Originally posted by klaus54
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Welfare almost never "makes people lazy"
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostSour cream (no health certification given) is only available on holidays. So, yes, you MIGHT get a dollop tomorrow if enough dairy sector workers show up.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAny day of the year, too!
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostI have no trouble getting it year around."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostIn other words, you can't refute it and hoping you can distract from it. We American's are some of the most well off people in the world, but we still complain because we are not well off enough. Take a trip to the third world or even down to Mexico sometime JR if you ever want to see what poverty really looks like.
I'm gonna apply your points.
and just in time for Christmas too!
When the wifey starts hinting and leaving Sunday ads from Zales and Kays and Jared, I'm just gonna say (between bites from big turkey leg, chewing with full mouth, and gulps of ginger ale), "you know, honey, that's pretty selfish, people are starving in India and Mexico, and you're thinking of trinkets in times like these?? ...what? ...you never saw 'Blood Diamond' with that kid Leonardo DiCaprio??"
and at the office , hang up a poster of the starving Biafra child with the bloated belly and flies on his face for our workers to see, dare they even think they deserve a raise!
....lets see, did I mention you're right, ...why yes, yes I did.To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostYour argument here is that Sparko (and all others people, presumably) has the moral imperative to help not just all the people Sparko is capable of helping, but to help everyone in the world who is in need. That seems like a dubious premise. Though it perhaps does shed some light on how some people might be thinking along the lines of: I must help everyone, but I don't have the resources to help everyone, so it must be okay for me to steal resources from others to fulfill my moral duty.
But then you seem to assume that it is impossible for everyone in need to be helped by citizens acting individually. That seems obviously false. Surely it is logically possible that if enough individuals help all the people they reasonably can, that everyone in need gets helped.
But assuming for the sake of argument that people must act together in a coordinated way, then you add yet another assumption: that that is impossible apart from government coercion. This assumption too seems obviously false. Surely it is logically possible for people to voluntarily work together in a coordinated way. Efficient large-scale voluntary charities exist. Consider also that even the state consists only of individuals interacting. "The government" is not a magic thing that gives those individuals super powers. If it is possible to "pool together our resources...to make better the lives of all," then it is possible to do so apart from the state.
Nor can it even be assumed that doing it through the state is the best or even a good way to do it. I don't think anyone has been able to prove that state welfare always reduces rather than increases the problem of poverty, let alone prove that there does not exist more-effective ways to decrease poverty.
Another claim you make regards the essence of government: "Thats what government is all about, we pool together our resources...to make better the lives of all." Because that can be done via any number of voluntary organizations, it seems clear that that is not the defining characteristic of government. (And if it really makes better the lives of all involved, then it can be done voluntarily--people would gladly contribute, if for no other reason than to better their own life.) Rather, the distinguishing thing is that the voluntary organization is the voluntary means, while the government is the coercive means. The essence of government involves the use of force. (And historically that generally meant force used against overt encroachment on person or property.)
So that's at least 5 dubious premises in your argument there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jordanriver View Postknow what? when you right you right.
I'm gonna apply your points.
and just in time for Christmas too!
When the wifey starts hinting and leaving Sunday ads from Zales and Kays and Jared, I'm just gonna say (between bites from big turkey leg, chewing with full mouth, and gulps of ginger ale), "you know, honey, that's pretty selfish, people are starving in India and Mexico, and you're thinking of trinkets in times like these?? ...what? ...you never saw 'Blood Diamond' with that kid Leonardo DiCaprio??"
and at the office , hang up a poster of the starving Biafra child with the bloated belly and flies on his face for our workers to see, dare they even think they deserve a raise!
....lets see, did I mention you're right, ...why yes, yes I did."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostWhat's the problem, don't like it when the logic presented here is turned on it's head and we see what really goes on? The logic you agreed with is that the circumstances of your birth has to do with the success you'll have later in life. Why all of a sudden, are you trying to change the topic from applying this logic to the entire world? Being born in a rich country has given you opportunities that most other people will never have,
I am fortunate to be in USA rather than most other countries.
But I don't think being born in a "rich country" guarantees everybody opportunities. There are other countries rich in natural resources, but their winners have no restrictions and have managed to horde those resources for themselves while the rest of the population lives in a third world conditions.
I guess their unions didn't succeed like Americans did, in forcing the winners to share in the wealth.
But now even that is no guarantee for the masses of laborer, since the latest generations of winners have evolved. Their predecessors initially knew to play their laborers against each other competing.
But the workers learned to unionize instead of competing against each other (they knew they could not win one-on-one face to face with winners like Carnegie for example)
The workers found that they could COLLECTIVELY stand up to the gilded age bosses.
So the gilded age bosses had to go outside their labor force and bring in scabs to compete against them.
The new union laborers realized they were going to have to resort to violence if they wanted a share of this country's wealth and resources.
..but like I said a few lines above, the more recent generation of winners have evolved and found competition AGAINST their American laborers from outside of this country (I recall Ross Perot warning us about NAFTA -- and a large sucking sound of American jobs leaving the USA)
Its becoming easier for the real life 'best monopoly players' to pick up where their gilded age predecessors left off , creating a Dickensian environment before unions spoiled their progress.
so who will volunteer to give their wealth to those people or does this logic only apply to people richer than us?
but actually , I wasn't asking anybody to "give" anything.
......if you are one of America's winners, I don't blame you for promoting the status quo. That would be rational self interest.
But it would be irrational for people like me to support perpetuating the direction things are going.To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D
Comment
-
Originally posted by jordanriver View PostYes.
I am fortunate to be in USA rather than most other countries.
But I don't think being born in a "rich country" guarantees everybody opportunities. There are other countries rich in natural resources, but their winners have no restrictions and have managed to horde those resources for themselves while the rest of the population lives in a third world conditions.
I guess their unions didn't succeed like Americans did, in forcing the winners to share in the wealth.
But now even that is no guarantee for the masses of laborer, since the latest generations of winners have evolved. Their predecessors initially knew to play their laborers against each other competing.
But the workers learned to unionize instead of competing against each other (they knew they could not win one-on-one face to face with winners like Carnegie for example)
The workers found that they could COLLECTIVELY stand up to the gilded age bosses.
So the gilded age bosses had to go outside their labor force and bring in scabs to compete against them.
1. Carnegie was not born into a life of privilege. He was actually rather poor, growing up and even had to go work, as a child, in order to support his family. He made his money by earning it.
2. Carnegie is historically known as giving away all of his wealth too. In fact, most major cities, had at least one library built and paid for, by him.
Of course, these things need to be left out because the narrative that the rich are evil fat cats has to be maintained at all cost and therefore, these sort of 'facts' have to be ignored.
The new union laborers realized they were going to have to resort to violence if they wanted a share of this country's wealth and resources.
..but like I said a few lines above, the more recent generation of winners have evolved and found competition AGAINST their American laborers from outside of this country (I recall Ross Perot warning us about NAFTA -- and a large sucking sound of American jobs leaving the USA)
Its becoming easier for the real life 'best monopoly players' to pick up where their gilded age predecessors left off , creating a Dickensian environment before unions spoiled their progress.
I don't know how to answer this. I used to give a lot , but haven't been able to spare much lately. I tried my best to be a winner, but I am afraid I failed.
but actually , I wasn't asking anybody to "give" anything.
......if you are one of America's winners, I don't blame you for promoting the status quo. That would be rational self interest.
But it would be irrational for people like me to support perpetuating the direction things are going."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostYou obviously have never been to a third world country because I have and I sure haven't seen conditions around here like you find in a third world country. How many warlords or mud huts have you come across lately? Anyway, you're second mistake here is assuming that wealth=hording, but do you have any evidence to conclude that wealth=hording? If anything, it takes spending money in order to make money and if you end up hording your money, you're going to end up losing it in the end. Unless of course, you seriously think that having a net worth of a billion dollars means that person has a billion dollars sitting around in a Scrooge McDuck vault somewhere...
While your understanding of events is quite interesting, you seem to conveniently forget a few things:
1. Carnegie was not born into a life of privilege. He was actually rather poor, growing up and even had to go work, as a child, in order to support his family. He made his money by earning it.
2. Carnegie is historically known as giving away all of his wealth too. In fact, most major cities, had at least one library built and paid for, by him.
Of course, these things need to be left out because the narrative that the rich are evil fat cats has to be maintained at all cost and therefore, these sort of 'facts' have to be ignored.
Where have I judged anyone as "evil"
My position is that all humans are evil (none that doeth good no not one, etc)
I am not about blaming rich "evil fat cats", I believe they are just doing what comes naturally to them. The same way lions eat gazelles, one cannot blame a lion for eating.
And I know about Carnegie's philanthropy, because I spent a lot of time in the Carnegie Library in a town called Coffeyville Kansas when we moved from Texas in the 1960s.
But I disagree with you that Carnegie was not born into a life of privilege.
I think you are still using the old aristocracy European model there.
I am using the unique AMERICAN model. It has nothing to do with parentage. It has to do with individual abilities.
In the old world model, individual abilities didn't have as much to do with your outcome as it does in the set up here in USA, which involves capitalist COMPETITION (i.e., winners and losers)
And in USA type competition, even if one is born of parents of wealth, one can lose (squander through negligence or circumstance when someone with more ability comes along) their inheritance.
And with ability , here in the competitive climate of USA, a person born with nothing, not even parents, can rise to the top, no restrictions, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ABILITY.
I think poverty serves as a catalyst to the few people who are born with administrative abilities.
Yeah because you know, violently revolting against people is going to get your demands made.
In context I included how the bosses brought in scabs to force the workers to accept lower wages. The violence was not "revolting against people" , as in a revolt againt the owners or government, ...in context I was referring to the violence against scabs who were there to take away their jobs. And it did succeed.
And that doesn't refute a single word I said. I got an idea... perhaps Americans should you know... stop pretending they are 'owed' something by being humans and should realize that nobody owes them anything. Nah, that will never happen because the fantasy that the rich fat cats are evil overlords has to be maintained and evidence be damned if things don't meet what the narrative says.
My official position NOBODY OWES me , (unless I worked for them or did something for them and there as an agreed upon trade)
The rich do not owe me.
forget that.
It is some other situation.
The other situation is, humans need resources, for themselves and their families.
There are resources in the USA for example , and if you are starving Mexican FOR EXAMPLE , or you are watching your children starve, it does not matter that somebody else "owns" those resources, you got to somehow take them. Or die.
I don't know OR CARE if the rich WINNERS owe anybody or exploited anybody.
All I am saying is , the losers can either starve, or band together and (by ballot hopefully) take.
Did it hinder our founding fathers that King George III "owned" the colonies.
Did it hinder European-American pioneers that the land of American already had inhabitants?
Now those new winners may have found it necessary to demonize the British and the American indigenous populations to justify taking , but I am trying not to.
Maybe thats how its done, maybe it doesn't work unless a challenger (for food/resources) demonizes the ones who control the resources, but I am not.
A pragmatic pioneer could have said, look, here's the deal, the locals own the hunting around here, and they are good decent family types feeding their families, but we need deer too or we starve. Its them or us, and I vote for us, sorry.
....so maybe with other people you debate, its about good vs evil. But I am trying not to be concerned with those 'higher' philosophies. When its humans vs humans, according to my faith its evil vs evil, in a evil climate.
And if you're a sheep that does not have the abilities of a wolf, then you better try to get some type of cooperation going with the rest of the sheep.
What is 'America's Winners'? Those who are richer than JR and therefore more evil?Last edited by jordanriver; 11-29-2015, 01:51 PM.To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D
Comment
-
Originally posted by jordanriver View Postwho owns the natural resources in third world countries.
quit assigning motives to me.
Where have I judged anyone as "evil"
My position is that all humans are evil (none that doeth good no not one, etc)
I am not about blaming rich "evil fat cats", I believe they are just doing what comes naturally to them. The same way lions eat gazelles, one cannot blame a lion for eating.
And I know about Carnegie's philanthropy, because I spent a lot of time in the Carnegie Library in a town called Coffeyville Kansas when we moved from Texas in the 1960s.
But I disagree with you that Carnegie was not born into a life of privilege.
I think you are still using the old aristocracy European model there.
I am using the unique AMERICAN model. It has nothing to do with parentage. It has to do with individual abilities.
In the old world model, individual abilities didn't have as much to do with your outcome as it does in the set up here in USA, which involves capitalist COMPETITION (i.e., winners and losers)
And in USA type competition, even if one is born of parents of wealth, one can lose (squander through negligence or circumstance when someone with more ability comes along) their inheritance.
And with ability , here in the competitive climate of USA, a person born with nothing, not even parents, can rise to the top, no restrictions, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ABILITY.
I think poverty serves as a catalyst to the few people who are born with administrative abilities.
oops my bad. I wasn't clear enough when I said "The new union laborers realized they were going to have to resort to violence if they wanted a share of this country's wealth and resources"
In context I included how the bosses brought in scabs to force the workers to accept lower wages. The violence was not "revolting against people" , as in a revolt againt the owners or government, ...in context I was referring to the violence against scabs who were there to take away their jobs. And it did succeed.
there you go again, SHEESH, will you stop it... stop assigning to me motives.
My official position NOBODY OWES me , (unless I worked for them or did something for them and there as an agreed upon trade)
The rich do not owe me.
forget that.
It is some other situation.
The other situation is, humans need resources, for themselves and their families.
There are resources in the USA for example , and if you are starving Mexican FOR EXAMPLE , or you are watching your children starve, it does not matter that somebody else "owns" those resources, you got to somehow take them. Or die.
I don't know OR CARE if the rich WINNERS owe anybody or exploited anybody.
All I am saying is , the losers can either starve, or band together and (by ballot hopefully) take.
Did it hinder our founding fathers that King George III "owned" the colonies.
Did it hinder European-American pioneers that the land of American already had inhabitants?
Now those new winners may have found it necessary to demonize the British and the American indigenous populations to justify taking , but I am trying not to.
Maybe thats how its done, maybe it doesn't work unless a challenger (for food/resources) demonizes the ones who control the resources, but I am not.
A pragmatic pioneer could have said, look, here's the deal, the locals own the hunting around here, and they are good decent family types feeding their families, but we need deer too or we starve. Its them or us, and I vote for us, sorry.
....so maybe with other people you debate, its about good vs evil. But I am trying not to be concerned with those 'higher' philosophies. When its humans vs humans, according to my faith its evil vs evil, in a evil climate.
And if you're a sheep that does not have the abilities of a wolf, then you better try to get some type of cooperation going with the rest of the sheep.A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
George Bernard Shaw
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
6 responses
45 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 08:38 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
42 responses
230 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:53 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
24 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
32 responses
173 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 08:22 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
72 responses
281 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 08:06 PM
|
Comment