Posts: 4,664
Threads: 36
Joined: Feb 2013
(July 7th, 2018, 21:55)TheHumanHydra Wrote: Allow me to express my utmost displeasure with the sentiments conveyed in this post. 
My intention was to convey thoughts, not sentiments. In that sense, I am sorry to hear what you have said.
July 8th, 2018, 02:19
(This post was last modified: July 8th, 2018, 02:19 by AdrienIer.)
Posts: 6,247
Threads: 17
Joined: Jul 2014
I am amused, yet not surprised, to see that in this thread those who want to oppress the poor are also Trump supporters.
July 8th, 2018, 02:51
(This post was last modified: July 8th, 2018, 02:52 by Bacchus.)
Posts: 3,537
Threads: 29
Joined: Feb 2013
Quote:My intention was to convey thoughts, not sentiments. In that sense, I am sorry to hear what you have said.
But you do express sentiments, firstly by "useless shit", secondly by failing even to raise the question of what options those employed in gruelling, but lowly paid work have. The implications pointed at are that people are some sort of combination of lazy and stupid -- they fail to get necessary skills and idiotically persist in offering the market something that's oversupplied. If only they could 'adapt'!
Posts: 4,664
Threads: 36
Joined: Feb 2013
(July 8th, 2018, 02:51)Bacchus Wrote: The implications pointed at are that people are some sort of combination of lazy and stupid -- they fail to get necessary skills and idiotically persist in offering the market something that's oversupplied. If only they could 'adapt'!
No such implication at all. I never said that market success is a worthwhile goal in any moral sense or that market success reflects any objectively positive qualities. A moral theory according to which only evil people succeed on market and the lack of market success is a positive attribute is perfectly compatible with my position.
I only say here that your claim upon the benefits of the system of division of labor should be determined by the quality and quantity of your contribution to this system. Like, if you believe that only evil people succeed on market and refuse to participate on that ground, then consistency requires you to proudly live in poverty, instead of demanding your "fair share" without making any objectively measurable contribution at all.
Posts: 851
Threads: 22
Joined: Aug 2011
Hey, quick question: What the fuck?
This is not a parody. Snopes. Youtube (36 minutes in).
Posts: 3,680
Threads: 23
Joined: Oct 2012
Some believe Trump may have dementia. Apparently he spoke more clearly several years ago. It's a sad fate I dread for myself.
Posts: 2,698
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2011
(July 7th, 2018, 15:11)Bacchus Wrote: The real problem is that in the current circumstances entrepreneurs are not able to properly explore business models, and accompanying employment options that would deploy individuals to more valuable work. Amusingly, social programmes create a self-reinforcing cycle here: you put tax and regulatory pressure on business, which kills competition and exploration, which leaves people with a choice of crap jobs, which justifies 'helping them' through putting even greater pressure on business.
Another self-reinforcing cycle is that of dependency. I get the theoretical argument that the current mass welfare system will help break the cycle for people 'whose hunger causes poor decisions but would otherwise do well', in practice what we see are masses getting used to dependency.
Quote:Of course large corporates are almost by definition the best able to withstand this pressure, so the primary thing regulation does is dig a competitive moat around them. What we never see are all those businesses that don't exist at all due to regulatory and tax costs, and their non-existence is just where the damage is.
Big Business gets Big Government to write regulation for the elimination of smaller competition, standard procedure.
Governments should offer welfare for small businesses, which could actually have a chance of reversing the cycle that kills new, small businesses.
July 8th, 2018, 14:03
(This post was last modified: July 8th, 2018, 14:04 by ipecac.)
Posts: 2,698
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2011
(July 8th, 2018, 02:19)AdrienIer Wrote: I am amused, yet not surprised, to see that in this thread those who want to oppress the poor are also Trump supporters.
People who want UBI or many other systems of mass welfare are setting up a large group of people for eugenics. The permanent welfare will make this class of people actually useless and redundant, and the intellectuals who have been going on for decades about the earth being overpopulated will eventually find eugenics fashionable again.
And who will the natural target be?
Posts: 6,247
Threads: 17
Joined: Jul 2014
(July 8th, 2018, 14:03)ipecac Wrote: (July 8th, 2018, 02:19)AdrienIer Wrote: I am amused, yet not surprised, to see that in this thread those who want to oppress the poor are also Trump supporters.
People who want UBI or many other systems of mass welfare are setting up a large group of people for eugenics.
No. No sane person will vote for a candidate proposing mass eugenics.
Posts: 2,698
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2011
(July 8th, 2018, 14:07)AdrienIer Wrote: (July 8th, 2018, 14:03)ipecac Wrote: People who want UBI or many other systems of mass welfare are setting up a large group of people for eugenics.
No. No sane person will vote for a candidate proposing mass eugenics.
It's almost inevitable that as in the past, it will be deemed as the right, progressive, scientific thing to do by academics and intellectuals, and will just be carried out. Creating by welfare a permanent class of people regarded as useless or redundant will only speed this up, and therefore that shouldn't happen.
|
