What I mean is, I'd rather not argue with you about what is more or less MORAL to do with the fruit. Since it's far too subjective.
Instead, I want you to posit the PRINCIPLE you stand on. What PRINCIPLE guides your decision on what should be done with the fruit.
What PRINCIPLE are you standing on that says it's right to take fruit from others and redistribute it?
That it's very easy to come up with situations where doing so is overall beneficial, and maximizes overall happiness.
Beneficial for whom? At the expense of who's overall happiness?
Time and energy are not free, and while it is not a zero-sum game, some people are going to work hard, and some not at all, and many right in the middle.
Maximizes happiness how? And who are the costs passed onto?
Let's not pretend this is about you and me and our credentials.
Let's not pretend that discussion of abstract concepts is possible without being able to entertain ideas.
I am fully capable of entertaining ideas. "Maximize happiness" is not an idea.
"Develop solar energy", or "Establish more charter schools", or "Close tax codes that reward outsourcing jobs", those are ideas.
"Maximize overall happiness" is a platitude.
WHY should I sign up for a job to maximize HAPPINESS, instead of say maximizing usefulness, or righteousness, or self-awareness, or self-actualization, or independence, or toughness, or...
Because these things only have an instrumental value in maximizing happiness. None of those things matter unless they contribute towards happiness. A system where everyone is unhappy but self-aware isn't particularly good one.
I vehemently disagree.
Living in a drug induced delirium might make someone very happy, but I wouldn't value that happiness over the truth, even if the truth meant discomfort.
I can maximize happiness tomorrow if we just put happy pills in the water supply.
I hope you see the problem with placing happiness at the top of the needs pyramid in this regard.
Saying "you're supposed to increase the overall happiness of the people" is so vague it's not even funny. How are we measuring happiness? Do I have to increase the happiness of the greedy people too, or just the needy people? Do I have to increase the happiness of the idiots as well as the educated? Do I have to increase the happiness of the pedophiles as well as the virtuous? What IS "happy". How can I tell if I've done a good job with my appointment?
So you'd rather sign up for a easy job than a beneficial one?
I'd rather everyone be their own boss, and not not pass the responsibility of scratching out a short but meaningful life onto someone else.
Say I accept the job. Then what, I'm dictator? I'm the king? After all, I get to decide how we maximize overall happiness. Does that sound good to you?
I should also add that we do have the ability to collect data that does a decent job of measuring happiness. Some of your former suggestions such as "self-awareness" or "self-actualization" would be even harder to measure.
Yes, we can survey people and ask them if they're happy. Unfortunately, the people polled are going to have different reasons for WHY they were happy. Some because of their job, some because of their friends, some because of skydiving, some because they collect spiders...
If you agree with this, and I'm going to guess that you do, then I only argue that taxing people will never achieve the cure. All we have is institutionalized poverty, a welfare state, and not a compassionate people who work to cure poverty.
I claim NOT to know how to achieve this, I only know that I want to.
But this argument is worthless in exclusion. You need to prove that what you want is achievable in the first place. If the cure isn't possible, which is a possibility you're completely disregarding, treating symptoms is the optimal course of action. I want world peace and complete disarmament, and everyone being considerate of those around themselves, but I know it won't happen.
What claim have I made that requires me to prove something?
"I want less government control" is not a claim of a working model for society.
Now,
Let me actually offer one tiny piece.
Tax reform. I'd tax everyone (individuals, not corps. which I'd treat differently) much LESS, but keep it all.
No deductions, no write offs, no paperwork.
Why tax someone 11-12% over the course of the year, only to hand them 6-7% back in the form of a refund? Why not just tax them 7%, they keep more of their pay throughout the year, making their checks bigger, and the government actually nets more in the long run in the way of reduced paperwork and man-hours of labor needed by the IRS.
Healthcare - bring back HSA's. Personally owned HSA's, 100% portable, they don't rely on employment, they go wherever you go, parents and legal guardians can contribute to your HSA as you grow, you take over at 18. Employers can offer contributions to your HSA as hiring incentives and bonuses, You never lose equity just because you got fired or laid off...(so much more that can take up a lot of time)
I want you to explain how we measure compassion for the purposses of "rewarding the most compassionate".
No idea, all I'm saying is that getting rid of welfare and expecting charity to fix it wouldn't work.
You're the one trying to replace the current system with something that would be better, so you need to show that the alternative system is possible.
The problem with these debates, is that while we are supposed to focus on the charity/welfare issue for instance, people start thinking things exist in a vacuum.
It's not like I'm taking the country as it is today and saying "Tomorrow, that's it, no more welfare! ROFLMAO!"
You slowly phase it out, and reduce it, but you start by fixing education to be more flexible and encouraging to upward mobility versus this conveyor belt to Burger Kings education we have now, end the war on drugs, tort reform, reducing war expenditures, reducing fraud and embezzlement by the government, reduce overbids for services by the government...
Not to mention, fixing Welfare in the first place so that it no longer punishes mothers for having the father in the house. Welfare has done so much harm to families in poverty - making it more cost effective to be a broken home, that a loving two parent household...
Welfare isn't the FIRST thing I'd touch. Not even the second. But this thread is about welfare/charity.
This does not mean you can't think for yourself and maybe realize that I, and no one else, has said, lets get rid of Welfare tomorrow, cut & dry.
Because I am not required by law to help the needy, or those in danger, then it's on me, as a moral creature, to inwardly look at my own ethics and self-worth to decide that I want to both help the needy, and assist those people in danger. This is how I know I'm a compassionate person. I empathize. I've been poor, I've had the welfare Christmas, I've eaten donations from a food bank. I've slept in someones attic.
I volunteer, and donate, out of the kindness of my heart, and this is knowing that I've already paid taxes.
And under a system where welfare would be abolished, you would continue to do so but those that currently avoid doing it wouldn't. They would benefit from not having to pay taxes, causing them to gain a competitive edge over yourself. This is the core issue with your assumption that charity can replace welfare: It assumes that people stop being selfish dicks at some point.
See above statement as to why no one has said Abolish welfare, not even me.
All that being said - what good does it do then, to tax the those who lack compassion, only to watch them vote the taxes down, or vote them away altogether..
Vote the taxes back up. If you disagree with this being possible, we can get to an argument about how democracy isn't actually democratic, but I'm willing to bet we should start another thread for that mess.
Yes, that is an argument for another day, let's not light that fuse here.
[quote]
[quote from="IcecreamMan80 »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/558374-can-charity-and-merit-replace-the-welfare-state?comment=30"]If we tried harder to steer them towards being compassionate, first they likely wouldn't fight the taxes so much, but ideally, if we succeeded in making them, and ourselves compassionate enough, there would be no need to tax at all.
And your claim is that such a situation is achievable?
