nizkateth wrote:

I guess when it comes down to competition, I may just be strange. I never find myself noticing those who win. I find myself wondering what happened to the people who lost. It's one of the reasons I could never get into sports. I would watch the whole time thinking "but how is the losing team going to feel?" If society and the ability to thrive within our species has to be competitive rather than cooperative, I worry about those who cannot, or are not inclined to, try and compete. Why does the right to live have to hinge upon a willingness to fight for it? Isn't there enough, at least of the basics for survival, to go around? And what happens to those who don't succeed?

That's always been one of my inherent problems with the mindset as well. There can only be one winner, and society doesn't tend to be very kind to everyone else. How many Olympic swimmers can you name from 2008 besides Michael Phelps? Plus there's a cruel aspect to it all. You spend your entire life focusing on a task, only to face off against dozens, or even hundreds of other competitors who all have potentially focused on said task with just as much fervor as you. Yet the world has near-complete apathy for everyone who doesn't tear the finish line tape. Team-based sports are a bit better with regards to the culture, if only because teams without great winning records still have a fanbase on account of associating teams with specific towns and locations. Of course, team fandom often results in bad blood between fans of different teams... creating a whole new form of discrimination. And considering that it often results in violence, one truly has to wonder if this is the best we can possibly muster for ourselves as a species.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

They fill totally different niches, and eliminating one or the other would be tremendously destructive.

And I'm not saying that competition should necessarily be done away with. I just don't think it should be the model when what we're competing for is essentially the ability to keep living. If life was free, at least at its minimum acceptable level (acceptable, not tolerable... homeless and nearly starving doesn't count), I wouldn't have any real problem in competition beyond that. Because then it isn't mandatory, and the consequence for failure or refusing to participate isn't misery or death.

nizkateth wrote:

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

They fill totally different niches, and eliminating one or the other would be tremendously destructive.

And I'm not saying that competition should necessarily be done away with. I just don't think it should be the model when what we're competing for is essentially the ability to keep living. If life was free, at least at its minimum acceptable level (acceptable, not tolerable... homeless and nearly starving doesn't count), I wouldn't have any real problem in competition beyond that. Because then it isn't mandatory, and the consequence for failure or refusing to participate isn't misery or death.

I really don't get why you keep on viewing capitalism as somehow opposed to altruism. Capitalistic societies are the only societies where all or at least the vast majority of citizens have decent lives. Non-capitalistic societies just can't afford it. Why aren't you trying to get people to give to charity or vote for welfare instead of complaining about these imagined evils of capitalism?

Smokeskin wrote:

They get to live decent lives doing average work in wealthy societies.

There's that forced participation I was talking about. What about people who can't or won't work? Or who can't find work?

Smokeskin wrote:

Why aren't you trying to get people to give to charity or vote for welfare instead of complaining about these imagined evils of capitalism?

I do those things too. But charity, while great (and very non-capitalist), is too unreliable to cover everyone's needs and too often (around here) firmly in the hands of Christians (who I'd rather not promote, and who have been known to deny help to non-christians at times). Welfare is essentially what I'm talking about, only expanded much further than it is. Essentially, I would advocate a high-standard communism with capitalism layered on top like an economic parfait. Have a good standard of living provided for free by the state. Well-made and insulated, well-maintained, heated/cooled, cleaned, apartment homes. Sufficient food stipend to feed however many you have. Medical care as needed. Clothes, a basic entertainment stipend (enough to get internet access and netflix, at least), that kind of thing. Doesn't have to be fancy, but good enough to be basically pleasant. Then, people can get jobs and compete in a market beyond that. The nice part is, companies would then either: 1 – have to offer good wages since there's no horrible penalty for not working, or 2 – could offer whatever they like in wages since everything earned would be spending money. The latter seems more likely. But that means that instead of people stressed out about getting from paycheck to paycheck, people could live comfortably and work because they want some extra money to get things beyond what's provided. This means money gets more freely spent by less stressed people, leading to a more thriving economy with a healthier population.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

However, I'm not sure why those who REFUSE to participate should be afforded that. If a person is consuming resources, he should work to provide resources as well, to the best of his ability.

Because I think Life is a right, not a privilege. Also, I'd figure with work not being necessary, people would actually be more inclined to work. Just that they could better choose what they wanted to do instead of having to take whatever they can get. Or that they'd take the menial jobs, for the extra spending money to get a higher standard of living. Just because the basics are taken care of doesn't mean that most people (barring I guess buddhist monks maybe?) would just sit around doing nothing and wanting nothing more. Give people some, enough to live and feel safe, and they will go out and seek more (happily too, because then even a crappy wage is all profit for them). I'd wager if such a system were successfully put in place, you'd see very few people producing nothing. In fact, you'd likely have fewer people with squandered potential. Intelligent or artistic people who otherwise could not pursue what they'd be good at because they have to spend all their time earning a living.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

However, I'm not sure why those who REFUSE to participate should be afforded that. If a person is consuming resources, he should work to provide resources as well, to the best of his ability. How do you justify someone eating the food I grow, or using the products I make, without providing something back to the community? Even in a socialist community, my work isn't free. Work is hard and uncomfortable! No one wants to 'work'. But that doesn't mean we should make it optional.

Not everyone refuses to work simply because work is hard. Go ask a homeless veteran why he's out of a job, and I promise you it isn't simply because he doesn't want to work. The idea that most people are moochers is a terrible myth backed by the occasional d-bag you have taking advantage of the system. But much like the occasional woman that uses abortions as a form of contraception, it's not a reasonable excuse to tear away at the rights of others. The fact is that many people are getting turned down for jobs. At the last few job fairs I went to, there were 3,000 openings for jobs, and 25,000 people applying. That doesn't tell me that the problem is people refusing to work, but that opportunities for work are refusing people. Automation is destroying labor jobs left and right. Inevitably, there will be no need for people to till fields and assemble toys. Machines can do these tasks far more effectively, and they eventually will. At that point, what participation will be left for the unskilled masses?

nizkateth wrote:

bibliophile20 wrote:

Does that sound about right?

Too harsh and limited, we can do better as a minimum. But it's a start.

No question there that those are harsh and limited. But it would certainly be better than we have going now. Also, these are, how shall we say minimum figures, with the intent being that any attempt to provide less than that is in violation of the person's base rights as a human being. But still it is enough to keep a person alive--in some degree of discomfort, for sure, but at least they don't have to worry about starving to death or dying of exposure--while still being limited enough to spur this apparently all-important competition.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]Here's a very interesting video that details some of the inadequacies of the carrot and stick system that traditional capitalism provides.[/url] It is actually quite illuminating regarding how effective monetary compensation really is in the job market.

Decivre wrote:

The Doctor wrote:

That is a common critique of large-scale socialism - "It failed because it was not truly a socialist state." The X found is not the true X. If one examines anthropological case studies, socialism does seem to work effectively for relatively small groups of people (n ~= 30 people).

Actually, the most successful socialist structure today functions perfectly with over 92,000 members, only 9,000 of which aren't employed (they are students).

I was not aware of this. Do you have links to any papers that I could download and read?

Decivre wrote:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]Here's a very interesting video that details some of the inadequacies of the carrot and stick system that traditional capitalism provides.[/url] It is actually quite illuminating regarding how effective monetary compensation really is in the job market.

HAHAHAHA, no. RSAnimate is left-wing propaganda produced by Marxist professors. Don't even bother watching it.

nick012000 wrote:

HAHAHAHA, no. RSAnimate is left-wing propaganda produced by Marxist professors. Don't even bother watching it.

What content provider isn't some political side's propaganda, nowadays? Better question: what content provider, in the whole of human history, has no political bias?

nizkateth wrote:

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

However, I'm not sure why those who REFUSE to participate should be afforded that. If a person is consuming resources, he should work to provide resources as well, to the best of his ability.

Because I think Life is a right, not a privilege.

The real important question is: Why do you think you or anybody should have the right to take Nezumi's money and give it to people that he doesn't think deserves it? Because that's what you're advocating. It is robbery. Nezumi is threatened to pay up for something he doesn't want to pay for. If he doesn't comply, armed men in dark uniforms will come and seize his assets, and if he tries to defend his property they'll take him away and lock him inside a little room. Nezumi is willing to give money to those in need, provided they don't REFUSE to work. Is that not enough? Do you really feel that you are entitled to rob him to ensure that his money are spent the way you want?

Smokeskin wrote:

The real important question is: Why do you think you or anybody should have the right to take Nezumi's money and give it to people that he doesn't think deserves it?

Because I think someone's right to live supersedes someone else's privilege of having lots of money. Ideally, I would just skip the whole money part: just have state owned housing/food/etc given to people who need it without any money changing hands (aside from the government employees). Again, a high-standard communism with capitalism then stacked on top of it.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

Someone refusing to work isn't being denied life, he's being denied 40 hours of time a week. Again, this is someone who CAN work but CHOOSES not to. If someone decides he doesn't want a paycheck, I'm under no obligation to provide one to him.

If society is predicated on the idea that (in essence) you need a paycheck to live, then someone who refuses to work is being denied life. Sure, you can say "I don't want to run this marathon" and that's choice, but if society says "we'll kill you if you don't run" then it isn't really a choice anymore. That's the forced participation part I hate. And in terms of the "would still work if they didn't have to", I'm pretty sure people would. Mostly because few people are content with the basics and would want [i]more[/i]. They would work for that [i]more[/i]. The difference would be that even grunt jobs could be done with less stress, because if you stop doing the job you won't suffer and die, you just won't be able to afford things you want... you'd be back to the necessities.

bibliophile20 wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

The real important question is: Why do you think you or anybody should have the right to take Nezumi's money and give it to people that he doesn't think deserves it? Because that's what you're advocating. It is robbery. Nezumi is threatened to pay up for something he doesn't want to pay for. If he doesn't comply, armed men in dark uniforms will come and seize his assets, and if he tries to defend his property they'll take him away and lock him inside a little room. Nezumi is willing to give money to those in need, provided they don't REFUSE to work. Is that not enough? Do you really feel that you are entitled to rob him to ensure that his money are spent the way you want?

And that is why changing the attitudes and social priorities is important. Right now we produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet 2000 calories a day, but much of it is wasted. We here in America watch our leadership and the entrenched bureaucracy spend enough money on a boondoggle military that we could give every student in this country a college education instead. It is not that the resources don't exist to make it possible to support everyone at a very basic level. It is just that we don't, as a society, see the need for it. Educating people to see that need and making a social change in that direction is what is needed for that to happen--not threats of robbing people in order to make sure that the money is spent the right way (*heh* That's the taxman's and politician's jobs). But that sort of societal change is possible--look at the headway marriage equality is currently making in the US, when 50 years ago, homosexuals were criminalized and marginalized. As a side note, before the coming of Homeland Security, the US IRS (Internal Revenue Service) was joked to be the closest thing the USA has to a secret police.

Please note that I am not speaking against welfare, charity or humanitarian efforts. I support those things and I would pay towards them. What I am opposing is the idea that MY opinion on it entitles me to robbing YOUR money under threat of violence to use as I see fit. I believe in altruism, but not in politicians, taxmen, and armed men in dark uniforms robbing people.

Woah, woah, woah, okay, let's calm down a bit and back off a bit. None of us are proposing having "armed men come and seize his assets, and probably lock him up in a small room for months or years. If he tries to resist, he'll get beaten up or shot (depending on how hard he resists), and get locked in a small room for even longer." I'll admit, there are a number of plutocrats to which that that sounds attractive to do to, but I and nizkateth are not proposing that. What we are suggesting is changing the focus of the current priorities of our elected governments away from the focus on war and death and towards a focus on making sure no one goes hungry or freezes to death. That's all. But here's the thing of it: Smokeskin, IIRC, you live in Sweden, yes? And it's a big welfare state, so you've had time and experience to see where that sort of thing falls short. And that is a big portion of the perspective from which you are coming from, looking at your own arguments. But on the other side, I and I think nizkateth are Americans, and to use a wonderful phrase from earlier in this thread, America isn't a capitalist republic, it is a corporate oligarchy that pays little more than lip service to any other ideals beyond wealth and the accumulation of more wealth. There are two classes in the United States, the haves and the have-nots, and speaking as a member of the have-nots, we're really getting sick of the wealthy using their riches and networks to bias the laws in their own favor. And that is a big portion of the perspective that we're coming from, from our arguments.

