Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +144/-112
Posts: 1,748
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: April 20, 2008, 09:16:29 AM » |
|
It exists to some extent in the West. The US has a reprehensible system where the unemployed are given welfare for 3 years (I think) and if they don't have a job by that time they are given nothing. Thousands are now entirely dependent on charity as a result.
But even in a society with a decent welfare there is still massive inequality, which cannot just be explained by laziness vs. earnestness. As far as I am concerned, the right to own property is the principle cause of this. Indeed, if one believes in individual property rights, then taxation is a form of state theft, and all that comes from it (welfare included) is the result of theft.
The benefit of my model is that it is much more equitable, without rewarding equally the person who sponges off society. For example, a steelworker may work just as hard as a corporate CEO, but will make many times less money. The same steelworker will never make as much as Paris Hilton has inherited. That is unfair.
So in other words you feel free to criticize what you have no idea about? You don't know what goes on, but yet it's 'reprehensible'? Your credentials to even have an opinion do not even exist. Any semblance of intelligent discussion is gone with that admission. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 20, 2008, 09:27:13 AM by Biker Dude »
|
Logged
|
 \\'I`m your Huckleberry\\' |
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +86/-103
Posts: 811
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #76 on: April 20, 2008, 11:15:18 AM » |
|
Moreover, what if I feel like being lazy?
Should I not be allowed to save up some money to buy myself some slack at some point?
I don't expect the gov to pay for it, but at the heart of things I'm a very lazy man. Busting my ass 50 hours a week nonstop is really part of a long range plan to lounge around and drink beer in the future.
The idea of providing for the simply lazy is preposterous to me. As is the idea that laziness itself should be criticized.
Basically, if someone wants to sit around and do nothing, I don't see why it's any of my business. Neither is the question of how they're going to fund themselves while doing so.
Do you object to the idea of giving more to those who work? Or do you object to providing for those who don't? You cannot object to both, that is a self-contradictory position. I would prefer to see aid go to those who truly need it. There are cases where someone can't work, and in those cases I'm not opposed to helping them (I could also agree with income supplement program). People who just decide not to work, when they could (or work under the table) should not get assistance. The difference here, as it relates to this thread, is that I see these programs as a safety net, not as an alternative to property rights. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #77 on: April 21, 2008, 01:47:34 PM » |
|
It exists to some extent in the West. The US has a reprehensible system where the unemployed are given welfare for 3 years (I think) and if they don't have a job by that time they are given nothing. Thousands are now entirely dependent on charity as a result.
But even in a society with a decent welfare there is still massive inequality, which cannot just be explained by laziness vs. earnestness. As far as I am concerned, the right to own property is the principle cause of this. Indeed, if one believes in individual property rights, then taxation is a form of state theft, and all that comes from it (welfare included) is the result of theft.
The benefit of my model is that it is much more equitable, without rewarding equally the person who sponges off society. For example, a steelworker may work just as hard as a corporate CEO, but will make many times less money. The same steelworker will never make as much as Paris Hilton has inherited. That is unfair.
So in other words you feel free to criticize what you have no idea about? You don't know what goes on, but yet it's 'reprehensible'? Your credentials to even have an opinion do not even exist. Any semblance of intelligent discussion is gone with that admission. I do know what goes on, I just wasn't 100% sure about the length of time involved. Any semblance of intelligent discussion disappear when you jumped on that single "I think" as a way to dismiss my whole argument. Perhaps you can describe where I have erred? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #78 on: April 21, 2008, 01:57:51 PM » |
|
Moreover, what if I feel like being lazy?
Should I not be allowed to save up some money to buy myself some slack at some point?
I don't expect the gov to pay for it, but at the heart of things I'm a very lazy man. Busting my ass 50 hours a week nonstop is really part of a long range plan to lounge around and drink beer in the future.
The idea of providing for the simply lazy is preposterous to me. As is the idea that laziness itself should be criticized.
Basically, if someone wants to sit around and do nothing, I don't see why it's any of my business. Neither is the question of how they're going to fund themselves while doing so.
Do you object to the idea of giving more to those who work? Or do you object to providing for those who don't? You cannot object to both, that is a self-contradictory position. I would prefer to see aid go to those who truly need it. There are cases where someone can't work, and in those cases I'm not opposed to helping them (I could also agree with income supplement program). People who just decide not to work, when they could (or work under the table) should not get assistance. The difference here, as it relates to this thread, is that I see these programs as a safety net, not as an alternative to property rights. How do you separate the lazy from those who are unemployed through no fault of their own? BTW, its not just about welfare. It is about equality in general - or, more specifically, about getting rid of the massive inequality in our society. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +144/-112
Posts: 1,748
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #79 on: April 21, 2008, 05:17:10 PM » |
|
I do know what goes on, I just wasn't 100% sure about the length of time involved. Any semblance of intelligent discussion disappear when you jumped on that single "I think" as a way to dismiss my whole argument.
