Can someone tell me why Socialism is so bad?

[amadeus]

He's using the word differently than you (and to be fair, it was originally their word)

Of course, but does that matter? I could use any number of terms to define my political beliefs - liberal, minarchist, a constitutionalist, etc., etc.

Considering that has not one iota to do with socialism (Barney Frank was opposing regulations) I think you should either try again or preferably stop posting.

Frank was opposing regulations on the government-owned companies, not the private sector banks.

 

[Hsinchu]

A few things you don't get. All economies are planned by certain parties to a very significant extent. The only way you can have an unadulterated free market is if you establish one and don't trade with the outside world at all, negative consequences be damned.

I post one line commentary... and these are a few things I don't get?

If anything, I don't get that socialist structures are motivated by a desire to fairly subdivide entitlements for the benefit of all. Which by the way, I do get and wholly disagree that this is the intent of any socialist movement that is not grassroots.

I would hope that from one line of sarcasm you're not implying that I'm ignoring that there is any such thing as an unplanned economy, and that any group of economic participants do not create regulations in some way just by decision making. In fact, anyone participating in the discourse of how markets work would have to concede that decisions made by participants are in fact regulation in their own right and that the labels of socialism and capitalism are descriptors of medium-scale policy rather than small-scale activity or global-scale macro-interactions.

Perhaps you did not mean to impugn me in your statement, but I get really sensitive when people tell me I don't get something as opposed to that I see it differently or markedly disagree on premise.

If there is missing information to my thought processes, I'd like to know how you know. If there is missing information to my posts, just remember that a lack of information often implies a message. I'm assuming anyone following this thread can make judgments and assessments and at the very least has sufficient knowledge to get a conclusion from glib one-liners whether they are inflammatory or not.

So, yea. I get that there is no such thing as an "unadulterated" free market, but to tell me that free market = free fall and assume that I haven't taken any time to think about the inherent benefits of socialism shows a lack of respect unequal to that which I have tried to courteously tried to extend to everyone here. I have not requested credentials or personal experiences or accused anyone of missing the point or not having the core facts. Please be polite and do the same.

 

[Gilder]

There's a George Orwell quote that goes something like "Fascism in Britain means everything a person doesn't like." Replace fascism with socialism and Britain with US and presto, you get something that explains why a lot of people dislike socialism. If you turn back the clock a couple years, you could probably do the same with Islam or terrorism.

 

[Bill3000]

That was misleading. So forcing banks to give out loans to people who can't pay them back is opposing regulation? And in the process helping cause the financial collapse.

That had absolutely nothing to do with the financial collapse; those loans were 50% less likely to fail than on average.

And of course, regulation has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is about the public (or workers) owning the means of production; completely irrelevant to the issues regarding the financial collapse. Entirely possible to have a high regulatory state in which the public doesn't own the means of production.

Of course, but does that matter? I could use any number of terms to define my political beliefs - liberal, minarchist, a constitutionalist, etc., etc.

Because it's generally a good idea to understand what a person means by their political beliefs and their labels before trying to argue against them.

Frank was opposing regulations on the government-owned companies, not the private sector banks.

Yes, I know. That's just typical [wiki]iron triangle[/wiki] stuff, not socialism.

 

[aelf]

I post one line commentary... and these are a few things I don't get?

If anything, I don't get that socialist structures are motivated by a desire to fairly subdivide entitlements for the benefit of all. Which by the way, I do get and wholly disagree that this is the intent of any socialist movement that is not grassroots.

I would hope that from one line of sarcasm you're not implying that I'm ignoring that there is any such thing as an unplanned economy, and that any group of economic participants do not create regulations in some way just by decision making. In fact, anyone participating in the discourse of how markets work would have to concede that decisions made by participants are in fact regulation in their own right and that the labels of socialism and capitalism are descriptors of medium-scale policy rather than small-scale activity or global-scale macro-interactions.

Perhaps you did not mean to impugn me in your statement, but I get really sensitive when people tell me I don't get something as opposed to that I see it differently or markedly disagree on premise.

If there is missing information to my thought processes, I'd like to know how you know. If there is missing information to my posts, just remember that a lack of information often implies a message. I'm assuming anyone following this thread can make judgments and assessments and at the very least has sufficient knowledge to get a conclusion from glib one-liners whether they are inflammatory or not.

So, yea. I get that there is no such thing as an "unadulterated" free market, but to tell me that free market = free fall and assume that I haven't taken any time to think about the inherent benefits of socialism shows a lack of respect unequal to that which I have tried to courteously tried to extend to everyone here. I have not requested credentials or personal experiences or accused anyone of missing the point or not having the core facts. Please be polite and do the same.

Well, I should also remind you about some of your presumptuous opening remarks:

What people don't seem to understand about "socialist government" is that the "producers" don't produce a product. "Socialist government" is not the same thing as a democracy.

It looks like you never had the intention to practice what you preach.

But, yes, I did read into your apparent sarcasm that you think planned economy is the hallmark of socialism. I'm merely pointing out that planning is part of the most capitalist economies as well. That might not be based on Syllogism 101 in terms of analysing your arguments, but it's still elementary logic (unlike what some people would claim) based on both evidence and existent schools of thought. That is to say, from your previous posts, you seem to have a typical conservative stance against economic planning, and so I'm letting you know that the Right is just as 'guilty'. The big difference is in the details.

Perhaps you knew that already. But in that case, you haven't ever justified why things should be done the way you want. Most of what I can see are essentially complaints about paying taxes and having the money used for the benefit of 'freeloaders' - a very typical lightweight conservative objection; an attempt to co-opt class struggle as a war against a class of poor 'freeloaders', which is laughable; and finally your attempt to somehow paint the market as self-regulating in the post above, which is of course not true.

So besides attempting to make points out of a series of complaints and a falsity, I haven't seen much from you. Certainly nothing that I can use in order to judge your ideological platform, other than some markers that scream "I'm just like a Randroid jerk".

 

[Hsinchu]

Well, I should also remind you about some of your presumptuous opening remarks:



It looks like you never had the intention to practice what you preach.

But, yes, I did read into your apparent sarcasm that you think planned economy is the hallmark of socialism. I'm merely pointing out that planning is part of the most capitalist economies as well. That might not be based on Syllogism 101 in terms of analysing your arguments, but it's still elementary logic (unlike what some people would claim) based on both evidence and existent schools of thought. That is to say, from your previous posts, you seem to have a typical conservative stance against economic planning, and so I'm letting you know that the Right is just as 'guilty'. The big difference is in the details.

Perhaps you knew that already. But in that case, you haven't ever justified why things should be done the way you want. Most of what I can see are essentially complaints about paying taxes and having the money used for the benefit of 'freeloaders' - a very typical lightweight conservative objection; an attempt to co-opt class struggle as a war against a class of poor 'freeloaders', which is laughable; and finally your attempt to somehow paint the market as self-regulating in the post above, which is of course not true.

So besides attempting to make points out of a series of complaints and a falsity, I haven't seen much from you. Certainly nothing that I can use in order to judge your ideological platform, other than some markers that scream "I'm just like a Randroid jerk".

I stand by my remark that "people" don't "seem" to understand certain important pieces of information. I have not accused anyone of having inadequate information. I have implied that they are intentionally disregarding certain facts to support their diatribe.

As for "doing things the way I want," I never came to the forums to run for President. I came to have a discussion. I am pointing out things wrong with a freebooter system. I openly state that I do not prefer a freebooter system that does not work. I highly support grassroots efforts on both sides because at the core to every structure there is an inherent benefit and intent to make things better for others. I disagree that I should give you anything to judge my ideological platform. It is not anyone's place to make broad judgments and fritter away time specifically intending to poke holes in one another.

If you don't agree with my assessment of "class struggle" please do tell how YOUR solution makes it less true that this is a possible and, currently, pervasively occurring phenomenon.

