How To Oppress the Lower Class(es)

[Urizen]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Oh, wait a minute: there's a new politroll thread under the sun!

I reckon it's only a matter of time before the PostMonster General will unleash his corgi to execute Order 66. The plebians prefer to remain at unrest and suspend civility because the Internet must be won at all cost.

[DM Barcas]

thejeff wrote:

Define "economic success". Economic mobility in most of the industrialized free world, especially the US, has dropped over the last 40 years or so. The single greatest predictor of your economic status is the economic status of your parents.

Or more simply, perhaps anyone can, although those who start near the finish line have a much better chance, but everyone can't. The way our society is set up, we need an underclass.

Or to go back to the original style of this thread:
More perniciously, spread a myth that anyone can make it in this society. That way, when someone doesn't it's their own fault and there's no need to help them out.

Not everyone will, but anyone can succeed. It's not easy or simple. It requires sacrifice, hard work, dedication, and risk. It also requires a plan, as well as backup plans and contingency plans. Are you all telling me that a person with intent and dedication (i.e. more than wishful thinking) cannot succeed no matter his or her starting point? I'll grant that some people will have it harder than others, but to say that every person has no chance of success is ridiculous.

Most people fail because they set their mind to fail.

[meatrace]

DM Barcas wrote:

Are you all telling me that a person with intent and dedication (i.e. more than wishful thinking) cannot succeed no matter his or her starting point? I'll grant that some people will have it harder than others, but to say that every person has no chance of success is ridiculous.

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes you fail because of circumstances outside your control, or because someone else simply has more ability or skill than you. That's the nature of competition.

However, what you're proposing is crabs in a bucket capitalism. No one gets out of that bucket.

As soon as you say that "anyone who tries hard enough will succeed", which you seem to take as an article of faith, you have to believe that those that have failed have done so because they lack the critical faculties or didn't try hard enough.

The truth is that in free market capitalism, if EVERY SINGLE PERSON tried their darnedest to succeed. Every one. The vast majority would still fail because of the way the economy is structured. There literally can't be more rich than poor, the economy won't and can't sustain it, without even exploring social reinforcement of such a structure!

The economy is a zero sum game. Every dollar you make is a dollar you take from someone. When we're talking about trade via specialization that's sustainable on a micro level. On a macro level it WILL AXIOMATICALLY LEAD to wealth accumulating at the top.

But back to the real topic. The truth is that your strong faith beliefs in the worthlessness of those who are less lucky than you is only based in gut feeling, not any sort of economic model or empirical fact.

[bugleyman]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

That is a very good song, Citizen Meatrace.

Seconded.

[thejeff]

DM Barcas wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Define "economic success". Economic mobility in most of the industrialized free world, especially the US, has dropped over the last 40 years or so. The single greatest predictor of your economic status is the economic status of your parents.

Or more simply, perhaps anyone can, although those who start near the finish line have a much better chance, but everyone can't. The way our society is set up, we need an underclass.

Or to go back to the original style of this thread:
More perniciously, spread a myth that anyone can make it in this society. That way, when someone doesn't it's their own fault and there's no need to help them out.

Not everyone will, but anyone can succeed. It's not easy or simple. It requires sacrifice, hard work, dedication, and risk. It also requires a plan, as well as backup plans and contingency plans. Are you all telling me that a person with intent and dedication (i.e. more than wishful thinking) cannot succeed no matter his or her starting point? I'll grant that some people will have it harder than others, but to say that every person has no chance of success is ridiculous.

Most people fail because they set their mind to fail.

meatrace said it well, but I'll add a little bit. You agree that some people have it harder than others and I never said that "every person has no chance of success".

If some people have a 99% chance of success, because they start with money and connections and are pushed into education and given chance after chance to succeed, while others have a 1% chance because they started out without good role models and in lousy schools and with abusive/neglectful/absent parents and they're living so close to the edge that even when they put in the sacrifice, hard work and dedication if one thing goes wrong they can lose everything they worked for and be back at the bottom, is that really because they "set their mind to fail"?

Have you heard the expression "Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple?" Plenty of people born rich think they worked hard to get where they are and they may have, but they don't see that people who didn't start where they did can work just as hard and not get anywhere.
Think of Bush, who went to Yale as a legacy and graduated with a Gentleman's C, then drove several businesses into the ground before getting into politic. Or Romney, who talked about how hard he and Ann had it going to school when all they had to live on was the trust fund his dad gave them.

I've screwed up several times in my life, not too badly, but I'm smart and I've got a middle class upbringing and a college education and that by itself opens doors that wouldn't open as easily to a kid from the projects. I'm also white and male, which doesn't hurt. I can screw up and still have the chance to recover.

Sure some will make it, but most who start at the bottom will stay there. Much more so than around the middle of the century. Social mobility has dropped in the US. It's now well below the better off European countries. To argue that everyone can make it here, is to argue that those who are at the top deserve to be here and that those at the bottom deserve to be there. Which, given the data on social mobility, pretty much has to be an argument for genetic determinism, which pretty much demolishes the "anyone can make it" theory.

[Grand Magus]

.

