7 ms·

I wonder at what point the Tories will deem food and accommodation as non-essential?

minikites 7y ago
The American right wing already believes food is a luxury: https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1068136393237557254 https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/10681363932375572...
- golergka 7y ago
  But that tweet is nothing of the sort. Food is not a luxury, but you can never have a right for someone else's labour.
  - nosianu 7y ago
    > you can never have a right for someone else's labour. The reason a human's productivity is orders of magnitude higher than that of a stone age person is the work of uncountable legions of dead people. Almost everything we have and know is due to network effects of humans working together in time and space. The current generation's productivity is almost all due to inherited tools and knowledge. You do live off of "other people's work", we all do. The amount that you yourself contribute, and that you are concerned about, is negligible in comparison to the inheritance. We can afford to be much, much more relaxed. You are not living a stone age life where your concern would have had merit, because most of what you achieve was indeed attributable mostly to yourself (although even then tools and techniques inherited from previous generations probably was a major factor). If somebody is able to "make millions", or even billions, how much is only their own effort? Put a baby in a swamp and see what they can achieve. That billionaire is sitting in the center of a vast network of humans in time and space - most of it consisting of the dead who cannot be paid even if you wanted to. It's certainly good and necessary to have such people in central network locations, I just dislike when people think those guys are "self-made". I let you live alone in a remote forest, and even with all modern knowledge, where is your "self-made" empire? Same for a 50k/year job, who still is vastly more productive than a $100/year stone age guy not at all because of superior skills or effort. Your position in the space-time human network determines most of your impact. So to what I quoted of your comment, that is exactly what we do, every one of us. Some just like to pretend that their own contribution is much more significant than it really is, because almost all of the productivity and possibilities are from the network and not from a particular person. So - relax! It isn't you who pays, it's the dead >99.9%.
    - golergka 7y ago
      This is true, and that's why you should advocate for charity - which is based on free will decision on controlling your own property and resources, just as all the interactions that make up modern world that you so thoroughly describe. The "human right" concept, however, is entirely different: it is referring to use of the mechanism that has monopoly on violence, the state, to redistribute these resources, by the use of or threat of use of said violence, without any free will involved. This mechanism completely removes individual capability of making a moral decision, and uses morality as a pretext to obtain monopolistic, bureaucratic power. In my view, this monstrous mechanism, which is capable of despotism thousands as bad as any other, should be only used for things that cannot be achieved without it, such as rule of law. Charity and helping others is a noble thing, but since it can be achieved without it, just through free individuals decisions, it should.
      - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
        There's always a state in one form or another. Always. The question is who controls it and who benefits from it, not whether or not it exists.
        golergka 7y ago
        > not whether or not it exists It seems that you're trying to frame my argument as if I wanted to abolish the state completely, but I have said nothing of the sort. Just as you're saying, the question is, in what form should the sate exist. And my answer is, in the most minimal form required to uphold the things that no other institution can.
        SantalBlush 7y ago
        The state corrects for market failures, which no other institution can. It can also pool risk much more efficiently than a corporation can. I'd say the current state (US or UK) isn't far off from what you describe.
      - qntty 7y ago
  - basch 7y ago
    But food stamps arent the right to someone elses labor. The laborer is getting paid. Its taking tax money and giving it to a producer and a consumer. Its really no different than a subsidy. If you think taking money from the population and redistributing it is theft, youre basically arguing against taxes.
    - golergka 7y ago
      Yes, exactly.
xcklo 7y ago
Isn't that already the case to some degree? Not just the Tories, but pretty much all but a few fringe parties seem happy to make decent food and accommodation a luxury. For example: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/11/08/eu-faces-affordable-housing-crisis-excluding-young-people-from-top-quality-job-opportunities-says-world-bank https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/11/08/e...

The American right wing already believes food is a luxury: https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1068136393237557254 https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/10681363932375572...

golergka 7y ago
But that tweet is nothing of the sort. Food is not a luxury, but you can never have a right for someone else's labour.
- nosianu 7y ago
  > you can never have a right for someone else's labour. The reason a human's productivity is orders of magnitude higher than that of a stone age person is the work of uncountable legions of dead people. Almost everything we have and know is due to network effects of humans working together in time and space. The current generation's productivity is almost all due to inherited tools and knowledge. You do live off of "other people's work", we all do. The amount that you yourself contribute, and that you are concerned about, is negligible in comparison to the inheritance. We can afford to be much, much more relaxed. You are not living a stone age life where your concern would have had merit, because most of what you achieve was indeed attributable mostly to yourself (although even then tools and techniques inherited from previous generations probably was a major factor). If somebody is able to "make millions", or even billions, how much is only their own effort? Put a baby in a swamp and see what they can achieve. That billionaire is sitting in the center of a vast network of humans in time and space - most of it consisting of the dead who cannot be paid even if you wanted to. It's certainly good and necessary to have such people in central network locations, I just dislike when people think those guys are "self-made". I let you live alone in a remote forest, and even with all modern knowledge, where is your "self-made" empire? Same for a 50k/year job, who still is vastly more productive than a $100/year stone age guy not at all because of superior skills or effort. Your position in the space-time human network determines most of your impact. So to what I quoted of your comment, that is exactly what we do, every one of us. Some just like to pretend that their own contribution is much more significant than it really is, because almost all of the productivity and possibilities are from the network and not from a particular person. So - relax! It isn't you who pays, it's the dead >99.9%.
  - golergka 7y ago
    This is true, and that's why you should advocate for charity - which is based on free will decision on controlling your own property and resources, just as all the interactions that make up modern world that you so thoroughly describe. The "human right" concept, however, is entirely different: it is referring to use of the mechanism that has monopoly on violence, the state, to redistribute these resources, by the use of or threat of use of said violence, without any free will involved. This mechanism completely removes individual capability of making a moral decision, and uses morality as a pretext to obtain monopolistic, bureaucratic power. In my view, this monstrous mechanism, which is capable of despotism thousands as bad as any other, should be only used for things that cannot be achieved without it, such as rule of law. Charity and helping others is a noble thing, but since it can be achieved without it, just through free individuals decisions, it should.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      There's always a state in one form or another. Always. The question is who controls it and who benefits from it, not whether or not it exists.
      - golergka 7y ago
        > not whether or not it exists It seems that you're trying to frame my argument as if I wanted to abolish the state completely, but I have said nothing of the sort. Just as you're saying, the question is, in what form should the sate exist. And my answer is, in the most minimal form required to uphold the things that no other institution can.
        SantalBlush 7y ago
        The state corrects for market failures, which no other institution can. It can also pool risk much more efficiently than a corporation can. I'd say the current state (US or UK) isn't far off from what you describe.
    - qntty 7y ago
- basch 7y ago
  But food stamps arent the right to someone elses labor. The laborer is getting paid. Its taking tax money and giving it to a producer and a consumer. Its really no different than a subsidy. If you think taking money from the population and redistributing it is theft, youre basically arguing against taxes.
  - golergka 7y ago
    Yes, exactly.

xcklo 7y ago

Isn't that already the case to some degree? Not just the Tories, but pretty much all but a few fringe parties seem happy to make decent food and accommodation a luxury. For example: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/11/08/eu-faces-affordable-housing-crisis-excluding-young-people-from-top-quality-job-opportunities-says-world-bank https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/11/08/e...