Crossroads,

capitalism = freedom?

Yes. The freedom that your life's consequences arise from your own actions, thus you are in control.
This is the fair way to live - the honest way that avoids stealing from others.
 
what about living off the government? wouldn't that be considered stealing from others?

if people have democratically "bought in" to the social contract, which involves a bit of compassion from the pool of taxed money for those in desperate straights, and if the people living off the government have "bought in" to the sometimes-unsaid assumption of making their honest efforts, then no. but if the people living off the government are milking the system, or being unduly picky with their job assignments (something we teach our teens not to do, much less an adult on the dole), then yes.

it depends, i'm sure there are plenty of people on both sides. (or should I say "fine people on both sides" ? LOL ROTF)
 
It is if you are gaming the system. Our welfare system is very complex and there are many programs and many ways to cheat. However, it is there for people who need help and their use is not stealing. The government by even having welfare programs is stealing from me to give to others they deem to be more worthy than I am. But, the recipient of the welfare is not stealing unless they are collecting payments they are not technically entitled to.

Welfare is theft. It is not charity but the recipient is not usually the thief - unless he is an illegal alien. EVERY benefit they get is theft since they broke our laws to be here. They are not "entitled" to ANY benefit. PERIOD.

I'll never forget when my daughter, then about 10 years old, started taking violin lessons. We couldn't afford to buy her a violin, but the school had a program where you could rent one. Well we couldn't really very well afford to rent it either. At the time I was supplementing my full time income at a bank by more-or-less dumpster diving for usable cardboard boxes, then selling them as moving boxes on Craigslist. I was doing everything I could physically do to make money, and working on improving my skills in the process.

We went to line up for another program to help you financially if you couldn't afford to rent the violin (something like $78/mo).
I remember in the line seeing Cadillace Escillades and all sorts of >$75,000 vehicles in the line. My wife, bless her heart, said something that I myself would not say (I can't, because I'm not Hispanic - she can say it if she wants b/c she is) - she said "they're all Hispanic, gaming the system".
 
you mean when they're "searching for a job"?

Yes - and that phrase made me laugh out loud a little bit, in this employment environment.

I think let's say, hmm, roughly about 100% of restaurants are understaffed for the last 4 years. Nobody is 'searching for a job' at this point.
You either want to work or you don't
 
I didn't buy into this. Nobody asked my opinion. This is just a way for the government to pick winners and losers. And the government is p*** poor at handling my money. No government employee has any incentive to spend wisely so I think conservatively, waste in these programs is probably 40% or more. Americans used to give, percentage wise, more money to their churches and charities than they do today. But as the feds take more and more of our tax dollars and spread them around to "welfare" programs, people are less inclined to donate to charities. I've cut back the number of charities I support although I probably give about the same percentage of my disposable income. These days, I'm giving a lot more time though and almost all my charities are local. I still like St Jude's and the Shriner's though. I really miss the Shriners in our summer holiday parades and the Mummers parade on New year's day.

I understand what you mean, in that, you didn't specifically buy into it, and in fact, you may in actuality be voting against it every time and still losing to the majority.

However, I'm curious - are you saying that you think the government should provide absolutely ZERO of any type of social safety net?

Despite my voting/representation views, (which I think are perceived as very harsh), even I think we should provide a little emergency support to disabled, orphans, temporary poverty, etc. Only, nowhere near as much as we do and @Jon 's idea of requiring community service in exchange for the dole is a VERY good idea. Incentivize not staying poor.
 
or being unduly picky with their job assignment

I once interviewed a fellow for a general tidying up and sweeping job. I placed the add through the government "Job Center" at the time thinking that it would be possible to give someone who was down on their luck a foothold hold on the job ladder.

I soon realised he had been forced to attend the interview, he was very persistent in inquiring what computer training there was and what computer work was involved.

I would not have given him the role in a hundred years but I reported him to the government agency for deliberately not accepting the job that I offered him.
 
The very foundation of America is being responsible for yourself. We take care of ourselves and our families. We donate or tithe to our churches and give generously to charities.

I can't really argue with the pure truth of that. The government's job is to defend the country conduct elections and make laws, not give stuff to the people - and Americans rank very high, if not the highest, in the world for charitable giving so that ought to cover it, if people are behaving normally.

I can vouch for that in getting to know a few other cultures, Americans are unique in that, and it's something we'rd proud of, Being generous broadly speaking.
 
Correct. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the government's job is to take care of us. In fact, just the opposite. The very foundation of America is being responsible for yourself. We take care of ourselves and our families. We donate or tithe to our churches and give generously to charities.

You are a very nice person with a big heart but it is simply not nice of you to decide that it is OK for the government to take money from me at gunpoint in order to give it to someone else they deem to be more worthy. You can run a refuge for illegal aliens. You can take in homeless people. You can give every spare penny you have to others. But, you cannot take money from me in order to make yourself feel virtuous. That is evil.

I have to confess to falling into progressive traps myself. They always sound so virtuous and good. But then I sit back and say, wait a minute, that sounds good on paper but it is impossible to implement and will be a total waste of money. All it does is transfer wealth from the generous to the greedy.
Everything you say defends a winner take all outlook. You should be happy, the Elites in the financial sector already have taken it all. They are the ones that pay for all the brainwashing you do buy into.
 
Everything you say defends a winner take all outlook.

Excuse me, but that "winner take all" outlook is ingrained in us through a hundred millennia of evolution as humans (more or less) and a few hundred more as lower creatures, where "winner take all" = "survive" and "stand back to kindly let the swarming opportunistic leeches eat the food you just killed for your family" means "extinction." How do you think Mankind got here? Through Papa Joe's social programs? Even HE isn't that old... at least I don't THINK he is. I don't think Joe is older than dirt - but I DO believe he and dirt are on a first-name basis.
 
Excuse me, but that "winner take all" outlook is ingrained in us through a hundred millennia of evolution as humans (more or less) and a few hundred more as lower creatures, where "winner take all" = "survive" and "stand back to kindly let the swarming opportunistic leeches eat the food you just killed for your family" means "extinction." How do you think Mankind got here? Through Papa Joe's social programs? Even HE isn't that old... at least I don't THINK he is. I don't think Joe is older than dirt - but I DO believe he and dirt are on a first-name basis.
were you drinking when you wrote that?
The survival of mankind has always been based on cooperation. I'm happy to have this debate, it goes along with a life time of observation.
You say things that are far outside what you normally indicate as being you you ground. Why is that, do you think?
 
But why do you think it is virtuous for the government to take money from me, at gunpoint, to give to someone they deem to be more worthy? This is morally repugnant.

I hate to harp on this but even Conservatives have bought the Socialist lie that helping people is virtuous and it is the job of the government. If you don't think it is OK for the government to take money from me at gunpoint and give it to someone they deem to be more worthy than me then you are the evil one. It is typical of their logic. Clause 1 of the sentence you agree with but not clause 2. If you argue the point that this is not the government's job, they call you names and you cave. And here we are with a welfare state that does not value my labor or yours either. They feel free to take the fruits of my labor and yours if you are also a productive member of society and sprinkle it around as if they are the good guys and it is them being generous. But they are being generous with money they steal from others. They use the same warped logic to justify open borders. I am perfectly OK with open borders - but not to a welfare state. Cancel every single welfare program and then you can open the borders.

I'm just saying I'm OK buying into a system that has a little help for the downtrodden, but much more strictly implemented than we do today, and maybe 1/10th the size
 
That is the operative word. The Plymouth colony was originally set up on a socialist concept where it was share and share alike. Their original plan was doomed to failure. We don't spend anywhere near enough time in history class discussing this part of our history. We study this period very early in our education but don't go back to look at it later when we can understand why socialism failed. If we did, we would have far fewer people pushing socialism today.

