How about states? Cities? Do you have anything that wasn't prepared for you in a party mailer?Ibrahim wrote:It makes no difference. We have historical evidence for what private or religiously motivated charity provides for the poor, and it is a small fraction of what state-run services provide.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:Less than 5% of Americans believe that nothing should be done to assist the poor. In fact, the number is a fraction of 1%. Some people do not believe that the federal government ought to be coordinating such assistance, but your thinking doesn't allow for that kind of nuance.Ibrahim wrote:You mean %5 of Americans?Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:I think only a very small minority of people believe that. Less than 5%.Ibrahim wrote:I think this is how the rest of the developed world, and half of the USA, looks at it. However others adopt a Randian model wherein there should be nothing done to assist the economic losers of the market economy.
You must agree that "welfare queens" and the ambition-sapping consequences of the social safety net are a conservative talking point.
Consider: Americans have less state-run social programs and more people who identify as observant Christians than any Western European country. If this fantasy of individual or faith-based charity worked then America would already be the best place in the world to be down on your luck. Except we all know that that socialized and religious ambivalent Swedes care for their poor, and their citizens as a whole, better than US donors and philanthropists do for their fellow Americans.
No, we all see through the excuse of private charity. Charity does a lot of good both in America and worldwide, but it is a drop in the ocean. Please don't add the double-down excuse that freedom-loving Americans are simply withholding their charity until the inefficient state and rapacious tax burdens are lifted from them. Then, and only then, would milk and honey flow.
One vs. the Many
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: One vs. the Many
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: One vs. the Many
Oh wow, you were talking state vs. federal? Nobody else in the developed world cares about that, and e.g. the healthcare system in e.g. Canada is operated by the Provinces rather than the Federal government, but conservatives in the US oppose health care at either level so this really just sounds like a distraction.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:How about states? Cities? Do you have anything that wasn't prepared for you in a party mailer?Ibrahim wrote:It makes no difference. We have historical evidence for what private or religiously motivated charity provides for the poor, and it is a small fraction of what state-run services provide.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:Less than 5% of Americans believe that nothing should be done to assist the poor. In fact, the number is a fraction of 1%. Some people do not believe that the federal government ought to be coordinating such assistance, but your thinking doesn't allow for that kind of nuance.Ibrahim wrote:You mean %5 of Americans?Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:I think only a very small minority of people believe that. Less than 5%.Ibrahim wrote:I think this is how the rest of the developed world, and half of the USA, looks at it. However others adopt a Randian model wherein there should be nothing done to assist the economic losers of the market economy.
You must agree that "welfare queens" and the ambition-sapping consequences of the social safety net are a conservative talking point.
Consider: Americans have less state-run social programs and more people who identify as observant Christians than any Western European country. If this fantasy of individual or faith-based charity worked then America would already be the best place in the world to be down on your luck. Except we all know that that socialized and religious ambivalent Swedes care for their poor, and their citizens as a whole, better than US donors and philanthropists do for their fellow Americans.
No, we all see through the excuse of private charity. Charity does a lot of good both in America and worldwide, but it is a drop in the ocean. Please don't add the double-down excuse that freedom-loving Americans are simply withholding their charity until the inefficient state and rapacious tax burdens are lifted from them. Then, and only then, would milk and honey flow.
The "party mailer" thing is just embarrassing for you. I have more intellectual and political latitude than you could even understand. Americans, and particularly American conservatives, don't have the luxury of political diversity that most of the democratic world enjoys. The rest of us make real electoral choices, balance pros and cons of candidates across several different viable parties, in a way that you can only imagine. You don't have the scope of political thought and expression that somebody in India has, but maybe someday...
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: One vs. the Many
Yes but we enjoy a far higher standard of living.
Is Ibs the worst trash talker in the world or what?
Is Ibs the worst trash talker in the world or what?
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: One vs. the Many
Than Canada?Mr. Perfect wrote:Yes but we enjoy a far higher standard of living.
He's right.Is Ibs the worst trash talker in the world or what?
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: One vs. the Many
India. But we still have Canada by nearly 10k gdp per capita.Enki wrote: Than Canada?
Fine with me, I'd rather live in the US than India. I would suggest India to you, they probably would be down with your nudity/no real estate thing+ drugs.He's right.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: One vs. the Many
GDP is not standard of living.Mr. Perfect wrote:India. But we still have Canada by nearly 10k gdp per capita.
Actually if you knew anything about India it's that they are very strict about nudity, they don't even want individuals to be naked alone.Fine with me, I'd rather live in the US than India. I would suggest India to you, they probably would be down with your nudity/no real estate thing+ drugs.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: One vs. the Many
Enki wrote: GDP is not standard of living.
Uh huh. If you don't care for your share of GDP then I can send you a paypal account and you can send it on over to me.
