tisonlyi

Capitalism requires a pool of under or un-utilised labour. This has been known for a long time...

When the pool becomes too large, revolutionary air. When the pool becomes too small, wages rise, profits decrease and companies go bust.

Those 'lazy' people are a functioning, necessary part of the capitalist system.

Social security and healthcare systems exist to pacify a large portion of that un/under-utlized labour force in a country.

KTHXBYE

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

mcgeedo

"Capitalism requires a pool of under or un-utilised labour. This has been known for a long time..." Known by whom? Please explain how Capitalism requires under-utilized labor.

roachboy

the easiest way to see this is via marx. i'll do this before i head out for a fine malted beverage---now i know that you probably see "marx" and say something like "ew..communism"--but if you do that, then you haven't read any of his work--there are basically two sides to it, one the critical description of capitalism in the middle 19th century, and another which was a revolutionary politics. the second follows from the first, relies on the first, is oriented by it---and that part of marx is really pretty amazing stuff. in the mid 19th century, the most advanced industry in terms of becoming-capitalist was textiles--what made capitalism itself for marx was the logic of mass production, which entails a standardization of outputs, a standardization and deskilling of work, and a series of attending separations--of aspects of a single task (in a craft setting) into multiple tasks, the separation of skill from workers via technology, the separation of workers from each other, the separation of ownership from production etc..

these separations are expressed in wage labor, which for marx tended toward a situation in which entirely deskilled workers sold their physical ability to perform a particular (ususally repetitive) task to the holders of capital in exchange for a wage. because the work is standardized, and because of the machinery that enables that, workers become more or less interchangable with one another. that turned out to be increasingly the case across the 19th and into the mid 20th century--he was writing before the development of the assembly line, but the logic he outlines makes the assembly line seem almost inevitable (but it wasn't---that's another story)...

anyway, the main advantage of mass production is lots and lots of cheap standardized goods. the effect of this--eventually (it wasn't automatic) was the destruction of an entire system of smaller-scale production of textiles--you know, spinning, weaving etc.---there are other factors that condition the outcome, and marx talks about them (but i won't because this is a messageboard and things have to be short-ish)--but anyway a result of this was the transformation in relations between city and countryside and a migration of people from the latter to the former in search of a way to make a living because the older systems of producing textiles and stuff based on them cheaply (it was poorer folk who were really hit by all this) were wiped out (again, there's more to this story). anyway, the result of this effect was the migration of far more people into the cities than there were jobs. the result of that was the formation of the "industrial reserve army" which functioned to push down wages and keep them down. the result of this was inhuman living conditions...just brutal stuff...which is why working people had to organize themselves---and which is still why working people have to organize themselves if they want any meaningful power. they have to take power away from capital.

this story amounts to a pattern, and that pattern has repeated in sector after sector over time, and this is the general explanation for how it came about that capitalism came to rely on the industrial reserve army as a way of forcing down wages.

the counter to this was political and trade-union organization.
it still is, but not in the forms that were developed in the 19th and early 20th centuries, simply because these forms are themselves played out and because the geography of capitalist production is very different now than it was in the 1860s.

that's the idea.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

tisonlyi

If you haven't had the wherewithal to go look into this and point out specific ideas, theories and history that back up the idea that "Unemployed people are lazy". Which is an utterly repugnant, divisive reactionary opinion that reeks of a person either running from a poor background and had luck, or has NO IDEA what it is to be poor... then... yeah.

To demand proof from those who set out simple, well demonstrated - historically and theoretically - concepts that have been around for almost 200 years... well. yeah.

Marx
Keynes
Capitalism
Marx, Keynes on unemployment

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

irateplatypus

to the recent posts:

i have no expertise in macro-economics, so please correct me if i'm wrong, but...

even if you accept the theory that capitalism necessarily entails underutilization of labor, i don't understand why that would lead to a conclusion that those people who aren't employed aren't lazy. the current unemployment figures hover around 5%. seeing as how many people who do have jobs are lazy-asses, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the 1 in 20 people who don't have jobs are the laziest of the lazy. assuming that there must always be unemployed persons wouldn't contradict the observation that those who are unemployed tend to be lazy.

just checked - the employment figures in my home-state are pretty close to national averages... i see plenty of "now hiring" signs in stores that probably pay 7-10/hr for entry-level work. that's not much money, but surely it's as much as you'd receive sitting at home cashing a welfare check.

