Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[slayda]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I am an American and I strongly disagree with this characterization. I can thing of several virtues that I place above "freedom," justice being one of them. But I suspect RSE and I would disagree on definitions of both freedom and justice.

Neko, I have to agree with Sir Edward on this. I would maintain that there can be no justice without freedom.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by slayda

On the discussion of socialism, two things bother me - the term "fair" and the term "State".

Who or what is the State? When you get down to the final analysis, isn't there some person or persons that really make the decision? If so, are those persons just "more equal" or have special status?

Yes, they're "elected". I'm not sure what you're implying otherwise, though. Majority rules? Why do you think who runs a of "state" relevant?

I think different ideas of fairness is really the underlying cause of much of the disagreement on the thread.

Nah. Fairness is a secondary consideration that becomes relevant when first-order problems (ie. equal access to food/health/water/housing/blabla) have been resolved. What's at issue is what we put in that first category, mostly. And how that is decided.
For example, "we" think that equal access for all to medical care/services is not an unrealistic goal to try to realise, whereas "you" do.
"Fairness" only comes in when you try to finetune how much tax rich vs. poor people should pay, how much of the burden can any group can be expected to carry, or if you should give people with no income free cosmetic surgery.

Originally Posted by slayda

Neko, I have to agree with Sir Edward on this. I would maintain that there can be no justice without freedom.

And yet, isn't "freedom under the law" (or whatever you want to call it) the just thing to try to realise in a society?
It's far harder to go from "everyone is free" to "everyone should be treated justly" than it is to go from "everyone should be treated justly/the same" to "everyone should be free.(i.e., have equal rights)"
How can you defend "Freedom" if you have nothing to say except "we're born that way"? How will you argue against people who point out that you're born as the property of your parents (through your being wholly dependent on them), or from "we're all free [to do what we want], so I'm also free to bash your head in and take your shiny bauble". OTOH, it's fairly easy to argue "it's just to reward people for achievement".

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by slayda

Neko, I have to agree with Sir Edward on this. I would maintain that there can be no justice without freedom.

Possibly I would agree with either of you if we clarified what we mean by freedom. Complete freedom would be anarchy, and I don't believe in that any more than I believe in pure communism-- I don't think people are made to be able to live in perfectly ideological states.

Let's look at a few specific examples:

Freedom of speech - but this doesn't include libel, right?
Freedom of religion - but not including religions that include human sacrifice, right?

In any civil society, there are boundaries on our freedoms. The boundaries are fluid, and different societies put them in different places.

Discussing our differing definitions of freedom and how it weighs with other virtues might be a good way of comparing cultures between regions, as well as within countries.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by slayda

For me, equality means we all start at the same starting line at the same time. If I run faster than you do, I have a better chance of winning. Some people think equality is that everyone should have an equal chance to get to the finish line at the same time. For me that is definitely inequality.

Using your metaphor, do you believe that in the US we all start at the same starting line at the same time? Or to what extent do you think this is true?

[slayda]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Using your metaphor, do you believe that in the US we all start at the same starting line at the same time? Or to what extent do you think this is true?

Yes I agree that there are inequities but those inequities are generalized by the law according to statistics (which you like). I have been treated badly because I (a white male) am part of the "advantaged class" (even though I grew up in rural Mississippi the son of a poor country preacher). When in college there were aid programs that I could not apply for because of that. I knew a wealthy balck man who could and did because he was a member of the "disadvantaged class". My experience with statistics is one of the reasons I prefer to be considered an individual and why I "know" that there is not equality even when "well meaning" law makers try to acheive equality.

The point I was trying to make is that it is the starting line equality we should be striving toward rather than the finish line equality.

Again, just my opinion.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by slayda

Yes I agree that there are inequities but those inequities are generalized by the law according to statistics (which you like). I have been treated badly because I (a white male) am part of the "advantaged class" (even though I grew up in rural Mississippi the son of a poor country preacher). When in college there were aid programs that I could not apply for because of that. I knew a wealthy balck man who could and did because he was a member of the "disadvantaged class". My experience with statistics is one of the reasons I prefer to be considered an individual and why I "know" that there is not equality even when "well meaning" law makers try to acheive equality.

The point I was trying to make is that it is the starting line equality we should be striving toward rather than the finish line equality.

Again, just my opinion.

Similarly, one of the smartest young ladies in my high school class went to Harvard on a full scholarship because she was a minority student -- a female with a Hispanic surname.

The minor detail that her family had been one of Alta California's leading families for hundreds of years -- indeed the city of Santa Monica in which our families lived had been built on a small part of her family's Hacienda! -- and were one of the wealthiest families in town apparently never entered into the question! We're talking seriously old money here, and lots of it!

