Libertarianism

[Coito ergo sum]

not convinced about the "caring" part.

I consider accepting that some in society are beyond help in ever doing anything useful in life is caring , trying to get them into work definitely isnt.

The Mother Theresa brand of charity. Accept your lot, po' folk! Off to the House for the Dying, and we'll make sure you're fed and have a cot.

A friend of the poor -- nay, a friend of poverty.

[Coito ergo sum]

Assest (money) are removed from private hands all the time (taxation).

But thats making the assumption that the right to do a job and earn money for it is 'free', you are basically paying for the privelege of living in a civilized country and going to work.

I've got no idea what that sentence means.

It means living in a decent country is a privelege and needs to be paid for, nothing is free including earning a living

Oh, no. That's not true, according to you. For SOME people, you are more than happy to not only have their life in a decent country be free, but also paid for by others. You can't have it both ways.

[Coito ergo sum]

actually expending time doing something. Inheriting wealth isn't work. And shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician isn't work.

What is the purpose of the distinction between work and not work? Why do you draw that line, and why is it important?

[Coito ergo sum]

I said "inheritance and power games" are not real work. Fighting for cystic fibrosis sufferers is not a "power game".

Always? You assume that every charity that labels itself fighting for some sort of disease or ailment is purely altruistic. I assure you, that is not the case. And, fighting for, say, requirements that air bag technology be put in cars, that the steel industry be protected from foreign dumped steel, and all sorts of things are done by lobbyists. Is that a power game?

Regarding your second part about inheritance - well, it depends on how much it was taxed in his life. You have to look at the overall tax burden to compare different distributions of taxation. Anyway, regarding why he possibly shouldn't be able to transfer it unencumbered - because the money might be better spent being reinvested in society. Paris Hilton might miss out on a couple of hundred mil, but she won't have to trip over so many poor beggars on her journey between her front doorstep and her limo.

There seems to be an assumption here that money is really just a natural resource, to be allocated according to government policy.

[MrJonno]

not convinced about the "caring" part.

I consider accepting that some in society are beyond help in ever doing anything useful in life is caring , trying to get them into work definitely isnt.

The Mother Theresa brand of charity. Accept your lot, po' folk! Off to the House for the Dying, and we'll make sure you're fed and have a cot.

A friend of the poor -- nay, a friend of poverty.

Feed them, ensure they get accomodation, ensure there is an option of free education but what isnt practical is giving them permanent one to one assistance for the next say 10 years, It might work but no one can afford it.

These people are basically brought up so badly they can't function in anything approaching normal circumstances. Stick them in a room and tell them if you keep quiet for 30 minutes and don't say a word we will give you £10. The people we are talking about will fail , tell them to turn up at a certain point at a certain time for money they will fail.
Tell them to do a job without telling their manager to fuck off regardless of how much you pay them and they will fail.

Might as well try and get zombies into work, its not going to happen

[Coito ergo sum]

not convinced about the "caring" part.

I consider accepting that some in society are beyond help in ever doing anything useful in life is caring , trying to get them into work definitely isnt.

The Mother Theresa brand of charity. Accept your lot, po' folk! Off to the House for the Dying, and we'll make sure you're fed and have a cot.

A friend of the poor -- nay, a friend of poverty.

Feed them, ensure they get accomodation, ensure there is an option of free education but what isnt practical is giving them permanent one to one assistance for the next say 10 years, It might work but no one can afford it.

These people are basically brought up so badly they can't function in anything approaching normal circumstances. Stick them in a room and tell them if you keep quiet for 30 minutes and don't say a word we will give you £10. The people we are talking about will fail , tell them to turn up at a certain point at a certain time for money they will fail.
Tell them to do a job without telling their manager to fuck off regardless of how much you pay them and they will fail.

Might as well try and get zombies into work, its not going to happen

Plenty of poor people, and plenty of people raised by horrible parents, have managed to change their lives. What they need is a fishing rod, not a fish.

[MrJonno]

Plenty of poor people, and plenty of people raised by horrible parents, have managed to change their lives. What they need is a fishing rod, not a fish.

Not talking about 'poor' people talking about people who are little more than creatures of pure instinct. Emotionally they have failed to progress beyond more than a couple of years old.

You really really don't want them in the work place, they will reduce the profits/efficiency of anywhere they work even if you pay them nothing

[Coito ergo sum]

Plenty of poor people, and plenty of people raised by horrible parents, have managed to change their lives. What they need is a fishing rod, not a fish.

Not talking about 'poor' people talking about people who are little more than creatures of pure instinct. Emotionally they have failed to progress beyond more than a couple of years old.

You really really don't want them in the work place, they will reduce the profits/efficiency of anywhere they work even if you pay them nothing

That is a tiny tiny segment of society. The number of people on the dole in the US and the UK far exceeds that lot.

[MrJonno]

I would say about 1% of the population or so, another % or so is people with recognsied illnesses/health problems rest of unemployment is partly the economy, partly a lack of skills and yes some peoeple being lazy.

Despite what a lot of people on the right say, living of welfare is not pleasasnt. The only people who have a decent standard of living are working in the black market

[Coito ergo sum]

I would say about 1% of the population or so, another % or so is people with recognsied illnesses/health problems rest of unemployment is partly the economy, partly a lack of skills and yes some peoeple being lazy.

Despite what a lot of people on the right say, living of welfare is not pleasasnt. The only people who have a decent standard of living are working in the black market

Not too many people oppose welfare for that 2% of the population, even on "the right." The problem is when almost half the population is on some form of dole.

In the US, many poor people on welfare have a decent standard of living, for the most part. But, here in the US, poor people live in bigger houses than the average person in the UK. The poor people have cars, widescreen televisions, 200 channels, full cupboards of food, and they get their hair and nails done.

[MrJonno]

US welfare is actually a lot more generous $200 per week ? than British welfare but I believe its a lot more time limited?. Majority of people on benefits in the UK are actually working but in low payed job wihch will not cover the rent so the state has to subsidise them (and effectively the employer).

The problem is generally not skivers but the entire 'free' market is an illusion with tax payers money allowing corporations to pay someone less than they need to survive.
I understand you can't have a minimum wage being too high for organisations to stay competitive, but if its so low that people can't feed themselves then things have gone very badly wrong.

One of the reasons slavery ended was its cheaper to pay the slaves and let them sort out their own food/accomodation. Min wage won't pay the rent/utilities bills of anywhere within commuting of most jobs

[Coito ergo sum]

US welfare is actually a lot more generous $200 per week ? than British welfare but I believe its a lot more time limited?. Majority of people on benefits in the UK are actually working but in low payed job wihch will not cover the rent so the state has to subsidise them (and effectively the employer).

Food aid is separate from "welfare." And, so is Section 8 housing. So, rent assistance and food assistance is available over and above welfare. In the US the welfare time limit is state-by-state. Some states have no time limit. Some have 48 month time limits and some have 60 month time limits, all have extensions available for those who can't find work, and all have extensions and exemptions available for other particularized reasons.

The safety net here, contrary to popular belief, is extremely generous.
\

The problem is generally not skivers but the entire 'free' market is an illusion with tax payers money allowing corporations to pay someone less than they need to survive.
I understand you can't have a minimum wage being too high for organisations to stay competitive, but if its so low that people can't feed themselves then things have gone very badly wrong.

Different jobs serve different purposes. You can't have a system that pays EVERY job as if it's a family breadwinner job. Stocking shelves at the 7-Eleven is not a job by which people support families. It's a job for kids and old people, who want a few extra dollars for doing something easy.

One of the reasons slavery ended was its cheaper to pay the slaves and let them sort out their own food/accomodation. Min wage won't pay the rent/utilities bills of anywhere within commuting of most jobs

In the US, minimum wage only applies to the most basic, easy, unskilled jobs, like handing out fries from a window and taking $5 in payment in return. Anything else is paid higher than that. It would be unfair to people to work hard to get skills and contribute more to society to force everyone to subsidize $20 per hour drive-through window workers, when that same salary is paid to skilled individuals all over the place doing jobs they went to school for.