I thought the untouchables were ok with nudity, I thought that would be your people. Could be wrong.Actually if you knew anything about India it's that they are very strict about nudity, they don't even want individuals to be naked alone.
Either way I will take my high standard of living in comparison to the "scope of political thought and expression" enjoyed in India.
Censorship isn't necessary
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: One vs. the Many
That may be true in some places, I'm not sure, but I've been to Chennai and Bangalore for work and there were naked people walking around all over. Even non-untouchable males were not shy about lifting up their clothes and exposing themselves to scratch, or pissing in the street.Enki wrote:Actually if you knew anything about India it's that they are very strict about nudity, they don't even want individuals to be naked alone.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: One vs. the Many
That's what I thought, sounds like a paradise for tinker. He should move there.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: One vs. the Many
No need. Indian companies are finding it cost effective to relocate call centres in the US.Mr. Perfect wrote:That's what I thought, sounds like a paradise for tinker. He should move there.
[A general point - I'm not suggesting this job for Enki or others posters.]
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: One vs. the Many
Sounds like the scene outside a North American or British nightclub, circa 2am.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:That may be true in some places, I'm not sure, but I've been to Chennai and Bangalore for work and there were naked people walking around all over. Even non-untouchable males were not shy about lifting up their clothes and exposing themselves to scratch, or pissing in the street.Enki wrote:Actually if you knew anything about India it's that they are very strict about nudity, they don't even want individuals to be naked alone.
Anyway India has tons of real problems aside from public urination, but they do have multi-party democracy figured out.
Re: One vs. the Many
We have potential access to an Indian company with about 50 software developers. A friend of our CEO has one that is rarely being used to capacity.Typhoon wrote:No need. Indian companies are finding it cost effective to relocate call centres in the US.Mr. Perfect wrote:That's what I thought, sounds like a paradise for tinker. He should move there.
[A general point - I'm not suggesting this job for Enki or others posters.]
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: One vs. the Many
Look at that, tinker joined the world of corporate personhood. Sold out the fleabaggers right on schedule.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: One vs. the Many
You have to wait till 2 am though.Ibrahim wrote: Sounds like the scene outside a North American or British nightclub, circa 2am.
Whoop de doo.Anyway India has tons of real problems aside from public urination, but they do have multi-party democracy figured out.
Censorship isn't necessary
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: One vs. the Many
I wasn't making a value judgment. I like Indian society, though its collision with western economic materialism (in its capitalist and socialist forms) seems to be a total disaster so far. Filthy naked sadhus don't bother me, though the amount of trash and pollution makes an American dump seem like the Ritz Carlton.Ibrahim wrote:Sounds like the scene outside a North American or British nightclub, circa 2am.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:That may be true in some places, I'm not sure, but I've been to Chennai and Bangalore for work and there were naked people walking around all over. Even non-untouchable males were not shy about lifting up their clothes and exposing themselves to scratch, or pissing in the street.Enki wrote:Actually if you knew anything about India it's that they are very strict about nudity, they don't even want individuals to be naked alone.
Anyway India has tons of real problems aside from public urination, but they do have multi-party democracy figured out.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: One vs. the Many
My only point in mentioning India is was to point out their mulit-party political process, I could have grabbed any country with the same setup, I was just looking for a non-European example for novelty. My intent was not to debate Indian culture, which I personally like.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:I wasn't making a value judgment. I like Indian society, though its collision with western economic materialism (in its capitalist and socialist forms) seems to be a total disaster so far. Filthy naked sadhus don't bother me, though the amount of trash and pollution makes an American dump seem like the Ritz Carlton.Ibrahim wrote:Sounds like the scene outside a North American or British nightclub, circa 2am.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:That may be true in some places, I'm not sure, but I've been to Chennai and Bangalore for work and there were naked people walking around all over. Even non-untouchable males were not shy about lifting up their clothes and exposing themselves to scratch, or pissing in the street.Enki wrote:Actually if you knew anything about India it's that they are very strict about nudity, they don't even want individuals to be naked alone.
Anyway India has tons of real problems aside from public urination, but they do have multi-party democracy figured out.
But India actually highlights something else which is on-topic, and that is that India is a country that is, as a whole, increasingly powerful and wealthy, but in an individual basis the average Indian is poor and lives in sometimes truly awful conditions. This is also true to some extent of China, Brazil, etc. What is interesting for our purposes is that this is also a potential future for the US and its citizens, and indeed it could be argued that you are well on your way already.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: One vs. the Many
Nobody cares.Ibrahim wrote: My only point in mentioning India is was to point out their mulit-party political process,
After Obama I'll give you this one.I could have grabbed any country with the same setup, I was just looking for a non-European example for novelty. My intent was not to debate Indian culture, which I personally like.
But India actually highlights something else which is on-topic, and that is that India is a country that is, as a whole, increasingly powerful and wealthy, but in an individual basis the average Indian is poor and lives in sometimes truly awful conditions. This is also true to some extent of China, Brazil, etc. What is interesting for our purposes is that this is also a potential future for the US and its citizens, and indeed it could be argued that you are well on your way already.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: One vs. the Many
their is a difference between exploiting a gravy train and demanding one.Enki wrote: Considering both sides implement nanny-state policies, I don't think that's it.
.
i could argue that the right does middle class welfare when the government has extra money because they dont like giving pay rises to the public service
however for many of that political bent - they are also culturally adapted to understanding that the gravy train is dependent on excess and have the memes to cope with it going away.
you see those memes as hypocrisy rather than coping mechanisms so i know we disagree on that
ultracrepidarian
Re: One vs. the Many
Ibrahim wrote:True. But others have access to medications such as anti-psychotics, and can then start using the stepladder of group homes and social assistance to find their way to a permanent residence or employment. What is interesting about all of that is that it takes place largely ignored by the public, and if you were to poll people on it a majority of them would probably oppose the whole thing as an over-expensive waste of time. So even when you win you lose, in terms of public perception.noddy wrote:socialised healthcare does mean better statistics in some cases - not all - because many of the crustier people just flat out ignore the system.Ibrahim wrote:Absolutely. Below a certain threshold the poor cease to be people. Different economic classes can fight over their share of the bill, working class and middle class and the wealthy. But the poor annoy all of them and are looked down on by all of them. Plus they disproportionately suffer from mental illness and addiction, so the prospect of doing anything substantial to help them is very off-putting from a financial and return-no-investment point of view. So everybody above the cutoff is equally responsible, assuming you believe that anyone is responsible at all.noddy wrote:when it comes to oppressing the poor its the government in collusion with the middle class of both left and right wing flavours.
Worth noting that while the poor do better in systems with socialized medical care than they do without, they are still woefully neglected in those states as well.
I wonder about that. When you start to address the supposedly widespread permanent welfare class of subsidized smokers and TV watchers then the public opinion on social programs really crashes, but its hard to imagine that this is actually the problem people say it is. Does the existence of these programs encourage people to give up on work or ambition? In any case the countries that have comprehensive social safety nets are nicer in every conceivable way than those that don't. Its much easier to be unemployed in Denmark than America, and that doesn't seem to make America any nicer due to the supposedly coercive and work-encouraging approach of a deficient social safety net. Whatever numbers might say about America being the richest nation on Earth, anybody with a passport knows that %99 of the US is a total dump compared to any socialized Western European hellhole. Maybe not Scotland.the truth of it is that without all these rules that enforce the middle class, a large percentage of the white working class would join the tropical aborigines in the master plan of sitting by the beach and fishing your daily meal and then spending your meagre dollars on piss n smokes... when you run out of space you have a little war and get the numbers back down again, just like all the tropical groups do.
I think its just self-interest that keeps them going. People would rather be bored, safe and fat than not, which is precisely why people invented the "Noble Savage" myth, or go hunting, or play video games, or do any other approximation of a rough and tumble fantasy life with their bourgeois spare time. Even so, I would still say that the majority of people would prefer to work than be paid to sit at home. Most people just complain that their work isn't interesting or fulfilling enough.the upper middle class dream of it aswell, hence noble savage myths - however they have intellectualised their way out of it through constant reinforcement of why dragging yourself to a boring repetitive office job is the best thing and the future of mankind and everyone wants it and needs it, they must, they must, its the advancement, the future, the perfected civilised human etc.
The difficultly of adapting the aboriginal lifestyle to modern working life (and typically the lowest orders of the working class are the only ones offered to them) is a unique problem that has yet to be solved, and so far everything that has been attempted has produced even worse outcomes than similar programs do for the rest of the poor population. The only exceptions are individuals who are talented enough to escape the entire system right past the working class, obtain an education, and become a lawyer or something. Or, in Canada, a hockey player.which is why they cant help the aboriginals in australia - they must be denied that lifestyle for fear of the message it would send the working class whites.
the poor are only fit for social engineering into working class, anything else is unacceptable, if the poor dont want that then they have mental health problems.
The remainder of the poor only exist as a problem to be solved. You are absolutely right, the goal of society is to turn them into good little workers, or hope they die off. People can't be bothered to care which, so they certainly can't be bothered to think of any better way of addressing the problem. They are a bipartisan inconvenience, disproving both capitalist and socialist utopianism.
europes screwed up to its eyeballs in unfunded obligations and debt, i dont really believe the previous twenty years of living off the fat is going to be relevant to the skin and bones future
having said that, their is all sorts of middle ground in this, im not hyper extremist and if you remember my stance, its that bugger all of my tax money actually makes it out as social services.. my beef is with the public service that studies and manipulates us and with corporate welfare more than it is safety nets.
and quite bluntly i work alot harder than i want to and am damn sick of every extra dollar i manage to scrape up being spent on some assholes wages to play with my life...
in my world of paying for a house thats absurdly more expensive than any time in history and interest rates being absurdly low so saving doesnt work im not living like a civilised creature with safety nets, im not even living like a dog who has bones buried against a rainy day, its pre higher mammal.. i live day to day and am expected to make up the difference with credit that leaves me even more of a debt slave.
id only pay attention to the lefty crap about safety nets if they existed for me - they dont.. the moment i lose my job i lose my house and im on the street and starving.
if i manage to get on the priority list for emergency housing i might only have to spend 6 months on the street living out of rubbish bins.. this is the truth of my world because all my tax money goes to cushy conditions for the government workers and corporate welfare.
how many people in america have lost their houses and are living in tents l?
this tells me the truth about the "social safety net" that our massive taxes dont actually provide..
----
back to the working poor and if they would work as hard as they do if middle class wasnt enforced, i think not.
many working guys dont have hobbies and dont get on with the missus and quite gladly spend all their time at work however most of them in my experience would only work on an adhoc basis when they needed the cash if they could get away with it... they are kept as debt slaves to fund the government rent seekers
70's australia was pretty much like that - the ultra poor setup sh*tshacks away from the burbs and the working poor could live in slightly better modest housing on the edge of the burbs... far less taxes than now and they lived better than they do currently.
the sh*tshacks are now illegal for both left and right wing reasons and the baby boomer gentrification has upgraded all the housing to a point most lower working class can not afford them.
Last edited by noddy on Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
ultracrepidarian
Re: One vs. the Many
Sounds to me like you should be right pissed off, noddy. Who you decide to be pissed of at is entirely up to you.
The safety net failed to catch a lot of people in the US since 2008, and there are many people sleeping in tents. They are presented with the same choice.
The safety net failed to catch a lot of people in the US since 2008, and there are many people sleeping in tents. They are presented with the same choice.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: One vs. the Many
No the safety net 2008 to present is huge, measured in several trillion dollars, and caught all kinds of rich white people. Under Obama it is incredibly good to be rich and white. Everyone else, not so much.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: One vs. the Many
feh, the right makes some noises about individual choices and small business and thusly gets my vote most of them time but the way they treat those like gary johnson (american example) pretty much shows the truth in the noise, good luck getting the corporates off the industry standards boards... good luck setting up alternatives to the existing power players and their international corporatist agendas.. good luck challenging the middle class rules on housing and transport standards that make life so hard for the struggling ones.
much the same as the "social safety net" noises of the left actually... the reality is that the money goes into government wages and the "service" thats provided to the poor is about as useful as the corporate "customer care" service.. dont fix anything or change anything but they care....oh they care, infact they care so much they need more staff and better wages to care even more ...
much the same as the "social safety net" noises of the left actually... the reality is that the money goes into government wages and the "service" thats provided to the poor is about as useful as the corporate "customer care" service.. dont fix anything or change anything but they care....oh they care, infact they care so much they need more staff and better wages to care even more ...
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: One vs. the Many
Per Gary Johnson, you sort of have to get name recognition on your own. Not the best example. Ron, my guy, didn't make it but at age 115 that was sort of a handicap. Rand in the wings...noddy wrote:feh, the right makes some noises about individual choices and small business and thusly gets my vote most of them time but the way they treat those like gary johnson (american example) pretty much shows the truth in the noise, good luck getting the corporates off the industry standards boards... good luck setting up alternatives to the existing power players and their international corporatist agendas.. free and open markets et all.
On top of if Obama put corporates on the standards boards also.much the same as the "social safety net" noises of the left actually... the reality is that the money goes into government wages and the "service" thats provided to the poor is about as useful as the corporate "customer care" service.. dont fix anything or change anything but they care....oh they care, infact they care so much they need more staff and better wages to care even more ...
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: One vs. the Many
re: gary johnson name recognition.
how come most of the liberty orientated people in my country have heard of him then ? all my contacts in that demogaphic have.
id say its because liberty oriented right is about the same problematic fringe to the republicans as the greens are democrats.. currently... and this wont change until the boomers fade out.
re: obama corporatist support.. of course, the democrat union worker support makes them willing partners.
how come most of the liberty orientated people in my country have heard of him then ? all my contacts in that demogaphic have.
id say its because liberty oriented right is about the same problematic fringe to the republicans as the greens are democrats.. currently... and this wont change until the boomers fade out.
re: obama corporatist support.. of course, the democrat union worker support makes them willing partners.
Last edited by noddy on Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:30 am, edited 3 times in total.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: One vs. the Many
I mean name recognition in the primaries, 3rd party candidates of any kind are rarely looked at here.
Censorship isn't necessary