Eat the Rich

[87chevy]

^ famine i'm seriously getting worried that that is what danoff truly believes. if you read all his posts, that ideal is in everyone of them. that is what is truly scary, that someone in GTP really thinks rich people, no matter how or why they are rich, are better than any person of less monetary value. His comment on schools clearly shows he has absolutely no regard for those who cannot afford private schools......s is very disturbing to me.

 

[Danoff]

I've got to know. Do you think that rich people are better than poor people? Does their money give them better judgement, better morals and make a better human being?

No.

Would a privately run Fire Department have any more conflict of interest than privately run Hospitals?

The problem with commerical fire departments and ER's is that you can't wait to pay or for the check to clear or whatever to get service. You also can't predict where you'll be when you need an emergency room or a fire department so it's just gotta be covered by the government. That's ok because its a very small role and will have very little impact on the economy. I can't really see any way around a publically funded ER or fire department (or police or military).

However, not only is there a way to have health care in general available only to those who can pay for it, but the US has shown that it works well.

So that only those who can afford it get an education?

More like, you're thrown in jail if you don't pay for an education for your child, but you do have to pay. This is similar to getting thrown in jail if you don't buy food for your kid.

How is providing health care for your fellow man a "sacrifice"?

Because by definition, the rich are the ones paying for the health care. The poor people are the ones exempt from payment because they don't make enough money. If everyone could pay for it, nobody would be advocating that it be public. So the money has to come from somewhere - and it comes from the rich. Forced from them. Their bank accounts are sacrificed for the sake of people who didn't earn enough money to take care of themselves.

Do you advocate the sacrifice of the weak for the strong?

I advocate the sacrifice of no person for no other person.

It is because I have the highest regard for all people that I think this.

 

[Carl.]

Danoff, I'm curious: what do you actually think about NASA being financed by money that people are forced to give away?

 

[87chevy]

ok, how bout this danoff, do you think a school janitors work is worth less than the work of some guy who made a .com and got rich, but the janitor who provides a much needed service that not many people are willing to do, can't afford health insurance or college for his kid, but he works as hard as he can at his job because it's the only one he could get, yet he is to be forgotten and left to suffer because he could not "earn" enough money to pay for things every human being should have a right to?

 

[Duke]

Not in the first post. Well, at least not until you go and edit it in.

Drat. What a shame, eh? But, as Duke says, if one of us doesn't stop, the "discussion" will never stop. Carry on by yourself though, by all means.

You're losing me here. Danoff started a new thread to discuss this particular topic. He's asked a question that is following up the tangent from the original thread - about who deserves earned money. It's the point of this thread. That subject is well illustrated by the example of Universal Health Care. Danoff is not dodging anything or changing the question. You are the one who is being coy and snippy, and to me at least, it's getting tiresome (speaking as a citizen, not as a staff member).

I would request you not use my name as backup if you don't fully understand what I'm saying. I was asking the pair of you to stop going off topic in the other thread. Eventually danoff did so by creating this thread. If you don't wish to discuss it further, don't.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, I'm curious: what do you actually think about NASA being financed by money that people are forced to give away?

-From the sportspeople thread
---------------------------------
The same thing I think about military research, which is really kinda what NASA is.

NASA's budget a microscopic portion of the US government's budget anyway, so it's really not much of an issue. But I support advanced research paid for by the government, as long as it doesn't amount to much money. It's a role that I think the government of a well developed country ought to play because private industry can't really play it.

--------------------------------

You responded to this by asking if I really thought that everything developed by NASA could not be developed by a private corporation.

The answer is no, but that NASA is focused on activities that private organizations have not ventured to, but that offer excellent benefits to the military and to our understand of technology in general. There will be some overlaps with what private industry could do, but I wouldn't impose that restriction on the organization as long as its goal is research and exploration that private companies refuse to do but that offers great benefits to our society.

ok, how bout this danoff, do you think a school janitors work is worth less than the work of some guy who made a .com and got rich

It's not up to me to decide how much a janitor's work is worth. It's up to him and his customers.

 

[Duke]

ok, how bout this danoff, do you think a school janitors work is worth less than the work of some guy who made a .com and got rich, but the janitor who provides a much needed service that not many people are willing to do, can't afford health insurance or college for his kid, but he works as hard as he can at his job because it's the only one he could get, yet he is to be forgotten and left to suffer because he could not "earn" enough money to pay for things every human being should have a right to?

If not many people are willing to do a janitor's job, a janitor would be able to get rich doing it. There's a flaw in your assumption there.

Now, to get to the real crux of the biscuit, your line in red: What defines a right?

Does needing something give you a right to have it provided for you?

No. Why should it?

You have a right to make what you can of your life, without interference or coersion. Do not confuse this with an entitlement to have a life made for you. Humans need food and shelter... but where does that dictate that food and shelter must be supplied? Why should my need for something dictate a burden on you to supply it for me?

It shouldn't. I can live with that. It's my life to deal with, after all; not yours. You've got one of your own to take care of.

 

[87chevy]

Okay, famine I've fallen to the dark side, they danoff, neon_duke have convinced me: Why the F^#$ should i care about anybody else but myself? I shouldn't! They have made it clear to me. Every argument i made other wise they perfectly shot down! I have absolutely no obligation to help anybody but myself! So screw everybody else. DOWN WITH SCHOOLS! DOWN WITH WELFARE! DOWN WITH MEDICARE! They are right, if you can't afford it, then you don't deserve it!

 

[///M-Spec]

The problem with phrases like "welfare mothers with 6 kids and no job can just suck my arse." (incidentally, kudos on not saying ass... ) is that, whilst it's very easy to agree, we aren't privy to the whole story....

The type of welfare mother I'm talking about is the chronic abuser of the welfare system. The type of woman who determines that her government can pay her more for having babies than she can earn at a minimum wage job. So instead of bettering herself and her family by aspiring to more than shuffling burgers at Mikey D's, she <sarcasm>sits on her ass all day and collects money</sarcasm>... hey, just like 87Chevy said you can do! This the problem with the welfare state. Too many people decide it is easier to collect the check than work to better their situation. Since you can't cut them off (because that would be 'inhumane'), you just perpetuate the problem by incenting laziness.


M

 

[87chevy]

^ hey, don't be putting words in my mouth. You can either qoute what i said or not. but don't be putting words in my mouth.

 

[Carl.]

Does needing something give you a right to have it provided for you?

No. Why should it?

Ok, so what's different from having the need to be protected or helped in case of a fire? That's a need others are forced to pay for, isn'it?

I'm wondering if it's the same in other country: here i may be put in jail if I'm the first to drive by a car accident, if I don't stop to provide help and someone dies. What excuse would I have? I was late? I should be free to decide how do I spend my deserved free time after a workday? That won't cut it. I'd be found guilty. Everyone agrees so far? So why should a population should be able to close their eyes on some of their citizens in need for health treatments? Because they earned their money, so it's theirs?

 

[Danoff]

So screw everybody else. DOWN WITH SCHOOLS! DOWN WITH WELFARE! DOWN WITH MEDICARE!

First of all, welcome to the dark side 87chevy.

Secondly, now that you're one of us, I'll let you in our way.

You don't have to say screw everybody else. In fact, you can do as I did and say that you hold everyone else in the highest regard. So high that you want to protect them from having to give away thier work to others. You hold them in such high esteem as to allow them to control their own lives and not be compelled by anyone else's need.

So screw everybody else is hardly the motto here. The motto is respect everyone else.

Also, down with schools is a little general. You should say down with public schools.

Anyway I think you're getting the hang of it. You'll be a full fledged member in no time.

 

[Duke]

Okay, famine I've fallen to the dark side, they danoff, neon_duke have convinced me: Why the F^#$ should i care about anybody else but myself? I shouldn't! They have made it clear to me. Every argument i made other wise they perfectly shot down! I have absolutely no obligation to help anybody but myself! So screw everybody else. DOWN WITH SCHOOLS! DOWN WITH WELFARE! DOWN WITH MEDICARE! They are right, if you can't afford it, then you don't deserve it!

But you're mistaking care about with be obligated to.

I care what happens to people. I hate to see injustice and wrong done to the undeserving. I donate a portion of my income to charities that support people I care for. I even happily pay taxes to support a government that protects the rights of people from those who would infringe on them.

But I do it by my choice. And I don't ask anything of you or anyone else in the world.

Before the rise of New Liberalism (which is very different from Classical Liberalism as practiced by Jefferson and others) in the late 1800s and early 1900s, there were many private, voluntary, mutual aid societies. These were subscription services where people of a particular neighborhood, trade, nationality, etc. banded together to insure themselves and provide for the needs of members who were disabled or unemployed. They worked quite well, in fact, before the government became involved and decided that they knew better than people did, and could do pretty much what they wished. That rendered the private societies redundant, not to mention harder to maintain due to increased taxes.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, so what's different from having the need to be protected or helped in case of a fire? That's a need others are forced to pay for, isn'it?

We also need to be protected by a military, that's an even stronger argument isn't it? But both are instances that do not lend themselves to private ownership (unless maybe duke can educate me on how a private fire dept would work). Plus, the fire department isn't just protecting you from your fire, they also protect your neighbor from your fire. In a private system, there is no incentive for you to pay for your fire department, because if anyone pays for it, the fire department is going to have to come out and put out your fire anyway to protect the people who do pay for it.

I'm wondering if it's the same in other country: here i may be put in jail if I'm the first to drive by a car accident, if I don't stop to provide help and someone dies. What excuse would I have? I was late? I should be free to decide how do I spend my deserved free time after a workday? That won't cut it. I'd be found guilty. Everyone agrees so far? So why should a population should be able to close their eyes on some of their citizens in need for health treatments? Because they earned their money, so it's theirs?

In the US, there is no law that says you have to help anyone. Thank god for that. I would hate to live in your country where I was forced to get out and help someone or be put in jail. That's rediculous! Now, I would certainly get out and help someone if I came across them, but I'd hate to be forced to do that.

 

[Carl.]

The type of welfare mother I'm talking about is the chronic abuser of the welfare system. The type of woman who determines that her government can pay her more for having babies than she can earn at a minimum wage job. So instead of bettering herself and her family by aspiring to more than shuffling burgers at Mikey D's, she <sarcasm>sits on her ass all day and collects money</sarcasm>... hey, just like 87Chevy said you can do! This the problem with the welfare state. Too many people decide it is easier to collect the check than work to better their situation. Since you can't cut them off (because that would be 'inhumane'), you just perpetuate the problem by incenting laziness.


M

That's a very small minority, and one that should be taken care of. Here you really can't enjoy and barely afford living (unless you're a vegetable) on welfare, unless you're also working while you're on it, which is more frequent. This is the most common abuse of welfare and it should be strictly enforced. And unless a person is invalid, he should be forced to do some work to receive welfare, would it be to pick up trash on the ground in a park or anything as simple as that. It would help to reduce the costs and prevent a lot of abuse. In that case it would be more constructive than to push these people in ghettos.

 

[Duke]

Ok, so what's different from having the need to be protected or helped in case of a fire? That's a need others are forced to pay for, isn'it?

Emergency services are something that can be provided so much more efficiently by a centralized system that it makes economic sense to have one. Did you know that originally, all fire companies were privately run by insurance companies? If you had State Farm's insurance, when your house caught on fire, they would send around their fire team as a means of limiting their own loss in what they would have to reimburse you for. This actually made sense from the insurance companies' standpoint, but in a larger, more densely populated age it cannot provide efficient enough coverage. So it's to my economic benefit to pay taxes that ensure fire and police protection for me.

Again, it's like national defense: I could hire an F-16 to patrol the sky over my house, but that would bankrupt me pretty quickly.

 

[///M-Spec]

ah come on! most of those benefits are a JOKE! If we took away the power of senators and reps to pay themselves what ever they want from OUR money, that would surely free up some funding to make a more effective Medicare and Veteran health care.

If someone made a good argument to me that the VA health care system needs more money, I wouldn't oppose that.

But seeing how I do not support universal healthcare, I feel the current system for non-veterans is more than enough.

^ hey, don't be putting words in my mouth. You can either qoute what i said or not. but don't be putting words in my mouth.

Okay. Sorry. I just thought it was too ironic to pass up. You said earlier that rich people don't do anything but sit on their butts all day and get money, yet in reality, poor people really CAN sit on their asses all day and Uncle Sucker, er I mean Sam will pay them. Don't you find that the least bit funny?


M

 

[Danoff]

And unless a person is invalid, he should be forced to do some work to receive welfare, would it be to pick up trash on the ground in a park or anything as simple as that.

Why not just have the person get a job to get money. That's what you're saying here, the person should have to work for money. Well, that happens in the free market, you don't need government in the loop whatsoever.

By the way, nobody should ever be forced to work... ever. You've put your finger here on the very heart of the problem, you don't think someone should get something for nothing. Me neither.

 

[Carl.]

In the US, there is no law that says you have to help anyone. Thank god for that. I would hate to live in your country where I was forced to get out and help someone or be put in jail. That's rediculous! Now, I would certainly get out and help someone if I came across them, but I'd hate to be forced to do that.

I don't believe any sane person wouldn't help in such a case. But if your son or daughter died because a moron that was late and didn't stop by to help, you'd simply say that it's ok because he's not forced to assist? And provided that there is now such law, you wouldn't do anything?

 

[Danoff]

I don't believe any sane person would not help in such a case.

Which is why there is no need for the law.

But if your son or daughter died because a moron that was late and didn't stop by to help, you'd simply say that it's ok because he's not forced to assist? And provided that there is now such law, you wouldn't do anything?

I wouldn't go advocate that the law be put in place if that's what you're suggesting. Would I be upset? Yes. Would I think that the person had thier priorities screwed up? Yup. Would I have wanted him to be forced to help? No.

 

[///M-Spec]

You don't have to say screw everybody else. In fact, you can do as I did and say that you hold everyone else in the highest regard. So high that you want to protect them from having to give away thier work to others. You hold them in such high esteem as to allow them to control their own lives and not be compelled by anyone else's need.

So screw everybody else is hardly the motto here. The motto is respect everyone else.

DING! DING! Thank you for saying that. I can't really agree with this enough.

Why do people automatically assume that people who perfer not to be COMPELLED to help someone in need wouldn't DO IT OUT OF THE KINDNESS OF THEIR OWN HEARTS if it were not mandatory?


M

 

[///M-Spec]

That's a very small minority, and one that should be taken care of.

I don't think so, but I have no data to prove it at the moment. I'll let you know if I find any.


M

 

[Duke]

And to take it a step further, why do people automatically assume that someone who is interested in keeping all of their own earnings is also interested in cheating or stealing someone else's? There is a third alternative, you know, a little thing I like to call free trade.

 

[ledhed]

I really do not believe that a strict capitalist society will work in the US. As a philosophy it sounds good but in the best interest of the country I feel its unworkable. You will have more civil unrest as a result of the class system that you will set up , the haves and have nots, if you will. The lack of a public education will create even more stupid bastards then we have now, and in a competitive world trade enviroment that will leave the US at more of a disadvantage than it has now. Health care will always be an issue as long as it is not affordable to everyone ..note I say affordable not FREE. In a country as great as the US no person should be without health care.
now for the other side of the coin..the peoples republic of New Jersey's governor is buying adds that ask for the "people" to call their reps with support for his "fair" tax reform bill that cuts property taxes for the poor and raises taxes for " millionares" those making over 500,000 a year who can most afford it..wtf is fair about that ? And why would a damm Governor put that in a radio add ? You make money give me some you can afford it ! Sounds like armed robbery to me.
So as you can see I am quite the befuddled one. On one hand I do not want to see homeless people and people suffering without health care and more stupid bastards and on the other hand I have no desire to eat the rich or even beat them up a little.
A flat tax to all wage earners seems to me to be the only fair way . And let the VOTERS decide who is administating the programs in the most efficient way.
But do not tell me that a poor person should not have access to health care or that people should be living on the street or be denied an education.
I'll grab my guns and will go to the hills before I let my country sink to that level..or maybe just vote.
Ammo's getting expensive and gas is 2.30 a gallon and the hills are getting farther..

 

[Famine]

A flat tax to all wage earners seems to me to be the only fair way . And let the VOTERS decide who is administating the programs in the most efficient way.
But do not tell me that a poor person should not have access to health care or that people should be living on the street or be denied an education.
I'll grab my guns and will go to the hills before I let my country sink to that level..or maybe just vote.
Ammo's getting expensive and gas is 2.30 a gallon and the hills are getting farther..

You're welcome over here, led, where that happens. Although you can't have your gun at all, and petrol is $5 per US gallon.

Duke - sorry. I thought when you said I was doing my part to "prolong this needlessly" it was a hint to stop prolonging it.


So, under the strict capitalist plan, a rich woman who was being a surrogate to a poor woman's child would be entitled to health care for the foetus while it was in her, but the child would not be entitled to any health care once it came out because it's biological mother was poor? Sounds crazy to me.

 

[Danoff]

So, under the strict capitalist plan, a rich woman who was being a surrogate to a poor woman's child would be entitled to health care for the foetus while it was in her, but the child would not be entitled to any health care once it came out because it's biological mother was poor?

The child is never entitled to health care. Nobody is. That is, unless the child has no parent, in which case I would approve of state care. Children cannot take care of themselves afterall.

So as you can see I am quite the befuddled one. On one hand I do not want to see homeless people and people suffering without health care and more stupid bastards and on the other hand I have no desire to eat the rich or even beat them up a little.

You see the logic, but you lack the faith in humanity to take the next step. You're almost one with the dark side, but not quite. You have to have faith in humanity to take care of themselves, and if they do not want to, you have to be willing to let them hurt themselves.

However, you don't have to worry about more stupid bastards because school should be mandatory... private but mandatory. Just like food and clothes are for children.

 

[Famine]

The child is never entitled to health care. Nobody is. That is, unless the child has no parent, in which case I would approve of state care. Children cannot take care of themselves afterall.

Would you be happy to see a hospital deny care to a baby with meningitis because the mother that brought it in was poor? Would you approve of the medical staff doing nothing and watching it die because they are doing the job they were paid to do by richer people? Would you approve of the woman suing any doctor that helped her child out of the kindness of their heart (and Hippocratic oath, in which doctors are advised that inaction is as bad as inflicting injury) if the child died after their ministrations?

 

[HareTurtle]

I really do not believe that a strict capitalist society will work in the US. As a philosophy it sounds good but in the best interest of the country I feel its unworkable. You will have more civil unrest as a result of the class system that you will set up , the haves and have nots, if you will.

I think ledhed has nearly got it right here (though his post goes somewhat downhill after.) No, I do not believe in "sacrificing" the strong for the weak. Nicely loaded question, by the way. But I would argue that it is an essential role of government to mitigate the disparity between the strong and the weak. Why? Because, left to their own devices, the strong will become stronger, and the weak weaker. In the long run, this is not a healthy development for either. Look at history. With few exceptions, societies organize themselves into pyramids, with a few at the top, and many at the bottom. This is, no doubt, inevitable. The trouble starts when the disparity between the top and the bottom becomes too large; one Pharaoh, a million slaves, or, as a more modern example, a handful of landowners and a million people cutting sugar cane for a dollar a day. The eventual result of the concentration of more and more wealth and power in the hands of a few can be summed up in one word; Guillotine!! In the long run, the weak, who are many, will topple the strong, who are few, by violence. And the cycle will begin again. The genius, such as it is, of the "American" system, is not in a reliance solely on capitalism or free enterprise, but in coupling these concepts with the idea of "democracy".

the peoples republic of New Jersey's governor is buying adds that ask for the "people" to call their reps with support for his "fair" tax reform bill that cuts property taxes for the poor and raises taxes for " millionares" those making over 500,000 a year who can most afford it..wtf is fair about that ? And why would a damm Governor put that in a radio add ?

Why indeed? Because the strong are few, and the weak are many, and those many can all vote. This combination of capitalism and democracy creates a fluid dynamic. While the very wealthy are always in the "strong" camp, and the very poor are always on the "weak" side, a lot of people in the middle have a foot in each camp. When more people see themselves as "strong", laws are enacted to benefit the strong, such as reductions in the maximum tax rate on capital gains, or elimination of the inheritance tax. When more people see themselves as "weak", laws are enacted to benefit the weak, such as the 40 hour work week, with 1.5x overtime, or a prescription drug benefit. If the system works well, an equilibrium is achieved, and the cycle of concentration of power and subsequent revolution is avoided. This is of course a simplification of a highly complex social interaction. People may side with one party on taxes, and another on health care, depending on their own circumstances.

I'll end with a hypothetical or two:

Was it fair or just for King George and the English nobility to be denied the money that they earned from their ownership of the American colonies, when those colonies revolted and became the US?

Should an individual whose intellect has deteriorated due to exposure to Ayn Rand be denied psychological counselling, just because his .com has gone bust and he can't afford it?

 

[Famine]

Top stuff. Every word.

 

[87chevy]

Again, it's like national defense: I could hire an F-16 to patrol the sky over my house, but that would bankrupt me pretty quickly.

So? Why should we care? Why Am I obligated to pay taxes so you can be protected? If you can't afford it your not entitled to it... right? It's not my fault you can't afford personal security.