3 ms·

Well I think we’re getting down into philosophical political divides here which have been argued for ages, and probably can’t be solved on an Internet forum. I

Well I think we’re getting down into philosophical political divides here which have been argued for ages, and probably can’t be solved on an Internet forum. I’ll just say this about the video that started all of this. At the moment there is a clear perception issue from some in the society on job fairness. Everyone is entitled to their perceptions, but all I’m claiming is that it is inaccurate, and those perceptions are doing them a disservice. I honestly believe it’s clouded by lack of insight. I think if you met some of the people I have who can tell you six ways to Sunday how to game the welfare system, collect unemployment, sell drugs on the side etc, you might feel different about that “free market” ideal which doesn’t really exists. Instead look to nature for the truth where you have exploiters in most species around every corner. So we must always be vigilant. > the ultimate system of nature for humans is collectivism and government The ultimate system of nature is an evolutionarily stable strategy that involves things like pacifists, parasites, violent struggle, etc. Society attempt to regulate those things and protect from the worst of it, but it can’t make it disappear by itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strate... The United States wasn’t founded with the idea of keeping people out of poverty. Indeed it’s primary concern was the protection of private property from the government taking that property without representation. See John Lockes philosophy equating theft to war etc, etc. Welfare is required to lift parts of the society out of destitution who really truly need it. It’s not meant to provide for perfectly capable people to receive free passes from the rest of society. And that’s part of the problem at the moment causing an illusion in the job market. As to your point if someone tried to sell me a bandage for a million dollars while I was under duress, I and the rest of the community would remember that person and treat them accordingly. We live in a society, and there are consequences to actions. Both exploitation and parasitism. Those consequences don’t always hold people accountable like they should, and that’s where we get into trouble.

danShumway 5y ago
> you might feel different about that “free market” ideal which doesn’t really exists. Instead look to nature for the truth where you have exploiters in most species around every corner. So we must always be vigilant. It's fine to have that opinion, I just don't think people should pretend that it's in alignment with the ideals of a completely free market society. Where I lose patience is if someone doesn't have the guts to say that coercion is a major part of our current economy. If the belief is that we can't entice people to work unless they're scared of poverty, that's just a very different argument than saying that the current systems of coercion are actually voluntary and free. > I and the rest of the community would remember that person and treat them accordingly. We live in a society, and there are consequences to actions. Both exploitation and parasitism. Sure, just as long as we both understand that some of those consequences are also sometimes expressed through people voting for policy changes.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > If the belief is that we can't entice people to work unless they're scared of poverty Hasn't the last year or so taught us that, unfortunately, that is the only motivator to work that's actually effective enough?
  - danShumway 5y ago
    Which is, again, a belief you can have. Just don't call it a free market, call it what it is: a forced/captive market. If you really believe that poverty is the only motivator, then fine. Just own it, don't argue that motivating people through threats of poverty somehow makes them more free.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      How does that make it not a free market? You're not getting tossed in a gulag for refusing to work.
      - danShumway 5y ago
        Your belief is that if people aren't scared of poverty they won't work. Literally you are saying if they're not forced to work by the threat of poverty, they won't. And of course being forced to work isn't voluntary. Now we don't have debtors prison, so nobody is actively going to take them and throw them into a gulag, but I already talked quite a bit about why that distinction doesn't matter above, so not sure what to say other than go back and reread previous comments if it's something you're confused about.
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  I guess I don’t see the coercion. To me I come from a background where grandparents either plowed the fields or died. Where famines caused starvation of relatives and friends. So coercion doesn’t make sense to me. To me it’s nature, and I do my part for society how I can. One of my favorite quotes is from Star Trek: “As with all living things, each according to his gift”. It’s a play on the Marxist adage “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. It leaves off the second part since what an individuals needs are and what should be supplied to everyone is a quagmire of a problem, given that humans can be selfish and unfair (hence why socialist countries tend to corruption just like the rest). And I fully agree that voting for policy change is a must. So is demonstrating, organizing, etc etc. I just think goals should be clear, and a willingness to understand ones own role, rather than only point fingers. BTW, I’ve upvoted your comments even if I disagree with them, since they’re insightful and constructive. More of this is needed, and less moral outrage, so thanks.

danShumway 5y ago

> you might feel different about that “free market” ideal which doesn’t really exists. Instead look to nature for the truth where you have exploiters in most species around every corner. So we must always be vigilant. It's fine to have that opinion, I just don't think people should pretend that it's in alignment with the ideals of a completely free market society. Where I lose patience is if someone doesn't have the guts to say that coercion is a major part of our current economy. If the belief is that we can't entice people to work unless they're scared of poverty, that's just a very different argument than saying that the current systems of coercion are actually voluntary and free. > I and the rest of the community would remember that person and treat them accordingly. We live in a society, and there are consequences to actions. Both exploitation and parasitism. Sure, just as long as we both understand that some of those consequences are also sometimes expressed through people voting for policy changes.

josephcsible 5y ago
> If the belief is that we can't entice people to work unless they're scared of poverty Hasn't the last year or so taught us that, unfortunately, that is the only motivator to work that's actually effective enough?
- danShumway 5y ago
  Which is, again, a belief you can have. Just don't call it a free market, call it what it is: a forced/captive market. If you really believe that poverty is the only motivator, then fine. Just own it, don't argue that motivating people through threats of poverty somehow makes them more free.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    How does that make it not a free market? You're not getting tossed in a gulag for refusing to work.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      Your belief is that if people aren't scared of poverty they won't work. Literally you are saying if they're not forced to work by the threat of poverty, they won't. And of course being forced to work isn't voluntary. Now we don't have debtors prison, so nobody is actively going to take them and throw them into a gulag, but I already talked quite a bit about why that distinction doesn't matter above, so not sure what to say other than go back and reread previous comments if it's something you're confused about.
crazydoggers 5y ago
I guess I don’t see the coercion. To me I come from a background where grandparents either plowed the fields or died. Where famines caused starvation of relatives and friends. So coercion doesn’t make sense to me. To me it’s nature, and I do my part for society how I can. One of my favorite quotes is from Star Trek: “As with all living things, each according to his gift”. It’s a play on the Marxist adage “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. It leaves off the second part since what an individuals needs are and what should be supplied to everyone is a quagmire of a problem, given that humans can be selfish and unfair (hence why socialist countries tend to corruption just like the rest). And I fully agree that voting for policy change is a must. So is demonstrating, organizing, etc etc. I just think goals should be clear, and a willingness to understand ones own role, rather than only point fingers. BTW, I’ve upvoted your comments even if I disagree with them, since they’re insightful and constructive. More of this is needed, and less moral outrage, so thanks.