bibliophile20 wrote:

Woah, woah, woah, okay, let's calm down a bit and back off a bit. None of us are proposing having "armed men come and seize his assets, and probably lock him up in a small room for months or years. If he tries to resist, he'll get beaten up or shot (depending on how hard he resists), and get locked in a small room for even longer." I'll admit, there are a number of plutocrats to which that that sounds attractive to do to, but I and nizkateth are not proposing that. What we are suggesting is changing the focus of the current priorities of our elected governments away from the focus on war and death and towards a focus on making sure no one goes hungry or freezes to death. That's all.

What I described was exactly what happens in any democracy when you don't agree with what the politicians decided and refused to hand over your due taxes. I simply did not use words like "tax collection" and "police", which triggers the newspeak indoctrination that causes you to ignore the reality of the situation. You didn't even realize it. This should motivate you to take a long, hard look at your biases. Where else are you blind to oppression? In this case, I assume you were exactly proposing the sort of oppression that you recoiled against when the reality of it was spelled out. So the question remains - do you actually believe that you're justified?

Quote:

But here's the thing of it: Smokeskin, IIRC, you live in Sweden, yes? And it's a big welfare state, so you've had time and experience to see where that sort of thing falls short. And that is a big portion of the perspective from which you are coming from, looking at your own arguments.

I'm from Denmark. Very similar, though Sweden has privatized many government functions in the later years.

Quote:

But on the other side, I and I think nizkateth are Americans, and to use a wonderful phrase from earlier in this thread, America isn't a capitalist republic, it is a corporate oligarchy that pays little more than lip service to any other ideals beyond wealth and the accumulation of more wealth. There are two classes in the United States, the haves and the have-nots, and speaking as a member of the have-nots, we're really getting sick of the wealthy using their riches and networks to bias the laws in their own favor. And that is a big portion of the perspective that we're coming from, from our arguments.

The US democracy has been largely taken over by corporate and capital interests, I completely agree and I understand your frustration. However, what you're suggesting is not an improvement - you just want the reigns of power to go from their hands to yours. Just because you're poor or outnumber the rich, that doesn't give you the moral high ground.

Smokeskin wrote:

What I described was exactly what happens in any democracy when you don't agree with what the politicians decided and refused to hand over your due taxes. I simply did not use words like "tax collection" and "police", which triggers the newspeak indoctrination that causes you to ignore the reality of the situation. You didn't even realize it. This should motivate you to take a long, hard look at your biases. Where else are you blind to oppression? In this case, I assume you were exactly proposing the sort of oppression that you recoiled against when the reality of it was spelled out. So the question remains - do you actually believe that you're justified?

No. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't support police state tactics. I support the rule of law, not the rule of force or fear. What I would like to see is the rich and the corporations paying their fair share, legally, not getting away with squirreling their fortunes away overseas and in foreign tax havens. We have corporations showing record profits that pay little to no taxes, because they move all of their profits off shore (See General Electric, which pays $0 in USA taxes for 2010, yet showed USA-based profits of $5,100,000,000+. Heck, they even had the chutzpah to claim a $3.2 billion dollar tax benefit!). We have companies like Walmart, who pay their employees so little that the rest of us taxpayers effectively subsidize their bottom line through medical and welfare aid to those employees. The corporate tax rate in the USA is 35%. I think that that would be a little high... if any of the major corporations actually paid it. And they benefit so much from having access and use of the US infrastructure... US research... *cough*the US Military*cough*, and yet they don't pay even close to their share of the financial burden of keeping this country afloat. But if any of us little people tried to pull such tactics? Well, we are the ones who find ourselves sent to prison for income tax evasion. I'm not saying that we need to nationalize their assets, or have kangaroo courts with only one sentence of "Guilty!" I'm saying that if you benefit from the social contract of the nation-state, then you should pay an equal share in maintaining that social contract. And, quite simply, the rich and the corporations... don't.

Quote:

The US democracy has been largely taken over by corporate and capital interests, I completely agree and I understand your frustration. However, what you're suggesting is not an improvement - you just want the reigns of power to go from their hands to yours. Just because you're poor or outnumber the rich, that doesn't give you the moral high ground.

Gee, I thought that was the point of having an elected, representative government that answers to the populace, said point being that the government ultimately answers to the people--ALL the people, not just the ones with massive bank accounts. Isn't the ideal "One Man, One Vote", not "One Dollar, One Vote"? *sigh* Alright. I've said my piece. I don't want to turn this thread further into a shouting match. And I don't think I'm going to contribute anything more to this thread. I'm done. *goes back to NPC and setting creation for Gatecrashing campaign*

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

I chose my words very carefully. Someone who wants to work but is not offered a job is not refusing to work. He is just unemployed. When I speak of someone who refuses to work, this is specifically someone who COULD work, but elects not to. So no, I don't feel any reason to support those people. Regarding people who want to work but cannot, sure, keeping people alive is a good thing. The caveat there though is that the solution is not to throw money at people so they can live. It's to make work for them.

How much money are you willing to earmark for the process of vetting the difference between these people? How will we discern the person "who refuses to work" because they won't do a job they are incapable of doing, versus a person "who refuses to work" simply because they don't want to work?

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

Someone refusing to work isn't being denied life, he's being denied 40 hours of time a week. Again, this is someone who CAN work but CHOOSES not to. If someone decides he doesn't want a paycheck, I'm under no obligation to provide one to him.

If money is required to pay for the essentials to live, then giving them no money is, in fact, denying them life. So unless you have a solution where the basic needs of a person are fulfilled, then we are talking about whether or not to deny them life. I agree that you are under no obligation to provide life, but people shouldn't be forced to either die or commit crime if they are unable or unwilling to participate in your economic structure.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

While this is all utopia and butterflies, you're going to have to offer some hard numbers to convince me. Capitalism is very good at streamlining work. The jobs offered are based on the jobs that need to be done in order for society to work, and the amount they pay is based on how difficult it is to find someone to do that job. Granted, in twenty years we may not need most jobs done, but today, in 2013, we still need someone to sweep the floors and deliver the mail. If people don't do this, society stops working. This is especially an issue because some jobs are just more desirable than others (and require more of a skillset). The number of people who want to be authors far outstrips the market for authors, and unfortunately, the majority of those people don't have the specialized skills to be any good at it. If we took 1,000 people and said 'choose whatever job you want', we'd have 600 artists, directors, and authors, 399 IT guys, doctors, and lawyers, and one janitor. Unfortunately, by sheer numbers, we need more janitors than we need artists, or even doctors (no insult to artists or doctors, but we poop more than we go into surgery). Finally, your assertion that 'if people didn't need to work, they'd still work' is pure speculation. I'd work -- but I'd work on my house, or with my kids. I wouldn't work here, making sure that my customers' money is handled in a responsible fashion. I don't really care THAT MUCH about fiscal responsibility. And I'd be surprised if you would either. I don't know a lot of people that, if they didn't have to worry about a mortgage and car payments, would still wake up at 6am and work for 8 hours, just for kicks. I certainly don't know a lot who would feel at all like they need to be reliable about it. My volunteer work is when I want to do it. If I'm a volunteer bus driver and it's a beautiful day out, I guess all those people can walk today.

Given the means and opportunity to be productive, most people are productive. Even if we wanted to make the relatively-false claim that lower-class citizens are degenerates and criminals, crime isn't exactly a "low risk, low effort" business. Even pimps and con artists are living off of charisma and effort to maintain their position. The problem isn't their productivity, but the activities they set their productivity towards. If we were a smart society, we would be redirecting their efforts in a beneficial way, rather than seeking to lock up and make non-productive so many elements of our society. Unfortunately, when you do not have the monetary resources to invest or purchase the means of production, you are forced to work in wage slavery or contribute to society's crime problem. And unfortunately, the latter is more and more becoming the better option. This is the crux of the issue, and the one that most people can't figure out the means to solve. The worst elements of our society are often spawned by income equality and social disparity. So if you want to maintain a true capitalistic society, how do you propose we eliminate the worst elements while maintaining the income equality and social disparity that is symptomatic of a truly capitalistic economy?

Smokeskin wrote:

There's a simple solution to that. Give them money. Or give them money, and ask them to work for it - maybe they're not able to do work that is worth the money, so part of it is charity, but that's cool. Nezumi might prefer the latter, you might prefer the former. Cool. You each do it your way. I'm sure various institutions will prop up offering different "charity welfare schemes". What I really, really dislike about the discourse of you and some others in this thread is this idea that you require that our plan MUST include robbing people. You make it sound like we want to ban charity and welfare, which is just ludicrous.

Actually, I'd rather not give out money. As I've said before, I'm a third way advocate. Personally, I think food stamp programs are intelligent means of distributing based needs of people. They cannot be used for luxury products, can be limited to things that actually serve your basic needs (so no liquor, cigarettes, or fast food), and cycle back into the economy in a way that still gives food providers a profit. There is an admitted resale problem in certain states here in the U.S., but better monitoring of program entrants should do well to hinder and reduce such activities. Furthermore, I've never advocated any sort of "robbery". As an anarchist, I disagree with damn near any taxes. But if we are going to give a central organization the means to produce the economic function that fuels our markets (aka: money), then we can't pretend that it is something that anyone, you or I, actually "owns". Money hasn't been something you could propertize since we created fiat currency. They are certificates of arbitrary value, and the issuer has whatever rights it decides to have over them. So do I want robbery to be required for people to be fed? Of course not. No more than I want people to be forced to participate in an economic model they disagree with just for the sake of survival. Both are terrible options. But how exactly do you propose we get to a position where people are on equal starting ground, that doesn't either involve taking from the rich or changing to an economic model where their already-earned wealth is rendered worthless?

Smokeskin wrote:

You call yourself an anarchist yet you want to decide how the poor spend their money?

No, I want to find a functional way to distribute food without rendering all money worthless through either rapid inflation or requiring an immediate redistribution of the currency in circulation. Food stamps serve the purpose by creating a secondary currency for providing essential needs, thus keeping the incentive for capitalism while trying to provide for the least among us.

Smokeskin wrote:

Yeah, we need police to make sure poor people don't sell their food stamps. Any anarchist would agree! Seriously, are you sure you're not just a communist?

You jump to the "police state tactics" presumption too easily. Not everything requires direct force. Fining people who are caught illegally transacting food stamps, and utilizing public sousveillance to get the job done suffices just fine.

Smokeskin wrote:

Printing money is effectively taxing existing money. Of course the issuer of the currency can do what he wants with it, but don't expect me to stick to a currency that has an inflation rate of 10% or whatever the cost of running a government is.

The printing rate of all currencies today are effectively through the roof. The value of money is primarily kept high by the high currency disparity, not by any actual rarity of the currency. When only a few people hold the majority of any commodity in circulation, the commodity holds a high artificial value. It's how De Beers kept the diamond market so valuable. This is the inherent problem with your desire to keep the money in the exact hands it already is set in. The lack of currency distribution is the primary pusher for more currency printing, and current capitalistic trends put any newly-printed currency inevitably into the hands of those who already hold the largest majority. It's a flimsy model, and one that likely won't survive in the long-term.

Smokeskin wrote:

I don't have a desire to put everyone on an equal starting ground. That would obviously require that you robbed or destroyed private property on a massive scale. Why do you want to ruin the fruits of people's labor?

Because oftentimes the fruits of people's labors are anything but. The largest portion of land owned today is passed on generationally, not being held by any of the original people who put forth the labor necessary to earn it. This in turn means that most wealth is not a fruit of the current owner's labors, but simply a merit of whether they were lucky enough to have ancestors that labored for them. Assuming of course that it wasn't the byproduct of a shifty landgrab, acts of violence, underhanded business practices or exploitation of governmental loopholes or favoritism. Nepotism isn't labor. It's a freebie. I mean hell, if people have an inherent right to not be robbed of property, then we Americans have a crapton of land we need to give back to the few remaining people that descend from those that once owned it. That's one of the primary reasons I'm torn regarding the concept of land ownership... land is probably one of the most finite resources we have, as there is literally no way to produce more until we find a way off this rock.

Smokeskin wrote:

I am quickly reminded why I never talk to you. You propose a ban on food stamp trading. When I call you out on that, you say it is a currency, not just food stamps. Now, without all talking in circles: why do you think you should decide that poor people should get food but not sneakers, alcohol or hookers? Do you know better what they want? What improves their lives the most?

The whole point isn't to give them what they want, but need. Food stamps and other means of distributing free essentials is an attempt to withhold free everything, in order to maintain the option for a capitalistic system. If free and clear money is distributed to the masses, it completely changes the paradigm of capitalism; either you require redistributing the money already held, or issuing new currency to devalue it. Food stamps are an intermediary that prevents both. I mean I thought you didn't want the distribution of wealth? If this is the case, why would you be so adamant against alternatives which avoid this inevitable conclusion

Smokeskin wrote:

Getting watched all the time so the government can see when you break the law and then fine you is police state tactics. Fines are robbery. Not paying fines results in people coming and robbing you, and if you resist and defend your property armed men in dark uniforms will hurt you and/or lock you up in a small room. But please, describe to me how you total surveillance isn't police state tactics. Explain to me how you're going to get me to pay a fine without threatening me with police state violence. And fining people who are on foot stamps, man that's both low and futile.

Actually, the term is sousveillance... the act of the people spying on the government, and the people. We see this all the time today. Nearly nothing is not recorded in public circles, and the majority of this recording isn't done by big brother, but by every cell phone in a 10-yard radius. In fact this already happens right now. I have seen several people get caught reselling food stamps thanks to privately-owned supermarket cameras. So unless you are saying that it should be unlawful for a private business to monitor it's own building, the infrastructure already exists for keeping an eye on people who resell. As for fines, there's really no need for armed robbery, or any of the other scary claims you make. Money transfer is already becoming a rapidly digital process. Here in the U.S., governmental services can already freeze and access the assets of people who owe money. This process is going to get more and more easy as all markets shift further and further to the digital paradigm. This isn't me shifting toward communism, but being a realist. [i]This is already the world we live in, and I'm not going to pretend that human behavior is going to shift away.[/i] Digital currencies and banks are convenient, and people have a preference for convenience. If we're calling that a robbery, then we might as well call every imposed transaction a robbery: paying for my basic needs is a robbery, paying rent for something I already live in is a robbery, and paying for health services is a robbery.

Smokeskin wrote:

You're dodging again. Mr. Anarchist, The point was that you wanted to fund government without direct taxes and thought just printing money was a great way to do it. Which is obviously stupid and will result in people changing currency, though I expect you would just ban other currencies.

I don't think I ever talked about funding government. But if we want to discuss it, fine. [i]How is the current economic system that the entire planet basically runs on anything but the printing of money to fuel the government and economy?[/i] Isn't that what both the printers of the Euro and Dollar are doing as we speak? I might be an anarchist, but I'm also a realist. I'm not going to pretend that the entire planet is going to magically shift overnight to a decentralized society with no central trade currency. It's literally not going to happen soon, and I probably won't even see this in my lifetime (short of Eclipse Phase's plot actually happening). But can you honestly say that the current status quo satisfies you? Are you really okay with the largest governments on Earth printing money as they please?

Smokeskin wrote:

You don't want people to have the freedom to give the fruits of their labor to their children? Sure, that's nepotism, but is nepotism some magic word that makes it wrong? Is it only my children I can't give gifts, or does it apply to everyone? Can I give to charity? Mr. Anarchist, what am I allowed to do? Are you sure you're not a communist?