As for market self-regulation, I hate to be Economics teacher, but I think maybe everyone can benefit from me being a little less vague:


Examining a typical transaction in which Mr. X is a consumer with a wage and Government Y has regulatory and entitlement power. Government Y provides a food benefit entitlement that is dependent on net wage only, has no time limit, and is marketed to get votes for Candidate Z during the next election. Mr. X spends 20% of his wages on food. Mr. X currently works 30 hours a week. He is not qualified for the entitlement program at his current wage. If, however, Mr. X cuts out 4 hours a week from his job, he now qualifies for this entitlement. Mr. X has no reason not to cut back on his hours at work. He profits 2 extra hours of wages by doing so. Since Mr. X is now paying fewer taxes from working less hours, taking an entitlement, and Ms. W is now paying more in taxes to make up the difference, we see that the market for entitlements is decision-driven.


The market cannot be government hands-off. That is ridiculous on any scale that is not small. However, markets are decision-driven and entitlements create useless decisions that are not regulation. Socialist plans that do not include entitlements can be useful, with the unfortunate side effect that it still requires talented people to run the thing.

I'll iterate that the unfortunate thing about governments is that paychecks are typically static and are not merit-based (market-driven) as in the private sector. While this allows for impartiality, it also allows for rampant incompetence without a cost for checks.

I would hope that I'm not screaming "randroid jerk" but if that's the case, then you probably know how to deal with it. If, however, I am attempting to participate in discourse, then you are welcome to join me.

PS: I'd try not to get emotionally angry with people I disagree with because it promotes antagonism and reduces learning on the part of both parties.

 

[Bill3000]

What the hell is a freebooter? Is that some sort of Linux version of control + alt + delete?

 

[Hsinchu]

What the hell is a freebooter? Is that some sort of Linux version of control + alt + delete?

A freebooter is another word for pirate... Arrrr.

 

[aelf]

I stand by my remark that "people" don't "seem" to understand certain important pieces of information. I have not accused anyone of having inadequate information. I have implied that they are intentionally disregarding certain facts to support their diatribe.

I also stand by my comment that you do not understand socialism, nor perhaps some basic truths about how things work in general.

As for "doing things the way I want," I never came to the forums to run for President. I came to have a discussion. I am pointing out things wrong with a freebooter system. I openly state that I do not prefer a freebooter system that does not work. I highly support grassroots efforts on both sides because at the core to every structure there is an inherent benefit and intent to make things better for others. I disagree that I should give you anything to judge my ideological platform. It is not anyone's place to make broad judgments and fritter away time specifically intending to poke holes in one another.

If you're indeed intellectually honest, then you'd know that the freebooter thing is just a strawman. Why do you imagine that there will be a viable class of freebooters? This is linked to my point about how ridiculous it is to imagine a class struggle against such people.

Thing like unemployment benefits may encourage some people to stay unemployed, but how many would they be? As others have pointed out to you, the life isn't exactly good. Granted some people may be able to put up with it, but why do you imagine that things would simply be static and that nothing could be done about it?

And, at worst, what's so bad about parting with a little of your income to pay for a small number of recalcitrants? I'm sure there are worse things you're already paying for, like expensive pointless wars.

Besides, aren't you also paying for social services that include rehabilitation of criminals and people you might consider to be the scum of the earth? Are you saying that you object to such uses of your income? Then I'd be right to say that you're a Randroid jerk, and the best advice for someone like that as perennially given here is to get out and found your own Gulch somewhere no state can exert any authority on you.

If you don't agree with my assessment of "class struggle" please do tell how YOUR solution makes it less true that this is a possible and, currently, pervasively occurring phenomenon.

What assessment did you give?

It's plainly idiotic to assert that class struggle is waged against an underclass. That's laughable. Class struggle is fought against the ruling class. People who live on government handouts don't strike me as particularly powerful. It's more like certain people want to stomp on them.

As for market self-regulation, I hate to be Economics teacher, but I think maybe everyone can benefit from me being a little less vague:


Examining a typical transaction in which Mr. X is a consumer with a wage and Government Y has regulatory and entitlement power. Government Y provides a food benefit entitlement that is dependent on net wage only, has no time limit, and is marketed to get votes for Candidate Z during the next election. Mr. X spends 20% of his wages on food. Mr. X currently works 30 hours a week. He is not qualified for the entitlement program at his current wage. If, however, Mr. X cuts out 4 hours a week from his job, he now qualifies for this entitlement. Mr. X has no reason not to cut back on his hours at work. He profits 2 extra hours of wages by doing so. Since Mr. X is now paying fewer taxes from working less hours, taking an entitlement, and Ms. W is now paying more in taxes to make up the difference, we see that the market for entitlements is decision-driven.


The market cannot be government hands-off. That is ridiculous on any scale that is not small. However, markets are decision-driven and entitlements create useless decisions that are not regulation. Socialist plans that do not include entitlements can be useful, with the unfortunate side effect that it still requires talented people to run the thing.

Your scenario lacks all the meaningful details. It's very easy to imagine a situation where a political decision has bad consequences. All you've shown is that entitlements can have negative consequences. It says nothing about whether they are fundamentally bad. And this has no relation to whether people are talented or not.

I'll iterate that the unfortunate thing about governments is that paychecks are typically static and are not merit-based (market-driven) as in the private sector. While this allows for impartiality, it also allows for rampant incompetence without a cost for checks.

Too bad private sector paychecks aren't necessarily merit-based either, as we've witnessed in the recent economic disaster.

The truth is there is no simple rule that says government = incompetent and private sector = competent. Both can be either. While government jobs do not typically have similar pay packages to private sector jobs, they may offer different things that appeal to people (e.g. greater job security). Besides, it's false to assume that there's a monolithic measure for ability. The public and private sectors each have different constraints, which might tend to attract people with slightly different capabilities.

Again, I don't see anything that is beyond simplistic in your arguments.

 

[civ_king]

Because socialism is socialism

circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because

I'm too lazy to find the image but you get the picture

 

[Hsinchu]

I also stand by my comment that you do not understand socialism, nor perhaps some basic truths about how things work in general.

Okay, I didn't come to fight. How things work in general would imply that I have an abrogated belief system, which is notably intolerant and doesn't seem to open any windows for discourse.

If you're indeed intellectually honest, then you'd know that the freebooter thing is just a strawman. Why do you imagine that there will be a viable class of freebooters? This is linked to my point about how ridiculous it is to imagine a class struggle against such people.

I don't imagine such a struggle. I live it. Where I live there is no ruling class, only the taxed and the untaxed. The untaxed, illegal, and freebooting freely continue to occupy a large number of resources while those of us who feel the need to struggle, continue to do so. I think the obvious evidence for this is a national debt that should make anyone's head spin.

Thing like unemployment benefits may encourage some people to stay unemployed, but how many would they be? As others have pointed out to you, the life isn't exactly good. Granted some people may be able to put up with it, but why do you imagine that things would simply be static and that nothing could be done about it?

And, at worst, what's so bad about parting with a little of your income to pay for a small number of recalcitrants? I'm sure there are worse things you're already paying for, like expensive pointless wars.

Besides, aren't you also paying for social services that include rehabilitation of criminals and people you might consider to be the scum of the earth? Are you saying that you object to such uses of your income? Then I'd be right to say that you're a Randroid jerk, and the best advice for someone like that as perennially given here is to get out and found your own Gulch somewhere no state can exert any authority on you.

I have already stated my patriotism for the spirit of ingenuity and collective thought. Your lack of respect for those things I consider to be personally rude. As for starting my own Gulch, I don't feel I should have to. If you would like to start a Gulch as you suggested, be my guest. I'd consider it a noble undertaking that I, myself, choose not to undertake since I prefer to get along with what I'm given rather than retreat to live in my own arrogance.

