Inherent virtue?

[Triton]

I thought we were talking about principle. If you're asking about designer sneakers or IPODs, then I'd have to say that you're absolutely right...that doesn't outweigh your needs, because those aren't "needs" to begin with. However, let me give you an existing example:

That goes to Tim's point about who gets to decide what a "need" is.

Let me retry this. Why do their "needs" outweigh my personal property rights to do with my own resources as I see fit?

I don't know where you live, but do you have handicapped parking spaces? Are they governed by laws/ordinances? Do you agree with them? Do you think that a handicapped person has a higher intrinsic value than you do? If not, do you feel that their parking needs outweigh yours?

That's a great example. In general I'm fine with allowing someone with a handicap to park closer than I do, but in principle I can't agree that their "needs" outweigh anyone elses. Why should I be obliged to service their needs?

My point is, the "needs vs needs" issue has already been decided, in principle.

It has? By whom, and why didn't I get my ballot?

But you just admitted that if another state's constitution permitted welfare, you'd rightfully have no say in it. So, what principle are you presenting that trumps a self-governing society's right to govern themselves as they see fit?

How about the individual's right to the product of their own labor and life?

Oh, I beg to differ. A society does not have to accept members in if they don't want to. (Of course, it'd be interesting to see them pull that one off; but that's a different subject entirely!)

And don't forget the inequality of developmental level. A child is incapable of even processing the decision; adults are capable. One cannot compare the two situations.

Except that we aren't really talking about the child vs society. As you said the child had no choice about coming into the world. Society had no choice about the child's coming into the world. Who did? Why are they not responsible for the child?

[Noctis3880]

The crux of the problem you state, has it's own crux of a problem (or two)... Who determines what "genuine need" is, and what criteria actually constitutes a "genuine need"?
For example, I don't have an IPOD or the latest PlayStation.

An interesting question to be sure.

I can understand the dilemma of who decides what and all that. Do I feel irked when someone wastes a few million dollars buying a toilet made of solid gold? Yep. Do I raise an eyebrow when I look on yahoo news and see the latest million dollar dress with diamonds in it bought by some hollywood star that they'll likely only wear a couple of times? You betcha.

But I inevitably have to come to terms with the fact that:
1) It's not my money.
2) Someone else wasting their money has no detrimental effect on me.

But in this situation:
1) It IS my money(you can argue semantics all you like about how it's not "my" money once it's taken from me in taxes, but MY money is being taken away from ME).
2) Someone else wasting MY money HAS a detrimental effect on me in the form of public debt and higher taxes as a result of that debt.

I would say genuine need falls under food, water, and shelter(include clothing and bills here). Entertainment ranks pretty low for me. Hygiene would rank higher still given that it's somewhat of a prerequisite for getting a job interview.

[BlackKnight86]

That goes to Tim's point about who gets to decide what a "need" is.

Let me retry this. Why do their "needs" outweigh my personal property rights to do with my own resources as I see fit?

For the same reason that ANY tax you pay - which are also your own resources - outweigh your own personal property rights.

That's a great example. In general I'm fine with allowing someone with a handicap to park closer than I do, but in principle I can't agree that their "needs" outweigh anyone elses. Why should I be obliged to service their needs?

You are "servicing their needs". You are making the effort to refrain from parking in an open spot and parking somewhere else because their need to have an open space close to the door is greater than yours. Just because that's a minor issue that you generally don't have a problem with, does not make it different, in principle, from any other special accomodation done for a group classification. It's simply an "easier example to swallow".

You see, I'm fine with helping a person in genuine need. Where I have a problem is where it's done poorly, inefficiently, and for the benefit of a particular political party. Yes, I realized that I just described most government assistance; but that does not damn it in principle.

It has? By whom, and why didn't I get my ballot?

By you. You accept one, and you've accepted the principle.

Remember the joke: Guy goes up to a beautiful woman and says, "would you sleep with me for $1 million? She says "Yes". He says "How about $20?" She says, "what do you think I am?!" He says, "Oh, we've already established that; now we're just haggling over the price."

How about the individual's right to the product of their own labor and life?

Same reason as any other obligation you pay - which are also your own resources - outweigh your right to the product of your own labor and life.

Except that we aren't really talking about the child vs society. As you said the child had no choice about coming into the world. Society had no choice about the child's coming into the world. Who did? Why are they not responsible for the child?

