"Freedom" thread or something

You can only make one thing cheaper by making something else more expensive if you merely reallocate funds. 

As I've said a hundred times, you don't need to work for someone else to live, it's just the easiest way.

thellama73 wrote: As I've said a hundred times, you don't need to work for someone else to live, it's just the easiest way.

Hence my "Period.  No discussion." statement to Rob.  That's a tired refrain.  You either need to have a job or you need the capital to start your own business.  The panhandling and selling stuff on Etsy ideas are just silly.  Of course, there's always a life of crime, but you only get away with that if you're already the CEO of a multi-national corporation or an investment banker. 

The Doctor wrote: Unless you're going by third world standards and I'd rather we not become a third world country thanks.

On a somewhat tangential and overly pedantic note, I wish we would stop using "third world country" as a synonym for "poor country." It's really an outdated, now meaningless term for countries that were neither part of the capitalist west (first world) or one of the communist countries like Russia and China (second world) during the cold war. It doesn't mean "poor."

I was going to respond to your post Logan, but T said exactly the same thing I was going to say.  Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, T?

The Doctor wrote:   As for how I think wealth should be redistributed.  Progressive taxation, unemployment benefits (in fact, these should be higher, last longer if necessary and in some cases be paid directly by the company which laid off the employee), a higher minimum wage, welfare benefits for those who are in need of such, disability payments for those who cannot take care of themselves, a nationalized health care system, and I'm sure there are a few others I'm leaving out.

 

Again, wealth has to be created. It's not a pie and it's not a "your gains are my losses" game. As for the measures you mention Doc, some of them cause even more problems for he very people you (and everybody) would like to see better off, the poor (if there is such a group of people that can be permanently called the poor). Minimum wages hurt employment. More obbligation for companies to pay more and more in benefits only means less people employed.

Do you at least agree with setting minimum requirements and guidelines for some benefits? For example, a person shouldn't be entitled, no matter what, to live off government benefits for life. Do you agree?

The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: I don't envy the rich.  I have no desire to be rich.  A comfy middle class existence is all I desire.  In many circumstances there is animosity however, especially to those rich who believe it is their right, simply because they are rich, to be d*cks. Not to break this to you, but a comfy middle class life is rich. I have a middle class income which provides me a fairly comfy lifestyle for a single guy with no kids.  But I'm not rich.  I rent a 2 br apartment.  I drive a 2000 Ford Taurus.  Etc., etc.  Unless you're going by third world standards and I'd rather we not become a third world country thanks.

I'm just comparing it to how most people in human history including the present have lived.

I don't have much problem with your opinion on the disabled and the elderly, though the latter category grows and grows in percentage and if you create a generation of bums at the other side of the age spectrum then you have a big trouble financing that in your hands. Also, putting the elderly as if it was a homogenous group doesn't take into account the fact that many might be in a bad situation for different reasons but ok, I can live with that.

For the other part, I can't agree. Giving a hand, ok, but creating a whole pool of parasites (which is the case if you accept the lazy to just live off the rest) is a recipe for societal destruction (if society is really something that exists and needs to be preserved). The problem is that people are not just lazy like a pre existing condition, they are made into that when, as you said, they realize they can make more money not doing anything and collecting checks than working hard jobs.

I don't equate ambition with success. I don't equate hard work with ambition. Hard work comes ot of responsibility, of morals, but of course, when the only morals one can expect is "live only for yourself no matter how" then hard work is not seen as really an obbligation as human being but as an unnecesary burden or even as a legacy of some past issue.

I just can't even begin to understand or agree with the second part.

I'm not sure why taking benefits leads to crime necessarily. The fact that government doesn't do something doesn't mean it can't be done somehow else.

^True.

But almost always parasite=immoral.

Obviously, parasitic would be those who could, but wouldn't.

Edited by The T - December 06 2012 at 12:31