Cooperation is necessary for primitive hunter gatherer societies to survive. Perhaps you'd like to live in one and give up all the comforts capitalism has given you. Otherwise Doc is right in essence. Obviously we cannot survive without cooperation with others but altruism isn't the way to survival. It is one of those things that sounds good on paper and makes you feel virtuous but no one will always put others ahead of themselves and those closest to them. Self preservation is too strong an impulse.

I agree with Pat. Cooperation is the main ingredient in survival when the context, which matters, is a desperate one.
Otherwise, competition is needed to really thrive - not just survive.
 
The survival of mankind has always been based on cooperation.

More precisely, it is based on the ascendancy of me and mine over you and yours. Man IS a gregarious animal. He protects himself, he protects his family, he protects his group. (That's why old people weren't sent out into the wilderness, according to the Anthropologists.)

Where there is no threat, Man can accept outsiders as long as they don't break that rule that says that visitors and old socks start to stink after several days. However, altruism was hardly EVER an element of raw survival. The concept of tribalism still rears its ugly head. (See also "divisive politics" - a new name for tribalism.)

In my little comment regarding survival and extinction, "cooperation" in neolithic times meant "hunting parties" and the hunters shared the kills. Everyone contributed. It meant "gathering parties" and everyone carried what amount they could back to the camp. It meant family units where even the kids had specific things that they had to learn to do. Because those families learned to contribute, to have each do a valuable part.

Now please review my earlier comments about "extinction" and tell me where cooperation sneaked into what you read... 'cause I didn't see it in what I wrote. If you don't understand my point, that's on you.

Oh, and DON'T make the statement that we have progressed past that point. No, we haven't, because robberies, gang violence, drug violence, and war haven't vanished from our world.

Violence is like a drug. I remember from the Star Trek (TOS) episode, "A Taste of Armageddon" where Kirk admits that even star-faring humans still have that barbarian in them... but they CAN decide that (paraphrasing), "just for today, we will not kill. We will not kill... today." That is how far we have come. The violence isn't bred out of us but we can resist the urge.

were you drinking when you wrote that?

I would say "sober as a judge" except that these days, even THAT is no longer a good comparison. How about "no alcohol of any kind since about 2012 or 2013" and no non-prescription drugs since I can remember. That even includes MJ, uppers, downers, psychedelics, and other recreational specialties that you won't always find listed in the U.S. Pharmacopeia. Even though I played music on Bourbon Street during my college days, I was only stinking drunk twice in my life, both times before graduating from college. After the second time, I knew I would never get drunk that bad again. And I didn't.

Let's take the more direct answer. I believe I was clear-headed when I wrote that, not under undue influence, and not distracted at the time. If you can't see the truth in what I said, you have taken a bit too much of the Biden lemonade.
 
I agree with Pat. Cooperation is the main ingredient in survival when the context, which matters, is a desperate one.
Otherwise, competition is needed to really thrive - not just survive.
Are you an employee?
 
It took me twice too;) Once on whisky. To this day I can't drink it and the second time on wine - cheap white wine. That hangover lasted three days. every time I ate or drank anything my head started spinning again. And I never touch white wine.

I can't drink white wine at all - because I can taste the vinegar. I'm what is called a hyper-taster, meaning I have sensitive taste buds, and natural fermentation is a TWO-step process which starts by converting plant sugars to alcohol, but step two is to continue the fermentation to acetic acid (vinegar). It is hard to stop the fermentation in the middle, so even in the good wines there WILL be some vinegar - particularly in the older white wines. Rose wines are also a hard NO for me. Sometimes a red has been bearable. When I used to drink socially, it was a gin-based Tom Collins, or it was scotch and soda, but that time is long gone. The last beer I had was 15 to 20 years ago.

For me, the problem is a wonky liver. It is healing slowly but alcohol would reverse the progress I've made. Thanks, but no thanks!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom