Social safety nets are ideological slavery

No, you may say a business earns it's money, but I don't always agree with that.

Any business that earns it's money by using shady business practices such as outsourcing, illegal immigration, and taking advantage of it's employees is EXPLOITING it's employees, and thus I say they do not earn their money.

You want me to not be greedy? I'll agree to it ONLY when EVERYONE else agrees to it as well. Which we all know will NEVER happen.

 

The defintion of capitalism is that I own the means of production.

Being the owner of the means of production I can hire who I Iike and as many as I need.

The ones I don't hire can leave me alone, I want nothing to do with them.

Who provides them with the wherewithal to obain food, shelter and clothing, I don't care.

I'll care when it affects me.

Oops they're rioting! What's the gummint gonna do about this??? I pay my taxes! I want action!

 

“Let’s consider that someone worked at an honest job, they got their retirement plan at a company that is 58 in rank at the Fortune 500. Do you think that retirement plan, which they cannot renegotiate, was more, unchanged, or less due to safety nets?”

The definition of slavery is one works, and the other guy doesn’t pay enough for it.

A definition of the welfare state is your wealth is for your welfare, and we pay for it.

"What pillar of security does the landed interest require more than any other interest in the state, or what right has it to a distinct and separate representation from the general interest of a nation? The only use to be made of this power (and which it always has made), is to ward off taxes from itself, and throw the burthen upon those articles of consumption by which itself would be least affected...

...Men of small or moderate estates are more injured by the taxes being thrown on articles of consumption, than they are eased by warding it from landed property, for the following reasons:

First, They consume more of the productive taxable articles, in proportion to their property, than those of large estates.

Secondly, Their residence is chiefly in towns, and their property in houses; and the increase of the poor-rates, occasioned by taxes on consumption, is in much greater proportion than the land-tax has been favoured. In Birmingham, the poor-rates are not less than seven shillings in the pound. From this, as is already observed, the aristocracy are in a great measure exempt." (Rights of Man, by Thomas Paine 1792) http://www.constitution.org/tp/rightsman2.htm

"But the chief object of this progressive tax (besides the justice of rendering taxes more equal than they are) is, as already stated, to extirpate the overgrown influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, and which is one of the principal sources of corruption at elections." (ibid)

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 28 Oct. 1785) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

This is why the unrestrained inequality of property, seen in calls for a Fair Tax (on consumption, see Thomas Paine) and Flat Tax (see Thomas Jefferson's France), is an immoral system of legalized slavery.

 

When you own the Artificially Intelligent Robotic Principle Means of Production and all forms of wealth described in the Count of Monte Christo (mines…), in the near future, inherited from your father free and clear from Death taxes, and there is a Flat Tax (meaning you have advantage) or Fair Tax (meaning that if they can pay for your products they pay for your protection), and “The Butlerian Jihad” threatens you, tell your computer that fear is the mind killer and to make Terminators. Or, you could just say, “let them eat cake.”

 

I am very much aware of the system we have in the United States. It is actually called a democratic republic. I did not vote for the current administration, but I completely acknowledge it's right to put into place policies that it deems worthy. Never have I suggested otherwise. That being said, I am entitled to voice my opposition, am I not? Perhaps it is you who are not aware of how politics in our country works: everyone is entitled to an opinion, and has the right to voice that opinion. First Amendment, thank you very much.

Communism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

What I stated, and called communism:

"right to demand that someone give part of what they work for to someone else, whether they want to or not"
" government is not only the best suited to decide who gets what, how much, and when, but has the right to do so"

Please sir, enlighten me. Explain how what I said is so far off from the definition of communism that you declared that I "obviously know nothing about communism". Please.

Forgive me for my abundant ignorance, but I do not understand your point. Sorry.

Sir, apparently you are a cretin. First you say that you can not go to jail for not paying your taxes. Secondly, you accuse me of being ignorant for saying that you can.

26 USC § 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute

Actually Sir, I try to never assume anything. Particularly when debating in a forum where what I state is there for all to see and research. You, on the other hand, appear to assume much, and do not bother to make sure what you are saying is factual.