Paying for a couple of recalcitrants... Well, if you want to pay for recalcitrants, would you mind paying me to shut up? For a thousand dollars, I will cease to argue with you. I will submit to anything you have to say if you're willing to pay for it. That's how I feel about "what I pay for." I would rather not pay for an offensive defense fund, that's probably something you'd abolish in your Gulch. I don't believe that Tennis Courts and Art Rooms costing several billion dollars go toward the rehabilitation of career criminals, nor do I believe in releasing even the lowliest parole violator in order to keep an overfunded school system and bureacracy running, but these things are happening and I am subject to the bad of these more than the good of them.

I'm still not sure that I am a Randroid jerk. If you want to tell me what I'm doing that is jerk-like in nature, I'll try to abstain from causing you grief. Polite disagreement is not something I find jerk-like in nature.

What assessment did you give?

It's plainly idiotic to assert that class struggle is waged against an underclass. That's laughable. Class struggle is fought against the ruling class. People who live on government handouts don't strike me as particularly powerful. It's more like certain people want to stomp on them.

I didn't say that the handout class is an all-powerful force. I did mention that they carry voting powers over other people's paychecks. If a Congressional Representative has a high percentage of their constituency consisting of social liberals, it behooves them to tax the minority. As for the right being a majority still... spin has alot of clout in this day and age where more and more people consider themselves moderate (myself included). And when shallowly informed moderates see a newscast extolling the virtues of helping the poor, their politicians tend not to remind them that it directly contributes to the taxes they have been complaining about in the same time period. I don't know what people want to stomp on the downtrodden. I, for one, would just rather they have to ask me for help instead of the government. I believe that citizens can be a better judge of character of your local homeless or unemployed person than the government. I've hired ex-cons, I've donated to thoughtful charities, and just as many if not more times turned down hiring the unemployed lazy, and refused to give one red cent to an agency already subsidized by government payments and not efficient enough to make their budgets work for their targets but good enough to pay for hats, jackets, and clipboards for their table jockeys.

Your scenario lacks all the meaningful details. It's very easy to imagine a situation where a political decision has bad consequences. All you've shown is that entitlements can have negative consequences. It says nothing about whether they are fundamentally bad. And this has no relation to whether people are talented or not.

I did not say my scenario was all-inclusive and I was planning on putting in a disclaimer but I had assumed that common sense would pave the rest of the way. It says nothing about whether they are fundamentally bad because decision-making is inherently amoral in its nature. There are rational choices, like the one mentioned, which are not inherently evil, particularly if Mr. X doesn't know where or how Government Y is able to get Ms. W's money. I also don't mention talent because it doesn't take a genius of any talent to make a decision, we all do it every day.

Too bad private sector paychecks aren't necessarily merit-based either, as we've witnessed in the recent economic disaster.

Well, I think taking away Wells Fargo's kudos trip to Vegas was a little excessive. There is no doubt that regulation is required and corruption among regulators has been rampant for awhile now, but I'd draw the line at saying nobody deserves the paycheck they earn. On the whole, hard-working people deserve their allowances while people that work less or work less often typically receive more than they are able to payback in productivity later.

The truth is there is no simple rule that says government = incompetent and private sector = competent. Both can be either. While government jobs do not typically have similar pay packages to private sector jobs, they may offer different things that appeal to people (e.g. greater job security). Besides, it's false to assume that there's a monolithic measure for ability. The public and private sectors each have different constraints, which might tend to attract people with slightly different capabilities.

I agree that there is no simple rule that says private sector=evil and government=best option. As for a monolithic measure for ability, you are right that there is none. The private sector should have fewer constraints as their primary constraint is cost-containment and the profit-motive. The government sector should have more self-restraint as cost-containment needs to be addressed for the benefit of her people, and the profit-motive should be the social profit of a better society and not the travel-benefits of senators or the job security of legislative aides. Every person should feel at least a little uneasy about their job otherwise there is no reason to work hard it.

Again, I don't see anything that is beyond simplistic in your arguments.

I'm glad that my attempting to keep it simple is working.

 

[eoc]

1) As a member living at Socialism, I still don't know what the hell the democracy looks like.
2) I should be mentioned to protect and love public facilities. Because there are so many warnings written by Chinese and English post at anywhere. And the English translations are always ridiculous.
3) I don't vote to decide who will be president(even I have the right), I just leave the troubles to those who have abilities to decide. So, if people those from democracy countries tell me your civics are terrible, it will made me sad and angery. Because I have not only crisp feelings but also a ******ed head, two lazy hands.
4) I must rake over officials those are corrupted and degenerated in the morning, and I know my posts will be deleted in the afternoon.
5) I must work a whole life to earn a house of 70 years limited. And, I will be drove out when I am over 90 years old.
6) I lost my common sense of knowing the world. Because CCTV always reports good jobs by my government. CNN always reports bad jobs by my government .
7) When I was weak, I was raped. When I am growing powerful, I am consided too proud. I am surrounded by TMD in my sleeping bed, when I look into my water pool, there are carriers and fleets marked Ultimate.S u c k.A s s, but I am considered a threat.
8) I chase money despite of what I have lose. I spend lavishly on oil to start my car engine, I cut down trees to build my furnitures, I jam rivers to build dams, I catch animals to feed my greediness, I dump into the sea to clean my kitchen...
9) blah blah blah, I want to write a book.

So bad?

 

[dirtyparrot]

I don't imagine such a struggle. I live it. Where I live there is no ruling class, only the taxed and the untaxed. The untaxed, illegal, and freebooting freely continue to occupy a large number of resources while those of us who feel the need to struggle, continue to do so. I think the obvious evidence for this is a national debt that should make anyone's head spin.

Quite honestly, I think that your blame is severely misplaced. I can think of very few developed countries that would blame illegal foreigners for the plight of the state/province or country. And many of them are more left-leaning than California. I can see why there is such racial tension in your country, although I have a hard time understanding it.

I figure that the reason for your mounting national debt is that your governments want to spend money, but burrows instead of taxing for it. They've been, like many of their citizens, plastic happy and making purchases that they truly don't need while omitting others that people could actually use.

 

[Hsinchu]

Quite honestly, I think that your blame is severely misplaced. I can think of very few developed countries that would blame illegal foreigners for the plight of the state/province or country. And many of them are more left-leaning than California. I can see why there is such racial tension in your country, although I have a hard time understanding it.

I figure that the reason for your mounting national debt is that your governments want to spend money, but burrows instead of taxing for it. They've been, like many of their citizens, plastic happy and making purchases that they truly don't need while omitting others that people could actually use.

Agreed on most points. I don't blame foreigners so much as domestics, really, but in Southern California I get to see alot of both.

As for the national debt, its a multi-way squeeze. Spend more, tax more, borrow more. The only people that don't feel the tax pinch are the Wall Street SOBs mentioned before that evade taxes and pay themselves ridiculously. I truly believe if we moved some of the funding from defense and social services over to auditing and enforcing business regulations, we would be slightly more fiscally solvent.

 

[aelf]

I don't imagine such a struggle. I live it. Where I live there is no ruling class, only the taxed and the untaxed.

Of course there is a ruling class. Do you imagine that power isn't concentrated in certain circles that represent a certain demographic? And you and I know what exactly that demographic is.

The untaxed, illegal, and freebooting freely continue to occupy a large number of resources while those of us who feel the need to struggle, continue to do so. I think the obvious evidence for this is a national debt that should make anyone's head spin.

Yeah, because your national debt is totally the fault of those poor people living on government handouts. You live in the USA, right? It's not even a Eurocommie country!

And I don't think you're struggling against them, unless what you mean by struggling is having to pay taxes. Hey, you're patriotic, right? Patriotism also entails having a sense of solidarity with your countrymen. If the biggest political problem in your life is paying for a small minority, only some of whom are genuinely lazy freeloaders, then I doubt that you're really patriotic in any meaningful sense. Swearing allegiance to the flag and etc is the most superficial and useless sort of patriotism.

I have already stated my patriotism for the spirit of ingenuity and collective thought. Your lack of respect for those things I consider to be personally rude. As for starting my own Gulch, I don't feel I should have to. If you would like to start a Gulch as you suggested, be my guest. I'd consider it a noble undertaking that I, myself, choose not to undertake since I prefer to get along with what I'm given rather than retreat to live in my own arrogance.

Well, if you object to paying taxes so much...

Paying for a couple of recalcitrants... Well, if you want to pay for recalcitrants, would you mind paying me to shut up? For a thousand dollars, I will cease to argue with you. I will submit to anything you have to say if you're willing to pay for it. That's how I feel about "what I pay for."

No one really cares about what you're saying and whether you'd stop. On the other hand, plenty of people do care about less fortunate members of the society. It could've been them in that position. It could've been you.

And we've progressed as a civilization. We don't hit each other on the head with clubs over a meal anymore. Now we can afford to care for people who are down on their luck. Only people who are stuck in the mentality of past ages are conscientious objectors to this reality.

I would rather not pay for an offensive defense fund, that's probably something you'd abolish in your Gulch. I don't believe that Tennis Courts and Art Rooms costing several billion dollars go toward the rehabilitation of career criminals, nor do I believe in releasing even the lowliest parole violator in order to keep an overfunded school system and bureacracy running, but these things are happening and I am subject to the bad of these more than the good of them.

You realise that these things aren't related to each other, right?

I'm still not sure that I am a Randroid jerk. If you want to tell me what I'm doing that is jerk-like in nature, I'll try to abstain from causing you grief. Polite disagreement is not something I find jerk-like in nature.

You're not being a jerk to me. You're being a Randroid jerk because you object the idea of a social responsibility to take care of all of the members of society. Those people who are untaxed are citizens too. They too are part of the social contract - they still have responsibilities. Unless you're proposing that these people should be released from their responsibilities, including that of having to adhere to the laws of the country, why should they simply be abandoned to their fates?

I didn't say that the handout class is an all-powerful force. I did mention that they carry voting powers over other people's paychecks. If a Congressional Representative has a high percentage of their constituency consisting of social liberals, it behooves them to tax the minority. As for the right being a majority still... spin has alot of clout in this day and age where more and more people consider themselves moderate (myself included). And when shallowly informed moderates see a newscast extolling the virtues of helping the poor, their politicians tend not to remind them that it directly contributes to the taxes they have been complaining about in the same time period.

So you're saying that there's a nationwide conspiracy to scam good citizens like you in order to pay freeloaders for votes?

I don't know what people want to stomp on the downtrodden. I, for one, would just rather they have to ask me for help instead of the government. I believe that citizens can be a better judge of character of your local homeless or unemployed person than the government. I've hired ex-cons, I've donated to thoughtful charities, and just as many if not more times turned down hiring the unemployed lazy, and refused to give one red cent to an agency already subsidized by government payments and not efficient enough to make their budgets work for their targets but good enough to pay for hats, jackets, and clipboards for their table jockeys.

Guess what, the mafia hired ex-cons and donated to charities too. So what? It doesn't mean that it has socially-oriented goals. Similarly, just because you do these things doesn't mean that you're not an ultimately selfish person, even with your conscience active.

And how do you judge a person lazy? If he's living on government handouts, he's lazy? I'm just not seeing how you're a better judge of character.

I did not say my scenario was all-inclusive and I was planning on putting in a disclaimer but I had assumed that common sense would pave the rest of the way. It says nothing about whether they are fundamentally bad because decision-making is inherently amoral in its nature. There are rational choices, like the one mentioned, which are not inherently evil, particularly if Mr. X doesn't know where or how Government Y is able to get Ms. W's money. I also don't mention talent because it doesn't take a genius of any talent to make a decision, we all do it every day.

So you admit that handouts don't necessarily result in a net loss for society?

Well, I think taking away Wells Fargo's kudos trip to Vegas was a little excessive. There is no doubt that regulation is required and corruption among regulators has been rampant for awhile now, but I'd draw the line at saying nobody deserves the paycheck they earn. On the whole, hard-working people deserve their allowances while people that work less or work less often typically receive more than they are able to payback in productivity later.

All you can say is that the flaws of the private sector is the fault of the corrupt regulator? Does it not occur to you that someone corrupts the regulator? So to you the private sector is not necessarily evil, but is necessarily good?

The government sector should have more self-restraint as cost-containment needs to be addressed for the benefit of her people, and the profit-motive should be the social profit of a better society and not the travel-benefits of senators or the job security of legislative aides. Every person should feel at least a little uneasy about their job otherwise there is no reason to work hard it.

So you want the government to work for the benefit of her people, just not those who are poor?

I'm glad that my attempting to keep it simple is working.

Nothing that has not been seen and not received rebuttals plenty of times here, certainly.

 

[Hsinchu]

Of course there is a ruling class. Do you imagine that power isn't concentrated in certain circles that represent a certain demographic? And you and I know what exactly that demographic is.

Power is concentrated in certain circles. I don't imagine, however, that I don't have personal dominion and sway. I've hob-knobbed with the best, brightest, and sometimes wealthiest. I don't feel any reason to war against them, at large. Certain characters do fit into the fantastical oppressive "wealthy oppressors" class, but on the whole, Americans that have wealth had to earn it or learn it from somewhere. Most of America, at least here on the west coast, was not born into wealth and because of the strides taken, I think they are morally better suited than any aristocracy of a past decadent era.

Yeah, because your national debt is totally the fault of those poor people living on government handouts. You live in the USA, right? It's not even a Eurocommie country!

And I don't think you're struggling against them, unless what you mean by struggling is having to pay taxes. Hey, you're patriotic, right? Patriotism also entails having a sense of solidarity with your countrymen. If the biggest political problem in your life is paying for a small minority, only some of whom are genuinely lazy freeloaders, then I doubt that you're really patriotic in any meaningful sense. Swearing allegiance to the flag and etc is the most superficial and useless sort of patriotism.



Well, if you object to paying taxes so much...

Taxes don't imply patriotism. Filing taxes voluntarily, not evading taxes, voting out tax-happy legislators, spreading the word about unfair taxes, and promoting active self-representation in the face of unfair taxation implies the patriotism this country is based on. Care for a cup of Boston Tea? Furthermore, patriotism is felt and if you want to assail someone else's patriotism on the basis of not wanting to better their government, I suggest that you take it up with whatever basket case told you that that was okay. Patriotism is the one thing people who disagree in the same nation can share and learn to communicate through, the understanding that all sides are trying to make things better and not fight for the sake of intellectual superiority.

As for a debt not driven by Euro-commies, I'm just going to throw a number out there. $11.8 trillion dollars. That's about $38 million per capita. If we compare dollar to Euro, the US National Debt crushes anything else out there. If every American paid 38 million dollars in taxes from our personal accounts, today, we could stop the national debt. If it is not "programs" the money is going toward, then I shudder to think that the money is going to the private sector (Oh Snap. They did.)

We cannot afford to pay people that haven't paid in to the system. If I pay taxes and in my whole life never take a government handouts, I don't think I'll be subsidizing a single parent family for 18 years, on my own. Irregardless of my future and present successes. The national unemployment rate is 9.7% (and higher if we quantify discouraged applicants and the underemployed) which means that to cover just benefits, fewer than one in 10 of us must be unemployed and the remaining 9 have to cover one-ninth the benefits for the duration of that other person's life. I personally consider this unsustainable since I can't afford to grow a family right now, why should I be subsidizing a whole ninth of someone else's? If we take a balance sheet and compare net taxes paid to net entitlements gleaned for every citizen, I'll grant you some poor schmucks are going to come out ahead and they deserve the leg up, but I will contend that I've seen more "paraplegics" in the park than I care to see.

