Randomness thread, part two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

You have a business. To succeed, you need a business model that takes money from your customer's pocket and puts it into yours. The easier it is to do that, the better off you'll be. The less competition you have, the better off you'll be.

Fishermen want few other fishermen and plenty of stupid fish.

This started off as a discussion about whether it's better if everyone was as smart, willful, etc as everyone else. The answer is no. Spoon is a writer, he would make far less money at writing if every other writer was just as good as him. He'd make far less money if every reader knew as much as him. His business depends on a large knowledge gap between him and his audience and other writers, and so shrinking that gap is bad for business.

Fishermen and fish.

---

I've been not characterizing people being bad at something as fish. I'm not sure what to do with this topic because I'm honestly confused. Could be I'm just tired.

If we talk about specific instances, yeah then people who are bad at things are fish in them. But it looked to me like the fisherman/fish dichotomy was talking about some other sort of power dynamic, which is why I brought up the idea that when people are less fishy, things are better for everybody. The contrast I was thinking of is if you have one situation where you have a lawyer and a bum versus another situation where you have a lawyer and a dentist instead of a bum. The latter scenario makes the sample better off, but I mentioned it because I thought it also made the sample less fishy. But it seems I may not be interpreting the power context correctly.

I'm just sticking to the initial question; which can be simplified as such: Would the advantaged be better off with their advantage or without? The answer is clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

You have a business. To succeed, you need a business model that takes money from your customer's pocket and puts it into yours. The easier it is to do that, the better off you'll be. The less competition you have, the better off you'll be.

Fishermen want few other fishermen and plenty of stupid fish.

This started off as a discussion about whether it's better if everyone was as smart, willful, etc as everyone else. The answer is no. Spoon is a writer, he would make far less money at writing if every other writer was just as good as him. He'd make far less money if every reader knew as much as him. His business depends on a large knowledge gap between him and his audience and other writers, and so shrinking that gap is bad for business.

Fishermen and fish.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

I'm just sticking to the initial question; which can be simplified as such: Would the advantaged be better off with their advantage or without? The answer is clear.

---

If wuf can't turn it into 12 straight posts at about 5 paragraphs each, then he doesn't know what to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

I'm just sticking to the initial question; which can be simplified as such: Would the advantaged be better off with their advantage or without? The answer is clear.

---

It depends on which context. If we're talking societal level, generational stuff, then the answer is that the upper classes are better off when the lower classes rise. This is how modern economies were created. Without this, the rich of today would still be riding horses to get from one place to another.

Nonsense. This isnt about class, its about advantages and power. In every context, I would rather have a large advantage than a small one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Nonsense. This isnt about class, its about advantages and power. In every context, I would rather have a large advantage than a small one.

---

It's the same regardless of which descriptor you use.

Of course at every given point in time it's better to be higher than lower. But I'm not talking about isolated points in time. I'm talking about societies at every point in time. If you want the hypothetical lives of people 200 years from now to be better off and you could choose one of two kinds of societies for the next 200 years -- one with a few advantaged or one with tons of advantaged -- the one with the few advantaged would be far less better off after the 200 years than the one with the tons of advantaged.

I'm still mulling over the notion that every goal is power, and whether or not that is a overly encompassing way to define power or not.

Still on the fence. It's not within the ambition of most people to be in the ruling class. So it's not like everyone seeks the same forms of power. I am fine seeing power as ability to affect change and/or control over one's life.

***
Wuf, I assume you're not claiming to see the future, so you'd be far better off citing events from 200 years ago and relating them to current affairs than speculating on what it's going to be like 200 years from now.

It's still a simple matter of the fact that a ruling class with no ruled class is pointless. Your point that a ruling class is benefited by a more capable ruled class is a separate issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

It's still a simple matter of the fact that a ruling class with no ruled class is pointless.

---

This can't exist. The "ruling class" would then divide into a true ruling class and a new ruled class.

http://wanna-joke.com/wp-content/upl...nkey-feels.gif

I'm so ready to be a hooooman. I can do all the things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

This can't exist. The "ruling class" would then divide into a true ruling class and a new ruled class.

---

Related reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...slave_morality

Given that Nietzsche describes slave morality as utility, it's no wonder that slave morality has won. Master morality is less useful. The less useful dies off.

I suspect that if Nietzsche were alive today, his criticisms would flip, given that master morality has brought the greatest disasters the world has ever known (Nazi Germany) and slave morality has brought the greatest benefit the world has ever known (free-ish market capitalism)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Given that Nietzsche describes slave morality as utility, it's no wonder that slave morality has won. Master morality is less useful. The less useful dies off.

I suspect that if Nietzsche were alive today, his criticisms would flip, given that master morality has brought the greatest disasters the world has ever known (Nazi Germany) and slave morality has brought the greatest benefit the world has ever known (free-ish market capitalism)

---

Slave morality is focused on utility of the community aka of the oppressed. Along these lines, slave morality can only win if it pulls the oppressor to the same state of the oppressed, which it has certainly attempted to do, but it has not done so completely, so I couldn't say that it has won. Your previous fascination with victim culture ties in here, etc.

I think "free-ish market capitalism" is clearly of a master morality. To make my point as simply as possible, slave morality consists of forced equality (communism), the opposite of capitalism which awards effort, the accumulation of power, etc., the virtues of the master morality.

You are correct, however, in that a bastardized version of master morality was used as a part of the Nazi propaganda machine.

