"Freedom" thread or something

Doc, ir we are to make excuses for those types of reasons, then we could honestly have an entire nation of parasites (not that it won't become one one day anyway). Same could be said for criminals, etc. True psychiatric disorders might be valid.

The last part is just not true in my view. 100% employment is likely not possible, but it is desirable. And those that aren't employed don't have as their only alternative the parasitic life. In fact, I know many parasitic people who actually have jobs.

Remember, I don't believe unemployed=parasite. Neither do I believe that collecting unemployment=parasite.

The T wrote: Doc, ir we are to make excuses for those types of reasons, then we could honestly have an entire nation of parasites (not that it won't become one one day anyway). Same could be said for criminals, etc. True psychiatric disorders might be valid. The last part is just not true in my view. 100% employment is likely not possible, but it is desirable. And those that aren't employed don't have as their only alternative the parasitic life. In fact, I know many parasitic people who actually have jobs. Remember, I don't believe unemployed=parasite. Neither do I believe that collecting unemployment=parasite.

They even have their own specialized job title:  CEO. 

I stand corrected then, T, as I did think that is what you were implying (unemployed=parasite).  I don't think those are excuses, merely a few reasons why someone may not conform to the view that you have to work hard until you die simply to get by on a meager existence.  Yes, some would rather lay in bed all day than work for pennies.    Can't say I blame them.    Remember, our society is not really a natural existence, so our work, work, work does not conform to the way humans evolved to live, there are going to be those our society deems "parasites".  We're supposed to get up, roam the lands freely, hunt buffalo, draw on the walls, eat and get laid.  Then some damn fool invents the wheel...

The point I'm trying to make here is this, who are we to judge what kind of lifestyle is right or wrong for people?  Just because a majority of people choose to work, it doesn't really make it wrong to live a different lifestyle or desire a different lifestyle which cannot be obtained in society.  The libertarian, I suspect, would say that such a person has the choice to live outside of society.  Where?  How?  Our economy has gobbled up all the resources to be used only by those who conform to the majority's standard.  Part of the problem is simply in the population.  But a huge amount of resources are being hoarded by a very few individuals/companies.  Therefore, the "outsider" has no choice but to live in our society.  Should he then be forced into a lifestyle which is simply abhorrent to him because he has no other choice? 

Onto other matters.  I agree 100% employment for every able-bodied (and willing) man and woman (although I would add "at a living wage") is a desirable state of affairs, but it isn't very likely.  So the parasite still has a place in our society.  Someone on this board, one of you libertarian bunch, did say that 100% employment was not desirable.  I'm guessing it wasn't you. 


Edited by The Doctor - December 06 2012 at 18:11

Great article.