No one really cares about what you're saying and whether you'd stop. On the other hand, plenty of people do care about less fortunate members of the society. It could've been them in that position. It could've been you.

And we've progressed as a civilization. We don't hit each other on the head with clubs over a meal anymore. Now we can afford to care for people who are down on their luck. Only people who are stuck in the mentality of past ages are conscientious objectors to this reality.

Well, I'm glad that you care so much for my well-being. I have some student loans I'd like the "plenty of people" who "care about less fortunate members of the society" to subsidize for me. If you want I can come up with sad stories about how I've never been able get my family in a place where we're not in a constant of worry and clipping every coupon because we have a mortgage payment that can't cut the interest. I can tell you that I have to contribute to the family pool so my brother's can go to school and my family can keep their home while I put my dreams on hold. I can tell you all of these things and I can beg every one of your bleeding hearts to give me a handout, but the truth is that if I can take care of myself, no one will give me a leg up. Instead, we'll subsidize people who made bad decisions and not great luck while engaging in those bad decisions. Reality is that real people have to look out for number one and because we share this communal belief in self-sufficiency, we will cooperate with each other. I have never turned away a friend or acquaintance down on their luck, but I've also never thrown money away on a booze-besotten drunk that lied on his food stamp application about why he's out of work.

You're not being a jerk to me. You're being a Randroid jerk because you object the idea of a social responsibility to take care of all of the members of society. Those people who are untaxed are citizens too. They too are part of the social contract - they still have responsibilities. Unless you're proposing that these people should be released from their responsibilities, including that of having to adhere to the laws of the country, why should they simply be abandoned to their fates?

Social contract: I don't see it in writing. Nobody should be abandoned to a fate of misery and doom. But should the government be the light at the end of the tunnel? I would contend that family (distant family in some cases), friends, charitable organizations (religious or otherwise), and serendipitous individuals helping the downtrodden are the hallmark of a Great Society. A society in which people help one another is a great vision for the future, and if we take the caring hands out of the hands of the caring (your "plenty of people") then we are doing a disservice to REAL social responsibility. "Plenty of people" can take the time to talk to a skid row fellow down on his luck one afternoon and help him make bus fare and a meal so he can knock on some more windows and look a little less desperate. But if "plenty of people" are too busy to talk to the guy and would rather pay a tax check to a stranger, so be it.

So you're saying that there's a nationwide conspiracy to scam good citizens like you in order to pay freeloaders for votes?

Are you going to vote for the politician that is offering free child healthcare or the politician that is going cut spending on child healthcare in order to fix the deficit? If I offered a guarantee that services would not be cut when spending was cut, no one would believe me because I am a lying politician. But if my opponent offers a guarantee that the benefit gained in spending more on healthcare will outweigh the tax burden, everyone will believe him/her. The second is actually unquantifiable because social benefits cannot be measured but our bleeding hearts scream out that it is possible to believe and benevolent to accept it.

No, not a conspiracy in order to pay freeloaders to vote. A real occurrence in political theater playing on people's emotions over their rationality.

Guess what, the mafia hired ex-cons and donated to charities too. So what? It doesn't mean that it has socially-oriented goals. Similarly, just because you do these things doesn't mean that you're not an ultimately selfish person, even with your conscience active.

And how do you judge a person lazy? If he's living on government handouts, he's lazy? I'm just not seeing how you're a better judge of character.

I judge a person lazy when they refuse to work for minimum wage the first day in order to get the job. I judge a person lazy when they need to take Fridays and Mondays off because their girlfriend visits them on weekends, but they still really want the job. I judge a person lazy when he is on unemployment and is "actively seeking employment" and he shows up to my job interview 2 hours late, hair not done, wearing jeans and a torn t-shirt and passively asks me for an extra copy of the application "for his friend."

If we had more mafia bosses that donate to charities (that are not slush funds) and hiring ex-cons (that are providing for a family since they left gang life) then I don't know what your mafia does that's going to get them arrested because they certainly don't want to make a profit. Ex-cons are some of the riskiest hires because of high turnover and typically low job training, and if you find one (like I did) that's a good guy, it is a diamond in the rough. Donating to charities not supported by politicians is simply cutting into the profit margin as it does not really create a sufficient tax haven at the end of the day for the profits gleaned from businesses run by the mafia, assuming its legal gambling/legal prositution.

"My conscience does not bother me. Does your conscience bother you?" Good song. Think about it. I know who I care about and I know who I don't care about. I care about hard-working people with a spirit to do more with their lives. I don't care for the resigned and the unmotivated that believes the world owes them something just for being alive. I would personally ask you who you think deserves your benevolence, aelf, but you've already expressed that I am on that list somewhere and I would guess that just about everyone else is, too.

So you admit that handouts don't necessarily result in a net loss for society?

Freely. Handouts don't necessarily result in a net loss for society. A nation that hands out more than it is "handed in" is like a business that has more expenses than revenues, it goes under.

All you can say is that the flaws of the private sector is the fault of the corrupt regulator? Does it not occur to you that someone corrupts the regulator? So to you the private sector is not necessarily evil, but is necessarily good?

Nothing is necessarily good. Most things involved in money and politics are necessarily motivated by spirits other than the purely benevolent. A regulator is a government agent, and if elected, ought to be held to a higher standard if we truly want to trust government with anything. If I can't trust my regulator not to take a bribe, why should I blame the corporation for offering it? I didn't elect the corporation (who is acting in their own best interest), I elected the regulator or the person that appointed the regulator who should be held accountable for their moral inability. The corporation ought to be punished for their action, but not blamed for the problem in the system, that is the error of our trusted officials.

So you want the government to work for the benefit of her people, just not those who are poor?

Indubitably. Those who are poor in manners and ability ought to make themselves wealthy in these means and then the government's work will have a twofold effect. If you offer job training to someone that actually wants a job, things happen. If you offer job training to anyone that needs a paycheck, some of every dollar spent is being flushed away. The government's first responsibility is to the people that need the least, and not to those that need the most. Those that need the least need to have confidence to provide for those less fortunate than themselves, while those that need the most must earn their right to have what they need.

America was born on the principles of earning freedom from oppression, earning equal civil rights for all, earning superpower status, and most of all each man and woman earning for himself or herself what is deserved without fear of having it taken away for purposes not chosen.

"Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." -Thomas Jefferson

Nothing that has not been seen and not received rebuttals plenty of times here, certainly.

Well, I'm glad that it bears repeating, now. True discourse never ceases, only sleeps.

 

[aelf]

Power is concentrated in certain circles. I don't imagine, however, that I don't have personal dominion and sway. I've hob-knobbed with the best, brightest, and sometimes wealthiest. I don't feel any reason to war against them, at large. Certain characters do fit into the fantastical oppressive "wealthy oppressors" class, but on the whole, Americans that have wealth had to earn it or learn it from somewhere. Most of America, at least here on the west coast, was not born into wealth and because of the strides taken, I think they are morally better suited than any aristocracy of a past decadent era.

Ah, interesting. So economic decisions are moral now?

Taxes don't imply patriotism. Filing taxes voluntarily, not evading taxes, voting out tax-happy legislators, spreading the word about unfair taxes, and promoting active self-representation in the face of unfair taxation implies the patriotism this country is based on. Care for a cup of Boston Tea?

As if you can say that the revolutionaries were patriotic to their country

And are you being taxed without getting representation?