----------
Let's make something clear here. I agree that such a situation would be ideal. I just do not see it happening. Not now, not in the future. Not as long as two sentient beings are still alive. Any system that relies on voluntary decision to help others will punish those compassionate, unless there is some method of rewarding them for their acts of kindness, at which point we can no longer talk about compassion but optimization, as self-sacrifice to help others is no longer self-sacrifice if it benefits the self.
And I thought I was the pessimist.
I disagree. There are tons of people out there who are compassionate, giving, and kind. They give their time, money, sweat, and blood, to make the world a better place. Many do it with some help from various government grants, and many do it with nothing but private donations and the sacrifice of their supporters, and some even with a mixture of both.
Doctors Without Borders, International Rescue Committee, Orphan Grain Train, ASPCA, Robin Hood Foundation, Books for Africa, Oxfam, World Vision, Habitat for Humanity, Fund for Global Human Rights, Bread for the World Institute, Farm Aid, Global Hunger Project...
The owner isn't taking the fruit of your labor without consent. You are selling it to him for your salary. If you feel your labor is worth more, you ask for a raise, renegotiate the contract, or quit and find new employment if you so desire. It is still a voluntary exchange between both parties.
The problem with thinking that this is voluntary is that the disparity of power is enormous. When a worker quits their job they lose their income and will have tremendous difficulty with keeping themselves and their families fed, clothed and housed unless there are already strong social safety nets in place. That's not even getting into the difficulty of finding a new job and the necessity of competing with others for those jobs thus driving wages down. A capitalist who loses a worker doesn't go hungry for it and can easily replace them. This ***** is why unions came into being. This is why there was a workers' movement to claim protections against unemployment. Thinking that there is an equal exchange between capitalist and worker is charitably described as naive.
What's a "equal exchange" ? As far as I know any enchange happens for the better, as long as both parties do it with consent.
Don't pretend the picture you draw from labor market is real in any circumstance. I live in a third world country and never had ANY trouble jump from one job to another when I disliked my boss or how things worked in my work place. I never passed more then a month searching for a job and never had any dying trouble during those hard times (I normally save around 60% of my income, so I can survive a bit without earning anything). I passed most of my live earning around 15 dollars per day.
I'm a exception through. All my friends lived hell during rough times but I can't say it wasn't their own fault. If you earn so little and having trouble to find work, you shouldn't waste ANY money on stuff like alcohol and shouldn't have children. The self entitlement of people those days is disgusting. I've watched people from my own family refuse to work during a entire year because they believed they should earn more.
Welfare should exist to save those who cannot physically work or for issues that requires the kind of money that the average Joe cannot pay (such as a grim health condition). If you you're a adult, have no trouble working, you should be ashamed to demand a welfare net to support stuff like daily food, housing and clothing. Those are extremely cheap and affordable any almost any real circumstances. Seriously, If I did it leaving in the poorest region in a poor country, most people on the US can surely do it.
If you're not working 8 hours/day + studying 4 hours day, 6 days/week, I'm completely sure you can find strength to do more before having forcing the state to steal for you.
The owner isn't taking the fruit of your labor without consent. You are selling it to him for your salary. If you feel your labor is worth more, you ask for a raise, renegotiate the contract, or quit and find new employment if you so desire. It is still a voluntary exchange between both parties.
The problem with thinking that this is voluntary is that the disparity of power is enormous. When a worker quits their job they lose their income and will have tremendous difficulty with keeping themselves and their families fed, clothed and housed unless there are already strong social safety nets in place. That's not even getting into the difficulty of finding a new job and the necessity of competing with others for those jobs thus driving wages down. A capitalist who loses a worker doesn't go hungry for it and can easily replace them. This ***** is why unions came into being. This is why there was a workers' movement to claim protections against unemployment. Thinking that there is an equal exchange between capitalist and worker is charitably described as naive.
You are starting from a defeatist position, then trying to persuade me that we're doomed to defeat. I do not accept this.
There may or may not be a disparity of power. However, my employer cannot force me to stay, and I cannot force them to give me a raise.
I am looking for a better job as we speak, and as soon as I find one, I can quit and there is nothing they can do about it.
However, if I am being fired for cause, it's my fault (for cause). If I am being let go for no good reason, it is also my fault. It is MY responsibility to make MYSELF indispensable. It is MY responsibility, and in my best interest, to make myself invaluable to my employers, so that they WON'T get rid of me. It is not the employers responsibility to keep me against their interests.
If you are quitting your job, without another one lined up, you're doing it wrong.
No one is holding a gun to my head, nor vice-versa.
The problem is NOT that jobs are hard to find. The problem is that most people are not as interested in learning a new skill, or improving their education and experience, as they are in voting themselves more of of that sweet sweet nectar called "other peoples money".
Just in my geographic area, there are like 13,000+ job listings. Some have been open for hiring for over 3 months. There are positions out there to be filled.
To avoid the risk of thread derailment, I'll only state that I do not believe Unions are necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Did you want me to say anything about what you yourself admit is an anecdote that doesn't indicate anything?
The thing, it does indicate something. While no number of examples can prove anything, one counter example is enough to disprove a claim.
The claim I'm disproving is "it's impossible to survive without welfare in capitalism". I know that' not true, at least in most nations. It's a important claim to proof because the most naive form of left wing argumentation comes down to that claim. It's important to get that out of our way so we can discuss what welfare system is really about.
Perhaps it is in the best interest of a society to ensure that something so basic as the reproduction of the species doesn't have to depend on the current individual income of the people involved. Has the thought ever struck you that maybe having a family should be easy because it's one of the most fundamental social things that humans do, instead of discouraging it as some hideous selfish indulgence?
Every single paragraph of your post is by itself evidence of you having fully internalised capitalist morality. You want each person to exist primarily as a source of labour and to not make any demands that betrays that they are social beings with, well, human needs and wants. You want power to remain squarely in the hands of the few.
"Best interest of society" is a dangerous phrase. I could point all the logical defects in that claim but that would be material for another thread. For now I would say you need a better selection of words.
About the reproduction thing. I agree having a family is one of those basic things humans do socially, but I don't see the logic behind your claim it should be easy. Like many others endeavors, raising a family is a big challenge and one that should only be engaged when people are up to it.
I'm not saying poor people shouldn't have children. My thoughts couldn't be more different. The thing is, this financial minimum a couple needs to have in order to reproduce are achievable by virtually anyone in a half decent country. I'm just saying people in general need a certain level of stability before having a family. And this stability is hard to conquest when you're young and should be dedicating yourself to work and study if you want a better future for yourself and your future family.
Every single paragraph of your post is by itself evidence of you having fully internalised capitalist morality. You want each person to exist primarily as a source of labour and to not make any demands that betrays that they are social beings with, well, human needs and wants. You want power to remain squarely in the hands of the few.
Yes, I've internalized capitalistic morality. Gladly we are in a forum were that is not taken as a bad thing.
About the other things you said... You're just putting words on my mouth, based on your own delusions.
