"Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'

Post Reply New Topic

I have a huge issue with the very negitive views conservatives and libertarians have for the poor. These notions are based on a folk psychology based on the notion of the self being an immaterial soul that exists outside of causation, what philosophers call libertarian or contra-casual free will. I consider this view to be nonsense, we are the sum of out genetic and environmental influences. You can't just tell people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and then suddenly expect then to change their behavior. If you want to change people's behavior one must change the environmental influences that causes people to act the way they do.

Essentially, what libertarians advocate is holding a gun to people's heads and telling them to work, which is not an effective strategy for a high-tech economy

No, AG, they look upon survival as people's main influence. If they considered money the greatest motivator, they would advocate an environment that is facilitative to extensive upward and downward mobility. Essentially, what libertarians advocate is holding a gun to people's heads and telling them to work, which is not an effective strategy for a high-tech economy. I say we give them free education, and we can use their aborted fetuses as subjects for dissection when they get knocked up! Yippee!

i can't tell you how many bums and homeless people i see walking around up and down holding signs in pasadena and eagle rock and highland park that are obviously functional people who just choose not to live in society and i don't think they should be allowed to leach off of society when they do not contribute.

i agree with you. there should be programs in place that encourage them to get work and to get on their own. but the current welfare system does no such thing and only encourages dependence on the system and not any kind of progress forward. there's also a mentality with many that welfare is owed to them by whatever various bad logic. welfare was a system originally created for people who were between jobs and needed help until they found a new one...not an indefinite teat to suckle.


actually what'd probably be a better system is if private temp services were utilized more often and involved less government. that way someone can at least gain temporary employment and potentially be picked up for permanent employment. but that'd actually approach making sense. (note: this isn't a solution but the start of an idea so don't go too far into it yet).

They may have problems that aren't immediately visible, or they may just be running a scam and not actually homeless.

wrong. the libertarians say "you should earn what you earn."

i can't tell you how many bums and homeless people i see walking around up and down holding signs in pasadena and eagle rock and highland park that are obviously functional people who just choose not to live in society and i don't think they should be allowed to leach off of society when they do not contribute.

and why is it not an effective strategy? did people all of a sudden become complete mental midgets who can't take care of themselves anymore? granted there are those with mental disorders who need help but not everyone needs help and some people just need to get off their lazy asses and get a f***ing job.

or they may just be running a scam and not actually homeless.

there's plenty of people who are homeless by definition who aren't handicapped in any way. a lot of them just reject society but still feel like society owes them a living regardless. a lot of them are politically motivated anarchists.

the mental patients normally are not so thought out as to panhandle for money like i see and yes, those people do need help and society should help them somehow but it's very obvious the government can't help them properly. take for example the fun fact that cali booted most of their mental patients...which is why i'm so willing to concede that point...because i do see that too. but a lot of them are just professional victims or lazy jerks who think society owes them.

Saying people should "eat what they earn" sounds all fine and dandy, but such reasoning doesn't work unless you live in some utopian society with full employment.

there's full employment. just that most people don't want to take certain jobs and so they choose to be unemployed instead.

It's a lot more complicated that 'mental patients got booted' but that's a component of it. A lot of people feel that no one should be forced into the mental healthcare system because of the potential for abuse, like we saw decades ago in the US or in the Soviet Union. The problem is that a lot of the truly stricken really aren't any better off pissing their pants in the gutter than they are being forcibly medicated in an institution. A lot of times the only reason they don't want to be medicated is BECAUSE they're mentally ill and they're convinced the medication is really poison or whatever.

No, AG, they look upon survival as people's main influence. If they considered money the greatest motivator, they would advocate an environment that is facilitative to extensive upward and downward mobility. Essentially, what libertarians advocate is holding a gun to people's heads and telling them to work, which is not an effective strategy for a high-tech economy. I say we give them free education, and we can use their aborted fetuses as subjects for dissection when they get knocked up! Yippee!

the army is lowering their standards all the time and i've heard of cases where military service is offered in place of jailtime? can someone verify that or say i'm wrong?

The Army addresses this issue in the Army Recruiting Regulation, Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 4-8b: "Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment.."

The Air Force Recruiting Regulation, AETCI 36-2002, table 1-1, lines 7 and 8, makes an applicant ineligible for enlistment if they are "released from restraint, or civil suit, or charges on the condition of entering military service, if the restraint, civil suit, or criminal charges would be reinstated if the applicant does not enter military service."

The Marine Corps Recruiting Regulation, MCO P1100.72B, Chapter 3, Section 2, Part H, Paragraph 12 states: "Applicants may not enlist as an alternative to criminal prosecution, indictment, incarceration, parole, probation, or other punitive sentence. They are ineligible for enlistment until the original assigned sentence would have been completed."

In the Coast Guard, enlistment prohibition is contained in the Coast Guard Recruiting Manual, M1100.2D, Table 2-A.

Interestingly, the Navy Recruiting Manual, COMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1130.8F, does not appear to contain any provisions which would make such applicants ineligible for enlistment. However, I've been informed by several Navy recruiters that the Navy will not accept applicants for service, as an alternative to criminal prosecution or other punitive sentence.

Recruiter Participation in Criminal Proceedings

All of the branch's recruiting regulations prohibit military recruiters from becoming involved in criminal proceedings for any military applicant.

Under no circumstances may recruiting personnel intervene or appear on behalf of prospective applicants/DEPpers pending civil action with court authorities. Civil action is defined as awaiting trial, awaiting sentence, or on supervised conditional probation/parole. Waiver of this restriction is not authorized. The following are clarifications:


a. Recruiting personnel may not appear in court or before probation or parole authorities under any circumstances on behalf of any applicant or DEPper.

b. Informal conversations with defense attorneys or probation or parole officers must be limited to explaining the military's recruitment policies. Recruiting personnel may give no opinions or suggestions to enable an unqualified applicant to enlist. They must allow the normal course of civil action to occur without assistance or intervention.

No. The US military does not want criminals.