Perhaps you can describe where I have erred?
'Your single "I think"' as you put it is fundamental to the whole discussion. You have shown that you are attempting to dissect and change something that you have no idea about. So your 'single I think' dismisses your argument for you. And many people have attempted to show you specifics of where you have erred. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\'I`m your Huckleberry\\'
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +88/-94
Posts: 1,252
"Battle is an orgy of disorder"
|
|
« Reply #80 on: April 22, 2008, 07:23:38 AM » |
|
It is about equality in general - or, more specifically, about getting rid of the massive inequality in our society. The same steelworker will never make as much as Paris Hilton has inherited. That is unfair. Who says life is supposed to be fair? "Fair" goes far beyond the financial......what is "fair" about a 2yr old with cancer? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I do not measure a mans success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom.
-G.S. Patton, Jr.
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #81 on: April 23, 2008, 01:28:12 PM » |
|
I do know what goes on, I just wasn't 100% sure about the length of time involved. Any semblance of intelligent discussion disappear when you jumped on that single "I think" as a way to dismiss my whole argument.
Perhaps you can describe where I have erred?
'Your single "I think"' as you put it is fundamental to the whole discussion. You have shown that you are attempting to dissect and change something that you have no idea about. So your 'single I think' dismisses your argument for you. And many people have attempted to show you specifics of where you have erred. OK, guess what? I did some research, and it is worse than I thought. I thought it was simply that after X amount of time you needed to have a job or you got nothing. Actually you also have spend time doing compulsory employment in order to make you more suitable for work - the modern day equivalent of slavery. If anything I have said about Welfare-to-Work is factually inaccurate could you please point out my error? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +86/-103
Posts: 811
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #82 on: April 24, 2008, 08:50:24 PM » |
|
Moreover, what if I feel like being lazy?
Should I not be allowed to save up some money to buy myself some slack at some point?
I don't expect the gov to pay for it, but at the heart of things I'm a very lazy man. Busting my ass 50 hours a week nonstop is really part of a long range plan to lounge around and drink beer in the future.
The idea of providing for the simply lazy is preposterous to me. As is the idea that laziness itself should be criticized.
Basically, if someone wants to sit around and do nothing, I don't see why it's any of my business. Neither is the question of how they're going to fund themselves while doing so.
Do you object to the idea of giving more to those who work? Or do you object to providing for those who don't? You cannot object to both, that is a self-contradictory position. I would prefer to see aid go to those who truly need it. There are cases where someone can't work, and in those cases I'm not opposed to helping them (I could also agree with income supplement program). People who just decide not to work, when they could (or work under the table) should not get assistance. The difference here, as it relates to this thread, is that I see these programs as a safety net, not as an alternative to property rights. How do you separate the lazy from those who are unemployed through no fault of their own? BTW, its not just about welfare. It is about equality in general - or, more specifically, about getting rid of the massive inequality in our society. IMO, it is not the government's job to pay for unemployment, (unless we're talking about government employees). The system we operate under here seems pretty just to me. My employer pays into unemployment, and If I'm laid off, I can collect. When it comes to government assistance, it's not so much an issue of if someone has been responsible for their circumstances, but their need for assistance. In the case of single parents with young children, the disabled, the elderly, etc. there is a legitimate need. Barring a disability of some sort, I don't buy it that someone "can't find work" in half a years time. I've dug my fair share of holes, and washed more than my fair share of dishes. It doesn't bother me that other people have to do these jobs any more than it does that I used to have to do them. There's work out there. Most likely it will suck, but it is out there. To address the other point, about getting rid of massive social inequality, I don't believe that abolishing property rights would have the desired effect. On the contrary, a society devoid of property rights would be ugly and brutish. Without some sort of framework to legitimize your right to your property, what's to stop the next guy who's bigger (or better armed) from just taking whatever of yours it is that he wants?. I guess you and like minded individuals could band together to put a stop to the taking, but all that would be doing would be establishing and enforcing a system of property rights. If anything, they key to diminishing (it will never be gotten rid of) social inequality is a more complete and honest application of the concept of property rights. Obviously, the aim here is to undercut the legitimacy of some claims to property. My thoughts on this is that sometimes excessive claims to property do need to be rebuked, but claiming the concept of property rights itself illegitimate is hardly the way to do it. For an example, if a timber company wants to deforest lands that indigenous people live and rely on, claiming you can't own the land isn't the best argument to advance. A much better argument to advance would be that the the timber company (and possibly the parties that sold it to them) did not legitimately and rightfully own it in the first place. This may sound surprising, but if I've been living on a piece of land and treating it as my own for long enough without contest (the legal wording where I live is open and notorious), there is precedent for me to establish legal ownership. It's called adverse possession ( local laws may vary, terms and conditions apply). It's a fairly rare thing but it does happen, and is legitimate in many cases. The problem with the proposed timber operation is not that the timber company is allowed to own property, but that the property rights of those already living there are not being recognized. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #83 on: April 25, 2008, 01:31:40 PM » |
|
Moreover, what if I feel like being lazy?
Should I not be allowed to save up some money to buy myself some slack at some point?
I don't expect the gov to pay for it, but at the heart of things I'm a very lazy man. Busting my ass 50 hours a week nonstop is really part of a long range plan to lounge around and drink beer in the future.
The idea of providing for the simply lazy is preposterous to me. As is the idea that laziness itself should be criticized.
Basically, if someone wants to sit around and do nothing, I don't see why it's any of my business. Neither is the question of how they're going to fund themselves while doing so.
Do you object to the idea of giving more to those who work? Or do you object to providing for those who don't? You cannot object to both, that is a self-contradictory position. I would prefer to see aid go to those who truly need it. There are cases where someone can't work, and in those cases I'm not opposed to helping them (I could also agree with income supplement program). People who just decide not to work, when they could (or work under the table) should not get assistance. The difference here, as it relates to this thread, is that I see these programs as a safety net, not as an alternative to property rights. How do you separate the lazy from those who are unemployed through no fault of their own? BTW, its not just about welfare. It is about equality in general - or, more specifically, about getting rid of the massive inequality in our society. IMO, it is not the government's job to pay for unemployment, (unless we're talking about government employees). The system we operate under here seems pretty just to me. My employer pays into unemployment, and If I'm laid off, I can collect. When it comes to government assistance, it's not so much an issue of if someone has been responsible for their circumstances, but their need for assistance. In the case of single parents with young children, the disabled, the elderly, etc. there is a legitimate need. Barring a disability of some sort, I don't buy it that someone "can't find work" in half a years time. I've dug my fair share of holes, and washed more than my fair share of dishes. It doesn't bother me that other people have to do these jobs any more than it does that I used to have to do them. There's work out there. Most likely it will suck, but it is out there. Whether or not you "buy it" there simply is not a job for everyone. Therefore, some people will be unemployed. Just because you were able to find some crap jobs does not mean it will work like that for everyone. To address the other point, about getting rid of massive social inequality, I don't believe that abolishing property rights would have the desired effect. On the contrary, a society devoid of property rights would be ugly and brutish. Without some sort of framework to legitimize your right to your property, what's to stop the next guy who's bigger (or better armed) from just taking whatever of yours it is that he wants?. I guess you and like minded individuals could band together to put a stop to the taking, but all that would be doing would be establishing and enforcing a system of property rights.
Well I am not a revolutionary socialist in any sense. But as long as there is a police force to enforce collective property rights there would not be a problem. There would be no individual property rights but there would be collective property rights, which would entitle everyone to a fair share. Yes there would be thieves - there will always be thieves. If anything, they key to diminishing (it will never be gotten rid of) social inequality is a more complete and honest application of the concept of property rights.
If this means free-marketism, then no. Obviously, the aim here is to undercut the legitimacy of some claims to property. My thoughts on this is that sometimes excessive claims to property do need to be rebuked, but claiming the concept of property rights itself illegitimate is hardly the way to do it.
It is the only way, without violating property rights that you believe to exist. E.g. taxation is an attempt to redress the balance. However, some quite rightly point out that under a property rights system taxation is simply state theft. What right does the state have to anyone's property? For an example, if a timber company wants to deforest lands that indigenous people live and rely on, claiming you can't own the land isn't the best argument to advance. A much better argument to advance would be that the the timber company (and possibly the parties that sold it to them) did not legitimately and rightfully own it in the first place.
This may sound surprising, but if I've been living on a piece of land and treating it as my own for long enough without contest (the legal wording where I live is open and notorious), there is precedent for me to establish legal ownership. It's called adverse possession (local laws may vary, terms and conditions apply). It's a fairly rare thing but it does happen, and is legitimate in many cases.
The problem with the proposed timber operation is not that the timber company is allowed to own property, but that the property rights of those already living there are not being recognized.
It is interesting that you believe that the indigenous people own it collectively by virtue of the fact that they live there. That is essentially what I believe, I just apply it to the whole world. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
