Paid Sick Days

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Does anyone notice how whenever I bring up a point such as that some given thing is good if an employer or other person voluntarily agrees to do it or offers to do it, but forcing people to do what they would not voluntarily do and is contrary to voluntary agreement they already have with people is not good, the liberals never come back with agreement against forcing people?

Modern liberalism: the new authoritarianism.

That is standard.

I tried to nail people down on that, they wince and sqirm but they never admit that what they advocate is violence.

Professor Bloch has an interesting starter question:

So what kind of socialist are you, a voluntary or a coercive one?

After all, they can go and build a Kibbutz whenever they want, but they are not content to do that, they need to force us.

Fuckers. [/quote]

…the dutch built their welfare state because they wanted one. As a result we pay tax, and a lot of my tax goes to people who do nothing to deserve that money. This is unfortunate, and as a society we should strive to releave the system of those leeches as much as possible…

…but i don’t mind paying tax. I don’t mind paying tax that’s distributed to someone else who’s sick, unemployed or an artist who can’t make a living otherwise. If you don’t want to live, work or build your business in a system that’s the idealistic opposite of what you think is right, go some place else…

…and many do. And many stay. If you want to change a system, and that change goes against the wishes of the majority, aren’t you doing what you accuse that society of? The reverse is also true ofcourse: if the USA is changed into a society that’s different from what it is now, and that change goes against the will of the majority, that majority has every right to rebel…

42

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Does anyone notice how whenever I bring up a point such as that some given thing is good if an employer or other person voluntarily agrees to do it or offers to do it, but forcing people to do what they would not voluntarily do and is contrary to voluntary agreement they already have with people is not good, the liberals never come back with agreement against forcing people?

Modern liberalism: the new authoritarianism.

That is standard.

I tried to nail people down on that, they wince and sqirm but they never admit that what they advocate is violence.

Professor Bloch has an interesting starter question:

So what kind of socialist are you, a voluntary or a coercive one?

After all, they can go and build a Kibbutz whenever they want, but they are not content to do that, they need to force us.

Fuckers.

…the dutch built their welfare state because they wanted one. As a result we pay tax, and a lot of my tax goes to people who do nothing to deserve that money. This is unfortunate, and as a society we should strive to releave the system of those leeches as much as possible…

…but i don’t mind paying tax. I don’t mind paying tax that’s distributed to someone else who’s sick, unemployed or an artist who can’t make a living otherwise. If you don’t want to live, work or build your business in a system that’s the idealistic opposite of what you think is right, go some place else…

…and many do. And many stay. If you want to change a system, and that change goes against the wishes of the majority, aren’t you doing what you accuse that society of? The reverse is also true ofcourse: if the USA is changed into a society that’s different from what it is now, and that change goes against the will of the majority, that majority has every right to rebel…

[/quote]

You throw quite a lot of things together here:

The first one is that “the Dutch” wanted it. “The Dutch” did no such thing because “the Dutch” do not exist. Some wanted it, others did not. The ones that wanted it forced the others to join or leave.

Then if “the Dutch” had wanted it no law would have been necessary because they were perfectly free to organize private hospitals or charity institutions. Precisely because they needed laws it was not about them giving but about forcing others to do so => coercive socialism.

Then I do not want to force anyone to do anything. Well except to cough up the 3% VAT to pay for judges police and a military. If they wish to organize in private “friendly societies” as was the norm before state welfare they can do so. Hey, I might join myself.

Now you could say that I would stop them from robbing other people, with violence if necessary and I guess that is true.

Finally, the myth of democratic legitimation. If the people are the sovereign and the states power is derived from them, who come that the very same people who cannot steal from me can authorize the state to do it for them?

How can they transfer more power then they initially had?

43

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…the dutch built their welfare state because they wanted one. As a result we pay tax, and a lot of my tax goes to people who do nothing to deserve that money. This is unfortunate, and as a society we should strive to releave the system of those leeches as much as possible…

…but i don’t mind paying tax. I don’t mind paying tax that’s distributed to someone else who’s sick, unemployed or an artist who can’t make a living otherwise. If you don’t want to live, work or build your business in a system that’s the idealistic opposite of what you think is right, go some place else…

…and many do. And many stay. If you want to change a system, and that change goes against the wishes of the majority, aren’t you doing what you accuse that society of? The reverse is also true ofcourse: if the USA is changed into a society that’s different from what it is now, and that change goes against the will of the majority, that majority has every right to rebel…

You throw quite a lot of things together here:

The first one is that “the Dutch” wanted it. “The Dutch” did no such thing because “the Dutch” do not exist. Some wanted it, others did not. The ones that wanted it forced the others to join or leave.[/quote]

…that’s democracy for ya…

…we’re talking about postwar Holland in the '50s. People back then still remembered the poverty of the 20s and 30s, and they wanted none of that back. So they worked hard to build a society that would take care of a lot of things, things the people needed and still need. Not fucking handouts from some charity, but what they payed for themselves through taxes…

[quote]Finally, the myth of democratic legitimation. If the people are the sovereign and the states power is derived from them, who come that the very same people who cannot steal from me can authorize the state to do it for them?

How can they transfer more power then they initially had?[/quote]

…i agree with that sentiment. It’s a trend that needs to be kept in check and resisted…

44

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:

..the dutch built their welfare state because they wanted one. As a result we pay tax, and a lot of my tax goes to people who do nothing to deserve that money. This is unfortunate, and as a society we should strive to releave the system of those leeches as much as possible…

..but i don’t mind paying tax. I don’t mind paying tax that’s distributed to someone else who’s sick, unemployed or an artist who can’t make a living otherwise. If you don’t want to live, work or build your business in a system that’s the idealistic opposite of what you think is right, go some place else…

..and many do. And many stay. If you want to change a system, and that change goes against the wishes of the majority, aren’t you doing what you accuse that society of? The reverse is also true ofcourse: if the USA is changed into a society that’s different from what it is now, and that change goes against the will of the majority, that majority has every right to rebel…

You throw quite a lot of things together here:

The first one is that “the Dutch” wanted it. “The Dutch” did no such thing because “the Dutch” do not exist. Some wanted it, others did not. The ones that wanted it forced the others to join or leave.

..that’s democracy for ya…

Then if “the Dutch” had wanted it no law would have been necessary because they were perfectly free to organize private hospitals or charity institutions. Precisely because they needed laws it was not about them giving but about forcing others to do so => coercive socialism.

..we’re talking about postwar Holland in the '50s. People back then still remembered the poverty of the 20s and 30s, and they wanted none of that back. So they worked hard to build a society that would take care of a lot of things, things the people needed and still need. Not fucking handouts from some charity, but what they payed for themselves through taxes…

Finally, the myth of democratic legitimation. If the people are the sovereign and the states power is derived from them, who come that the very same people who cannot steal from me can authorize the state to do it for them?

How can they transfer more power then they initially had?

..i agree with that sentiment. It’s a trend that needs to be kept in check and resisted…

[/quote]

Well yes that is democracy for me.

That is why I am not a big fan oif democracies.

I am also pretty sure that Holland is not a democracy but a republic that slowly dterioted into a democvracy.

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”

– H.L. Mencken

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.”

– Alexander Tytler

“Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.”
– George Bernard Shaw

45

…we have a queen [Death to the monarchy, long live the Republic!] and a parlementary democracy. It’s sufficient for my needs…

46

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…the dutch built their welfare state because they wanted one. As a result we pay tax, and a lot of my tax goes to people who do nothing to deserve that money. This is unfortunate, and as a society we should strive to releave the system of those leeches as much as possible…

…but i don’t mind paying tax. I don’t mind paying tax that’s distributed to someone else who’s sick, unemployed or an artist who can’t make a living otherwise. If you don’t want to live, work or build your business in a system that’s the idealistic opposite of what you think is right, go some place else…

…and many do. And many stay. If you want to change a system, and that change goes against the wishes of the majority, aren’t you doing what you accuse that society of? The reverse is also true ofcourse: if the USA is changed into a society that’s different from what it is now, and that change goes against the will of the majority, that majority has every right to rebel…

[/quote]
It’s good that you are more or less content with the system you have, but why would you want to give money to an artist? They can either sell their work, or find a part time job that will pay their bills while they paint, sculpt, or whatever.

47

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:I am also pretty sure that Holland is not a democracy but a republic that slowly dterioted into a democvracy.

…we have a queen [Death to the monarchy, long live the Republic!] and a parlementary democracy. It’s sufficient for my needs…[/quote]

Damn it.

I knew that.

Kind of.

You have the prince that does not totally look like a wimp.

48

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…the dutch built their welfare state because they wanted one. As a result we pay tax, and a lot of my tax goes to people who do nothing to deserve that money. This is unfortunate, and as a society we should strive to releave the system of those leeches as much as possible…

…but i don’t mind paying tax. I don’t mind paying tax that’s distributed to someone else who’s sick, unemployed or an artist who can’t make a living otherwise. If you don’t want to live, work or build your business in a system that’s the idealistic opposite of what you think is right, go some place else…

…and many do. And many stay. If you want to change a system, and that change goes against the wishes of the majority, aren’t you doing what you accuse that society of? The reverse is also true ofcourse: if the USA is changed into a society that’s different from what it is now, and that change goes against the will of the majority, that majority has every right to rebel…

It’s good that you are more or less content with the system you have, but why would you want to give money to an artist? They can either sell their work, or find a part time job that will pay their bills while they paint, sculpt, or whatever.[/quote]

…and many do, but it’s not enough to sustain yourself [generally]. The state offers a grant for recognized artists, meaning that one has to have credentials before you can apply for such a grant…

…the state offers subsidies to many artists, and i think that’s a good thing. It’s a subset of society that would, in such a small market as Holland is, not be viable…

49

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:I am also pretty sure that Holland is not a democracy but a republic that slowly dterioted into a democvracy.

