5 ms·

I love threads like this because it brings people like you out of the woodwork. It's like gazing into the abyss. An appeal to nature (an untenable one at that)

I love threads like this because it brings people like you out of the woodwork. It's like gazing into the abyss. An appeal to nature (an untenable one at that) and a lack of understanding of scope on how natural selection works is just the beginning. >If we artificially remove any appearance of shortage, of a need to struggle, we remove the incentive to work.So we need to imitate nature at least in some respects. But that goal cannot be achieved if we "improve the circumstances" of everyone in need. Approaching this from a different perspective, it removes the need to do the bidding of others for sustenance. People don't, in general, want to fall to idlery. It opens an opportunity for organizations not solely fueled by the profit motive. The thing about society is that it doesn't necessarily have to model a romanticized return to natural order, especially when we have the ability to overcome obstacles like 'worrying about where next meal will come from' or 'having no clean water'. I will argue that today, we have the ability to eradicate the circumstances in which poverty develops either through minimum income initiatives or a more drastic change to how society is structured. >In short, if we try to fix the problem of poverty, we will make everyone poor. That's history's lesson. I'd absolutely love for you to provide some examples from history. I have one for you as well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

lutusp 13y ago
> I love threads like this because it brings people like you out of the woodwork. It's like gazing into the abyss. No, it's like examining reality, something people do what they can to avoid. But don't take my word for it -- try to erase poverty. Tell me how it works out. But you know what? It's been tried. The experiment failed. You need to study history as much as the idealistic outlook of some political scientists. > I'd absolutely love for you to provide some examples from history. No, you certainly wouldn't. The histories of communism and socialism will do, but you have to read them with an open mind, and avoid saying "but the circumstances weren't right," or "the right idea but the wrong people," and similar explanations. If you argue in favor of equality of opportunity and the eradication of sexism and racism, you will find me alongside at the barricades in common cause. But if you argue in favor of equality of outcome, that's where we differ -- and history favors my outlook, not yours. > An appeal to nature (an untenable one at that) and a lack of understanding of scope on how natural selection works is just the beginning. You may know 10% of what I know about evolution by natural selection, unless I'm being generous. And no, we can't contradict nature in human society and get away with it. > I will argue that today, we have the ability to eradicate the circumstances in which poverty develops ... This is quite false, and your inexperience is showing. Clearly you have never sat down with a woman and said, "you really, really don't want to have this next child. -- you can't afford it, and society can't afford it." Also, who would want to be placed in such a position? Based on the sentence I quoted above, apparently you do. If we can't control population, we can't control poverty. It's as simple as that, and no amount of pontificating will modify that statement about reality. But the population problem is easy to state but impossible to address in anything resembling a fair way, and governments are the least qualified candidates to be in charge of it, as history shows. You need to face the fact that, barring unacceptable measures, measures no civilized people would accept, the problem of poverty is insoluble because the problem of population is insoluble. You don't seem to realize that to "eradicate the circumstances in which poverty develops", as you put it, one would have to abandon any pretense of civilized behavior. That means you haven't thought through your position. “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” -- Anonymous
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Britain had no prominent Liberal Party in the Churchill days, so thanks for making your ignorance of history doubly (misquote and misspoken misquote) and triply (Malthusianism) obvious.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Want to contribute to the discussion? Try addressing the issues, not the participants. And endeavor to say something coherent.
- consonants 13y ago
  I'm the conceited attitude that implies that poverty exists as a function of population and not, you know, because of a class of wealth hoarders.

lutusp 13y ago

> I love threads like this because it brings people like you out of the woodwork. It's like gazing into the abyss. No, it's like examining reality, something people do what they can to avoid. But don't take my word for it -- try to erase poverty. Tell me how it works out. But you know what? It's been tried. The experiment failed. You need to study history as much as the idealistic outlook of some political scientists. > I'd absolutely love for you to provide some examples from history. No, you certainly wouldn't. The histories of communism and socialism will do, but you have to read them with an open mind, and avoid saying "but the circumstances weren't right," or "the right idea but the wrong people," and similar explanations. If you argue in favor of equality of opportunity and the eradication of sexism and racism, you will find me alongside at the barricades in common cause. But if you argue in favor of equality of outcome, that's where we differ -- and history favors my outlook, not yours. > An appeal to nature (an untenable one at that) and a lack of understanding of scope on how natural selection works is just the beginning. You may know 10% of what I know about evolution by natural selection, unless I'm being generous. And no, we can't contradict nature in human society and get away with it. > I will argue that today, we have the ability to eradicate the circumstances in which poverty develops ... This is quite false, and your inexperience is showing. Clearly you have never sat down with a woman and said, "you really, really don't want to have this next child. -- you can't afford it, and society can't afford it." Also, who would want to be placed in such a position? Based on the sentence I quoted above, apparently you do. If we can't control population, we can't control poverty. It's as simple as that, and no amount of pontificating will modify that statement about reality. But the population problem is easy to state but impossible to address in anything resembling a fair way, and governments are the least qualified candidates to be in charge of it, as history shows. You need to face the fact that, barring unacceptable measures, measures no civilized people would accept, the problem of poverty is insoluble because the problem of population is insoluble. You don't seem to realize that to "eradicate the circumstances in which poverty develops", as you put it, one would have to abandon any pretense of civilized behavior. That means you haven't thought through your position. “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” -- Anonymous

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Britain had no prominent Liberal Party in the Churchill days, so thanks for making your ignorance of history doubly (misquote and misspoken misquote) and triply (Malthusianism) obvious.
- lutusp 13y ago
  Want to contribute to the discussion? Try addressing the issues, not the participants. And endeavor to say something coherent.
consonants 13y ago
I'm the conceited attitude that implies that poverty exists as a function of population and not, you know, because of a class of wealth hoarders.