We certainly do not start from the same starting line, nor are we all equally able. I hope that we manage equality before the law (although I fear this is often not achieved).

Xenophon

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by slayda

The point I was trying to make is that it is the starting line equality we should be striving toward rather than the finish line equality.

Seems reasonable.

How can we measure starting line equality, and what is appropriate to do to make it more equal?

[slayda]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Possibly I would agree with either of you if we clarified what we mean by freedom. Complete freedom would be anarchy, and I don't believe in that any more than I believe in pure communism-- I don't think people are made to be able to live in perfectly ideological states.

Let's look at a few specific examples:

Freedom of speech - but this doesn't include libel, right?
Freedom of religion - but not including religions that include human sacrifice, right?

In any civil society, there are boundaries on our freedoms. The boundaries are fluid, and different societies put them in different places.

Discussing our differing definitions of freedom and how it weighs with other virtues might be a good way of comparing cultures between regions, as well as within countries.

In a like manner, I can pick one type of justice, i.e. "Justice = lawfulness" as defined by the American College Dictionary. So in a dictatorship (where the bulk of the people are now free) the dictator makes the law and justice is what he says it is.

But looking at your freedom example; I realize that just as I am free to bash your head in, so also are you free to bash my head in. If we're both smart, we will sit down and discuss whether to mutually bash heads and probably agree not to. However wars get started when we can not agree and it is usually because we can't agree on what is fair.

There has been a lot of talk that "the rich" should pay more than the poor "because thay can afford to". So when a rich person pays $10 for an apple at the farmer's market, does it taste better to him than the $1 apple the poor person buys. And if the rich should pay more taxes than the poor (and this usually meeans a larger percentage not just more dollors), shouldn't he also have to pay more for food, housing, cars, etc., etc.? Isn't that fair?

Is it fair for a person with no children to have to pay for schooling children? Is it fair for a well person to pay for medicine for a sick person? Is it fair for a person who obeys the law to pay for the crimes of a law breaker?

What seems fair to me may not seem fair to you. Some of this concept of fairness is based on our culture and/or our religion, on what we were taught growing up, on what we've experienced during our life, etc. It is alsways difficult and sometimes impossible to understand what someone else might think was fair.

A graphic example (may not be considered appropriate by some so please skip this) is when my daughter was complaining about how the female sexual harmones affected her when compaired to a male's. I pointed out that at least (during much of her life) it was reasonable periodic and could be planned around. On the other hand a young man could just be walking down the street, thinking of nothing in particular when ZING! his harmons might jerk him up. And it didn't get any better with age, just less frequent. So was that fair to men? She admitted that "the devil she knew was better than the devil she didn't know." But was none or all or some fair? I don't know and it depends on your viewpoint.

Is what is fair to those within the one sigma limit also fair to the outliers? Is what's fair the the upper outliers also fair to the lower outliers?

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by slayda

Is it fair for a person with no children to have to pay for schooling children? Is it fair for a well person to pay for medicine for a sick person?

Is it fair for a family (after all children ARE the future) to pay for the school of their children?
Is it fair for a sick person to pay and for a well-being person to NOT have to pay? (He's not sick, should count for something).
I hope you catch my meaning.

may not be considered appropriate by some so please skip this

??? What part of this might be considered inappropriate? ???

--edit: "Children as future"
Neither food nor medicine grows on trees - you do need a couple of people to maintain your lifestyle. When no one has any children ... you WILL have a problem sometime. So you better hope for people to have many children.
And perhaps - just perhaps - they shouldnt have to pay for their children (who maintain your later lifestyle) all by themselves? They already have a lot of work with them

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Similarly, one of the smartest young ladies in my high school class went to Harvard on a full scholarship because she was a minority student -- a female with a Hispanic surname.

The minor detail that her family had been one of Alta California's leading families for hundreds of years -- indeed the city of Santa Monica in which our families lived had been built on a small part of her family's Hacienda! -- and were one of the wealthiest families in town apparently never entered into the question! We're talking seriously old money here, and lots of it!

Originally Posted by slayda

I knew a wealthy black man who could and did because he was a member of the "disadvantaged class". My experience with statistics is one of the reasons I prefer to be considered an individual and why I "know" that there is not equality even when "well meaning" law makers try to acheive equality.

But why blame the system, in stead of either the moral fibre (or lack thereof) of that young lady or her family, or the lawmakers who created the system without building in exceptions?
Not to belabor the point, but slayda's whole problem with "I would've appreciated financial aid which I couldn't get due to the fact I didn't qualify" could've been avoided if you'd had either state-funded (i.e., low, tax-paid) tuition fees, or decent student loans (with a negligible interest rate)
Now, as I understand it these student loans were created (later?), but I also hear that G.W. did quite a bit to destroy these things in recent years, claiming they were "too expensive" or somesuch.