Well, seeing as how I have proven what I said to be accurate and true, I would imagine that right about now you are feeling rather ignorant and foolish.

You are certainly well within your right to "not believe any of the stuff I posted", but well, you know what they say about facts: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence" - John Adams

Again, you are well within your rights to believe this. I believe it is a bit naive, but you are entitled to your opinion, and I can not prove that what you suggest is untrue. Let's agree to disagree, shall we not?

Now now, there you go again making assumptions! For the record, no, I do not desire people who wish public assistance to beg me for it. I would appreciate it however, if they did not think that I have an obligation to assist them, but no, I don't want anyone to beg me.

Where did I ever state that I want to throw the system away, or not give aid to those who need it? Please, show me. What I said was:

I believe that instead of making people dependent on the government, we need to help them achieve what they want on their own. I believe that ANY human being, with the right attitude, some hard word, and a little determination, can achieve almost anything he or she desires.

So you are incorrect again, beginning to see a trend? I do believe we need reform. We need to help people earn what they need rather than giving it to them, which makes them dependent on us.

I love Jesus dearly, and I am more than happy to discuss him anytime you like. So, again, shocker, you are incorrect. If you read how the person I quoted brought up Jesus, and try really hard, you might be able to deduce that he was mocking Jesus and Christianity, which is what actually bothered me.

Read Casper, and try to use facts in your posts instead of spurting out nonsense and vitriol. It might help you. Have a wonderful day and weekend.

 

It seems your default position is that all businesses cheat. You use this to justify your own greed.

 

I offer as an alternative that they reflect a notion that markets alone cannot be relied on for all individuals to get by alright and, because of this, alternative means of procuring the basic necessitates of life are deemed proper by those advocating for the safety nets. People who want these safety nets are also often of an inclination that individual and otherwise private sector sources of charity are less reliable, less efficient, and/or less universal in ensuring those basic needs are met for individuals than when the state takes on that responsibility at least in part. Some of the most highly individualistic cultures in the world exist alongside systems of social welfare that imply some degree of interdependency or - as you put it - government dependency. I reckon those things are implied by anything the People allow state to do.

I cannot speak for any particular politician, but I do not think think we need welfare so much as it is of critical importance to the moral integrity and excellence in character of the nation, in addition to the happiness of the people - whether satisfaction with life is gauged at a collective or individual level. To me at least the real reason for welfare is not to put food on the table or roofs over heads for the sake of those very things - rather it is to attack the root causes of human suffering, foster decent living conditions, and more greatly enable individuals to better strive to fulfill their own full potentials. Rather than seeing private property rights and maximum individual autonomy on paper as the heart of what makes a society free and just, I consider property rights and individual autonomy empowering in some respects while also restrictive of freedom to some extent when pressed into practice. The difference here is mostly philosophical, no?

This is true, and one of the reasons I am highly critical of the U.S.'s liberal model of welfare regime. If it were within my power to do so I would dismantle the current system - including Social Security - and replace it all with a less complicated, more egalitarian or less classist, but otherwise nonetheless social democratic alternative.

Politics is in great part an eternal morality war for those who are not corrupted. Caring for others and translating that care into policy is indeed one of several fronts along which the conflicts of interest folks have on political matters seem to be waged. You are right about the slave masters, though I do not yet see how it relates to welfare policies and the government unless you reckon the state is sovereign rather than the people, or otherwise consider the actions of the United States illegitimate on account of rejecting its form of government or some of its constitution's contents. Am I missing another possibility? I'm not sure what angle you're coming at this subject from right now.

At least the way I look at it, living within the borders of a country is a privilege rather than a right. The People own their country in the abstract in addition to its state, and to live within the country and enjoy goods and services rendered by the state one must agree to adhere to a social contract that comes complete with both rights and responsibilities. I think people should be allowed to opt out of the contract at any time but a consequence of doing so is no longer possessing the status of citizenship - i.e. becoming an illegal alien. I reckon such folk should still have many rights but also be subject to deportation. The person is then free to find someplace else to live which, although offering few agreeable options for those who object to taxation on principle, is still mostly fair. After all, the contract was opted out of voluntarily.

