Here Come the Nannies...

Page 3 of 4 [ 55 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

08 Oct 2010, 3:55 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Janissy wrote:

I agree. Yes, it is Nanny-ish. But since the Nannies are the ones paying for dinner, it is reasonable they should decide what to pay for.

.

The Nannies do no such thing. They operate on funds stolen (taxed) from productive people.

ruveyn

You act as though people don't rely on the infrastructure developed through these "stolen" funds in order to be productive.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Oct 2010, 4:17 pm

waltur wrote:

dox, do you agree with the rules about food stamps pertaining to alcohol and tobacco?

Yep, food stamps are for food; alcohol and tobacco are clearly not food. Where I'm having a problem is this idea that some bureaucrats can get together and decide that certain foods don't fit into their idea of what other people should be eating, and then exert actual control over people's ability to consume what they want. Like I said before, I view this as an incremental, seemingly reasonable step in a direction that I really don't want to go in, designed to acclimate people to the idea that the government has enough of an interest in your diet to have the right to implement control.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Oct 2010, 4:55 pm

marshall wrote:

You act as though people don't rely on the infrastructure developed through these "stolen" funds in order to be productive.

The first turnpike in the American Colonies was built with private capital. The railroads were built with private capital. The automobile was developed with private capital. The first airplane was built by the Brother's Wright with $1200 of their own money. Langley's plane, a total failure was funded by fifty thousand dollar congressional grant in 1901.

The government does not do any original work. It is all based on stuff funded by private capital.

ruveyn

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

08 Oct 2010, 5:46 pm

ruveyn wrote:

The government does not do any original work. It is all based on stuff funded by private capital.

You need to prove a blanket statement like this. Chances are you don't even realize all the things that wouldn't ever happen without government committment. What about NASA? In the case of space tachnology it was only through the cooperation between government and private entities that all those advances were made. I'd like to see proof that the private sector alone could have developed the technology to put satellites into space.

waltur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

08 Oct 2010, 5:47 pm

Dox47 wrote:

waltur wrote:

dox, do you agree with the rules about food stamps pertaining to alcohol and tobacco?

i completely agree with just about all of that.

i think the biggest problem with all this regulation is the people making the decision. people that are good at bureaucrating might not be reliable sources of information on nutrition.

the government does have an interest in your diet, though. in my opinion, they don't take enough interest. there is plenty of science to be done on the subjects of nutrition, preservation, accurate marketing, etc. when it comes to food. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra#Side_Effects

olestra is likely still in some chips in your local grocery store. the only reason the bags don't say "may cause anal leakage" anymore is that the chemical company that owns the olestra producing company ran it's own study that didn't dispute the "anal leakage" but rather said that the olestra consuming group of the experiment experienced more frequent bowel movements or some crap like that.

but do we really want the FDA that removed that warning from a product that had not changed it's ingredients to decide what is and is not "food?" i don't but that doesn't mean i don't think the job could be done.

at any rate, we're a pretty ornery people and our snackfood/beverage companies are powerful enough to keep their products on the shelves. food stamps are for food. proper nutrition makes education easier. that's why there's so much fuss about feeding kids breakfast at school. i think that, for the most part, adults should be able to make their own decisions about such things. then again, i feel the same way about smoking.

as it stands, food stamps are for food. soda is not food. "juice drinks" that are basically non-carbonated, fruit-flavored soda are also not food. the idea seems reasonable. i could see it go a bit further before getting to the "slippery slope." maybe it would be better if, instead of making "junkfood" items off limits, a percentage of food stamp benefits could be authorized for "luxury items" such as soda, junk food, and a 7-11 hot dog, from time to time. eh, that sounds a bit complicated for our government to even think about without screwing it up.

_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Oct 2010, 7:07 pm

marshall wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Janissy wrote:

I agree. Yes, it is Nanny-ish. But since the Nannies are the ones paying for dinner, it is reasonable they should decide what to pay for.

.

The Nannies do no such thing. They operate on funds stolen (taxed) from productive people.

ruveyn

You act as though people don't rely on the infrastructure developed through these "stolen" funds in order to be productive.

Yes. We do use infrastructure built with stolen money. So what? If we didn't we would be doubly taken, first when we are taxed and then if we do not get the benefit of the theft.

ruveyn

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

08 Oct 2010, 10:47 pm

waltur wrote:

Hanotaux wrote:

I remember as a boy, when the stamps used to come in a booklet............. It used to be the discarded empty Food-Stamp booklet shells used to just absolutely litter the Supermarket floors after all the stamps had been torn out, kind of like discarded losing pull-tabs at a carnival. By the evening, the grocery store janitors would have a massive task cleaning up piles and piles of stamp-booklets that had just been littered all over the store.

