|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
posted May 26, 2010 04:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ah, I see, so there's no poor person who's capable of learning to fish? All poor people have no arms? Please - we're talking general solutions.
I was being extreme. We could start by pointing out that a lot of people start off with a fishing rod (money) and can learn how to fish. Though most people get basic education for free, higher education costs more, so knowledge is not available for every one. People generally don't hire people with only primary education. So if you can't afford anything higher you have a small chance of getting a job and it's hardly your fault that your parents couldn't afford the education is it? So let's say you get some scholarships? Well, for starters, scholarships are small. It is propably impossible to live on scholarships alone, but I guess they help a bit. Still, only the top 5% or something get scholarships, so to get them you have to be exceptional if you're poor, and average if your rich.
In short: We don't start of equal, and of course that will result in people being poor. Is that THEIR fault?
Then there's the ones that for other reasons than being poor can't get a job. Such as the people with depression, stress syndromes, other illnesses. Or just simple folk who can't get a job because there are none available, they're black or they're woman.
In short: People have troubles, most of the times not their fault and they would rather be without them. And the people are unfair, that's hardly their fault either.
There's also people who choose things because of sympathy of others. Nurses are severly underpaid, and can often get fired, get ill, stressed out or depressed. Because they chose a job to help people.
Or some one who decides to get a job at McDonalds to supply for their sick mother.
Maybe your girlfriend get pregnant at early age and for some medical/religious reason can't get an abortion.
Wether it is their fault or not is argueable, but the earlier ones aren't.
Life's not fair, and it is sure to screw some one over. Regardless if you're the smartest, most skilled and hard working person in the world you can still end up being homeless just because you on paper have no education, no experience and no knowledge (i.e. You're apparently know nothing and you're lasy and stupid) since your parents couldn't get you one.
People don't live on welfare checks by choice, they do it because of various reasons. Maybe on in a thousand do live of it because they're lasy. Does that suddenly mean you can screw them all over? Hey! One in a thousand black guys are stupid and lasy! Should we screw them over?
And yeah, of course people will try and work if you remove the welfare checks. Sick people will work themselves to death, because of an illness that would take a couple of months of rest that they can't get. Stressed out people will keep working their asses of until they hit a wall and dies (since they won't get any welfare(food and shelter)).
____________
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 04:19 PM |
|
|
to continue for Shares point, if you take away their welfare checks, some will resort to crime in order to get the money. Human beings are incredibly tenatious, and make no mistake, they will resort to criminal means to get what they want if the legal option is not available.
this is one of the problems I find with conservatives, they can't put themselves into the shoes of those less well off. It's all very well to say "Hard work never hurt anyone," but they don't understand how hard these people work anyway to make ends meat, and how much society is f**king them over, a society that the conservatives are benefiting from.
hey, I've been on this forum long enought for everyone to understand my stance on this issue. so I shall say no more.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 04:58 PM |
|
|
Let me repeat a very important thing here.
Basically all "just" societies struggle - with more or less success - to enable their children EQUAL CHANCES in finding a place within society.
This means, society must in some way MAKE UP for the children of poor and/or careless parents compared with those of rich and caring parents.
Currently society plain and simply sucks in doing this, ecause society isn't putting the tax money where it counts. Instead governments take the easy way and dishes out welfare, full well knowing that there are no equal chances.
See it this way - if society isn't treating part of it's members fairly, those members don't need to treat society fairly either.
Of course there are those who STILL manage, bad chances or not. But you know that is no point: My old Grandpa smoked his whole darn life until he was caught by a train aged 96, but you know that doesn't mean smoking is healthy.
Which means, REAL socialism starts with working to give everyone equal chances - or as equal as it gets. This in turn means, BETTER schooling, BETTER housing (which translates to destruction of slums), BETTER health care, at least for children, which in turn means MORE MONEY where it counts: where CHILDREN and juveniles profit: education, housing, proper schooling. De-escalation of social hot-spots... you name it.
Now, people. People have the odd habit to stow away what may be bothering them. Poor, uneducated sods? Well, they don't want to work anyway, just smoke dope the whole day and vandalize underground trains - so just put them in some slum, build a wall around it and throw away the keys.
And because of that odd habit people have a government that forces them to open thir eyes (or at least they should have one) to the problems there are, because in the end ALL will suffer when the crap hits the fan: higher crime rates, drug problems, juvenile delinquents, sick (mal-nutritioned) children, you name it.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 05:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, people. People have the odd habit to stow away what may be bothering them. Poor, uneducated sods? Well, they don't want to work anyway, just smoke dope the whole day and vandalize underground trains - so just put them in some slum, build a wall around it and throw away the keys.
And because of that odd habit people have a government that forces them to open thir eyes (or at least they should have one) to the problems there are, because in the end ALL will suffer when the crap hits the fan: higher crime rates, drug problems, juvenile delinquents, sick (mal-nutritioned) children, you name it.
If you really think it really is like that, then I have nothing to say to you.
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 05:56 PM |
|
|
I as well would like some functionality in stead of mere redistribution of money. Whatever one believes the purpose of the state to be, in my opinion, such a purpose would dictate how money should be spend in general terms.
E.g. a state with a clear purpose that, among others, could be to make sure every citizen have sufficient food to survive and actually have a 'good' body (I hope you know what I mean, a body that get the things we through science have figured out is good to the purpose of getting the best possible body).
Then a state that takes money from some and gives money to others, do not fulfill this purpose, because they don't know if these people they gave money to will use them on what is intended.
If in stead of the money, these people actually got the food (and of course not some specific, but a wide range), then I'd say the state have, probably, done its best to live up to its purpose in the given area.
I have the same opinion about the students grants. In Denmark the state grants students after a certain age a certain amount of money each month. Many like this, many takes advantage of this and uses it in ways probably not intended, but I'd like if in stead of these grants, that students got what they needed, i.e. a place to stay (sleep, toilet, hygiene, eating) and study (quit, no smells, no sense disturbance), a way to get the basic needs, food, excersize, transport, etc. and what else is truely required for someone to optimize their ability to learn, then I think it'd be much better.
Then if you want to go to parties and drink or whatever you want that's not relevant for your studies, then I think it should not be for state money, but for money from work, or however you'll do it. So simply completely avoiding the cash to cash part and in stead of limit the power to what it's intended to be used to.
It's not simple to implent, not for me at least, but I'm certain it can be done, without loosing the flexibility money grants as long as one realises it's neither of the two extremes of completely free trade ability, nor the limited product for product trade.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 06:06 PM |
|
|
I don't know what you mean with "if you mean, it is that way" -
It IS the way that people tend to put problems away - put them in a crate and close the lid: what I don't see isn't there.
And because people ARE that way - governments ARE SUPPOSED to act in a more responsible way: ONE person from HIS or HER perspective may not see that something is a problem when it doesn't bother that person. The government, however, is supposed to consider the whole picture; it's their job to do that.
One of these things is EQUAL CHANCES. There ARE people saying, what do we care about how people live? No one is forced to live in a slum, right? Everyone can go and find a decent job and leave it, right?
While that is doubtful it's certainly wrong for the kids - they have to make-do with what they get -and that is NOT equal chances, which will cement the slums, since a lot of the kids will stay in them; they produce crime; and so on. Which will drop back to those saying, everyone can find a way out - that's not our problem: eventually it IS.
In any case I think we are on the same side here.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 06:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And: of course it costs money to teach people to fish. It also costs money to just write them welfare checks. The point is that education is an investment in society; welfare is flushing money down the toilet.
Why would the goverment invest money in such a way that in the long term it would lose on it?
There will always be leechers, and no matter what. But the question is: Should they be able to leech without any hinderance?
Unemployment over here is more like "no job at the moment, searching high and low", which happens from time to time.
Welfare as in "free money" is a really really bad idea, welfare as in "don't starve to death while attempting to get a job" is more like a good deal.
Add on a few conditions such as offering re-education to anyone who desperatly needs a job, force them if their previous education is useless due the current marked.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 06:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Have you ever heard the proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
agree, but there is one problem. it depends on what and how you teach him. if the society considers that it doesn't benefit from what you taught that guy, you may have trouble getting paid for it.
for example, many intellectuals are badly paid. they strive to give a maximum of knowledge to the society, but they don't teach them how to be more productive for example, so since they don't teach people how to make money, society don't see a reason to pay them.
I will follow what ohforf said, I think your basic needs should be fulfilled for free (food, drink, shelter, hygiene, clothes
) and you should pay only for luxuries.
of course it implies jobs would pay less, since you will need less money to live. also, what you get for free should be decent living conditions. if you only get the right to live in a slum and has to work your ass off to live in decent conditions, it wouldn't be an improvement.
some of you will say that it will incitate most people to not work, but I don't think so because people like luxuries. they will want their car, tv, computer, I-pad, etc...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 08:21 PM |
|
|
What really strikes me is this idea that people have the right to be provided with "basic necessities" - the idea that people have a claim to what other people own simply by existing. If this isn't provided through charity, then left-wingers will use the government to do it by force. This undermines the whole point of the social contract, which is supposed to get people to stop using force to get things they want.
As for equality - all men are not created equal. Some are born smarter, or more beautiful, or with parents of greater status. Some, by contrast, are born weak of body or mind, or with few, if any, talents. That's the nature of the lottery. So what? The people who become productive are the people who deserve the most, regardless of how they became that way - because whatever they have is valued. It may be in the interests of the successful to fund the education of the future successful, or to pay off the discontented with something like welfare, but let there be no mistake - these are privileges, not rights.
Forced economic equality is evil. Look at the EU, stumbling from crisis to crisis, from riot to riot, suffering from high unemployment. They opened their gates to unskilled immigrants and look what happened. Look at the ancient universities of Europe - a shadow of their former selves. Look at Greece and its riots - a result of a sense of entitlement.
Look at China, who understood and decided that it's better to be productive than to be equal. And look at America, that country that has been successful for so long because for the most part people were free to rise and fall based on how useful their work is. Even it has had its run-ins with statism, but realised that it doesn't work. Now, people can look to history and judge - its it better to be an equal slave or an unequal free man?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 08:29 PM |
|
|
Mvassiles: Spoken like a true man who has never properly looked at the world.
The most productive and smartest person on earth, who has tons of untapped potential(Tesla level) will likely be a poor fellow who never had a chance of getting anywhere in life.
____________
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 08:31 PM |
|
|
80 % of posts in the last two pages are populist crap with no base on reason whatsoever.
Cya.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 08:58 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
A man who does not produce is not productive. And that's why we have education - to filter out the future productive from the future unproductive. But what matters is real productivity, not potential.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 09:32 PM |
|
|
Without school, no unlocking or using that potential.
Waisting away such potential and such great possible innovation is a crime beyond crimes.
Potential is productivity in a nutshell. I would say making a revolution for our entire race in techology is worth productivity?
But in the end, if you want to have a look at waisted "productivity" look at your QWERTY keyboard.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 09:39 PM |
|
|
There seem to be people who don't understand the difference between equality and equal chances.
In fact, Mvass, it's a lot easier. Look at the crime rates. There is a direct connection between crime rate and equality of CHANCES. If people feel "cheated" by society, and grow up in a take-what-you-can surrounding, crime rates will rise. If children have no good perspectice, crime rates will rise. If children are not educated, crime-rates will rise.
That in turn means, higher inner security costs: more police.
Note that the REALLY rich that can afford their own private police, so it's people like Elodin, who will suffer most from crime. (But of course there is self-defense.)
Of course there never will be really equal chances in an absolute sense. But absolute equality of chances ain't necessary. As isn't equality of wages. But society should attempt to create equal chances where it's possible.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 09:42 PM |
|
|
Abolish wills.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2010 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Without school
Quote:
There seem to be people who don't understand the difference between equality and equal chances.