The parents are responsible for the child. It's not an "either/or" situation; it's a "who plays what role". At some point, the child will have to interact with the society that has extended him citizenship. Let him say, "Oh, I'm not a member of this society", and see what happens.

There are some things you cannot separate. By definition, those things must be managed together in some way. The question is, at what level does who decide what way?

I agree. But wouldn't the knowledge you're responsible for the whole show provide extra incentive to "dance" well?

Well, that depends upon the individual. There's "providing incentive", and then there's "overwhelming". It's an issue of "degree", and it's unique to each individual.

Edited to add.

When I imagine one person telling another to dance, I see.them shooting under their feet.
This is perilously close to what happens in real life, when we allow government to be the puppet master.

But I don't believe that it is accurate to stereotype all government assistance as "puppet master". That is most definitely an accurate description of a lot of it; but in principle it does not have to be a bad thing.

[not2sharp]

...

So the question is this. What inherent virtue does the recipient of entitlements have that says that they are more worthy to spend the taxpayer's money then the taxpayer who actually earned the money is?

Traditionally, we maintain and encourage an underclass in order to scare the middle class into working their collective A$$es off in order to maintain their distance. We work to provide better homes and neighborhoods for our families.

What happens then when we have effectively killed off the middle class? Do we still need a lower class, or are they now a superfluous expense?

n2s

[Triton]

For the same reason that ANY tax you pay - which are also your own resources - outweigh your own personal property rights.

I don't think that's completely true. If I'm paying taxes for roads, I get a road. I can drive on it. If I'm paying taxes for a military I get a military. They defend me and keep my country safe. If I'm paying taxes for parks I get a park. I can go there and play frisbee. If I pay taxes to subsidize a welfare recipient do I get a welfare recipient? What do I do with it? So it would seem that the reason is not the same.

You are "servicing their needs". You are making the effort to refrain from parking in an open spot and parking somewhere else because their need to have an open space close to the door is greater than yours.

So because I have the ability to walk to the door and they don't I should service their needs?

By you. You accept one, and you've accepted the principle.

But I don't accept the principle. I might do it because I'm a nice guy, but that's not the same thing.

The parents are responsible for the child.

Agreed, so why then is it my obligation to pay for the child?

[timcsaw]

Tim, that story is a good one; but it begs the question - are you saying that government assistance will change the farmer from someone who is ashamed of getting help to someone who expects it?

No, (though that could happen) I use the example to illustrate that some farmer(s) might be tempted to abuse the "neighborly system" and how that system would respond (appropriately IMO).

Also, re: the bold...."yearly town report"? Sounds like something official and government...

Yes, individual small-town governments (the next entity of "government" larger than "I") would put the names in the yearly town report. Like most towns list individuals by name who have not paid their town taxes... no one used to want their name listed as most had some pride (probably wouldn't work nowadays as pride seems to have "left the building").

[annr]

Triton,
Considering the segue into this thread, aren't you driving at (calling into question): any fundamental justification/basis/rationale (or lack of) for wealth redistribution, esp. from the taxpayer to the non-taxpayer, not a review of how the system is or is not functioning or how needy the recipient is or is not and how wealthy or able-bodied the taxpayer is or is not.

[BlackKnight86]

I don't think that's completely true. If I'm paying taxes for roads, I get a road. I can drive on it. If I'm paying taxes for a military I get a military. They defend me and keep my country safe. If I'm paying taxes for parks I get a park. I can go there and play frisbee. If I pay taxes to subsidize a welfare recipient do I get a welfare recipient? What do I do with it? So it would seem that the reason is not the same.

You are being WAY too free with your characterizations.

1. You do NOT get "a road". The public gets roads that you get to use, subject to the same "first come first served" restrictions that all public places have. It's not "your" road. In fact, if you are on your way to the beach one weekend, and traffic is stopped; then you "get" to either sit in that traffic and wait, like everyone else; or you "get" to turn around and go home, and wait until it's available for your use.

2. You do NOT get "a military". The society gets a military; and you get to live in a society that is defended by said military. And if you personally are in danger during wartime, said military will not stop their collective mission to come and defend you personally.