I think that was a formative thing that began to sour me on relief assistance and minority assistance, etc. I mean, if they couldn't even be bothered to discard their waste and their generously-given free money like human beings, and they were going to so carelessly litter, than WTF should taxpayer money be lavished on them if they are too lazy to put their refuse in a f-ing trash can. Its like rubbing salt in the would to see people on benefits take YOUR hard-earned money and they can't even have have the common decency to at least get in and discreetly buy their Little Debbies and then get out without making a mess. But then again, that is just 'the sort' getting those benefits, and its not like they give a damn........... they just think the money is magically entitled to them because of "slavery," or its their due. They think the rules don't apply to them because their ancestors were "oppressed," and that some magic funds will sponsor thier torpor and 'other half' lifestyles, which is absolutely justified in their primordial heads. To them, they are only one of many.... just another drop in the bucket drawing $$ so it doesn't really matter.

Besides that, it was like every cart would be loaded up with Little-Debbie, Frosted Flakes, Grape Soda, etc, and the food-stamp booklet would be whipped out. Then, after all of the stamps had been used, the shell would just be tossed on the floor. It was like it was almost kind of a not-so-secret act of war to get bussed out on mass-transit (on the taxpayer's dime) to wh***y's nice supermarket, litter it up, and then rub it in his face by blatantly paying for their processed junk food with his hard-earned tax dollars. They'd be sure to tow out all 6 kids of theirs for good measure.

It was the same on Halloween as well in my "racially changing" neighborhood as after the area residential kids were done trick-or-treating for the first couple hours between 6-8, the inner-city kids would be out at about 8:30PM and try and hustle any houses with their lights still on for free candy. After 5 or 6 years of this, most houses in the neighborhood turned their lights off by 8:30 or so so the inner-city families would not approach their door with like 7 black kids not even in costume jumping out of a minivan and demanding candy. After a few years most of the neighborhood just stopped participating in Halloween all together as most of the residents just got sick of the pretty blatant attempt to secure free food like this.

I see no point in subsidizing people who live like pigs and can't even use a f-ing trash can. I mean, by all means, live it up on the dole, and get dat fwee health care as well.

cool ridiculously hyperbolic racist rant, bro.

.....you know, i think you might have gotten lost on your way home.

It's like that all over. Your location says California so unless you are living in La Jolla or Beverly hills and don't venture out much then surely you have seen it too. Blacks and Mexicans (primarily) are most likely to behave like this and then they scream racism when they get confronted on it.

_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

08 Oct 2010, 11:01 pm

BigK wrote:

If you want to buy sugary drinks, cigarettes, alcohol etc get a job.

The kids should be drinking water anyway.

Wouldn't the libertarian approach be to let the people starve?

i didn't have a well-formed opinion on this topic, so i asked someone near and dear to me what he thought, and it sounded a lot like what you said, but without the winky face.

he said, "well, if they use cash, they can buy whatever they want." i didn't think of it in such harsh terms, but i do think that if you are getting your food subsidized by the government, you could stand to lose some freedom about what kind of food you are taking home.

the way i see it, the food bank shouldn't be handing out desserts or candy or pop, so why would food stamps be used for junk food? not because of obesity, but because it is a waste of money to give out food with no nutritional value.

but even as i write this, i'm having second thoughts. when i give money to a homeless person, i don't give a crap if they spend it on crack or booze. it's none of my business, really.

i guess i have mixed feelings about this.

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

08 Oct 2010, 11:10 pm

BigK wrote:

Wouldn't the libertarian approach be to let the people starve?

Not entirely, it'd also hope that charitable organizations would pick up the slack (still working off of public money but not under jurisdiction of the government or government regulation or funded with government acquired public money).

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

BigK
Velociraptor

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

09 Oct 2010, 2:16 am

hyperlexian wrote:

but even as i write this, i'm having second thoughts. when i give money to a homeless person, i don't give a crap if they spend it on crack or booze. it's none of my business, really.

i guess i have mixed feelings about this.

Giving people money for crack is very good of you. If it means that they don't prostitute themselves or rob anyone that evening then everybody wins.

I guess I'm just not that charitable. I would expect a of cup soup from the soup kitchen to be cheaper than a rock of crack or bottle of scotch so your money helps more people.

_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"

BigK
Velociraptor

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

09 Oct 2010, 2:26 am

skafather84 wrote:

BigK wrote:

Wouldn't the libertarian approach be to let the people starve?

"Public money" usually means government funded in the UK. (But then "public school" actually means private fee paying school

)

So we would "hope" that charities would pick up the slack? Judging by recent threads there might be a worry that charities might choose to help people from some groups and not others.

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

09 Oct 2010, 2:30 am

BigK wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

Giving people money for crack is very good of you. If it means that they don't prostitute themselves or rob anyone that evening then everybody wins.

Personally I think I'd rather keep my money and shoot them if they try to rob me. That arrangement works out pretty tidy in 40 states.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Oct 2010, 5:06 am

John_Browning wrote:

Personally I think I'd rather keep my money and shoot them if they try to rob me. That arrangement works out pretty tidy in 40 states.

Do you shoot them if they drive badly? Or they mishandle heavy machinery in their jobs? There is more to drug related misbehavior than robbing. And it does work out that "tidy". Most states have strict rules on the use of lethal force. To justify lethal force in most states you must be in mortal danger. Protecting property does not justify lethal force in most states. Protecting one's person may justify lethal force.

ruveyn

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

09 Oct 2010, 9:44 am

BigK wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

well, i make no secret of the fact i would like prostitution to be abolished, but at the same time i understand that sometimes people have addictions that can only be supported with illegal activities. i'd like to get them off the drugs or booze, but i have no power over that. i agree that money should go to the soup kitchens first of all, or reputable charities as well.

this is probably kind of weird, but a couple of years ago it occurred to me that if you are, for instance, a 60-year-old man with a crack addiction, you don't even have the option of selling yourself to support your habit. i guess i actually feel kind of bad for people who can't support themselves, even if they are also supporting a bad habit like drugs or booze (or junk food, for that matter). i guess i must be the ultimate bleeding heart.

back on-topic, here in canada we have really high 'sin taxes' on booze and cigarettes already. i guess those are examples of our government deciding what is best for us. for some reason that doesn't really bother me. i see the government as benevolent.

okay, so once again i am contradicting myself inside a single post.

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

09 Oct 2010, 12:09 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

[but even as i write this, i'm having second thoughts. when i give money to a homeless person, i don't give a crap if they spend it on crack or booze. it's none of my business, really.

.

Why do you not care? If they spend the money on crack, you are helping to finance both their drug suicide and somebody else's career as a drug dealer. It's lose-lose. If they spend it on alcohol, the suicide will be more slow motion but you have still are finacing something that will destroy them.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

09 Oct 2010, 12:40 pm

Janissy wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

[but even as i write this, i'm having second thoughts. when i give money to a homeless person, i don't give a crap if they spend it on crack or booze. it's none of my business, really.

.

yeah, i totally know. it is not a logical sentiment at all. i will try to explain, but really it is all based in emotions so it may not come across as making any sense at all.

i've known too many people who had drug addictions (some very close to me), so i look at it as something that will eventually go one of two ways:

-recovery, when the person is ready to go there
-death (i.e. overdose, violence, disease, exposure, withdrawal)

what i mean is that the situation of addiction is usually temporary - it is not sustainable as a long-term choice. eventually a person will either recover or die.

first case - a person who is begging for money on the street might be ready for recovery, in which case my money can help him/her get there.

but it is not likely that the person is actually at that crossroads; the second case is that probably he/she is looking to score. if i refuse to give money to that person, i am judging them for being in a terrible situation that they are having extreme difficulty controlling. yes it was their own fault for getting there, but my judgement does not change anything at all. i would hope that the person would buy a muffin or something with my money of course, but as soon as i hand over the money i am giving up the right to decide.

what i want for them is for everything to be better, and for them to be healed and loved and leading a healthy lifestyle. but what they want right now is to shoot up or get a bottle of alcohol. the resources are there to help people who want to recover, but if they don't want to get better, i can't make them.

my small monetary donations are a drop in the bucket of the drug trafficking and alcohol industries. i may be contributing to their perpetuation, but i doubt it. i have had money (not mine, was robbed at gunpoint while working at a store) and property (mine, in my house) taken from me forcefully by people who were addicted to drugs. so i am under no illusions about what people will do to get a fix. but i still care.

i can't watch someone suffer just because of the choices that they made; a great many people experiment with drugs and alcohol and don't get addicted, but their luck of having better/more coping skills, family life, money, social circumstances, support networks, mental health etc. does not make them better or more worthy people.

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

Page 3 of 4 [ 55 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Here Come the Nannies... Post Reply New Topic

Here Come the Nannies...