Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Immortal]

Double post*

[King DZA]

When I talk to people about everyone having to contribute, their mind usually jumps to something akin to slavery. Where everyone is forced to work and provide regardless of their opinion, and get killed/neglected if they refuse. What I actually mean is more like, "Everyone is good at something. Find what you're good at, and see how you could use it to the benefit of those around you." You don't have to be working in the coal mines so that you can earn your next meal. If you like farming or gardening, grow some food so that you and other can have a more varied diet. If you like painting, hone your skills and share your work with those who appreciate your style. Of course, people usually have more than just one interest, so they can contribute in multiple ways.

I don't think many people are particularily good at or interested in sewage management. Or cleaning toilets. (Well, I suppose someone somewhere is probobly REALLY good at cleaning toilets, but you get my point)

That's why such things would be the responsibility of the whole community. If they chose to neglect it, the consequences would become evident on their own.

DZA - I do not mean to put you in a specific group. The general views of said group just seem to coincide with yours. The removal of a overarching government, and the emplacement of a more localized government would solve many issues.

No worries, wasn't accusing you of anything. Just making clear that I try to avoid it, so that people don't automatically assume they know my stance on everything, and so I don't have to deal as much with the many variations of, "Oh, you're a part of that group? Well fuck off then."

[Lord Dullard]

And what makes you say "we cannot support everyone in the current state?" Any sources?]

And who is paying for this? I know the US government isn't capable of it. Hell it can't even do what it currently does..

'Paying for' is not part of what we were discussing. We were discussing whether the human race is capable of providing a decent living to everybody, which it is. I don't really think there's too much to argue about there, unless you want to nitpick about our definitions of 'decent living'. Technologically we have been capable of doing that for quite some time. Socially we are way too backwards to even come close.

As for 'paying', yeah, that would be the problem. Capitalism is always concerned about who's going to pay for what. Like I said, it's a system based on scarcity and competition, and the idea that some kind of monetary value must be assigned to a task like 'prevent world starvation' will keep it from being effectively solved. There is no monetary return on solving a problem like world hunger, so why bother? There's more profit to be had in disparity and starvation.

If you really want to overthink the monetary aspect, I'd wager that you could probably end world hunger in under a half a century by devoting half of our current military budget to the problem. But what's the incentive?

[Frumple]

... it's not cost stopping the US from feeding the world, Imm. We could already siphon a fairly meager amount from parts of our (tax funded) budget and pretty much do just that. Couple other nations chip in? Be bloody cake. Cost per capita would likely be hilariously negligible. I would happily contribute $1 USD a week for the purpose of feeding the entirety of humanity. Hell, maybe even 10. It'd be feeding me, too.

[Immortal]

Dullard - If we are not discussing the restraints (which I was) of the current world and just discussing morals then its obvious we should do such a thing (give everyone a decent life) and there would be no arguement.. which means this ends and there is no fun.

Frumple - The United States, which is not even close to a positive revenue, is supposed to pull out more money to feed the world? The US is so deep in the red, even a 4% increase in intrest rates would bankrupt it. They already have to increase their debt cap just to keep things going.
Interest rates are at a close to if not a historical low.

For the $1 comment, why don't you donate already?

Fenrif

So people can just say "hey im working on curing cancer" and still get benefits? I think that society would be full of many people trying and failing to cure cancer/the common cold/solve world peace, etc.

Then obviously the government should not be controlling such things and the world should not work that way. So how do you propose we complete such a task?

[Leafsnail]

People permanently injured should be cared for as we should elderly. They have contributed.. I didn't respond to you fully because you seemed heated, and continue to.

I'm not sure why you'd put such emphasis on "temporary" in that case.  Bolding a random word in a sentence implies that the bolded word is the key.

How about the disabled, those who can never contribute?

[Immortal]

Leafsnail - The disabled are more then capable. If we are talking physically I think a person in a wheelchair could easily prove you wrong. As for mentally disabled, its not their choice.. but they do have some capability to do some work. May work simple jobs, serving and such. They are happy and cared for.

The bolding was to point out the fact they were not useless at one time and may be again. Didn't mean so much emphasis on the "again" part.

[Leafsnail]

...Being wheelchair bound is not the only kind of physical disability.  There are kinds which leave you completely unable to work in any meaningful capacity (or which may cause you to die before you have a chance to be "productive").  In any case, it's very difficult to be a competitive candidate for a job if you have a disability (especially if, say, libertarian laws say you don't need to provide access ramps in your buildings).

Same for mental disabilities.  Some may allow you to work, but many do not (and again without supportive laws for them it'd be very hard to actually get a job with a major mental disability even if it did technically leave you capable... so they'd likely end up not being able to contribute even if they wanted to).

Seriously, you must know of seriously disabled people?  Right?  You aren't denying that they exist?

[Immortal]

Seriously, you must know of seriously disabled people?  Right?  You aren't denying that they exist?

Since the begining of this you seem to take a hostile stance. I didn't continue with you for a reason. Obviously I do know that heavily disabled people exist. I also said "its not their choice", hence those who fall victim to random odds should not be treated that way.

What exactly are you wishing to argue? I can't make up bullshit if you aren't giving me something to talk about.

[Lord Dullard]

[kaijyuu]

Allow me to illustrate the argument, since you both are arguing circularly.


Immortal is saying people have value based on their productivity. Doing nothing results in no worth.
Leafsnail points out those who cannot be productive due to disability.
Immortal says those are an exception.


My verdict: Ball is in Immortal's court to explain why those who cannot be productive are worth more than those who can. What do they have, intrinsically, that a simply lazy person does not? Why is empathy being given to one group of people who are, for practical purposes, completely identical to another group who are being denied empathy? Nevermind that the disabled can be an even greater drain on the holy productive class, due to healthcare costs!

[mainiac]

Frumple - The United States, which is not even close to a positive revenue, is supposed to pull out more money to feed the world? The US is so deep in the red, even a 4% increase in intrest rates would bankrupt it. They already have to increase their debt cap just to keep things going.
Interest rates are at a close to if not a historical low.\

What an absurd argument pulled out of a hat.  A 4% increase in interest rates is simply not going to happen.

For starters you need to appreciate that real interest rates are currently not only low but actually negative.  Yes, currently investors consider the US so creditworthy that they will actually give us money in return for repayment with interest that doesn't even keep pace with expect inflation.  So when you predict an interest rise of 4% you are predicting something very fundamental happening first like a military coup undermining the basic trustworthiness of our institutions or a huge surge in national output massively raising interest rates.  The latter is more likely for what it's worth and would solve, not increase our actually debt problems.  In general a 4% rise is probably inflationary, not risk premium and would solve our debt burden.

Second you need to appreciate that we have a lot of room to maneuver in.  Currently Japan has a shrinking population and a debt to GDP ratio nearing 200%.  This is not a bullshit "let's count a lot of stuff that isn't debt as debt" ratio but an actually debt ratio as in government issued bonds.  Japan is managing this debt level and we're nowhere near that.  They're hardly the first case historically.  Look at the UK in the Interwar period for a situation that was far, far more dire then we're at.  They serviced that debt just fine.  Heck even the US itself had a pretty fierce debt problem come 1946.  We had very little trouble managing it.

Thirdly you need to realize that our tax rate is low, 7th lowest in the world IIRC.  It's hardly that our commitments are larger then a nation can afford.  If we wanted to fund more thing publically using our current system we could do so.  But I don't even think the other people were discussing our current situation they were instead discussing what we as a society place value in.

In summery you willfully ignored the discussion that other people were having to attack strawmen on trumped up charges.

[Immortal]

How about its not their choice to be disabled? Lazy people choose how they are. They choose to not contribute. I thought humanity basically agreed that its inhumane to treat the mentally handicapped like crap when we stopped castrating them.


A random film on youtube about US debt.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0RkWqyn1y4&feature=relmfu

If someone had asked, I would have left the arguements at the start, I did state I was playing the devil advocate for entertainment and no one disagreed..

[kaijyuu]

You're avoiding the questions I'm asking. Guess I'll have to try a different route, just to avoid a circular argument...


Your big distinction is "choice," which I should point out makes zero practical difference. In fact, it's probably a positive quality of the lazy, because they have the potential to change.

So then, what non-practical reasons do you have for denying empathy? Do you value intent over consequence? Does the mere desire to work justify people enough to make them worthy of support?



EDIT: Re: "devil's advocate." Don't take anything I say personally, as I'm just here for mental exercise. Debate can be fun and educational.

[Truean]

"Productivity" is now effectively a privilege that can be revoked at somebody's whim: a boss or companies.

I've spent a significant amount of time around poor people. Those three supposedly magic words, "get a job," aren't easy or even always possible. If no one's hiring, what do you do to be "productive" in any sense (much less one that pays)? You can't just start growing food, or making things somehow. Other people own the land and means of production, that is they control the means of production or the ability to be productive....

That just gets more complex when you are physically disabled, never mind mentally disabled. Those both come in degrees and flavors. Fact of the matter is, we treat injured people like shit. Oftentimes, nobody cuts you a break when you even get temporarily injured. Quite the opposite, medical bankruptcies include not only a large portion of medical bills, but bills you couldn't pay because you were injured.... That's just on a relatively short term basis. Aflack? [collects $0.05]

People with long term disabilities, have a long term increase in expenses related to their greater health care needs. It could be continuing doctor's bills, or equipment. This is doubly true for people in wheelchairs, which if you are an able bodied individual, you simply are incapable of understanding. There are special machines and/or therapy to make sure you don't get blood clots in a wheel chair (which can travel through your blood vessels and kill you if you don't watch out). Same thing with bedsores from sitting. That doesn't even cover bathroom use supplies, even catheters, which add up. Fact of the matter concerning the physically disabled, is that it costs a small fortune to be physically disabled and that's if you're still able enough to work in any capacity. That doesn't even touch the fact that it is immensely more difficult to do EVERYTHING when you're in that position. We treat them like crap and it isn't right.

Even the people with lesser injuries are screwed. If you have a condition that makes it so you can't lift more than 50 lbs or even 25 over your head, then you're screwed. People won't hire/keep you on if you can't do that more often than not. My uncle tore up his shoulder at work and even though worker's comp is helping, it will never make him whole. Sometimes people who are physically disabled just don't have the skills to be doing a skilled labor position.

Then there's the mental disabilities, which again come in degrees and flavors. Some people can do some small form of labor, perhaps fast food, or bringing in grocery carts at the supermarket, but there are a fair number of people who can't, or barely can. Moreover, people tend to look down on them when they do those sorts of jobs or take advantage of them, which is a damn travesty.

Summation: Rewarding people for being productive is fine and good. Punishing people for things they often can't control, isn't. "Choice" is fundamental to the idea of rewards and punishments. If you can't chose what you're doing, then it makes no sense to reward or punish you, because without that choice there is no "encouragement."