Log in

No account? Create an account
29 June 2012 @ 10:20 am
I think I just realized something  
So I follow Joe Bethancourt on Facebook, because I like his music and am willing to overlook his politics. And he posts lots of things about, "What part of my property do you think you have the right to steal?" in response to the Affordable Care Act.

I haven't been able to formulate an answer.

I think I've figured it out. From my perspective, he's asking the wrong question, and that's why I can't answer it.

The question *I* ask is, "We live in a society that conveys many advantages. How can we most fairly distribute those advantages while not constraining personal incentive and creativity?"

I have no problem with people who invent really cool things, or provide really cool services, being fabulously wealthy. I have no problem with the idea that a job requiring 25 years of training pays more than a job that doesn't require that kind of investment.

I do have a problem with a society and culture that treats people who do the day-to-day work of maintaining the infrastructure (by which I mean both public infrastructure like road builders and forest rangers and police and teachers and firefighters, and private infrastructure like custodians and secretaries and house builders and factory workers) -- or who are unable to work because of disability, or who are able to work but cannot find a job because the economy is broken -- as disposable and worthless.
Tom the Alien Cattomtac on June 30th, 2012 02:15 am (UTC)
First of all, I like your ideas. Our country's or society's organized mission has to include the job of caring for all of its members, partly because the whole human race is strengthened in its diversity. No one is disposable or worthless, their very selves are valuable (even though there seems to be an overpopulation everywhere.

Second, I share the confusion of questions like that, because it is English used to take the original issue, sneak up under its wake, come up alongside, and torpedo it in a blindside attack. I am upset that our means of communication is used in such a false way. ("He is asking the wrong question and that's why I can't answer it.") . . . He was supposed to be discussing what government should do about health care and health care costs, instead he expresses anger about taxes in a way that implies it is -> your <- fault, and this ties in the old question "When is it permissible for a group of people to do what one person can not?"

Put another way, necessarily, if he thinks the ACA is way too expensive, it would be valid to say so, not valid for him to bring up red herrings.

Lastly, I get distressed when I see a democracy where the citizens can not, NOT, discuss the issues; a democracy where every issue is "discussed" with rhetoric and deceptions going bombast and going nuclear.