I don't want people to exist primary as anything. However when it comes down to economical matters (what everyone will consume and what will they produce) it's a important thing that, ideally, you only consume what you have obtained fairly via exchange and what you have produced yourself. I know this is not always possible. Still, it doesn't change the fact that interventions are conceptually unfair, should be seen a bad thing for everyone and should be minimized.
The problem is NOT that jobs are hard to find. The problem is that most people are not as interested in learning a new skill, or improving their education and experience
I've applied for about two dozen jobs inside and outside of my skillset in the last few months. That resulted in exactly one response so far, from an employer who proved to be unstable and abusive. How hard it is to find a job isn't dependent on the number of jobs available, its dependent on the number of jobs vs the number of job seekers (and your knowledge of corporate culture, your job history, your age, your mobility, your personal charisma, etc).
If I am being let go for no good reason, it is also my fault.
That's the mentality of an abuse victim. By definition if you're fired for no good reason there was no good reason for it.
Except, employers do not have a duty to keep you if they don't want to. Nor should they.
So the best way to avoid being let go for no good reason, is to give them good reason to keep you. Be indispensable, be valuable, be worth your paycheck, if not worth more.
The problem is NOT that jobs are hard to find. The problem is that most people are not as interested in learning a new skill, or improving their education and experience
I've applied for about two dozen jobs inside and outside of my skillset in the last few months. That resulted in exactly one response so far, from an employer who proved to be unstable and abusive. How hard it is to find a job isn't dependent on the number of jobs available, its dependent on the number of jobs vs the number of job seekers (and your knowledge of corporate culture, your job history, your age, your mobility, your personal charisma, etc).
I also had a harder time finding employment after I got my degree than before, it was kind of weird, but then, I was going into a field that paid twice what I was making before.
But anecdotal evidence is not evidence of causation.
Be the best candidate. Work on your persuasion, and interview skills. Pad that resume with relevant skills, education, and experience.
Be the one they can't pass up.
It's not the employers responsibility to make you good for them. Nor should it be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If I am being let go for no good reason, it is also my fault.
That's the mentality of an abuse victim. By definition if you're fired for no good reason there was no good reason for it.
Except, employers do not have a duty to keep you if they don't want to. Nor should they.
That's not what I said, I said that believing you are at fault when, by definition, you are not is the mentality of an abuse victim.
People can fire workers arbitrarily but that doesn't mean the workers are at fault. It's not like employers are gods that make inherently just decisions.
I also had a harder time finding employment after I got my degree than before, it was kind of weird, but then, I was going into a field that paid twice what I was making before.
But anecdotal evidence is not evidence of causation.
Be the best candidate. Work on your persuasion, and interview skills. Pad that resume with relevant skills, education, and experience.
Be the one they can't pass up.
It's not the employers responsibility to make you good for them. Nor should it be.
I assume you're not actually saying that your knowledge of corporate culture, your job history, your age, your mobility, your personal charisma, and the amount of competition have no bearing on chances of employment and this is just some kind of rhetorical thing?
Except, employers do not have a duty to keep you if they don't want to. Nor should they.
So the best way to avoid being let go for no good reason, is to give them good reason to keep you. Be indispensable, be valuable, be worth your paycheck, if not worth more.
I think it would be better to not grovel before some egomaniac in the hopes that if we surrender enough of ourselves to his control, he won't fire us.
Then start your own business.
You can walk away on a whim, your boss can fire you on a whim. The relationship exists only as long as it is what both parties want.
Imagine if you were making this argument in the context of romantic relationships. Your partner can break up with you for any reason, or no reason at all. You can't force them to stay with you, that would be abominable. You do your best to be a good partner, and if the relationship ends for a reason that you don't like, you just thank your lucky stars that it didn't drag on longer and you go find someone else.
Except, employers do not have a duty to keep you if they don't want to. Nor should they.
So the best way to avoid being let go for no good reason, is to give them good reason to keep you. Be indispensable, be valuable, be worth your paycheck, if not worth more.
I think it would be better to not grovel before some egomaniac in the hopes that if we surrender enough of ourselves to his control, he won't fire us.
Believe it or not, there are good bosses out there. And gladly, markets selects then.
Being abusive is not the state of art in HR for 100+ years.
If I am being let go for no good reason, it is also my fault.
That's the mentality of an abuse victim. By definition if you're fired for no good reason there was no good reason for it.
Except, employers do not have a duty to keep you if they don't want to. Nor should they.
That's not what I said, I said that believing you are at fault when, by definition, you are not is the mentality of an abuse victim.
No, it's simply not.
The employer is NOT abusing you by firing you. They can abuse you. They can fire you. They can abuse you and then fire you. But they can also fire you and not abuse you.
If your work allows the statement "yeah, we can let that person go for no reason" to apply to you, it is your fault.
It is your responsibility, and yours alone to turn that statement into "that person is a valuable member of our workforce, we can't lose them."
As Bitter put it, your girlfriend/boyfriend can dump you for any reason whatsoever. It's up to YOU to be a boyfriend/girlfriend that is desirable, worthy, and difficult to part with. It is not your significant other responsibility to stay in the relationship with you even when it doesn't suit them.
Them dumping you, even for no good reason, is NOT in any way shape or form abuse. Which is not to say that you won't feel bad, or be hurt emotionally. But if you're the kind of boyfriend/girlfriend that can be easily dumped for no reason, you're doing it wrong.
People can fire workers arbitrarily but that doesn't mean the workers are at fault. It's not like employers are gods that make inherently just decisions.
Never said such a thing. But this doesn't refute what I did say at all.
I also had a harder time finding employment after I got my degree than before, it was kind of weird, but then, I was going into a field that paid twice what I was making before.
But anecdotal evidence is not evidence of causation.
Be the best candidate. Work on your persuasion, and interview skills. Pad that resume with relevant skills, education, and experience.
Be the one they can't pass up.
It's not the employers responsibility to make you good for them. Nor should it be.
I assume you're not actually saying that your knowledge of corporate culture, your job history, your age, your mobility, your personal charisma, and the amount of competition have no bearing on chances of employment and this is just some kind of rhetorical thing?
Those things are all part of YOU making YOURSELF a worthy candidate, a valuable and attractive applicant that the people in charge of hiring WANT to have on their crew.
Again, it is not the employers responsibility to make YOU good for THEM.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
TO all of you who are argueing that private charity can step up and do it all, Just answer me this, Why haven't they? one could very easly view it as they already would have the biggest goverment incentive possible in that they are already taking a huge portion of the work load off their shoulders. We still have problems, Private industry is not itching at the bench to fix this, they already have the open opportunity to do so.
TO all of you who are argueing that private charity can step up and do it all, Just answer me this, Why haven't they? one could very easly view it as they already would have the biggest goverment incentive possible in that they are already taking a huge portion of the work load off their shoulders. We still have problems, Private industry is not itching at the bench to fix this, they already have the open opportunity to do so.
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, we did have private charity before we had welfare. There were multiple reasons why the government took it over. I doubt the government would allow a private charity to gain too much control. The government wants to be the care giver. Look at the small percentages private charity actually helps now. I dont understand how you feel private charity could do more without stepping on the toes of the government while doing it.
From my perspective, Private charity basically run the reserch for cures for example, or helping the poor, Cancer socity or United way, or Red Cross, these organizations exist and are NOT completing the work load already assigned to them,
TO all of you who are argueing that private charity can step up and do it all, Just answer me this, Why haven't they? one could very easly view it as they already would have the biggest goverment incentive possible in that they are already taking a huge portion of the work load off their shoulders. We still have problems, Private industry is not itching at the bench to fix this, they already have the open opportunity to do so.
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, we did have private charity before we had welfare. There were multiple reasons why the government took it over. I doubt the government would allow a private charity to gain too much control. The government wants to be the care giver. Look at the small percentages private charity actually helps now. I dont understand how you feel private charity could do more without stepping on the toes of the government while doing it.
I don't see what your evidence for this is. The government actively subsidizes private charities through myriad tax breaks. It goes out of its way to help charity. The social safety net exists not because the government is afraid charity might do too much but because private charity has historically failed to be good enough.
TO all of you who are argueing that private charity can step up and do it all, Just answer me this, Why haven't they? one could very easly view it as they already would have the biggest goverment incentive possible in that they are already taking a huge portion of the work load off their shoulders. We still have problems, Private industry is not itching at the bench to fix this, they already have the open opportunity to do so.
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, we did have private charity before we had welfare. There were multiple reasons why the government took it over. I doubt the government would allow a private charity to gain too much control. The government wants to be the care giver. Look at the small percentages private charity actually helps now. I dont understand how you feel private charity could do more without stepping on the toes of the government while doing it.
I don't see what your evidence for this is. The government actively subsidizes private charities through myriad tax breaks. It goes out of its way to help charity. The social safety net exists not because the government is afraid charity might do too much but because private charity has historically failed to be good enough.
Its not that the private charities were doing too much, it was how selective those private charities were in helping people. Private charities didnt fail per say, they just were not working in a way the government wanted at the time when the government took over and created the welfare system.
TO all of you who are argueing that private charity can step up and do it all, Just answer me this, Why haven't they? one could very easly view it as they already would have the biggest goverment incentive possible in that they are already taking a huge portion of the work load off their shoulders. We still have problems, Private industry is not itching at the bench to fix this, they already have the open opportunity to do so.
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, we did have private charity before we had welfare. There were multiple reasons why the government took it over. I doubt the government would allow a private charity to gain too much control. The government wants to be the care giver. Look at the small percentages private charity actually helps now. I dont understand how you feel private charity could do more without stepping on the toes of the government while doing it.
I don't see what your evidence for this is. The government actively subsidizes private charities through myriad tax breaks. It goes out of its way to help charity. The social safety net exists not because the government is afraid charity might do too much but because private charity has historically failed to be good enough.
Its not that the private charities were doing too much, it was how selective those private charities were in helping people. Private charities didnt fail per say, they just were not working in a way the government wanted at the time when the government took over and created the welfare system.
I.e. they did not achieve the goals of the social safety net (possibly because they were never intended to!), which means if the social safety net was removed, we can reasonably expect (unless something has changed) that a set of goals currently being achieved (partially or wholly) by the social safety net will be neglected.
So the question of whether charity can replace the social safety net boils down to two questions: what are those goals that will be neglected, and are they important enough to justify the social safety net?
What's a "equal exchange" ? As far as I know any enchange happens for the better, as long as both parties do it with consent.
But that's a rather interesting story. Just the other day, our right wing defeated an effort to boycott companies that don't even pay their workers what said workers are owed. Seriously
Don't pretend the picture you draw from labor market is real in any circumstance. I live in a third world country and never had ANY trouble jump from one job to another when I disliked my boss or how things worked in my work place.
Ooh, is the Portuguese word for 'data' the plural of 'anecdote'? Because in any other language, it's not.
I never passed more then a month searching for a job and never had any dying trouble during those hard times (I normally save around 60% of my income, so I can survive a bit without earning anything). I passed most of my live earning around 15 dollars per day.
Good for you. Apparently the singular of 'anecdote' is 'data' now.
I'm a exception through. All my friends lived hell during rough times but I can't say it wasn't their own fault. If you earn so little and having trouble to find work, you shouldn't waste ANY money on stuff like alcohol and shouldn't have children. The self entitlement of people those days is disgusting. I've watched people from my own family refuse to work during a entire year because they believed they should earn more.
Now let me tell you about condescending right-wingers, splainin to me ***** I already know. (And I don't have job insecurity per se, except in the sense that even white-collar employees are at risk of random decimations now. I just have Sallie Mae charging me ridiculous interest rates, and our right-wing party wants to make college students quit using Sallie Mae in favor of private, professional usurers.)
Oh, and that eugenic implication? Some of us have family who underwent involuntary hysterectomy.
Welfare should exist to save those who cannot physically work or for issues that requires the kind of money that the average Joe cannot pay (such as a grim health condition). If you you're a adult, have no trouble working, you should be ashamed to demand a welfare net to support stuff like daily food, housing and clothing. Those are extremely cheap and affordable any almost any real circumstances. Seriously, If I did it leaving in the poorest region in a poor country, most people on the US can surely do it.
If you're not working 8 hours/day + studying 4 hours day, 6 days/week, I'm completely sure you can find strength to do more before having forcing the state to steal for you.
Tell that to corporate CEOs with the next round of bailouts. Oh wait, no, Kochheads wouldn't dare tell their friends to quit stealing from me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Except, employers do not have a duty to keep you if they don't want to. Nor should they.
So the best way to avoid being let go for no good reason, is to give them good reason to keep you. Be indispensable, be valuable, be worth your paycheck, if not worth more.
I think it would be better to not grovel before some egomaniac in the hopes that if we surrender enough of ourselves to his control, he won't fire us.
Then start your own business.
You can walk away on a whim, your boss can fire you on a whim. The relationship exists only as long as it is what both parties want.
Imagine if you were making this argument in the context of romantic relationships. Your partner can break up with you for any reason, or no reason at all. You can't force them to stay with you, that would be abominable. You do your best to be a good partner, and if the relationship ends for a reason that you don't like, you just thank your lucky stars that it didn't drag on longer and you go find someone else.
That doesn't translate as easily As you'd like. Most jobs include a job description that both parties agree to, a contract of sorts. Personal Relationships do not. Job descriptions essentially say "your job is to perform these duties to earn this pay". Personal relationships as you'd like to use as an allegory do not say or contract "perform these duties for this support/sex/". While they can be implied in personal relationships they are (almost always) documented in paper for business purposes, even at McDonald's to cook fries for instance. Also, personal relationships aren't tied as intrinsically to survivial(we all need a way to acquire food and shelter, but we don't require a partnership/union).
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
TO all of you who are argueing that private charity can step up and do it all, Just answer me this, Why haven't they? one could very easly view it as they already would have the biggest goverment incentive possible in that they are already taking a huge portion of the work load off their shoulders. We still have problems, Private industry is not itching at the bench to fix this, they already have the open opportunity to do so.
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, we did have private charity before we had welfare. There were multiple reasons why the government took it over. I doubt the government would allow a private charity to gain too much control. The government wants to be the care giver. Look at the small percentages private charity actually helps now. I dont understand how you feel private charity could do more without stepping on the toes of the government while doing it.
I don't see what your evidence for this is. The government actively subsidizes private charities through myriad tax breaks. It goes out of its way to help charity. The social safety net exists not because the government is afraid charity might do too much but because private charity has historically failed to be good enough.
Its not that the private charities were doing too much, it was how selective those private charities were in helping people. Private charities didnt fail per say, they just were not working in a way the government wanted at the time when the government took over and created the welfare system.
I.e. they did not achieve the goals of the social safety net (possibly because they were never intended to!), which means if the social safety net was removed, we can reasonably expect (unless something has changed) that a set of goals currently being achieved (partially or wholly) by the social safety net will be neglected.
So the question of whether charity can replace the social safety net boils down to two questions: what are those goals that will be neglected, and are they important enough to justify the social safety net?
Depends on where you stand on the issue. I am sure to some, the private charities were achieving the goals set forth to that specific charity.
The problem with how you present the question, who do we ask about goals? The people in government already set for life financially or the working class joe who is busting their collective butts to make ends meet? I am sure if you asked both parties their expectation for the goal of of charity/welfare you would get two very different answers.
As for removing the social safety net, we can look around the world and see what societies look like without a social safety net. We are considered a first world power because of certain things, some would believe its because of said safety net. I personally dont think the American society would survive very long without the safety net.
As for removing the social safety net, we can look around the world and see what societies look like without a social safety net. We are considered a first world power because of certain things, some would believe its because of said safety net. I personally dont think the American society would survive very long without the safety net. [/quote]
The question is also how dictatorships come to power, which typically happens from a financial collapse in tandem with other effects along with promises. Take the Shining Path vs. Peronism, which is classical to what happens within the framework of a poor or developing nation state. The one path is one of savage path razing, while the other uses more seductive measures to gain power over a poorer populace. The Shining Path and FARC both are off kilter late generation Communist groups, while Peronism has evolved over time to mean different things and probably is similar to some aspects of Hamiltonianism.
Arguably, when looking at geo-strategic alliances based on client states we have to analyze the quid pro quo nature within a given situation. Or to put it more simply "we buy friends to fight bad guys for us." The same concept works in reverse with financial collapses and countries seeking to spread their influence. Considering the nature of the current weakened economic situation in the US, there would be an ability to gain some relevance for a different political ideology. Islam, for instance, spread rapidly throughout the US by converting through jails and targeting disaffected groups such as African Americans. The same with other ideologies like Garvyism have also spread in the US from the Caribbean. So activist ideas gaining popularity and stamina have been a part of American tapestry for a long time. So we are not immune towards foreign groups and ideas from coming here and affecting the culture.
Now a more concerted effort to combine that with government overthrow is certainly possible within the United States, and certainly other dictators in the realm of Hugo Chavez who used to fund FARC and similar groups to harass neighboring countries would not hesitate to begin that sort of campaign in a weakened US. It's not a question of if, but of when. The original modern welfare state with Bismarck was done in response so that communists and socialists would not get elected to the Reichstag. Which is another political calculus about voter ideas swaying different direction.
Which allows whenever there's a large swath of slums, people will vote for free money, much akin to how the political machines used to use welfare as a means to buy votes. This was largely undermined not from the private charities, rather it severely damaged traditional political machines in the US that used spoils and welfare to gain power. Which brings up another point about the welfare system in the US is that it cycled how corruption occurred.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Except, employers do not have a duty to keep you if they don't want to. Nor should they.
So the best way to avoid being let go for no good reason, is to give them good reason to keep you. Be indispensable, be valuable, be worth your paycheck, if not worth more.
I think it would be better to not grovel before some egomaniac in the hopes that if we surrender enough of ourselves to his control, he won't fire us.
Then start your own business.
You can walk away on a whim, your boss can fire you on a whim. The relationship exists only as long as it is what both parties want.
Imagine if you were making this argument in the context of romantic relationships. Your partner can break up with you for any reason, or no reason at all. You can't force them to stay with you, that would be abominable. You do your best to be a good partner, and if the relationship ends for a reason that you don't like, you just thank your lucky stars that it didn't drag on longer and you go find someone else.
That doesn't translate as easily As you'd like. Most jobs include a job description that both parties agree to, a contract of sorts. Personal Relationships do not. Job descriptions essentially say "your job is to perform these duties to earn this pay". Personal relationships as you'd like to use as an allegory do not say or contract "perform these duties for this support/sex/". While they can be implied in personal relationships they are (almost always) documented in paper for business purposes, even at McDonald's to cook fries for instance. Also, personal relationships aren't tied as intrinsically to survivial(we all need a way to acquire food and shelter, but we don't require a partnership/union).
So I agree there is usually a written or unwritten contract in an employment situation. I'm not sure how this observation is supposed to be relevant to the debate. The point is that in both situations, the relationship exists for the mutual benefit of both parties, and can be terminated at will by either.
(Admittedly, if your contract explicitly says you can only be fired for certain reasons, then the employer is bound by that; if they violate the contract you can take them to court. No one is denying that. We're talking about a situation where your contract doesn't limit the reasons you can be fired.)
I'm hearing a lot of this being said (in one way shape or form)
"Government needed to make safety nets because Charity wasn't doing enough"
1. Doing enough for whom?
Is SS doing enough for the elderly in poverty? I'd say no.
Is disability doing enough for the truly disabled? Nope.
Is the VA doing enough for returned and retired troops? Again, no.
Is poverty assistance services doing enough for the homeless/hungry? Not a chance.
Is Welfare doing anything to actually end institutionalized poverty? Hell no.
2. Doing enough for how many?
Is it necessary to make sure everyone born, or alive, makes it?
Is the safety net there to encourage overpopulation, and if not, why not have a cap (to the benefits, not the population inb4nazieugenicsargument)?
If so, why? Why should we have a system that ignores the natural limits of population management?
Maybe the reason both Charity, and the Government, even combined, are not solving the poverty problem
is because it is inherently counter-evolutionary.
Safety nets allow the birds who can't fly, or won't fly, to survive. Safety nets allow the birds who
can't hunt, or won't hunt, to survive. You only end up reducing the effective prosperity of the whole
Eagle population. Those that can and do fly and hunt successfully end up towing the weight of the rest.