…we have a queen [Death to the monarchy, long live the Republic!] and a parlementary democracy. It’s sufficient for my needs…

Damn it.

I knew that.

Kind of.

You have the prince that does not totally look like a wimp.[/quote]

…that’s because of his Argentinian wife. The royal family all appear to have the ‘special’ gene…

50

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…the dutch built their welfare state because they wanted one. As a result we pay tax, and a lot of my tax goes to people who do nothing to deserve that money. This is unfortunate, and as a society we should strive to releave the system of those leeches as much as possible…

…but i don’t mind paying tax. I don’t mind paying tax that’s distributed to someone else who’s sick, unemployed or an artist who can’t make a living otherwise. If you don’t want to live, work or build your business in a system that’s the idealistic opposite of what you think is right, go some place else…

…and many do. And many stay. If you want to change a system, and that change goes against the wishes of the majority, aren’t you doing what you accuse that society of? The reverse is also true ofcourse: if the USA is changed into a society that’s different from what it is now, and that change goes against the will of the majority, that majority has every right to rebel…

It’s good that you are more or less content with the system you have, but why would you want to give money to an artist? They can either sell their work, or find a part time job that will pay their bills while they paint, sculpt, or whatever.

…and many do, but it’s not enough to sustain yourself [generally]. The state offers a grant for recognized artists, meaning that one has to have credentials before you can apply for such a grant…

…the state offers subsidies to many artists, and i think that’s a good thing. It’s a subset of society that would, in such a small market as Holland is, not be viable…
[/quote]

Ah, the irony.

Yes Holland of all places needs a government to sponsor artists.

Thank God for your long history of socialism, we might have missed quite a few talented lads.

51

You’re going to love this:

52

[quote]orion wrote:

Ah, the irony.

Yes Holland of all places needs a government to sponsor artists.

Thank God for your long history of socialism, we might have missed quite a few talented lads.

[/quote]

…why the sarcasm?

53

[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
You’re going to love this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/sep/15/holiday-sickness[/quote]

…that’s already the case in Holland…

54

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:

Ah, the irony.

Yes Holland of all places needs a government to sponsor artists.

Thank God for your long history of socialism, we might have missed quite a few talented lads.

…why the sarcasm?[/quote]

It’s not sarcasm. Holland, having pioneered socialism back in the 1400’s, has brought us a remarkable number of great artists over the centuries. Obviously, because of socialism.

What a loss it would have been, were it not for socialism, as they would not have been able to create their art.

55

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:

Ah, the irony.

Yes Holland of all places needs a government to sponsor artists.

Thank God for your long history of socialism, we might have missed quite a few talented lads.

…why the sarcasm?

It’s not sarcasm. Holland, having pioneered socialism back in the 1400’s, has brought us a remarkable number of great artists over the centuries. Obviously, because of socialism.

What a loss it would have been, were it not for socialism, as they would not have been able to create their art.[/quote]

…well, okay then…

56

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:

Ah, the irony.

Yes Holland of all places needs a government to sponsor artists.

Thank God for your long history of socialism, we might have missed quite a few talented lads.

…why the sarcasm?

It’s not sarcasm. Holland, having pioneered socialism back in the 1400’s, has brought us a remarkable number of great artists over the centuries. Obviously, because of socialism.

What a loss it would have been, were it not for socialism, as they would not have been able to create their art.[/quote]

And what fine art it was!

The farmers!

And the workers!

And the, um, farmers!

57

…i honestly don’t get your replies. Do you value art solely on it’s commercial succes?

58

[quote]orion wrote:
And what fine art it was!

The farmers!

And the workers!

And the, um, farmers!
[/quote]

?

59

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i honestly don’t get your replies. Do you value art solely on it’s commercial succes?[/quote]

A funny thing about a system where force (including government force) or fraud are not available means for getting money, is that those that get money, provide things in return that other people value. They value the things enough to voluntarily choose to pay for them.

That’s why the creators, makers, or service providers get the money.

Someone that produces art that other people actually value can get money in the process.

Then there those that turn out “art” that other people just don’t want to pay for. Because they don’t feel like the “art” is worth it to them.

Why should force be used to make them pay for it.

If their “art” is something that no one values enough to want to pay for, why can this person not earn their living producing things or providing services that people actually do want, and do art as a hobby?

60

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i honestly don’t get your replies. Do you value art solely on it’s commercial succes?[/quote]

Well first it was sarcasm because the Dutch of all people never had any problems financing talented artists and they were ultra-capitalists.

To say that these days they can only survive by shitty government grants is so sad really.

Then, after having read Bills post I had a vision of centuries of state sponsored Dutch art, and you surely must have seen fascist and socialist art?

There are workers and farmers and the occasional soldier and they all look to the horizon while building a better tomorrow.

Which is ok for 2-300 paintings I guess, but there are really only so many proletarian heroes you can stomach.