Korean Job Discussion Forums

jajdude · Joined: 18 Jan 2003

Hmm sounds smart but I think I too dense to grasp the meaning Exclamation

Kuros · Joined: 27 Apr 2004

There should be a social security system set up to provide a minimum to people who fall on hard times or are almost completely unable to take care of themselves. However, able people should be allowed to prosper after paying taxes (or giving to charity) a certain amount. I put agree, but I could have easily also put disagree.

guangho · Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 3:28 am Post subject:

I'm one of a dwindling number who believes that a society is one where each person has two sets of responsibilities- to himself and to others. You have a responsibility to take care of yourself, to grow, to learn to find independence and fullfillment in life. As well as a responsibility to others to ensure that those whose basic needs have not been met, those who are not as fortunate as you will be given the opportunity to thrive without constantly struggling for survival. Most people believe the first part- almost no one cares about the second.

wannago · Joined: 16 Apr 2004

Sleepy in Seoul · Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 4:46 am Post subject:

I voted "strongly agree". Back in my home country I do give to charities, but very quickly one is inundated with entreaties to donate to every possible charity imaginable. I become sick of it after a while, especially after I pay taxes to do the same job.

I believe that humans are inherently weak and selfish, and that while many people may give to charity, many, many more will not. I believe that it is the duty and responsibility of governments to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. I will continue to cheerfully pay my taxes if I can rest assured that they are being used wisely and not wasted on politicians' rorts. A few years ago I was incensed when I read that Australia's richest man, Kerry Packer, in one financial year paid only $200.00 income tax. What a bastard. I would rather that 100 people abuse the welfare system if, at the same time, even one person is saved from starving or freezing to death from lack of assistance.

While I would like to believe that individual people would all try to help their fellow man, I know that, on the whole, they will not. That saddens me, and I am saddened even more when I hear or read of people who say that it not the responsibility of the government to ensure the safety of its citizens.

wannago · Joined: 16 Apr 2004

Nowhere Man · Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Bear in mind that the accusations of government stealing can be leveled at virtually any government program someone doesn't want, like, or support.

Why should people be forced to pay for a war they don't support?

The space program?

Grants for blueberry research?

Grants of all sorts...

Most importantly, why do I have to pay for the dingalings to be sent to Washington and (minimally) represent me in the first place?

What part of the government would be left if all the bits that could be labeled stealing were axed?

One idea I'd toss out is that unemployment agencies could act as employment agencies. Instead of picking up a check, why not use the unemployed for civic projects a la the TVA and WPA of the depression era?

Of course, that's unemployment and not welfare. I'm glad we do have a support system for the poor. It's a shame it gets abused, but that doesn't mean everyone on welfare is abusing it. It's also far from the only aspect of the government that does. And look at a country like India, where there is no welfare program (that I know of). Is that a decent alternative?

And what about corporate welfare?

Nowhere Man · Joined: 08 Feb 2004

One more related to the political compass test.

cbclark4 · Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Masan

True Communism is, in the end, a form of Monopoly Capitalism.

All resources, the means of production, are controlled by one entity, the state.

If the true goal is some sort of social justice a libertarion free market model is the only one that really can deliver any sense of justice while promoting liberty and pursuit of happiness, balancing individual responsibilty and state investment.

cbc

Nowhere Man · Joined: 08 Feb 2004

So, what's your vote?

cbclark4 · Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Masan

I think when I mention Individual Responsibility then I would be against the old Communist Maxim.

I do hold Social Justice as a duty of any revolution and therefore any modern democracy. How justice can be achieved in a consumer-oriented world, is the question.

Give everyone an Xbox or a Playstation.

Just because a Modern Democracy has become stable does not mean the revolution is over. When a population participates in Democracy, then it is revolution in action without violence. The ebbs and tides bring the revolutionary changes, the conservatives and moderates slow the process a bit to keep it from toppling into chaos, the liberals demanding drastic and speedy progress. If mediocrity were the goal of a revolution then the simple maxim would work. When excellence or a "more perfect union' is the goal then the ebbs and tides are a part of the struggle that makes us all a little stronger.

I just don't think the maxim can support social justice, and then what is social justice, maybe another topic at another time.

cbc

jaganath69 · Joined: 17 Jul 2003

Strongly disagree.

ddeubel · Joined: 20 Jul 2005

I think the question, more pointedly is, "Do you believe governments should legislate what people themselves are shown to not willingly do by themselves, as groups or individuals?"

This ranges from issues of conscription to cigarettes to charity.

You may agree strongly / agree but only selectively (submit your criteria of exception ) / disagreee strongly.

I think the question isn't that we don't believe in this, most people do. But how to realize it, as a community?

DD