***********************************

to the discussion in general:

something i haven't seen discussed in this thread is the argument from "goodness" that seems to discount the moral value of wealth redistribution. there is something morally debilitating about the concept. it takes what is otherwise done out of charity and generosity and instead forces someone to gives to another through threat of imprisonment (which is exactly what happens when you don't pay your taxes). government, then, preempts good. redistribution destroys pity, mercy, humbleness and grace. it takes all that is admirable and noble about helping your fellow man and makes it function of the state. the state co-opts these values by taking them from each person and making the state an agent of violence should anyone withhold their wealth from the state's righteousness-by-fiat.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

rBGH

In response the OP.
If you have a drug conviction, you can't get a home loan or a school loan. For a lot of kids coming out of school, entry level jobs are scarce and pay little. Things have changed a lot in the last 10 years with illegal emigrants working jobs for less money and Wal-Mart paying crap to employees that used to work at good paying stores before they were run out of business.

I don't think people want a check. People want opportunity, and that will take money. I for one would like to see music that's targeted at kids glorifying education and hard work.

In a lot of cases, it doesn't take that much money. Someone just needs to give a crap.

Prisons are an industry and they need customers. They have lobbyist too you know.

Sun Tzu

The unemployment rate is high, yet the employment section of any Sunday paper is loaded with jobs. How much of the time or what percentage would you think it's about what people are willing to sacrifice?

I personally hate when someone approaches me with Amway. It's not what I want to do. However, if I or anyone was 100% intent in creating financial liberty they could do it through Amway, McDonalds, or even digging ditches.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Slims

Ok, I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion, and I still don't intent to write a windy post, but something is bugging me:

Several times already the term "Anarcho-Capitalist" has been used to describe people on this board who espouse the opinion that they can make better decisions about how to spend their money than the government can.

A LOT of people just want to be left alone and not harrassed. They want to seek or their fortunes and happiness as best they are able without interference from others telling them what they can do and how they have to spend their money.

That's not Anarcho Capitalism, it's simply Capitalism. I am sick and tired of the 'renaming game' where people attach negative labels to every position they do not agree with while artificially nice and lofty titles to their ideals.

I have been to the Dunedan's house many times, and I can vouch for the indescribable level of poverty....and laziness in his neighborhood. I can also attest that he works very, very hard for not a whole lot of money because his family is too proud to live off the efforts of others. They run a full farm, with a small firearms business in the house. He gets up early, works all day and rarely has time to come into town for a piece of Pizza. He is living the way he wants to, and because he wants to be responsible for his own well being and financial situation he is making hard decisions and going without many things which many people take for granted. How many of the people on this board who espouse wealth redistribution and 'equality' are voluntarily 'sharing' all the money they make over the poverty limit with people living below it? Anyone? Then why on earth would you tell me I have to give up my money if you are not willing to set the example?

On Saturday, I went to the barber shop to get a haircut (one of those choices which allow me to remain employed...maintaining a presentable appearance) and I noticed a man begging for money (not begging for a job, or even food, but money). He seemed pretty spry, so I talked to him briefly, and he told me that he wasn't handicapped in any way, and he seemed coherent enough. He also told me he lived in a trailer, so he had access to a shower. I asked him why he was begging and he told me he couldn't find a job. I asked him why he was filthy when he had a place to live where he could wash them before looking for a job. He didn't have an answer. Then I asked him whether he had tried Able Bodied Labor which is a day labor place located only a few doors down and he also said no. I was astonished, not only was this guy perfectly capable of working, he was begging outside a day labor facility which would give him a means to make an honest buck or two. But instead we should make sure people like this one are at or above the poverty line?

After Katrina, there were jobs aplenty in New Orleans. Factory owners were offering free housing and double or triple pay for anyone to come work for them. Fast food restaurants were offereing signing bonuses of several thousand dollars. Construction companies were hiring as many people as they could find due to the enormity of the clean up process. Migrant workers were flooding to New Orleans en masse because they knew there were plenty of good jobs available. However, thousands of people were content to sit on their asses in their FEMA trailers/hotels across the country complaining about their poor fate and that they would support themselves....if only they could find jobs.

Where has the idea of personal responsibility gone? When Donald Trump was asked on some TV show what he would do if he suddently found himself on the street with no money, he replied somethign to the effect of: "I would find the nearest multi-level marketing company and would get to work"

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Derwood

any form of taxation is wealth redistribution. nothing Obama or any other politician is proposing is new, radical, or revolutionary.

any wealth that is being spread around is moving from the very rich to the very poor. the GOP has done an amazing job convincing the middle class that the Dems want to take their money and give it to the poor. it's simply not true

Sun Tzu

You left out the part when the audience started laughing with his response "Thats why Im up here and you're down there". There are some people here that seem to think Trump should be the last person to give anyone financial advice.
-----Added 27/10/2008 at 07 : 21 : 05-----

My opinion exactly. At least in the form of income taxation. Its a shame or sham to only see 2 candidates debating.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

filtherton

They take advantage of the same kind of visceral reaction that salespeople do when they use the "You must call within the next 30 seconds" bit. If you convince people they are about to lose something they tend to clamor for it, even if they aren't really losing it.

McCain is hoping that people get so caught up in the idea that "Obama is gonna take my hard earned money" that they never get to the point of actually looking into whether he will or not.

Slims

Filtherton: Of course they do. However, I don't believe they do so any more than the democrats pander the "Free shit for everyone" platform.

For instance: There is no possible way Obama can fund healthcare for everyone without taking more money out of my pocket and giving it to someone else in the form of health benefits. All those social programs and tax cuts for those people who just need a hand? More money out of my pocket. Want to raise taxes on corporations? Guess who the buck gets passed to: Me, the consumer which means more money out of my pocket. The republicans are bad also, but by putting one party in charge of the whole government you are giving them a blank checkbook with very little preventing them from declaring "free bread and circuses for everyone!"

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

tisonlyi

The division from reality that someone demonstrates in believing that Amway, A PYRAMID SCHEME, can lead to financial independence, is quite astonishing.

America. The creature of extremes, you never fail to produce the beautiful, fascinating, ridiculous and terrible... frequently in the same moment.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

filtherton

I haven't noticed any promises of "free shit for everyone" on behalf of any Dem campaigns; it seems like more of an extension of what I mentioned above.

You can be pretty sure that if it weren't for the government taking money out of other people's pockets you wouldn't have as much opportunity to make the money that's being taken from you. When used effectively, taxation increases opportunity.

irateplatypus

this can be correct only in the most technical sense... when taxes are paid to maintain a military, everyone's defense is enhanced. when taxes are used to build highways, all can use them for transport. when taxes light neighborhoods lampposts, no one walks in the dark.

but, when you use taxes for social entitlements as obama advocates you're dealing with something fundamentally different. when obama taxes my paycheck to provide healthcare to those who haven't earned it, i'm LESS able to pay for my own family's care. when obama taxes my paycheck to subsidize college education for those who haven't earned it, i'm LESS able to pay back my own loans.

the difference between the two taxation schemes differs philosophically. the first is designed around mutual benefit. the second is designed around taking from one group by threat of imprisonment solely for the benefit of a second group who manages to elect someone willing to enforce their desires. the first is constitutional. the second is not.

i don't think it's that they (the GOP) have convinced the middle class that THEIR money will be appropriated for the poor... i think it's that many middle class persons (rightfully!) object to ANYONE'S money (including that of wealthy persons) being taken from one person and given to another via government decree.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Derwood

but that's not what he's proposing. at least not directly. there isn't going to be a "stuff for poor people" tax.

But speaking of earning things, what has someone like, say, Pris Hilton done to "earn" her money? should she be penalized in some way for not having earned her health care or opportunity for education? (I'm not saying she should, but it's amazing that Republicans throw the "elitist" term at liberals while looking down their noses at those with less opportunity than themselves"

Slims

Amway resembles a Pyramid Scheme in some ways, but is different in one very important aspect: It actually sells product. The hierarchy is based on the success of the salesperson and is thus capitalism at work.

