O.T. Re: money and health

[Guest guest]

>

> > I think that concluding a concept is humanitarian even while

> > admitting it is not workable " now or ever " is more a sign of

> > an ideological fixation than the converse.

>

> Really? How exactly does that work?

When one continues to follow or advocate a course which

has been shown to have an effect opposite to the one

desired, then it's likely that at least -some- sort of

fixation is involved. What else could it be? However

humanitarian the goals of socialism's advocates, the

results of its implementation have proved to be anything

but humanitarian.

> So, your reasoning seems to be, that because some people claim

> that their ideas are humanitarian, despite the fact that they

> might be, in fact, harmful, no idea that may be impractical can

> be humanitarian? I don't follow the logic.

Be careful to make a distinction between humanitarian

intent and humanitarian results. If we know an idea

to be " in fact, harmful " , as you write here, regardless

of the good intention of its advocates, then why are we

required to pretend it's humanitarian in -fact-?

> There is also a difference between your example and the Marx

> quote. The Marx quote is humanitarian in ideology (at least in

> my view) because it views all people as fundamentally equally

> deserving of getting what they need, and all people as equally

> responsible to contribute effort to the welfare of all.

It is not humanitarian in -my- view. If Marx freely

chooses to help others with his -own- time, effort,

and resources, then he's certainly a humanitarian.

However if he advocates forcibly taking -my- time,

effort, or resources to help a cause that I don't choose

to support, then he is certainly not behaving humanely

towards -me-.

Your idea that " all people are responsible to contribute

effort to the welfare of all " is just that, -your- idea.

Some people have the idea that interracial marriage is

immoral. Do they have the right to impose that idea on

the rest of us, and forbid interracial marriage? Some

people believe it's immoral not to worship Jesus. Do

they have the right to force the rest of us to do so?

This is precisely what you're advocating. It's -your-

ethical belief that it's wrong not to support others in

need, so you think it perfectly acceptable to forcibly

take others' resources to that end. If you don't believe

in interracial marriages, then you're not required to

marry someone of a different race, but you don't have the

right to interfere with someone else doing so. If you

believe in worshipping Jesus, then you have the right to

do so unmolested by others, but you do not have the right

to force others to join you. If you believe it's immoral

to kill and eat animals, then you have the right to refrain

from eating meat, but you do not have the right to stop

others who wish to do so. So if you likewise believe you

owe something to the upkeep of others, then you have every

right to give whatever you wish of your -own- time and

resources, but absolutely none to force me or anybody else

to do the same.

What's the difference in imposing personal ethical beliefs,

and imposing personal religious beliefs?

> There is nothing ideologically humanitarian about the low fat,

> high carb diet.

Of course there is. It would be inhumane to stand by and

say nothing while naive people ate all the fat they wanted

and avoided carbs, and then died right and left from heart

attacks and diabetes, wouldn't it?

>You are simply emphasizing that those who believe that the diet is a

> healthy one ae mistaken.

As are those who believe in socialism. If I can call the

diet a spade, regardless of the good intent of its advocates,

then why can't I likewise call socialism a spade?

> Hate? Whoa - no, I don't hate by a long shot.

Well goodness, I'd hate to see how you talk to someone

you do hate! :-)