Now, this isn't necessarily bad. As said before, compassion is a positive trait, and therefore an Eagle with compassion is great and desirable.
However, there is an economical limit to recognize that X number of successful Eagles can only support Y number of unsuccessful Eagles, before diminishing returns cause legitimate flock damage (which I believe we reached long ago).
So again, as I asked before in not only this thread, but others.
Do we want a system that simply allows us to have the most people possible, regardless of skill or ability, regardless of how much effort must be made to carry the ones who can't carry their own weight (a system with greater safety nets).
Or do we want a system that encourages us to have the best possible people (less safety nets, greater rewards for compassion).
Even if the answer is safety...
How can anyone accuse Charity of not being able to do enough, while ignoring that Government also isn't doing enough, even with Charity picking up some of the slack.
Now...
When is this thread going to talk about the other half of the OP? MERIT.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Few people (except, again, the disabled) stay on welfare their whole lives. And it would be nice if the GOP wouldn't hold up appropriations to infrastructure so it would be possible for these people to get a job. But until they get jobs, the economy won't budge, no matter how much government largesse the top 1% leeches off.
By the way, no one has ever adequately explained to me how "Alice gives Bob $500." is less efficient than "Alice gives Carl $500 to give to Bob. Carl gives Bob $400 and skims off $100 for himself." That is privatization. Carl is the government contractor. If we replaced money with energy, we would laugh you out of the physics lab for suggesting perpetual motion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
The problem with this whole debate is, whos base line are we going to use for who needs and who doesnt need charity, and how did we come to that base line?
Now...
When is this thread going to talk about the other half of the OP? MERIT.
It would be nice if merit had anything to do with real life. But what I see and hear is that people's prejudices dictate corporate advancement.
As to charity, I'm having trouble connecting what the association to the two words was supposed to be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Beneficial for whom? At the expense of who's overall happiness?
Time and energy are not free, and while it is not a zero-sum game, some people are going to work hard, and some not at all, and many right in the middle.
Maximizes happiness how? And who are the costs passed onto?
I am fully capable of entertaining ideas. "Maximize happiness" is not an idea.
"Develop solar energy", or "Establish more charter schools", or "Close tax codes that reward outsourcing jobs", those are ideas.
"Maximize overall happiness" is a platitude.
I vehemently disagree.
Living in a drug induced delirium might make someone very happy, but I wouldn't value that happiness over the truth, even if the truth meant discomfort.
I can maximize happiness tomorrow if we just put happy pills in the water supply.
I hope you see the problem with placing happiness at the top of the needs pyramid in this regard.
I'd rather everyone be their own boss, and not not pass the responsibility of scratching out a short but meaningful life onto someone else.
Say I accept the job. Then what, I'm dictator? I'm the king? After all, I get to decide how we maximize overall happiness. Does that sound good to you?
Yes, we can survey people and ask them if they're happy. Unfortunately, the people polled are going to have different reasons for WHY they were happy. Some because of their job, some because of their friends, some because of skydiving, some because they collect spiders...
What claim have I made that requires me to prove something?
"I want less government control" is not a claim of a working model for society.
Now,
Let me actually offer one tiny piece.
Tax reform. I'd tax everyone (individuals, not corps. which I'd treat differently) much LESS, but keep it all.
No deductions, no write offs, no paperwork.
Why tax someone 11-12% over the course of the year, only to hand them 6-7% back in the form of a refund? Why not just tax them 7%, they keep more of their pay throughout the year, making their checks bigger, and the government actually nets more in the long run in the way of reduced paperwork and man-hours of labor needed by the IRS.
Healthcare - bring back HSA's. Personally owned HSA's, 100% portable, they don't rely on employment, they go wherever you go, parents and legal guardians can contribute to your HSA as you grow, you take over at 18. Employers can offer contributions to your HSA as hiring incentives and bonuses, You never lose equity just because you got fired or laid off...(so much more that can take up a lot of time)
The problem with these debates, is that while we are supposed to focus on the charity/welfare issue for instance, people start thinking things exist in a vacuum.
It's not like I'm taking the country as it is today and saying "Tomorrow, that's it, no more welfare! ROFLMAO!"
You slowly phase it out, and reduce it, but you start by fixing education to be more flexible and encouraging to upward mobility versus this conveyor belt to Burger Kings education we have now, end the war on drugs, tort reform, reducing war expenditures, reducing fraud and embezzlement by the government, reduce overbids for services by the government...
Not to mention, fixing Welfare in the first place so that it no longer punishes mothers for having the father in the house. Welfare has done so much harm to families in poverty - making it more cost effective to be a broken home, that a loving two parent household...
Welfare isn't the FIRST thing I'd touch. Not even the second. But this thread is about welfare/charity.
This does not mean you can't think for yourself and maybe realize that I, and no one else, has said, lets get rid of Welfare tomorrow, cut & dry.
I'll certainly agree it's more pragmatic.
See above statement as to why no one has said Abolish welfare, not even me.
And I thought I was the pessimist.
I disagree. There are tons of people out there who are compassionate, giving, and kind. They give their time, money, sweat, and blood, to make the world a better place. Many do it with some help from various government grants, and many do it with nothing but private donations and the sacrifice of their supporters, and some even with a mixture of both.
Doctors Without Borders, International Rescue Committee, Orphan Grain Train, ASPCA, Robin Hood Foundation, Books for Africa, Oxfam, World Vision, Habitat for Humanity, Fund for Global Human Rights, Bread for the World Institute, Farm Aid, Global Hunger Project...
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
What's a "equal exchange" ? As far as I know any enchange happens for the better, as long as both parties do it with consent.
Don't pretend the picture you draw from labor market is real in any circumstance. I live in a third world country and never had ANY trouble jump from one job to another when I disliked my boss or how things worked in my work place. I never passed more then a month searching for a job and never had any dying trouble during those hard times (I normally save around 60% of my income, so I can survive a bit without earning anything). I passed most of my live earning around 15 dollars per day.
I'm a exception through. All my friends lived hell during rough times but I can't say it wasn't their own fault. If you earn so little and having trouble to find work, you shouldn't waste ANY money on stuff like alcohol and shouldn't have children. The self entitlement of people those days is disgusting. I've watched people from my own family refuse to work during a entire year because they believed they should earn more.
Welfare should exist to save those who cannot physically work or for issues that requires the kind of money that the average Joe cannot pay (such as a grim health condition). If you you're a adult, have no trouble working, you should be ashamed to demand a welfare net to support stuff like daily food, housing and clothing. Those are extremely cheap and affordable any almost any real circumstances. Seriously, If I did it leaving in the poorest region in a poor country, most people on the US can surely do it.
If you're not working 8 hours/day + studying 4 hours day, 6 days/week, I'm completely sure you can find strength to do more before having forcing the state to steal for you.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
You are starting from a defeatist position, then trying to persuade me that we're doomed to defeat. I do not accept this.
There may or may not be a disparity of power. However, my employer cannot force me to stay, and I cannot force them to give me a raise.
I am looking for a better job as we speak, and as soon as I find one, I can quit and there is nothing they can do about it.
However, if I am being fired for cause, it's my fault (for cause). If I am being let go for no good reason, it is also my fault. It is MY responsibility to make MYSELF indispensable. It is MY responsibility, and in my best interest, to make myself invaluable to my employers, so that they WON'T get rid of me. It is not the employers responsibility to keep me against their interests.
If you are quitting your job, without another one lined up, you're doing it wrong.
No one is holding a gun to my head, nor vice-versa.
The problem is NOT that jobs are hard to find. The problem is that most people are not as interested in learning a new skill, or improving their education and experience, as they are in voting themselves more of of that sweet sweet nectar called "other peoples money".
Just in my geographic area, there are like 13,000+ job listings. Some have been open for hiring for over 3 months. There are positions out there to be filled.
To avoid the risk of thread derailment, I'll only state that I do not believe Unions are necessary.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The thing, it does indicate something. While no number of examples can prove anything, one counter example is enough to disprove a claim.
The claim I'm disproving is "it's impossible to survive without welfare in capitalism". I know that' not true, at least in most nations. It's a important claim to proof because the most naive form of left wing argumentation comes down to that claim. It's important to get that out of our way so we can discuss what welfare system is really about.
"Best interest of society" is a dangerous phrase. I could point all the logical defects in that claim but that would be material for another thread. For now I would say you need a better selection of words.
About the reproduction thing. I agree having a family is one of those basic things humans do socially, but I don't see the logic behind your claim it should be easy. Like many others endeavors, raising a family is a big challenge and one that should only be engaged when people are up to it.
I'm not saying poor people shouldn't have children. My thoughts couldn't be more different. The thing is, this financial minimum a couple needs to have in order to reproduce are achievable by virtually anyone in a half decent country. I'm just saying people in general need a certain level of stability before having a family. And this stability is hard to conquest when you're young and should be dedicating yourself to work and study if you want a better future for yourself and your future family.
Yes, I've internalized capitalistic morality. Gladly we are in a forum were that is not taken as a bad thing.
About the other things you said... You're just putting words on my mouth, based on your own delusions.
I don't want people to exist primary as anything. However when it comes down to economical matters (what everyone will consume and what will they produce) it's a important thing that, ideally, you only consume what you have obtained fairly via exchange and what you have produced yourself. I know this is not always possible. Still, it doesn't change the fact that interventions are conceptually unfair, should be seen a bad thing for everyone and should be minimized.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
That's the mentality of an abuse victim. By definition if you're fired for no good reason there was no good reason for it.
I've applied for about two dozen jobs inside and outside of my skillset in the last few months. That resulted in exactly one response so far, from an employer who proved to be unstable and abusive. How hard it is to find a job isn't dependent on the number of jobs available, its dependent on the number of jobs vs the number of job seekers (and your knowledge of corporate culture, your job history, your age, your mobility, your personal charisma, etc).
Except, employers do not have a duty to keep you if they don't want to. Nor should they.
So the best way to avoid being let go for no good reason, is to give them good reason to keep you. Be indispensable, be valuable, be worth your paycheck, if not worth more.
I also had a harder time finding employment after I got my degree than before, it was kind of weird, but then, I was going into a field that paid twice what I was making before.
But anecdotal evidence is not evidence of causation.
Be the best candidate. Work on your persuasion, and interview skills. Pad that resume with relevant skills, education, and experience.
Be the one they can't pass up.
It's not the employers responsibility to make you good for them. Nor should it be.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
That's not what I said, I said that believing you are at fault when, by definition, you are not is the mentality of an abuse victim.
People can fire workers arbitrarily but that doesn't mean the workers are at fault. It's not like employers are gods that make inherently just decisions.
I assume you're not actually saying that your knowledge of corporate culture, your job history, your age, your mobility, your personal charisma, and the amount of competition have no bearing on chances of employment and this is just some kind of rhetorical thing?
Then start your own business.
You can walk away on a whim, your boss can fire you on a whim. The relationship exists only as long as it is what both parties want.
Imagine if you were making this argument in the context of romantic relationships. Your partner can break up with you for any reason, or no reason at all. You can't force them to stay with you, that would be abominable. You do your best to be a good partner, and if the relationship ends for a reason that you don't like, you just thank your lucky stars that it didn't drag on longer and you go find someone else.
Believe it or not, there are good bosses out there. And gladly, markets selects then.
Being abusive is not the state of art in HR for 100+ years.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
No, it's simply not.
The employer is NOT abusing you by firing you. They can abuse you. They can fire you. They can abuse you and then fire you. But they can also fire you and not abuse you.
If your work allows the statement "yeah, we can let that person go for no reason" to apply to you, it is your fault.
It is your responsibility, and yours alone to turn that statement into "that person is a valuable member of our workforce, we can't lose them."
As Bitter put it, your girlfriend/boyfriend can dump you for any reason whatsoever. It's up to YOU to be a boyfriend/girlfriend that is desirable, worthy, and difficult to part with. It is not your significant other responsibility to stay in the relationship with you even when it doesn't suit them.
Them dumping you, even for no good reason, is NOT in any way shape or form abuse. Which is not to say that you won't feel bad, or be hurt emotionally. But if you're the kind of boyfriend/girlfriend that can be easily dumped for no reason, you're doing it wrong.
Never said such a thing. But this doesn't refute what I did say at all.
Those things are all part of YOU making YOURSELF a worthy candidate, a valuable and attractive applicant that the people in charge of hiring WANT to have on their crew.
Again, it is not the employers responsibility to make YOU good for THEM.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, we did have private charity before we had welfare. There were multiple reasons why the government took it over. I doubt the government would allow a private charity to gain too much control. The government wants to be the care giver. Look at the small percentages private charity actually helps now. I dont understand how you feel private charity could do more without stepping on the toes of the government while doing it.
I don't see what your evidence for this is. The government actively subsidizes private charities through myriad tax breaks. It goes out of its way to help charity. The social safety net exists not because the government is afraid charity might do too much but because private charity has historically failed to be good enough.
Its not that the private charities were doing too much, it was how selective those private charities were in helping people. Private charities didnt fail per say, they just were not working in a way the government wanted at the time when the government took over and created the welfare system.
I.e. they did not achieve the goals of the social safety net (possibly because they were never intended to!), which means if the social safety net was removed, we can reasonably expect (unless something has changed) that a set of goals currently being achieved (partially or wholly) by the social safety net will be neglected.
So the question of whether charity can replace the social safety net boils down to two questions: what are those goals that will be neglected, and are they important enough to justify the social safety net?
