PDA

View Full Version : Humanitarianism



CCitizen
04-23-2018, 02:39 PM
Humanitarianism is the idea that all Humans have innate Value. All Humans have innate Rights, some of which are inalienable. The ideology existed for at least 4 millennia, but it became particularly popular among top thinkers during XVIIIth and XIXth centuries.

One of the first achievements of Humanitarian ideology was the abolition of cruel punishments during 1750 -- 1900 time frame. In 1750, torture and Capital Torture were routine in Europe, Colonial America, and Worldwide. By 1900, torture has been abolished and penal systems became much more humane. President George Washington and President Thomas Jefferson strongly believed in Humanitarian Values and Inalienable Human Rights -- the first ten Amendments were signed by them. Unfortunately these great men also had great flaws -- their ownership of slaves went against their principles.

Many nations returned to cruel punishments during 1930 -- 2018 time frame. First, Communist Nations introduced harsh penal systems with long prison terms and massive incarceration. Since 1990s, USA adopted similar system, and now several other nations including Brazil are following USA.

One thing Humanitarians tried to achieve globally, but achieved only on very small scale is Universal Welfare. Under Universal Welfare, everyone would have a right to food, shelter, and medical care of reasonable quality. Universal Welfare was a part of Jewish communities for 3,300 years -- the community was obligated to support poor members. In the late XXth century, Scandinavia developed a Welfare system which provided reasonable quality of life to people who could not or did not work. Universal Welfare greatly reduces crime and drug use.

Humanitarian policies follow from the idea that all Humans have inalienable innate value. Even the worst criminal has Constitutional Rights. A person who is 100\% law abiding, but is unable to provide for him/herself should have many more rights. In Scandinavia, even the worst criminals are housed in very humane prisons. People whose only crime is inability to earn money have many more rights -- and in Scandinavia they do get the support they deserve.

In modern USA, both Liberals and Conservatives have many opponents of Humanitarian ideas. Many Liberals support Identity Politics rather then Humanism.

Many Conservatives support Social Darwinism. Darwinism does not consider Humans innately valuable -- some Darwinists believe that Humans are highly evolved animals. One of the ideas of Darwinism is Survival of the Fittest. Some Darwinists believe that Society has little or no duty to help "non-productive" members.

nathanbforrest45
04-23-2018, 02:49 PM
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Ayn Rand

Chris
04-23-2018, 02:58 PM
I think you conflate humanitarianism and natural law to begin with.

Social Darwinism is a Progressive thing, not a conservative one. Darwin considered humans valuable. Survival of the fittest was not his idea but a bastardization of his ideas on evolution. SeeLarry Arnhart's Darwinian Conservatism for a conservative view of Darwin.

You seem to confuse the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness with being provided with it by society.

CCitizen
04-23-2018, 03:26 PM
You seem to confuse the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness with being provided with it by society.
I do not know. In Scandinavia, even the worst criminal will have a humane a comfortable prison life.

A law abiding citizen who can not (or rarely would not) work is given much more -- housing, food, and medical care.

CCitizen
04-23-2018, 03:28 PM
Darwin considered humans valuable. Survival of the fittest was not his idea but a $#@!ization of his ideas on evolution.
Thanks. I was not referring to the historical Darwin but to Social Darwinism.

PS. I disagree with Darwin's Atheism 100%.

Chris
04-23-2018, 04:08 PM
Thanks. I was not referring to the historical Darwin but to Social Darwinism.

PS. I disagree with Darwin's Atheism 100%.

It's just important to keep Darwin separate from Social Darwinism. Darwinian evolution is biological, though some of his ideas were borrowed from David Hume and Adam Smith, but they are strictly biological. Social Darwinism is an attempt to apply evolutionary theory to social evolution, which while interesting and perhaps insightful as a metaphor, just doesn't really apply. Survival of the fittest implies progress when biological evolution is not so.


Darwin's atheism?


It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.

@ Letter to To John Fordyce 7 May 1879 (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-12041.xml)

Crepitus
04-23-2018, 06:29 PM
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”


Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand was a total and complete moron.

Chris
04-23-2018, 07:17 PM
Ayn Rand was a total and complete moron.

That was astute. :Doh!:

nathanbforrest45
04-23-2018, 07:17 PM
Ayn Rand was a total and complete moron.


And like most morons she made scads more money than you did. And she still has a sizable and growing following. You only get recognition on an obscure political forum.

nathanbforrest45
04-23-2018, 07:18 PM
That was astute. :Doh!:


That's exactly what it was: an Ass Toot

Cletus
04-23-2018, 11:17 PM
President George Washington and President Thomas Jefferson strongly believed in Humanitarian Values and Inalienable Human Rights -- the first ten Amendments were signed by them.

What?

nathanbforrest45
04-24-2018, 01:01 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by CCitizen http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2335377#post2335377)
President George Washington and President Thomas Jefferson strongly believed in Humanitarian Values and Inalienable Human Rights -- the first ten Amendments were signed by them.



What?"

Apparently this is the crap they are teaching in government schools these days

Crepitus
04-24-2018, 08:41 AM
That was astute. :Doh!:

The truth often is.

Crepitus
04-24-2018, 08:44 AM
And like most morons she made scads more money than you did. And she still has a sizable and growing following. You only get recognition on an obscure political forum.

So, I attack the content of your post, and you direct a personal attack at me.

That means you can't refute the content of my post.

Ergo you think Ayn Rand was a total and complete moron.

I'm glad you agree.

Mister D
04-24-2018, 08:50 AM
So, I attack the content of your post, and you direct a personal attack at me.

That means you can't refute the content of my post.

Ergo you think Ayn Rand was a total and complete moron.

I'm glad you agree.
:laugh: You attacked the content of his post? Are you for real?

Chris
04-24-2018, 08:56 AM
Ayn Rand was a total and complete moron.


And like most morons she made scads more money than you did. And she still has a sizable and growing following. You only get recognition on an obscure political forum.


So, I attack the content of your post, and you direct a personal attack at me.

That means you can't refute the content of my post.

Ergo you think Ayn Rand was a total and complete moron.

I'm glad you agree.


That's nuts. You didn't attack his post, he didn't attack you, and your last post, while it has the form of an argument, lacks all logic.

DGUtley
04-24-2018, 09:04 AM
GETTING BACK ON TOPIC: Humanitarianism, seems to always be what “we” give to “them”. Its supreme appeal is that it trumps all other systems and faiths, since it brings comfort to those persecuted in the name of all ideologies, religious and secular. It is elevated over all other forms of giving. Dissent falls silent and we drop our coins into the great collecting box of conscience, satisfied we have done our duty.

Chris
04-24-2018, 10:06 AM
GETTING BACK ON TOPIC: Humanitarianism, seems to always be what “we” give to “them”. Its supreme appeal is that it trumps all other systems and faiths, since it brings comfort to those persecuted in the name of all ideologies, religious and secular. It is elevated over all other forms of giving. Dissent falls silent and we drop our coins into the great collecting box of conscience, satisfied we have done our duty.

As motivation to charity, fine, as motivation to welfare, not.

The humanitarian philosophy seems to date from the late 1800s, early 1900s, and seems attached to Red Cross.

It's distinct from humanism.

Cletus
04-24-2018, 11:01 AM
So, I attack the content of your post, and you direct a personal attack at me.

You need a BIG box of Kleenex.

That means you can't refute the content of my post.

That is not what it means, at all.

Tahuyaman
04-24-2018, 11:28 AM
...President George Washington and President Thomas Jefferson strongly believed in Humanitarian Values and Inalienable Human Rights -- the first ten Amendments were signed by them....

Can you show me where you got that?

nathanbforrest45
04-24-2018, 12:09 PM
Can you show me where you got that?

It was derived from Cripitus's ass toot.

CCitizen
04-24-2018, 03:25 PM
GETTING BACK ON TOPIC: Humanitarianism, seems to always be what “we” give to “them”. Its supreme appeal is that it trumps all other systems and faiths, since it brings comfort to those persecuted in the name of all ideologies, religious and secular. It is elevated over all other forms of giving. Dissent falls silent and we drop our coins into the great collecting box of conscience, satisfied we have done our duty.
I see Humanitarianism more as the concept of Universal Welfare and rights for All Humans.

Even people who can not provide for themselves should have housing, food, and shelter.

Even the worst terrorist can not be subject to torture.

CCitizen
04-24-2018, 03:27 PM
As motivation to charity, fine, as motivation to welfare, not.
I believe people who can not support themselves should have a right to charity.

CCitizen
04-24-2018, 03:29 PM
President George Washington and President Thomas Jefferson strongly believed in Humanitarian Values and Inalienable Human Rights

Can you show me where you got that?
The Bill of Rights is based on these values which were new at that time.

Tahuyaman
04-24-2018, 03:31 PM
The Bill of Rights is based on these values which were new at that time.


That wasn't what I asked you to support.

nathanbforrest45
04-24-2018, 03:43 PM
I believe people who can not support themselves should have a right to charity.

And who supplies this "right"

A right does not imply an obligation for others to provide anything. A right is being able to acquire what you need without government interference. I have a right to keep and bear arms, I don't have a claim on your efforts to provide me with a weapon

Chris
04-24-2018, 03:49 PM
I believe people who can not support themselves should have a right to charity.

I believe we ought to help those who need it, but it's not a right, not an obligation, needs to be a free choice--otherwise you are not helping.

Chris
04-24-2018, 03:51 PM
The Bill of Rights is based on these values which were new at that time.

No, it's not and, no, they weren't. The BoR is based on natural law rights. and protects those rights for the people, it doesn't obligate us, it limits the government.

nathanbforrest45
04-24-2018, 03:53 PM
I wonder if our OP is out of junior high yet.

Chris
04-24-2018, 04:14 PM
I wonder if our OP is out of junior high yet.

The difference in ideologies is capture in Patrick J. Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed:

https://i.snag.gy/wfa3Gj.jpg

DGUtley
04-24-2018, 04:17 PM
I believe we ought to help those who need it, but it's not a right, not an obligation, needs to be a free choice--otherwise you are not helping.

No, it's not and, no, they weren't. The BoR is based on natural law rights. and protects those rights for the people, it doesn't obligate us, it limits the government.
Well said Chris.

Chris
04-24-2018, 05:20 PM
Promoting principles and values (http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/principles-and-values/) has a slide show that looks over the values/principles of Humanitarianism over time:

https://i.snag.gy/bIWVnK.jpg

The slideshow goes on to look at the last slide in more detail.

Crepitus
04-24-2018, 07:32 PM
You need a BIG box of Kleenex.


That is not what it means, at all.

I big box of Kleenex would be both smarter and a better conversationalist than you.

CCitizen
04-24-2018, 09:52 PM
A right does not imply an obligation for others to provide anything. A right is being able to acquire what you need without government interference.
In Scandinavia, even the worst offenders have a right to humane prison.

Why should law abiding citizens who can not provide for themselves not have a right to reasonable food, housing, and medical services?

CCitizen
04-24-2018, 09:53 PM
I believe we ought to help those who need it, but it's not a right, not an obligation, needs to be a free choice--otherwise you are not helping.
In Jewish communities, Charity was the Law for last 3,300 years.

I think Christianity and Islam have similar laws.

CCitizen
04-24-2018, 09:54 PM
I wonder if our OP is out of junior high yet.

Since 1988.

Chris
04-25-2018, 08:57 AM
In Jewish communities, Charity was the Law for last 3,300 years.

I think Christianity and Islam have similar laws.

First of all, no one is arguing against charity. Most religions naturally promote it. No one's arguing about that.

What some are arguing is whether it's charity if it's done coercively, if the government takes it away from some and gives it to others, is that charity? It's not voluntary, it's without choice. So I say it's not charity.

Captdon
04-25-2018, 01:23 PM
I do not know. In Scandinavia, even the worst criminal will have a humane a comfortable prison life.

A law abiding citizen who can not (or rarely would not) work is given much more -- housing, food, and medical care.

Why should a criminal have a comfortable life? That's not anything but stupid.

CCitizen
04-25-2018, 08:10 PM
What some are arguing is whether it's charity if it's done coercively, if the government takes it away from some and gives it to others, is that charity? It's not voluntary, it's without choice. So I say it's not charity.
In the past many more people felt obligated to give 10% of their earning to charity.

CCitizen
04-25-2018, 08:10 PM
Why should a criminal have a comfortable life? That's not anything but stupid.
Swedish Penal System is much better then US Penal System which is based on severe punishment.

Chris
04-25-2018, 09:07 PM
In the past many more people felt obligated to give 10% of their earning to charity.

Agree, that was the custom, the only means, communities helping their own. But the liberal project has undermined the old voluntary social order and substituted for it coercive "charity."

CCitizen
04-26-2018, 12:43 AM
Agree, that was the custom, the only means, communities helping their own. But the liberal project has undermined the old voluntary social order and substituted for it coercive "charity."
It was and it is the Law for many religious people.

roadmaster
04-26-2018, 01:18 AM
It was and it is the Law for many religious people. When the Bible says a man who can work and won't shouldn't eat.

Peter1469
04-26-2018, 06:04 AM
In the past many more people felt obligated to give 10% of their earning to charity.

Now when federal and state taxes take up to 50% there is less concern for charity.

Chris
04-26-2018, 08:24 AM
It was and it is the Law for many religious people.

Already agreed, it is for many religions an obligation. Yet no religion forces you.

donttread
04-26-2018, 09:38 AM
Humanitarianism is the idea that all Humans have innate Value. All Humans have innate Rights, some of which are inalienable. The ideology existed for at least 4 millennia, but it became particularly popular among top thinkers during XVIIIth and XIXth centuries.

One of the first achievements of Humanitarian ideology was the abolition of cruel punishments during 1750 -- 1900 time frame. In 1750, torture and Capital Torture were routine in Europe, Colonial America, and Worldwide. By 1900, torture has been abolished and penal systems became much more humane. President George Washington and President Thomas Jefferson strongly believed in Humanitarian Values and Inalienable Human Rights -- the first ten Amendments were signed by them. Unfortunately these great men also had great flaws -- their ownership of slaves went against their principles.

Many nations returned to cruel punishments during 1930 -- 2018 time frame. First, Communist Nations introduced harsh penal systems with long prison terms and massive incarceration. Since 1990s, USA adopted similar system, and now several other nations including Brazil are following USA.

One thing Humanitarians tried to achieve globally, but achieved only on very small scale is Universal Welfare. Under Universal Welfare, everyone would have a right to food, shelter, and medical care of reasonable quality. Universal Welfare was a part of Jewish communities for 3,300 years -- the community was obligated to support poor members. In the late XXth century, Scandinavia developed a Welfare system which provided reasonable quality of life to people who could not or did not work. Universal Welfare greatly reduces crime and drug use.

Humanitarian policies follow from the idea that all Humans have inalienable innate value. Even the worst criminal has Constitutional Rights. A person who is 100\% law abiding, but is unable to provide for him/herself should have many more rights. In Scandinavia, even the worst criminals are housed in very humane prisons. People whose only crime is inability to earn money have many more rights -- and in Scandinavia they do get the support they deserve.

In modern USA, both Liberals and Conservatives have many opponents of Humanitarian ideas. Many Liberals support Identity Politics rather then Humanism.

Many Conservatives support Social Darwinism. Darwinism does not consider Humans innately valuable -- some Darwinists believe that Humans are highly evolved animals. One of the ideas of Darwinism is Survival of the Fittest. Some Darwinists believe that Society has little or no duty to help "non-productive" members.

On top of your last paragraph is what happens once a group achieves success. They fix the game for themselves and their off spring. The table is tilted. We have "non - productive members" with more talent than say... "Paris Hilton" . This weakens the society and may even be a small part of why all empires fall.

CCitizen
04-27-2018, 05:23 PM
On top of your last paragraph is what happens once a group achieves success. They fix the game for themselves and their off spring. The table is tilted. We have "non - productive members" with more talent than say... "Paris Hilton" . This weakens the society and may even be a small part of why all empires fall.

Scandinavia used to impose very high taxes on millionaires and support all people in need.

Peter1469
04-27-2018, 07:25 PM
Scandinavia used to impose very high taxes on millionaires and support all people in need.
Why do you think that they stopped that

CCitizen
05-08-2018, 03:02 PM
Why do you think that they stopped that
Unfortunately implementing Universal Welfare is very expensive and difficult.

MisterVeritis
05-08-2018, 03:15 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by CCitizen http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2335377#post2335377)
President George Washington and President Thomas Jefferson strongly believed in Humanitarian Values and Inalienable Human Rights -- the first ten Amendments were signed by them.

What?
I, too, was amused.

CCitizen
05-08-2018, 03:19 PM
President George Washington and President Thomas Jefferson strongly believed in Humanitarian Values and Inalienable Human Rights -- the first ten Amendments were signed by them.

They abolished cruel punishment common in Europe -- like hanging in chains or breaking on the wheel. Even a pirate and a killer has a right not to be tortured.

Chris
05-08-2018, 05:05 PM
They abolished cruel punishment common in Europe -- like hanging in chains or breaking on the wheel. Even a pirate and a killer has a right not to be tortured.


How Washington and Jefferson were Humanitarians when Humanitarianism does crop up till the late 1800s, early 1900s is beyond me.

CCitizen
05-08-2018, 07:02 PM
How Washington and Jefferson were Humanitarians when Humanitarianism does crop up till the late 1800s, early 1900s is beyond me.
They have

-- Declared that All Humans are Created Equal
-- Signed the Bill of Rights
-- Abolished cruel punishment and torture for all people -- even a pirate who killed many people could not be tortured

Chris
05-08-2018, 07:10 PM
They have

-- Declared that All Humans are Created Equal
-- Signed the Bill of Rights
-- Abolished cruel punishment and torture for all people -- even a pirate who killed many people could not be tortured

Right, but that is not Humanitarianism.

CCitizen
05-08-2018, 07:11 PM
I apologize.

I should have used the term Classical Liberalism.

MisterVeritis
05-08-2018, 07:23 PM
They have
-- Declared that All Humans are Created Equal
-- Signed the Bill of Rights
-- Abolished cruel punishment and torture for all people -- even a pirate who killed many people could not be tortured
Please explain. For example, what do you mean they signed the bill of rights? What do you mean they abolished torture?

Chris
05-08-2018, 07:40 PM
I apologize.

I should have used the term Classical Liberalism.

Ok.

Tahuyaman
05-08-2018, 08:42 PM
I do not know. In Scandinavia, even the worst criminal will have a humane a comfortable prison life...

I guess "Bubba" isn't incarcerated in any Scandinavian nation.

What is considered omfortable is relative. Why do criminals in prison deserve a comfortable life? How have they earned that? As a trustee?

Tahuyaman
05-08-2018, 08:45 PM
How Washington and Jefferson were Humanitarians when Humanitarianism does crop up till the late 1800s, early 1900s is beyond me.


When I was in the Army, everyone in my unit was awarded the Humanitarian Sevice Medal for fighting forest fires in Idaho.


I'm a decorated humanitarian. Does anyone else here have a Humanitarian Service Medal? If so, what for?

CCitizen
05-09-2018, 01:14 AM
When I was in the Army, everyone in my unit was awarded the Humanitarian Sevice Medal for fighting forest fires in Idaho.
Thank you for helping people.

CCitizen
05-09-2018, 01:17 AM
I guess "Bubba" isn't incarcerated in any Scandinavian nation.
Prison rape is almost non-existent in Scandinavia. In UK and Canada it is much rarer then in USA.

What is considered omfortable is relative. Why do criminals in prison deserve a comfortable life? How have they earned that? As a trustee?
All Humans earn some rights just by being.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson abolished cruel punishment even for worst offenders.

In England and France at that time some offenders were subject to capital torture.

Tahuyaman
05-09-2018, 08:43 AM
Humans also lose some of their rights by abusing others and breaking various laws. While punishment doesn't need to be cruel or unusual, it doesn't need to make people confortable with their surroundings.

donttread
05-09-2018, 10:48 AM
I do not know. In Scandinavia, even the worst criminal will have a humane a comfortable prison life.

A law abiding citizen who can not (or rarely would not) work is given much more -- housing, food, and medical care.


How about providing the very basics to everyone, food pantry food, cashless assistance and a small, plain but safe apartment. No one who can live better will want these small plain apartments but they would be there for those who needed them. No cash for smokes or booze or much of anything. But the basics provided and there reciepiants working off their expenses at the complex. However, the feds cannot be involved in any way or the whole project would fail before it began

Chris
05-09-2018, 12:16 PM
How about providing the very basics to everyone, food pantry food, cashless assistance and a small, plain but safe apartment. No one who can live better will want these small plain apartments but they would be there for those who needed them. No cash for smokes or booze or much of anything. But the basics provided and there reciepiants working off their expenses at the complex. However, the feds cannot be involved in any way or the whole project would fail before it began

I have for some time now supported the ideal of UBI, following Charles Murray's thinking that it would indeed be distributed universally, to everyone. But recently I read in Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, about the Speenhamland system. It was a system of relief in England, end of the 18th century, early 19th century, the early Industrial Revolution, to fight against poverty where workers who made less than a scale were given welfare in money, food, clothing or goods. Polanyi writes of its devastating effects:

https://i.snag.gy/scbJEL.jpg

CCitizen
05-09-2018, 06:42 PM
How about providing the very basics to everyone, food pantry food, cashless assistance and a small, plain but safe apartment. No one who can live better will want these small plain apartments but they would be there for those who needed them. No cash for smokes or booze or much of anything. But the basics provided and there reciepiants working off their expenses at the complex. However, the feds cannot be involved in any way or the whole project would fail before it began
Agree 100%. Only the most basic items should be provided.

This will also greatly decrease crime like theft, robbery, drug dealing.

Chris
05-09-2018, 06:45 PM
Agree 100%. Only the most basic items should be provided.

This will also greatly decrease crime like theft, robbery, drug dealing.

Any data to back that supposition up? Historical data says otherwise.