Would I want to work for them? Not so much as most people who try it walk away with less than they started with, but for some who are dilligent enough, it works out.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

tisonlyi

Amway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll say that when I was very, VERY poor, I looked into Amway.

It's a kind of half-way house between a cult and a pyramid scheme, just far enough away from both to escape prosecution. Still, average earnings of less than $100 dollars per month... Just in case your arithmetic is rusty, the vast majority of people earn less, _much less_ than any mean average on a standard bell curve.

The vast majority of the Amway's consumers are its sales people/victims.

It's one of these things that exist on the letter of the law, not its spirit.

Amway 'works' as a route to financial independence for something significantly less than 1 in 1000 people. Hardly a route to financial independence. Most of the other adverts you'll see in your local paper 'full of ads' will be for fly-by-night or ridiculous other 'employers' looking for people to sell all manner of insane ideas and goods, commission only.

A cheap/free ad in a newspaper to bring in 100 desperate people, 10 of whom may actually be desperate enough to try your crazy scheme and 1 in 100 of which might ever make some money from it... pff..

Ignorance is bliss.

EDIT:

What was the mantra again...???

Oh yeah! Free Enterprise Works! Come to the convention! Hear Arnold Schwarzenegger talk! You can do anything and be anything you dream of!

Fantasists one and all.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

irateplatypus

that's not so. the following paragraphs are lifted directly from the obama website w/all the attendant spin an official website can muster. each bestows a benefit on someone who can't afford the price without tax dollars provided by another. each takes tax dollars out of the realm of mutual benefit and directly confers it on someone who couldn't pay for it to the detriment of the earning party.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

filtherton

Well, on the surface, I could see how these programs would give a conservative pause. But the fact remains that, if you examine any of them closely you'd see that they all have more weighty goals than redistributing the wealth.

Take the Harlem Children's Zone. If you have time, This American life did a pretty good story about it.

This American Life

It is actually something a conservative should get behind, which is an attempt to end the cultural poverty cycle present in inner city communities.

Other than that, I don't know why you'd have a problem helping folks pay for school in exchange for community service. Investments in education tend to pay off and then some. Are you paying for your own education, or is Uncle Sam (the taxpayer)?

I don't know how one could, in the context of current energy price volatility, claim that a program that ensures that people have heat in their houses is bad.

It could also be argued that a wonderful first step towards weaning people off of social security (or at least to make entitlement reduction easier to swallow) would be to motivate them to start planning for their own retirement.

I know you look at these things and think you're being robbed to pay lazy people to do nothing. I look at them and think that sometimes you need to spend a little money to help people make a little money.

Derwood

irateplatypus:

have you ever heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit? It's a government subsidy that basically gives money to working Americans who make less than the poverty level. In other words, it's free money, presumably taken from the wealthy (or anyone above the poverty level) and "redistributed" to the poor.

it just so happens that this program was introduced and implemented by the demi-god of fiscal conservatives, one President Ronald Reagan.

now how is that different than what Obama's basic ideas are?

dc_dux

We have had similar programs of tuition assitance tax credits, neighborhood anti-poverty/anti-crime programs, home heating assistance, retirement savings credits...all funded with federal tax dollars for years.

Obama is proposing to tweak the programs and to marginally increase the funding for such programs to compensate for the dramatic increase in the number of familiers who have fallen below the poverty level or living from paycheck-to-paycheck or to provide some small relief to the middle class who have seem their real income decline as a result of the policies of the last eight years.

The only difference from the similar (or previous) existing programs is that McCain/Palin are now attempting to make it a wedge issue by calling it socialism.

If these programs are socialist....then the US has been socialist for years.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

filtherton

And if the US has been socialist since Reagan, does that mean that you have to be anti-American to be anti-socialism?

Oh me oh my!!!

guyy

Went to university? It's massively subsidized by the poor for the benefit of the middle and upper classes -- and not just by taxes. If you went to a public university, your tuition did not cover the costs. Moreover, your university grad wages ultimately express themselves in commodity prices which everyone pays. That is to say, we have been paying for your education -- even if some of us didn't get to go to university. We pay for your family's health care already. That is capitalism.