Furthermore, patriotism is felt and if you want to assail someone else's patriotism on the basis of not wanting to better their government, I suggest that you take it up with whatever basket case told you that that was okay. Patriotism is the one thing people who disagree in the same nation can share and learn to communicate through, the understanding that all sides are trying to make things better and not fight for the sake of intellectual superiority.

Oh, no, but according to some people, if living somewhere makes you gripe so much, then maybe you should consider working towards leaving. Taxes that you hate so much are probably there to say.

As for a debt not driven by Euro-commies, I'm just going to throw a number out there. $11.8 trillion dollars. That's about $38 million per capita. If we compare dollar to Euro, the US National Debt crushes anything else out there. If every American paid 38 million dollars in taxes from our personal accounts, today, we could stop the national debt. If it is not "programs" the money is going toward, then I shudder to think that the money is going to the private sector (Oh Snap. They did.)

This rant is incomprehensible.

We cannot afford to pay people that haven't paid in to the system.

Nice one. So you simply assume that people who are on benefits never contributed ever?

If I pay taxes and in my whole life never take a government handouts, I don't think I'll be subsidizing a single parent family for 18 years, on my own.

If you assume that in the 18 years it's the same people who are unemployed. Anyway, even if you can't, some people certainly can with the taxes that they rightly pay.

Irregardless of my future and present successes. The national unemployment rate is 9.7% (and higher if we quantify discouraged applicants and the underemployed) which means that to cover just benefits, fewer than one in 10 of us must be unemployed and the remaining 9 have to cover one-ninth the benefits for the duration of that other person's life. I personally consider this unsustainable since I can't afford to grow a family right now, why should I be subsidizing a whole ninth of someone else's? If we take a balance sheet and compare net taxes paid to net entitlements gleaned for every citizen, I'll grant you some poor schmucks are going to come out ahead and they deserve the leg up, but I will contend that I've seen more "paraplegics" in the park than I care to see.

Why should every citizen have to pay in more than they receive? Has life become so fair such that you think this is ethically passable?

Besides, are you suggesting that the problem of unemployment would resolve itself if there were no benefits? So what happened to people who, you know, aren't willingly unemployed? That 9.7% isn't all or even largely some permanent lazy underclass. There is plenty of turnover, so to speak. I still can't see why making sure that they have enough to live with human dignity in the meantime is wrong. Your 'balance sheet' morality is ridiculous, and I doubt that a large chunk of the private sector would even pass the standard as it is. Epic fail

Well, I'm glad that you care so much for my well-being. I have some student loans I'd like the "plenty of people" who "care about less fortunate members of the society" to subsidize for me. If you want I can come up with sad stories about how I've never been able get my family in a place where we're not in a constant of worry and clipping every coupon because we have a mortgage payment that can't cut the interest. I can tell you that I have to contribute to the family pool so my brother's can go to school and my family can keep their home while I put my dreams on hold. I can tell you all of these things and I can beg every one of your bleeding hearts to give me a handout, but the truth is that if I can take care of myself, no one will give me a leg up. Instead, we'll subsidize people who made bad decisions and not great luck while engaging in those bad decisions.

Are you desperate? Most people don't have a breezy life, you know, but some people are much worse off than others. Do you deny that?

Besides, if the moral of your story is you had a tough time but you made it or are pulling through anyway, so what? The fact is you are fine, which has made you feel entitled to a survivalist mentality. Well, not everyone's like you. How is this different from a brilliant student asking why all these people can't get magna cum laude like him? The fact is not everyone's as brilliant/lucky/strong. By thinking the way you do, you're giving sanction to a society that is run on the brutal principle of 'survival of the fittest'. But you might not even want to admit that, so you rationalise it by giving it some sort of a moral dimension. You are doing alright, so you must be virtuous. All those people who aren't must be lazy and bad. Poppycock.

Reality is that real people have to look out for number one and because we share this communal belief in self-sufficiency, we will cooperate with each other.

So you want to form people's collectives?

I have never turned away a friend or acquaintance down on their luck, but I've also never thrown money away on a booze-besotten drunk that lied on his food stamp application about why he's out of work.

Nice one. So the 9.7% unemployed consist mostly of drunk liars

Social contract: I don't see it in writing.

Whatever proof of citizenship you have there is proof in writing.

Nobody should be abandoned to a fate of misery and doom. But should the government be the light at the end of the tunnel? I would contend that family (distant family in some cases), friends, charitable organizations (religious or otherwise), and serendipitous individuals helping the downtrodden are the hallmark of a Great Society. A society in which people help one another is a great vision for the future, and if we take the caring hands out of the hands of the caring (your "plenty of people") then we are doing a disservice to REAL social responsibility. "Plenty of people" can take the time to talk to a skid row fellow down on his luck one afternoon and help him make bus fare and a meal so he can knock on some more windows and look a little less desperate.

Then they wouldn't mind paying for national policies aimed at improving the lives of the downtrodden.

But if "plenty of people" are too busy to talk to the guy and would rather pay a tax check to a stranger, so be it.

You don't have to lose the personal touch just because you support a social safety net, of course.

Are you going to vote for the politician that is offering free child healthcare or the politician that is going cut spending on child healthcare in order to fix the deficit? If I offered a guarantee that services would not be cut when spending was cut, no one would believe me because I am a lying politician. But if my opponent offers a guarantee that the benefit gained in spending more on healthcare will outweigh the tax burden, everyone will believe him/her. The second is actually unquantifiable because social benefits cannot be measured but our bleeding hearts scream out that it is possible to believe and benevolent to accept it.

No, not a conspiracy in order to pay freeloaders to vote. A real occurrence in political theater playing on people's emotions over their rationality.

I still fail to see what the problem is. You're spending much more money on other things besides paying for a social safety net. I believe that was my point about Eurocommies, since they generally have better safety nets than you do.

Anyway, if you want to complain about the inefficiencies of your country's healthcare, that's a separate issue, and one that has a lot do with the stubbornness of people who refuse to properly reform it for fear of socialism.

I judge a person lazy when they refuse to work for minimum wage the first day in order to get the job. I judge a person lazy when they need to take Fridays and Mondays off because their girlfriend visits them on weekends, but they still really want the job. I judge a person lazy when he is on unemployment and is "actively seeking employment" and he shows up to my job interview 2 hours late, hair not done, wearing jeans and a torn t-shirt and passively asks me for an extra copy of the application "for his friend."

Obviously not all of unemployed people are like that, even though this is the typical stuff conservatives like to say to make it sound like they are. In any case, what do you think of structural unemployment? Not an excuse? What do you say about a guy who's been in a certain industry and lost his job? Is he obliged to take up any job immediately to keep himself in the black according to your balance sheet morality?

And what about people who do work for minimum wage but still can't make ends meet because they have a family to support?

Also, some people are, as you say yourself, considered discouraged job seekers. Are they surrender monkeys?

If we had more mafia bosses that donate to charities (that are not slush funds) and hiring ex-cons (that are providing for a family since they left gang life) then I don't know what your mafia does that's going to get them arrested because they certainly don't want to make a profit. Ex-cons are some of the riskiest hires because of high turnover and typically low job training, and if you find one (like I did) that's a good guy, it is a diamond in the rough.

Criminals hire ex-cons because of their particular skill sets. How is that surprising?

Donating to charities not supported by politicians is simply cutting into the profit margin as it does not really create a sufficient tax haven at the end of the day for the profits gleaned from businesses run by the mafia, assuming its legal gambling/legal prositution.

The mafia also wanted or might want to maintain an image.

"My conscience does not bother me. Does your conscience bother you?" Good song. Think about it. I know who I care about and I know who I don't care about. I care about hard-working people with a spirit to do more with their lives. I don't care for the resigned and the unmotivated that believes the world owes them something just for being alive. I would personally ask you who you think deserves your benevolence, aelf, but you've already expressed that I am on that list somewhere and I would guess that just about everyone else is, too.

