Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Casiella]

But science and technology rarely advance in great leaps, but in the small struggles every day that move things forward fractionally. That's actually at best, because most engineering and science work ends up moving a little bit sideways but hopefully shedding a little light from a new angle.

There are more motives than just profit, of course, but we'd be poorly served not to recognize its importance in some way.

[Vikarion]

Saede, if you think Edison did anything out of a desire for simple knowledge and humanitarianism, you may want to read some more on him.

Okay, so maybe Edison wasn't a good example, but overwhelmingly I believe the point still stands.

Not really. Despite the "better angels" amongst us, life is inherently competitive and violent on a very basic, biological level. Although some few people do not seem to manifest it, the drive to possess, to win, to own, even to obtain at the expense of others, is an inherent trait of our species. In fact, it is a necessary trait, selected for by evolution. A purely altruistic organism will fall victim to a clever and greedy one. An organism that accumulates more resources will increase its chances of survival over those that have less. An organism that can accumulate more resources via violence with minimal risk to itself will do so. Altruism, as a behavior, is engaged in not for some higher moral purpose, but because some altruistic behaviors benefit our own genes.

All such utopian dreams will founder on these rocks. We are predators, and we have achieved the dominance we have by being more ruthless and intelligent killers of other life (animal and herb) than any other organism on this planet before us. You cannot possibly drain the deep waters of this communal well of violence and greed, and all such attempts to create "new men" have failed, usually in orgies of blood, violence, and greed themselves.

People want to fight, to compete, to compare, and to deprive others. Capitalism (in the common sense) is a process that tries to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms of this behavior. But consider the many attempts to equalize economic and social conditions: they have all failed, as humans pursued social gains, private wealth, and, most of all, power over their fellow humans beings. Whether from within or without, every commune, every state, every society operating on the principles of economic equality and social solidarity has crumbled or will. The attempts to create them have been legion, spanning centuries. There have been no successes.

And some, like myself, do not worship the gods you do (for the literal minded, I mean that the following is my opinion), and would not have such a paradise even if it were offered. I, personally, have not shrugged off (in my belief) the false God of Christianity and Judiasm only to be informed that I now owe allegiance to another, whether it be to my fellow men or to a state. There are those among the human race who embrace what we are, embrace the struggle to thrive, who understand that the essence of life is violence, the fight to survive, and see the offer of a utopia as something not worth having.

I, and many like me, I think, take pride in the fact that the food we eat was earned by us, that the water we drink was paid for by our efforts, that we have had to budget and ration our pleasures so that we could advance our knowledge and increase our standard of living. For those in that frame of mind, a house not bought is not worth living in, food paid for by others is foul to the taste, and those who seek such benefits deserve only contempt. There is a pride and joy in living, as much as you can, as sovereign over your own existence. Life is not worthwhile, it is not worth possessing or preserving, unless it is life vibrant and possessive, self-directed and alive with purpose.

And why should I, or any woman or man who works hard, support those who will not do so? There are those who cannot, that is another argument, and a good argument for reciprocal charity can be made. But I would not voluntarily give a fraction of a penny to subsidize the health or feeding or housing of someone who refused to make every effort to supply himself. And why should I? By what moral commandment or practical necessity? The human race does not need those who will not provide for themselves. Nor, in my opinion, should it want them.

[Lyn Farel]

Magnificent panegyric of might makes right.

[Kala]

And why should I, or any woman or man who works hard, support those who will not do so? There are those who cannot, that is another argument, and a good argument for reciprocal charity can be made. But I would not voluntarily give a fraction of a penny to subsidize the health or feeding or housing of someone who refused to make every effort to supply himself. And why should I? By what moral commandment or practical necessity? The human race does not need those who will not provide for themselves. Nor, in my opinion, should it want them.

Because shit happens and could also happen to you.

Because even hard working people can be subject to injury or redundancy or any other misfortune life decides to throw their way.  It's not just the slackers.  And if the worst happens, it's good to have a buffer to help get back on your feet instead of going from self-sufficent to impoverished - which might be harder to get out of once you're in it.

Also, peoples circumstances can change.  It doesn't follow that someone who is currently a drain on society will not become a benefit to society in the future - which the human race would both need and want.

(though does injury, redundancy or any condition outside of your control that forms an impedement to self-sufficency fall under your bracket of "cannot" or were you purely referring to severe mental or physical disabilities?)

I guess I see it in the same way taxes goes to things like the emergency services - sure, my house isn't currently burning down and I don't need help from the police, so that isn't benefitting me at all right now.  But one day I might need those things.

I'm not coming from a US perspective, mind, just pointing out why hard working people theoretically might want to contribute to a benefit system.

(note: I'm also forced to confess that in my own dour personal opinion I find it unlikely that the majority of the cider-swilling youths outside the local jobcentre will become a benefit to society in the future  ).

[Ciarente]

And why should I, or any woman or man who works hard, support those who will not do so? There are those who cannot, that is another argument, and a good argument for reciprocal charity can be made. But I would not voluntarily give a fraction of a penny to subsidize the health or feeding or housing of someone who refused to make every effort to supply himself. And why should I? By what moral commandment or practical necessity? The human race does not need those who will not provide for themselves. Nor, in my opinion, should it want them.

Because shit happens and could also happen to you.

1) Because our perception of 'will not' and 'cannot' is culturally determined: for example, until very recently, there was no understanding that depression is a debilitating illness and people who were, as the result of brain chemistry outside their control, unable to get themselves out of bed or out of the house or stop crying all day were generally regarded as needing to 'pull themselves together' and 'show a bit of backbone'. None of us have a full understanding of the circumstances of another's life, nor can we confidently assume current medical understanding can truly assess how much of a person's behaviour is within and how much without their control.

2) Because of pure self-interest: countries with adequate income support systems have, historically, lower levels of crime, with concommittantly lower levels of spending on police and prisons. Investment in community facilities and housing for the jobless decreases the social dislocation caused by unemployment and increases the chances of future employment and positive educational outcomes for children in jobless families. And, at the most basic level of self-interest, lack of medical care, clean drinking water and sanitation for those unable to pay for it have on many occasions in history produced ideal breeding grounds for devastating epidemics that drew no distinction between those with jobs and those without.

3) Because our modern economy operates through the maintenance of 'structural unemployment': between 3% and 5% of the population must be without jobs to provide the 'reserve army of the unemployed' that keeps downward pressure on wages, and thus on business costs and inflation. If our economic health depends on a percentage of our fellow citizens being without jobs, it ill  behooves us to treat them with contempt.  In a very real sense, their economic prospects have been sacrificed in the interest of ours. The least we can do is protect them from destitution.

[Z.Sinraali]

And why should I, or any woman or man who works hard, support those who will not do so?

Setting aside the empirical question of whether such an individual exists, or even can exist given your stated premise that the essential nature of a living being is to support itself through competition...

I'll put it in terms from your own framework: because those who say you should force you to. You have been outcompeted in the political arena to define the rules of this civilization, the civilization you've chosen to continue to be a part of, the civilization created not by your own efforts, nor mine, nor any other single individual's, but by that of collective billions.

[Saede Riordan]

And why should I, or any woman or man who works hard, support those who will not do so? There are those who cannot, that is another argument, and a good argument for reciprocal charity can be made. But I would not voluntarily give a fraction of a penny to subsidize the health or feeding or housing of someone who refused to make every effort to supply himself. And why should I? By what moral commandment or practical necessity?

Because we can. Because all those instincts and desires to dominate and control, and subjugate others, and gather wealth, and gather power that you claim? On a scientific level there is simply no evidence that they actually exist outside the minds of capitalists. The idea that greed is not only good, but mandatory, an evolutionary imperative...that is just plain false. For example, Oxana Malaya, a feral child raised in the company of dogs. When rescued, she was said to growl and bark like a dog, walk on all 4's, have an acute sense of hearing and smell. What does that tell you about human nature?

Environment drives your human nature in countless, immeasurable ways. If you're raised around drugs, you're more likely to take drugs. If you're raised in violence, you're more likely to be violent. Do not try to undermine this topic by saying its simply human nature to be greedy and self-interested because it's not the case. Einstein, Ben Franklin, Michael Jordan and countless other icons in our society did not do what they did just for profit. They did it because that was their passion. Those who do well in this society do well because greed is their passion. There was a study done earlier this year that shows how wealthier people are more likely to be morally bankrupt, So its almost as if as you gain more power, you become more corrupt.

What people seem to keep forgetting is that Human civilization is not actually 2,000 years old, humans have been around for at least 200,000 years, we have the bones and the cave art to prove it. For most of that entire history, and continuing still in many remote regions of the world today, the tribes people live in are incredibly egalitarian, open, and non-competitive. There is one tribe in the Amazon rainforest (their name escapes me, but I'll go through my anthro books and try to find it in a bit) that solves their disputes by having a big orgy.

Human nature is not to be inherently greedy, greed is generated by the environment that cannot provide for everyone. If you were raised in an environment where you belonged to a tribe, and all of your needs were met as a child by the tribe, and all of your needs were met when you were too infirm to help with the work by the tribe, then greed is just not something that would need to factor into your world-view. To say that competitiveness is in our genes is not only bad science, but its dangerous bad science. It says that its impossible to ever do better then we do now, and things will always be crappy and there will always be people starving so we should just do nothing about it.   Our current cultural, social, and political climate rewards greed, and rewards corruption. But that just does not have to be the case. We can be better then that.

As for wanting to reap the sweat of your own work? Well then, start a farm. Its not like its really your work that makes that food right now, its actually the work of some poor kid in a factory who has no better prospects in life then that factory.  Someone in a well paid, paper pushing, middle class job is not putting forth the energy that is required to make that food, they simply are not. The energy they expend on a day in the office is not nearly as much energy as it takes to actually make that food in the first place. Soda doesn't 'cost' 2 dollars a bottle to make, it would cost a good deal more, but, The costs are outsourced. They're outsourced with the use of cheap materials, some of which have been shown recently to be carcinogenic, like brominated vegetable oil, and plastic bottles that offgas into the liquids. They're outsourced be underpaying the workers in the factories who make those bottles and make that soda and make that plastic. They're outsourced by designing products so that they have to be thrown away and a new one purchased as often as possible, an incredibly wasteful operation that is now causing our landfills to overflow with cheap junk. And they're outsourced by producing a less then optimal product, since that is really all that the average consumer can afford.
The notion, that it's 'your labour' that pays for that food is nonsense. Its absolute nonsense.

[orange]

I actually do make a trade of my earnings with the grocer.  Since my wife tries to buy locally grown foods, the number of middlemen is significantly reduced.  The trade of my earnings for the grocer's product pays for the food, transport of the food, and management of the grocery store.   The farmers are able to be efficient and specialized because they can sell to grocers, who manage the distribution.  Per Unit the farmers may not make as much, but I suspect their overall productivity is higher.  The grocer's service is a useful one.

I will grant you, we have made the conscious decision to try and buy locally grown foods.  I also understand that locally grown food can be too expensive for many who consider themselves poor.



Small communities (family tribes) can be incredibly egalitarian, open, and non-competitive internally.  They tend to be self-sufficient regarding their day-to-day survival.   If a member of the group is stricken with an illness or problem, it is the best interest of the group to return that individual to productivity, otherwise they become a drain on the group and threaten its survival.

The majority of the planet no longer lives in small communities (family tribes).  A lot of us live in megapolises.  Our own survival is rarely dependent on our neighbors doing their part and watching out for us.  Emergency services are only ever a few minutes away.  Our own labor, time, may have little, no, or unknown value to our neighbors.  Pursuing independent self-interest is the norm.

I think there is a disconnect in attempting to push egalitarian and open values from the top-down, which is how I interpret a desire to have the United States government manage programs with that goal.   For existing small communities, an outsider is a threat to the on-going survival of the community, something we should seek to avoid as the existing egalitarianism of the small community is threatened by a power backed outsider.  In our megapolises, it will require a significant cultural shift in small communities are built.  This represents a significant challenge as the trade network is more complex.  When the community is a food/material producer, it can be more straightforward.

