05-02-2016 08:51 PM
#21151
| |
| |
05-02-2016 08:53 PM
#21152
| |
| |
05-02-2016 09:38 PM
#21153
| |
| |
| |
05-02-2016 09:45 PM
#21154
| |
| |
05-02-2016 10:14 PM
#21155
| |
| |
05-02-2016 10:16 PM
#21156
| |
In this world, there are getters, and those who get got. He's a getter. | |
05-02-2016 10:42 PM
#21157
| |
| |
05-02-2016 10:48 PM
#21158
| |
| |
05-02-2016 10:49 PM
#21159
| |
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. | |
| |
05-02-2016 10:50 PM
#21160
| |
| |
05-02-2016 10:51 PM
#21161
| |
| |
05-02-2016 10:54 PM
#21162
| |
| |
05-02-2016 10:59 PM
#21163
| |
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. | |
| |
05-02-2016 11:04 PM
#21164
| |
| |
05-02-2016 11:12 PM
#21165
| |
Ok so we're back to the delusion that no welfare = better for everyone. | |
| |
05-02-2016 11:20 PM
#21166
| |
| |
05-02-2016 11:25 PM
#21167
| |
It's like people who were dependant on welfare would just magically disappear if welfare ceased to exist. | |
| |
05-02-2016 11:26 PM
#21168
| |
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? | |
| |
05-02-2016 11:31 PM
#21169
| |
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. | |
| |
05-02-2016 11:41 PM
#21170
| |
|
Reread my posts on the subject. |
05-02-2016 11:46 PM
#21171
| |
| |
05-02-2016 11:51 PM
#21172
| |
| |
| |
05-02-2016 11:54 PM
#21173
| |
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. | |
| |
05-02-2016 11:55 PM
#21174
| |
| |
05-02-2016 11:59 PM
#21175
| |
| |
05-03-2016 12:00 AM
#21176
| |
|
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. |
05-03-2016 12:00 AM
#21177
| |
And yes smoking weed is survival. | |
| |
05-03-2016 12:03 AM
#21178
| |
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. | |
| |
05-03-2016 12:04 AM
#21179
| |
| |
05-03-2016 12:12 AM
#21180
| |
|
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. |
05-03-2016 04:05 AM
#21181
| |
You have the option to look after yourself. That's it. | |
| |
05-03-2016 04:53 AM
#21182
| |
|
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. |
Last edited by Savy; 05-03-2016 at 04:56 AM. | |
05-03-2016 06:01 AM
#21183
| |
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. | |
| |
05-03-2016 06:42 AM
#21184
| |
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. | |
Last edited by spoonitnow; 05-03-2016 at 06:48 AM. | |
05-03-2016 06:50 AM
#21185
| |
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. | |
| |
05-03-2016 10:33 AM
#21186
| |
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. | |
| |
05-03-2016 02:43 PM
#21187
| |
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. | |
| |
05-03-2016 03:02 PM
#21188
| |
I never said I was smarter than everyone else, just relative to those who are unemployed. It was far from a brag. | |
| |
05-03-2016 03:04 PM
#21189
| |
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. | |
| |
05-03-2016 03:04 PM
#21190
| |
That was my attempt at encouragement. | |
| |
05-03-2016 03:44 PM
#21191
| |
| |
05-03-2016 04:19 PM
#21192
| |
| |
05-03-2016 06:06 PM
#21193
| |
That away he could save half his welfare payment ea H month? | |
| |
05-03-2016 06:17 PM
#21194
| |
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? | |
| |
05-03-2016 06:42 PM
#21195
| |
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. | |
| |
05-03-2016 06:42 PM
#21196
| |
|
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. |
05-03-2016 06:45 PM
#21197
| |
Well yeah, hence the question. | |
| |
05-03-2016 06:49 PM
#21198
| |
| |
05-03-2016 06:52 PM
#21199
| |
Many people with families are definitely better off on benefits, when compared to taking a shitty job. | |
| |
05-03-2016 07:04 PM
#21200
| |
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. | |
| |
05-03-2016 07:12 PM
#21201
| |
I could save all of my extra income? I doubt that very much. I'd have to get to and from work, I'd be eating on the go a lot more, I'd be spending more on socialising, smoking, drinking. I'd could probably save £2k-3k in a year taking a grand a month, if I tried really hard. | |