If you read through On the Genealogy of Morality, the book where he expanded on these ideas in the most of his works (before getting a bit too metaphysical for my tastes), there's a very close connection between victim culture and the slave morality just as there is between a dignity (and honor, to an extent) culture and the master mentality. The commonalities of the honor and dignity cultures, in terms of personal responsibility to drive towards an end (though each uses different means), are more or less at the core of the master mentality.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. There are a non-zero percentage of people who take responsibility for themselves and their own position in life, regardless of where they fall in the lens of "privilege" that's so popular now. These people have the master morality, and they will ultimately come to accumulate more power than those who do not take on this morality through the simple function of said morality. Slave morality is a direct attack on those who have the master morality in an attempt to drag them down in a perfect example of the "crabs in a bucket" scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I can see that interpretation. The wiki describes slave morality in some ways that I think mis-characterizes that though. Freedom and utility are essential for free market capitalism, yet the wiki calls those slave morality values.

---

Sorry for the ninja edit. Both forms of morality in that model are based on utility, but it's the context of that utility that changes.

Also, the master morality is more freedom-centric than the slave morality, the latter of which is reactive and inherently binding, and the former of which is active and inherently freeing.

Your explanation makes a little more sense, at least as far as Nazi Germany goes, because that was very victimization based. The sensibilities that brought forth the Bolsheviks and communism are not that different than what brought forth the Nazis. I've argued that they're essentially the same.

heh, i deleted it in an attempt to avoid the confusion. no matter.

It seems like a capitalism v socialism dichotomy.

Blegh, spoon posted this first :(

So

My boss wants to test me out for appellate work. If I manage to impress him, it means a promotion and a faster path to my eventual judging. Im stoked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

So

My boss wants to test me out for appellate work.

---

https://media.giphy.com/media/JlIa4Zfz9Kv28/giphy.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

If I manage to impress him, it means a promotion and a faster path to my eventual judging. Im stoked.

---

https://31.media.tumblr.com/ccd2f77d...reygjb_500.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

So

My boss wants to test me out for appellate work. If I manage to impress him, it means a promotion and a faster path to my eventual judging. Im stoked.

---

Git r done

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

It seems like a capitalism v socialism dichotomy.

Blegh, spoon posted this first :(

---

Related: When people go from not having to pay for their own shit to having to pay for their own shit, they tend to move from favoring socialism to capitalism in large numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Related: When people go from not having to pay for their own shit to having to pay for their own shit, they tend to move from favoring socialism to capitalism in large numbers.

---

I'm not sure why this is that relevant, it's pretty obvious that humans are massively self-centred.

I have noticed the more time I spend on here the more fun I have annoying people in real life with how capitalism >>>> is good times.

I got offered a job today, a month of marking exam papers. Going to be riveting. Thankfully it's in the evening so tides me over money wise and I can apply for some proper long term jobs in the process & don't have to worry about not being able to make interviews during the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

I'm not sure why this is that relevant, it's pretty obvious that humans are massively self-centred.

---

It's relevant because it shows that increasing responsibility for oneself can change someone from having a slave morality to a master morality. Moreover, it shows the transition from slave morality to master morality can be culturally driven (as opposed to someone having to just be born with it).

People with a master morality seem to have more tools to help other people than those with the slave morality. There's a saying that you have to be able to help yourself before you can help other people, and a big part of it is that simply having power gives you more influence and more resources to help.

The main tool that those of the slave morality have is that they are a majority of the population, and they can try to leverage this majority through things like purchasing power.

It would seem that today's game is making those of the slave morality believe they are attacking the masters when they are really attacking other slaves. [Insert a stock discussion of cultivating infighting here.]

Along the same lines, you can leverage those of the slave morality to make them believe they are supporting other slaves when they are really supporting masters. There was a good example of this concept that happened last year when some straight, white, cis-gendered males made a ton of money by selling items with feminist and SJW catch phrases on them.

What is probably my favorite recent example of this is found here (source):

http://i.imgur.com/Xp2rMmC.png

Quote:

---

The march prompted Amazon to warn employees that they could be targeted by protesters.

“Please remember to not wear anything that has Amazon logos and keep your badges covered or put away and out of site [sight],” an internal Amazon memo read.

Marchers walked by the Amazon buildings as employees watched from inside, many filming the protest.

Three of the protesters who gathered earlier in the day at Westlake Park told a reporter they had purchased their Guy Fawkes masks online by using the Amazon Prime membership of a parent.

“We’re here for the movement,” said one of the protesters, who declined to give her name. ”We’re part of the 99 percent against the 1 percent.”

---

I want to say a few more quick things regarding the master/slave morality, the elite minority vs the not elite majority, or whatever other semantics you want to use to describe the concentration of power towards a few of any group. I promise I'll be done with it after this.

First, it absolutely has to be this way, and there is no other way for things to play out for a group of human beings. If you start off a group of people being absolutely equal, then some of them will accumulate more power over time than the others. There are some fun studies on this sort of thing, and it's generally understood that it will happen pretty much regardless of the size of the group or the purpose of the group.

Second, there are certain checks available against the accumulation of power that limit over-the-top abuse. The main check is the simple fact that the elite will always be a minority, usually a very small minority, and we've seen repeatedly through history that revolution happens when the conditions of the majority get to be too bad. Now we have things like welfare and copious amounts of entertainment to systematically keep the minority from rising up, and the majority has gotten better at maintaining their position as a result.

Finally, it's much better in terms of overall happiness to be a part of the elite in your group than to be a part of the not-elite majority. To give an example of this, there have been a lot of studies to show things like people would much rather make $70,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $35,000 than to make $125,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $250,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

So

My boss wants to test me out for appellate work. If I manage to impress him, it means a promotion and a faster path to my eventual judging. Im stoked.

---

Grats. Glimpse into the future:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo

I quite like the model. It fits my own theories. I think it provides a much more accurate reading of history and politics. For example, what people tend to call left-wing and right-wing are really just subsets of slave morality. They were called opposites because they battled each other; this is how communism and fascism got called opposites even though they spring from the same branch.

