Is poverty a moral failing...

Post Reply
User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 10122
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Pre-Modernist
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by rainbow » Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:52 am

Hermit wrote:
Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:Alternatively, he could join a libertarian party - or start one himself - that will turn the USA into a nation run strictly on his principles. What could go wrong with his endeavour if it is as rational and attractive as he says? I mean, the idle dependent class is not numerous enough to outvote Ayn Rand style libertarians, is it, and Trump's victory has proven that the power of the communist media to mislead the electorate can be overcome. In fact, the promise to all but abolish taxation must be irresistible to the vast majority of the US voters. Once all social programs are funded exclusively by voluntary contributions there is no need for taxation bar the military, which in 2015 amounted to a trifling 1859 dollars per capita. With the efficiency gains of capitalism under a libertarian regime that amount would probably be halved. Every rational voter is bound to vote Libertarian. The idle dependent class would be left out in the cold, as would any government that depends on the idle dependent class. Easy peasy.
Actually, that's the problem. The idle dependent class almost large enough to outvote everybody else.
Almost, huh? So you should succeed in creating a libertarian regime of your description, if only just. Why haven't you?

Also, please furnish some evidence supporting your assertion that idle dependent class is of the size you claim. I'd like to see a definition of "idle dependent class" first, such as, say, "idle" means "not working for one's upkeep" and "dependent" means "relying on government largesse to survive". Then you need to provide links to statistics that show just how many people in the US are not working for their upkeep and are relying on government largesse to survive. If the figures you are to link to are correct, I shall agree that the idle dependent class almost large enough to outvote everybody else. Until then, I won't. So go to it.
You are making it too easy.
In the mind of the Sith, anyone who disagrees is idle and dependent, ergo the vast majority.
aingira usaina duzu

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 21691
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Hermit » Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:16 am

rainbow wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:Alternatively, he could join a libertarian party - or start one himself - that will turn the USA into a nation run strictly on his principles. What could go wrong with his endeavour if it is as rational and attractive as he says? I mean, the idle dependent class is not numerous enough to outvote Ayn Rand style libertarians, is it, and Trump's victory has proven that the power of the communist media to mislead the electorate can be overcome. In fact, the promise to all but abolish taxation must be irresistible to the vast majority of the US voters. Once all social programs are funded exclusively by voluntary contributions there is no need for taxation bar the military, which in 2015 amounted to a trifling 1859 dollars per capita. With the efficiency gains of capitalism under a libertarian regime that amount would probably be halved. Every rational voter is bound to vote Libertarian. The idle dependent class would be left out in the cold, as would any government that depends on the idle dependent class. Easy peasy.
Actually, that's the problem. The idle dependent class almost large enough to outvote everybody else.
Almost, huh? So you should succeed in creating a libertarian regime of your description, if only just. Why haven't you?

Also, please furnish some evidence supporting your assertion that idle dependent class is of the size you claim. I'd like to see a definition of "idle dependent class" first, such as, say, "idle" means "not working for one's upkeep" and "dependent" means "relying on government largesse to survive". Then you need to provide links to statistics that show just how many people in the US are not working for their upkeep and are relying on government largesse to survive. If the figures you are to link to are correct, I shall agree that the idle dependent class almost large enough to outvote everybody else. Until then, I won't. So go to it.
You are making it too easy.
In the mind of the Sith, anyone who disagrees is idle and dependent, ergo the vast majority.
I am asking for the verifiable number based on an empirically based definition of "idle dependent class". If he can't come up with one that is "almost large enough to outvote everybody else", he will have failed. Ignoring my challenge or evading it by continuing to indulge in more ex recto waffle are two other ways of failing. He is very good at all of them, as L'Emmerdeur has recently demonstrated more than once, when he challenged Seth's inability to provide facts for his assertions.

I note he also avoided commenting on this post altogether. If his idea of a libertarian regime was so great, it is somewhat more than puzzling why it has not been turned into a reality. After all, the almost large enough to outvote everybody else size of the idle dependent class is by his own assertion only almost large enough to outvote everybody else.
Hermit wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:15 pm
People who quote themselves are either neurotic arseholes or inveterate trolls or both.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 27184
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:10 pm

Hermit wrote:...
I note he also avoided commenting on this post altogether. If his idea of a libertarian regime was so great, it is somewhat more than puzzling why it has not been turned into a reality. After all, the almost large enough to outvote everybody else size of the idle dependent class is by his own assertion only almost large enough to outvote everybody else.
How could a Libertarian Party ever get anything done when the individual freedom of its members outweighs the authority of its leadership and when the process used in decision-making would be little more than forceful coercion upon those that did not agree with those decisions? Perhaps if an individual Libertarian doesn't like what the party is doing they get a refund and a twenty-minute head start?

I still don't know what Libertarianism thinks about poverty and the poor from the Libertarian perspective, which I am calling the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism (not only because it describes the example of Libertarianism provided here perfectly, but also because I enjoy the irony of its acronym). In a Libertarian world is poverty abolished, or just an irrelevant concept? Is everybody born equally impoverished and must therefore, by their own hand alone, elevate themselves into security, or die? Is poverty actually a good thing, and if so why and for whom? Is theft a legitimate alternative to starvation? Is violence a legitimate means of securing personal resources? When one has to endure a paucity of necessary resources and/or access to necessary resources, and has little or no opportunity to mitigate that shortfall, should one just throw oneself off a cliff, or submit oneself to slavery, or go on a rampage and hope for the best? In such circumstances, where the probability of survival is low, could a parent sell their children to ensure their own survival?

I feel that there are two main cognitive biases inherent in all proto-anarchist political philosophies: the first is that those who expound the virtues of an anarchist utopia always assume that they will come out on the positive side of the equation; the second is that anarchist utopians generally assume that everything will pretty much remain as it is except that they will have more individual freedom. This is aside from the obvious fact that proto-anarchist political philosophies fundamentally release one from any obligation to give a shit about anyone but oneself (and that anyone who doesn't agree with it is automatically rendered a vile Marxist enemy of freedom of course!).
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 52334
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:30 pm

Why are you asking Seth? He's not a libertarian, as I've shown numerous times in the past.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Forty Two » Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:59 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:...and if so, for and/of whom?
It can be, depending on one's definition of poverty and the basis upon which one rests moral judgments.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 27184
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:01 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:...and if so, for and/of whom?
It can be, depending on one's definition of poverty and the basis upon which one rests moral judgments.
From page 1.
Brian Peacock wrote:To start with, 'poverty' is a pretty nebulous term. One can think of it as a lack of resources (i.e. a lack of money, clothing, housing, food, etc) and one can think of it as a lack of opportunity or access to resources (to money, clothing, housing, food etc). In general terms though it clearly represents the deprivation of necessary goods, either of the personal or social kind, or both. The topic title and first post speak to the nature of that deprivation, to its cause; and to responsibility and where it lies...
By my lights, poverty isn't just or merely about income - though that's not to say that income isn't like a pretty big deal and all that.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 27184
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:26 pm

pErvin wrote:Why are you asking Seth? He's not a libertarian, as I've shown numerous times in the past.
Oh. I thought he thought Libertariansim was like totally boss.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:43 pm

Hermit wrote:
Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:Alternatively, he could join a libertarian party - or start one himself - that will turn the USA into a nation run strictly on his principles. What could go wrong with his endeavour if it is as rational and attractive as he says? I mean, the idle dependent class is not numerous enough to outvote Ayn Rand style libertarians, is it, and Trump's victory has proven that the power of the communist media to mislead the electorate can be overcome. In fact, the promise to all but abolish taxation must be irresistible to the vast majority of the US voters. Once all social programs are funded exclusively by voluntary contributions there is no need for taxation bar the military, which in 2015 amounted to a trifling 1859 dollars per capita. With the efficiency gains of capitalism under a libertarian regime that amount would probably be halved. Every rational voter is bound to vote Libertarian. The idle dependent class would be left out in the cold, as would any government that depends on the idle dependent class. Easy peasy.
Actually, that's the problem. The idle dependent class almost large enough to outvote everybody else.
Almost, huh? So you should succeed in creating a libertarian regime of your description, if only just. Why haven't you?
We did, it was called the United States of America pre-Progressivism.
Also, please furnish some evidence supporting your assertion that idle dependent class is of the size you claim.
Well, it came within a gnat's whisker of winning the last presidential election.
I'd like to see a definition of "idle dependent class" first, such as, say, "idle" means "not working for one's upkeep" and "dependent" means "relying on government largesse to survive". Then you need to provide links to statistics that show just how many people in the US are not working for their upkeep and are relying on government largesse to survive. If the figures you are to link to are correct, I shall agree that the idle dependent class almost large enough to outvote everybody else. Until then, I won't. So go to it.
Their numbers don't have to be large enough to outvote everyone else, there only has to be enough of them to tip the delicate balance between Marxism and Capitalism towards the dependency of Marxism, and we are perilously close to that tipping-point. Fortunately we dodged that bullet for the next four years, but allowing the dependent class to vote is an extremely dangerous proposition. My opinion is that if you take money from the federal government by way of welfare or other social support programs, you don't get to vote for anything until you get off public assistance. There's absolutely no moral or rational reason why we should allow those who are living on our dime to have a say in how much of our tax money they get to take from us.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:24 pm

Brian Peacock wrote: How could a Libertarian Party ever get anything done when the individual freedom of its members outweighs the authority of its leadership and when the process used in decision-making would be little more than forceful coercion upon those that did not agree with those decisions?
That is something of a conundrum. The problem of how to get to a Libertarian society is a different debate from how a Libertarian society functions however.
Perhaps if an individual Libertarian doesn't like what the party is doing they get a refund and a twenty-minute head start?
Again, any Libertarian can freely bind themselves to an obligation, it's called "freedom of contract," and contracts are enforceable. Thus, if you "join" the Libertarian party you agree to support it and its platform and candidates and, at least morally, you are obligated to do so. The essential component of this is that your membership is voluntary, not compulsory.
I still don't know what Libertarianism thinks about poverty and the poor from the Libertarian perspective,
It thinks people should be given a hand up not a hand out. It thinks people usually act in their own rational self interest and in doing so they recognize that legions of beggars and starving people on the sidewalks is not good for business or morality and so it encourages Libertarians to contribute to caring for those who are in need. But it doesn't DEMAND that they do so, and it permits each individual to decide which persons and to what extent they will grant their support. It also allows them to band together and voluntarily bind themselves to a contract that requires them to pay a certain amount into a fund for the poor and sick and appoints an agency to administer those funds. Again, however, they do so only voluntarily. No Libertarian can be compelled to give to others against his or her will. This does not mean that Libertarians are not charitable, altruistic or that they do not act out of rational self-interest in giving to others, it just means that they refuse to let someone else dictate to them how much and to whom they will give.

This is a point I've made many times that has been routinely ignored by all the liberals here. The common strawman condemnation of Libertarians is that they are greedy and uncaring, which is absolutely not the case. They make this claim merely because Libertarians object to coercive, non-voluntary redistributive taxation. But an objection to such coercive redistribution is not the same thing as not caring about the poor and sick at all.

Libertarians merely require that they be ASKED to contribute, and that they get to determine for themselves how much they will contribute and to whom they will contribute it. They don't dispute the need to care for the poor, the elderly or the sick.
which I am calling the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchism (not only because it describes the example of Libertarianism provided here perfectly, but also because I enjoy the irony of its acronym).
Just another Alinsky slur is all.

In a Libertarian world is poverty abolished, or just an irrelevant concept?
Neither.
Is everybody born equally impoverished and must therefore, by their own hand alone, elevate themselves into security, or die?


No.
Is poverty actually a good thing, and if so why and for whom?
It's not a good thing, it just is. There will always be those who have more than others, that's the nature of humanity. Unlike socialists, who (fallaciously) insist that it's "not fair" that some people have more than others and justify stealing from the rich to give to the poor, Libertarians believe that what belongs to the individual is his, to dispose of as he pleases. This does not mean he cannot dispose of it charitably to the poor, merely that the poor cannot use the force of government to take it from him for their convenience.
Is theft a legitimate alternative to starvation?
No.
Is violence a legitimate means of securing personal resources?
No.
When one has to endure a paucity of necessary resources and/or access to necessary resources, and has little or no opportunity to mitigate that shortfall, should one just throw oneself off a cliff, or submit oneself to slavery, or go on a rampage and hope for the best?
One should ask for assistance and demonstrate worthiness of the contribution of the labor of others.
In such circumstances, where the probability of survival is low, could a parent sell their children to ensure their own survival?
No.

I feel that there are two main cognitive biases inherent in all proto-anarchist political philosophies: the first is that those who expound the virtues of an anarchist utopia always assume that they will come out on the positive side of the equation;
Nonsense. The philosophy of Libertarianism, which is not anarchistic at all, speaks to the morality of the imposition of force or fraud by one upon another. It holds that it is immoral to initiate force or fraud, no matter what the supposed justification. This is based on the fundamental principle of personal autonomy and responsibility. I am free, and I am responsible for my actions and the consequences thereof. You are free and you are responsible for your actions and the consequences thereof. So long as I do not initiate force or fraud against you, I cannot be made responsible for your actions or the consequences thereof and vice-versa.

While I cannot be compelled to come to your aid, I cannot be prevented from doing so. All that is required of you is that you ASK for aid and not initiate force or fraud if its denied to you.
the second is that anarchist utopians generally assume that everything will pretty much remain as it is except that they will have more individual freedom. This is aside from the obvious fact that proto-anarchist political philosophies fundamentally release one from any obligation to give a shit about anyone but oneself (and that anyone who doesn't agree with it is automatically rendered a vile Marxist enemy of freedom of course!).
Libertarianism denys an obligation to give a shit about anyone else. By "obligation" I mean a requirement for compulsory action imposed by an outside force compelling the Libertarian to do something or give something to someone else, or to society, without his or her consent.

But your construction falsely presumes that one person has an "obligation" to "give a shit" about another without any foundation or argument as to how this obligation came into being. You simply assume that it exists because your socialist lenses don't allow you to see things any other way. And it's not just a moral argument that people "ought to give a shit about others" that you're stating, you state it as a fact of nature that this "obligation to give a shit" exists and is therefore enforceable by society.

This is the false presumption of socialism upon which all the rest is founded, that every person owes a duty of care to every other person, and that this duty of care can be enforced by the use of force and government power even if some particular individual denies that duty.

But socialists never reason out whether this duty actually exists or whether it's simply a moral imperative that is held as an a priori assumption.

I think that nature makes it pretty damned clear that there is no "natural law" consisting of a duty of care to every other person. This duty of care is a fiction created by socialist philosophy because it's a convenient way for the have-nots to justify their theft from the haves. Marx was quite clear about it in the Communist Manifesto. He didn't give a rat's ass whether or not the bourgeoisie merchant class had come by its wealth honestly, through its own labor and risk, he made the a priori claim that wealth in and of itself was proof of theft, and that therefore taking that wealth was not also theft, but the righting of a wrong against the working class.

This is where this vacuous presumption of a duty of care comes from, and it's complete bullshit.

From the purely scientific aspect, nature doesn't impose any duty of care, it just says "adapt or die." Social behavior that may LOOK LIKE expressions of a duty of care are actually nothing of the kind, they are simply beneficial evolutionary behaviors engaged in because they are iterations of rational self-interest on the part of the individual organism.

In other words, voluntary participation in socially beneficial actions that enhance the survival of the species.

Whereas socialism insists that there is a duty of care for everyone in equal measure and that this creates a right to compel participation in socialism on the part of the collective, nature does not function this way. The lone organism that does not choose, out of rational self-interest, to participate in the communal activities is simply excluded from those communal activities by the others and must therefore suffer the consequences of its own actions against rational self-interest.

This is the fundamental nature of Libertarian philosophy. Libertarianism holds that communal action is a good thing because it is usually in the individual's rational self-interest to participate in the community in positive ways because when the community prospers, so does the individual. But Libertarianism does not REQUIRE the individual to participate in the community, and it does not REQUIRE that he participate at any particular level if he does. Those decisions are his.

On the other hand, one who does not choose to participate in the obligations of making the community function can justifiably be denied the benefits that such participation brings by the other members of the community. So any "obligation" to participate is actually nothing more than voluntary participation out of rational self-interest because not to participate in a socially-acceptable manner means being excluded from the community.

Socialism presumes an a priori obligation to participate and punishes those who refuse are forced to participate even if they choose not to use the benefits, and it presumes that the individual owes a duty of care (labor) to the collective and that this obligation can be forcibly extracted.

Libertarianism presumes that rational beings will generally act out of rational self-interest and will choose to participate voluntarily in the community because it is in their interests to do so. But if the individual does not wish to so participate, Libertarianism respects his right to be a lone wolf and do as he pleases, so long as he does not initiate force or fraud on another, including by consuming or using community resources that he has not contributed to.

Socialism is compulsion.

Libertarianism is persuasion.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Forty Two » Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:42 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:...and if so, for and/of whom?
It can be, depending on one's definition of poverty and the basis upon which one rests moral judgments.
From page 1.
Brian Peacock wrote:To start with, 'poverty' is a pretty nebulous term. One can think of it as a lack of resources (i.e. a lack of money, clothing, housing, food, etc) and one can think of it as a lack of opportunity or access to resources (to money, clothing, housing, food etc). In general terms though it clearly represents the deprivation of necessary goods, either of the personal or social kind, or both. The topic title and first post speak to the nature of that deprivation, to its cause; and to responsibility and where it lies...
By my lights, poverty isn't just or merely about income - though that's not to say that income isn't like a pretty big deal and all that.
Poverty is often viewed relatively, where in a first world country poverty means one thing, whereas in a third world country it means quite another. As someone who has traveled in the third world, I know this distinction to be true, and poverty such as one would find in Africa and South America simply does not exist in the first world.

However, in my view the mere fact of being poor is not necessarily a moral failing. The moral failing, according to my moral compass, comes from the individual in question. A person can have moral failings; however, an event or an incident or a circumstance has no morality. To explain, I would say that poverty, like a car accident, is not necessarily a moral failing. The mere fact of being poor, or being in a car accident, does not say anything about the morality of the participants. What says something about the participants is their own mental state and their own actions.

So, a person who intentionally drives recklessly, with a view toward doing harm to people, is behaving in an immoral fashion. That's based on the premise that to do good and to refrain from harming people without justification is a moral good. This is sort of an underlying axiom - defining as "bad" actions which are intended to or recklessly likely to injure or harm another person, an animal or property. So, by my morality, a person in a car accident is immoral if he is intentionally harming others. Other persons in the accident who were minding their own business are not morally culpable.

Likewise, a poor person could be immoral if he is behaving immorally. If he is acting such that he harms others through lethargy, laziness, or ill-intent. Like, if he has a family to support, and through sloth and such just descends into poverty. However, a person who becomes poor despite reasonable efforts and good intent, is not morally culpable.

So, "poverty" itself could be a morality issue, but it would be the person and his actions which determine his moral culpability.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 64057
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by JimC » Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:18 pm

Seth wrote:

...My opinion...
Which is worth sweet fuck all...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:24 pm

JimC wrote:
Seth wrote:

...My opinion...
Which is worth sweet fuck all...
Insults from someone like you are high praise indeed.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 21691
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Hermit » Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:10 pm

Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:Alternatively, he could join a libertarian party - or start one himself - that will turn the USA into a nation run strictly on his principles. What could go wrong with his endeavour if it is as rational and attractive as he says? I mean, the idle dependent class is not numerous enough to outvote Ayn Rand style libertarians, is it, and Trump's victory has proven that the power of the communist media to mislead the electorate can be overcome. In fact, the promise to all but abolish taxation must be irresistible to the vast majority of the US voters. Once all social programs are funded exclusively by voluntary contributions there is no need for taxation bar the military, which in 2015 amounted to a trifling 1859 dollars per capita. With the efficiency gains of capitalism under a libertarian regime that amount would probably be halved. Every rational voter is bound to vote Libertarian. The idle dependent class would be left out in the cold, as would any government that depends on the idle dependent class. Easy peasy.
Actually, that's the problem. The idle dependent class almost large enough to outvote everybody else.
Almost, huh? So you should succeed in creating a libertarian regime of your description, if only just. Why haven't you?
We did, it was called the United States of America pre-Progressivism.
Also, please furnish some evidence supporting your assertion that idle dependent class is of the size you claim.
Well, it came within a gnat's whisker of winning the last presidential election.
I'd like to see a definition of "idle dependent class" first, such as, say, "idle" means "not working for one's upkeep" and "dependent" means "relying on government largesse to survive". Then you need to provide links to statistics that show just how many people in the US are not working for their upkeep and are relying on government largesse to survive. If the figures you are to link to are correct, I shall agree that the idle dependent class almost large enough to outvote everybody else. Until then, I won't. So go to it.
Their numbers don't have to be large enough to outvote everyone else, there only has to be enough of them to tip the delicate balance between Marxism and Capitalism towards the dependency of Marxism, and we are perilously close to that tipping-point. Fortunately we dodged that bullet for the next four years, but allowing the dependent class to vote is an extremely dangerous proposition. My opinion is that if you take money from the federal government by way of welfare or other social support programs, you don't get to vote for anything until you get off public assistance. There's absolutely no moral or rational reason why we should allow those who are living on our dime to have a say in how much of our tax money they get to take from us.
In short, you cannot give me the verifiable number based on an empirically based definition of "idle dependent class". "Everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton" is neither a definition nor a quantification of "idle dependent class". I am not surprised that instead answering my questions you have served up more more ex recto waffle. Sadly predictable, actually.
Hermit wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:15 pm
People who quote themselves are either neurotic arseholes or inveterate trolls or both.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Seth » Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:27 pm

Hermit wrote:In short, you cannot give me the verifiable number based on an empirically based definition of "idle dependent class". "Everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton" is neither a definition nor a quantification of "idle dependent class". I am not surprised that instead answering my questions you have served up more more ex recto waffle. Sadly predictable, actually.
I probably could, but I'm not, as you Brits like to say, going to be arsed to do so.

Even one idle dependent class leech taking from the public purse is one too many.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 21691
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Is poverty a moral failing...

Post by Hermit » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:05 pm

Seth wrote:
Hermit wrote:In short, you cannot give me the verifiable number based on an empirically based definition of "idle dependent class". "Everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton" is neither a definition nor a quantification of "idle dependent class". I am not surprised that instead answering my questions you have served up more more ex recto waffle. Sadly predictable, actually.
I probably could
You don't because you'd only prove yourself wrong.
Seth wrote:I'm not, as you Brits like to say, going to be arsed to do so
I am not a Brit, and I never said that.
Seth wrote:Even one idle dependent class leech taking from the public purse is one too many.
Relevance?
Hermit wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:15 pm
People who quote themselves are either neurotic arseholes or inveterate trolls or both.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests