Are libertarians our enemies?
21 May 2015, 10:45 pm
donnie_darko wrote:
All the libertarians I've debated are really disdainful towards those on public assistance, even if they work, which would be many if not most of us with Asperger's syndrome. They can't fathom the idea of someone who is physically able bodied and has a high IQ as struggling with work and employment. It seems like they would rather see millions starve to death on the street than tax the rich and corporations at a higher rate than those who are living paycheck to paycheck.
I think their priorities are completely out of whack and it shows considering they will almost always elect a religious zealot conservative over a Democrat and definitely over a socialist.
I think their priorities are completely out of whack and it shows considering they will almost always elect a religious zealot conservative over a Democrat and definitely over a socialist.
I disdain libertarianism but have never met a libertarian I didn't like. On the latter subject, the reason I have liked these individuals is that they share in common with me, a strong sense of altruism, social responsibility, and are entrepreneurship minded. However, on the former point, they seem to lack the ability to understand that others are not as altruistic as they are, and the number of individuals who are opportunistic exploiters, either far exceeds the number of individuals who are inherently altruistic and socially responsible, or those opportunistic exploiters are far more virulent. I suspect that a completely libertarian society would eventually evolve into a feudalistic society and then possibly spawn a socialistic or communistic society due to backlash of the exploited masses.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
21 May 2015, 11:29 pm
KaylamiYarne wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
The amount of government dependency is increasing as more and more people are leaving their jobs because they can depend on a welfare check. There are also more people attempting to qualify for disability so they don't have to work anymore and parents are using their children's learning disorders as well for benefits.
We're in enough debt as it is. People need to get off their asses. I'm all for healthcare for those who need it, but many don't. This is why America has become a symbol of laziness and greed for many.
We're in enough debt as it is. People need to get off their asses. I'm all for healthcare for those who need it, but many don't. This is why America has become a symbol of laziness and greed for many.
Really? and what sort of welfare checks are these that people are leaving their jobs for?...as far as I know working typically pays more, unless you've been working for high wages for a period of years and become too disabled to work then you might get a substantial amount.
Also most people who apply for disability do so out of need, because their disability prevents them from holding a job...there might be a few frauds here and there, but really for a lousy payment of under 800 dollars a month and being barred from saving anymore than 2,000 dollars in money or assets seems kinda pointless with the hefty criminal charges one would receive if caught 'faking' or if they where found out to have other means of money coming in. It's hardly worth entirely stripping the program and leaving people with real disabilities worse off than they are now, over a few a**holes who like to cheat the system.
Also what do you mean you all for healthcare for anyone who needs it but many don't? technically everyone usually needs some form of healthcare at some time or another in their life....so people need access to that including the poor. And you're quite simply naive if you think the issue of poverty really is as simple as people sitting on their asses and refusing to work....you fail to acknowledge the existence of the working poor for one. Not to mention for the poor who don't work many do have legitimate disabilities and some have more just been impoverished and wandering homeless for so long they face a lot of barriers....plenty of homeless are without an ID for various reasons and of course going to get one can be difficult if they don't have a birth certificate on them, then there is lack of job history, unkempt appearance and all kinds of stuff. I'd say programs should exist to help those people enter the work force...but stigma and discrimination are very real barriers.
I think the laziness and greed that is symbolic is more the laziness up top...I don't think most people think its mostly the poor being lazy, at least not most people I know who have first hand experience with poverty. I myself am on disability but did try working and college before that...but still working to improve the conditions I have that prevent me working. Just about everyone else I know works and are all struggling financially to varying degrees...and like 40 hour full work week. My dads done hard labor sort of work all his life and has been homeless, even while working full time though now he's having to try and apply for some assistance because his body won't hold out as long anymore so he can't do as much work anymore. And people want to sit on their high horses and pretend like if all us poor people would get off our asses we'd all become upper-middle class successful professional people....when the reality is many are very much off their asses already. Then in the case of disability many people on that are in treatment to hopefully become more functional and you want to look down your nose and tell them 'well you just need to get off your a**' This mentality is really starting to piss me off.......so much ignorance.
I'd like to apologize to everyone for this post...reading it now, it's really poorly written and I was drunk when I made it. I don't even remember writing it. Yes, I'm sure a lot of people need welfare, especially since more and more big companies only hire for temporary part time positions, and that's making it difficult for a lot of people.
My anger was based on people I've been acquainted with personally, but anecdotal evidence is a fallacy and not the same as statistical data.
Alright that makes more sense...but yeah people who cheat to get welfare piss off the people who need it just as much as they'd piss of anyone else.
_________________
Metal never dies. \m/
22 May 2015, 2:34 am
If you can't live without others helping you, tough s**t. You have no right to force others to pay for you. You have a right to not have your life taken away from you, but you don't have a right to make others protect your life.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
22 May 2015, 7:35 am
^^
I get a disability check from the VA every month.
My mother lives on disability from the government.
I do not apologize. Ignorant self-righteousness makes me giggle.
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-XFG (no longer a moderator)
22 May 2015, 7:48 am
denpajin wrote:
If you can't live without others helping you, tough s**t. You have no right to force others to pay for you. You have a right to not have your life taken away from you, but you don't have a right to make others protect your life.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
Your right to property is trumped by other people's right to life, I'm afraid. That's also a very simplistic view of "freedom" - if I take some money from Bill Gates and give it to a struggling family, I have massively boosted their freedom without making a noticeable impact on his.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 May 2015, 10:07 am
denpajin wrote:
If you can't live without others helping you, tough s**t. You have no right to force others to pay for you. You have a right to not have your life taken away from you, but you don't have a right to make others protect your life.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
In answer to your tirade: NO.
We are ultimately social animals, which means we take care of one another. That individualist bull sh*t is just that: bull sh*t. It has absolutely nothing to do with stealing to depend on society in order to survive. And as far as freedom meaning "people who can reach reach further": freedom also has to be tempered with a sense of responsibility to your neighbors. I'll take the word of my Christ over that of your Ayn Rand any day of the week.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 May 2015, 10:09 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
denpajin wrote:
If you can't live without others helping you, tough s**t. You have no right to force others to pay for you. You have a right to not have your life taken away from you, but you don't have a right to make others protect your life.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
In answer to your tirade: NO.
We are ultimately social animals, which means we take care of one another. That individualist bull sh*t is just that: bull sh*t. It has absolutely nothing to do with stealing to depend on society in order to survive. And as far as freedom letting "people who can reach reach further": freedom also has to be tempered with a sense of responsibility to your neighbors. I'll take the word of my Christ over that of your Ayn Rand any day of the week.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
22 May 2015, 10:21 am
denpajin wrote:
If you can't live without others helping you, tough s**t. You have no right to force others to pay for you. You have a right to not have your life taken away from you, but you don't have a right to make others protect your life.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
Read this...
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/22/7_ideas ... l_partner/
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
22 May 2015, 10:37 am
Jacoby wrote:
I'm not sure what the result of the coming automation, obvious you have the worry about people losing their jobs on one hand but the cost of everything should go down too because of it will cost so little to produce so in theory we should be richer.
This is an interesting question. It's one of the reasons I started the thread about Calhoun's Universe 25.
Most people think that experiment is just about overcrowding, but it isn't. Overcrowding is a trigger, but the real cause of social breakdown among the rats is lack of meaningful social roles according the the researchers (one has to assume that they know more about rat behavior than we do).
Without meaningful social roles the younger rats start to engage in a lot of deviant, anti-social behavior and eventually the rat colony goes extinct.
I think this is a big problem with poor, minority communities and American social welfare policy today.
People on the left want to give hand-outs (money and food) people on the right want to make the poor work for money and food, but neither side is willing to address the issue of how socially and economically marginalized poor/minority communities are.
Excluded from meaningful social roles in the greater society, young, poor, minority males engage in deviant behavior like gang activity, drug use, etc....
Now, with automation becoming more and more widespread, more people will become socially and economically marginalized--cutoff from the meaningful social roles that come with working and having a career.
To be sure, humans are more complex than rats and many will find other positive, and innovative roles to play (provided that they can still get basic needs like food and shelter met). But many other people will fall into destructive patterns of behavior as we see with the rats of Universe 25 (not to mention a lot of the idle rich/celebrities now).
The old saying about idle hands is truer than many would like to admit. People need something to do, and left to their own devices, what they do is not always good.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
22 May 2015, 11:51 am
GoonSquad wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I'm not sure what the result of the coming automation, obvious you have the worry about people losing their jobs on one hand but the cost of everything should go down too because of it will cost so little to produce so in theory we should be richer.
This is an interesting question. It's one of the reasons I started the thread about Calhoun's Universe 25.
Most people think that experiment is just about overcrowding, but it isn't. Overcrowding is a trigger, but the real cause of social breakdown among the rats is lack of meaningful social roles according the the researchers (one has to assume that they know more about rat behavior than we do).
Without meaningful social roles the younger rats start to engage in a lot of deviant, anti-social behavior and eventually the rat colony goes extinct.
I think this is a big problem with poor, minority communities and American social welfare policy today.
People on the left want to give hand-outs (money and food) people on the right want to make the poor work for money and food, but neither side is willing to address the issue of how socially and economically marginalized poor/minority communities are.
Excluded from meaningful social roles in the greater society, young, poor, minority males engage in deviant behavior like gang activity, drug use, etc....
Now, with automation becoming more and more widespread, more people will become socially and economically marginalized--cutoff from the meaningful social roles that come with working and having a career.
To be sure, humans are more complex than rats and many will find other positive, and innovative roles to play (provided that they can still get basic needs like food and shelter met). But many other people will fall into destructive patterns of behavior as we see with the rats of Universe 25 (not to mention a lot of the idle rich/celebrities now).
The old saying about idle hands is truer than many would like to admit. People need something to do, and left to their own devices, what they do is not always good.
It's probably true, poor people in the US are much richer materially than they were 50 years ago but there has been little to no progress socially and has been a regression by some measures. I've lived Indian country and even the tribes that are wealthy from casinos or whatever have a lot of the same issues with alcoholism/drug abuse/and just poor health in general that the poor tribes have, with these casinos some of these tribes are pulling 60k a year individually or more for their members so poverty alone can't explain it. There was a breakdown of their society and way of life that they've never recovered from. Now the question is how much is normal, how much can be rectified? I think no matter what you do when you give some form of welfare it will be a disincentive to work for certain amount of people, it makes sense when you can have your material needs served without having to kill yourself with the labor to get it. I don't think most tho will want to just sit on the butts and watch TV every day, man I can tell you myself that the idle hands thing kills me and is no way to live. I'm not even really getting paid right now but I'm trying to stay busy and to improve myself, I wasn't doing that before and it was probably the lowest I've ever been. With myself, even doing nothing I was still pursuing interests and I can do that longer than most but it becomes boring pretty quick and there isn't enough to fill the day. You'll be unfulfilled, you'll get self-destructive in some way or another. I found some comfort in the bottle like many do more than a few times but I knew what it would do to me eventually, its a family problem.
So maybe we'll be materially richer with widespread automation but what will be the social consequence of it? The reality is that we can't stand in the way of progress so we'll have to find a way to adapt or else, this is the future like it or not.
What we need is for our economy to be more open sourced and decentralized, that's the world we live in now being so interconnected with the internet. We no longer need all these institutions and these rules to govern ourselves, we need to break down all the barriers of entry and to stop protecting the wealth of the rich who already advantaged in the market. I think there needs to a lot of reform as far IP laws and government regulation go, I don't think they help innovation anymore going as far as they do now and only serves the interests of big business who are the true welfare queens of this country.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,160
Location: Adelaide, Australia
22 May 2015, 6:31 pm
Jacoby wrote:
I don't think most tho will want to just sit on the butts and watch TV every day, man I can tell you myself that the idle hands thing kills me and is no way to live. I'm not even really getting paid right now but I'm trying to stay busy and to improve myself, I wasn't doing that before and it was probably the lowest I've ever been. With myself, even doing nothing I was still pursuing interests and I can do that longer than most but it becomes boring pretty quick and there isn't enough to fill the day. You'll be unfulfilled, you'll get self-destructive in some way or another. I found some comfort in the bottle like many do more than a few times but I knew what it would do to me eventually, its a family problem.
Perhaps. Would I get a job even if I already had enough money to support myself? For me this isn't a hypothetical question. It's a question I faced for year last year. I got a job because I wanted to be like other people.Would I get a job even if I already had enough money to support myself and most other people didn't work? Probably not.
Was a life of leisure destructive for me? Yes and no.
_________________
The days are long, but the years are short
Last edited by RetroGamer87 on 22 May 2015, 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,160
Location: Adelaide, Australia
22 May 2015, 6:36 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Obamacare today is actually the descendant of the Republican alternative to the proposed Hillarycare, back in the Clinton years. The primary reason why Obama had supported it was in order to make friends with the Republicans, with hopes of bipartisan smooth sailing. Novice to national politics that he was, Obama hadn't realized the irrational hatred the Republicans felt toward him, that it went to the extent of trying to sink the very plan their party had formulated to avert real national healthcare, to the extent of calling it communistic and freedom destroying. Had he only been more adept to the ways of DC, he might have forgone any attempts at compromise for the sake of bipartisanship, and given us real socialized medicine.
How was Hilllarycare different from Obamacare. I'm still not entirely sure how Obamacare works in the first place. I expect it's different from the Medicare systems used in Commonwealth countries but how?
_________________
The days are long, but the years are short
22 May 2015, 7:05 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Obamacare today is actually the descendant of the Republican alternative to the proposed Hillarycare, back in the Clinton years. The primary reason why Obama had supported it was in order to make friends with the Republicans, with hopes of bipartisan smooth sailing. Novice to national politics that he was, Obama hadn't realized the irrational hatred the Republicans felt toward him, that it went to the extent of trying to sink the very plan their party had formulated to avert real national healthcare, to the extent of calling it communistic and freedom destroying. Had he only been more adept to the ways of DC, he might have forgone any attempts at compromise for the sake of bipartisanship, and given us real socialized medicine.
How was Hilllarycare different from Obamacare. I'm still not entirely sure how Obamacare works in the first place. I expect it's different from the Medicare systems used in Commonwealth countries but how?Basically in exchange for mandating that American purchase private health insurance the insurance industry got rid of pre-existing conditions and extended the time children can stay on their parent's insurance until age 27 iirc on top of a medicaid expansion partially funded by the federal government to cover those who couldn't purchase health insurance.
Hilarycare was before I could remember but it had a lot of the same stuff in it but it would of made Americans sign up for these regional co-op "alliances" which would "negotiate with insurers, set standards for insurance coverage, collect premiums, negotiate with doctors and hospitals, regulate prices, and cap health care spending"
23 May 2015, 1:08 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
denpajin wrote:
If you can't live without others helping you, tough s**t. You have no right to force others to pay for you. You have a right to not have your life taken away from you, but you don't have a right to make others protect your life.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
In answer to your tirade: NO.
We are ultimately social animals, which means we take care of one another. That individualist bull sh*t is just that: bull sh*t. It has absolutely nothing to do with stealing to depend on society in order to survive. And as far as freedom meaning "people who can reach reach further": freedom also has to be tempered with a sense of responsibility to your neighbors. I'll take the word of my Christ over that of your Ayn Rand any day of the week.
As usual you are off target. I'm the Objectivist here; denpajin sounds more like a Nietzschean. (No Objectivist would say "If you can't live without others helping you, tough s**t.")
Anyway, why the hatred? If he proposes to live his life as he describes, neither accepting help from nor offering help to anyone else, what harm does it do you? Seems to me that if that's a "bullsh*t" way to live he'll learn that sooner or later. I would not be offended if a group of hippies wanted to go off and form their own commune – so long as no compulsion was involved. Are you so wise, that you feel entitled to dictate the terms of everybody's life?
A "social animal" is merely one which spends most of its life interacting with others. This says nothing about the nature of those interactions. There is tremendous value to be had from a society of voluntary interactions for mutual gain – but I would rather live in splendid isolation than be part of some collectivist slave pen.
So when are you going to sell off all your possessions and give everything to the poor? What color Mustang would Jesus drive?
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 May 2015, 1:52 am
luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
denpajin wrote:
If you can't live without others helping you, tough s**t. You have no right to force others to pay for you. You have a right to not have your life taken away from you, but you don't have a right to make others protect your life.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.
Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.
In answer to your tirade: NO.
We are ultimately social animals, which means we take care of one another. That individualist bull sh*t is just that: bull sh*t. It has absolutely nothing to do with stealing to depend on society in order to survive. And as far as freedom meaning "people who can reach reach further": freedom also has to be tempered with a sense of responsibility to your neighbors. I'll take the word of my Christ over that of your Ayn Rand any day of the week.
As usual you are off target. I'm the Objectivist here; denpajin sounds more like a Nietzschean. (No Objectivist would say "If you can't live without others helping you, tough s**t.")
Anyway, why the hatred? If he proposes to live his life as he describes, neither accepting help from nor offering help to anyone else, what harm does it do you? Seems to me that if that's a "bullsh*t" way to live he'll learn that sooner or later. I would not be offended if a group of hippies wanted to go off and form their own commune – so long as no compulsion was involved. Are you so wise, that you feel entitled to dictate the terms of everybody's life?
A "social animal" is merely one which spends most of its life interacting with others. This says nothing about the nature of those interactions. There is tremendous value to be had from a society of voluntary interactions for mutual gain – but I would rather live in splendid isolation than be part of some collectivist slave pen.
So when are you going to sell off all your possessions and give everything to the poor? What color Mustang would Jesus drive?
I can in fact feel outrage over his lack of compassion for his fellow humans. And it's not a matter of selling off all my possessions for the poor, but accepting the fact that we as a society owe one another kindness and courtesy in regard to what he had written.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
23 May 2015, 2:38 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
In answer to your tirade: NO.
We are ultimately social animals, which means we take care of one another. That individualist bull sh*t is just that: bull sh*t. It has absolutely nothing to do with stealing to depend on society in order to survive. And as far as freedom meaning "people who can reach reach further": freedom also has to be tempered with a sense of responsibility to your neighbors. I'll take the word of my Christ over that of your Ayn Rand any day of the week.
We are ultimately social animals, which means we take care of one another. That individualist bull sh*t is just that: bull sh*t. It has absolutely nothing to do with stealing to depend on society in order to survive. And as far as freedom meaning "people who can reach reach further": freedom also has to be tempered with a sense of responsibility to your neighbors. I'll take the word of my Christ over that of your Ayn Rand any day of the week.
I'm sure he's not going to ask for the same care if something happens to him, though.
So, it's fair.
Giving people the choice to pay for the welfare of others seems like the most just thing (don't pay, don't receive it either). See, Churches and donations. You just have hospitals and an organized welfare center that collects money, and since many people see it how you do, there'll be enough money to go to those in need.
Forcing someone to pay for someone else for services they in turn don't want to receive (and refuse it), is stealing, no matter how right or wrong the reason for the services. Doing a bad thing in the name of a good thing still means you've done a bad thing. You do a good thing in the name of a good thing.
We should include all ways of life in society, as long as people don't directly through physical [or negligent] violence, harm others (that's when you face consequences).