CCitizen
05-09-2018, 06:47 PM
Any data to back that supposition up? Historical data says otherwise.
Common sense -- if people are not desperate due to lack of resources, they are less likely to engage in "street" crime -- theft, robbery, drug sales.

Chris
05-09-2018, 07:27 PM
Common sense -- if people are not desperate due to lack of resources, they are less likely to engage in "street" crime -- theft, robbery, drug sales.

Right, commonsense vs historical fact, see post 64 above.

The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

CCitizen
05-09-2018, 07:49 PM
I do not know. It is much easier to construct biased science. Common sense is more reliable.

Chris
05-09-2018, 07:50 PM
I do not know. It is much easier to construct biased science. Common sense is more reliable.

Commonsense ought to give you some sort of argument to support your claim. Personal incredulity is not an argument.

CCitizen
05-09-2018, 07:54 PM
Commonsense ought to give you some sort of argument to support your claim. Personal incredulity is not an argument.
My logic is the following:

1) People who have their basic needs supplied are much less likely to commit crime like theft, robbery, drug dealing.
2) People who do not risk abject poverty will suffer much less work-related stress.
3) Everyone would have psychological help available -- which should also decrease crime rate.

Mister D
05-09-2018, 07:56 PM
How about providing the very basics to everyone, food pantry food, cashless assistance and a small, plain but safe apartment. No one who can live better will want these small plain apartments but they would be there for those who needed them. No cash for smokes or booze or much of anything. But the basics provided and there reciepiants working off their expenses at the complex. However, the feds cannot be involved in any way or the whole project would fail before it began
See Chris' post on Speenhamland. You like real world evidence.

Chris
05-09-2018, 07:57 PM
War on Poverty Revisited (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2004/08/war-on-poverty-revisited/)


For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City Journal says in its current issue: “Beginning in the mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved markedly.”

That is completely false and misleading.

The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before any of the legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks out of poverty did not — repeat, did not — accelerate during the 1960s.

The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.

In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 — that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards.

While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of many other decades, so did major social disasters that continue to plague us today. Many of those disasters began quite clearly during the 1960s.

But what are mere facts compared to a heady vision? Liberal assumptions — “two Americas,” for example — are being recycled this election year, even by candidates who evade the “liberal” label.

Commonsense ought to have some factual basis, otherwise it's being used to coverup wishful thinking.

Mister D
05-09-2018, 07:57 PM
I have for some time now supported the ideal of UBI, following Charles Murray's thinking that it would indeed be distributed universally, to everyone. But recently I read in Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, about the Speenhamland system. It was a system of relief in England, end of the 18th century, early 19th century, the early Industrial Revolution, to fight against poverty where workers who made less than a scale were given welfare in money, food, clothing or goods. Polanyi writes of its devastating effects:

https://i.snag.gy/scbJEL.jpg
I might add that Polyani, as a socialist and a Jew, wasn't exactly unsympathetic to CC's views. It just didn't work out well.

Chris
05-09-2018, 08:00 PM
My logic is the following:

1) People who have their basic needs supplied are much less likely to commit crime like theft, robbery, drug dealing.
2) People who do not risk abject poverty will suffer much less work-related stress.
3) Everyone would have psychological help available -- which should also decrease crime rate.


You're repeating your claims. What evidence do you have for #1? The evidence shows it's not poverty but the breakup of the family that leads to the symptoms oof #1.

#2, you think work is not stressful?

Rather than psychological help society needs social help, getting back to depending on each other, and out from under the yoke of government dependence.


Anyway, you're not giving an argument, just stating disparate opinions.

Chris
05-09-2018, 08:03 PM
I might add that Polyani, as a socialist and a Jew, wasn't exactly unsympathetic to CC's views. It just didn't work out well.

Right, but his criticism was, I think, the systematic making of economics the predominant view of society to the detriment of more traditional, organic views. CC's views are essentially what Polanyi critizied--mine as well, for that matter.

Mister D
05-09-2018, 08:04 PM
Right, but his criticism was, I think, the systematic making of economics the predominant view of society to the detriment of more traditional, organic views. CC's views are essentially what Polanyi critizied--mine as well, for that matter.
This is true.

MisterVeritis
05-09-2018, 09:14 PM
I do not know. It is much easier to construct biased science. Common sense is more reliable.
Kook alert.

CCitizen
05-09-2018, 09:15 PM
My idea is not based on Socialist Economic Theory. It is based on Fundamental Human Rights -- all people should have food, shelter, and medical care.

MisterVeritis
05-09-2018, 09:17 PM
My idea is not based on Socialist Economic Theory. It is based on Fundamental Human Rights -- all people should have food, shelter, and medical care.
And yet, not one of those can ever be a right.

Although you know very little I am still glad you are here.

CCitizen
05-09-2018, 09:28 PM
And yet, not one of those can ever be a right.
I believe that every human has innate value and innate rights. In Scandinavia, even the worst offenders have humane conditions in prison.

Chris
05-09-2018, 09:29 PM
My idea is not based on Socialist Economic Theory. It is based on Fundamental Human Rights -- all people should have food, shelter, and medical care.

I'm not arguing your views derive from socialism. They're more standard fair Progressivism, since the late 1800s. It was FDR who adopted the Progressive hat and argued for human rights. That reverses the Declarations fundamental right to pursue happiness, flips it around to you have these rights to happiness and society if obligated to provide them, via the strong arm of govenmental taxation and redistribution.

Chris
05-09-2018, 09:32 PM
I believe that every human has innate value and innate rights. In Scandinavia, even the worst offenders have humane conditions in prison.

One of the debates about rights in Medieval times was whether the court has the right to sentence a man to hang and whether that man has a right to escape to preserve his life. They basically concluded both are true.

CCitizen
05-09-2018, 09:33 PM
I'm not arguing your views derive from socialism. They're more standard fair Progressivism, since the late 1800s. It was FDR who adopted the Progressive hat and argued for human rights. That reverses the Declarations fundamental right to pursue happiness, flips it around to you have these rights to happiness and society if obligated to provide them, via the strong arm of govenmental taxation and redistribution.
Originally George Washington and Thomas Jefferson fought for Human Rights of all Humans.

Chris
05-09-2018, 09:37 PM
Originally George Washington and Thomas Jefferson fought for Human Rights of all Humans.

Yes, there's a vague connection between the rights they fought for--the pursuit of happiness--and those FDR fought for--the provision of happiness.

Interestingly, the pursuit of happiness is defined individually, each person can pursue it as he or she sees fit, in religion, in the family, in the community, in even politics. The provision of happiness is all materialistic, all economic. The latter undermines the former and has not succeeded.

CCitizen
05-09-2018, 10:07 PM
Yes, there's a vague connection between the rights they fought for--the pursuit of happiness--and those FDR fought for--the provision of happiness.
Originally George Washington and Thomas Jefferson fought for the rights of everyone including the worst of the worst. A pirate had no right to life, but only in America at that time he was free from torture and cruel punishment.

CCitizen
05-09-2018, 10:09 PM
Yes, there's a vague connection between the rights they fought for--the pursuit of happiness--and those FDR fought for -- the provision of happiness.
I understand that providing for all people may be very expensive and not feasible yet. But that is a noble end goal.

Dr. Who
05-09-2018, 11:03 PM
I understand that providing for all people may be very expensive and not feasible yet. But that is a noble end goal.
As a species, we have people starving on the one hand and waste on an astronomical scale on the other. The reason is the dominant economic system that requires profit taking throughout the economic stream. Where profit is not possible, perfectly serviceable goods are destroyed rather than sold in secondary markets, in order to maintain price. This is the concept of artificial scarcity which is the central tenet of a purely capitalist system.

From a human perspective, it makes no sense as it basically requires a built-in segment of the world population who must live in abject poverty to support artificially cheap goods for the privileged. It makes rogue nations of criminals possible because the leaders of those nations are being paid by large corporations to disregard the needs of their own people.

There is more than enough abundance of everything on the planet for every person to live a decent life but for the need to structure humanity into a pyramidal system, with the most disposable at the bottom scarcely surviving and the 1% at the top with more than they could use in 1000 lifetimes and it's only going to get worse with new technology that will increasingly displace manual labor.

Capitalism is very much like a parasite that will eventually destroy its host, in the context of new technology and a decreasing need for human participation in the stream of commerce. The apex of this economic model is in sight. Once reached, it will be a downhill slide. The question is whether we will allow a collapse into a "Mad Max" scenario, when only about 20% of the world population will be able to earn more than a subsistence living. People will pooh-pooh this notion, but science fiction has been remarkably accurate at predicting the future.

donttread
05-10-2018, 04:37 AM
Agree 100%. Only the most basic items should be provided.

This will also greatly decrease crime like theft, robbery, drug dealing.

Not to mention homelessness

donttread
05-10-2018, 04:39 AM
I understand that providing for all people may be very expensive and not feasible yet. But that is a noble end goal.

The states and municipalities could probably provide basics for the total of what is spent now as long as the completely inefficient federal government is kept out of it. Also keep the cash to a minimum and avoid driving inflation

Chris
05-10-2018, 07:18 AM
As a species, we have people starving on the one hand and waste on an astronomical scale on the other. The reason is the dominant economic system that requires profit taking throughout the economic stream. Where profit is not possible, perfectly serviceable goods are destroyed rather than sold in secondary markets, in order to maintain price. This is the concept of artificial scarcity which is the central tenet of a purely capitalist system.

From a human perspective, it makes no sense as it basically requires a built-in segment of the world population who must live in abject poverty to support artificially cheap goods for the privileged. It makes rogue nations of criminals possible because the leaders of those nations are being paid by large corporations to disregard the needs of their own people.

There is more than enough abundance of everything on the planet for every person to live a decent life but for the need to structure humanity into a pyramidal system, with the most disposable at the bottom scarcely surviving and the 1% at the top with more than they could use in 1000 lifetimes and it's only going to get worse with new technology that will increasingly displace manual labor.

Capitalism is very much like a parasite that will eventually destroy its host, in the context of new technology and a decreasing need for human participation in the stream of commerce. The apex of this economic model is in sight. Once reached, it will be a downhill slide. The question is whether we will allow a collapse into a "Mad Max" scenario, when only about 20% of the world population will be able to earn more than a subsistence living. People will pooh-pooh this notion, but science fiction has been remarkably accurate at predicting the future.


This win-lose view of the economy has been debunked. One does not gain by taking from another. Instead, people exchange what they value less for what they value more and thereby bother gain. History has show time and again that those who adopt the alternative to capitalism, socialism, fail miserably.

LOL, it's actually socialism that tends to be parasitic on capitalism.

MisterVeritis
05-10-2018, 11:11 AM
I understand that providing for all people may be very expensive and not feasible yet. But that is a noble end goal.
If you believe it then work very hard and hop to it. Provide for everyone around you.

MisterVeritis
05-10-2018, 11:12 AM
As a species, we have people starving on the one hand and waste on an astronomical scale on the other. The reason is the dominant economic system that requires profit taking throughout the economic stream. Where profit is not possible, perfectly serviceable goods are destroyed rather than sold in secondary markets, in order to maintain price. This is the concept of artificial scarcity which is the central tenet of a purely capitalist system.