Under a more ideal set of circumstances perhaps denizens of the U.S. could negotiate with the state to enter into a contract with alternative terms of mutual benefit? I also take issue to how hard it currently is to amend the constitution, but I suppose that's a whole different can of worms that I shouldn't be opening here. Hmm... but out of curiosity here, do any of ya'll think you're entitled to live on U.S. territory if you flatly refuse to comply with the citizenship club's rules and bylaws? If so, why, if I may ask?

 

Yeah, I guess it is. Businesses do anything in their power to gain greater profit, that is the whole point of businesses. How many times have I heard on this board that the whole point of a business is to make profit?

So, if we are to let them go and do anything in their power to let their greed go, we, by fairness, must let everyone's greed go.

I'll be fair, I'll let them be greedy, but I'll be greedy too. May the best side win.

 

That would make government just another competing, free market interest in society. The only moral role they could ever have.

 

Why should I be deported from my own property? A man tamed the land, then sold it to someone, eventually it came to me. The state has no part in this process. In my case, in 1901 the state came along and ad hoc declared authority over my land.

The problem is that the state doesn't have any claim to ownership of the land, or sovereignty over mine, at least the way I look at it.

 

Excellent post. You articulate some truths eloquently.

 

I agree that what you claim is currently true, simply because nice politicians of morals are so difficult to find in modern times. Providing for the general welfare is a social Power delegated to our federal Congress. There is no reason why supply side economics should not supply us with better governance at lower cost.

 

As a business owner, I've let many people go over the years. Most of them had the same attitude as you have. To my credit, I've converted more than a few by showing them why a business must remain competitive and produce positive results. If money cannot be made, there is no justification for the company, no way to pay employees, to pay for supplies and services, and no way to ensure a brighter future for all. It is all common sense so I'll not bore any further.

On the other hand, moochers have no moral foundation. They only take and justify their theft by blaming the productive. They are a drag on society and have no care for anything other than themselves. They take pride in how much they gain from those who had to work hard to earn that money. They laugh, belittle and make excuse for their behavior in many disrespectful ways. Without moral foundation they see no wrong in their actions.

I knew from the start there was little to be gained by discussing any of this with you. As a gentleman, I will remove myself from further discourse and leave the last word to you.

 

So what are you saying, the we are sitting on a poweder keg and if why don't buy off the masses the country will explode? The problem is not a lack of money. The problem is a lack of morality. Jesus was penniless. Did he pick up a club and beat people over the head and demand food? How about Budda, Mother Teresa . . .

You can write a blank check to amoral people and they will still kill you for your sneakers. The problem is not money. It's morality.

 

Do you know what the definition of slavery is? Look it up in the dictionary. It's involuntary servitude. It means being forced to work against your will. Your example is just a guy who is under paid. If you don't like the terms of your employment you can always walk away. Back in the day when slavery was legal in the South, did the slave have the ability to just walk away? Hell no!

The welfare state is involuntary servitude. I am forced to work for others against my will. I have no ability to just walk away. Therefore I am a slave.

 

The problem is neither money nor morality, but there are links. The problem is that one of the requirements of capitalism is to be able to manage wage demands. In order to do so there must be an optimum level of unemployment. Too high a level of employment results in inflation which is anathema to the economic system. Too much employment sees capitalists bidding against each other in the demand for labour and hence the price of labour goes up and everything else with it in an inflationary spiral.

Now, given that there have to be unemployed people it is necessary for the system to make sure they don't become troublesome. Thus social welfare provided by government.

 

One of the definitions of slavery is that the slave is property and is not a human being.

The welfare state is a sensible response to – as I previously mentioned – one of the less desirable aspects of capitalism. In a capitalist society slavery is not legal (primarily because it's not only useless to the system, it's actually counter-productive). If someone has a job then they are paid. If they don't have a job then they are provided with social assistance. That assistance is paid from taxes collected for government and government uses part of its tax collection to provide that help. It also uses taxes for other purposes.

