17 ms·

I'm not saying this to be funny, I fully intend this to be taken seriously, the solution is to follow the principle of justice. The "needy" have no claim on th

I'm not saying this to be funny, I fully intend this to be taken seriously, the solution is to follow the principle of justice. The "needy" have no claim on the output of the productive. There is no free lunch, there is no claim to the unearned. The solution is to get rid of welfare entirely, on principle. Anything less leads to this mess eventually.

hug 5y ago
What is "the principle of justice", exactly? If you're talking about Rawls' principles of justice, you've completely misunderstood the source text. If you're talking about something else... well, I'd be interested in hearing what it is, although I'm not holding my breath for it to be any good. As to the latter half of your comment, society has a claim on the output of the members of that society, given that the entire operation is built that way. Society presents you with opportunities that you may not otherwise have. Stated conversely, the expectation is that the opportunities that one might not otherwise have are given to them -- the very definition of welfare. To do otherwise is merely to try to pull the ladder up behind you, not some great moral ideal.
- PhileinSophia 5y ago
  No I don't mean Rawls. Justice, in this context, means giving to each man what he deserves. This includes not punishing men who don't deserve to be punished. "Society" has no claim on the output of the members of society. Actually, there is no such thing as society above and beyond "the members of society." What you're claiming is that "the members of society" have a claim on "the members of society," but obviously it doesn't manifest itself in a just way otherwise you could only claim what you deserve, or in other words you wouldn't claim anything from anyone else without mutual agreement. What your statement really means is that one group of people in society "the needy" have a claim on another group "the productive." As a productive "member of society" you are forced at the point of a gun (don't pay your taxes, then defend yourself from being arrested) to support the most worthless scum on earth as long as he has the social grace of being "needy." Need does not produce food, need does not build houses -- those are productive efforts -- but need is the ultimate claim on the life and labor of all the productive members of society. If you want to help the needy so much, I will not stop you, please feel free to spend every last penny you have supporting them -- but leave me out of it. I have a right to live my life as much as they have a right to squander theirs.
  - lovich 5y ago
    > No I don't mean Rawls. Justice, in this context, means giving to each man what he deserves. Yo, we took an informal vote and it looks like everyone agrees that businesses don’t “deserve” cheap labor.
  - hug 5y ago
    With regards to the "principles of justice", your definition of justice is awful: It doesn't line up with any accepted dictionary or academic definition of the term. It lines up really nicely with the objectivist movement, though, which is pretty widely derided as hot garbage. Anyhow, even if I agreed with your concept of "justice", your definition of society is also wonky, if you imagine that it can only be defined by the sum of its current constituents. Society does not consist of only your contemporaries, and is not made up only of the efforts of those who are currently contributing. You, as a member of whatever society you are member of, benefit from the contributions of the members of society who have come before you. To some degree, you also suffer from the mistakes of those before you as well. The society you are a member of gives you a great many affordances, some of which you are able to benefit from more than others due to your circumstance, and some of which you do not benefit from at all. If you believe that you have not benefited from the society you live in, at the expense of others, you need to think on it a little longer.
Frost1x 5y ago
>The "needy" have no claim on the output of the productive. Then the needy have no need to participate in, support, and follow the rules of society and might as well support principles of anarchy. Why should they bother with this system they have no chance of succeeding in? When we decided to form societies and governments, we already decided we were going to work together to help each other out--all this social contract stuff. The increasingly extreme stages of capitalism we see now has instead recreated an abstract form of survival of the fittest in economics. This has slowly broken the social contract that gave rise to people agreeing to join and participate in societies to begin with. Many are struggling for basic needs, not just wants. Everything is about how much money and capital you can roll up. If this gets too extreme, for the bulk of the population who aren't doing well (those who have no claim on the "productive") in this abstracted form of survivalism, why not just push for anarchy and revert back to lawlessness and the non-abstracted survival of the fittest? What do the needy have to gain to follow this arbitrary abstract system they've lost in? They might have a chance of becoming a king in a different structure so they will support other options. If you get enough people who think like this, you will see major changes in government or perhaps complete collapses of societial structures. Welfare needs to exist, we need to provide for those who can't provide for themselves. If we don't, we risk massive social instability because only the winners will have any sort of incentive to participate. Plus there's, I don't know, being human mixed in there too (maybe it's just me but I feel everyone should have some basic support). Capitalism can only exist if you can provide the stable societal structure for it to exist within, for property to accumulate, for property rights to be granted, honored, and enforced. For that to happen you need to make sure the poorest participants have some interest in participating in your society and not rejecting it outright. I suppose force is another option if you like authoritarian systems.

hug 5y ago

What is "the principle of justice", exactly? If you're talking about Rawls' principles of justice, you've completely misunderstood the source text. If you're talking about something else... well, I'd be interested in hearing what it is, although I'm not holding my breath for it to be any good. As to the latter half of your comment, society has a claim on the output of the members of that society, given that the entire operation is built that way. Society presents you with opportunities that you may not otherwise have. Stated conversely, the expectation is that the opportunities that one might not otherwise have are given to them -- the very definition of welfare. To do otherwise is merely to try to pull the ladder up behind you, not some great moral ideal.

PhileinSophia 5y ago
No I don't mean Rawls. Justice, in this context, means giving to each man what he deserves. This includes not punishing men who don't deserve to be punished. "Society" has no claim on the output of the members of society. Actually, there is no such thing as society above and beyond "the members of society." What you're claiming is that "the members of society" have a claim on "the members of society," but obviously it doesn't manifest itself in a just way otherwise you could only claim what you deserve, or in other words you wouldn't claim anything from anyone else without mutual agreement. What your statement really means is that one group of people in society "the needy" have a claim on another group "the productive." As a productive "member of society" you are forced at the point of a gun (don't pay your taxes, then defend yourself from being arrested) to support the most worthless scum on earth as long as he has the social grace of being "needy." Need does not produce food, need does not build houses -- those are productive efforts -- but need is the ultimate claim on the life and labor of all the productive members of society. If you want to help the needy so much, I will not stop you, please feel free to spend every last penny you have supporting them -- but leave me out of it. I have a right to live my life as much as they have a right to squander theirs.
- lovich 5y ago
  > No I don't mean Rawls. Justice, in this context, means giving to each man what he deserves. Yo, we took an informal vote and it looks like everyone agrees that businesses don’t “deserve” cheap labor.
- hug 5y ago
  With regards to the "principles of justice", your definition of justice is awful: It doesn't line up with any accepted dictionary or academic definition of the term. It lines up really nicely with the objectivist movement, though, which is pretty widely derided as hot garbage. Anyhow, even if I agreed with your concept of "justice", your definition of society is also wonky, if you imagine that it can only be defined by the sum of its current constituents. Society does not consist of only your contemporaries, and is not made up only of the efforts of those who are currently contributing. You, as a member of whatever society you are member of, benefit from the contributions of the members of society who have come before you. To some degree, you also suffer from the mistakes of those before you as well. The society you are a member of gives you a great many affordances, some of which you are able to benefit from more than others due to your circumstance, and some of which you do not benefit from at all. If you believe that you have not benefited from the society you live in, at the expense of others, you need to think on it a little longer.

Frost1x 5y ago

>The "needy" have no claim on the output of the productive. Then the needy have no need to participate in, support, and follow the rules of society and might as well support principles of anarchy. Why should they bother with this system they have no chance of succeeding in? When we decided to form societies and governments, we already decided we were going to work together to help each other out--all this social contract stuff. The increasingly extreme stages of capitalism we see now has instead recreated an abstract form of survival of the fittest in economics. This has slowly broken the social contract that gave rise to people agreeing to join and participate in societies to begin with. Many are struggling for basic needs, not just wants. Everything is about how much money and capital you can roll up. If this gets too extreme, for the bulk of the population who aren't doing well (those who have no claim on the "productive") in this abstracted form of survivalism, why not just push for anarchy and revert back to lawlessness and the non-abstracted survival of the fittest? What do the needy have to gain to follow this arbitrary abstract system they've lost in? They might have a chance of becoming a king in a different structure so they will support other options. If you get enough people who think like this, you will see major changes in government or perhaps complete collapses of societial structures. Welfare needs to exist, we need to provide for those who can't provide for themselves. If we don't, we risk massive social instability because only the winners will have any sort of incentive to participate. Plus there's, I don't know, being human mixed in there too (maybe it's just me but I feel everyone should have some basic support). Capitalism can only exist if you can provide the stable societal structure for it to exist within, for property to accumulate, for property rights to be granted, honored, and enforced. For that to happen you need to make sure the poorest participants have some interest in participating in your society and not rejecting it outright. I suppose force is another option if you like authoritarian systems.