From a human perspective, it makes no sense as it basically requires a built-in segment of the world population who must live in abject poverty to support artificially cheap goods for the privileged. It makes rogue nations of criminals possible because the leaders of those nations are being paid by large corporations to disregard the needs of their own people.

There is more than enough abundance of everything on the planet for every person to live a decent life but for the need to structure humanity into a pyramidal system, with the most disposable at the bottom scarcely surviving and the 1% at the top with more than they could use in 1000 lifetimes and it's only going to get worse with new technology that will increasingly displace manual labor.

Capitalism is very much like a parasite that will eventually destroy its host, in the context of new technology and a decreasing need for human participation in the stream of commerce. The apex of this economic model is in sight. Once reached, it will be a downhill slide. The question is whether we will allow a collapse into a "Mad Max" scenario, when only about 20% of the world population will be able to earn more than a subsistence living. People will pooh-pooh this notion, but science fiction has been remarkably accurate at predicting the future.
If you believe this nonsense I am sure you are providing for as many of your neighbors as you possibly can.

MisterVeritis
05-10-2018, 11:13 AM
The states and municipalities could probably provide basics for the total of what is spent now as long as the completely inefficient federal government is kept out of it. Also keep the cash to a minimum and avoid driving inflation
Where, in your opinion, do states and municipalities come up with the money?

Chris
05-10-2018, 11:22 AM
The states and municipalities could probably provide basics for the total of what is spent now as long as the completely inefficient federal government is kept out of it. Also keep the cash to a minimum and avoid driving inflation

It's perhaps a more tenable idea if implemented locally and harkens back to times when the charity was the rule and welfare per se not yet thought of. Adam Smith, in Wealth, speaks of how in older times communities provided for charoity work. The rules were simple: The community must provide for its own. If you wanted to move intoa community, you have to get people already there to vouch from your ability to contribute. If you didn't, you got the boot. That sort of system works because everyone knows everyone else. People help you out you're obligated to do the same for others in your community. It ties people together in relationships. It fails under the current welfare system because it's all autonomous and anonymous. Wealth is simply take from people by a distant government, and resdistributed, with no social strings attached.

Mister D
05-10-2018, 11:39 AM
It's perhaps a more tenable idea if implemented locally and harkens back to times when the charity was the rule and welfare per se not yet thought of. Adam Smith, in Wealth, speaks of how in older times communities provided for charoity work. The rules were simple: The community must provide for its own. If you wanted to move intoa community, you have to get people already there to vouch from your ability to contribute. If you didn't, you got the boot. That sort of system works because everyone knows everyone else. People help you out you're obligated to do the same for others in your community. It ties people together in relationships. It fails under the current welfare system because it's all autonomous and anonymous. Wealth is simply take from people by a distant government, and resdistributed, with no social strings attacked.
This, IMO, is the origin of contempt for those who receive welfare.

Mister D
05-10-2018, 11:42 AM
One of the debates about rights in Medieval times was whether the court has the right to sentence a man to hang and whether that man has a right to escape to preserve his life. They basically concluded both are true.
Just a quick historical aside: hanging was by far the most common method of execution in the Medieval world. Burning at the stake was much more common in the early modern era.

Chris
05-10-2018, 12:14 PM
This, IMO, is the origin of contempt for those who receive welfare.

Corrected that to "attached". But, yea, a system unmoored from social string and associations can only lead society to further deterioration.

CCitizen
05-10-2018, 09:31 PM
As a species, we have people starving on the one hand and waste on an astronomical scale on the other. The reason is the dominant economic system that requires profit taking throughout the economic stream. Where profit is not possible, perfectly serviceable goods are destroyed rather than sold in secondary markets, in order to maintain price. This is the concept of artificial scarcity which is the central tenet of a purely capitalist system.

From a human perspective, it makes no sense as it basically requires a built-in segment of the world population who must live in abject poverty to support artificially cheap goods for the privileged. It makes rogue nations of criminals possible because the leaders of those nations are being paid by large corporations to disregard the needs of their own people.

There is more than enough abundance of everything on the planet for every person to live a decent life but for the need to structure humanity into a pyramidal system, with the most disposable at the bottom scarcely surviving and the 1% at the top with more than they could use in 1000 lifetimes and it's only going to get worse with new technology that will increasingly displace manual labor.

Capitalism is very much like a parasite that will eventually destroy its host, in the context of new technology and a decreasing need for human participation in the stream of commerce. The apex of this economic model is in sight. Once reached, it will be a downhill slide. The question is whether we will allow a collapse into a "Mad Max" scenario, when only about 20% of the world population will be able to earn more than a subsistence living. People will pooh-pooh this notion, but science fiction has been remarkably accurate at predicting the future.

Thank you very much -- much better explanation then I can give. Definitely Capitalism failed many people -- millions are suffering in abject poverty in USA alone.

CCitizen
05-10-2018, 09:33 PM
Not to mention homelessness
Many homeless people come from the 10 million Severely Mentally Disabled people in USA.

CCitizen
05-10-2018, 09:34 PM
The states and municipalities could probably provide basics for the total of what is spent now as long as the completely inefficient federal government is kept out of it. Also keep the cash to a minimum and avoid driving inflation
I agree 100%. Sadly the very rich people "need" to spend millions on luxury items.

CCitizen
05-10-2018, 09:36 PM
LOL, it's actually socialism that tends to be parasitic on capitalism.
I do not know much about Economic Theory. I am not advocating Socialist Economy.

I believe Fundamental Human Rights should be expanded to include

-- food
-- housing
-- medical care

Chris
05-10-2018, 09:54 PM
I do not know much about Economic Theory. I am not advocating Socialist Economy.

I believe Fundamental Human Rights should be expanded to include

-- food
-- housing
-- medical care

I don't disagree that people have every right to act to eat, clothe, shelter, and otherwise care for themselves, and to be free, once they achieve that, to choose to help others. Those are natural rights.

Human rights are something else.

Dr. Who
05-10-2018, 11:10 PM
This win-lose view of the economy has been debunked. One does not gain by taking from another. Instead, people exchange what they value less for what they value more and thereby bother gain. History has show time and again that those who adopt the alternative to capitalism, socialism, fail miserably.

LOL, it's actually socialism that tends to be parasitic on capitalism.
Capitalism is but one economic model and historically, a very recent one at that. While as it's defined, it is not a hideous system, it has exceeded its definition in many ways. It is no longer just about companies owning the means of production, it is about incredibly large companies owning not only the means of production but also controlling the international states in which they operate. State imperialism has given way to capitalist oligarchies. The interests of the oligarchs tend to (unsurprisingly) coincide with the actions of states. These interests have been interfering in middle eastern self-determination ever since oil was discovered there and determined to be liquid gold. They have been corrupting influences in other countries as well - throughout Latin America, Africa and South Asia. Elected governments have been overthrown and corrupt dictators put in place in order to ensure access to cheap goods and cheap labor.

The common denominator between the failure of socialist states and third world capitalist states is corruption in government, whether through outside influence or internal malfeasance. Either way, the leaders of such states and their circle of friends and family became incredibly wealthy in the past and this phenomenon continues to this day, primarily in capitalist states. In defense of socialist states, externally imposed economic isolation and sanctions prevented these states from obtaining many of the goods and materials that they needed to succeed and this was a deliberate effort by capitalist states to sabotage their continued existence. Had they been successful, they would have by their very existence, undermined the capitalist world.

donttread
05-11-2018, 06:16 AM
Many homeless people come from the 10 million Severely Mentally Disabled people in USA.


Correct and if we take away the hoops of qualifying for housing they would likely accept the housing.

Chris
05-11-2018, 09:23 AM
Capitalism is but one economic model and historically, a very recent one at that. While as it's defined, it is not a hideous system, it has exceeded its definition in many ways. It is no longer just about companies owning the means of production, it is about incredibly large companies owning not only the means of production but also controlling the international states in which they operate. State imperialism has given way to capitalist oligarchies. The interests of the oligarchs tend to (unsurprisingly) coincide with the actions of states. These interests have been interfering in middle eastern self-determination ever since oil was discovered there and determined to be liquid gold. They have been corrupting influences in other countries as well - throughout Latin America, Africa and South Asia. Elected governments have been overthrown and corrupt dictators put in place in order to ensure access to cheap goods and cheap labor.

The common denominator between the failure of socialist states and third world capitalist states is corruption in government, whether through outside influence or internal malfeasance. Either way, the leaders of such states and their circle of friends and family became incredibly wealthy in the past and this phenomenon continues to this day, primarily in capitalist states. In defense of socialist states, externally imposed economic isolation and sanctions prevented these states from obtaining many of the goods and materials that they needed to succeed and this was a deliberate effort by capitalist states to sabotage their continued existence. Had they been successful, they would have by their very existence, undermined the capitalist world.

Good grief, it is very difficult to try and read through what you post. It makes very little sense to anyone who has studied economics or its history.

Capitalism was defined? Really. When? By whom? I can tell you that Adam Smith is considered one of the early economist to DESCRIBE capitalism, but he did not DEFINE it. Not the way say Marx and others have DEFINED and PRESCRIBED socialism and communism.

"companies owning the means of production" is the definition of capitalism? Never heard that before but from Marxists and socialists. Capitalism is instead the system that emerges from distribution of labor, specialization, private property and exchange--a DESCRIPTION, not a DEFINITION.


And then your second paragraph drifts off topic into the corruption of states, of governments.


About all I read from your post is you hate capitalism and defend socialism. However you may DEFINE them, the one has succeeded where the other has failed time and again.

Captdon
05-11-2018, 10:03 AM
My logic is the following:

1) People who have their basic needs supplied are much less likely to commit crime like theft, robbery, drug dealing.
2) People who do not risk abject poverty will suffer much less work-related stress.
3) Everyone would have psychological help available -- which should also decrease crime rate.

Your logic fails the human nature test.

Captdon
05-11-2018, 10:10 AM
Thank you very much -- much better explanation then I can give. Definitely Capitalism failed many people -- millions are suffering in abject poverty in USA alone.

Abject poverty in the US? What kind of definition are you using? No cell phone; no cable; no steak?

There is no system other than capitalism that works. You know why? I'm not working hard so you can suck off me. Do your work and live your life on your own power.

I'll help those who can't but not those who won't.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2018, 10:23 AM
Thank you very much -- much better explanation then I can give. Definitely Capitalism failed many people -- millions are suffering in abject poverty in USA alone.
Capitalism fails no one.

CCitizen
05-11-2018, 02:24 PM
Abject poverty in the US? What kind of definition are you using? No cell phone; no cable; no steak?

There is no system other than capitalism that works. You know why? I'm not working hard so you can suck off me. Do your work and live your life on your own power.

I'll help those who can't but not those who won't.

In USA, hundreds of thousands of people are homeless.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2018, 02:57 PM
In USA, hundreds of thousands of people are homeless.
We used to lock up crazy people.

CCitizen
05-11-2018, 02:59 PM
We used to lock up crazy people.
In USA, 10 million people have severe mental disability. Now the Government helps them very little.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2018, 03:03 PM
In USA, 10 million people have severe mental disability. Now the Government helps them very little.
The federal government has no role to play.