There has been a lot of talk that "the rich" should pay more than the poor "because thay can afford to". So when a rich person pays $10 for an apple at the farmer's market, does it taste better to him than the $1 apple the poor person buys. And if the rich should pay more taxes than the poor (and this usually meeans a larger percentage not just more dollors), shouldn't he also have to pay more for food, housing, cars, etc., etc.? Isn't that fair?

You could also just argue that he needs to pay more to ensure that all those people don't bash his head in out of jealousy. Because he wouldn't stand a chance against all of them, and the richer he is, the more people will be jealous of him.
The only reason rich people can stay rich (in any society) is by ensuring "the poor" don't lynch them, which can be interpreted to mean they have to enter into social compacts with them. Taxation is one of those. How else do you figure you'll be able to convince those hordes of poor people? By arguing that they "might have been richer, and then they wouldn't have appreciated having to pay taxes"? I'll bet you that won't persuade many.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Seems reasonable.

How can we measure starting line equality, and what is appropriate to do to make it more equal?

I don't know that we really can and also be morally justified. E.g. say you have two students and one is twice as smart as the other. (For this example don't worry about the metric, just assume it is true.) We really can't make the less smart one smarter. (Although that might be possible in the future.) But we could (using surgery or drugs) dumb the smart one down. I doubt that any of us here would think that was a good thing to do even though it could provide equality.

I think we need to realize that in any competition, some will perform better than others. Do we need everyone to be the president of the US? Who would pick up the garbage then? And should we pay the two jobs the same wage?

I realize I tend to think of mathematical equality but I don't want equality. If I outperform you I think I should receive more benefit. To my engineer mind, that represents our democratic, capitalistic society and I think it's the right way to be. If I didn't think that, I'd either go somewhere else or try to change it. Since I don think that, I will strive against those who do try to change it.

I try very hard to look at everyone (as much as possible) as a unique individual - different from every other individual. Personally I feel that I deal more equitably with people when I do that than I would if I looked at people as statistics.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by slayda

Do we need everyone to be the president of the US? Who would pick up the garbage then? And should we pay the two jobs the same wage?

We are talking "equality of chances" not "equality of results".
E.g. by providing everbody with he same CHANCE to someday get a good education (and stuff). One counter-example: If primary school was very expensive, only children of rich families could get into primary school.
This surely wouldnt be "equality of chances". Providing an educational system that gives everybody the chance to visit a (more or less equally good) primary school would be "equality of chances" wrt this problem.
See what I mean?

If I outperform you I think I should receive more benefit.

Anybody talked against this?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Is it fair for a family (after all children ARE the future) to pay for the school of their children?
Is it fair for a sick person to pay and for a well-being person to NOT have to pay? (He's not sick, should count for something).
I hope you catch my meaning.

Yes, and yes. I beleive one should pay for what one receives. I don't have health insurance because I would be subsidizing someone else. Frankly, at the age of 30 I don't need it.

On a related note, I agree that children are the future. That's why I happily pay school taxes and I've quietly adopted a couple local schools.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Yes, and yes. I beleive one should pay for what one receives. I don't have health insurance because I would be subsidizing someone else. Frankly, at the age of 30 I don't need it.

And I do hope that you never have an accident (this is NOT ironic).
I really needed my insurance at the age of 16 - not because I was ill, simply because I had a .. can-it-become-more-annoying accident.

On a related note, I agree that children are the future. That's why I happily pay school taxes and I've quietly adopted a couple local schools.

Real question: What means "adopting a school"?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I believe one should pay for what one receives. I don't have health insurance because I would be subsidizing someone else.

I see. But then you would also, out of principle, need to refuse any treatment that costs more than the total amount you've paid in insurance premiums by the time you get sick.
And considering any hospital stay (including freak car accidents and appendicitis etc.) will easily set you back 20-40.000$, I doubt you will want to get sick, as there is almost no way you could've "paid" for that by the time you got sick. Or will you then rationalize the fact that others are paying part of your health care by saying "but now that I've bought this "insurance" thing it doesn't matter that I'm still receiving more than is my "due""? Or will you rationalize it by saying "hospital costs are unreasonably high"?

Consider this snippet, found on a random yahoo forum:

Depending on where you live, a regular vaginal birth with no complications can run from $5,000 - 9,000. I developed high blood pressure, had to be induced and had an emergency c section. Cost around $25,000.

or this. Any complications, and.. well, there's your first chapter 7 bankruptcy filing.