[MrJonno]

Forbes say 6% of Americans are on it, couldnt find the figures for the UK but apparently 20% of the population earn less than the minimum wage + £1 /$1.50

Regardless the minimum wage should be sufficient to ensure that if a person works 40 hours on it they can afford to rent a single room that isn't a health hazard within commuting distance, pay the utility bills, pay for transport to get to work, pay for sufficient food to survive on and least some form of entertainment ( a basic tv).

If that isn't possible (which it isnt without tax subsidies) then is the employer reallly running a profitable free market business?

[Seth]

Putting aside the fact that I just specifically mentioned I'm not really a socialist (i.e. i'm still a capitalist of sorts), and that you have no idea what a socialist is....

Where you say "the proposition that the individual owes to the collective more by way of labor than is required to compensate the collective for his individual use of the resources and benefits of society."... this is just a feeling, not an objective assessment. Your feeling is that an individual is paying over more than they use/benefit, whereas I and others say that rich people are benefiting way more than they contribute. I suppose we could all go and hunt down a thousand figures to back up our own feelings on this, but I doubt either of us would be able to do a rigorous analysis in any reasonable timeframe. To me it seems a no-brainer that a healthy, stable and lawful society is the enabler of wealth creation in the first place, and things like inheritance and power games (i.e. not real work) are the reasons for much wealth accumulation at the top. You obviously disagree. Not sure we can get past this impasse.

Really? Benefiting more than they contribute? You'll indeed have to do the math to prove this, given the fact that in the US the top 10 percent of taxpayers pay about 70 percent of the taxes paid (figures from National Taxpayer's Union for 2009)

Not to mention providing gainful employment to the bottom 50 percent, who pay less than 3 percent of the taxes.

A healthy, stable and lawful society enables wealth creation by everyone and anyone who chooses to take advantage of it, and it's paid for by those who actually do create wealth.

You still haven't justified why Person A should be compelled to labor on behalf of Person B. Person A has a responsibility to labor on behalf of himself and perhaps those he has taken financial and social responsibility for in order to pay his fair share of the costs of providing a healthy, stable and lawful society. But again, what is your rational justification for causing Person A to pay more than Person B for the direct benefit of Person B. And why is Person B not required to labor on his own behalf to pay for his fair share of the costs of providing him with a healthy, stable and lawful society?

You seem to believe that Person A, simply because he's better at laboring and is compensated at a higher rate, somehow owes MORE than his fair share of the costs of government.

What is your rational argument that supports this claim? Why is the better, more efficient, more effective laborer who creates more wealth per unit of work obliged to pay a larger share of the costs of government than Person B, who is less industrious and less valuable as a worker?

[Seth]

actually expending time doing something. Inheriting wealth isn't work. And shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician isn't work.

Ah, this is the slender reed upon which Marx based his entire laborious and tautological theory; that only "real work" is a "legitimate" way to create or acquire wealth. Inheriting wealth may not be physical labor on the part of the person who receives it, but the wealth itself is the product of the labor of the deceased, and once the heir has it, putting that capital to work to generate more wealth is indeed "work" by any rational measure because it generates wealth, which is the only legitimate and appropriate measure of "work," if such a measure is even needed.

Marxist thought, however, explicitly rejects interest and rents as "labor" for no better reason than Marx doesn't like the fact that the wealthy don't have to labor on the production line. His entire philosophy, and your entire argument, are built on this foundation of philosophical sand.

The question we're addressing is not the value of labor or the "fairness" of one form of wealth generation over another, but rather how we each pay for our share of the costs of providing a "healthful, stable, lawful" society. What does it matter how each member of the society pays his or her proportionate share of those costs? The only reason that you and Marx have any complaint about "shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician" is because neither you nor Marx is wealthy enough to do so yourselves and have the effect on public policy that you desire.

In other words, your entire philosophy is nothing more than an expression of greed, avarice, jealousy, envy and class-based hatred, nothing more.

By the way, "shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician" is absolutely no different than shifting money to the bank account of your car mechanic. You pay, they perform some work on your behalf for that payment. There is zero moral difference.