Nothing is further from the individualist fantasies of the anarcho-capitalists than actual existing capitalism. Capitalism, you see, is a system of socialisation. It is a way of distributing costs and benefits of social labour around society. That is its secret. That is why it defeated feudalism and slavery. Even if people don't recognise it as such, the distribution of those costs and benefits is a political question. It is now, it was in Ricardo's day, and it will be under Obama. Go ahead and complain about how "undeserving" people get some of yours, but free yourself of the fantasy that some pet mode of distribution is politically neutral.

So maybe you would pay more in taxes if the Obama administration implements some sort of national health scheme, but then you would be paying correspondingly less for private health care either directly or indirectly through higher prices. You can look at something like public investment in preventive medicine as yet another burden for America's heroic petit bourgeoisie to shoulder, or as a way of reducing health care costs, which, in one way or another, you are and will be paying for anyway.

The real issue is that you find some people "undeserving" and others deserving. Why do you deserve education subsidies and not others? Why does your family deserve health care over another?

Sun Tzu

I know someone that bought their house with Amway, and their car, and financial security to (mostly) do what they want when they want. Is it a pyramid, yes. Is it a scheme? No. A scheme is elusive in its nature. This person knew what they were getting into, busted their ass, and made it work for them. Do I hate Amway and anything like it? Yeah, its not my cup of tea.
Im not willing to make the type of sacrifice it would take. Thats my choice. He was 100% intent to do it that way. Thats not a division from reality, that is reality.

The second statement kind of symbolizes humanity itself. Its OK though, I feel the same way every time I leave Ibiza.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

tisonlyi

One story.

Do you really think that Amway is a solution for the unemployed?

Luck, hard work, luck, willingness to f*ck over the next 1000 people you meet, luck and more hard work may well work for a tiny slither of those who go into Amway or something like it.

*sigh*

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Sun Tzu

Come on. . . . .Fuck Amway. Some people go to Medical school and still end up broke. Some people start out as a limousine driver to owning a million dollar company. The Driver Provider Others come up with a good idea, take a little risk and create wealth in that direction zip pots are here!. I personally know eight people that came from nothing, didn’t take hand outs, had 100% intention, didn’t listen to phrases like “eh you have to be lucky”, and created liberty for themselves. Amway, ditch digger, brain surgeon, whatever-not the point I was trying to make. I’m not willing to sacrifice what it would take to succeed in that direction. If you want to lump Amway (which I clearly stated I hate) with going to the casino or even snake oil salesmen that’s fine. It’s a lot easier when failure sets in to claim being a victim of bad luck isn’t it?

How many people does Seville Estate indirectly kill with its product each year? Is McDonalds fucking over scores of people, or are they the pinnacle of healthy eating? You’re making Amway out to sound like the Elgordo Lottery Promo.

Some people see getting from point A to point B as a mixture of two elements= mechanism and "luck". Percentages may vary, but it really doesn’t matter because in the absence of luck, all that is produced is "why me" or "its not fair" for a lot of hard working people.

Some people will see getting from point A to point B as requiring only one factor- 100% intention. Working hard with 70, 80 even 95% intention will only produce accomplishing some of the goal. Aside from uncontrollable elements, anyone that has 100% intention in achieving what they set out to do, let nothing stop them. They created a way or found a way. I’m only referring to legal ways

No I wasn’t saying unemployed people should go to Amway, but I think you knew that. I think unemployed people; that are able, should look through the Sunday paper and possibly do something they don’t like doing. At least until the determination to do what they want to do takes over.

Im a big fan of Star Trek, I think society might even be better in that direction. I don't think human nature will ever let it happen. If you want to accuse someone of fucking people over why dont you yell at the Federal Reserve or World bank.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

roachboy

a more rational system would provide extensive retraining programs and a systematic way for people to access alternate work possibilities. a more rational system might consider full employment to be a desirable system goal.

what folk do not seem to understand above is that these" lazy" people often--but not always--simply reproduce the characteristics of the system as a whole. libertarians have no way to think about this, so they attribute system characteristics to moral dispositions and in the process create this distinction between the virtuous petit bourgeois who lives shoulder to the grindstone and the Others who are parasites--and in this division lay the latent fascism of this viewpoint. nothing more. nothing less.

if you don't believe me, you should read some fascist discourse about the Problem of the Parasite--or, for a more surreal experience involving a floating version of the same type of category to designate the other, the Short Course of the History of the Soviet Communist Party, one of the great bits of collective auto-fiction written by the central committee of the CPU at the very height of stalinism--look at the lovely figure of the "hitlero-trotskyite wrecker"---it comes to the same thing---the imaginary system is understood as adequate-to-perfect in itself, left to itself---and problems are blamed on Outsiders as a function of some unchanging Personal Defect. put that into motion in the context of some Mission to Purge Society and make everything hunky dory--which is a logic that is not alien to libertarians when you get them talking about this "parasites" or "lazy people"--and the outcomes can be ugly indeed. a kind of Epic Ugliness lay there.

wake up. read some histories of capitalism in its actually existing forms--you know stuff that doesn't rely upon ridiculous separations which would lead you to think that capitalism died one fine day in 1856 in some obscure gunfight in kansas---but the actual sequence of systems, what they've been like, the centrality of crisis, the range of responses. the only way libertarian ideology makes any sense at all is in a historical vacuum.

this thread is frustrating because one side operates from inside this vacuum, substituting arbitrary anecdotes for anything remotely like system understanding. there is no way to reach an understanding if you are not willing to put the assumptions that allow you to avoid history into play. there is no way to even have a conversation that goes anywhere. what you get are long train-wrecks like this, which insofar as anyone learning anything is concerned might as well not happen. and this applies as much to myself as anyone else---there is no motivation to interact if you say the same things over and over and nothing happens. change for a moment how you think about the socio-economic environment you operate within---anyone who works from a social-system viewpoint can move to the anecdotal and understand how a worldview operates based on it--but there is no reciprocity.

so be it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Sun Tzu

"a more rational system would provide extensive retraining programs and a systematic way for people to access alternate work possibilities. a more rational system might consider full employment to be a desirable system goal."

Is humanity as a whole- rational? As I stated earlier a resource based economy verses the current monetary system would change everything.

I'm not labeling anyone. A person that chooses not to work when work is available is making a choice. Im not calling them lazy, infact roachboy in a sense you are. They are making the choice that suits them; whatever happens beyond that point is left to logical consequences.

How many children are starving to death right now? I gave a certain amount of money over the course of this last year to fight that. I could have given much more and sold material things having nothing to do with my survival to contribute. Does that make me a closet fascist? Does the fact you are not liquidating the computer you are reading this on to combat world hunger label you as someone that is helping "purge" the world of the parasitic society?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

roachboy

i think i made my point clearly enough.
i delimited what i was referring to as a rhetoric that turns up over and over in the thread.
the attempt to invert the argument above is not interesting. that's all i have to say about it.

i didn't pick out individuals who use the rhetoric because i assume there is considerable variability in what folk understand it to mean or entail insofar as they are concerned---my point is that the rhetoric itself is problematic.
and i outlined why i think it is problematic.
do some research for yourself if you don't believe the claims i am making. it's easy enough.
if you find the argument discomforting, good. the position that legitimates that usage is a problem.
that's not to say that it isn't possible to be libertarian in outlook and not indulge this moralizing language--i just haven't seen any examples of it.

so sun tzu, your post above doesn't surprise me in that i assumed that variability up front---but i'm not sure i made this clear. in a sense, i didn't want to as the idea was to shake folk a bit into thinking about the words they use.

the bigger argument---which is an explanation of why it is that folk who operate from a more social-democratic perspective (as this is the extent of the "left" political spectrum that fits into this context, and which is potentially operative in the american context, even though it's well to the left of what obama is about, so far as i can tell)--and more conservative to anarcho-conservative (sorry) types can't seem to talk about the same thing.

move a bit outside your comfortable frame of reference if you want to discuss this--i'm up for it---but i'm less up for going around and around because there's no common ground to start from.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Sun Tzu