3. You do NOT get "a park". The public gets parks that you get to use, subject to the same "first come first served" restrictions that all public places have. It's not "your" park. In fact, if you are on your way to the park one weekend, and your favorite frisbee spot is occupied by the rich businessman and his family who don't have to work as much as you do, so that they can get to the park earlier every weekend and take your favorite spot; then you "get" to either find another spot, like everyone else; or you "get" to turn around and go home, and see if you can make it there before him next time.

4. In much the same manner, if you pay taxes to subsidize welfare, then society gets welfare; one that you can use if you need it subject to the same conditions that everyone else is. Structure is exactly the same.

So because I have the ability to walk to the door and they don't I should service their needs?

Ah....so you don't support that. I misunderstood. Kudos to you for being consistent!

OK, that is fair enough. However, if we are discussing principle, and if handicapped parking is legitimately governed by law or ordinances where you live; then I would submit that your beef is not with any "needs conflict"; it's more with not wanting other people to make laws that you don't like. That's what I'm seeing here...is that the case?

But I don't accept the principle. I might do it because I'm a nice guy, but that's not the same thing.

If it's part of the legitimate law of the municipality that you're in, then it doesn't matter whether you accept it or not.

Agreed, so why then is it my obligation to pay for the child?

Why is it your obligation to pay for the afore-mentioned roads? Or military? If someone is a pacifist, can they opt out of paying for the military, because they "don't accept the principle"?

Triton,
Considering the segue into this thread, aren't you driving at (calling into question): any fundamental justification/basis/rationale (or lack of) for wealth redistribution, esp. from the taxpayer to the non-taxpayer, not a review of how the system is or is not functioning or how needy the recipient is or is not and how wealthy or able-bodied the taxpayer is or is not.

I believe that we are bouncing back and forth between the two....

Yes, individual small-town governments (the next entity of "government" larger than "I") would put the names in the yearly town report. Like most towns list individuals by name who have not paid their town taxes... no one used to want their name listed as most had some pride (probably wouldn't work nowadays as pride seems to have "left the building").

And that's how it should be done!

[Triton]

You are being WAY too free with your characterizations.

1. You do NOT get "a road". The public gets roads that you get to use, subject to the same "first come first served" restrictions that all public places have. It's not "your" road. In fact, if you are on your way to the beach one weekend, and traffic is stopped; then you "get" to either sit in that traffic and wait, like everyone else; or you "get" to turn around and go home, and wait until it's available for your use.

2. You do NOT get "a military". The society gets a military; and you get to live in a society that is defended by said military. And if you personally are in danger during wartime, said military will not stop their collective mission to come and defend you personally.

3. You do NOT get "a park". The public gets parks that you get to use, subject to the same "first come first served" restrictions that all public places have. It's not "your" park. In fact, if you are on your way to the park one weekend, and your favorite frisbee spot is occupied by the rich businessman and his family who don't have to work as much as you do, so that they can get to the park earlier every weekend and take your favorite spot; then you "get" to either find another spot, like everyone else; or you "get" to turn around and go home, and see if you can make it there before him next time.

4. In much the same manner, if you pay taxes to subsidize welfare, then society gets welfare; one that you can use if you need it subject to the same conditions that everyone else is. Structure is exactly the same.

No the structure is not exactly the same, and it appears that we are merely talking about a question of semantics. For any of the aforementioned items I receive direct benefit for the taxes I pay. That is not true of welfare spending. In that case someone else receives direct benefit for the taxes I pay.

OK, that is fair enough. However, if we are discussing principle, and if handicapped parking is legitimately governed by law or ordinances where you live; then I would submit that your beef is not with any "needs conflict"; it's more with not wanting other people to make laws that you don't like. That's what I'm seeing here...is that the case?

I'm questioning the principled basis of such laws. Yet, you didn't answer the question, is the principle that I should walk further because I can and they shouldn't because they cannot?

If it's part of the legitimate law of the municipality that you're in, then it doesn't matter whether you accept it or not.

Quite true, we are often presented with unprincipled (and Unconstitutional) laws.

Why is it your obligation to pay for the afore-mentioned roads? Or military? If someone is a pacifist, can they opt out of paying for the military, because they "don't accept the principle"?

Again, I would submit it is because you are directly benefitting from those payments whether you agree with them or not. Can the same be said of welfare spending? I don't think so.

I believe that we are bouncing back and forth between the two....

Quite possibly, it's a hard thing to separate sometimes and someone (ahem) keeps bringing up the legalistic aspects. That said, the other thread covers the legal aspects fairly well and I'm attempting (however deficiently) to make this thread about something else.

[eyeeatingfish]

Yesterday I saw a lady in 7/11 checking her EBT card balance on a smart phone...
Then after that i spoke to a chronic guy who was arguing with his grandma. He doesn't work but somehow pays rent. The grandma related that he got dissability payments, not sure if it was SS or some state program. Well I asked what the disability was and it was because of brain damage from............... (insert drumroll) drug use! So he gets paid because he cannot work all because he turned his brain to swiss cheese from his own drug use. So all I need to do for a free retirement is use a bunch of drugs!

[annr]

Quite possibly, it's a hard thing to separate sometimes and someone (ahem) keeps bringing up the legalistic aspects.

True. However, a justification based on need can not be a primary, fundamental rationale since both the taxpayer and non-taxpayer have needs. For starters, a need-based justification entitling the government to move one man's wealth to another requires the creation of a man-made hierarchy of needs and responsibilities (no matter how self-evident or "fair" that hierarchy may seem) that did not exist before the fact. (And of course, comparative need is not always self-evident or able to be determined rationally and fairly--enter Kenneth Feinberg after 9/11)

The legal and administrative aspects of wealth redistribution by the government may make the redistribution more or less palatable, seeming justifiable, or fair , but would not provide a primary justification for doing so in the first place.

[ttoney83]

They certainly could. That people whine and are insecure about their ability to make theirtell own decisions, and need a government entity to feel protected from their own inadequacies, is another matter.

Do you believe that if a producer of a product puts arsenic in their product, or better yet, how about Cadmium in the paint they put on toys meant for your children's play, that they should be required to tell the consumer in the labelling that Cadmium is in thier paint? Or is this something that someone is just supposed to know? Or is it something that you expect that EVERYone should take the time to research in order to come to a reasoned conclusion about the safety of the product so they can actually make a good decision on their own?

You see, it is absolutely impossible for there to be a "free market" even REMOTELY similar to a "flea market" in the real economy without ANY sort of government regulation. That notion is simply a fantasy. I agree that a flea "market" is about as close as one can get to a "free market," but even in a flea market there is deception which is not always easy to spot, unless one simply assumes that all products being presented for sale are suspect.

Furthermore, if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that YOU are capable of determining, ON YOUR OWN, that dangerous levels of Cadmium or Lead, or any other toxic substances, are present in ANY product you are about to purchase for yourself, your children or your pets. Am I correct in that assumtion?

[Triton]

Yesterday I saw a lady in 7/11 checking her EBT card balance on a smart phone...
Then after that i spoke to a chronic guy who was arguing with his grandma. He doesn't work but somehow pays rent. The grandma related that he got dissability payments, not sure if it was SS or some state program. Well I asked what the disability was and it was because of brain damage from............... (insert drumroll) drug use! So he gets paid because he cannot work all because he turned his brain to swiss cheese from his own drug use. So all I need to do for a free retirement is use a bunch of drugs!

... and yet they both have needs. This goes well with the topic at hand. Why do their needs supplant my own?

[timcsaw]

Yesterday I saw a lady in 7/11 checking her EBT card balance on a smart phone...
Then after that i spoke to a chronic guy who was arguing with his grandma. He doesn't work but somehow pays rent. The grandma related that he got dissability payments, not sure if it was SS or some state program. Well I asked what the disability was and it was because of brain damage from............... (insert drumroll) drug use! So he gets paid because he cannot work all because he turned his brain to swiss cheese from his own drug use. So all I need to do for a free retirement is use a bunch of drugs!

Though anecdotal for each individual, we can ALL probably relate our own anecdotes that are similar. A small sample to draw conclusions from? Yes, but somewhat telling at any rate. How rampant is entitlement abuse? We know that their is "some abuse" based on the few cases that make it to court, but I would propose that we "catch" less than half of the abusers. So is it a problem of "abuse", or is it a problem of ineffective oversight procedures and the need to "tighten" the system(s) to identify and punish the abuse.

The problem with this is that it is out of our "reach" as individuals because the poor oversight is way, way, WAAAAY up there at a high government level that we can't touch.

Let us "touch it"; "Hey lady! Skrew using your EBT card to pay for this stuff. Give me your (my) SmartPhone (back) as payment." and "No son. You cannot buy booze and ciggys with your EBT card."

The abuse is the RESULT of A problem, but not the problem itself (lousy management, eligibility rules, oversight and enforcement). You'll never solve a problem if you are ONLY attacking it's symptoms.

[quietmike]

Do you believe that if a producer of a product puts arsenic in their product, or better yet, how about Cadmium in the paint they put on toys meant for your children's play, that they should be required to tell the consumer in the labelling that Cadmium is in thier paint? Or is this something that someone is just supposed to know? Or is it something that you expect that EVERYone should take the time to research in order to come to a reasoned conclusion about the safety of the product so they can actually make a good decision on their own?

You ask this when lead laden toys ARE imported DESPITE a massive government agency that is tasked with preventing it???

You see, it is absolutely impossible for there to be a "free market" even REMOTELY similar to a "flea market" in the real economy without ANY sort of government regulation. That notion is simply a fantasy. I agree that a flea "market" is about as close as one can get to a "free market," but even in a flea market there is deception which is not always easy to spot, unless one simply assumes that all products being presented for sale are suspect.

Caveat Emptor seems like a simple premise. Under the current system we do the same we just farm it out to a third party.

Furthermore, if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that YOU are capable of determining, ON YOUR OWN, that dangerous levels of Cadmium or Lead, or any other toxic substances, are present in ANY product you are about to purchase for yourself, your children or your pets. Am I correct in that assumtion?

If I buy from local people whom I trust, yes, I can be reasonably certain of the dangers (at least as certain that a government employee is doing their job correctly). With that said, all risk can NEVER be completely eliminated, but a manufacturer that kills its customers won't be in business for long.

[ttoney83]

Quite possibly, it's a hard thing to separate sometimes and someone (ahem) keeps bringing up the legalistic aspects. That said, the other thread covers the legal aspects fairly well and I'm attempting (however deficiently) to make this thread about something else.

What? Morality? Principle? Law? Something else? The way I see it, this issue is inextricably entangled in all three of the aforementioned philosophical constructs.

[Triton]

What? Morality? Principle? Law? Something else? The way I see it, this issue is inextricably entangled in all three of the aforementioned philosophical constructs.

I'm trying to get to how people that think that wealth redistribution via the government is a good idea justify their thinking.

[timcsaw]

That goes to Tim's point about who gets to decide what a "need" is.

Let me retry this. Why do their "needs" outweigh my personal property rights to do with my own resources as I see fit?

I worked and earned enough money through my own labor and saved it to buy a 50 inch plasma for the up-stairs, and a 37 inch LCD for the down-stairs... will "someone" decide that I should only have one TV and that someone else, who only has an old 19 inch tube type has a "need" for one of my TV's? Who decides? What is "need"?

Let me decide please, oh please?

"Hey lady, here's a pay-as-you-go TracFone as a replacement, now give me that top-end SmartPhone... and oh yea... Put back those lobsters!"

[BlackKnight86]

No the structure is not exactly the same, and it appears that we are merely talking about a question of semantics. For any of the aforementioned items I receive direct benefit for the taxes I pay. That is not true of welfare spending. In that case someone else receives direct benefit for the taxes I pay.

OK....public service announcement.

Semantics - The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form.

We are not talking about a question of semantics. There is no dispute over the meaning of any wording used; you are just switching said wording around for whatever reason. You first used the word "get"; and I told you what you "got". Now you're using "direct benefit". Perhaps next time you'll switch to the word "use"...it certainly looks like that is where you are going. Let me save you some time.

When you buy insurance, you "get" exactly that....insurance. Unless you file a claim, however, you don't "use" the insurance. But your "direct benefit" is that the coverage is there if you need it, whether you "use" it or not. Unless you are saying that you, personally, are denied "use" of welfare; then the "direct benefit" of welfare is still there for you. In the same way, if you don't drive, you don't "use" the road. Should those people who don't drive not have to pay for the road? After all, according to your logic, they aren't getting any "direct benefit", right?

If welfare is open to all people, then all people "get" the "direct benefit"; however, only those people who need it actually "use" it.

If I understand your objections, they are at a very simple, base level: you just don't like having to pay for other people to not work. Completely understandable; but that is an issue of execution, not concept.

I'm questioning the principled basis of such laws. Yet, you didn't answer the question, is the principle that I should walk further because I can and they shouldn't because they cannot?

Well, you keep asking three apparently different questions. Which one would you like answered, the law one, the law-making one, or the ethics one?

I already told you that the principled basis of the law can be one (or both) of two possibilities: moral or practical. Do you need further explanation? The moral basis is basically the equalization of opportunity for all citizens to access the public sphere by compensating for shortcomings in certain groups. Are you asking me if YOU, personally, would adhere to that principle? I have no idea. But that is a principled approach to the law. The other one is practical: given the relationship between poverty and crime, it makes sense to have a way to buffer the effects of poverty. Does it work? I don't know...lot of variables. But the concept makes sense in principle. Does it make sense to you, personally? No idea...I doubt it, given your referring to it as "extortion" in the other thread. Only problem with that position is that it assumes intent across all participants...no way you could make that assertion and be able to back it up, even if you did a study, which I'm sure you didn't.

Now, if I'm understanding the convoluted way the conversation is going, you are also asking about the principled basis for the actual making of the law. Perhaps the reason why I "didn't answer that question" is because I did answer that question. In general, if the action is not prohibited by the ultimate law of whatever nation is making it, and that's what the people want to do; then they have the right and ability to make that law. I'm still not understanding why you are having trouble grasping that, given that you as much as admitted it earlier when you agreed that if another state wanted to do a welfare program, and it was not prohibited by their state constitution, you would have no say in it. What is the disconnect, here?

OK, now, the last question that you may or may not be asking (?) is the ethical basis for the idea of one person's needs outweighing another's, independent of law. I'm going to go ahead and spare the more delicate members of the forum the religious basis, since I have no doubt that you personally know exactly what I would say about that; and I'll go right into the secular ethical basis. I have three tenets for you:

First of all, the absolute value of a need is quantifiable. If one can walk further and another cannot, that other's need for closer parking is quantifiably greater. Do I really need to explain that further to you?

Secondly, people form societies in order to accomplish common ends. Acceptance of membership in such societies constitutes tacit agreement to the common ends, with the understanding of maximizing both benefit and number of people receiving benefit. Since a society is legitimately attempting to maximize two separate and at times opposing variables, other variables that are subordinate to the two are subject to adjustment. As a member of a society, the individual reaps the benefits not just of his own individual efforts...but also of the environment in which he operates; hence, it can be said that his accomplishments are never completely his alone. For the benefit of the "whole" (society), which is necessarily dependent upon the health of the "parts" (the members), the ultimate maximum individual benefit of some is lowered to raise the maximum benefit of a maximum "all". How and to what extent that is done is a question of each society's philosophy, laws, and practices.

I believe the non-technical way of saying that is "there is no 'I' in 'TEAM'".

Thirdly, there is also an ethical basis that is predicated upon the special nature of the human being, upon which most if not all laws are also based. The simple way to put that is, if a human being does not have intrinsic value; then each individual does not have intrinsic value. So, perhaps not legally, but ethically...your refusal to defer to the greater need of a handicapped person for close-in parking is no more or less moral than her refusal to not kill you and take your parking place anyway.

Now, how great of a society would that be?

Quite true, we are often presented with unprincipled (and Unconstitutional) laws.

See, this is why we keep bouncing back and forth. It's only unconstitutional at the federal level, in that it is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government. What is it that keeps you bringing this up?

Again, I would submit it is because you are directly benefitting from those payments whether you agree with them or not. Can the same be said of welfare spending? I don't think so.

See above.

Quite possibly, it's a hard thing to separate sometimes and someone (ahem) keeps bringing up the legalistic aspects. That said, the other thread covers the legal aspects fairly well and I'm attempting (however deficiently) to make this thread about something else.

Yeah....[ahem]...."someone" keeps harping that it's unconstitutional while also talking about principle; but then they bring up individual examples of abuse, which have nothing to do with law or principle.

[timcsaw]

When you buy insurance, you "get" exactly that....insurance. Unless you file a claim, however, you don't "use" the insurance. But your "direct benefit" is that the coverage is there if you need it, whether you "use" it or not.

A minor point, but wouldn't you agree that in reality, we DO actually "get" AND "use" a specific aspect of it from the moment we purchase insurance (pay our first premium? Specifically, "peace of mind" (as it it does have "value" and it does exist and is "used" continuously)?