Nepotism is the primary system by which power is centralized. When land and resources stay in the same hands and doesn't have a means to circulate, those who already have it in large quantity are the only ones who continue to attain more. The mortgage crisis didn't hurt old money and their land, now did it? It's one of the inevitable problems of an investment economy. Profits are easiest to earn by those who already hold currency, harder for those that don't. And as this advantage continues to focus all human resources in a few hands, the eventual result worldwide will be exactly what we already see in places like the Philippines and U.S.; a currency-based feudal system. And it's ridiculous to boil this down to "I can't give my kids gifts". A watch is a gift. A car might be a gift. "All my land and monetary assets" is clearly not a gift, but an inheritance. I'm all fine for providing for one's kids. But I see a significant difference between providing your children with everything necessary to keep them on their feet, and continuing a legacy of feudal ownership. If you honestly can't see the difference between giving your child a few hundred thousand... or hell, even a few million dollars to keep them secure; versus giving them several billion and a micro-nation worth in land, that's a skosh bit ridiculous. I'm not a communist, nor do I believe in some sort of powerful central government. But I do believe that society is an agreement between people, and government is the artificial intermediary that it functions from. Any person who owns an adequate amount of the resources and property of a region effectively becomes a central government. I cannot personally see a way where someone can simultaneously be an anarchist yet be okay with people attaining government-like power through property control.

Quote:

Fining people who are caught illegally transacting food stamps,

While I'm all for food stamps, there is definitely an issue here. If we're saying everyone has a god-given, inalienable right to food, but food stamps are generally only a program for those with limited or no income, how is fining them at all effective? They have no money to fine, otherwise they wouldn't be selling food stamps. What do you propose doing after they refuse to pay their fines? Youve said you wouldn't take away food stamps (since that would be condemning them to death, by your rhetoric). You've said you don't support police seizing the people. I'm genuinely curious, since you are struggling with the same question that plagues all societies; how do you get buy-in from people who have nothing invested? How do you get people to invest if they have no interest in doing so?

nizkateth wrote:

I continue to find strange with the libertarian argument that: if a person defends themselves or their property, with force or threats of force, that's perfectly okay; but if a group of people (a society) decide to have some of them protect everyone else and everyone's property, with force or threats of force, that's suddenly a horrific crime. Where's the line between? When does it stop being "people protecting themselves" and becomes "inexcusable police state"?

When does society deciding to have an army to protect their nation and the security of their people suddenly become a horrific crime? (The answer, of course, is when that armed force, be it police or military, acts in a non-defensive purpose. Police defending my home from an attacker is morally equivalent or superior to my doing so. Police attacking my neighbor's home is morally equivalent or worse than my doing so.)

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

While I'm all for food stamps, there is definitely an issue here. If we're saying everyone has a god-given, inalienable right to food, but food stamps are generally only a program for those with limited or no income, how is fining them at all effective? They have no money to fine, otherwise they wouldn't be selling food stamps. What do you propose doing after they refuse to pay their fines? Youve said you wouldn't take away food stamps (since that would be condemning them to death, by your rhetoric). You've said you don't support police seizing the people. I'm genuinely curious, since you are struggling with the same question that plagues all societies; how do you get buy-in from people who have nothing invested? How do you get people to invest if they have no interest in doing so?

Seriously folks? Have we all forgotten that there are two parties involved in any monetary transaction? Yes, the person who owns the food stamps cannot be fined. But the resale of food stamps generally doesn't involve two parties on food stamps... because the whole point is for people with food stamps to trade with someone who doesn't have food stamps, so that the latter can make a profit while the former can get a currency with no limitations. Just as with the immigration problem, the trick is to hit the target on the higher end of the social ladder, not the lower.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

When does society deciding to have an army to protect their nation and the security of their people suddenly become a horrific crime? (The answer, of course, is when that armed force, be it police or military, acts in a non-defensive purpose. Police defending my home from an attacker is morally equivalent or superior to my doing so. Police attacking my neighbor's home is morally equivalent or worse than my doing so.)

But remember that defense means protecting society from threats both foreign and domestic. Economic squandering and the disparity of resources is a domestic threat. Why is it the one threat we aren't allowed to defend ourselves against?