I’m not saying I don’t believe your data. I probably misunderstood you. I still only understand about 75% of what you stated. I will admit that's my short coming. While I am beyond pop-up books, I’m not Spock. I took the required humanities and English in college, but obviously I wasn’t "learned good enough". It’s the primary reason I asked if you read much Nietchize a couple months ago; it almost takes me the same amount of time to process what you are saying. The issue in communication here is not you, but me. I’ll try to read your posts 6 or 7 times if I’m going to respond to them. This is only meant respectfully.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

tisonlyi

Luck comes in many forms: Inherited wealth, health, positive life experiences, etc, etc, etc.

For each element of that luck, you could point to an example where it could be discounted. The thing is... individual success stories DO NOT imply that there is equal opportunity in the system as a whole to replicate that success for the rest of the un or underemployed population.

100% intention, dedication and motivation is wonderful and is a real bonus in the fight to claw your way to where you want to be, but it fails to account for the Black Swans of life (car accident, health scare, disruptive episodes, economic episodes outside of your control, etc, etc.), the systemic necessity to restrict opportunity to a few (capitalism needs social strata to function and it needs unemployment as necessary elements of the system) and the fact that not everyone has the guts, guile, will or intelligence to make it as either an Amway fucker-overer, brain surgeon or limousine entrepreneur...

If you really want social Darwinism rule of the most successful, and I think there's a thread of that in the argument that blames the victim, then you head straight to totalitarianism, probably fascistic in the Mussolini style... Directly.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Derwood

roachboy makes good points, but i always feel like his posts were written in Swedish and then run through BabelFish or something.

Sun Tzu

I guess Im the worst of the worst then, aside from the disabled and babies born addicted to drugs I don't believe there are any victims. I do think natural consequences are a difficult aspect of life, but its not like people are powerless to change their situation. Im speaking on a general sense. I remember when I worked in the medical field I had to tell a lady that her husband was not going to be able to get treatment for brain cancer he had contracted. It was a minor technical bullshit reason in his insurance. She remained silent for a minute and sadly said "OK, thank you". I never forget the feeling of anger I had toward the system. There are multitudes of stories like that. If someone becomes sick or otherwise disabled, ofcourse they should recieve the best treatment possible.

Are you basically saying Socialism is the optimal direction for society to strive towards. The punch line the Republicans use "penalized for success" is inaccurate?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Yakk

Sun Tzu, it is true that 'self made people' tend to overestimate their own ability to control their own destiny.

Interestingly, they still fail at the statistically expected rate[1]. However, those that do not have that self-overestimation of their own competence don't gamble as often based on their own competence.

[1] Ie, if you take small business owners, and ask them what percentage of small businesses will fail in the next year, they tend to be about right. If you ask them what is the chance their business will fail, the average over the small businesses ... is far lower than the actual rate.

Now, this isn't evil or wrong or anything like that. But anyone who actually thinks that their own competence means that they won't fail - that luck or other factors beyond their control don't have a huge impact - is deluding themselves. This delusion might result in them doing things that are actually a good idea, but the delusion exists.

And if you base your decisions, on a wide scale, on that delusion, you get crappy results. If you base your decisions, on your personal scale, on your own over confidence, then are you are more likely to end up stinking rich. At the same time, if you don't buy a lottery ticket, you are less likely to end up winning the lottary -- but that doesn't mean buying the lottery ticket was a good idea for everyone who bought one. :-)

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Sun Tzu

I dont want this to run into the positive thinking thread in another area. (a majority don't believe in it anyway).

How many self made owners failed? How many employees had a good idea that they will never pursue for fear of failing? How many times does it take before someone gives up?

What do you mean by control?

I think one of the biggest factors is a lot of people don't like the aspect of sacrifice. Yeah there are those born with the silver spoons. From what I have seen, heard, and experienced myself nothing comes without sacrificing one thing to achieve another.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Dexter Morgan

I see a lot of people making differences between "brick and mortar" businesses built from scratch and "Wall Street" millionaires, without it really being acknowledged that a million dollars sitting in either of their bank accounts is . . . theirs.

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand where it's my responsibility to take care of anyone besides myself and my family. There's usually always SOME explanation behind why someone is just completely and totally dirt poor, at least more often than poverty is just some unavoidable affliction that unwittingly implants itself in someone's life without there being a thing that person can do about it. If you are a single person with absolutely no education, no wealthy family, you can still manage to find yourself a job and support yourself. If you have a spouse, he or she can do the same to add more to the household.

It's when shit like having kids comes into the picture. If your ass is broke, why would you have children? Since we're no longer an overly agrarian society, not many people have children to help out on the farm. And even if we DID, you still have to account for the several years in the beginning when a child contributes absolutely nothing. Children are an expense. Children are NOT a necessity. So when I see someone wading through a grocery store with three kids and waving around an EBT card, hell YES, I get angry. I have one child, am divorced, with a modest income. You know the one thing I am absolutely NOT going to do? Have more children.

One way in which I agree with liberals: access to abortion. Western civilization should outright CELEBRATE abortion. It should be hailed as the best thing to happen since birth control and sliced bread. More emphasis needs to be placed on not breeding NEARLY as much as we do. I guarantee we'd have a MUCH smaller "need" problem if people didn't continue to look at having children as a "necessity" or an "entitlement". Sure, you may have the reproductive right to have children how and whenever you want, but when does the responsibility of providing for them enter the picture? Shouldn't it be about time to yank out the safety net so that people have to truly THINK about these issues before simply assuming they have this compelling entitlement to breed?

People have the right to do many, many things (and SHOULD have those rights); but that doesn't mean they're absolved of the consequences thereof.

Truly, I don't care how much anyone makes in a year, I don't care how they came by their money (in a legal sense - and even then, I don't care if your money is from selling drugs, but I DO care if you flat-out STOLE your money), whether they scraped to earn every single penny of it, invested, or simply inherited a huge chunk of it; the bottom line is, that is NOT my money, I have absolutely NO entitlement to it whatsoever, and neither does anyone else. No one ever promised me wealth or prosperity, and I think any such promise would be bogus. You have to work for it. And sometimes what work will just manage to make a living, rather than extravagance. At what point does that make Billy Millionaire owe me more of his money? It doesn't.

Life isn't fair. Taking money from one person to give it to another isn't just "unfair", it's completely unjust.

My points should not be taken to mean that I don't believe in charity; I certainly do. And while people are busy throwing rich people under the bus, they ignore that MANY very well-to-do people donate their money, product or time to various charities and outreaches. In fact, Dave Ramsey, the man whose blog was the opening post of this thread, includes that as a part of his wealth-building strategy for people looking to get out of debt. He has a very common sense, no-nonsense approach to building wealth, and at the end of those steps, he talks about charity and paying it forward.

So I totally support private charities and the WILLING donation of money to those less fortunate. It's one of the many things I think the private sector could do MUCH better than the government could - charity/welfare, insurance, home ownership, you name it. Government has become too big and too inefficient and should not deal with redistributing wealth where THEY think it ought to go. If you give people the chance to handle THEIR affairs and needs first instead of taking such a huge portion of their income in taxes, we'd probably SEE a hell of a lot more charity and wealth circulating throughout.

The biggest obstacle to that is, people have such a lack of confidence in both themselves and others that they think that other people (no different from you or me) who simply happen to be in elevated positions are better qualified to make decisions regarding their lives and money than they are themselves. Someone asked another poster earlier if they were anarchist; I'm not anarchist, but I'm surely minarchist. I support the smallest government possible, and believe one should exist only to secure individual liberty and enforce laws that uphold individual liberty. The role of government should never to be take care of its citizens; it should protect us from harm by protecting our liberties, but only so that WE can take care of ourselves.

Derwood

no one is taking your money away from you

Slims

It simply isn't possible to provide universal healthcare, more generous social programs, tax credits (other peoples money) to people who pay no taxes, etc. without taking money away from the people who are earning it.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

dc_dux

A progressive income tax is nothing new....we've had it since the passage of the 16th Amendment nearly hundred years ago.

Its only in this election cycle that it has been so grossly mischaracterized as wealth distribution.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire