(06-13-2012 12:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Obviously when I said most, I meant the good ones. Why shouldn't we expect paid social workers do be as efficient as volunteer social workers?

We shouldn't. Ever.

(06-13-2012 12:01 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  There is a HUGE difference with what I think is right and what is a "right". It's the left that confuses the two.

That just hit my political g-spot.

The left, in general, perceives an inequity in outcomes, and expects the government to correct this "wrong", usually through programs, set-asides, quotas, etc. - all with the net result of diluting capital that could be used for more productive purposes in the hands of the taxpayer. Why they feel government, and taking of other's wealth, is the only way to solve problems, is beyond me. Just look at the generational spending on Federal Education and Poverty entitlements. Our students have slipped in world rankings in educational achievement since the inception of the Department of Education and we have created an underclass of parasitic, entitled, and lazy (yes, lazy) non-performers that feel no shame, responsibility, or remorse in receiving money and assistance that they did not earn, nor ever intend to pay back. And this group has the time to reproduce at a faster rate than the ones not on assistance, ensuring an ever-increasing population of societal tapeworms.

Its like a parent that allows their kid to get away with everything and eat whatever the hell they want, only to be surprised when the fat little bastard cannot cope with the real world.

To not be able to support yourself should be a social stigma, not an acceptable level of lifetime activity. Limits on "safety nets" need to be discreet, short, and unrenewable.

So yes, the left often confuses what they feel as right, with "rights", and ethics/morality with binding legal committments. And they have the nerve to assume moral superiority over those that disagree with them.

(06-13-2012 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2012 11:56 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Actually the Bible has a few passages on looking after the poor and imprisoned, specifically Matthew 25:31-46. Does something have to be a right for it to be the "right thing to strive for" or to do? This said, would God want a Christian civilization to say, "Just let the private groups do it, we don't have to as a people."?

Where did God say that government (for example, Rome, or Caesar) should do it, instead of private groups?

To be transparent, I do advocate a fairly extensive basic welfare and health care safety net, one that I believe is far more comprehensive than what we have today. But I get there based upon the economic concept of externalities associated with neighborhood effects, and not because of any rights argument.

He didn't make a statement one way or the other - it's more about the society as a whole implementing it the best way possible. I as well would like a more comprehensive health care system.

Unrelated to quote: You talk about charity organizations providing good care... but what people talk about all the time is corporations running everything, from their fiscal-colored viewpoint. Is there really a big difference between corporation management and government management?

Yes there is

In the simplest example... If I don't provide a service you want, or in a way you want it, or at a price you want to pay, an avenue is opened for another company to fill your needs. If you at willing to pay more to get a green product, or one that gives 10% back to your favorite charity or is owned by peoe you support, then you can vote with your wallet... And your personal dcision doesn't keep me from making a different decision. If I support birth control but not abortion, I can donate condoms and not give money to abortion clinics without stopping you from getting one funded by someone else

In the public sector, I have to fund things I don't want to. You are given benefits you don't want or need. There IS no alternative provider, at least not one where I don't have to pay full boat for a service I don't want, and then pay full boat again for the one I do. There is no incentive for you to be efficient because the people CONSUMiNG many of the public services are NOT the people PAYING for those services. The focus is ENTIRELY different. Managements goals are entirely different. The role of the consumer is entirely different.

From a fiscal standpoint... You need 51% of the consumers to prefer your "product" to the other in order to gain 100% of the funding, and then you negotiate from a position of complete strength for your fee with a much smaller group of people. Imagine if government had to get 51% of taxpayers to vote "for" their product... And not 51% of consumers. It's like asking a teenager how much their parents should pay for their cell phone plan. The answer is, whatever it takes to give them the plan they want