But that's a rather interesting story. Just the other day, our right wing defeated an effort to boycott companies that don't even pay their workers what said workers are owed. Seriously
Ooh, is the Portuguese word for 'data' the plural of 'anecdote'? Because in any other language, it's not.
Good for you. Apparently the singular of 'anecdote' is 'data' now.
Now let me tell you about condescending right-wingers, splainin to me ***** I already know. (And I don't have job insecurity per se, except in the sense that even white-collar employees are at risk of random decimations now. I just have Sallie Mae charging me ridiculous interest rates, and our right-wing party wants to make college students quit using Sallie Mae in favor of private, professional usurers.)
Oh, and that eugenic implication? Some of us have family who underwent involuntary hysterectomy.
Tell that to corporate CEOs with the next round of bailouts. Oh wait, no, Kochheads wouldn't dare tell their friends to quit stealing from me.
On phasing:
That doesn't translate as easily As you'd like. Most jobs include a job description that both parties agree to, a contract of sorts. Personal Relationships do not. Job descriptions essentially say "your job is to perform these duties to earn this pay". Personal relationships as you'd like to use as an allegory do not say or contract "perform these duties for this support/sex/". While they can be implied in personal relationships they are (almost always) documented in paper for business purposes, even at McDonald's to cook fries for instance. Also, personal relationships aren't tied as intrinsically to survivial(we all need a way to acquire food and shelter, but we don't require a partnership/union).
Depends on where you stand on the issue. I am sure to some, the private charities were achieving the goals set forth to that specific charity.
The problem with how you present the question, who do we ask about goals? The people in government already set for life financially or the working class joe who is busting their collective butts to make ends meet? I am sure if you asked both parties their expectation for the goal of of charity/welfare you would get two very different answers.
As for removing the social safety net, we can look around the world and see what societies look like without a social safety net. We are considered a first world power because of certain things, some would believe its because of said safety net. I personally dont think the American society would survive very long without the safety net.
As for removing the social safety net, we can look around the world and see what societies look like without a social safety net. We are considered a first world power because of certain things, some would believe its because of said safety net. I personally dont think the American society would survive very long without the safety net. [/quote]
The question is also how dictatorships come to power, which typically happens from a financial collapse in tandem with other effects along with promises. Take the Shining Path vs. Peronism, which is classical to what happens within the framework of a poor or developing nation state. The one path is one of savage path razing, while the other uses more seductive measures to gain power over a poorer populace. The Shining Path and FARC both are off kilter late generation Communist groups, while Peronism has evolved over time to mean different things and probably is similar to some aspects of Hamiltonianism.
Arguably, when looking at geo-strategic alliances based on client states we have to analyze the quid pro quo nature within a given situation. Or to put it more simply "we buy friends to fight bad guys for us." The same concept works in reverse with financial collapses and countries seeking to spread their influence. Considering the nature of the current weakened economic situation in the US, there would be an ability to gain some relevance for a different political ideology. Islam, for instance, spread rapidly throughout the US by converting through jails and targeting disaffected groups such as African Americans. The same with other ideologies like Garvyism have also spread in the US from the Caribbean. So activist ideas gaining popularity and stamina have been a part of American tapestry for a long time. So we are not immune towards foreign groups and ideas from coming here and affecting the culture.
Now a more concerted effort to combine that with government overthrow is certainly possible within the United States, and certainly other dictators in the realm of Hugo Chavez who used to fund FARC and similar groups to harass neighboring countries would not hesitate to begin that sort of campaign in a weakened US. It's not a question of if, but of when. The original modern welfare state with Bismarck was done in response so that communists and socialists would not get elected to the Reichstag. Which is another political calculus about voter ideas swaying different direction.
Which allows whenever there's a large swath of slums, people will vote for free money, much akin to how the political machines used to use welfare as a means to buy votes. This was largely undermined not from the private charities, rather it severely damaged traditional political machines in the US that used spoils and welfare to gain power. Which brings up another point about the welfare system in the US is that it cycled how corruption occurred.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
So I agree there is usually a written or unwritten contract in an employment situation. I'm not sure how this observation is supposed to be relevant to the debate. The point is that in both situations, the relationship exists for the mutual benefit of both parties, and can be terminated at will by either.
(Admittedly, if your contract explicitly says you can only be fired for certain reasons, then the employer is bound by that; if they violate the contract you can take them to court. No one is denying that. We're talking about a situation where your contract doesn't limit the reasons you can be fired.)
"Government needed to make safety nets because Charity wasn't doing enough"
1. Doing enough for whom?
Is SS doing enough for the elderly in poverty? I'd say no.
Is disability doing enough for the truly disabled? Nope.
Is the VA doing enough for returned and retired troops? Again, no.
Is poverty assistance services doing enough for the homeless/hungry? Not a chance.
Is Welfare doing anything to actually end institutionalized poverty? Hell no.
2. Doing enough for how many?
Is it necessary to make sure everyone born, or alive, makes it?
Is the safety net there to encourage overpopulation, and if not, why not have a cap (to the benefits, not the population inb4nazieugenicsargument)?
If so, why? Why should we have a system that ignores the natural limits of population management?
Maybe the reason both Charity, and the Government, even combined, are not solving the poverty problem
is because it is inherently counter-evolutionary.
Safety nets allow the birds who can't fly, or won't fly, to survive. Safety nets allow the birds who
can't hunt, or won't hunt, to survive. You only end up reducing the effective prosperity of the whole
Eagle population. Those that can and do fly and hunt successfully end up towing the weight of the rest.
Now, this isn't necessarily bad. As said before, compassion is a positive trait, and therefore an Eagle with compassion is great and desirable.
However, there is an economical limit to recognize that X number of successful Eagles can only support Y number of unsuccessful Eagles, before diminishing returns cause legitimate flock damage (which I believe we reached long ago).
So again, as I asked before in not only this thread, but others.
Do we want a system that simply allows us to have the most people possible, regardless of skill or ability, regardless of how much effort must be made to carry the ones who can't carry their own weight (a system with greater safety nets).
Or do we want a system that encourages us to have the best possible people (less safety nets, greater rewards for compassion).
Even if the answer is safety...
How can anyone accuse Charity of not being able to do enough, while ignoring that Government also isn't doing enough, even with Charity picking up some of the slack.
Now...
When is this thread going to talk about the other half of the OP?
MERIT.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
By the way, no one has ever adequately explained to me how "Alice gives Bob $500." is less efficient than "Alice gives Carl $500 to give to Bob. Carl gives Bob $400 and skims off $100 for himself." That is privatization. Carl is the government contractor. If we replaced money with energy, we would laugh you out of the physics lab for suggesting perpetual motion.
On phasing:
Same problem with merit.
It would be nice if merit had anything to do with real life. But what I see and hear is that people's prejudices dictate corporate advancement.
As to charity, I'm having trouble connecting what the association to the two words was supposed to be.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].