I Hate Welfare!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]orion wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:

I see where you are coming from.

I still want to know what system you think is going to be the solution or successor to these many soon to end welfare state type democracies.

I would say a revolution of the collectivist type, i.e Chavez or Pinochet, after that another liberal revolution, writing a constitution that ensures that a federal government knows its boundaries and that income taxes are practically illegal and then it will all fall apart again of course.

[/quote]

Interesting. A nonstop dance between individual and collective rights.
Makes sense to me.

To a certain extent that is what our two party system somewhat does now in the U.S…

Unfortunately our government seems to be growing too large and too fast despite this. The differences between the two parties has become a bit too gray.

122

[quote]vroom wrote:

Anyway, I think some peopleworry too much about how other people live their lives. If people want to fuck like rabbits from the time they turn of legal age until they die, it is not my business.

[/quote]

Ah, but that’s just it, it is my business. When I pay through taxation and redistribution, for bad behavior, it becomes my business. That’s the whole problem with redistribution programs.

And, all the behavior and lifestyles you’ve listed are carried out through choice, right? Well, as I’ve said, I’m not advocating governmentally enforced morality.

I’m advocating free people, choosing to practice a more conservative set of morals. Not even talking about religious beliefs here. “If if I can’t pay for the consequences on my own, I should refrain from such behavior.”

I’m also not opposed to free people, choosing to voice their disgust for behaviors detrimental to society. Because, there is no force involved.

123

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:

Interesting. A nonstop dance between individual and collective rights.
Makes sense to me.

[/quote]

A collective has no rights. Only individual humans can have rights.

You have a very negative view of humanity. Do you honestly believe that we would not voluntarily donate a small portion of what we earn to help the aged and children? No? You collectivist all want humanity in one big herd, all to be milked for what YOU consider important.

The history of humanity in the 20th century was one of trying to place some mystical collective — the Aryan race, the Proletariat — above the individual. When will you collectivists give up these Satanic notions? When we’re all dead I guess.

124

[quote]Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:

Anyway, I think some peopleworry too much about how other people live their lives. If people want to fuck like rabbits from the time they turn of legal age until they die, it is not my business.

Ah, but that’s just it, it is my business. When I pay through taxation and redistribution, for bad behavior, it becomes my business. That’s the whole problem with redistribution programs.

And, all the behavior and lifestyles you’ve listed are carried out through choice, right? Well, as I’ve said, I’m not advocating governmentally enforced morality.

I’m advocating free people, choosing to practice a more conservative set of morals. Not even talking about religious beliefs here. “If if I can’t pay for the consequences on my own, I should refrain from such behavior.”

I’m also not opposed to free people, choosing to voice their disgust for behaviors detrimental to society. Because, there is no force involved.[/quote]

I agree with sloth. If someone can’t be held accountable for their own actions, and another person has to pay, then that someone should lose the ability to choose their own actions to some extent. That is the only way you will ever get people to “Wake up”.

A lack of accountability has a lot to do with our situation. Some people would have it so that a girl could get an abortion, and the parents would never know. The tax payers would have to pay for that as well, since the girl can’t.

If YOU can’t teach YOUR kid not to have sex, then YOU should PAY for the abortion or the kid. Either way the parent is ultimately responsible for every action their children take, forever. This is because a parent is responsible for teaching that child VALUES and PRINCIPLES on which that child can lead a productive life.

My point is that if everyone is able to do what they want and say fuck the consequences, then that is all people will be taught to do.

** Edit **
I hit the Submit button instead of preview =(

I think me and sloth differ in that sloth would like for people to just “wake up” on their own. I don’t think that is possible.

The Abortion thing was just an example, and not the only one, however it illustrates the point.

I do believe that America is moving towards a point a where the definition of “Free” is that you can do what you want, and someone else will pay for it. Instead of “Free” meaning you can do what you want, but expect to pay the consequences.

125

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
orion wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:

I see where you are coming from.

I still want to know what system you think is going to be the solution or successor to these many soon to end welfare state type democracies.

I would say a revolution of the collectivist type, i.e Chavez or Pinochet, after that another liberal revolution, writing a constitution that ensures that a federal government knows its boundaries and that income taxes are practically illegal and then it will all fall apart again of course.

Interesting. A nonstop dance between individual and collective rights.
Makes sense to me.
[/quote]

No, a nonstop dance between tyranny and freedom, as HH pointed out collectives have no rights, they do not really exist.

126

[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Alright, so basically your point is that people who accomplish a lot are great and all…but they wouldn’t have done it without being raised, having food readily available by other people, learning from teachers…yadda yadda yadda.

OK, point taken…but who cares?
[/quote]
I guess I care because I think we give individuality too much credit when everyone knows teamwork is how the majority of most accomplishments happen. Even when “learning” to benchpress 400 lbs we need someone standing behind us to “encourage” us and make sure we don’t kill ourselves.

Besides this who can say where intelligence comes from? Is giving someone credit for their intelligence any different that giving someone credit for their “beauty”?

127

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Alright, so basically your point is that people who accomplish a lot are great and all…but they wouldn’t have done it without being raised, having food readily available by other people, learning from teachers…yadda yadda yadda.

