5 ms·
> While you’re at it, stuff this economy. Not this GDP, not this unemployment level: this economy, this financial system that establishes complete social and po
by 7Figures2Commas 13y ago
> While you’re at it, stuff this economy. Not this GDP, not this unemployment level: this economy, this financial system that establishes complete social and political control over us, that conditions us to believe that we don’t deserve basic shelter and clothing and food and education and existence-sustaining medical care unless we throw our lives into vassalage and hope, pray, that the lords don’t fuck with our retirements or our coverages.
How is that not entitlement?
- toomuchtodo 13y agoWould you prefer the word "right" instead?
- 7Figures2Commas 13y agoHow can you make shelter, clothing, food, education and medical care rights without taking away other individual rights? If you believe that everybody has a right to food, are you prepared to take away the property rights of land owners so that you can grow the food? If you believe that everybody has a right to medical care ("medical care" being defined as the services of a doctor), are you prepared to take away the rights of doctors to their labor?
- acadien 13y agoYou're honestly arguing against feeding people? You're trolling, right?
- dreamdu5t 13y agoCool. So you're going to buy me dinner tonight?
- smtddr 13y agoContext is everything. No, you with your interwebz and spare time to be talking on HN isn't going to get a dinner from me. But the guy with his family out in the cold on xmas because bigcorp decided they didn't need him after 39 years and he has no other marketable skill(of whose fault is debatable)? Yeah, I'm buying that family dinner. This kind of thinking, the "them vs us" instead of _US_ as a whole. This is what keeps divisions between us. This is how racism survives, this is how people don't care for the homeless, the poor, the sick, the people in 3rd world countries suffering to provide you your fancy 1st-world luxuries. Screw 'em, right? If they weren't smart(read: lucky) enough to be successful that's their own fault. What, they didn't know enough to learn fancypants.js in 2007? Too bad! What, they thought they should be working at the corp forever and getting a nice retirement package? Pfft, whatever! What are people suppose to do? EVERYONE can't be an entrepreneur. Some(apparently a lot) of people just want to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
- baddox 13y agoIn this case, "context" is a convenient excuse to make a broad sensational statement then claim that the obvious absurd consequences of that statement don't count.
- tomrod 13y agoCan I help you do this? I know a number of families in this kind of situation who would greatly benefit from your kindness!
- brightsize 13y agoAre you starving and desperately in need tonight? Then sure. In fact it would be best if everyone but you (since you're impoverished) banded together to feed you tonight in your desperation, especially if you have a kid in the same plight. We'll call this thing "taxation". What a beautiful name that is. "I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilization."
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Daishiman 13y agoWhat a fucking strawman. It is absolutely obvious that is not what is being talked about.
- paul_f 13y agoWe spend billions on food stamps in the US. Seems we already do feed people.
- toomuchtodo 13y agohttp://money.msn.com/now/post--panera-ceo-gets-hungry-on-food-stamps http://money.msn.com/now/post--panera-ceo-gets-hungry-on-foo... Panera Bread founder and chief executive Ron Shaich has built a fortune selling pumpkin muffins and croissants to America's middle class. But this week, he's trying out the SNAP Challenge in an effort to find out how the other half lives by limiting grocery purchases to the average benefit amount shelled out by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It's not much. A typical food stamp recipient receives just $4.50 per day in food aid, according to Feeding America. Emphasis mine. If we want to lower the cost of food aid, cut out the middle man. Buy the farm land, automate as much of the farming as you can, and directly manage the distribution of the food.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago> If you believe that everybody has a right to food, are you prepared to take away the property rights of land owners so that you can grow the food? Not at all. Discontinue all farm subsidies. Purchase farm land at fire sale prices. Provide jobs to the unemployed through farming what can't be automated, and automate the rest. Food provided. > If you believe that everybody has a right to medical care ("medical care" being defined as the services of a doctor), are you prepared to take away the rights of doctors to their labor? Take their rights away? No. Destroy their income earning ability? Probably. I would provide more rights to nurse practitioners, subsidize their training with job guarantees, and automate most doctor decision making to expert systems. I would invest heavily (through DARPA and the NIH) in continuing the development of vaccines and protocols for chronic illnesses (thereby providing STEM jobs), and leveraging DARPA (again), continue to invest in robotics for robotic surgery apparatus (a la DiVinci Surgical System). Socialism and capitalism may dine together now, at the table of ruthless efficiency.
- 7Figures2Commas 13y ago> Provide jobs to the unemployed through farming... It's actually possible to earn more than minimum wage as a farm laborer, yet there is a farm labor shortage and a drive by the UFW to recruit the unemployed met with astonishingly poor results. See http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Berry-growers-UFW-beg-for-immigration-reform-4723326.php http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Berry-growers-UFW-beg.... > Take their rights away? No. Destroy their income earning ability? Probably. That's a great idea. I'm not sure why I didn't think of it. I guess I forgot that no doctors have ever opted not to accept Medicare. Taking your epiphany a step further, since software is such an important part of life and the economy, maybe we can destroy the income earning ability of software engineers too while we're at it. I'm sure everybody around here would be happy with the arrangement. > I would provide more rights to nurse practitioners, subsidize their training with job guarantees...I would invest heavily (through DARPA and the NIH) in continuing the development of vaccines and protocols for chronic illnesses (thereby providing STEM jobs), and leveraging DARPA (again), continue to invest in robotics for robotic surgery apparatus (a la DiVinci Surgical System). Thank goodness the United States government doesn't have a problem with debt. If it did, all of your investments and guarantees might be impossible to make.
- hackula1 13y agoI have no problem saying that people should have a right to minimum sustenance and medical care. If this was not the case, we would not bother giving either in prison. A doctor in an ER has a moral imperative to not deny life saving treatment due to lack of ability to pay. If someone is literally starving to death, let them eat the farmer's food; that is the price civilization pays for the truly destitute not to overthrow the system. "Rights" are a creation of humans, and we can choose to make them pragmatic and reasonable. The whole modern idea of personal property rights is not even that old.
- ctdonath 13y agoWe give those (minimum sustenance & care) in prison because we absolutely deny the occupants any rights necessary to self-providance thereof. Ancient religious rules required farmers to not take everything from their fields, instead leaving whatever was missed/fallen for the poor to gather for themselves. Notice that it involved the able-bodied poor making the effort to take advantage of benign neglect, and not idly waiting for the farmer to dole out a significant fraction of what he reaped. Contrast this with the modern "basic income guarantee" movement, which requires nothing of the able-bodied "poor" yet requires productive workers hand over a good chunk of their earnings; this new notion is hardly pragmatic and reasonable save to those who would benefit from it (aye, many would be quite satisfied living thereon).
- toomuchtodo 13y agoCan you provide a citation to this? > Contrast this with the modern "basic income guarantee" movement, which requires nothing of the able-bodied "poor" yet requires productive workers hand over a good chunk of their earnings I don't believe anyone has put together how much is going to need to be collected to provide a basic minimum income. Also, if you subsidize energy (renewables), food (subsidized agriculture), and healthcare (all of which is going to benefit the populace as a whole and is therefore a sunk cost), there should be a minimal cash outlay as a basic income.
- zaphar 13y ago
- quasque 13y agoThe way it's usually set up is that collective funding through taxation ensures that providers of these basic necessities are duly compensated. Unless your notion of individual rights includes "the right to not pay tax" it's quite a fair way to provide a social safety net.
- 7Figures2Commas 13y agoThere's just one problem: the cost of providing your social safety net can't exceed what you can reasonably/realistically collect in taxes. Tax revenue, when it's growing, grows linearly. Debt, however, grows exponentially. That explains why the total debt burden of the federal government, if you include unfunded liabilities, exceeds $70 trillion even though federal tax receipts last year were above $2.5 trillion.
- vectorpush 13y agoYour argument essentially boils down to "taxation is a violation of individual rights", since a democratic government tasked with feeding its people would obviously fund production of the food, rather than needlessly trample property rights.
- superuser2 13y ago>are you prepared to take away the property rights of land owners so that you can grow the food? Is that a question? Because damn. The lack of empathy or even respect for people's basic humanity is just astounding. Is it not self-evident that a homeless man's right to be alive and healthy is worth more than my right to the BMW my family could have purchased instead of paying income tax? There are good arguments to be made about the efficacy of the state vs. growth prompted by a free(r) market in actually achieving that goal, sure, but when you make such a plain insinuation that property is worth more than life... I don't get it. I will never understand the ideological fascination with property rights at the expense of all else.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jameskilton 13y agoI'm sorry, are you trying to say that being alive is an entitlement, not a right?
- ctdonath 13y agoYou have the right to not be deprived of life by others. That doesn't mean you have a "right" to compel others to facilitate yours to an arbitrary level of your choice.
- ENOTTY 13y agoHe didn't demand an arbitrary level of support, he wanted a basic level of support.
- ctdonath 13y agoI assume his "basic level of support" was at least at, if not higher than, the USA-defined "poverty line" ... which is above 87% of world incomes (PPP adjusted). He wants others to, under implied or actual threat of gunpoint, be compelled to provide for what he considers basic needs (and much of the world considers luxury) with no consideration of impact on their lives. This because he chose a life of debt and rent, most likely in an area most others could not afford to live in. Am I wrong?
- ENOTTY 13y agoFor a start, I would think a basic level of support would include decent healthcare for his feverish kid that didn't bankrupt the parents. I don't see why the poverty line or the world median income should determine whether that level of support should be granted or withheld. Did his kid choose to get a fever? Did he somehow cause his kid to get a fever by choosing the life of a journalist or choosing to live in some expensive American city?
- paul_f 13y agoStop this. The cost of healthcare is a few dollar co-pay. If you're poor you get Medicaid. If you're older, you get Medicare. So, what exactly is your point? That if you're not poor or old, and you are too lazy or cheap to buy insurance, we should feel sorry you having to pay $100 to have your child taken care of? What an amazing sense of entitlement you have.