| |
05-03-2016 07:15 PM
#21202
| |
| |
05-03-2016 07:20 PM
#21203
| |
|
I dunno why you're all trying to get Ong to do something he doesn't want to do. If he's happy with what he's doing then fair play to the lad. If it fucks you off that he lives the way he does vote for people who would stop him doing that. |
Last edited by Savy; 05-03-2016 at 07:25 PM. | |
05-03-2016 07:24 PM
#21204
| |
Can't say I expected to catch up on a conversation and see that Savy was the voice of reason. | |
05-03-2016 07:32 PM
#21205
| |
| |
05-03-2016 08:51 PM
#21206
| |
Maybe I'm inferring tone that isn't there, but it seems like you are able to see the logic in the response people have to wealth inequality, yet you still are dismissive of it as an issue. | |
05-03-2016 09:00 PM
#21207
| |
| |
05-03-2016 09:04 PM
#21208
| |
|
That's accurate. I see it as an issue that must be dealt with on an emotional level. But I also think it can't be dealt with only an emotional level. |
05-03-2016 09:26 PM
#21209
| |
Wealth inequality is so hilarious to me anyway. What if we just took away everyone who was wealthy? Equal as fuck, but all equally shitty. | |
| |
05-03-2016 09:29 PM
#21210
| |
|
Yeah. Inequality can sometimes be considered an effect of bad policy, but that's about it, and it's hard to tell when. |
05-03-2016 09:41 PM
#21211
| |
Wuf, you call Ong out for "mental gymnastics" when he gives a pretty well reasoned nuanced answer to your question. Did you not want nuance? | |
05-03-2016 09:48 PM
#21212
| |
| |
Last edited by Savy; 05-03-2016 at 09:51 PM. | |
05-03-2016 09:51 PM
#21213
| |
Though their accusations are unreasonable, the correct move is to do whatever is reasonable to offer proof of him being born a natural citizen. Releasing the corresponding documents made fools of those who continued with the rhetoric. Sure, some birthers still exist, but by and large it's lost its steam. | |
05-03-2016 09:57 PM
#21214
| |
Ah, yeah, I totally agree. I don't think the only solution is welfare, or more welfare-- The American dream got distorted, and instead of a 1/4 acre and a white picket fence, people were being fed the message that celebrity and an exuberant lifestyle is the real American dream. Maybe they both are facets of the same thing, but one has been disproportionately highlighted over the past several decades and to an increasing degree. And so, in aggregate, people no longer feel like the mobility that is at the heart of the dream is attainable. Give China a handful of decades, and if they don't figure things out better than we did, we'll see the same disillusionment in the Chinese Dream. | |
05-03-2016 09:59 PM
#21215
| |
05-03-2016 10:01 PM
#21216
| |
| |
05-03-2016 10:03 PM
#21217
| |
|
The "mental gymnastics" comment is because he depends on norms to inform principle. Specifically, I was trying to flesh out why he relied on government legitimacy to inform what he calls moral. I view this as mental gymnastics to get around the principle. There is at least one rationale I see for why it's moral to claim tax subsidy, but it wasn't the rationale he was using. |
05-03-2016 10:05 PM
#21218
| |
| |
05-03-2016 10:08 PM
#21219
| |
| |
05-03-2016 10:09 PM
#21220
| |
| |
05-03-2016 10:15 PM
#21221
| |
|
Those things not existing aren't negatives when they don't exist. |
05-03-2016 10:34 PM
#21222
| |
I'll concede all of these. Later posts make me think I misread spoon's posts and I just don't feel like parsing back through the thread. The discussion is moving along nicely, and in interesting directions, no need to get lost in the weeds on points I don't even have that much interest in. | |
05-03-2016 10:40 PM
#21223
| |
Maybe. Scarce resources and gluttony may still kill that dream. | |
05-03-2016 10:50 PM
#21224
| |
| |
05-03-2016 10:55 PM
#21225
| |
|
I would argue it's not necessary now. But it's still more productive. |