OK, point taken…but who cares?

I guess I care because I think we give individuality too much credit when everyone knows teamwork is how the majority of most accomplishments happen. Even when “learning” to benchpress 400 lbs we need someone standing behind us to “encourage” us and make sure we don’t kill ourselves.
[/quote]

As long as individuals consist of teams, where is the inconsistency?

Besides, no team leads itself. There is allways that one individual you cannot replace.

[quote]
Besides this who can say where intelligence comes from? Is giving someone credit for their intelligence any different that giving someone credit for their “beauty”?[/quote]

No it isn`t.

That is why I wonder why people concentrate so much on economic equality even if people differ in so many ways.

Why not let them shine, each in their own way instead of trying to forcefully level those “unfair” inequalities?

128

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, but that’s just it, it is my business. When I pay through taxation and redistribution, for bad behavior, it becomes my business. That’s the whole problem with redistribution programs.
[/quote]

There is certainly room for debate here. Is it really your business what people are doing in their bedroom?

I suspect your expenses, or tax burden, is your business, but though there may be some relation to bedroom activities, that doesn’t mean it really is your business.

Work on reducing waste, fraud and entitlement aspects of payment programs and keep your nose out of other peoples affairs.

129

[quote]vroom wrote:
Work on reducing waste, fraud and entitlement aspects of payment programs and keep your nose out of other peoples affairs.[/quote]

It should be quid pro quo. Want to live off of the public’s dime? Fine. But we get to tell you how you must live.

If there is an obligation on the part of individuals to provide support for other individuals, then that obligation is reciprocal; I provide for you because either a) you really are so infirm that you can be of no use to society, or b) because you are on the path to usefulness.

If you are on the path to usefulness, then you must either know how to become useful, or you are in need of instruction. If you know how to become useful, you will become so soon. If you do not, you do not know.

If you do not know, we must teach you how; you must give yourself over to instruction, as we nourish and clothe you during this time. If you refuse this instruction, then we should treat you as necrotic tissue that must be excised to preserve the organs that surround it.

130

[quote]orion wrote:
As long as individuals consist of teams, where is the inconsistency?

Besides, no team leads itself. There is allways that one individual you cannot replace.
[/quote]
Everyone is replaceable…statistics dictate it. It may be hard to replace someone but if we keep looking we are bound to find someone. Naturally, there will always be one person more predisposed than another to accomplish a certain task but how is that an individual trait? Is variability all that is required to make an individual?

What is individuality? What makes one an individual?

[quote]
Besides this who can say where intelligence comes from? Is giving someone credit for their intelligence any different that giving someone credit for their “beauty”?

No it isn`t.

That is why I wonder why people concentrate so much on economic equality even if people differ in so many ways.

Why not let them shine, each in their own way instead of trying to forcefully level those “unfair” inequalities?[/quote]

We are biased toward individuality because survival is dictated by recognition. We notice difference more than we notice similarity. Similarity is so ingrained into us instinctively because it is how we become familiar with our surroundings–it is subconscious. Differences, for survival purposes, are not; they always throw red flags to our perception. We are more apt to notice when something is “not right” than when it is.

Everyone is different; it doesn’t make one an individual. If we separate the distinguishing characteristics that make us unique by understanding them as symbiotically constrained events we must come to the conclusion that individuality doesn’t exist.

Everything that makes me someone came from somewhere or someone else. I am a product of my parents and my environment.

131

[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ah, but that’s just it, it is my business. When I pay through taxation and redistribution, for bad behavior, it becomes my business. That’s the whole problem with redistribution programs.

There is certainly room for debate here. Is it really your business what people are doing in their bedroom?

I suspect your expenses, or tax burden, is your business, but though there may be some relation to bedroom activities, that doesn’t mean it really is your business.

Work on reducing waste, fraud and entitlement aspects of payment programs and keep your nose out of other peoples affairs.[/quote]

I am afraid you can`t have it both ways.

You are advocating taking care of children ESPECIALLY if they are born into a dysfunctional family AND that we leave those people alone to make one bad decision after another.

That is not how socialism works.

One well-meant coercive intervention has unwanted side-effects, which leads to the next well-meant coercive intervention…

…until we have no air left to breath.

Besides i.e. people get a say in my life, i.e. how I spent my money, why don`t I get a say in theirs?

132

[quote]nephorm wrote:
It should be quid pro quo. Want to live off of the public’s dime? Fine. But we get to tell you how you must live.

If there is an obligation on the part of individuals to provide support for other individuals, then that obligation is reciprocal; I provide for you because either a) you really are so infirm that you can be of no use to society, or b) because you are on the path to usefulness.

If you are on the path to usefulness, then you must either know how to become useful, or you are in need of instruction. If you know how to become useful, you will become so soon. If you do not, you do not know.

If you do not know, we must teach you how; you must give yourself over to instruction, as we nourish and clothe you during this time. If you refuse this instruction, then we should treat you as necrotic tissue that must be excised to preserve the organs that surround it.[/quote]

Neph,

I actually feel the same way. If someone wants money, they should be able to go through hoops, to work towards becoming a valuable member of society, and so forth.

However, that does not mean that I am interested in their lawful behavior in their own free time.

Where is all this authoritarianism coming from? It’s scary! Part of the value of various people in society is their differences, in capabilities, in viewpoints.

It’s not all about creating a clone of like minded individuals who all follow one unified code of conduct. I think there are some fundamentalist islamic individuals who have one of those if you’d prefer that lifestyle…

133

[quote]vroom wrote:

Where is all this authoritarianism coming from? It’s scary! [/quote]

The problem is your worldview, like Lixy you want a little bit of socialism just without the guns.

Unfortunately, collectivism is by it`s very nature authoritarian.

I think Nephorm would be happy to leave them alone if they just left him alone, meaning, kept out of his pockets.

134

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
As long as individuals consist of teams, where is the inconsistency?

Besides, no team leads itself. There is allways that one individual you cannot replace.

Everyone is replaceable…statistics dictate it. It may be hard to replace someone but if we keep looking we are bound to find someone. Naturally, there will always be one person more predisposed than another to accomplish a certain task but how is that an individual trait? Is variability all that is required to make an individual?

What is individuality? What makes one an individual?

[/quote]

Be that as it may, why does it feel like I work my ass off for my money whereas “we” tend to decide how it is spent?

135

[quote]orion wrote:
Unfortunately, collectivism is by it`s very nature authoritarian.[/quote]

Well, this is where my problems start to stem, as I have libertarian leanings and want the government out of my life as much as possible.

Personally, I’d like to see government programs run much differently, but there are ways to do that without getting into behavior controls with respect to lawful actions.

One way is to convert welfare to workfare. I don’t care if it is meaningless physical make-work, but it should be hard enough work that people would prefer to find a real job and contribute to the economy instead.

Of course, this would force the children into schools and daycare, where they would hopefully be getting professional care, appropriate socialization and education.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that the shortcut of trying to make others like us is a deceptive and alluring crutch that must be avoided. There are other ways to tackle social problems, than to assume everyone should be “more like me”.

136

[quote]vroom wrote:

Anyway, just wanted to point out that the shortcut of trying to make others like us is a deceptive and alluring crutch that must be avoided. There are other ways to tackle social problems, than to assume everyone should be “more like me”.[/quote]

This is not true.

If you want them to get off their asses and work, you allready want them to be more like you.

The only reason this is justified though is, because they get your money just for breathing.

So the first well-meant coercive intevention leads to the next and to the next and before you know it you are wearing a seat-belt and tobacco companies get sued because of the coercive nature of social security systems.

You just cannot stop somewhere, once the corrupt principle is established it grows.

137

[quote]orion wrote:
Be that as it may, why does it feel like I work my ass off for my money whereas “we” tend to decide how it is spent?[/quote]

I tend to agree, and hate taxation, but I do somewhat feel that I have bought into the fact that I live in a society and that there are some things that all of us have to give up in order to do so.

In a way, it pisses me off, because it isn’t really a choice… as these days we are simply born into it without much in the way of alternative choices.

138

[quote]orion wrote:
Be that as it may, why does it feel like I work my ass off for my money whereas “we” tend to decide how it is spent?
[/quote]
True, but if it weren’t money being decided by a “we” it would be some other trade commodity–it’s always been that way.

Do you believe you have a right to all money that you “earned”? I consider taxes a “fee” for the privilege of living in society and having many services taken care of, including the printing of money that I get to spend.

Banks make their money the same way by tacking fees onto services–interest, ATM fees, etc.

Trade always incurs some expense other than the value of the goods being traded. You cannot be paid unless the government prints money.

139

[quote]orion wrote:
This is not true.

If you want them to get off their asses and work, you allready want them to be more like you.[/quote]

Not necessarily. I want them to contribute financially to society – which doesn’t really mean they have to do so in the same manner I do.

It’s a different nature of intrusion into their lives than ones concerning lawful personal actions.

[quote]The only reason this is justified though is, because they get your money just for breathing.

So the first well-meant coercive intevention leads to the next and to the next and before you know it you are wearing a seat-belt and tobacco companies get sued because of the coercive nature of social security systems.

You just cannot stop somewhere, once the corrupt principle is established it grows.[/quote]

I disagree with the idea that forcing someone to work for their money is a well meaning coercive measure of the same type as your other examples.

While there are certainly consequences related to performing work that a person must accommodate, it is different than getting into their life and telling them “how” to do things when they are already contributing to society.

Part of the underlying issue, and I touched on it in a recent previous post, is that there are (arguably) some duties that are incurred by living in a society.

In the modern age “contributing” generally means making a financial contribution, or paying tax, in order to help keep the institutions of that society operating.

140

[quote]vroom wrote:
In a way, it pisses me off, because it isn’t really a choice… as these days we are simply born into it without much in the way of alternative choices.[/quote]

Being born isn’t a choice either but very few complain to their mothers about it.

Free-will gives people a sense of entitlement that doesn’t exist. Even if you make all the right choices in life you are not guaranteed success. In nature, fairness does not exist yet humans hold onto this concept with every ounce of their being.

Maybe I’m the only one…