As best I can see it, the real division is between the Enlightenment and Romanism. That is, ideals of individualism, liberty, and capitalism on the one side, and ideals of collectivism, subservience, socialism on the other side.

An issue I have is that I'm unsure if it's accurate to say that master morality is inherently a minority. I would argue that a lot of what that has allowed Enlightenment ideals to flourish comes from wide adoption of elements of master morality among the people.

I never liked the Fermi Paradox. Where's the paradox in a bunch of civilizations that don't bother expanding beyond their solar systems because they've already reached technological bliss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I never liked the Fermi Paradox. Where's the paradox in a bunch of civilizations that don't bother expanding beyond their solar systems because they've already reached technological bliss?

---

Hand wavy bullshit isn't it.

And what you've said is one of the explanations used against it.

One of the "google doodles" (ewww) led me to this. Possibly the best thing ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ34RDn34Ws

Anyone here played Factorio? It's a pretty solid game that's a lot like the automation/wiring aspects of Terraria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I never liked the Fermi Paradox. Where's the paradox in a bunch of civilizations that don't bother expanding beyond their solar systems because they've already reached technological bliss?

---

It's not science. It's a fundamentally hand-waving argument based on unfounded assumptions which sound pretty good, but which are not backed by actual evidence.

It's all based off of assumptions about what constitutes "intelligent" life and what those intelligent species would desire in realm of general exploration.

Given that it takes "only" a few tens of millions of years to cross the galaxy using our current level of technology, it seems a huge stretch to assume every species would do it when we still haven't done it (and for quite good reasons).

Even if it were "easy" to make an interstellar colony ship, it's still not clear what kind of profit model would need to be invoked to justify the economic investment in the ship. When it takes decades to reach even our closest neighbor star and no guarantee of sufficient resources to justify said expenditure in time and money ... well ... what's the motivation again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Anyone here played Factorio? It's a pretty solid game that's a lot like the automation/wiring aspects of Terraria.

---

I've voyeured the pants off of it, but not played it.

It looks like a very fun game for a once-through, but as a base-builder game, it doesn't leave you too many options for each system you automate. I.e. Once you've built an assembly line for a thing, there is really only one way to make that thing, so you can't redesign your assembly line in the next play-through utilizing a different assembly process.

Sure, you can re-arrange your base and its various assembly lines, but the changes will be minor and the fun of problem-solving how to get all the assembly lines working is kind of lost.


Do you disagree? Am I missing something about this game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

First, it absolutely has to be this way, and there is no other way for things to play out for a group of human beings. If you start off a group of people being absolutely equal, then some of them will accumulate more power over time than the others. There are some fun studies on this sort of thing, and it's generally understood that it will happen pretty much regardless of the size of the group or the purpose of the group.

---

This is what bugs me the most about idealistic progressives-- egalitarianism as a fuzzy goal is great, but as a concrete true to definition destination is ridiculous. But then I think, maybe this is simply how the system works-- individual actors have no clue what the actual goal is. They have their ideals and they fight for an unrealistic goal, and their counterparts on the other side of the isle have opposing ideals. In this dichotomy we stay anchored to the actual goal, yet the slack in the line lets both groups feel like they are winning or losing the battle, which keeps them engaged, and ensures neither is ever capable of snapping the line and sending us adrift.

I suppose it's a pretty cynical nihilistic view, but it certainly feels more right than what any activist, on any side, is pushing.

Quote:

---

Finally, it's much better in terms of overall happiness to be a part of the elite in your group than to be a part of the not-elite majority. To give an example of this, there have been a lot of studies to show things like people would much rather make $70,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $35,000 than to make $125,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $250,000.

---

Sup, wuf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Sup, wuf?

---

It can be said that beyond basic necessities (like enough food to not die), people find relative status to be more important than absolute status. This can explain why things get better yet they don't feel better. The poor today are in a better position (in an absolute sense) than kings of the past, yet people would probably feel much better as the king who has to shit on cold stone by candlelight than the poor person of today who watches Game of Thrones on wifi.

I minute in the life of my head, every day at one point at least:

Don't fuck it up. Don't fuck it up. Don't fuck it up. You're gonna fuck it up. You don't know what you're doing. Everyone is going to see what fraud you are. You're gonna fuck it up. You don't deserve to be here. You just got lucky. You don't know what you're doing. You're gonna fuck it up. You're exposed now. Everyone will see how useless you are. Why are you wasting this opportunity? Do you realise what a massive opportunity this is? You got such a big opportunity and you're gonna fuck it up. Bring in more business. You need to bring in more. You haven't done enough. Why aren't you bringing in more? People see through you. You don't know what you're doing. You're gonna fail. You're failing right now. You don't know what you're doing. You can't deliver on that promise. You're exposed. Everyone will see that you don't know what you're doing. How have you got here?

https://media.giphy.com/media/yidUzA...JI9G/giphy.gif

Nah, it's only for a minute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

Nah, it's only for a minute.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36082469

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgsv9qt

From my limited working experience I'd argue lots of people in higher up jobs are incompetent frauds so should be feeing that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

Nah, it's only for a minute.

---

Sounds normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

Sounds normal.

---

I guess that's what I was hoping to hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

I guess that's what I was hoping to hear.

---

I didnt know if you wanted actual advice or not; but the short answer is competition.

You are competing, even in your current state, for your job. Every day is a question of "how do I justify my boss's (investor's / partner's / etc) faith in me". What stops them from moving on and picking someone else?

You're also competing with your image. When you see someone you used to know, and they say "I'm happy with a job, wife, house, and kids", what do you say that will satisfy you?

Then finally with your ego. You are now ___ years old. Are you doing enough to achieve your goals in a timely manner? Are you on the right path

Thats what you get for having a goal :P

Have been watching some whatculture WWE videos on youtube so thought I'd see if there was anything to watch turns out there was a PPV event on & I found some footage of it to watch.