The Doctor wrote:   They even have their own specialized job title:  CEO.   Doctor Doctor, your passion against CEOs is (sadly) not unique but just as wrong as other people's with your views. Some CEOs deserve the hate and they make stupid and questionable decisions many times but throwing them all in a category (just like throwing all people in groups like "poor", "rich" etc) makes it look like if they were all the same. What would all businesses make without good CEOs? Where would companies like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc be without brilliant CEOs? Why do companies like Best Buy hire CEOs as the first step to try to save themselves, paying them very large amounts? Of course some CEOs act horribly and I personally tend to dislike Bank CEOs just because they work for banks but even them are there to accomplish a mission. A mission that is good for the economy and "society" if it's carried out correctly.  I stand corrected then, T, as I did think that is what you were implying (unemployed=parasite).  No, couldn't do that. Calling someone "unemployed" doesn't imply a character judgement. Reasons for unemployment or for collecting unemployment are as varied and different as to make one blanket judgement impossible and wrong. "Parasite" though implies a character judgement and that's a category where I am clearly throwing all parasites in the same group, as there are no "good" parasites (well, biologically there might be some). I qualify as parasite that person who, being able to work, chooses not to so that he can continue living off the government, hence, off everybody else who IS working, just out of laziness and comfort.  I don't think those are excuses, merely a few reasons why someone may not conform to the view that you have to work hard until you die simply to get by on a meager existence.  Yes, some would rather lay in bed all day than work for pennies.    Can't say I blame them.   I do. I think any work is more dignified than laziness and a parasitic existence. Remember, our society is not really a natural existence, so our work, work, work does not conform to the way humans evolved to live, there are going to be those our society deems "parasites".  I think human evolved precisely BECAUSE of hard work. This "leisure time" is a thing of recent times, thanks of course to capitalism. Good luck finding leisure time in pre-capitalist eras except in royalty and nobles. Of course I'm very happy that today I can enjoy days off and lots of time to do useless things like listen to music or read or play games or whatever.  We're supposed to get up, roam the lands freely, hunt buffalo, draw on the walls, eat and get laid.  Then some damn fool invents the wheel...All of that is work, hard work. Even getting laid was work, to preserve ourselves.  The point I'm trying to make here is this, who are we to judge what kind of lifestyle is right or wrong for people?  Just because a majority of people choose to work, it doesn't really make it wrong to live a different lifestyle or desire a different lifestyle which cannot be obtained in society.  I don't think of lazyness as a lifestyle but as a flaw of character. The libertarian, I suspect, would say that such a person has the choice to live outside of society.  Where?  How?  Our economy has gobbled up all the resources to be used only by those who conform to the majority's standard.  Part of the problem is simply in the population.  But a huge amount of resources are being hoarded by a very few individuals/companies.  Therefore, the "outsider" has no choice but to live in our society.  Should he then be forced into a lifestyle which is simply abhorrent to him because he has no other choice?  I just can't answer this because it makes my head spin too much. I am all for outsiders but this is no outsider, this is just someone who wants everybody else to pay for their "differentness". No no.  Onto other matters.  I agree 100% employment for every able-bodied (and willing) man and woman (although I would add "at a living wage") is a desirable state of affairs, but it isn't very likely.  So the parasite still has a place in our society.  Someone on this board, one of you libertarian bunch, did say that 100% employment was not desirable.  I'm guessing it wasn't you.  No. I would like that explained by whoever said it. There might be a valid economical point behind it.

Because I can take any number as a ratio of a different set of numbers and pretend to be comparing apples to apples.  That's what he's doing.  "Egads! If you multiply the total dollar amount paid by the wealthy in the 50's by the natural log of e, it is much lower than the total dollar amount paid by the wealthy today.    LIBERALISM IS A LIE!"

Edited by The Doctor - December 07 2012 at 14:57

I've come to realize that libertarians tend to view people as perpetual potential, while liberals tend to view people as constant victims.

As a member of the group called "people," I know which category I belong in.


Edited by Epignosis - December 08 2012 at 07:09

They might not always see people as victims, but it sure helps them politically if people consider themselves victims.

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: I've come to realize that libertarians tend to view people as perpetual potential, while liberals tend to view people as constant victims. As a member of the group called "people," I know which category I belong in. I've come to realize that libertarians tend to view CEOs as perpetual victims, while liberals tend to view the rest of the world as potential victims.  I do not view people as either perpetual potential (not even sure what that means in practical terms) or as constant victims.  However, any time humans interact with each other there is the potential for victimization (this potential rises the greater the power differential between the interacting humans).  The goal is to minimize (I realize it can never be fully eliminated) that potential for victimization.  And minimize the damage of victimization when it does occur.

I'm thankful for rich people because they make my life better. 

Rich people afford us the opportunity to be gainfully employed and improve our lives and our society.  They also pay most of our taxes.  Many (not all) act ethically and give large amounts of their money to charitable causes. 

So yeah, let's demonize them and take all we can of what they earn.  Tear em down, great idea.

The T wrote: Apparently Jim acting ethically is something only poor people can do and acting unethically is something only rich people can do and get away with.

Fixed.