you seem to think it is. What are beneficial genetic traits? For that matter...what are negative ones? Classic example...sickle cell trait--good or bad? What about phenotype? How are you determining which genetic traits to cull and which to proliferate? How are you paying for this? How is it being enforced?

[Dumuzi]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

What are beneficial genetic traits? For that matter...what are negative ones?

It's simple. Light skin genes are good. Dark skin is bad.

[Denarius]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

There are inherent problems with this line of thinking from a strictly biological standpoint,

Such as?

before bringing it up in a conversation about liberty.

Thread about liberty, conversation about eugenics.

Genetics isn't as simple as you seem to think it is.

Which is why we should remain ignorant about it, we might stumble upon cthulhu or somesuch.

What are beneficial genetic traits?

Balanced metablolism, predisposition to long life, a solid immune system, resistance to disease, acute senses, fully formed body and mind...

For that matter...what are negative ones?

Genetic diseases, deformities, short life expectancy, less than adequate immune system, dull or non-extant senses, improperly or incompletely formed body and mind...

Classic example...sickle cell trait--good or bad?

I wouldn't want to have it, would you? Would anyone? Why shouldn't it be discouraged? Surely you realise that sickle cell disease is not a good thing.

What about phenotype? How are you determining which genetic traits to cull and which to proliferate? How are you paying for this? How is it being enforced?

Ask a geneticist, politician, or economist. I am none of those, I am a writer.

[Ophidia]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Also, why is it that everyone assumes I mean the worst possible thing? Do I project an aura of evil? Do I have a red right hand that I am unaware of?

I don't think you mean anything 'evil' per se. I just get the impression that you are very young and inexperienced. It's easy to spout off things about the ability and willingness of people to help one another in an anarchic society, how poverty can be solved by someone just getting off the couch and getting a job, and how eugenics will solve mankind's problems when you haven't been around very long or gotten out much.

Look back at this thread 20 years from now and tell me what you think of everything you've said here from that perspective.

I backed off of this particular discussion because I'm pissed off. That you imply that my parents died poor because they were lazy is personally insulting to me. You seem to not realize that right now, for every working-age person in America, there are only jobs available for 1/5th of them. People can try to 'create' jobs for themselves, but when four people are unemployed, whose got money to give that 5th guy? Unemployment benefits barely pay most peoples' bills, let alone buy groceries or pay the rent.

When my parents were struggling to make ends meet, in the recession of the 70s, there wasn't even that much hope - and my parents suffered a severe financial loss they were never able to recover from. When my mother's family was struggling to survive the Great Depression, there wasn't anything to bounce back from other than dust and dead horses. When my father's family left Europe in the years before WWI, they left with nothing, arrived in America with nothing - and my father went into the Army at 15 to help his family survive.

Sometimes poverty is inherited, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it. You either get lucky or you stay broke. And people like you compound the problem by twisting the minds and opinions of other people. "Poor people don't need assistance - they're just lazy". "Sick people don't need insurance - they just need to make more money to pay the doctors". "Big Finance doesn't need reform, people just need to hand their money over and like it". Hopefully you'll grow out of it, but the politicians and pundits spouting that same bullshit never will.

[Denarius]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

If I stayed on the couch and didn't get a job, I WOULD BE POOR! Yeah, it won't work for everyone... Is that a reason not to try?

I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that all poor people are poor because they are lazy.

Are there people who are poor because they are lazy? Is that just a delusion of mine? Am I a madman for thinking that? Are they my "gremlin on the wing?"

Does the thought of such people offend you? Because it sure as hell offends me!

[Dez]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Ok, how about another example, then, of why it's easy to toss out pat answers, but it doesn't work in real life?

I am 26 years old. Healthy childhood. I rarely even caught colds. I have had two children, serious problems with the birth of both, which were originally considered a "fluke". Turns out I have a genetic condition(normally not very serious, and rather common in those of Northern European Heritage), and some other complications that worked together to cause a problem...does that mean eugenics should come into play in your ideal world? Should my otherwise healthy children, ages 5 and 2, be tested for this condition and potentially sterilized at adulthood?

I'm now having some additional problems...unrelated to the above. They have made me increasingly ill since July/August, and given the number of tests being run, my primary physician is beginning to think that if we still show no results with this next set of tests, he wants to start looking for cancer. I have been looking for a job for over a year now, and at this point wouldn't be able to keep one even if I found it due to constant stomach pain and nausea. My husband was making ends meet by working two jobs, barely above minimum wage, in order to keep a roof over our heads. Now, he's quit the second job, since I am too sick to care for our children all day. He has a bachelor's, but due to the current job climate, despite constant effort, week after week, he has been unable to get a job directly in his field for almost 5 years since graduation, even willing to move.

There are no foundations or charities in rural Idaho to help us.

The majority church will only help you if you are a member, and donate 10% of your income to them.

Our families can't help us.

Where are we supposed to turn?

Are we "lazy", too? I can think of half a dozen other regular posters who could tell you stories of time and again trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps only to have someone come along and effectively spit in their face.

I'm guessing you have either been very lucky, or you haven't lived on this earth long enough to try and fail a few times, and catch a taste of what it's really like to go without, to need to choose between food or heating, or figure out a way to clean your home and dishes when you can't buy soap. Or pay medical bills when you can barely keep a roof over your head, and are trying to make sure your kids can at least get a toy each for Yule this year.

Or, what happens when you get a bit older and you discover that you aren't the example of heath you thought you were? A family propensity to heart disease, perhaps? Skin Cancer? Prostate issues? High Cholesterol or Blood Pressure? Suddenly becoming prone to obesity and diabetes as your metabolism winds down because of genes from a grandparent?

If you believe in a positive form of eugenics, does that mean you'll take yourself out of the gene pool at that point? What are you going to do if you've already had children? Are you going to back down and grow some empathy, or are you going to be the crazy guy who takes his whole family out in another 10 years?

[DanieMarie]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

But does that mean that ALL poor people get denied access to a good education and comprehensive health care because some poor people are lazy?

[thalassa]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Such as?

There are limits to genetic expression. Developmental processes--which are largely environmental--are just as important in determining individual phenotype. And ultimately, phenotype means very little in determining individual worth or usefulness (in any species)...its called stochasticity. Genetic variation (including your so-called negative traits) is preserved because it has an evolutionary benefit. Truly deleterious mutations are selected against by nature anyhow...the only thing that eugenics advocates is playing the selector *for* nature, which neither preserves genetic variation nor species survival from a biological or evolutionary standpoint.

I wouldn't want to have it, would you? Would anyone? Why shouldn't it be discouraged? Surely you realise that sickle cell disease is not a good thing.

And this right here is the perfect illustration of my point.

Sickle cell has an evolutionary benefit...it suck around in the human population for a reason.

Ask a geneticist, politician, or economist. I am none of those, I am a writer.

Well, you are the one that brought up eugenics as a societal solution, after deriding public education and health care, without a basic understanding of biology.

[Denarius]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Turns out I have a genetic condition(normally not very serious, and rather common in those of Northern European Heritage), and some other complications that worked together to cause a problem...does that mean eugenics should come into play in your ideal world?

Yes, you should be well informed about what genetic disorders mean and should be discouraged from spreading your disease.

If some one has a sexually transmitted disease do we prevent them from having sex? No, that would be stupid. We take steps to make sure that they understand what their condition is. We work to cure it, prevent/lessen it's spread, and minimizing it's effects in the mean time.

Should my otherwise healthy children, ages 5 and 2, be tested for this condition and potentially sterilized at adulthood?

Would you rather them not be tested? Why should they be sterilized if they do have it?

Are we "lazy", too? I can think of half a dozen other regular posters who could tell you stories of time and again trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps only to have someone come along and effectively spit in their face.

Are you? For all I know you could be lying about all that. Not that I'm saying you are, but it's possible. If it is true then you have legitmate reasons for being poor.

Are you just going to accept that and stop fighting? Your husband, is he going to stop looking for work? Working your hardest to make ends meet is kind of the opposite of being lazy. Why would you even think that I would apply such a label to people such as that? Do you think I am stupid? Unreasonable?

I'm guessing you have either been very lucky, or you haven't lived on this earth long enough to try and fail a few times, and catch a taste of what it's really like to go without, to need to choose between food or heating, or figure out a way to clean your home and dishes when you can't buy soap. Or pay medical bills when you can barely keep a roof over your head, and are trying to make sure your kids can at least get a toy each for Yule this year.

I make just barely enough to both eat and buy videogames. Around eight hundred a month, as I have mentioned like three times now.

I grew up poor, I've gone weeks straight eating nothing but ramen. I was never left to go hungry, we live very near a food bank, but had little in the way of privaliges. The house I spent a good portion of my childhood in had no hot water, no heat, an ant infestation, and an abusive alchoholic mother.

I am blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, and and have memory problems and poor motor control because my mother hit me in the head one too many times with a beer bottle. She would also duct tape me to the floor and/or force feed me her anti-psychotics when she got tired of dealing with me. I was also malnourished.

Isn't it wonderful how lucky I am? (I had a much better teenage experience though, as my grandfather took over my custody. So, happy ending-ish.)

Or, what happens when you get a bit older and you discover that you aren't the example of heath you thought you were? A family propensity to heart disease, perhaps? Skin Cancer? Prostate issues? High Cholesterol or Blood Pressure? Suddenly becoming prone to obesity and diabetes as your metabolism winds down because of genes from a grandparent?

I'm sorry, is this an argument AGAINST eugenics?

If you believe in a positive form of eugenics, does that mean you'll take yourself out of the gene pool at that point? What are you going to do if you've already had children? Are you going to back down and grow some empathy, or are you going to be the crazy guy who takes his whole family out in another 10 years?

I'm an asexual shut-in virgin with very little in the way of social graces and apparently I'm a Hitlerish madman who has as much sense as a beaver has wings. Plus, I'd be a terrible parent who couldn't possibly provide for his children in any meaningful capacity.

I don't have much of a choice in the matter anyhow. That's how life should work, people like me shouldn't have kids. Children deserve to have better parents, do you disagree with that?

I hated my parents for inflicting this crap on me, my dad less because he actually had the decency to not be around. I just wish my mother abandoned me too, or that I had the good sense to run away sooner.

But does that mean that ALL poor people get denied access to a good education and comprehensive health care because some poor people are lazy?

Again, they should get those things. They deserve those things. Lazy poor people as well. The people who are poor for reasons outside of their control deserve help, the lazy folk deserve a kick in the ribs.

The children of lazy bums don't deserve a kick in the ribs though, because they are impovershed by something outside of their control... Are you starting to understand what I'm saying?

I think some of the confusion here was from shifting gears from defending anarchism, to defending my own beliefs.

---------- Post added at 11:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 AM ----------

Sickle cell has an evolutionary benefit...it suck around in the human population for a reason.

I was aware of this. Are you aware that sickle cell is not a pleasant disease to have? Perhaps that eliminating both diseases would be the optimal solution?

If you could right now elect ot have sickle cell trait would you? If you did have this trait, would you go out of your way to make sure that your potential children would not get the disease? (Which is not nearly as benign as the trait.)

Well, you are the one that brought up eugenics as a societal solution, after deriding public education and health care, without a basic understanding of biology.

I brought up sterilization as a solution to people not being able to afford kids, mostly in jest I might add. After that I merely defended eugenics as it is not an evil thing.

Also, the managing of inbreeding and the preservation of diversity are things covered by eugenics. And are incredibly important to it.

The thing about nature, is that it does a piss poor job most of the time. It just has a lot of fail-safes and redunencies in place. It cares not if we die out, or what we become.

[DanieMarie]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

I think part of it also comes from a big gap in ideology as well. I grew up in a country with one of THE BEST education systems in the world. You don't have to go to private school....you can but you'll be paying for a fairly equivalent education. We really value it in Canada and when we slid in the last PISA scores, even though we're in the top 10 in the developed world, we flipped out as a nation. You're saying that people should get the very basic and if they want more, they should have to pay for it, but I find (and I DO study economics, by the way) that this tends to create larger gaps in income, socio-economic status, and that sort of thing. Likewise, with health care, it's hard to draw lines. Even fairly minor conditions can cause huge life problems that cause low productivity (which isn't just a problem for the individual but for their employer, and if we're talking about enough people. society as a whole). Having a hollistic approach to health care is proven to be much more effective and leads to a more productive, healthier (and therefore less expensive as a whole) population.

It helps a lot that I grew up in a country that highly values these things. Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, where you grow up (nationality-wise) can have a HUGE HUGE HUGE effect on what you consider 'privileges' and 'rights'. But also, having studied business and economics, I just can't find a good reason for not providing solid, comprehensive education and health care to EVERYONE.

[Denarius]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Why is paying to get what you can get for free a good thing, or even a thing at all? If someone is paying for schooling, they should get more out of it than some one who doesn't.

Are the chairs made of corinthian leather or something?

What do you consider basic education to be, and why is it a bad thing? I consider a basic education to be pretty much what I got when I grew up.

An above basic education should be better than what I got. Possibly a lot better than what I got, depending on how much it costs.

The teachers should be more involved, the classrooms should be smaller, and there should be better seating and such. (Corinthian leather perhaps?) Again, you should be able to get what you pay for. Otherwise money is meaningless.

[DanieMarie]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

I just think that education at a secondary level (and primary) shouldn't be basic. At my PUBLIC school, we had TVs in every classroom (which were used for various purposes) 3 computer labs, a media production center, and a lot of other things. Granted, my school was brand new and pretty state-of-the-art, but the BC curriculum does include tons of fantastic electives like web design, writing, graphic design, tons of arts, and that sort of thing. As for 'Core' classes, my teachers were all passionate about their jobs, class sizes are regulated by the BC government, and in grade 12 we even learned a lot of things that we learned in university (it's a well known fact that English Lit 12 in the BC Secondary program has the same reading list as English 125 at University of Victoria, and the same expectations). I don't know...I wouldn't call what I got 'basic' but it was funded by tax dollars and I think every child should have the opportunity to have such a fantastic education.

I had a few friends who went to private school in University but in Canada it's more that either they were at boarding school because their parents were too busy, or they were foreign students whose parents sent them to Canada to learn English, with a mix of some people who got there on academic scholarship. If you go to international school, it's merit-based so you get in based on your grades, and the benefit is that you get to do an International Baccalaureate, which is kind of the only standardized system between countries so if you want to go to University abroad it can be helpful (though I didn't find any issues with my Canadian education, as it's very well regarded abroad), and you get to study with kids from a wide variety of countries. So I think people overall go to private school in BC for much different reasons than in the US or Europe. It's not about getting a better education so much as it is a different one.