Benevolence with conditions is not benevolence.

Freely. Handouts don't necessarily result in a net loss for society. A nation that hands out more than it is "handed in" is like a business that has more expenses than revenues, it goes under.

Looks like your country has managed under the spendthrift administrations of conservative presidents.

Nothing is necessarily good. Most things involved in money and politics are necessarily motivated by spirits other than the purely benevolent. A regulator is a government agent, and if elected, ought to be held to a higher standard if we truly want to trust government with anything. If I can't trust my regulator not to take a bribe, why should I blame the corporation for offering it? I didn't elect the corporation (who is acting in their own best interest), I elected the regulator or the person that appointed the regulator who should be held accountable for their moral inability. The corporation ought to be punished for their action, but not blamed for the problem in the system, that is the error of our trusted officials.

You're right that regulators should be held responsible. But I don't understand the assertion that the people who corrupt them can't be blamed. So, in a similar vein, rapists can't be blamed for raping a woman who is scantily dressed?

Indubitably. Those who are poor in manners and ability ought to make themselves wealthy in these means and then the government's work will have a twofold effect. If you offer job training to someone that actually wants a job, things happen. If you offer job training to anyone that needs a paycheck, some of every dollar spent is being flushed away. The government's first responsibility is to the people that need the least, and not to those that need the most. Those that need the least need to have confidence to provide for those less fortunate than themselves, while those that need the most must earn their right to have what they need.

So you provide for the strong first? Sounds like the principle an African hell hole would be run on.

Some people are in need of benevolence, while others are not. Why would the strong need help? That makes absolutely no sense. So not only do you subscribe to the principle of survival of the fittest, you also believe that the strong should expressly be given priority. If that's not Randist megalomania, I don't know what is.

America was born on the principles of earning freedom from oppression, earning equal civil rights for all, earning superpower status, and most of all each man and woman earning for himself or herself what is deserved without fear of having it taken away for purposes not chosen.

"Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." -Thomas Jefferson

Good one. Are you planning to run for office? I'm sure plenty of people would buy into this stirring speech, even if you have no real platform other than a generic frothing brand of conservatism.

Well, I'm glad that it bears repeating, now. True discourse never ceases, only sleeps.

Airs don't really make up for ridiculous assertions.

 

[Hsinchu]

Ah, interesting. So economic decisions are moral now?

All decisions are moral, whether you like it or not. If I make an amoral, rational decision, it will often result in morally detestable results like those of the Eugenic Nazis, eradicating those who were "costing the government money." ALL decisions are moral.

As if you can say that the revolutionaries were patriotic to their country

And are you being taxed without getting representation?

I'm saying that this country and its sovereign people could not have been started without a belief in fairness. And yes, every day a politician votes for my taxes and ignores the cries to cease it is taxation without representation. Whenever officials decide that it is alright to misrepresent costs in order to pass legislation and hide those costs later on, it is taxation without representation. It is, in fact, taxation by misrepresentation.

Oh, no, but according to some people, if living somewhere makes you gripe so much, then maybe you should consider working towards leaving. Taxes that you hate so much are probably there to say.

Nothing is "here" to stay. I would sooner join to revolution than leave the nation whose sovereignty I am a part of. Throughout American history, things have changed. Those that migrated from this country because they thought slavery was here to stay are worse off. Those that migrated from this country because they thought that Vietnam would be the end of democracy lost out. Those that believed that taxes from England were permanent did not abandon ship and fly to the furthest recesses of middle America to hide from the English magistrates, they stood their ground.

This rant is incomprehensible.

I disagree. The numbers are the truth based on population compared to the actual national deficit of America. If you can come up with different numbers, do so. Look up the per capita debt of any other nation on the planet. The only ones that come close to America are countries ruled by military dictatorships and have starving people.

Nice one. So you simply assume that people who are on benefits never contributed ever?

Nope. Don't go visiting someone else's assumptions. I believe that people on benefits typically do not produce sufficient surplus to cover the cost of their own benefit for most typical cases. The only possibility for a system that works is, indeed, benevolence from without.

If you assume that in the 18 years it's the same people who are unemployed. Anyway, even if you can't, some people certainly can with the taxes that they rightly pay.

I'm talking about single parent child welfare. Taxation is growing to the point where my job is literally subsidizing me marrying a single woman with a newborn child and providing for them for the duration of the child's development into adulthood. I'm not saying it is wrong to provide for them, I'm just saying that I don't have a choice in the matter.

Why should every citizen have to pay in more than they receive? Has life become so fair such that you think this is ethically passable?

Besides, are you suggesting that the problem of unemployment would resolve itself if there were no benefits? So what happened to people who, you know, aren't willingly unemployed? That 9.7% isn't all or even largely some permanent lazy underclass. There is plenty of turnover, so to speak. I still can't see why making sure that they have enough to live with human dignity in the meantime is wrong. Your 'balance sheet' morality is ridiculous, and I doubt that a large chunk of the private sector would even pass the standard as it is. Epic fail

I'm saying the total payments must outweigh the receipts. I think it is economically sound for revenues to outweigh expenses. In this case, government is a cost of goods sold and social benefit is the profit margin. The problem of unemployment will never cease, but a man without a safety net will work harder. Believe it (or not) that human beings will not crawl into a ditch and allow themselves to die if they don't receive a government handout. If they did, you can't possibly tell me that this person would have ever worked for anything in their life. "Balance Sheets" are not morality. Balance sheets are rationality. Morality is in that defying rationality and fabricating a sense of balance is immoral. Lying to people about what the costs and benefits are is immoral.

Are you desperate? Most people don't have a breezy life, you know, but some people are much worse off than others. Do you deny that?

Besides, if the moral of your story is you had a tough time but you made it or are pulling through anyway, so what? The fact is you are fine, which has made you feel entitled to a survivalist mentality. Well, not everyone's like you. How is this different from a brilliant student asking why all these people can't get magna cum laude like him? The fact is not everyone's as brilliant/lucky/strong. By thinking the way you do, you're giving sanction to a society that is run on the brutal principle of 'survival of the fittest'. But you might not even want to admit that, so you rationalise it by giving it some sort of a moral dimension. You are doing alright, so you must be virtuous. All those people who aren't must be lazy and bad. Poppycock.

Morality. I don't want to debate morals because I understand that some people still ardently believe that the world is not a savage place that we struggle tame every day. But if you must know, everyone can do something. We are not born simply to breathe and die. We are born to act. Those who are born and cannot act are called "stillbirths" and it is unfortunate that all that potential should not come to fruition. Morality. The truth is that NOT at least attempting to survive is irresponsible at the very least and evil at the odd end of it. Depending on the charity of others no longer carries the stigma that it once did, and for that, those who demand entitlements cannot be forgiven. Know where your bread comes from. If it comes from your neighbor, thank your neighbor. Politicians and paupers both draw their bread from the working man. Both politicians and paupers demand compliance. This is immoral conduct.

Not everyone hard on their luck is lazy and bad. I was hard on my luck, that didn't make me lazy and bad. Not doing anything about it would make me lazy and bad. When people tell me they are hard on their luck and they can't even show me a resume written on toilet paper or tell me that they need help and instead just ask me for a letter so they can get another unemployment check, it makes me sick to my stomach. I don't know how many virtuous poor you know, but I've met many. Not a one of them forgets that their goal is to no longer be. I've also met many more dallying poor. I cannot abide the support of both. It is as if someone requested me to both provide my drug addicted brother and college-bound brother each with half my paycheck because each needs it for their own purposes. It is not right to pay a man to do nothing. It cripples him and makes him worse than the animals.

So you want to form people's collectives?

People naturally form collectives. I don't think someone should be paid to manage them. I am all for closed community experiments as I believe they could work. However, I believe they fail for two important reasons. First, failure to add value by members. Second, failure to minimize the cost of management.

