So, you're worthless lazy unemployed scum

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't see you moving the discussion back onto the original topic - you put in your moneysworth about Ayn Rand along with everyone else

If you want the topic to move on, feel free to move it on!

Moving the thread back on topic, here's a link to an Easy Read guide 'Changes to Welfare Benefits' (in the UK)

http://www.unitedresponse.org.uk/wp-con ... y-read.pdf

I didn't make any of these arguments. All I said was that Ayn Rand was a hack and idolized a murderer. What people do with that is up to them. I certainly did not say "everyone should stop reading Ayn Rand."

I also think that your last sentence is a bit...wrong. Not that most people don't have something in their history, but most people don't have something like proudly and openly praising a man who kidnapped and dismembered a young child, and then tried to get said child's parents to pay ransom for their dead daughter.

That's one reason I think people should be able to try it and stay on benefits. Successfully writing a profitable blog or column is a long shot and probably takes a long time to develop.

That information is posted on a blog

Not the most trustworthy of sources in the known universe

If another blog posted information disputing the first, which would we believe?

I think she was admiring of the spirit of his words, not his acts, as she said herself

But far easier to just blacken the woman's name so we don't have to bother with anything she said

That's your choice

Okay, taking nessa238's advice, I'm ignoring the little side banter.

Bloodheart, what do you think I could do to help the people who actually want to be productive, bypassing the governmental aspects as it were.
I'd like to figure out ways to guide people to find their dreams, their peace, their sustainability, their "Eden" where they are, rather than pushing them with socio-economic-political stuff.

Like the previous contestants, you're posting an opinion with no substance to back it up.

YOU say she was a hack; are you a published author or noted critic, or otherwise qualified to judge such things?

Even if I were to grant that blog accuracy at face value, which I don't, so what? If a great engineer happened to also be a neo-Nazi in private, would it make his designs any less elegant? It's a distraction, a red herring, and intellectually dishonest.

I read Atlas Shrugged because people kept accusing me of being a follower of it, despite my never having read it and only passing familiarity with it's author. Having read it, I found some of it's ideas interesting, some of them cliche or uninteresting to me, some good argumentation through narrative and parable, and a whole lot of repetition. There was also an ahead of it's time portrayal of female sexuality paired with a strong female lead character, a bit of science fiction, and some ideas I didn't agree with. I kinda got what the big deal was, but it really wasn't what I was expecting.

I also found that most people get Rand very wrong; the villains of Atlas Shrugged are not people on welfare or the disabled, but crony capitalists, bureaucrats, false philosophers, and corrupt government officials. All of that fits perfectly with someone who escaped the Bolsheviks and witnessed the destruction they wrecked on her homeland, and wanted to warn her adopted nation of the dangers of that path. Should you live your life according to her values? Probably not, but I'd say that about any written work, and hers is hardly the horror show it's so often made out to be.

I paid my taxes, once working again I'll happily pay them again to help others who cannot work or who are unable to work due to disability or health problems. In fact I'd have no problem what-so-ever paying higher taxes to keep the welfare system in place, and would happily donate to charities and organisations working to help those in similar situations to me.

In my case I could possibly work (I used to say 'I CAN work' but regression in unemployment made this less certain) but I can't due to prejudices within employment, lack of jobs, and I can't even claim JSA as no allowances are made for disabilities. Government keeps destroying the economy and the welfare system, if they don't want me to work then they can support me.

Last edited by Bloodheart on 27 Mar 2013, 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Then, screw the government and go off-grid? It's what we're doing in America (Which seems to be simultaneously trying to mimic the Far East, the EU, and the Middle East) - I really want to know what drug our politicians are on...

I'd like to brainstorm ways to help outside of the government and paperwork (if you do service in the US, you're likely to be sued by a Union for depriving someone of a potential paying job. My response; if a union was going to help, they should have helped)

What can you do/do you like as work?

Republicans only use the "entitlement society" clause as a distraction for real issues. It shows in how many of them used the benefits when they needed them.

Are there some offenders of abusing it? Sure, but they are few. There's a difference between helping yourself survive and helping yourself live extravagantly.

in your case, blame margie thatcher. She destroyed the assitance programs in the UK, shuttered scottish and welsh mining, and completely f****d up your train and transit systems to encourage more people to buy cars.. so she's also basically responsible for the traffic on the M1 and M25.. Nice.. But she beat the argies so it all evens out.. right? Right?

I hear you, Bloodheart... I'm in a similar position myself. Good luck!

That's actually how I've seen the system work when people I know have gone on benefits; they use them as a safety net to get through a tough period, and then resume working and paying back into the system. Sure, there are some people who take advantage, but even accounting for that it's better to have the safety net than to have people desperate and on the street, which society will pay for anyway in the form of more crime and violence and their associated costs. It's cheaper in the long run to let a few free riders abuse the system than to do away with the whole thing or make the participants jump through ever more hoops, and I'm okay with doing so, as my interest is in efficiency rather than morality. People get weird about welfare though, they're just hardwired to think one way or the other about it without ever stepping back and taking a truly critical look.

I think it's better for the government to make the mistake of giving out benefits when it's not deserved, than to not give it out when it is deserved.

I would tend to agree; it's usually actually cheaper to just pay the benefits than to spend an inordinate amount of energy verifying that the person is legit. If you take morality out of it and just look at the numbers, the best path becomes a lot more clear.