Reading comprehension, do ye possess it? I never said I was against public education with the purpose of giving people a chance.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 12:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Look at China, who understood and decided that it's better to be productive than to be equal. And look at America, that country that has been successful for so long because for the most part people were free to rise and fall based on how useful their work is. Even it has had its run-ins with statism, but realised that it doesn't work. Now, people can look to history and judge - its it better to be an equal slave or an unequal free man?
or none of both? powerful people want to maintain the unequalities to keep their power, and the best way is to sacrifice the liberties of the mass. maybe you think you are free but you are not, you are your own slave. those powerful people know how to manipulate you while leaving you the illusion of freedom (though, they aren't free themselves, because they manipulate themselves without noticing it)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 12:56 AM |
|
|
I know when I am being coerced. When I am not being coerced, I am free.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 07:14 AM |
|
|
@Mvass
As I understand your use of the word coercive action, then there is a big problem with how you use it. It's focusing not on who's coerced, but who coerces, and assumes non-living materials can't coerce.
I remember it to be so from a previous talk of ours where I used an example of a big rock sliding down the mountain, going to coerce whoever it might hit into a probably much less free life.
As I see it, it's clearly a coercion of the person. This is because the person is forced to do something said person do not want, i.e. coercion.
@All
I think it's important to remember that the source of power for any system is the people within the system. Therefore the system must better the conditions for all people within or said people will either:
A) Have to be forced to pay (oppression).
B) Simply won't pay (the system might not be able to hold itself up, depending on how much it depends on someone loosing for someone to be gaining).
Now, when I write equal, I do not mean everything has exactly the same. I mean that everyone have the same opportunites to get what they want. The more ressources and technology, the easier it becomes to fulfill this and to make it true in general.
The purpose of a state that's not oppressing will always be to
1) Satisfy its members.
2) Increase production towards its purpose (i.e. improve its own abilities to satisfy its members).
There's a fine line between 1) and 2). The more productivity, the easier it will be to satisfy the members in the future. However to much focus on productivity and you might end up either oppressing people, or loose a part of the population, which means less productivity, because less sources of power (income).
On the other hand, too little productivy and you'll satisfy your members here and now, but in a couple of years, you'll be in an incredible amount of troubles.
So there are two extremes. The extreme with complete focus on what the state can do for its population in the current moment of time [like make sure everyone have basic necessities, eventhough if everyone would be happy with this, the state would not have any productivity in a 'short' amount of time, unless an automatic system is devoloped that does not have its gradient defined through money]. The focus on how the state can be a catalyst for the population to increase production (towards the purpose of the state).
Finding the right line is where you maximize the satisfaction of the members and the productivity towards a better future (more and higher satisfied members) in regard to all the variables the state has (its power).
About rights. Who ever is in power and have sufficient power to provide a given right, defines a given right. For the state that depends on power through the people, rights that benefits the people will benefit the state as well. Notice it doesn't mean going to an extreme is thereby correct.
About the functions of the state, like education as has been mentioned:
In regard to satisfying members, it's great, because it gives the members of the state the opportunity to gather the information they need to get what they want.
In regard to productivity, there's a lot higher chance (potential) of creating higher productivity the more people are educated.
From this, I hope it's clear why it's a bad idea to try to force people fast through educations, especially without focusing on what they, themselves, want.
Another example can be hospitals, the transport system, in general lots of things. They both work to benefit, because they increase the chance of productivity, either by making sure the productive organs are safe, or more flexible (potentials, that averages out to higher likelyhood for better outcomes), and on the same time, actually makes people satisfied, because they provide safety and freedom for people as well.
Now there are probably a ton of smart ways these things can be done, which means the state needs to use less money (less power) on certain parts, thereby opening up for optimizing. The state should always try to optimize, after all, it's supposed to do better with the investment than the people who invested would themselves. On the other hand, a state should never give away its responsibilities to privates on the matters that defines it, neither compete.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 07:39 AM |
|
|
Only other humans can coerce, Ohforf. Nature is not sentient and therefore cannot coerce. To coerce is a choice.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
