Discussion of Political Philosophy...

#1
V

VolStudent19

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
161
Likes
5
#1
I'm a Polil. Sci. major at UT, and I love to talk more about political philosophies, and how they apply on a modern scale then I do normal partisan politics.

There seem to be some educated people on this board, so I am willing to give it a shot.

I'll start it off.

How do you feel John Locke's variation of social contract theory applies to the modern healthcare crisis?
 
#3
#3
Haha, I only wish we could get assigned an essay on an interesting topic. As it stands now, I have been doing research for a paper on the influence of OPEC on the global economy.

I'll add something to the topic here...

Locke espoused that individuals would willingly form a state, willingly giving up some rights and privacies for the greater protections provided by a common government.

Obviously, one could apply this to the health-care topic. We as citizens provide our taxes and the government (based on the bill) will provide some sort of insurance option. This certainly aligns with the Lockean view of laws being judged based upon their effect/relationship to the common good.

However, Locke also argued strongly for the ability of the individual to protect his life, liberty, and his property. While it is the responsibility of the government to assist in the protection of these rights, Locke believes that it is the responsibility of the individual, first and foremost, to protect these rights.


If you still doubt my desire to discuss these things, and not get help on some sort of school assignment, then go right ahead and bring up a topic and we can go from there. Not trying to offend anyone, just trying to get some intelligent conversation going.
 
#4
#4
I think a key term in your description is "willingly".

Our representative system renders this willingness indirect. I would expect that virtually all (90%) citizens willingly support the government providing common infrastructure and protection services. However, I think the willingness is stretched beyond recognition when our representatives decide to continually ramp up what the government "provides".
 
#5
#5
Search for LawGator1 and learn all you need. We even had an ethics primer in here the other day. Very enlightening stuff.

I'm with VBH on the government provision. The slippery slope there is unavoidable and the end inevitable. Met needs becoming rights is a problem. I'd rather let individuals figure out meeting their own needs, save those physically incapable, and avoid giving politicians the vote garnering capacity that free "stuff" allows.
 
#6
#6
BigPapaVol said:
Search for LawGator1 and learn all you need. We even had an ethics primer in here the other day. Very enlightening stuff.

I'm with VBH on the government provision. The slippery slope there is unavoidable and the end inevitable. Met needs becoming rights is a problem. I'd rather let individuals figure out meeting their own needs, save those physically incapable, and avoid giving politicians the vote garnering capacity that free "stuff" allows.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think that the minute welfare and social entitlement becomes a right, and not a benefit or means of helping the impoverished; then the government moves on from becoming an entity that citizens willingly give to support, and becomes a state that takes what it wants, and gives what it wants.

It is a slippery slope, the larger your government gets, the harder it becomes to stop. Its a dangerous cycle that can spin out of control if not contained.
 
#7
#7
VolStudent19 said:
I agree, I think that the minute welfare and social entitlement becomes a right, and not a benefit or means of helping the impoverished; then the government moves on from becoming an entity that citizens willingly give to support, and becomes a state that takes what it wants, and gives what it wants.

It is a slippery slope, the larger your government gets, the harder it becomes to stop. Its a dangerous cycle that can spin out of control if not contained.
Click to expand...
It cannot be contained. We've watched several great civilizations perish for doing the same thing.
 
#8
#8
All the ripples in the pond ...

I agree with BPV and droski that an unintended ripple has been the rapid expansion of entitlements, beyond our means. I'm not sure what we do about it once we've gone down the trail as far as we have.

I'd like to think that the solution is to raise the standard of living for the lowest classes and thereby reduce demand, and of course its hard to argue with that in theory. But that would surely mean even more spendng, on things like edication and infrastructure in particular.

I truly wonder some times if we aren't as a planet headed for a Malthusian Nightmare of our own.
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
All the ripples in the pond ...

I agree with BPV and droski that an unintended ripple has been the rapid expansion of entitlements, beyond our means. I'm not sure what we do about it once we've gone down the trail as far as we have.

I'd like to think that the solution is to raise the standard of living for the lowest classes and thereby reduce demand, and of course its hard to argue with that in theory. But that would surely mean even more spendng, on things like edication and infrastructure in particular.

I truly wonder some times if we aren't as a planet headed for a Malthusian Nightmare of our own.
Click to expand...

I would argue that because we have been so liberal in our spending on entitlements we haven't had the money needed to maintain and develop infrastructure.
 
#10
#10
KB5252 said:
I would argue that because we have been so liberal in our spending on entitlements we haven't had the money needed to maintain and develop infrastructure.
Click to expand...


Just now also noted that I spelled it EDICATION.

Great.
 
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
All the ripples in the pond ...

I agree with BPV and droski that an unintended ripple has been the rapid expansion of entitlements, beyond our means. I'm not sure what we do about it once we've gone down the trail as far as we have.

I'd like to think that the solution is to raise the standard of living for the lowest classes and thereby reduce demand, and of course its hard to argue with that in theory. But that would surely mean even more spendng, on things like edication and infrastructure in particular.

I truly wonder some times if we aren't as a planet headed for a Malthusian Nightmare of our own.
Click to expand...

wealth redistribution?
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Just now also noted that I spelled it EDICATION.

Great.
Click to expand...

No worries, I noticed it as an obvious mistype, well either that or chalked it up to you being a gatur fan.......you be the judge.
 
#15
#15
T-town active today, I see. I assume I am being insulted some more. I kind of wear it as a badge of honor, at this point.
 
#17
#17
elmer-fudd.jpg
 
#18
#18
VolStudent19 said:
I agree, I think that the minute welfare and social entitlement becomes a right, and not a benefit or means of helping the impoverished; then the government moves on from becoming an entity that citizens willingly give to support, and becomes a state that takes what it wants, and gives what it wants.

It is a slippery slope, the larger your government gets, the harder it becomes to stop. Its a dangerous cycle that can spin out of control if not contained.
Click to expand...

I would prefer my government not be involved in this at all. It should be a responsibility of the local communities and of individual charity, where a better evaluation between meetings needs or enabling self-destructive behaviors can be made. Hunger suffered as a result of negative behavior patterns can be an effective, though harsh teacher.
 
#19
#19
Every one is making this way to complicated.

Gov't = absolute failure on every level from local to state to federal. No one can name just 1 program/agency that is adequate.

What have we learned?

We need less gov't.
 
#20
#20
Most people are Libertarian, the less government the better. Get away from career politicians they are way too influenced by special interests groups that finance their re-elections.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
Every one is making this way to complicated.

Gov't = absolute failure on every level from local to state to federal. No one can name just 1 program/agency that is adequate.

What have we learned?

We need less gov't.
Click to expand...
Most people are Libertarian, the less government the better. Get away from career politicians they are way too influenced by special interests groups that finance their re-elections.
Click to expand...
imo, the only way to end the corruption/greed in DC is to move the politicians back to their home towns.. with cell phones, video conferences, the internet, etc., there is no reason for all of these crooks to be in one place... that includes the lobbyists
 
#22
#22
This is what boggles my mind. We have both sides of the spectrum represented a little so far in this thread, and we all have a solid foundation of agreement. Of course, they vary a little as the issue gets deeper, but if this were a debate on the hill of crooks I think this would eventually flesh out into a real compromise.

I'll add this to the whole welfare discussion. We always leave that "the impoverished" at the end to justify at least a minimal justification for welfare. However, the impoverished, can be a very loose term. Want to buy votes? Move that poverty slider up a few thousand dollars. I agree with LG's assertion about what we could have used that money for, and individually believe that had we not declared war on poverty, or shook hands on any new deals that we could have used a ton of money to actually invest into the "infrastructure" the poor really need: education and a network of thriving industry to forward their situations. Now, they stay in their predicament while their "defenders" get fat off of helping them... stay poor.

I also agree with the assertion that most people are recognizing the Gov't is a piss poor provider of any kind of service outside of blowing things up. The problem is, a good chunk of us have grown up and have been raised to be one letter or the other, and old habits just die hard.
 
Last edited:
#23
#23
Poverty will always exist, it is impossible to truly get rid of poverty. You can lessen its effects, but you cannot remove it. A government that taxes the rich in order to drag up the wealthy is one making a very short-sighted mistake IMO.
 
#24
#24
VolStudent19 said:
Poverty will always exist, it is impossible to truly get rid of poverty. You can lessen its effects, but you cannot remove it. A government that taxes the rich in order to drag up the wealthy is one making a very short-sighted mistake IMO.
Click to expand...

you're getting it.....you're getting it
 
#25
#25
My biggest problem with poverty is that the Dems cure for it involves bringing down the top instead of lifting up the bottom. Their goal is to put everyone in a state of equal misery, instead of letting people's own ability take them as high as they want to go.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top