A person is not forced to work for others. A person pays taxes for the services rendered by government. Anyone is free to stop working and to live on social assistance. No-one is a legal slave.

 

I believe that point of view was more valid in the Iron Age; then we grew up. Why not merely be more rational, as a choice and theory, and better ensure full employment of human capital resources in modern times.

 

How is it exactly slavery to pay someone not to work, it is a consensual relationship where the Democrats give them welfare and they vote for them once every two to four years.

If you ask me, that is the opposite of slavery.

 

The only problem is we already have legal and physical infrastructure in every State of the Union and the federal districts; why duplicate that cost as a tax burden?

 

Wow, you dare call me a moocher?

I work 40 hours a week. I roommate with family to pay bills. I put needs like insurance before petty wants.

But I still never get ahead. I have to work harder and harder every year just to stand still, lest I fall behind.

It's attitudes like yours, that feel that anyone that doesn't work hard enough in the way YOU want is a baseless, moocher parasite that real tick me off. I work hard. I do my best to be responsible, while still realizing that I am human, and may still occasionally make mistakes.

Sorry, but I refuse to work like a poor person in a third world country, slaving away 15 hours a day to barely have enough to eat, let alone have any comforts. I refuse to live in a world without hope for a better future. If it ever gets that bad, I'm not really sure how far I would go. But I have to believe that my self-preservation instincts would kick in, and I would steal before I starve. I understand this may not be a popular opinion, and you and many others may not agree with it. But it is what it is.

I just want to work my 40 hours a week and live a middle class American lifestyle for about 40 more years, to watch my nieces and nephews grow up. That's it.

So don't go thinking your all so much better than me. We are all human.

 

I believe the government should be there to give a helping hand to those who lost their job, make way to little to sustain a family, or help those who are unable to work. I think we need to relook at the amount of aid we give and how long we give it though. I really believe that if a person is able to work, they should be required to in order to get Federal and state aid. The reason I say that is because I know there are people that will milk the system as long as they can, without really trying to look for work. I think some people get to much and some not enough. But I am sure if people had to get up every morning and report to a government work center and work for the day, for what welfare pays, many more would be out looking for a job that pays a lot more than welfare. They could pick up trash from parks and roadways. Clean up alleys, work in homeless shelters, thin forest in National parks, etc. etc.

 

No irrigation water from any aquifer or stream, no employees who have been educated in public schools...

 

Hogwash. Nobody forces anybody to take those benefits. They are there so that, in the event of an economic down-turn, people are not forced to either starve or take what the capitalists want to pay them, even if it is less than a living wage. In fact, it prevents the capitalists from crashing the economy for the exact purpose of reducing the working class to peonage.

Hogwash. Nobody wants to govern a failed state when they could govern a moderately prosperous one.

Actually, it is moral, because it keeps the capitalists from coercing people to work for less than the value of a day's work, which means that wealth will circulate through the economy, rather than all accumulating at the top.

And the slaves knew damned well they could take care of themselves if they could just kill all those crackers that were keeping them down or escape into the swamps. Only in a few rare cases, such as Haiti, did killing the slave master scum work. In places like the Caribbian and Belize and around the Great Dismal Swamp and the Everglades, the best route was into the bush to establish their own communities.

Most people I have known who were on any kind of benefits, if they were not disabled, were quite willing to work for a living wage. So maybe instead of welfare, we should just force the capitalists to employ everybody at a living wage and we would not have to worry about what happens when the greed heads decide to tank the economy for some BS reason.

Yes, I would say that even really stupid people need those benefits so that they do not get exploited on the flimsy excuse that a day's labor at any task that they can perform is not worth a day's provisions. If you need their labor for a day, you need to pay them for the day.

 

“: drudgery, toil


: submission to a dominating influence”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery

Okay, fine, I change it:

“The definition of slavery is one toils, and the other guy doesn’t pay enough for it.” {pay with wages, freedom…}

We voted for Welfare, there are other countries so you can go and walk away.

PS. Still though your argument might have merit if States had rights to reject Federal programs. Work along those lines.
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/us...647-red-blue-state-health-care.html#post96676