First match someone gets injured and they have to stop it. Which considering it's meant to be a fight is hilarious. Should have dragged him back into the ring and pinned him then he can be taken off on a stretcher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Have been watching some whatculture WWE videos on youtube so thought I'd see if there was anything to watch turns out there was a PPV event on & I found some footage of it to watch.

First match someone gets injured and they have to stop it. Which considering it's meant to be a fight is hilarious. Should have dragged him back into the ring and pinned him then he can be taken off on a stretcher.

---

Third match counting the pre-show, but there's no reason to drag him into the ring and pin him because they will have won by count out or ref stoppage anyway. Going outside of the ring to pull him back in could have resulted in a DQ loss or a double count out for a draw, both of which are worse than winning, especially since it was a number one contender's match for the tag team championships.

Somewhat related, but the two matches (with accompanying segments) right after that was some of the best professional wrestling that WWE has put out in the past ten years. Kevin Owens (aka Kevin Steen) seems like he was finally allowed to really do his thing, and it was tremendous.

To elaborate on the above without editing the fuck out of my already edited post, one of the biggest things that kills interest in professional wrestling is a lack of logic or storyline continuity. For reasons that would require a much more detailed post than I want to go in on right now, both WWE and TNA (the #1 and #2 North American companies, respectively) have been pretty bad about this.

For example, having a character turn (ie: switch from good guy to bad guy, or vice versa) too often can kill off interest in the character. It's often the result of lazy planning, and it's hard to understand why they do that because of the lack of an upside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Now we have things like welfare and copious amounts of entertainment to systematically keep the minority from rising up, and the majority has gotten better at maintaining their position as a result.

---

I just want to say that welfare totally keeps me under control. It's no secret that I hate the system and that I refuse to give my life to support it, but I'm content and happy so long as I'm fed and sheltered, I don't feel the need to enforce my views on others. If I had literally no choice other than to work at a shitty factory, I would be much more vocal about my feelings, and probably a lot more proactive in trying to change things. Of course, alone I would change nothing, but there would be millions who find themselves deseprate.

This is one reason I feel that welfare is necessary in a civilised capitalist society. Without welfare, we truly are slaves to the system, and that's a dangerous mindset to put a great many people in.

Quote:

---

Finally, it's much better in terms of overall happiness to be a part of the elite in your group than to be a part of the not-elite majority. To give an example of this, there have been a lot of studies to show things like people would much rather make $70,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $35,000 than to make $125,000 in a neighborhood full of people who make $250,000.

---

I don't agree with this though. People might think it's better to be part of the elite, but I don't think that's true at all. It's what people aspire to because we think it's a better world. Of course, it is a better world, if you're a sociopath who can deal with the knowledge that what is to your benefit is to the 99%'s detriment. Unfortunately for me, I suffer from empathy, and a perhaps deluded view of the world, which means I'd rather be poor than rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I just want to say that welfare totally keeps me under control. It's no secret that I hate the system and that I refuse to give my life to support it, but I'm content and happy so long as I'm fed and sheltered, I don't feel the need to enforce my views on others. If I had literally no choice other than to work at a shitty factory, I would be much more vocal about my feelings, and probably a lot more proactive in trying to change things. Of course, alone I would change nothing, but there would be millions who find themselves deseprate.

This is one reason I feel that welfare is necessary in a civilised capitalist society. Without welfare, we truly are slaves to the system, and that's a dangerous mindset to put a great many people in.

---

An economy with welfare is one where people have increased dependency on shitty circumstances.

Do you find it ironic that you described a situation where you have agency and called it being under control, and also described a different situation where you're under control and called it agency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Third match counting the pre-show, but there's no reason to drag him into the ring and pin him because they will have won by count out or ref stoppage anyway. Going outside of the ring to pull him back in could have resulted in a DQ loss or a double count out for a draw, both of which are worse than winning, especially since it was a number one contender's match for the tag team championships.

Somewhat related, but the two matches (with accompanying segments) right after that was some of the best professional wrestling that WWE has put out in the past ten years. Kevin Owens (aka Kevin Steen) seems like he was finally allowed to really do his thing, and it was tremendous.

---

I thought the bold after posting but it's somewhat irrelevant to my point.

I'd agree that the matches after were very enjoyable, the LO one especially. His commentary on the match after was annoying though. After the CJ match it got a bit boring again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

An economy with welfare is one where people have increased dependency on shitty circumstances.

---

As opposed dependancy on forced employment? That's shitty circumstances in my opinion, at least when one considers the type of employment that is generally available to the unskilled.

Who are you to judge if my circumstances are shitty? Or anyone else's for that matter? You can only judge your own circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

As opposed dependancy on forced employment? That's shitty circumstances in my opinion, at least when one considers the type of employment that is generally available to the unskilled.

---

What forced employment? The only thing being forced here is welfare forcing economies to be less productive and their people to have to work more for the same benefit.

Quote:

---

Who are you to judge if my circumstances are shitty? Or anyone else's for that matter? You can only judge your own circumstances.

---

You alluded to some kinds of hard work making people stuck in shitty circumstances. I pointed out that welfare increases the amount of this kind of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What forced employment?

---

Well what options do you have if there's no welfare?

Quote:

---

The only thing being forced here is welfare forcing economies to be less productive and their people to have to work more for the same benefit.

---

Welfare obviously has a huge cost to the economy, but so too for unproductive workers, crime, social unrest. These things would rise massively if welfare were taken away. Forcing a drug addict into work is not going to make the economy any better off than forcing the taxpayer to keep him out of the workforce. I would argue that welfare is of overall benefit to the economy, if it wasn't they'd take it away. They won't do that because the economy would not be able to cope with the fallout.

So don't tell me that welfare is less of a benefit to the working class than no welfare, because it's an extremely short sighted viewpoint.

I guess I took issue with your "shitty circumstances" comment because it makes the assumption that being on welfare is a worse position to find oneself in than working a shitty job, as though those of us who rely on the state to survive should aspire to better things, like a 40-hr week in a dirty factory. One's circumstances are only as bad as one finds them. What you consider bad circumstances, another might find excellent. Like, earlier you said something like "if not for capitalism then today the ruling class would ride around on horseback" or whatever, like it's a given that cars are better than horses. That's a matter of opinion too, and the same can be said for everything that capitalism has done for us. Whatever way you look at it, industrialisation and the economic system that has evolved with it has caused a huge population boom over the last century. That's a good thing? I'm not so sure. We're nearing saturation point, in fact we're probably already past it.

I digress. The point I was making is that I strongly feel that society has a responsibility to provide welfare, for multiple reasons. Without it, employment is practically enforced, unless crime or begging appeal more. It would create a more unstable society and would not even be of huge benefit to the economy because those who really resent being forced to work will be unproductive. The monetry cost of negating these aspects would greatly outweight the current welfare cost, imo. And I believe that the very fact we have welfare is proof of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well what options do you have if there's no welfare?

---

If you didn't want to work, you could just not work. Your circumstances would reflect your level of productivity. If you wanted to work, markets provide you with ample choice regarding a variety of different kind of work.

Quote:

---

Welfare obviously has a huge cost to the economy, but so too for unproductive workers, crime, social unrest. These things would rise massively if welfare were taken away.

---

These things correlate with welfare.

Quote:

---

Forcing a drug addict into work is not going to make the economy any better off than forcing the taxpayer to keep him out of the workforce.

---

Nobody's forcing somebody to work. You're in favor of forcing workers to subsidize those who don't want to work.

Quote:

---

I would argue that welfare is of overall benefit to the economy, if it wasn't they'd take it away. They won't do that because the economy would not be able to cope with the fallout.

---

It gets votes and makes people feel like they're doing good. The same is true of belief in God. Just because something is popular doesn't make it correct, especially when the data demonstrates otherwise and the theory explains why.

Quote:

---

So don't tell me that welfare is less of a benefit to the working class than no welfare, because it's an extremely short sighted viewpoint.

---

Welfare is like the belief that subtraction is addition. Productivity is subtracted from the productive (taxes) to fund anti-productivity. This is unarguable subtraction of net productivity, yet proponents of welfare claim it is addition.

Quote:

---

I guess I took issue with your "shitty circumstances" comment because it makes the assumption that being on welfare is a worse position to find oneself in than working a shitty job

---

I did not claim that. Being on welfare is great in a vacuum. It's the existence of welfare that makes things worse for everybody in aggregate. Welfare benefits the recipient at the expense of non-recipients, which increases the amount of "shitty jobs" non-recipients have. Keep in mind that this is in a vacuum. Welfare has such unintended consequences that it hurts recipients as well over the long run, but that's a different point.

Quote:

---

I digress. The point I was making is that I strongly feel that society has a responsibility to provide welfare

---

Look at the terminology you're using. Society doesn't provide welfare; people do, people who produce and develop skills that you don't want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't agree with this though.

---

On average, the bit you quoted has been shown to be true over and over again. There's no disputing it at this point that this is, on average, the case. Obviously there are outliers, but that's a given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

I thought the bold after posting but it's somewhat irrelevant to my point.

I'd agree that the matches after were very enjoyable, the LO one especially. His commentary on the match after was annoying though. After the CJ match it got a bit boring again.

---

The scheduled finish was for the Dudleys to interfere to have Enzo/Cass lose to continue their feud. They'll probably have the match again after Enzo is cleared and continue along those lines.

Quote:

---

Look at the terminology you're using. Society doesn't provide welfare; people do, people who produce and develop skills that you don't want to.

---

What is society if it's not people?

Quote:

---

Nobody's forcing somebody to work.

---

No, because we have welfare. Take that away, and one is faced with very few options, of which the most appealing by far is working. That's as good as forced to me. If I put a gun to your head and ask for your wallet, you'll hand it to me. Of course, you could say no, or you could try to take the gun off me, or make a run for it in zig zags and hope I can't shoot. Were you forced to give me your wallet? Of course, your other options were so unrealistic that giving me your wallet is by far the most sensible thing to do. Look up the word zugzwang and understand how it relates to chess. If you're forced to make a bad move, then you make the one that gives the best outcome of rescuing the situation. Most of the time, when playing chess, if you're in zugwang, resignation is the appropriate response. That isn't a viable option when it comes to life.

Quote:

---

You're in favor of forcing workers to subsidize those who don't want to work.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

It's the existence of welfare that makes things worse for everybody in aggregate.

---

I don't agree at all for points I've already made. It makes things better for everyone because it keeps the unstable people from becoming more unstable. Social stability has a value way beyond that of the welfare bill. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say. I guess you're not thinking about what a world without welfare would be like. Either that, or you're naively assuming that all people with no money will be willing or able to get a job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

On average, the bit you quoted has been shown to be true over and over again. There's no disputing it at this point that this is, on average, the case. Obviously there are outliers, but that's a given.

---

I just think it takes either a total lack of empathy, or ignorance, to be super wealthy and happy. Maybe that describes a lot more people than I was giving credit for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Yes.

---

Why do you not think this is morally wrong?

In this world, there are getters, and those who get got. He's a getter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Why do you not think this is morally wrong?

---

I'm not saying it isn't morally wrong. Tax is theft, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm not saying it isn't morally wrong. Tax is theft, right?

---

So, on the one hand you argue that something is wrong, and then on the other hand, you argue that your position on that something being wrong is wrong.

I've explained why I think the taxpayer is better off paying for welfare than not. I'm not forcing the people to give me money, the government are forcing people to give me money. And that enforcement is, imo, justified. But then again I think tax is acceptable because otheriwse literally everything becomes privatised, from education to roads to health to bin collections, law enforcement, border control, military! Fucking military becoming privatised! This is the world without tax.

You tell us that tax is immoral, then suggest me claiming welfare because fuck the system is immoral. I think that's consistency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

So, on the one hand you argue that something is wrong, and then on the other hand, you argue that your position on that something being wrong is wrong.

---

That was a little tongue in cheek. I don't think it's immoral for the government to claim tax, and I don't think it's immoral for me to claim welfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

In this world, there are getters, and those who get got. He's a getter.

---

It's like a cow being overstuffed so it develops nice delicious marble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

That was a little tongue in cheek. I don't think it's immoral for the government to claim tax, and I don't think it's immoral for me to claim welfare.

---

I'm not asking about the euphemisms and the mental gymnastics. I'm asking why you think it's not morally wrong for you to reap what somebody else sows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I'm not asking about the euphemisms and the mental gymnastics. I'm asking why you think it's not morally wrong for you to reap what somebody else sows.

---

Because the alternatives, on a social scale, would be more immoral. What would actually happen if they cut me off? I'd get a shitty job, save my wages, then when I can afford to, set myself up growing weed. That would be preferable to working that shitty job until I die. But I'm doing something now that the law deems even more immoral than "reaping what others sow", which incidentally is an excellent metaphor for ubercapitalism, as well as people like me who live on a pittance.

I would prefer to be growing weed than claiming benefits. Sadly, I don't get to decide what society deems moral and immoral. Me claiming welfare is moral because it's legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Because the alternatives, on a social scale, would be more immoral.

---

What is more immoral about fewer people having worse lives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What is more immoral about fewer people having worse lives?

---

Ok so we're back to the delusion that no welfare = better for everyone.

I think we're hitting a brick wall here.

Do I think it's immoral that other people are paying for me to survive? Yes, sure. Do I think that I'm the one who is acting immorally? Not at all. I am in zugwang, and am making the least bad move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Ok so we're back to the delusion that no welfare = better for everyone.

---

What delusion? I'm only reiterating the position that the entire field of economics has affirmed for many decades now. What I see from you is simply just skipping over this.

It's like people who were dependant on welfare would just magically disappear if welfare ceased to exist.

Is that what the entire field of economics thinks?

Better for everyone would be no fucking wars, not no welfare. Have you any idea how much money the taxpayer would save if our nations didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy?

On another note, dude who asset stripped BHS of hundreds of millions of pounds, driving it into bankruptcy at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs, is buying himself a £100m+ yacht.

His name is Sir something or other. He's a prominant man. He'll probably have the Prime Minister as guest on his nice shiny new yacht.

Worthy of note... all that money got channeled via his wife though Moanco, meaning he didn't even pay tax.

What a beautiful system.

Of course, I'm acting immorally by saying fuck that and sponging a pittance off the taxpayer to stop me from dying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's like people who were dependant on welfare would just magically disappear if welfare ceased to exist.

Is that what the entire field of economics thinks?

---

Reread my posts on the subject.

Quote:

---

Better for everyone would be no fucking wars, not no welfare.

---

Better for me would be if I was married to Alexandra Daddario, but that's not relevant either.

Quote:

---

Have you any idea how much money the taxpayer would save if our nations didn't have such an aggressive foreign policy?

---

They don't have an aggressive foreign policy. In fact, it's the rejection of pacifism adopted during the close of WW2 that largely contributed to world peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Of course, I'm acting immorally by saying fuck that and sponging a pittance off the taxpayer to stop me from dying.

---

So you're declaring moral relativism? Where the principle of a thing doesn't matter, and instead what matters is the effects? Where it's wrong to steal from people you like but not wrong to steal from people you don't?

Quote:

---

So you're declaring moral relativism? Where the principle of a thing doesn't matter, and instead what matters is the effects? Where it's wrong to steal from people you like but not wrong to steal from people you don't?

---

This is such a blatant strawman that I can only assume you're trolling me now.

There might be something to "moral relativism" though. I mean I talk about being in zugwang, about making the least bad move. I have more of a moral problem with the way our government spends tax. You can sit there and tell me we don't have an aggressive foreign policy, but those are the hollow words of the deluded. The UK is providing weapons to Saudi Arabia, which in turn are being used, with our knowledge, to indiscriminantly attack Yemeni civilians. What is happening out there is war crimes, and that is what I would be paying for if I were paying tax.

And you're talking to me about the morality of welfare like it's fucking theft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is such a blatant strawman that I can only assume you're trolling me now.

---

How? You call it morally wrong for a man to take a lot of money from presumed innocents. By principle, this should mean that you find it morally wrong for you to take money from presumed innocents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

How? You call it morally wrong for a man to take a lot of money from presumed innocents. By principle, this should mean that you find it morally wrong for you to take money from presumed innocents.

---

Notice the bold is missing when you refer to my "immorality".

What I take is enough to survive. Should I have a moral problem with survival?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

There might be something to "moral relativism" though. I mean I talk about being in zugwang, about making the least bad move. I have more of a moral problem with the way our government spends tax. You can sit there and tell me we don't have an aggressive foreign policy, but those are the hollow words of the deluded. The UK is providing weapons to Saudi Arabia, which in turn are being used, with our knowledge, to indiscriminantly attack Yemeni civilians. What is happening out there is war crimes, and that is what I would be paying for if I were paying tax.

And you're talking to me about the morality of welfare like it's fucking theft.

---

Oh I don't disagree that there is a lot wrong with our foreign policy. What I disagree with is the mischaracterization it gets when it's related to an empire and it's said that pacifism would work. Pacifism is arguably the most destructive idea in human history. Killing of innocents is wrong, but aggressiveness in foreign policy has been a boon. It matters what the aggressiveness is about.

And yes smoking weed is survival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Pacifism is arguably the most destructive idea in human history.

---

I'm just about to go to bed, I'm really not getting into this. I mean it's like saying that not shitting yourself is the best way to get shitty pants. I just can't comprehend how pacifism is the most destructive idea in human history, while we fight wars purely to support the arms industry.

You must be trolling.

Good night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Notice the bold is missing when you refer to my "immorality".

---

So, moral relativism it is then. Well, and the emotional optics.

Quote:

---

What I take is enough to survive. Should I have a moral problem with survival?

---

If you refuse to hunt, do you deserve others to hunt for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm just about to go to bed, I'm really not getting into this. I mean it's like saying that not shitting yourself is the best way to get shitty pants. I just can't comprehend how pacifism is the most destructive idea in human history, while we fight wars purely to support the arms industry.

---

Pacifism is not the belief in peace. Pacifism is the belief that fighting is unconditionally wrong. This ideology was a key element in the construction of WW2. Hitler's Germany took advantage of the pacifist policies adopted by Britain and France after WW1 that left western Europe poorly protected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well what options do you have if there's no welfare?



.

---

You have the option to look after yourself. That's it.

Why on earth anyone would assume that this most basic concept of survival should be passed on to someone else is beyond me.

It's pretty simple. You're alive. You can curl up in a corner and die or you can look after yourself.

The shitty job concept is bullshit. I mean there's a huge amount of jobs out there. Millions of things you can do to look after yourself and ensure you don't die. If you don't want a shitty job then learn what you need to get a good one. Or work for yourself and start a business.

I imagine without welfare people would find a way to survive anyway. You just don't have any motivation when the option to have someone else work instead exists. But make no mistake, that's what welfare is, passing on that most basic concept of looking after yourself to someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

I imagine without welfare people would find a way to survive anyway.

---

There's a difference between people who are perfectly capable but refuse (i.e. Ong) and people that require the help. You only have to look at what there was before to realise that people didn't survive. You only have to look at the effect when certain parts of welfare gets cut to realise people don't survive. I'm sure you can argue all the things Wuf would about how it's sub-optimal etc and I'm sure* that's all true but in the instant it's irrelevant.

*clear overestimate

Man I'm all for welfare in general. Certainly when it comes to people who need it like the sick and disabled. But that wasn't really what I was getting at.

In terms of functional usage in the Western world, the main purpose of welfare is not to help the people who legitimately need the help. Instead, it's to placate those of the underclass who refuse to take responsibility for themselves so that they do not disturb the upper classes nearly as much.

One of the biggest problems to the long-term sustainability of this particular system is that the welfare-dependent underclass tends to reproduce at a significantly higher rate than the upper classes. Some form of eugenics would be required to keep the status quo. Otherwise, the population difference will eventually be so great that the current system of welfare will no longer work, and then the upper classes will be more outnumbered than ever.

And that's when things are going to get interesting. We could have a revolution, or we could see the upper class outsmart them in one way or another. I imagine a lot of great dystopian fiction could be written about the various ways this scenario could play out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

I imagine without welfare people would find a way to survive anyway.

---

Sure, and a great number of them would rob, assault and kill other people to take their belongings. For the most part, these aren't people with a work ethic or a strong understanding of rationality that we're dealing with here. If they had those things, then they wouldn't be on welfare over the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

You have the option to look after yourself. That's it.

---

You're wrong, because I also have the option, the perfectly legal option, of having other people look after me in terms of finance. What you're saying is simply semantics. It's an ideal world, but it's not the real one. You're talking about how it should be, not how it is.

Besides, I am looking after myself in a different sense. I don't even care if it sounds like a cop out, I'm not cut out for shitty work. I can't go and work for ten hours a day in a factory. Physically I can, of course, but I'm not the kind of person who can bite my lip when my boss is a cunt. I'll get fired within a couple of months, and even if I don't, I'll be depressed within another couple of months and walk. How is that "looking after myself"? You say you're cool with people claiming benefits if they need it... why don't I need it? Because I'm physically ok? What about mentally? What about people who have such a moral problem with the way the world works that for them to work is for them to sell their soul to the devil? That might sound nonsense to you, but if someone actually feels that way, what good is work?

Quote:

---

Why on earth anyone would assume that this most basic concept of survival should be passed on to someone else is beyond me.

---

Because we live in a civilised society, one in which not everyone is capable or willing to go and grind out their lives supporting the system. Even when I was working, I recognised that welfare was essential, not just for people who can't work, but also for those who really don't want to. Because to force those people into work is not going to benefit anyone in the long run.

Quote:

---

It's pretty simple. You're alive. You can curl up in a corner and die or you can look after yourself.

---

This is the brutal world of nature, where hungry lions die if they don't eat enough zebras. This isn't the civilised world of modern western society, where people are not let to curl up in a corner and die. So it's not as simple as you think or wish it is.

Quote:

---

The shitty job concept is bullshit. I mean there's a huge amount of jobs out there. Millions of things you can do to look after yourself and ensure you don't die. If you don't want a shitty job then learn what you need to get a good one. Or work for yourself and start a business.

---

I've been unemployed for six years or so now, and during this time I've had to at least pretend to look for work. I can assure you that, for an unskilled man like me, there is very little out there except care work and labouring, and those few jobs that are appealing will have so many applicants that someone who has a six year gap on their CV doesn't stand a chance.

I would like to work for myself, but the law says I can't do what I want to do, what I'm good at and what I enjoy, what has high value and demand. And yes, there are plenty of things I can do to ensure I don't die. Claiming welfare is one of them. Just because you have a moral issue with it, doesn't mean others should. I have a pretty good idea of the type of people who typically claim benefits in this country. You should too, unless you're sheltered from all that in Cornwall. You would not employ the average welfare claimant, and neither would I.

Quote:

---

But make no mistake, that's what welfare is, passing on that most basic concept of looking after yourself to someone else.

---

Untlimately, this is right. But does your tax come down if I get a job? No. So it's not you looking after me, even though you're a taxpayer. My personal income is so insignificant that it's ridiculous to even be angry about it, especially considering that there are prominant people who will get wealthy at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs.

It's insane that the working class get angry with the lazy class when they should be angry with the ruling class. I won't work because I don't want to line the pockets of shareholders. I don't want to work because I don't want my tax to go towards foreign aggression. I don't want to work because the law tells me I can't do the one productive one thing I can do and enjoy doing. These are three key reasons for me not wanting to work. Of course, after six years doing nothing, I also don't want to work because I like doing nothing. But that is not what motivates me the most. I do wish I had more money so I can buy new clothes, go to more festivals, eat better, socialise more. But I'm willing to make those sacrifices to stand by my principles.

I don't doubt if I really tried hard enough, I could find a satisfactory job. But to say I am obligated to do so, it doesn't wash with me. I don't see why I should have the onus on me while genuinely lazy unproductive people continue to get away with it because they are truly unemployable. I should give up my life because I'm capable? No.

If I had kids I'd feel very differently, I would give my life to them, and would want to ensure they are capable of looking after themselves when they're adults, so I respect where you're coming from. But I'm a single man with no commitments, so what reason for me to work? To survive? I can survive perfectly well on benefits.

Spoon is right. Welfare only exists to keep people who reject the system from rising against it. If you want to take welfare away and force me into work, good luck to you. Me, personally, I'd put a plan together and put it into action. But, believe me, I'm way above the average intelligence level of the typical unemployed unskilled person. Those dumb fucks, they're the problem, because the only way they will be able to look after themself would still be at someone else's expense. And they make up the vast majority of unemployed people.

Welfare is absolutely necessary if you like the relative calm world we live in. And while welfare is a part of the system, then it is not immoral for me to claim it on the basis that I reject the system.

I'm so much smarter than everyone else, and that's why I live on welfare instead of starting a business or getting together the money to move somewhere else where I could start a business doing what I love.

Just a thought. I'd personally love to see you do it.

I never said I was smarter than everyone else, just relative to those who are unemployed. It was far from a brag.

The point being, that the vast majority of welfare recipients are incapable of doing anything productive. I'm not one of them. I'm capable, just unwilling.

That was my attempt at encouragement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

That was my attempt at encouragement.

---

You should be a motivational speaker.

I don't need encouragement. I need a whole new outlook on life, which I can't see happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You should be a motivational speaker.

I don't need encouragement. I need a whole new outlook on life, which I can't see happening.

---

I just think you need a realistic plan to get where you want to be. Maybe the first step would be to research the costs in moving to somewhere pot-friendly and getting started growing.

That away he could save half his welfare payment ea H month?

If you took a shitty min wage job say in macdonalds or whatever, how much more would you earn than now? Taking into account lost benefits and tax etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I just think you need a realistic plan to get where you want to be. Maybe the first step would be to research the costs in moving to somewhere pot-friendly and getting started growing.

---

I figured I should at least look at what countries allow it before saying that I don't think this is an appropriate thing for me to do. Very few is the answer. The obvious choice is the States, and it should be obvious that I have no interest in migrating there. Other viable options would be Spain, Portugal, Holland, Uruguay, and a few others, but in every case it's a legal shitstorm requiring licences and regulations, which of course massively add to the costs. There are a great many risks involved, of which the greatest is spending jail time in a foreign country, or being robbed at gunpoint.

I would be extremely nervous growing weed in a foreign country to the point that I wouldn't enjoy it. There isn't a single country in the world that has unconditionally legalised cannabis, not to my knowledge anyway. If I'm going to take risks, it has to be here, at home.

You're right though, I do need a realistic plan. I'm just not in any hurry about it, it's not like I'm unhappy where I'm at right now. I don't want to claim benefits forever, it's a matter of time before I have the privacy to go about my business. Right now, I'm living with friends, there's a kid living next door, there's a cop whose garden borders ours, so no chance where I am. I'll probably move on this year or next to somewhere I can get away with it. I hope so. Until then, I'm happy where I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

If you took a shitty min wage job say in macdonalds or whatever, how much more would you earn than now? Taking into account lost benefits and tax etc?

---

Probably not much. For most people in his shoes, taking a job like this is a greater short term opportunity cost than just staying on welfare.

The typical rules regarding welfare are insane. In the US, a lot of people actually lose money by entering the workforce. This is where the term "poverty trap" comes from. Low paying entry level work is necessary for developing skills that pay more, yet most on welfare have no incentive to even start the process since they're better off in the short term by not doing so.

Well yeah, hence the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

If you took a shitty min wage job say in macdonalds or whatever, how much more would you earn than now? Taking into account lost benefits and tax etc?

---

I'd probably double my income. I'd expect to take home a grand a month for a shitty full time job. I currently sponge around £500 when rent is taken into account.

I don't really give a fuck about money though, I care more about not being miserable.

Many people with families are definitely better off on benefits, when compared to taking a shitty job.

For me with no kids though, I'd definitely be better off financially at work.

So you could save 6k a year. In 3 yrs that's 18k, amd that's enough to start a small business. You could literally do whatever you wanted, and not be working for shareholders which you seem so against.