Ethical Question for Public Policy

[blah3]

But what I'm suggesting is that these people are incapable of "fixing themselves".

But you then make the faulty assumption that public policy can

[BearArms]

But you then make the faulty assumption that public policy can

The problem is that culture has changed so much towards the negative from handouts and public policy by the ones in power to keep them tied to the system. They have been ingrained for decades into believing that they cannot succeed without continual Government intervention. The breakdown of the family, pushed also by leftist policies, has handicapped many right out of the gate.

You add this together for decades and it now is so embedded into these communities that the tipping point has happened and it is only going to get worse. This election will prove in ten years how devastating these policies will be to everyone since Government makes exactly zero wealth and must rely on the producers, the other half of this debate.

The programs expand causing more taxation eventually leading to a socialist society, which is where we are headed. Then its a collapse of the entire system to look forward to as we will see less chance of individual success due to enormous Government oversight. The only ones who prosper are the highest bracket.

This is our future now. As much as the left hates the wealthy, it is from their votes and politicians that has increased the wealth gap, contrary to what bullshit is being orchestrated and fed to them

[wickedsolo]

The problem is that culture has changed so much towards the negative from handouts and public policy by the ones in power to keep them tied to the system. They have been ingrained for decades into believing that they cannot succeed without continual Government intervention. The breakdown of the family, pushed also by leftist policies, has handicapped many right out of the gate.

You add this together for decades and it now is so embedded into these communities that the tipping point has happened and it is only going to get worse. This election will prove in ten years how devastating these policies will be to everyone since Government makes exactly zero wealth and must rely on the producers, the other half of this debate.

The programs expand causing more taxation eventually leading to a socialist society, which is where we are headed. Then its a collapse of the entire system to look forward to as we will see less chance of individual success due to enormous Government oversight. The only ones who prosper are the highest bracket.

This is our future now. As much as the left hates the wealthy, it is from their votes and politicians that has increased the wealth gap, contrary to what bullshit is being orchestrated and fed to them

And I think that is a big reason why this is all so difficult. Do we just stand idly by and let the incompetent parts of society completely go off the rails because they legitimately cannot help themselves? Or, do we institute policies that not everyone will like, but will at least provide some cushion for incompetent members of society to not completely fuck up and impact others that are trying to do the right thing and succeed?

They say that politics is downstream of culture and, frankly, there is a huge part of this country that has created a culture comprised of drugs, abuse, violence, and unfettered and irresponsible reproduction habits.

[Willbacker]

And I think that is a big reason why this is all so difficult. Do we just stand idly by and let the incompetent parts of society completely go off the rails because they legitimately cannot help themselves? Or, do we institute policies that not everyone will like, but will at least provide some cushion for incompetent members of society to not completely fuck up and impact others that are trying to do the right thing and succeed?

They say that politics is downstream of culture and, frankly, there is a huge part of this country that has created a culture comprised of drugs, abuse, violence, and unfettered and irresponsible reproduction habits.

So if we provide a cushion you don't think they're gonna keep doing the same shit they're doing? Or its gonna be distributed properly by the govt? I'm surprized you're even talking about it. You should know what America's true meaning of freedom is. It's not a guarantee. If people want to pay extra they can. Or should they be forced to be to take care of the "incapable and immoral" cuz they can't make good decisions. You're asking for full blown out socialism if you are.

[BuryRaven]

And I think that is a big reason why this is all so difficult. Do we just stand idly by and let the incompetent parts of society completely go off the rails because they legitimately cannot help themselves? Or, do we institute policies that not everyone will like, but will at least provide some cushion for incompetent members of society to not completely fuck up and impact others that are trying to do the right thing and succeed?

They say that politics is downstream of culture and, frankly, there is a huge part of this country that has created a culture comprised of drugs, abuse, violence, and unfettered and irresponsible reproduction habits.

You permit equilibrium to occur. Perpetually assisting someone does little to no good. Psychology has shown this, and it only provides angst to those who produce.

The answer is already there some just can't swallow the pill of "no aid".

FDR fd us and now we're here holding his hoard of bad ideas x1000 and their inevitable outcomes.

[wickedsolo]

So if we provide a cushion you don't think they're gonna keep doing the same shit they're doing? Or its gonna be distributed properly by the govt? I'm surprized you're even talking about it. You should know what America's true meaning of freedom is. It's not a guarantee. If people want to pay extra they can. Or should they be forced to be to take care of the "incapable and immoral" cuz they can't make good decisions. You're asking for full blown out socialism if you are.

I'm just posing a question for a debate. That's all.

Personally - I align to the ideology that you need to take care of you and government interference at any level is immoral and unethical. The only way to improve your walk in life is to fuck up, learn from it, and not make the same mistakes twice.

That said, I do recognize that there is a segment of our population - primarily in inner cities and in extreme rural parts of the country - that have gone for so long without "being successful" that they're no longer capable of breaking that cycle because it is so deeply entrenched into their respective culture.

So, if you're a public officer making public policy, how do you most appropriately govern those people? You can't simply just throw them in prison because that perpetuates the cycle. You can't just throw drug tests at them because drug tests can be scammed and, frankly, it doesn't break the culture of acceptable drug abuse (this includes dealing as well as using). It's important to approach it from the perspective that these people simply are by and large incapable of navigating life in a positive and successful manner. It's abundantly clear. I think a lot of it can be traced back to the LBJ Presidency, but that was ~60 years ago. What to do about it now except try and create public policy that will provide guardrails for these segments of society without impeding on the other parts of society that are competent and capable.

I think this is a perspective where a lot of Democrats (and some Republicans) really try to operate from and it's a tough question.

If you let the incompetent segments of society (we'll call them segment 1) run free because you don't want to impede on segment 2 (those that are successful and competent), then you run the risk of segment 1 completely running wild with overpopulation, crime, violence - and these things would clearly just decimate what is left of a lot of our major cities and extreme rural areas. Our infrastructure cannot sustain that level of impact.

If you enact public policies that provide guard rails and safetynets for segment 1 of the population, then you can at least try to keep their population in check and keep them on some semblance of a normal roadmap and avoid overwhelming our infrastructure and systems. Yes, this is not an ideal solution because you can't make rules and policies for segment 1 and let segment 2 do what they want - this will undoubtedly create massive class divisions. So, is the more acceptable solution to create policy for everyone knowing that segment 2 is going to be impacted a bit and pissed off, but they stand a far greater chance of success and creating opportunities for their future generations? It's a tough call. I think there are good arguments for both.

[Ortizer]

The problem is that culture has changed so much towards the negative from handouts and public policy by the ones in power to keep them tied to the system. They have been ingrained for decades into believing that they cannot succeed without continual Government intervention. The breakdown of the family, pushed also by leftist policies, has handicapped many right out of the gate.

You add this together for decades and it now is so embedded into these communities that the tipping point has happened and it is only going to get worse. This election will prove in ten years how devastating these policies will be to everyone since Government makes exactly zero wealth and must rely on the producers, the other half of this debate.

The programs expand causing more taxation eventually leading to a socialist society, which is where we are headed. Then its a collapse of the entire system to look forward to as we will see less chance of individual success due to enormous Government oversight. The only ones who prosper are the highest bracket.

This is our future now. As much as the left hates the wealthy, it is from their votes and politicians that has increased the wealth gap, contrary to what bullshit is being orchestrated and fed to them

No way. You get two years of that and the midterms will be a blood bath for the dems.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Willbacker]

I'm just posing a question for a debate. That's all.

Personally - I align to the ideology that you need to take care of you and government interference at any level is immoral and unethical. The only way to improve your walk in life is to fuck up, learn from it, and not make the same mistakes twice.

That said, I do recognize that there is a segment of our population - primarily in inner cities and in extreme rural parts of the country - that have gone for so long without "being successful" that they're no longer capable of breaking that cycle because it is so deeply entrenched into their respective culture.

So, if you're a public officer making public policy, how do you most appropriately govern those people? You can't simply just throw them in prison because that perpetuates the cycle. You can't just throw drug tests at them because drug tests can be scammed and, frankly, it doesn't break the culture of acceptable drug abuse (this includes dealing as well as using). It's important to approach it from the perspective that these people simply are by and large incapable of navigating life in a positive and successful manner. It's abundantly clear. I think a lot of it can be traced back to the LBJ Presidency, but that was ~60 years ago. What to do about it now except try and create public policy that will provide guardrails for these segments of society without impeding on the other parts of society that are competent and capable.

I think this is a perspective where a lot of Democrats (and some Republicans) really try to operate from and it's a tough question.

If you let the incompetent segments of society (we'll call them segment 1) run free because you don't want to impede on segment 2 (those that are successful and competent), then you run the risk of segment 1 completely running wild with overpopulation, crime, violence - and these things would clearly just decimate what is left of a lot of our major cities and extreme rural areas. Our infrastructure cannot sustain that level of impact.

If you enact public policies that provide guard rails and safetynets for segment 1 of the population, then you can at least try to keep their population in check and keep them on some semblance of a normal roadmap and avoid overwhelming our infrastructure and systems. Yes, this is not an ideal solution because you can't make rules and policies for segment 1 and let segment 2 do what they want - this will undoubtedly create massive class divisions. So, is the more acceptable solution to create policy for everyone knowing that segment 2 is going to be impacted a bit and pissed off, but they stand a far greater chance of success and creating opportunities for their future generations? It's a tough call. I think there are good arguments for both.

What are your solutions?

[BearArms]

You permit equilibrium to occur. Perpetually assisting someone does little to no good. Psychology has shown this, and it only provides angst to those who produce.

The answer is already there some just can't swallow the pill of "no aid".

FDR fd us and now we're here holding his hoard of bad ideas x1000 and their inevitable outcomes.

Some models of social programs sound ok in theory, but once reality hits of certain human nature and inability of Government to do anything efficiently, combined with political power interests, they fail. Unfortunately those that keep pushing this mentality think it just takes more money to make it work. They fail to recognize the definition of insanity.

[BearArms]

No way. You get two years of that and the midterms will be a blood bath for the dems.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Unfortunately many times the full negative brunt of policy implementation isn't felt until after that President and both houses next election.
I have a feeling this one won't take very long and we will see a midterm switch, unless they keep stealing votes

[darb72]

You permit equilibrium to occur. Perpetually assisting someone does little to no good. Psychology has shown this, and it only provides angst to those who produce.

The answer is already there some just can't swallow the pill of "no aid".

FDR fd us and now we're here holding his hoard of bad ideas x1000 and their inevitable outcomes.

People who cannot actively take care of themselves, such as those with disabilities, absolutely should be assisted. I'd prefer a private charity with minimum government oversight, but will go with government if no other options are available.

[BuryRaven]

Some models of social programs sound ok in theory, but once reality hits of certain human nature and inability of Government to do anything efficiently, combined with political power interests, they fail. Unfortunately those that keep pushing this mentality think it just takes more money to make it work. They fail to recognize the definition of insanity.

One social program I can get behind is something like the GI bill, it's a clear agreement for service that will not artificially inflate the price equilibrium of higher education due to the size of those who would utilize it. And to be frank, service based agreements have occurred in the private sector for years.

I remember in graduate school a trading company running routes to the new world (NA) would offer free passage for family after 4 years of service.

They would lose profit on the space and food required to house them for months end but it was a well deserved trade off for the service to the company.