18. Weaken the 2nd Amendment.

.

[Irontruth]

Clearly more guns is the solution for the #1 cause of death for black males age 15-34.

[Grand Magus]

Irontruth wrote:

Clearly more guns is the solution for the #1 cause of death for black males age 15-34.

.

Good one. That is added to the list.

.

[Andrew R]

Remove the means to care for one's self. Make it hard to provide your own food, repair your own machines, protect yourself.

[A Man In Black]

Andrew R wrote:

Remove the means to care for one's self. Make it hard to provide your own food, repair your own machines, protect yourself.

Getting people away from providing all tasks to support themselves is necessary for the creation of any classes, and it doesn't inherently oppress the lower class. If everyone is gathering/subsistence farming to support themselves, then there's basically no time for leisure and likely little in the way of surpluses. Similarly, merely giving people the opportunity to "support themselves" doesn't free them in any meaningful way. Field slaves in the US had to farm for themselves on their own time, for example; did that make them any freer? The existence of industry on a greater scale than one person working on their own creates an opportunity for oppression, but it also allows for both leisure and an improved quality of life.

Basically the same argument applies to repair. While making people less self-sufficient creates the opportunity for those necessities to be withheld, it also creates opportunities for people to empower and enrich themselves by specializing in providing that necessity. It's the basic capitalist tradeoff.

As for protecting yourself, sure, but protecting yourself means more than just shooting people in the face. What's important is being secure in your person, not well-equipped to defend yourself. This not only means being protected from both random and organized violence, but also protected from mishap, illness, and destitution.

[Stebehil]

Hmm, lets see...

- paying women less than men for the same work

- discriminating against people based on their ethnic group, religion or whatever, but denying the same when called upon, making excuses.

- paying so little for a job that they need to take two, three or more jobs just to survive - and complaining afterwards that people would rather live on welfare, costing "my taxes", than working hard.

- reducing wages because, y´know, the company hit hard times, so everyone has to contribute - just to close down shop half year later anyway, and the CEO getting a big "compensation" for his "good work"

- having international big money bet on everything, even on things they don´t understand themselves anymore, and on basic food, with no regulation at all. And when the system comes crashing down, letting the broad masses foot the bill, either directly by throwing them out of the houses they could barely afford anyways, or by tax money.

- having good health care only with expensive private insurances the lower classes can never afford - and firing anyone having a McJob if he misses so much as one day.

- accepting refugees, even for a long time, but denying them any legal status that would allow them to work - and then claiming "look at all those refugees - criminals, all of them"

- inventing the myth that "anybody can make it", while at the same time keeping real power to those who have the money and ties anyway.

[Stebehil]

DM Barcas wrote:

Not everyone will, but anyone can succeed. It's not easy or simple. It requires sacrifice, hard work, dedication, and risk. It also requires a plan, as well as backup plans and contingency plans.

Take a look at Spain or Greece in the moment. The unemployment rate among young people it atrociously high, over 50%. Many of them are well educated, professionally trained. Their chances of getting a job and succeeding are minimal at the moment. They won´t find work, even if they sacrifice, work hard, are dedicated and taking risks, and no contingency plans will help them. IF there are no chances to succeed because of circumstances they can´t influence, they won´t.

[Stebehil]

Oh, and I´ve forgotten some:

- letting shareholder value determining everything. If it not up to par, tear the company apart, selling what is profitable and kill the rest. People losing jobs about it? Collateral damage. Employers with something akin to a social conscience about their employees are soo yesterday.

- talking the government into selling everything that looks promising enough to make a profit, letting all the necessary but costly tasks with the government, and whining about high taxes - surely, people with high incomes need tax cuts, let the lower classes pay.

- forming the political system in a way that it does not matter at all who is going to be elected. Decisions are formed by lobbyists and bureaucrats anyway, politicians are mere figureheads. Telling the people that all decisions are based on the TINA principle anyways.

[thejeff]

Cut taxes, promising it'll result in an economic boom. When deficits inevitably rise, use that as an excuse to cut social spending. Cut taxes again as a stimulus. Repeat.

[Grand Magus]

Pass a law, so if school children can not "pass" a standardized test we
can cut that schools funding.

[Krensky]

thejeff wrote:

Cut taxes, promising it'll result in an economic boom. When deficits inevitably rise, use that as an excuse to cut social spending. Cut taxes again as a stimulus. Repeat.

Thank you Jude Wanniski.

Although it wasn't so much about oppressing the poor and working class as it was about manipulating the economy and government spending to effectively create an one party system and gut the government.

It's called the Two Santa Claus Theory and it's why the Republicans spend like drunken sailors when they're in the White House and scream like stuck pigs over deficits when they're not.

[thejeff]

Krensky wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Cut taxes, promising it'll result in an economic boom. When deficits inevitably rise, use that as an excuse to cut social spending. Cut taxes again as a stimulus. Repeat.

Thank you Jude Wanniski.

Although it wasn't so much about oppressing the poor and working class as it was about manipulating the economy and government spending to effectively create an one party system and gut the government.

It's called the Two Santa Claus Theory and it's why the Republicans spend like drunken sailors when they're in the White House and scream like stuck pigs over deficits when they're not.

Given that the only part of the government they care to cut is social spending that helps the poor (and these days they've moved on to the middle class), I'd say it's about oppressing the lower classes.

[Grand Magus]

.

20. Make health insurance so expensive that a person's company has to pay for it.
This way, they can never leave their job, and you can control them forever.

.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Couldn't the lower classes just go get another job?

[Grand Magus]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Couldn't the lower classes just go get another job?

.

Same set-up, different building. Changing jobs is an illusion of freedom -- you don't
have anymore power than you did before.

.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

So they can leave their job. And you won't be able to control me--someone else will.

I mean, it's a nice touch and all but it's just a variation on the old theme of wage-slavery. Have you listed that one yet?

[Purveyor of Fine Tea]

Poor people should just buy more money.

[DarkLightHitomi]

Fleshgrinder wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

how dare i want personal responsibility to come before unlimited lifelong welfare. And as long as they rob my paycheck to cover it it IS my concern. You do not live among the poor urban folks do you? Or do you just buy into the loser syndrome and tell them it isn't their fault they make dumb choices

Wouldn't a superior option be working toward a society where we can afford permanent welfare for everyone?

We have this problem where we're getting more technologically advanced yet still working 40 hours a week.

Aren't we building the machines to make the work easier and shorter?

Then, get this, we invent assembly lines and people actually FIGHT AGAINST the automation of manufacturing...

Our technology level is 2012, but we're using a work week and schedules designed when? A hundred years ago.

And, just an idea, but if there's 10% unemployment, why don't the rest of us work 10% less and just spread the existing work out?

See, I may be crazy, but maybe the entire point of all this was to eventually not have to work or have responsibility.

To be a little poetic for a moment, just because we got kicked out of paradise doesn't mean we're not allowed to try and build one ourselves.

-Permanent welfare is bad, for anyone.

-Advances in technology will not, and should not, ever remove the need to work, it just changes the type of work being done. There were no programmers a hundred years ago.

-Easier and shorter work is still work.

-People currently live in a system that relies on them having a job, of course they fight against anything that jeopardizes their livelihood.

-Work week and schedule has changed a lot in the past hundred years, why is this a problem anyway?

-Spreading the work out reduces how much we make, which reduce our ability to pay our bills and buy things we need or want.

-You are crazy. People that do not value work or take responsibility are worthless. Even the wealthy rich people that don't need to work like we do, still highly value work and responsibility among themselves, more so then the lower classes. Alzheimer's goes unnoticed in individuals that have responsibilities up to the day they die (this is confirmed. Priests and others are always working and never showing the signs but autopsies have showed advanced Alzheimer's)

-I agree with making a paradise, I don't agree with your idea of what paradise is.

Pain and grief give a true appreciation to happiness that can not be found otherwise.

Our current system has our survival dependent on spending money. There three ways to get more money so we can spend it to survive. Work, own, mooch.

1. Work. These people go to work to make money. how much they work is related to how much they make. Dividing the work among more people means each person getting paid less money.

2. Own. These people own something that gets used or they own the work itself. These people are the business owners. They constantly try to reduce their expenses and improve their income. Reducing hours given to category 1 people and splitting the remaining hours among people to make them qualify as part-time employees with no benefits is one way that is becoming more popular.

3. Mooch. This is what you suggest everyone does, but if everyone moved to this category, then there would be no-one to mooch off of.

Best solution is to make money unneeded to survive comfortably but still remain as a means of trading luxuries and wants.

[A Man In Black]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

-Permanent welfare is bad, for anyone.

I don't remember the last time I had to cut a check for police service, or to be protected by the military, or for weather forecast information. Do you think that those should have a lifetime limit, or that people should get an itemized bill for them?

Also, how do you reconcile that with...

Quote:

Best solution is to make money unneeded to survive comfortably but still remain as a means of trading luxuries and wants.

What's the difference between offering food, shelter, and healthcare free of charge and permanent welfare?

Quote:

-Advances in technology will not, and should not, ever remove the need to work, it just changes the type of work being done. There were no programmers a hundred years ago.

-Easier and shorter work is still work.

-People currently live in a system that relies on them having a job, of course they fight against anything that jeopardizes their livelihood.

-Work week and schedule has changed a lot in the past hundred years, why is this a problem anyway?

-Spreading the work out reduces how much we make, which reduce our ability to pay our bills and buy things we need or want.

This is false. Technology inherently makes labor more efficient. I can't hit you with a whole history or sociology education here, though. The upshot is that there's no reason that productivity increases can't lead to fewer people working or everyone working less except that our society isn't set up to allow that to happen. There is absolutely no reason productivity increases should lead to a decrease in quality of life.

Quote:

-You are crazy. People that do not value work or take responsibility are worthless. Even the wealthy rich people that don't need to work like we do, still highly value work and responsibility among themselves, more so then the lower classes.

False. For one, this is a sociopathic viewpoint. Any time you are claiming X people are worthless, you're deep in a dark forest far away from morality. For another, this nonsense about the rich highly valuing work is pure prosperity theology. They're rich, they must value hard work, right? Nevermind all the people who just inherited their wealth, and all the people who work hard their entire lives and die in poverty. Nope! Obviously it was their work ethic.

Quote:

Pain and grief give a true appreciation to happiness that can not be found otherwise.

Are you suggesting that society should intentionally inflict pain and grief?

Quote:

Our current system has our survival dependent on spending money. There three ways to get more money so we can spend it to survive. Work, own, mooch.

1. Work. These people go to work to make money. how much they work is related to how much they make. Dividing the work among more people means each person getting paid less money.

2. Own. These people own something that gets used or they own the work itself. These people are the business owners. They constantly try to reduce their expenses and improve their income. Reducing hours given to category 1 people and splitting the remaining hours among people to make them qualify as part-time employees with no benefits is one way that is becoming more popular.

3. Mooch. This is what you suggest everyone does, but if everyone moved to this category, then there would be no-one to mooch off of.

If everyone moved to the "own" category, nothing would get done either. It seems like you've got two categories, Workers and Moochers. So, want to meet up after this and hang some bankers and business executives from the lampposts, comrade?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

I'd love to!

Meet you by the Wal-Mart at seven?

[DarkLightHitomi]

A Man In Black wrote:

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

-Permanent welfare is bad, for anyone.

I don't remember the last time I had to cut a check for police service, or to be protected by the military, or for weather forecast information. Do you think that those should have a lifetime limit, or that people should get an itemized bill for them?

Also, how do you reconcile that with...

Quote:

Best solution is to make money unneeded to survive comfortably but still remain as a means of trading luxuries and wants.

What's the difference between offering food, shelter, and healthcare free of charge and permanent welfare?

Quote:

-Advances in technology will not, and should not, ever remove the need to work, it just changes the type of work being done. There were no programmers a hundred years ago.

-Easier and shorter work is still work.

-People currently live in a system that relies on them having a job, of course they fight against anything that jeopardizes their livelihood.

-Work week and schedule has changed a lot in the past hundred years, why is this a problem anyway?

-Spreading the work out reduces how much we make, which reduce our ability to pay our bills and buy things we need or want.

This is false. Technology inherently makes labor more efficient. I can't hit you with a whole history or sociology education here, though. The upshot is that there's no reason that productivity increases can't lead to fewer people working or everyone working less except that our society isn't set up to allow that to happen. There is absolutely no reason productivity increases should lead to a decrease in quality of life.

Quote:

-You are crazy. People that do not value work or take responsibility are worthless. Even the wealthy rich people that don't need to work like we do, still highly value work and responsibility among themselves, more so then the lower classes.

False. For one, this is a sociopathic viewpoint. Any time you are claiming X people are worthless, you're deep in a dark forest...

-Police and such are paid for by taxes, which we have money for because we go to work.

-Welfare implies not working for it. I said make money unneeded not to make work unneeded.

-Technology does make work more efficient, but new jobs are made by the technology. I never intended to imply that better technology had to lead to a reduction in quality of life, only that it is one factor in the current real life situation (mostly because of it's effect when mixed with capitalism).

-I meant worthless to the community as a whole, such individuals become a burden on the community while giving nothing in return. And for the views of rich people, those come from personal experience, my father works on mansions, so I have met many rich individuals.

[Azure_Zero]

A man in Black wrote:

...

So, want to meet up after this and hang some bankers and business executives from the lampposts, comrade?

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I'd love to!

Meet you by the Wal-Mart at seven?

I think Akumetsu beat you to it.

[A Man In Black]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

-Police and such are paid for by taxes, which we have money for because we go to work.

So what's the difference between something paid for by taxes and permanent welfare?

Quote:

-Welfare implies not working for it. I said make money unneeded not to make work unneeded.

So you're going to allocate food, shelter, and healthcare based on what, if not money?

Quote:

I never intended to imply that better technology had to lead to a reduction in quality of life, only that it is one factor in the current real life situation (mostly because of it's effect when mixed with capitalism).

If you mean "technologic advance is incompatible with the essential capitalist idea that work is necessary to prosper/deserve to live", then okay, but I don't think it's the technology that is causing that problem.

Quote:

-I meant worthless to the community as a whole, such individuals become a burden on the community while giving nothing in return.

There aren't a significant number of non-child/disabled/elderly people just sitting around doing nothing. People want to feel needed and productive; cutting them off from that leads to depression pretty quickly. There are people who are not properly employed who are productive as well, particularly parents. It's safer to start a business when failure (or even an extended rough start-up period) isn't going to leave you destitute. And, on top of all of this, capitalism is going to lead to market failure, and those people who want to be productive just may not have the option, and a reasonable government needs to make a plan for that.

The side-effect of this is that some people may sit around doing nothing and not die of exposure as a consequence. I prefer this to the US status quo, where single parents, would-be entrepreneurs, and nearly everyone in an economic downturn are one step away from destitution.

Quote:

And for the views of rich people, those come from personal experience, my father works on mansions, so I have met many rich individuals.

Oh! Well! Your second-hand anecdotes are obviously incontrovertible proof, let's wrap it up.

Azure_Zero wrote:

I think Akumetsu beat you to it.

France has a couple centuries on him.

[Fouquier-Tinville]

War on the chateaux! Peace to the cottages!

Vive le Galt!

[Lord Dice]

You should watch more Glenn Beck, Fouquier-Tinville.

[Fouquier-Tinville]

To the lampposts with you, Comte de Dice!

[Fouquier-Tinville]

By the way, I dig your new avatar, aristo-scum.

[Andrew R]

A Man In Black wrote:

There aren't a significant number of non-child/disabled/elderly people just sitting around doing nothing. People want to feel needed and productive; cutting them off from that leads to depression pretty quickly. There are people who are not properly employed who are productive as well, particularly parents. It's safer to start a business when failure (or even an extended rough start-up period) isn't going to leave you destitute. And, on top of all of this, capitalism is going to lead to market failure, and those people who want to be productive just may not have the option, and a reasonable government needs to make a plan for that.

The side-effect of this is that some people may sit around doing nothing and not die of exposure as a consequence. I prefer this to the US status quo, where single parents, would-be entrepreneurs, and nearly everyone in an economic downturn are one step away from destitution.

The problem is we need to weed out the try and failed from the refuse to try, the too stupid to try business from the unlucky. Many parents should be less "productive" if we have no jobs we do not need a bunch more people to be on welfare

It is a far cry from "die of exposure" if you ever see what many of the people on welfare have on those magical free money cards. I would rather see a safety net for honest folks not a free cash for life for the worthless system.

[A Man In Black]

Andrew R wrote:

The problem is we need to weed out the try and failed from the refuse to try, the too stupid to try business from the unlucky.

History has shown that attempting to separate the "worthy" poor from the unworthy is both ineffective and incredibly vulnerable to definitions of "worthy" that are written to suit an agenda.

Quote:

Many parents should be less "productive" if we have no jobs we do not need a bunch more people to be on welfare

So, if there are no jobs, and there's no government support, what do people who don't own capital do to survive?

Quote:

It is a far cry from "die of exposure" if you ever see what many of the people on welfare have on those magical free money cards. I would rather see a safety net for honest folks not a free cash for life for the worthless system.

People on food stamps have it so easy. Why, oh, why can't I have a life as easy as a poor person's?

[Andrew R]

A Man In Black wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Many parents should be less "productive" if we have no jobs we do not need a bunch more people to be on welfare

So, if there are no jobs, and there's no government support, what do people who don't own capital do to survive?

Quote:

It is a far cry from "die of exposure" if you ever see what many of the people on welfare have on those magical free money cards. I would rather see a safety net for honest folks not a free cash for life for the worthless system.

People on food stamps have it so easy. Why, oh, why can't I have a life as easy as a poor person's?

Free house, paid utilities, hundreds (and i have seen thousands) a month in food and cash. these are not people "not freezing" they are getting a comfy free ride that i am sick of paying for. maybe if your side loves it so much YOU should foot the bill instead of robbing me for it. We are a nation that is well off enough to not let people starve but the way it is now is insane and only getting worse.

[A Man In Black]

Under what programs? Enough making s**$ up, let's talk about actual numbers. What programs are giving these benefits "for life"?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

I heard a great welfare leech story from my co-worker the other day.

Dude's brother dies, so he adopts his nephew. Later, he gets married and adopts the woman's daughter.

Comes home from work one day and finds his nephew balls deep in his wife.

Has a nervous breakdown. When he returns from the mental hospital, his whole family has disappeared.

He transfers all his property to his father's name, quits his two jobs and has been collecting SSI for fifteen years, waiting for his adoptive daughter to turn 18.

People will do some strange shiznit to avoid paying their ex-wives.

[DarkLightHitomi]

A Man In Black wrote:

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

-Police and such are paid for by taxes, which we have money for because we go to work.

So what's the difference between something paid for by taxes and permanent welfare?

Quote:

-Welfare implies not working for it. I said make money unneeded not to make work unneeded.

So you're going to allocate food, shelter, and healthcare based on what, if not money?

Quote:

I never intended to imply that better technology had to lead to a reduction in quality of life, only that it is one factor in the current real life situation (mostly because of it's effect when mixed with capitalism).

If you mean "technologic advance is incompatible with the essential capitalist idea that work is necessary to prosper/deserve to live", then okay, but I don't think it's the technology that is causing that problem.

Quote:

-I meant worthless to the community as a whole, such individuals become a burden on the community while giving nothing in return.

There aren't a significant number of non-child/disabled/elderly people just sitting around doing nothing. People want to feel needed and productive; cutting them off from that leads to depression pretty quickly. There are people who are not properly employed who are productive as well, particularly parents. It's safer to start a business when failure (or even an extended rough start-up period) isn't going to leave you destitute. And, on top of all of this, capitalism is going to lead to market failure, and those people who want to be productive just may not have the option, and a reasonable government needs to make a plan for that.

The side-effect of this is that some people may sit around doing nothing and not die of exposure as a consequence. I prefer this to the US status quo, where single parents, would-be entrepreneurs, and nearly everyone in an economic downturn are one step away from destitution.

Quote:

And for the views of rich people, those come from personal experience, my father works on mansions, so I

...

- Who's paying for the welfare? And with what?

-Good question, I propose based on work (bypassing money) but the point is that a new and better designed system is needed and that can be achieved only by recognizing the source of the problems you are trying to fix.

-Capitalism, (unless the definition changed the last year) isn't about work being necessary to live/prosper, it's about who gets the money, it's the idea that those who work don't own the work, but neither does the government. Those who own the work get more out of the work because they own it instead of those who are actually working.

In the old days this wasn't so bad, it meant anyone could do whatever to try to make money, but with limitations on communications and travel making a company had limited scope thus left plenty of room for others to find a market and start their own. In modern times no such restrictions exist, thus companies are more capable of cornering a market and keeping it difficult for new businesses to break in. These restrictions don't exist anymore because of technology.

-You are reading way too much into this one. Someone who is not responsible and doesn't work (and doesn't want to) is not, never has been, and never will be worthwhile to the community. You implied that everyone should be that person. Responsibility is one of those things that makes us who we are. Being a parent is being responsible, should parents not be? Should they just let children wander around and starve? The right way will be applicable to everyone, not just some people, sometimes.

As for not being one step away from destitute, is not capitalism and never will be. This is communism, of one form or another.

[A Man In Black]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

- Who's paying for the welfare? And with what?

Taxes, or, during economic downturns, government deficit spending. The same way all government programs are paid for. I'm a social democrat, you'll have to ask Anklebiter for the socialist answer to this question.

Quote:

-Good question, I propose based on work (bypassing money) but the point is that a new and better designed system is needed and that can be achieved only by recognizing the source of the problems you are trying to fix.

Right. But no significant problems are caused by lazy moochers. There's no evidence, even, that people would just give up and mooch, given the opportunity to do so without dying. (There's limited evidence that they wouldn't.)

Quote:

-Capitalism, (unless the definition changed the last year) isn't about work being necessary to live/prosper, it's about who gets the money, it's the idea that those who work don't own the work, but neither does the government. Those who own the work get more out of the work because they own it instead of those who are actually working.

The government has as much claim to it as the capital-owners do, because without the government offering stability and an infrastructure, no work would get done anyway. Not only that, but the government arguably has a better claim, because (assuming it's a democracy) they serve everyone, while the capital-owners only serve themselves.

This is why socialists want to hang the capital-owning class from the lampposts, in case you were wondering.

Quote:

In the old days this wasn't so bad, it meant anyone could do whatever to try to make money, but with limitations on communications and travel making a company had limited scope thus left plenty of room for others to find a market and start their own. In modern times no such restrictions exist, thus companies are more capable of cornering a market and keeping it difficult for new businesses to break in. These restrictions don't exist anymore because of technology.

Which old days? Be specific.

Quote:

As for not being one step away from destitute, is not capitalism and never will be. This is communism, of one form or another.

Have you been paying attention to the US for the last five or so years? I'm not going to engage nonsensical definitions of what is or isn't communism, but most people's financial situation in the US right now is pretty precarious.

Quote:

-You are reading way too much into this one. Someone who is not responsible and doesn't work (and doesn't want to) is not, never has been, and never will be worthwhile to the community. You implied that everyone should be that person. Responsibility is one of those things that makes us who we are.

Effortpost time.

Someone who doesn't work and doesn't want to is either occupied with obligations other than work (parent), mentally ill, or alienated from society. The first is just an alternate job, and parents who can't support themselves and raise their children should be supported so it isn't a choice. If "poors pumping out kids" is a problem, as Andrew R often asserts, then the solution to that is more-effective education and family planning, not punishing the parents and thus their children. If you do that, you're only aggravating mental illness and alienation.

The mentally ill, diagnosed or otherwise, are also punished counterproductively under your scheme. Wanting to feel needed and feel like you're improving your station in life is core to human nature; lacking this drive is a large part of many mental illnesses, particularly depression. Drug addiction works basically the same way. Mental illness and addiction are treatable, but inflicting additional misery on people who apparently lack the drive to accomplish anything only reinforces their withdrawal.

Alienation is similar to mental illness, except that instead of lacking the desire to improve their life, alienated people feel like there's nothing they can do within society to do so. Since participating in society and trying to get a job seems (or is!) pointless, they withdraw (often leading to mental illness or addiction), lash out, and/or attempt to make alternate societies (e.g. urban gangs). As with mental illness, inflicting further misery on alienated people will only make them further reject society. You cannot starve or beat people into rejoining society, only offer them a place in society and address the cause of their alienation.

These three groups have a lot of overlap, and punishing one group will swell the ranks of all three. It's important to remember, however, that none of them are inherently lazy or lack responsibility. Whether they are trapped by an obligation that conflicts with employment, incapable of seeking employment without help, or convinced that seeking employment in society is pointless, you can make all of them more productive by helping them rather than threatening them.

Libertarianism is both inefficient in getting them involved with society and immoral because it perpetuates cycles of misery. Similarly, the prosperity theology and Horatio Alger idea that, because someone who was completely lazy would be poor, poor people are all lazy and don't deserve help, punishes people who would participate in society if given the help they need to do so. If your goal is to improve everyone's life by getting everyone to participate productively in society, threatening the livelihood of the people who aren't participating isn't going to get the job done. In fact, it's only going to make the underlying problems worse.

[DarkLightHitomi]

-If everyone is on welfare who is paying the taxes? The correct course of action is the one that benefits everyone when everyone takes the same action (not saying they will, but this is the ruler to see what the right course of action is).

-AKA be lazy and get nothing. Work and get what you need. Besides I know of people who mooch, some because it's easier, some because they just can't do otherwise at the moment.

-Where do you get this idea? Tribes in Africa have basically no government and they get the work done just fine. And why should anyone other then me, own my work? I am the one that worked it, the one that took the time to make it happen. So why should someone else get to roll in the money made from my work, while I get almost nothing? The government has a purpose, it should follow that purpose and nothing else, which is to say that the government should, define crime and deal with criminals, have a military to protect the people as whole from nature and other groups of people, insure that people are free to live with minimum interference, resolve disputes among the people, and to maintain Liberty for us and our children. Every law is a bite into our freedom, and often bites into one of those others.

-Old days, as in early or pre-industrial, when travel and communications were limited.

-I was saying that "not one step away from destitute" as a whole is not capitalism. To have some system in play to prevent destitution is a form of communism. Truthfully I think people should have to earn their way and never be given a free pass at any point, the problem comes in when people who are trying to earn their way become destitute anyway because of the actions of others.

-As I said you are reading WAY too much into this. Parents are working, whether it's at a job or at home, mental illness can often still work and because of their illness are not automatically slated as freeloaders. Alienation, not everyone likes the society they were born into, let them go make their own society somewhere else (I'd help them get there) or help them get back into society only IF they want to.

There is a difference between those who can't participate and those who won't. The latter deserves to be left behind, the former deserves help.

[A Man In Black]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

-AKA be lazy and get nothing. Work and get what you need. Besides I know of people who mooch, some because it's easier, some because they just can't do otherwise at the moment.

Quote:

-I was saying that "not one step away from destitute" as a whole is not capitalism. To have some system in play to prevent destitution is a form of communism. Truthfully I think people should have to earn their way and never be given a free pass at any point, the problem comes in when people who are trying to earn their way become destitute anyway because of the actions of others.

Any system that seeks to threaten the former with punishment (those lazy poors) to get them to work is necessarily going to punish the latter (the worthy destitute). Remember my post above about single parents, the mentally ill, and the alienated?

Quote:

-Where do you get this idea? Tribes in Africa have basically no government and they get the work done just fine.

Quote:

-Old days, as in early or pre-industrial, when travel and communications were limited.

An industrialized, urbanized, capitalist society needs to be structured differently than a society that isn't any of those things.

Quote:

And why should anyone other then me, own my work? I am the one that worked it, the one that took the time to make it happen. So why should someone else get to roll in the money made from my work, while I get almost nothing?

That's capitalism.

Quote:

The government has a purpose, it should follow that purpose and nothing else, which is to say that the government should, define crime and deal with criminals, have a military to protect the people as whole from nature and other groups of people, insure that people are free to live with minimum interference, resolve disputes among the people, and to maintain Liberty for us and our children.

If the government doesn't address the essential imbalances of capitalism, then, unless you own capital, you only have the liberty to work yourself to death and starve when you can't work any more.

Quote:

Every law is a bite into our freedom, and often bites into one of those others.

Libertarian claptrap. Next you're going to tell me that taxation is slavery.

Quote:

Parents are working, whether it's at a job or at home, mental illness can often still work and because of their illness are not automatically slated as freeloaders. Alienation, not everyone likes the society they were born into, let them go make their own society somewhere else (I'd help them get there) or help them get back into society only IF they want to.

Single parents are working to the detriment of their children because the alternative is to starve. The mentally ill are not always diagnosed, and untreated mental illness is a serious obstacle to accomplishing anything but can't easily be distinguished from mere laziness. Alienated people don't (usually) make the choice to reject the society they live in; they're born poor, born black, are laid off in a depressed area, etc. To suggest that they move away is not only monstrous, but also impossible.

I am "reading too much into this" because plans that consist of "cut people off and let them sink or swim" will sink a lot of people who could swim if you didn't cut them off.

[Kirth Gersen]

A Man In Black wrote:

plans that consist of "cut people off and let them sink or swim" will sink a lot of people who could swim if you didn't cut them off

I think that's the idea. You can't argue with sociopaths by appealing to their empathy -- the distinguishing characteristic is a fundamental lack.

[A Man In Black]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I think that's the idea. You can't argue with sociopaths by appealing to their empathy -- the distinguishing characteristic is a fundamental lack.

In the worst case, you can illustrate their lack of empathy. Most people aren't sociopaths, though, just unaware of the consequences of their arguments.

[Krensky]

A Man In Black wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I think that's the idea. You can't argue with sociopaths by appealing to their empathy -- the distinguishing characteristic is a fundamental lack.

In the worst case, you can illustrate their lack of empathy. Most people aren't sociopaths, though, just unaware of the consequences of their arguments.

Remember that something like 1.2% of the population of the US are clinical psychopaths. Certainly not the majority, but a frighteningly large number.

[A Man In Black]

Krensky wrote:

Remember that something like 1.2% of the population of the US are clinical psychopaths. Certainly not the majority, but a frighteningly large number.

I'll just assume I'm speaking to one of the other 98.8%, then.

[DarkLightHitomi]

I do not lack empathy, I just don't believe people deserve to live just because they were born. Though I also think some people here believe I am including more people in the "no work, no responsibility" group then I actually intend.

When I say people who don't work and don't take responsibility, I mean it as the people who choose to sit on the coach watching tv and eating cheetos without ever doing anything in return for the coach, tv, and the cheetos.

I support equal opportunity living, everyone deserves the opportunity to live and succeed, which does not equate to deserving to live just because you have blood rolling around in your veins.

I want to change the system because it's not currently equal opportunity, at least not on the succeed part.

[DarkLightHitomi]

- Never said punish the lazy, rewarding the not lazy is completely different, though it will sometimes result in similar results, it doesn't always do so.

- quote
-Old days, as in early or pre-industrial, when travel and communications were limited.

An industrialized, urbanized, capitalist society needs to be structured differently than a society that isn't any of those things.
unquote

Perhaps but that doesn't mean a large powerful government is needed either.

- Quote:

And why should anyone other then me, own my work? I am the one that worked it, the one that took the time to make it happen. So why should someone else get to roll in the money made from my work, while I get almost nothing?

That's capitalism.
unquote

Exactly why I want to get away from it.

- quote
If the government doesn't address the essential imbalances of capitalism, then, unless you own capital, you only have the liberty to work yourself to death and starve when you can't work any more.
unquote

Or make a new economic system that doesn't have the weaknesses of current economic systems.

- quote
Libertarian claptrap. Next you're going to tell me that taxation is slavery.
unquote
Actually no, they are paid by people who work and go towards those same people (supposed to anyways)

[Samnell]

A Man In Black wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Remember that something like 1.2% of the population of the US are clinical psychopaths. Certainly not the majority, but a frighteningly large number.

I'll just assume I'm speaking to one of the other 98.8%, then.

The picture is a bit worse, actually. Something like a third of the population cannot be reasoned with, period. And they're more inclined to aggression than the rest of us. They're certainly not all psychopaths, but they're damned scary all the same.

[A Man In Black]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I do not lack empathy, I just don't believe people deserve to live just because they were born.

Wow, that's awful.

Quote:

Though I also think some people here believe I am including more people in the "no work, no responsibility" group then I actually intend.

Any attempt to define "no work, no responsibility" is going to include people you don't actually intend. That is the whole problem. On top of that, you're punishing those people without ever proving that "people who choose to sit on the coach watching tv and eating cheetos" are common or at all a problem.

Quote:

Perhaps but that doesn't mean a large powerful government is needed either.

So, can you name an industrialized nation that has a weak central government that isn't a hellhole?

Quote:

Or make a new economic system that doesn't have the weaknesses of current economic systems.

That pretty much means some form of communism, unless you're seriously proposing feudalism or something.

[DarkLightHitomi]

Tell me something I haven't thought about before and you'll find me quite reasonable. Just don't expect me to ignore logic.

What goes up must come down, is what everyone thinks of as logical but that is so very simple and inaccurate. Think of logic like a chess game most people can think only a few moves ahead, those who train can think much farther ahead, so learn to see farther down the road. Can't tell you how many soldiers hate me because they ignored my warnings based on their short-sighted logic.

-quote
Single parents are working to the detriment of their children because the alternative is to starve. The mentally ill are not always diagnosed, and untreated mental illness is a serious obstacle to accomplishing anything but can't easily be distinguished from mere laziness. Alienated people don't (usually) make the choice to reject the society they live in; they're born poor, born black, are laid off in a depressed area, etc. To suggest that they move away is not only monstrous, but also impossible.

I am "reading too much into this" because plans that consist of "cut people off and let them sink or swim" will sink a lot of people who could swim if you didn't cut them off.
unquote

The point is to make it easy for people to swim without just dropping them on land. Making money unneeded to survive would go along way for this, because they don't have to worry about survival. Even parents can do something useful, such as taking turns watching the kids while others go to work, or they can do non-urgent paperwork or white collar work (cause pausing constantly wouldn't matter with that kind of work) simply showing an attempt at working is fine even being an artist is work.

I personally suggest grouping people into clans of small size, then each clan has things that need done (like run the power plant)and this work is spread around accounting for who is good at what, training, desires where able, etc. Instead of people fighting to get work to live instead you just go to work to get done what is needed when your turn rolls around and spend the rest of the time as you see fit. The clan would produce something (like power or food)that gets sold to other clans and when the money comes back it pays the bills for the clan as a whole and whats left gets divided amongst the clan members, the leader of such being voted in from within the clan. AKA you vote for someone you know and have actually met, as opposed to relying on easily manipulated information, about guys who have no personal stake in your livelihood.