[Saede Riordan]

Its my personal opinion (and I don't have any studies that correlate this) that the breakdown of tribal structures has had a very negative impact on society as a whole, since it puts undue pressures on people to be able to take care of themselves. Not everyone can be entirely self sufficent. I know I can't. I've never been able to hold down a steady job, but I help my boyfriend in other ways by being a good 1950s housewife and keeping the flat clean and well kept, and maintaining the vegetable garden that helps us cut down on food costs. I would love if my 'tribe' consisted of more then just me and him though. To pull in an eve example, the way that modern matari clans are stated to function is something that I believe would be a pretty ideal system to overlay onto the wider world. Everyone would have their small tribal networks, and if they don't fit in a given tribe, they can try to find another, or if they really want to lone wolf it, they can. But being a lone wolf shouldn't be the only option for the majority of humanity, its detrimental, and its expecting too much of people.

[Casiella]

I keep wondering where are these poor people on welfare who simply don't want to work. When I was in ministry, I met and counted as friends a LOT of poor folks, primarily the "working poor", and know quite a few people receiving government assistance of all sorts. This groups overlap quite a bit, by the way. I never knew anyone who simply didn't want to work, because even the "working poor" (you may be able to tell I'm unhappy with that label) have a better situation overall.

Serious, non-rhetorical question: are there non-partisan research studies estimating how many people are content to live purely off of government assistance with no attempt at being productive themselves? Because the burden of proof lies on those who assert that this exists in the face of everything we know about human nature.

Not to mention, personally I'd rather support a small number of truly lazy people rather than take the risk of allowing millions of hard-working low-income people falling into true destitution.

[Saede Riordan]

I keep wondering where are these poor people on welfare who simply don't want to work. When I was in ministry, I met and counted as friends a LOT of poor folks, primarily the "working poor", and know quite a few people receiving government assistance of all sorts. This groups overlap quite a bit, by the way. I never knew anyone who simply didn't want to work, because even the "working poor" (you may be able to tell I'm unhappy with that label) have a better situation overall.

Serious, non-rhetorical question: are there non-partisan research studies estimating how many people are content to live purely off of government assistance with no attempt at being productive themselves? Because the burden of proof lies on those who assert that this exists in the face of everything we know about human nature.

Not to mention, personally I'd rather support a small number of truly lazy people rather than take the risk of allowing millions of hard-working low-income people falling into true destitution.

A lot of the other issues Casiella have little to do with people not wanting to work, this is what I've noticed:

*In a lot of areas where people are jobless, it is simply because they don't have job opportunities, there just are not jobs in a lot of areas, and if you're too poor to move, you're really up shit creek.

*The government assistance gives you the minimum you need to survive off. It lets you have a home, food, clothes, and medicine, when you might be otherwise unable to acquire those things. For this, there is no requirement of physical labour. The problem is that the minimum wage is so low, that having the job still only meets your basic needs, meaning there is no incentive to try to get a job. Why work 9 hours a day at a factory or flip burgers on a chaotic schedule when you could have the exact same standard of living sitting at home on the government's paycheck. If you increased minimum wage to a degree that actually makes it worthwhile to have a job, then more people would be willing to actually get jobs.

[Louella Dougans]

There;s lots of them in Scotland. A substantial amount who have no interest in working, other than to get the Jobcentre off their back for a few months.

[Casiella]

Louella, are there any studies on this? Or is it one of those things that "everybody knows"?

[Louella Dougans]

I've met plenty. I believe there are some government reports on "hard core layabouts", there's enough for it to be a problem.

An example of this was a thing I heard on the radio about one of the central scotland councils, that has a "no eviction" law in place, as a result of a court case. There is now a hard core of a few hundred people who refuse to pay rent on the council owned house they live in. They cannot be evicted or otherwise made to pay.

[Saede Riordan]

I would very much like to see if the effects of increasing the minimum wage to a degree where having a job actually meant an increased standard of living from living on government assistance, would alleviate an issue like that.