If my community has even one person that eats more than he creates, everyone else works harder. If hard times arise, that one person's effort can be the difference between starvation and survival. People that believe in total social benefit no longer believe that all are a necessary part of the whole.

Nice one. So the 9.7% unemployed consist mostly of drunk liars

Sure, why not. 9.7% of people including recent college graduates that refuse to work for less than $20/hr and former sales executives of hedge funds that refuse to work for less than $100,000/yr. If you can't find SOME kind of work, you're not looking hard enough. Anyone can ride a donkey while looking for a horse (that is to say, work something while looking for something better), but many choose not to do so because a safety net exist. If people aren't creating jobs and taking jobs (which creates jobs as a result of economic movement), then they aren't contributing to social benefit, and more importantly, aren't helping to pay for their own entitlements.

Whatever proof of citizenship you have there is proof in writing.

Being a citizen means more than making an application. Being a good citizen means asking not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Then they wouldn't mind paying for national policies aimed at improving the lives of the downtrodden.

How much are they willing to pay? $38 million each?

You don't have to lose the personal touch just because you support a social safety net, of course.

Well, if my bank account is depleted, I think my personal touch is going to be just a little bit dampened. A social safety net based on taxation while still having enough resources to add a personal touch requires a person of great resources who does not feel the pinch of taxes as greatly as, say, the middle class who does not make enough to be charitable more than once. And if one is going to be charitable only once and we want the most bang for the buck, a government-free "personal touch" is the most cost-effective distribution.

I still fail to see what the problem is. You're spending much more money on other things besides paying for a social safety net. I believe that was my point about Eurocommies, since they generally have better safety nets than you do.

Anyway, if you want to complain about the inefficiencies of your country's healthcare, that's a separate issue, and one that has a lot do with the stubbornness of people who refuse to properly reform it for fear of socialism.

Fear of socialism, I agree, is not the correct reason to delay reform. The correct reason to delay reforms is when the reforms proposed will not work, and if the reforms are socialist in nature and will hurt the middle-class, there is great reason for reform to be delayed until its most glaring omissions (such as enforcement) and untenable agreements (public option) are addressed.

Obviously not all of unemployed people are like that, even though this is the typical stuff conservatives like to say to make it sound like they are. In any case, what do you think of structural unemployment? Not an excuse? What do you say about a guy who's been in a certain industry and lost his job? Is he obliged to take up any job immediately to keep himself in the black according to your balance sheet morality?

And what about people who do work for minimum wage but still can't make ends meet because they have a family to support?

Also, some people are, as you say yourself, considered discouraged job seekers. Are they surrender monkeys?

Every person that has ever had to get a job had to GET it. It is within their power to do so. I do believe in grit, and I do believe in working wherever you can to make ends meet. During the Great Depression, great Americans actually roamed across the country to find work. I can't imagine that happening today.

There are always ways to make ends meet. Work two jobs, late hours, get help from friends and family. Move into a smaller place, learn to clip coupons, do odd jobs for people that can afford to hire you for them. Eat leaner, walk to work, get up earlier, stay up later, babysit for others.

People that fondly remember good old days when they lived well but still lived paycheck to paycheck should re-examine what life they lived before. Saving is one of the ways people have persisted through tragedies, and having government programs STOPS people from saving. When people don't save, they can't protect themselves, and banks can't invest with REAL money and resort to toxic mortgage loans and the like.

If you surrender because you have a fantastical belief that getting a job is impossible, yes, I think calling oneself a surrender monkey wouldn't be completely inaccurate. I believe that truly discouraged people lack one thing to get them to work, a push in the right direction. Instead, they are held down by the pull of government unemployment checks, bad feelings about the banking system, fantastical beliefs about their potential employer's opulent lifestyles, and a lack of self-accountability for their state in life.

I hold myself accountable. I don't have everything I want in life. I blame myself for not more actively participating in the activities that would stop other men from taking my money. I have changed my perspectives and activities to reflect what I want to happen in the future. That is how every person ought to have their attitude toward their lot in life. If you are dealt a bad hand of cards in poker, you figure out what your best decisions are, and oftentimes that involves no longer playing poker.

Criminals hire ex-cons because of their particular skill sets. How is that surprising?

I don't know what particular skill sets you are implying, but I don't hire ex-criminals because they are ex-criminals. A real employer hires people because they can reliably do the job for which they are required.

The mafia also wanted or might want to maintain an image.

So do politicians. I think the "legitimate" theft of money without the possibility of criminal prosecution, though, is far more dangerous than any activity that legislation is in place to enforce against. I don't know what image your mafia portrays to you when they are buying politicians, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Mafiosos don't donate to legitimate charities unless they are legitimately charitable people. Citizens, on the whole, are not dumb enough to believe that someone who donates to charity is by nature a good person. In fact, most middle-class (left right or moderate) have an open distaste for people that can afford to do good so lavishly.

Benevolence with conditions is not benevolence.

Well, I don't want to get preachy, but there is no such thing as benevolence without conditions. If I asked you for money, today, no questions asked, you not giving me money is a resultant condition.

Looks like your country has managed under the spendthrift administrations of conservative presidents.

Nope. This country has had ups and downs and in the years since television and radio, it has burrowed deeper into pandering to political whims and has become less apt to focus on a better tomorrow for everyone; A better today without mention to tomorrow's cost.

You're right that regulators should be held responsible. But I don't understand the assertion that the people who corrupt them can't be blamed. So, in a similar vein, rapists can't be blamed for raping a woman who is scantily dressed?

People are not corrupted by money. People who are corrupt, accept money. I can hold the bribing party responsible for wrong doing, but I blame the regulator for being corrupt, not the other way around.

Your analogy doesn't fit because a person that jet sets around the world on somebody else's dime is not a victim.

So you provide for the strong first? Sounds like the principle an African hell hole would be run on.

Some people are in need of benevolence, while others are not. Why would the strong need help? That makes absolutely no sense. So not only do you subscribe to the principle of survival of the fittest, you also believe that the strong should expressly be given priority. If that's not Randist megalomania, I don't know what is.

I don't believe in strong and weak. I believe in those who provide for themselves and those who disregard the responsibility to do so.
I don't believe in survival of the fittest at the expense of the weak. I believe in survival as a personal (before social) responsibility.
I don't believe people are ever in need of benevolence. I believe people are sometimes deserving of it.
I don't believe the "strong" need help. I believe that people who work for a living and are actively struggling every day need more assistance than those who have resigned themselves to do less.
I don't believe in "Randist megalomania" so much as I believe in the common sense of a world that protects human innovation and achievement more than they protect human weakness and apathy.

Good one. Are you planning to run for office? I'm sure plenty of people would buy into this stirring speech, even if you have no real platform other than a generic frothing brand of conservatism.

I am not running for office, today. I am not intending to "stir" people, as I am not the type to accept donations from strangers without first putting forth my agenda to do so. I consider myself a moderate and not a "frothing brand of conservatism". If my blunted disagreements to your viewpoints are too zealous for you, I can try to pull back a little more, but as I've stated before, its an emotional issue.

Airs don't really make up for ridiculous assertions.

I have done my very best to examine the issue and your concerns in a human fashion and with an appreciation for your insights and beliefs and for this I am putting on airs. I voluntarily choose not to hurl insults or defame the validity of your discourse and for this I am ridiculous. I understand your passion for the subject, but I fail to understand your polarized posturing and unwillingness to engage the issue rather than attack it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Wall of Text hits you for 235 points of damage. You die.


I'll never be accused of being the most verbose again.

 

[warpus]

@Hsinchu Have you ever been in a position where you needed financial aid while looking for a job, or else:

- you wouldn't be able to feed your family
- you wouldn't be able to pay arent

Yeah.. I didn't think so..