Public Welfare Before Freedom?

[Captain Cardio]

Should We Put Public Welfare Before Freedom (from The Herald )

I'd recommend reading the whole article in the link to get some context before debating here.

Here's a summary quote for a general idea of the article:

Public policy, therefore, is not so much a mass of contradictions as an attempt at a morally difficult balancing act. Anyone who thinks freedom or the general good is a trump card that can magically dissolve this difficulty is guilty of simplistic thinking about a horribly complex issue.

I suppose these two competing views would be utilitarianism and individual rights.

My question is this, is there any more sophisticated moral structure or compass we can go by, to reconcile these often incompatible views?

Or are utilitarianism and individual rights going to be doomed to a philosophical tug of war forever, that is only ever temporarily resolved, issue by issue, depending on who has the power at a given point in time?

In other words, to determine whether utilitarianism or individual rights are more present in a given policy, is it solely dependent on who has power at the time, or is there some more developed philosophical view we can consult or develop that transcends utilitarianism and individual rights?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Captain Cardio Should We Put Public Welfare Before Freedom (from The Herald ) I'd recommend reading the whole article in the link to get some context before debating here. Here's a summary quote for a general idea of the article: I suppose these two competing views would be utilitarianism and individual rights. My question is this, is there any more sophisticated moral structure or compass we can go by, to reconcile these often incompatible views? Or are utilitarianism and individual rights going to be doomed to a philosophical tug of war forever, that is only ever temporarily resolved, issue by issue, depending on who has the power at a given point in time? In other words, to determine whether utilitarianism or individual rights are more present in a given policy, is it solely dependent on who has power at the time, or is there some more developed philosophical view we can consult or develop that transcends utilitarianism and individual rights?

Should the suggestion that something is just too complex be an excuse for doing nothing and maintaining a stalemate? Without that excuse we basically only have a choice between two different simplistic ideas.

You make that choice, and then live with the choices you made. However the best choice is to balance out the two systems.

In socialism everyone gets paid the same wage and they all get the same share of items produced in the way of food, living spaces, and so forth. They take into account dependants ( children and your grandparents who can no longer work) some how or another.

That system however provides no stemulation or motivation to work harder to improve the society because no personal gain or advantages for you or your family is involved. That system sucks.

A philosophy of freedom is honestly dependant upon a new environment or country where all people are starting off fresh and then advance accordingly to their personal ability to do so. Like in a race where everyone starts to run from the same line at the same time.

Of course we then hand down our advantage to our children who grab it and continue to run the race, and so after many generations the concept of freedom fades because everyone is not starting off from the same line where everyone has an equal advantage "toe and toe" with the next guy.

Needless to say the wealthy family wants to keep that pre-existing advantage and those not born with a silver spoon in their mouth are left to fight over whatever crumbs are still left over for the taking.

But not totally, a person from a poor family could still come up with an idea that sells well and then overcome the odds. Which is what we refer to as the American Dream or that lucky break when you ship comes home.

For those people we have the middle status, which is not wealthy but comfortable enough to live a decent life, and we have the poor class which still has a chance to move on up. And yet, you only have the right to try, as no one gave you any rights to make the grade by some automatic process. It is the freedom to struggle to overcome the odds.
But no insurance that such struggle will pay off in the end.

Freedom allows for the unpredictable, where as in socialism you can safely bet your circumstances will always be the same from cradle to grave. AKA - boring. But in that unpredictable envirnoment you can end up on the streets as a homeless bum for reasons you did not plan on or work towards establishing.

Most people who are poor are not that way because they lost any sense of morality or because god is punishing them for a sin, and yet religions doing charity think so and so they go out to lift up the fallen souls by teaching them to pray and and faith in God to give them direction on how to get back into the middleclass. Although the poor must take the free handouts they resent the attitudes that look down on them as people who fell from god's grace. Fact. People on welfare hate the welfare system and the attitude of the government providing it, for those reasons also. Respect is not something you should have only if you can pay for it. It is phychologically damaging to millions of people to promote such an idea in society.

Welfare as a safty net should be like a Social Security check, as someting you deserve and have a right too if you ever need it. Because when you did work or if you do work at some low wage then you supported that net with your taxes. Under the concept that everyone in society is building a safty net in defense of those unpredictable situations when you might fall from a higher place in the economical system of things. But it is not a net for taking a long snooze. That way we can keep the "free system" in operation without totally switching over to a socialistic system (as discribed above), because people would not demand total security based on a predictable life econimically.

But expectations for gaining that middle class status needs to be stronger then the expectation of ending up in the poor class status. That depends on the wealthy class who provide jobs and who manage the cost of living for the mainstream. If the wealthy fail to do their part in society then we must turn to the only other power - government.

If both the wealthy and the government fails then we end up like a 3rd world of poverty or we have a big revolution and self distruct with the hope of establishing a different government that can supervise things the right way, with a new consitution and different kinds of rights, where we refresh and get a new "starting line" for another race uphill.

So we have some choices to make and undertake.

A change you can believe in. and/or A change that can acturally work as it has been well thought out.

Or four more years when the middle class folds up it's cards because there is nothing left to bet on for an unexpected big win.

[gela]

This is exactly what the book 'Brave New World' by Huxley discusses.
Stability vs. Freedom.

We can't have both, we just have to find a happy medium.