5 ms·

Because they're people too, and trying to survive in this perverse game of "Capitalism". I value human rights more than I value state or federal "rights". And

Because they're people too, and trying to survive in this perverse game of "Capitalism". I value human rights more than I value state or federal "rights". And in this case, there's more than enough resources to go around. And a second derivative answer - not everyone who came here had a choice.

golergka 9y ago
Calling a game "perverse" is a classic tactic too use when you're losing and can't own up to it. There may be "enough" resources – but they aren't yours to go anywhere. And freedom to do whatever you please with the things you own is the most fundamental human right of all.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  > Calling a game "perverse" is a classic tactic too use when you're losing and can't own up to it. Oh please. You damned straight it's perverse. How is this not perverse when a director of an agency on aging has to tell elderly clients "Sorry, there's no more money for food this week." ? How is this not perverse when homeless try to get shelter for the night, and are turned away because there's no beds? How is this not perverse when we train upcoming high school students to agree to crushing scholastic debt with no recourse or bankruptcy protection? How is this not perverse that we don't have a true medical system across the USA? Instead we tie it to employment, thus continuing the "Work or Die" ideal, quite literally. > There may be "enough" resources – but they aren't yours to go anywhere. And freedom to do whatever you please with the things you own is the most fundamental human right of all. Sure, I'll accept that for simple possessions. Clothes, personal effects, lodging, transportation. But whereas you're talking of personal stuff, I'm talking about the top income whose top 3 people own collectively more than the bottom 50% of the world. I guess when you can afford to amass money, game the system, buy laws/legislators and rig everything, you do end up with more money. But "it was hard earned". Yeah, uh huh. Keep telling yourself that.
  - golergka 9y ago
    The perverse game you wouldn't be able to win or lose, regardless of your actions - and your examples prove that it's not the case.
    - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
      So, the "I know you are but what am I?" defense? Capitalism fails for many. It succeeds for a very few, with most stuck in the cycle of "Work to live, live to work". It's not much different than a slave or indentured servant class where for the necessities of life; Instead of a single owner, I must find an owner who will take me in. And if you fall through the cracks, it's almost impossible to move back up. I'm sure you can find a Horatio Alger story or 2. They're popular in this country. Lose your job? You're not guaranteed a job. Business closes? Too bad. Area stricken with poverty because industry left? Well, too bad.
      - golergka 9y ago
        > So, the "I know you are but what am I?" defense? Can you elaborate? > Capitalism fails for many. Once again, if you fail, it doesn't mean that the system fails. The system's goal is not to make your life good. Why would it be?
        crankylinuxuser 9y ago
        > Once again, if you fail, it doesn't mean that the system fails. And I refuse the very premise you're working with. We're only as strong as the weakest members. And I see those members begging on the streets, or wandering around because of untreated psychiatric issues. Or they're living in tents off in the back part of the city park. There's always going to be someone with more, for whatever reasons. But there should be nobody homeless. There should be nobody going hungry. There should be nobody without medical treatment. I'm not going to budge on those issues. Higher rights exist building on TOP of the essentials. Look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Even YCombinator is doing a program/test on UBI. To pretend it's not an issue is completely absurd. > The system's goal is not to make your life good. Why would it be? Because, unless you're independently wealthy and can live on residuals for the rest of your life, you're only a few accidents away from destitution. We live in a world of plenty, but allow monied interests to amass it and control access. Why? And that money can be used to buy influence and laws to further entrench themselves. That argument is "Its my money and I got it and you cant have it", regardless if it's illegal or paid-off "legal" means. This is the might-makes-right argument and principle. And it's time we re-evaluate if this makes sense. I have a feeling that most people will find it absurd, as I do.

golergka 9y ago

Calling a game "perverse" is a classic tactic too use when you're losing and can't own up to it. There may be "enough" resources – but they aren't yours to go anywhere. And freedom to do whatever you please with the things you own is the most fundamental human right of all.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
> Calling a game "perverse" is a classic tactic too use when you're losing and can't own up to it. Oh please. You damned straight it's perverse. How is this not perverse when a director of an agency on aging has to tell elderly clients "Sorry, there's no more money for food this week." ? How is this not perverse when homeless try to get shelter for the night, and are turned away because there's no beds? How is this not perverse when we train upcoming high school students to agree to crushing scholastic debt with no recourse or bankruptcy protection? How is this not perverse that we don't have a true medical system across the USA? Instead we tie it to employment, thus continuing the "Work or Die" ideal, quite literally. > There may be "enough" resources – but they aren't yours to go anywhere. And freedom to do whatever you please with the things you own is the most fundamental human right of all. Sure, I'll accept that for simple possessions. Clothes, personal effects, lodging, transportation. But whereas you're talking of personal stuff, I'm talking about the top income whose top 3 people own collectively more than the bottom 50% of the world. I guess when you can afford to amass money, game the system, buy laws/legislators and rig everything, you do end up with more money. But "it was hard earned". Yeah, uh huh. Keep telling yourself that.
- golergka 9y ago
  The perverse game you wouldn't be able to win or lose, regardless of your actions - and your examples prove that it's not the case.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    So, the "I know you are but what am I?" defense? Capitalism fails for many. It succeeds for a very few, with most stuck in the cycle of "Work to live, live to work". It's not much different than a slave or indentured servant class where for the necessities of life; Instead of a single owner, I must find an owner who will take me in. And if you fall through the cracks, it's almost impossible to move back up. I'm sure you can find a Horatio Alger story or 2. They're popular in this country. Lose your job? You're not guaranteed a job. Business closes? Too bad. Area stricken with poverty because industry left? Well, too bad.
    - golergka 9y ago
      > So, the "I know you are but what am I?" defense? Can you elaborate? > Capitalism fails for many. Once again, if you fail, it doesn't mean that the system fails. The system's goal is not to make your life good. Why would it be?
      - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
        > Once again, if you fail, it doesn't mean that the system fails. And I refuse the very premise you're working with. We're only as strong as the weakest members. And I see those members begging on the streets, or wandering around because of untreated psychiatric issues. Or they're living in tents off in the back part of the city park. There's always going to be someone with more, for whatever reasons. But there should be nobody homeless. There should be nobody going hungry. There should be nobody without medical treatment. I'm not going to budge on those issues. Higher rights exist building on TOP of the essentials. Look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Even YCombinator is doing a program/test on UBI. To pretend it's not an issue is completely absurd. > The system's goal is not to make your life good. Why would it be? Because, unless you're independently wealthy and can live on residuals for the rest of your life, you're only a few accidents away from destitution. We live in a world of plenty, but allow monied interests to amass it and control access. Why? And that money can be used to buy influence and laws to further entrench themselves. That argument is "Its my money and I got it and you cant have it", regardless if it's illegal or paid-off "legal" means. This is the might-makes-right argument and principle. And it's time we re-evaluate if this makes sense. I have a feeling that most people will find it absurd, as I do.