CCitizen
05-11-2018, 03:04 PM
The federal government has no role to play.
I do not know. Is it ethical for a Society to abandon people who can not survive on their own?

MisterVeritis
05-11-2018, 03:06 PM
I do not know. Is it ethical for a Society to abandon people who can not survive on their own?
Read the Constitution. Where do you find authority for the government to take something from me in order to give it to you?

CCitizen
05-11-2018, 03:10 PM
Read the Constitution. Where do you find authority for the government to take something from me in order to give it to you?
I have only moderate disability -- Depression plus Autism. My parents help me.

But millions of people including 10 million severely mentally disabled people can not support themselves. How can Society abandon them?

MisterVeritis
05-11-2018, 03:47 PM
Read the Constitution. Where do you find authority for the government to take something from me in order to give it to you?

I have only moderate disability -- Depression plus Autism. My parents help me.

But millions of people including 10 million severely mentally disabled people can not support themselves. How can Society abandon them?
Who the hell cares about you?

The federal government has no authority to take my wealth to give it to you. Your problems are your problems.

CCitizen
05-11-2018, 03:50 PM
Some millionaires spend tens or hundreds of millions on luxury items. That means that extra taxes would not cause them harm.

Is it ethical for Society to abandon millions of people who need help?

MisterVeritis
05-11-2018, 04:09 PM
Some millionaires spend tens or hundreds of millions on luxury items. That means that extra taxes would not cause them harm.

Is it ethical for Society to abandon millions of people who need help?
From each...to each, eh Comrade?

Abby08
05-11-2018, 06:00 PM
I do not know much about Economic Theory. I am not advocating Socialist Economy.

I believe Fundamental Human Rights should be expanded to include

-- food
-- housing
-- medical care

That's socialism.

Abby08
05-11-2018, 06:02 PM
Some millionaires spend tens or hundreds of millions on luxury items. That means that extra taxes would not cause them harm.

Is it ethical for Society to abandon millions of people who need help?

If I didn't create them, I'm not responsible for them.

MisterVeritis
05-11-2018, 06:06 PM
That's socialism.
When one insists that some should have property taken from them to support utopia it is socialism.

Dr. Who
05-11-2018, 06:50 PM
Good grief, it is very difficult to try and read through what you post. It makes very little sense to anyone who has studied economics or its history.

Capitalism was defined? Really. When? By whom? I can tell you that Adam Smith is considered one of the early economist to DESCRIBE capitalism, but he did not DEFINE it. Not the way say Marx and others have DEFINED and PRESCRIBED socialism and communism.

"companies owning the means of production" is the definition of capitalism? Never heard that before but from Marxists and socialists. Capitalism is instead the system that emerges from distribution of labor, specialization, private property and exchange--a DESCRIPTION, not a DEFINITION.


And then your second paragraph drifts off topic into the corruption of states, of governments.


About all I read from your post is you hate capitalism and defend socialism. However you may DEFINE them, the one has succeeded where the other has failed time and again.
1) FYI definition: https://www.thebalance.com/capitalism-characteristics-examples-pros-cons-3305588
2) As to the rest, good grief. Who wants to respond to that? If you actually want a response, deal with the argument rather than prefacing your response with four paragraphs of personal criticism and pedantry.

Chris
05-11-2018, 07:03 PM
1) FYI definition: https://www.thebalance.com/capitalism-characteristics-examples-pros-cons-3305588
2) As to the rest, good grief. Who wants to respond to that? If you actually want a response, deal with the argument rather than prefacing your response with four paragraphs of personal criticism and pedantry.

Your source's bio: She received an M.S. in Management from the Sloan School of Business at M.I.T. in 1987, an M.S. in Social Planning from Boston College in 1978 and a B.A. in Psychology from the University of Rochester in 1976.

She has no credentials in economics.

Glad you finally gave a source or else you'd be in trouble for plagiarism earlier.


You could respond if you didn't rely on social planners for nonsense about capitalism.

Dr. Who
05-11-2018, 07:14 PM
Your source's bio: She received an M.S. in Management from the Sloan School of Business at M.I.T. in 1987, an M.S. in Social Planning from Boston College in 1978 and a B.A. in Psychology from the University of Rochester in 1976.

She has no credentials in economics.

Glad you finally gave a source or else you'd be in trouble for plagiarism earlier.


You could respond if you didn't rely on social planners for nonsense about capitalism.

Whatever Chris. You are still addressing everything but the argument.

Chris
05-11-2018, 07:31 PM
Whatever Chris. You are still addressing everything but the argument.

What argument, Who, you made none, you merely associated capitalism with bad things and socialism with good. That's not an argument because there's no basis to it but your emotions and prejudices. And it runs counter to the historical successes of capitalism and the failures of socialism.

What many economists such as Deirdre McCloskey, Don Boudreaux, Daniel J. Mitchell refer to as the hockey stick of econoomic prosperity:

https://i.snag.gy/q40XgB.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9FSnvtcEbg

That's capitalism, not socialism.

Dr. Who
05-11-2018, 07:33 PM
What argument, Who, you made none, you merely associated capitalism with bad things and socialism with good. That's not an argument because there's no basis to it but your emotions and prejudices. And it runs counter to the historical successes of capitalism and the failures of socialism.
OK.
What many economists such as Deirdre McCloskey, Don Boudreaux, Daniel J. Mitchell refer to as the hockey stick of econoomic prosperity:

https://i.snag.gy/q40XgB.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9FSnvtcEbg

That's capitalism, not socialism.

Chris
05-11-2018, 07:36 PM
Seems to me you're the one dodging discussion.

Mister D
05-11-2018, 08:04 PM
Those who deny the material gains derived from liberal capitalism are kind of like those who deny evolution expect they manage to sound less reasonable.This is measurable. It's a quantity. My problem with capitalist society is that everything is measurable and what is not measurable is not real, or as liberals like to say, "private". Not even Marx denied the obvious!

Dr. Who
05-11-2018, 08:06 PM
Seems to me you're the one dodging discussion.
No Chris, I'm not going to get caught up in graphs, flow charts and the unproven pearls from professional economists. Emperor's new clothes material. Stats don't reveal the underlying causation and professional economists are wrong more often than they are right. You can't really reduce human activity to a math equation and then ignore all of the unpredictable variables including the disconnect between the theory and reality. The reality is that global corporations and large national corporations are buying governments and that is the reality of capitalism on the macro scale. It's not people voluntarily trading what they value less for what they value more, unless exchanging poorly paid labor for the ability to eat implies that they value their labor less than staying alive...well duh. Behind almost every military 'intervention' is maintaining the current economic status quo, which benefits less than half the world population but benefits corporate interests massively.

It isn't what it's purported to be, because there is nothing theoretical about capitalism today. It is everything that it seems to be. You have no trouble separating socialist ideology from it's failed applications. If capitalism were weighed on the same scale, based on the success of those who are living in its economic model on a global scale, the grade would be hardly better than that of early attempts at communism. However capitalism is only really graded based on how well western nations perform, not in terms of the wars, death and starvation in the third world.

Mister D
05-11-2018, 08:15 PM
Circa 1900 roughly 25% of the global population was properly "white" (read European). The population of the Third World has exploded in the last 100 years. Exploitation? Death? Starvation?

Chris
05-11-2018, 08:32 PM
No Chris, I'm not going to get caught up in graphs, flow charts and the unproven pearls from professional economists. Emperor's new clothes material. Stats don't reveal the underlying causation and professional economists are wrong more often than they are right. You can't really reduce human activity to a math equation and then ignore all of the unpredictable variables including the disconnect between the theory and reality. The reality is that global corporations and large national corporations are buying governments and that is the reality of capitalism on the macro scale. It's not people voluntarily trading what they value less for what they value more, unless exchanging poorly paid labor for the ability to eat implies that they value their labor less than staying alive...well duh. Behind almost every military 'intervention' is maintaining the current economic status quo, which benefits less than half the world population but benefits corporate interests massively.

It isn't what it's purported to be, because there is nothing theoretical about capitalism today. It is everything that it seems to be. You have no trouble separating socialist ideology from it's failed applications. If capitalism were weighed on the same scale, based on the success of those who are living in its economic model on a global scale, the grade would be hardly better than that of early attempts at communism. However capitalism is only really graded based on how well western nations perform, not in terms of the wars, death and starvation in the third world.

That was an argument?

Adam Smith didn't use formulas. Not even Marx did. The Austrian School eschews econometrics.

Then you drift again into problems of the state and it's corrupt collusion with business. It is worse under socialism. But that's politics you're confusing with economics.

"It isn't what it's purported to be, because there is nothing theoretical about capitalism today. It is everything that it seems to be… " makes my head spin over form without content.

Chris
05-11-2018, 08:39 PM
Those who deny the material gains derived from liberal capitalism are kind of like those who deny evolution expect they manage to sound less reasonable.This is measurable. It's a quantity. My problem with capitalist society is that everything is measurable and what is not measurable is not real, or as liberals like to say, "private". Not even Marx denied the obvious!

And that ties what I'm saying about capitalism vs socialism back to the idea of humanitarianism. CCitizen wants to give everyone food, clothes, shelter, medical care...all sorts of material wealth to the less fortunate. So where's that going to come from, the capitalism Who hates or the socialism she loves? Socialism is a failure. Only capitalism generates the wealth needed for humanitarian redistribution. Even the socialist Robert Reich acknowledges what Who cannot when he says The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism that Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://robertreich.org/post/22542609387). I, personally, agree with Hayek when he argues it's encumbant on a society great prosperity to share with the less fortunate.

It is, after all, only material wealth, it doesn't buy happiness, and you can't take it with you when you go.

Chris
05-11-2018, 08:45 PM
Circa 1900 roughly 25% of the global population was properly "white" (read European). The population of the Third World has exploded in the last 100 years. Exploitation? Death? Starvation?

Interestingly, as I've reported a number of times, poverty globally is in sharp decline. The US is one of the few places where that decline has stagnated like the climate warming hiatus.

https://i.snag.gy/SLlMNH.jpg

https://i.snag.gy/w432Oh.jpg

Oops.

Dr. Who
05-11-2018, 09:13 PM
Interestingly, as I've reported a number of times, poverty globally is in sharp decline. The US is one of the few places where that decline has stagnated like the climate warming hiatus.

https://i.snag.gy/SLlMNH.jpg

https://i.snag.gy/w432Oh.jpg

Oops.
Wow, capitalism has wrought a 20% dip in abject poverty in 50 years. Do you also want to post the number of deaths from starvation, war, torture and imprisonment that same 50 years? The fact that some have learned to play corruption to their own advantage and have become wealthy in the process undoubtedly affects the stats which are based on averages. There are still missionaries, doctors without borders and other concerned individuals continuing to try to stem the death toll in these regions and objectively, they are not getting any better despite your graphs.

Peter1469
05-11-2018, 09:19 PM
I have only moderate disability -- Depression plus Autism. My parents help me.

But millions of people including 10 million severely mentally disabled people can not support themselves. How can Society abandon them?
It is a state issue, not a federal issue.

Chris
05-11-2018, 10:11 PM
Wow, capitalism has wrought a 20% dip in abject poverty in 50 years. Do you also want to post the number of deaths from starvation, war, torture and imprisonment that same 50 years? The fact that some have learned to play corruption to their own advantage and have become wealthy in the process undoubtedly affects the stats which are based on averages. There are still missionaries, doctors without borders and other concerned individuals continuing to try to stem the death toll in these regions and objectively, they are not getting any better despite your graphs.


Tell us what your beloved socialism has accomplished? Socialism in oil-rich Venezuela has people starving.


Do you also want to post the number of deaths from starvation, war, torture and imprisonment that same 50 years?

That is the nature of man.


The fact that some have learned to play corruption to their own advantage and have become wealthy in the process undoubtedly affects the stats which are based on averages.

Again you drift from economics to politics and the absolute corruption of the centralized governments you prefer to have.


Again, I ask you to tell us what your beloved socialism has accomplished for missionaries, doctors without borders and other concerned individuals?

They are funded by indivdual charity. Even Bono who works for such causes realized 'Capitalism Takes More People Out of Poverty Than Aid' (https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/bono-capitalism-takes-more-people-out-poverty-aid). Gates, second richest capitalist in the world is funding many such causes.



they are not getting any better despite your graphs

Facts seem to anger you.

Dr. Who
05-11-2018, 11:33 PM
Tell us what your beloved socialism has accomplished? Socialism in oil-rich Venezuela has people starving.



That is the nature of man.



Again you drift from economics to politics and the absolute corruption of the centralized governments you prefer to have.


Again, I ask you to tell us what your beloved socialism has accomplished for missionaries, doctors without borders and other concerned individuals?

They are funded by indivdual charity. Even Bono who works for such causes realized 'Capitalism Takes More People Out of Poverty Than Aid' (https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/bono-capitalism-takes-more-people-out-poverty-aid). Gates, second richest capitalist in the world is funding many such causes.




Facts seem to anger you.
I'm not angry and I haven't mentioned socialism in the last several posts, but you have. However let's look at socialism - how many purely socialistic countries have there ever been? I would count socialism in Eastern Europe during the USSR era as one, since they didn't have a choice. After that, we have China, NOKO, N. Vietnam, Cuba and Laos. Venezuela did not have state ownership of the means of production thus was not a purely socialist country. The only one that collapsed is the USSR.

Amazingly of the 50 poorest countries in the world only Laos makes the list; https://www.ranker.com/list/world-poverty-50-poorest-countries-in-the-world/info-lists

All the rest are capitalist countries.

Chris
05-12-2018, 08:20 AM
I'm not angry and I haven't mentioned socialism in the last several posts, but you have. However let's look at socialism - how many purely socialistic countries have there ever been? I would count socialism in Eastern Europe during the USSR era as one, since they didn't have a choice. After that, we have China, NOKO, N. Vietnam, Cuba and Laos. Venezuela did not have state ownership of the means of production thus was not a purely socialist country. The only one that collapsed is the USSR.

Amazingly of the 50 poorest countries in the world only Laos makes the list; https://www.ranker.com/list/world-poverty-50-poorest-countries-in-the-world/info-lists

All the rest are capitalist countries.


Anger is in tone, the way you sneer at data and facts.

You don't have to use the word socialism to talk about it. Even your social planner source says the only alternative to capitalism today is socialism.

And now you turn to the old no true socialism argument. But isn't that exactly why it fails every time it's tried? It's an idea, purely, simply, only an idea. Wouldn't it be nice if--but no explanation how to achive it.

Asked, "Tell us what your beloved socialism has accomplished?", your answer is there have been socialist states. What have they accomplished with regard to your socialist ideals?

CCitizen
05-12-2018, 09:17 PM
It is a state issue, not a federal issue.

I guess I am not an expert on exact laws and logistics. I was talking about ideals.

CCitizen
05-12-2018, 10:05 PM
If I didn't create them, I'm not responsible for them.
The State has a right to tax citizens. For instance USA spends $700 Billion per year on defense -- all taxpayer money.

Chris
05-13-2018, 09:26 AM
The State has a right to tax citizens. For instance USA spends $700 Billion per year on defense -- all taxpayer money.

According to CRS Report: Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget (https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-%20Welfare%20Spending%20The%20Largest%20Item%20In% 20The%20Federal%20Budget.pdf) (.pdf),


Ranking Member Sessions and the minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee requested from the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) an overview of cumulative means-tested federal
welfare spending in the United States in the most recent year for which data is available (fiscal year 2011).
The results are staggering. CRS identified 83 overlapping federal welfare programs that together
represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security,
Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs
amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits.
They exclude entitlement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and Medicare).

And yet...

https://i.snag.gy/MiDyQH.jpg

MisterVeritis
05-13-2018, 09:47 AM
The State has a right to tax citizens. For instance USA spends $700 Billion per year on defense -- all taxpayer money.
Cool. Defense is an enumerated power. So is foreign policy.

Individual welfare is specifically excluded.

donttread
05-13-2018, 11:32 AM
The State has a right to tax citizens. For instance USA spends $700 Billion per year on defense -- all taxpayer money.

actually probably over half of that money is spent on a common "offense" and is therefore unconstitutional.

Peter1469
05-13-2018, 11:35 AM
actually probably over half of that money is spent on a common "offense" and is therefore unconstitutional.

Citation?

MisterVeritis
05-13-2018, 12:07 PM
actually probably over half of that money is spent on a common "offense" and is therefore unconstitutional.
Incorrect. You confuse policy issues with Constitutional issues.

CCitizen
05-13-2018, 01:09 PM
Cool. Defense is an enumerated power. So is foreign policy.
Individual welfare is specifically excluded.
I understand that Universal Well-Being would be difficult to implement economically and politically.

But a system of values based on Innate Value of Every Human remains an ideal.

MisterVeritis
05-13-2018, 02:45 PM
I understand that Universal Well-Being would be difficult to implement economically and politically.

But a system of values based on Innate Value of Every Human remains an ideal.
You have a right to pursue happiness. If you believe this utopian nonsense is important then band together with like-minded individuals and privately knock yourself out.

CCitizen
05-13-2018, 04:51 PM
You have a right to pursue happiness.
How can 44 million Americans with Mental Disability pursue happiness? I have Moderate Depression and Moderate Autism. The 10 million Americans who have Severe Mental Disability are in a worse situation then I can imagine.

PS. I am not a politician -- I am not implementing any laws. I am just talking about an ideal.

Peter1469
05-13-2018, 05:42 PM
How can 44 million Americans with Mental Disability pursue happiness? I have Moderate Depression and Moderate Autism. The 10 million Americans who have Severe Mental Disability are in a worse situation then I can imagine.

PS. I am not a politician -- I am not implementing any laws. I am just talking about an ideal.
As we said in the Army- saw the wood that is in front of you.

Make the best of what you have.

Chris
05-13-2018, 05:53 PM
How can 44 million Americans with Mental Disability pursue happiness? I have Moderate Depression and Moderate Autism. The 10 million Americans who have Severe Mental Disability are in a worse situation then I can imagine.

PS. I am not a politician -- I am not implementing any laws. I am just talking about an ideal.

If you can type posts on a forum then you are able to work.

CCitizen
05-13-2018, 06:40 PM
If you can type posts on a forum then you are able to work.
I can type because I am Moderately Disabled.

Many or most Severely Mentally Disabled people can not express themselves.

Abby08
05-13-2018, 06:47 PM
The State has a right to tax citizens. For instance USA spends $700 Billion per year on defense -- all taxpayer money.

Taxes are understandable in the case of defense. Taxes for welfare recipients.... totally different.

Chris
05-13-2018, 07:05 PM
I can type because I am Moderately Disabled.

Many or most Severely Mentally Disabled people can not express themselves.

Point was these days you can work on a computer.

Personally I have no issue with helping those who are medically/mentally unable to work. You just have to realize that the source of that welfare must be a prosperous nation. You can't just say take this much money and redistribute it without some concern for promoting prosperity.

Dr. Who
05-13-2018, 11:46 PM
Point was these days you can work on a computer.

Personally I have no issue with helping those who are medically/mentally unable to work. You just have to realize that the source of that welfare must be a prosperous nation. You can't just say take this much money and redistribute it without some concern for promoting prosperity.
Do they do much interviewing and hiring over the internet? Simply being able to communicate via a keyboard doesn't mean that you have interpersonal skills in person. Then there is the matter of skills which generally require attending classes - in person.

MisterVeritis
05-14-2018, 12:02 AM
How can 44 million Americans with Mental Disability pursue happiness? I have Moderate Depression and Moderate Autism. The 10 million Americans who have Severe Mental Disability are in a worse situation then I can imagine.

PS. I am not a politician -- I am not implementing any laws. I am just talking about an ideal.
Your personal problems are yours to solve.

Abby08
05-14-2018, 07:48 AM
Do they do much interviewing and hiring over the internet? Simply being able to communicate via a keyboard doesn't mean that you have interpersonal skills in person. Then there is the matter of skills which generally require attending classes - in person.

People who have genuine mental/physical ailments.....PROVABLE, ailments, which prevents going to an actual job every day, I understand and, have no problem with.

Having too many kids, doesn't qualify as, 'disabled.'

All you have to do theses days is, go down to the welfare office and apply with some made up sob story and, you walk out with an ebt card and, a 'check,' without so much as verification... I know they're overwhelmed over there and, may not care to be bothered to check out prospective clients, but, it's OUR money they're so freely giving away.

Chris
05-14-2018, 07:57 AM
Do they do much interviewing and hiring over the internet? Simply being able to communicate via a keyboard doesn't mean that you have interpersonal skills in person. Then there is the matter of skills which generally require attending classes - in person.

It doesn't mean you don't.

Most of my programming skills I learned programming.

I'd bet the most handicapped person in the world could do your job.

Chris
05-14-2018, 08:08 AM
People who have genuine mental/physical ailments.....PROVABLE, ailments, which prevents going to an actual job every day, I understand and, have no problem with.

Having too many kids, doesn't qualify as, 'disabled.'

All you have to do theses days is, go down to the welfare office and apply with some made up sob story and, you walk out with an ebt card and, a 'check,' without so much as verification... I know they're overwhelmed over there and, may not care to be bothered to check out prospective clients, but, it's OUR money they're so freely giving away.

Yea, I can't figure out why Who even came up with that challenge when, like you, I clearly stated: "Personally I have no issue with helping those who are medically/mentally unable to work. You just have to realize that the source of that welfare must be a prosperous nation. You can't just say take this much money and redistribute it without some concern for promoting prosperity." Who does that though, quotes you but ignore what she quotes.

Dr. Who
05-14-2018, 05:56 PM
It doesn't mean you don't.

Most of my programming skills I learned programming.

I'd bet the most handicapped person in the world could do your job.

I'd bet the most handicapped person in the world could do your job.

That would really depend on their handicap. Mental handicaps can be far worse than physical handicaps. Many normal people can't do my job, so that's a really unfounded statement, especially since you don't really know what I do on a daily basis. Everyone can't do every job, because everyone's brains don't have the exact same strengths and weaknesses and everyone doesn't have the same interests.

Dr. Who
05-14-2018, 06:04 PM
Yea, I can't figure out why Who even came up with that challenge when, like you, I clearly stated: "Personally I have no issue with helping those who are medically/mentally unable to work. You just have to realize that the source of that welfare must be a prosperous nation. You can't just say take this much money and redistribute it without some concern for promoting prosperity." Who does that though, quotes you but ignore what she quotes.
Perhaps you didn't read your own statements prior to the one quoted where you suggested that being able to use a computer essentially nullified a handicap or this:

Point was these days you can work on a computer.
Being able to communicate over the internet for couple of hours a day, on those days where one feels social enough to do so, notwithstanding suffering from things like autism and depression, is not the same as being able to commit to x hours every day to an employer or in fact managing to get through the hiring process.

Chris
05-14-2018, 07:11 PM
Perhaps you didn't read your own statements prior to the one quoted where you suggested that being able to use a computer essentially nullified a handicap or this:

Being able to communicate over the internet for couple of hours a day, on those days where one feels social enough to do so, notwithstanding suffering from things like autism and depression, is not the same as being able to commit to x hours every day to an employer or in fact managing to get through the hiring process.

Right, and your response was to point to those who are unable.

But I had dealt with that already by saying they should be helped.

Basically, you posted a fake counter-argument. And you're doing it again.

Dr. Who
05-14-2018, 08:29 PM
Right, and your response was to point to those who are unable.

But I had dealt with that already by saying they should be helped.

Basically, you posted a fake counter-argument. And you're doing it again.
OK. Have it your way. I have no desire to argue any further.

Chris
05-14-2018, 08:38 PM
OK. Have it your way. I have no desire to argue any further.

You haven't argued. You repeated what I said and what Abby said. You should've stopped after your emotional diatribe against capitalism.

Dr. Who
05-14-2018, 09:05 PM
You haven't argued. You repeated what I said and what Abby said. You should've stopped after your emotional diatribe against capitalism.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSRZH2fwl958EU8ex6Si1mH_P-gQnLGhUn1uQj_9w93cLFA6Braw

William
05-14-2018, 09:15 PM
Ayn Rand was a total and complete moron.

I dunno - I haven't read either Atlas Shrugged or The Fountain Head, but I have read a bit about Ayn Rand and her philosophy (if that's the right word). I don't think she was a moron - I think she was just reacting in an extreme way to the extremes of Communism she experienced when she was young - but I don't think her philosophy is anything other than plain old selfishness. Why she should have any sort of following is a big mystery to me, and if I acted in that way, I would be in trouble at home, in class, and with my friends. :huh:

Denise Cummins from PBS wrote this about Ayn Rand -


The core of Rand’s philosophy — which also constitutes the overarching theme of her novels — is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive. This, she believed, is the ultimate expression of human nature, the guiding principle by which one ought to live one’s life.

By this logic, religious and political controls that hinder individuals from pursuing self-interest should be removed.

The fly in the ointment of Rand’s philosophical “objectivism” is the plain fact that humans have a tendency to cooperate and to look out for each other, as noted by many anthropologists who study hunter-gatherers. These “prosocial tendencies” were problematic for Rand, because such behavior obviously mitigates against “natural” self-interest and therefore should not exist. She resolved this contradiction by claiming that humans are born as tabula rasa, a blank slate, (as many of her time believed) and prosocial tendencies, particularly altruism, are “diseases” imposed on us by society, insidious lies that cause us to betray biological reality.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously

Chris
05-14-2018, 09:21 PM
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSRZH2fwl958EU8ex6Si1mH_P-gQnLGhUn1uQj_9w93cLFA6Braw

Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier: "The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we', the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them', the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred—a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacuo hatred—against the exploiters."

Chris
05-14-2018, 09:30 PM
I dunno - I haven't read either Atlas Shrugged or The Fountain Head, but I have read a bit about Ayn Rand and her philosophy (if that's the right word). I don't think she was a moron - I think she was just reacting in an extreme way to the extremes of Communism she experienced when she was young - but I don't think her philosophy is anything other than plain old selfishness. Why she should have any sort of following is a big mystery to me, and if I acted in that way, I would be in trouble at home, in class, and with my friends. :huh:

Denise Cummins from PBS wrote this about Ayn Rand -

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously


Sort of a typical liberal view, or, rather, misunderstanding of Rand, and self-interest for that matter. Here's how the invisible hand of self-interest works: I pursue happiness individualistically for myself. But I can't just take it from others, steal it, no, instead I must provide others what the happiness they pursue, I must exchange with them what I value less for what they value more, and that is reciprocated--in cooperation.

The misunderstanding derives from Plato who declared the collective altruistic and the individual selfish. But as Popper demonstrates in The Open Society and Its Enemies, Plato had no basis for that, he just made it up. Just the same intellectuals like Hegel and then Marx picked up on it as if it were true and pushed many people into the failures of socialism and communism. How can the collective be altruistic if it fails society so muserably? It cannot, because it was designed by man, it is unnatural, artificial. Man, by his very flawed nature, is incapable of creating perfection.

Forgot where I was, oh, yea, Rand. Her philosophy was the opposite of Plato's. It was more akin to Adam Smith's. Naturally, contemporary liberals hate her for it.

Dr. Who
05-14-2018, 10:17 PM
Let's not set any stretch objectives for humanity and continue to reinforce the idea that selfishness is best, even if it leads to our ultimate demise as a species.

William
05-15-2018, 12:31 AM
Sort of a typical liberal view, or, rather, misunderstanding of Rand, and self-interest for that matter. Here's how the invisible hand of self-interest works: I pursue happiness individualistically for myself. But I can't just take it from others, steal it, no, instead I must provide others what the happiness they pursue, I must exchange with them what I value less for what they value more, and that is reciprocated--in cooperation.

The misunderstanding derives from Plato who declared the collective altruistic and the individual selfish. But as Popper demonstrates in The Open Society and Its Enemies, Plato had no basis for that, he just made it up. Just the same intellectuals like Hegel and then Marx picked up on it as if it were true and pushed many people into the failures of socialism and communism. How can the collective be altruistic if it fails society so muserably? It cannot, because it was designed by man, it is unnatural, artificial. Man, by his very flawed nature, is incapable of creating perfection.

Forgot where I was, oh, yea, Rand. Her philosophy was the opposite of Plato's. It was more akin to Adam Smith's. Naturally, contemporary liberals hate her for it.

I don't know what 'contemporary liberals' (whoever they are) do, cos I don't speak your political language - but even though I am a Christian in name only, I think the very good man who was Jesus of Nazareth, and his disciples, had a few good things to say about giving, and helping those in need.

Stuff like this -

Deuteronomy 15:10

Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.

Deuteronomy 16:17

Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you.

Proverbs 11:24-25

There is one who scatters, and yet increases all the more, and there is one who withholds what is justly due, and yet it results only in want. The generous man will be prosperous, and he who waters will himself be watered.

Proverbs 21:26

…the righteous gives and does not hold back.

Proverbs 22:9

He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.
Proverbs 28:27

He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses.

Luke 3:11

And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.”

Luke 6:38

Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.

So OK, I'm not going all 'holier than thou', but this Christmas I shared my Christmas money with a friend who doesn't go to an expensive school like I do, and who lost his dad last year. I must confess I was selfish enough to have to think hard about that, cos I was planning to buy something special (so I'm no saint), but it made me feel so good about myself I was totally gob-smacked. So I do think we are programmed to be kind to each other as a sort of survival thing, and Ayn Rand is just full of it. And no, I don't think I am misunderstanding what she meant - it was plain from her writings. She is saying selfishness is good for society - which is total bollocks.

Crepitus
05-15-2018, 07:52 AM
I dunno - I haven't read either Atlas Shrugged or The Fountain Head, but I have read a bit about Ayn Rand and her philosophy (if that's the right word). I don't think she was a moron - I think she was just reacting in an extreme way to the extremes of Communism she experienced when she was young - but I don't think her philosophy is anything other than plain old selfishness. Why she should have any sort of following is a big mystery to me, and if I acted in that way, I would be in trouble at home, in class, and with my friends. :huh:

Denise Cummins from PBS wrote this about Ayn Rand -

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously

All I can say is if you read one or the other (don't read both back to back, some folks haven't survived it) I suspect you will come around to my point of view

Chris
05-15-2018, 07:56 AM
Let's not set any stretch objectives for humanity and continue to reinforce the idea that selfishness is best, even if it leads to our ultimate demise as a species.

Self-interest is not selfishness. How if my pursuit of self-interest requires me to cooperatively provide others what they're self-interested in am I being selfish?

Chris
05-15-2018, 08:01 AM
I don't know what 'contemporary liberals' (whoever they are) do, cos I don't speak your political language - but even though I am a Christian in name only, I think the very good man who was Jesus of Nazareth, and his disciples, had a few good things to say about giving, and helping those in need.

Stuff like this -

Deuteronomy 15:10

Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.

Deuteronomy 16:17

Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you.

Proverbs 11:24-25

There is one who scatters, and yet increases all the more, and there is one who withholds what is justly due, and yet it results only in want. The generous man will be prosperous, and he who waters will himself be watered.

Proverbs 21:26

…the righteous gives and does not hold back.

Proverbs 22:9

He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.
Proverbs 28:27

He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses.

Luke 3:11

And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.”

Luke 6:38

Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.

So OK, I'm not going all 'holier than thou', but this Christmas I shared my Christmas money with a friend who doesn't go to an expensive school like I do, and who lost his dad last year. I must confess I was selfish enough to have to think hard about that, cos I was planning to buy something special (so I'm no saint), but it made me feel so good about myself I was totally gob-smacked. So I do think we are programmed to be kind to each other as a sort of survival thing, and Ayn Rand is just full of it. And no, I don't think I am misunderstanding what she meant - it was plain from her writings. She is saying selfishness is good for society - which is total bollocks.


You argue with me as if I have said anything like don't help the poor and needy. I have not. So where do you get that idea? Who?

I have consistently advocated for charity.

I have consistently said that those who truly cannot help themselves should be helped.

I have consistently advocated against socialism because it fails to help anyone, and for capitalism because while it leads to gaps actually does raise all ships on the tide.

The question is not whether to help those in need as a goal but what means better achieves that.

MisterVeritis
05-15-2018, 10:54 AM
Let's not set any stretch objectives for humanity and continue to reinforce the idea that selfishness is best, even if it leads to our ultimate demise as a species.
Oh, you are an actress? Who knew?

MisterVeritis
05-15-2018, 10:57 AM
I don't know what 'contemporary liberals' (whoever they are) do, cos I don't speak your political language - but even though I am a Christian in name only, I think the very good man who was Jesus of Nazareth, and his disciples, had a few good things to say about giving, and helping those in need.

Stuff like this -

Deuteronomy 15:10

Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.

Deuteronomy 16:17

Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you.

Proverbs 11:24-25

There is one who scatters, and yet increases all the more, and there is one who withholds what is justly due, and yet it results only in want. The generous man will be prosperous, and he who waters will himself be watered.

Proverbs 21:26

…the righteous gives and does not hold back.

Proverbs 22:9

He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.
Proverbs 28:27

He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses.

Luke 3:11

And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.”

Luke 6:38

Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.

So OK, I'm not going all 'holier than thou', but this Christmas I shared my Christmas money with a friend who doesn't go to an expensive school like I do, and who lost his dad last year. I must confess I was selfish enough to have to think hard about that, cos I was planning to buy something special (so I'm no saint), but it made me feel so good about myself I was totally gob-smacked. So I do think we are programmed to be kind to each other as a sort of survival thing, and Ayn Rand is just full of it. And no, I don't think I am misunderstanding what she meant - it was plain from her writings. She is saying selfishness is good for society - which is total bollocks.
Those are commands to you individually. You are free to individually pursue and many of them as you choose.

Caring for the self is good for society. Dreaming of ruling the collective always brings murder, rapine, and misery. I prefer the self. You dream of the collective. I will never harm you. Those on your team harm the mass of humanity every day.

William
05-15-2018, 04:10 PM
You argue with me as if I have said anything like don't help the poor and needy. I have not. So where do you get that idea? Who?

I have consistently advocated for charity.

I have consistently said that those who truly cannot help themselves should be helped.

I have consistently advocated against socialism because it fails to help anyone, and for capitalism because while it leads to gaps actually does raise all ships on the tide.

The question is not whether to help those in need as a goal but what means better achieves that.

I haven't disagreed with any of your values, or claimed you said anything. I am disagreeing with the values that Ayn Rand seems to be promoting - that self-interest is better than a social conscience, and individual self-interest is the best thing for society.

I think it is progress, education, and development which has benefitted mankind over the centuries, not any particular economic system. I agree that the type of total Communism that the Russians developed, helped very few people, but that was an extreme - a bit like the extreme capitalism in countries with huge inequality. The best societies to live in, with the highest standard of living, seem to be those which use a mix of both systems - like the Scandinavians.

Dangermouse
05-15-2018, 04:25 PM
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”





Ayn Rand

The selfish gene gets cancerous.

MisterVeritis
05-15-2018, 04:25 PM
I haven't disagreed with any of your values, or claimed you said anything. I am disagreeing with the values that Ayn Rand seems to be promoting - that self-interest is better than a social conscience, and individual self-interest is the best thing for society.
She is right. You are not.
The ability to work in your own interest generates massive wealth. Collectivism destroys wealth. It always has.

What do you know of capitalism?

MisterVeritis
05-15-2018, 04:26 PM
The selfish gene gets cancerous.
Genes do not speak. People do.

Tahuyaman
05-15-2018, 05:27 PM
I don't know what 'contemporary liberals' (whoever they are) do, cos I don't speak your political language - but even though I am a Christian in name only, I think the very good man who was Jesus of Nazareth, and his disciples, had a few good things to say about giving, and helping those in need.

Stuff like this -

Deuteronomy 15:10

Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.

Deuteronomy 16:17

Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you.

Proverbs 11:24-25

There is one who scatters, and yet increases all the more, and there is one who withholds what is justly due, and yet it results only in want. The generous man will be prosperous, and he who waters will himself be watered.

Proverbs 21:26

…the righteous gives and does not hold back.

Proverbs 22:9

He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.
Proverbs 28:27

He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses.

Luke 3:11

And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.”

Luke 6:38

Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.

So OK, I'm not going all 'holier than thou', but this Christmas I shared my Christmas money with a friend who doesn't go to an expensive school like I do, and who lost his dad last year. I must confess I was selfish enough to have to think hard about that, cos I was planning to buy something special (so I'm no saint), but it made me feel so good about myself I was totally gob-smacked. So I do think we are programmed to be kind to each other as a sort of survival thing, and Ayn Rand is just full of it. And no, I don't think I am misunderstanding what she meant - it was plain from her writings. She is saying selfishness is good for society - which is total bollocks.

Generosity is supposed to come from he heart, not through he coercion of government.

If you are giving to the poor in order to feel better about yourself, you are giving for the wrong reason. .

Chris
05-15-2018, 05:49 PM
I haven't disagreed with any of your values, or claimed you said anything. I am disagreeing with the values that Ayn Rand seems to be promoting - that self-interest is better than a social conscience, and individual self-interest is the best thing for society.

I think it is progress, education, and development which has benefitted mankind over the centuries, not any particular economic system. I agree that the type of total Communism that the Russians developed, helped very few people, but that was an extreme - a bit like the extreme capitalism in countries with huge inequality. The best societies to live in, with the highest standard of living, seem to be those which use a mix of both systems - like the Scandinavians.

But I explained how self-interest is served by providing others what they want. It is therefore altruistic. And that was Rand's philosophy. That and not being commanded what to do by others, especially Progressives who think they know better than you what you want.



I think it is progress, education, and development which has benefitted mankind over the centuries, not any particular economic system.

What paid for that progress, education, and development? Mercantilism? No. Socialism, no, it's a failure. Capitalism.



The Scandinavians are capitalist first and last.

Chris
05-15-2018, 05:57 PM
The selfish gene gets cancerous.

Dawkin's book was about gene-centric evolution.

He was, oddly enough, a liberal, as attested by his The God Delusion.

Also, genes don't get cancer. Genetic mutations can.

And now your quip is truly funny.

William
05-16-2018, 04:13 PM
Generosity is supposed to come from he heart, not through he coercion of government.

If you are giving to the poor in order to feel better about yourself, you are giving for the wrong reason. .

I totally agree - I'm just saying it made me feel good when I didn't expect it to.

And paying taxes to have a better society is not generosity - it's what my dad calls 'enlightened self-interest'.

Tahuyaman
05-16-2018, 04:33 PM
I totally agree - I'm just saying it made me feel good when I didn't expect it to.

And paying taxes to have a better society is not generosity - it's what my dad calls 'enlightened self-interest'.

Tbe purpose of taxation is not to build a better society. It’s purpose is to fund the essential elements like civil defense and national security so individuals are free to do that.

William
05-16-2018, 04:52 PM
But I explained how self-interest is served by providing others what they want. It is therefore altruistic. And that was Rand's philosophy. That and not being commanded what to do by others, especially Progressives who think they know better than you what you want.

I don't know why everything has to be about party politics. What little I have read of Rand's philosophy is just pure selfishness.


What paid for that progress, education, and development? Mercantilism? No. Socialism, no, it's a failure. Capitalism.

Nothing 'paid' for that progress, education, and development - it was just a case of human evolution from caves to the atomic age.

Capitalism is not even 500 years old, but the progress from the stone age to modern society took many thousands of years. Laissez-faire capitalism is probably the simplest model which in theory protects individual rights and doesn't interfere with industry, but cos of human nature, it doesn't protect workers from being exploited. You only have to look at the industrial revolution and the Victorian era to see the problems with it.

Mercantilism had nothing to do with progress - it was just system to maintain positive balances of trade and acquire gold bullion.

What we have today is a combination of Corporatism (an economic model of Fascism,) and Financial Capitalism where finance, insurance, and real estate dominate the economy, and profit comes from ownership of assets, credit, rents, and earning interest, rather than production. Making sure investors get the maximum profit doesn't encourage education, or progress, (unless they mean a greater profit) and it doesn't make the lifestyle of the majority of people better. You only have to look at the army of the poor and homeless in your society, where the 1% live like Kings and working people have to get food stamps (and my society is not free of poverty either). So don't tell me how wonderful pure capitalism is.


The Scandinavians are capitalist first and last.

That depends on your definition of capitalism. The Scandinavians make and sell loads of stuff - but they also use loads of what you might call socialism in their society, and they have the highest standard of living in the world. There is a saying that goes "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". :smiley:

William
05-16-2018, 04:55 PM
Tbe purpose of taxation is not to build a better society. It’s purpose is to fund the essential elements like civil defense and national security so individuals are free to do that.

With respect, that might apply to your society - the rest of the world often has other (sometimes better) ideas. :smiley:

Tahuyaman
05-16-2018, 05:03 PM
With respect, that might apply to your society - the rest of the world often has other (sometimes better) ideas. :smiley:

The rest of the world can do what they want. Just keep those ideas at your home.

Chris
05-16-2018, 06:52 PM
I don't know why everything has to be about party politics. What little I have read of Rand's philosophy is just pure selfishness.



Nothing 'paid' for that progress, education, and development - it was just a case of human evolution from caves to the atomic age.

Capitalism is not even 500 years old, but the progress from the stone age to modern society took many thousands of years. Laissez-faire capitalism is probably the simplest model which in theory protects individual rights and doesn't interfere with industry, but cos of human nature, it doesn't protect workers from being exploited. You only have to look at the industrial revolution and the Victorian era to see the problems with it.

Mercantilism had nothing to do with progress - it was just system to maintain positive balances of trade and acquire gold bullion.

What we have today is a combination of Corporatism (an economic model of Fascism,) and Financial Capitalism where finance, insurance, and real estate dominate the economy, and profit comes from ownership of assets, credit, rents, and earning interest, rather than production. Making sure investors get the maximum profit doesn't encourage education, or progress, (unless they mean a greater profit) and it doesn't make the lifestyle of the majority of people better. You only have to look at the army of the poor and homeless in your society, where the 1% live like Kings and working people have to get food stamps (and my society is not free of poverty either). So don't tell me how wonderful pure capitalism is.



That depends on your definition of capitalism. The Scandinavians make and sell loads of stuff - but they also use loads of what you might call socialism in their society, and they have the highest standard of living in the world. There is a saying that goes "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". :smiley:


Progressives aren't a political party. Oh, wait, 1912....

You're talking about Rand. She was an Objectivist. Bit I can't talk of Progressivism?


I have already in enough detail explained to you what her philosophy was and the difference between selfishness and self-interest, yet you keep circling the wagons.


Progress implies change, change in science, technology, education, politics, even economics. Such efforts cost money. So I ask again, what funded that progress? It doesn't just happen as if by magic.


You're right, capitalism is around 500 years old:

https://i.snag.gy/ia6vdY.jpg

It's record in history. And not only did incomes shoot up exponentially, but health, lifestyle, and wealth, what you and others want to redistribute.

Note too the progress you claim from the Stone Age...none whatsoever.

Odd argument to begin with free markets protect individuals but at the same time exploit individuals. What you're doing there is conjoining Adam Smith's view with Karl Marx's.

Mercantilism was much like what we have today, the government controlling the economy.

Corporations are the equivalent of joint-stock companies under Mercantilism. Modern corporation have absolutely no relationship to corporations under fascism. Corporations today are government entities, created by law and protected by the government and given all sorts of favors like subsidies and tax cuts by the government. That collusion is the epitome of corruption.

But if coporations collude with the government, rent seek government favors, then they are part of state capitalism and no part of the free market. As Franz Oppenheimer put it in his 1975 The State: "I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor, and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the ‘economic means’ for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the 'political means'."


It actually depends on how you define socialism. Is welfare socialism? Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany):


State Socialism (German: Staatssozialismus) was a term introduced to describe Otto von Bismarck's social welfare policies. The term was actually coined by Bismarck's liberal opposition, but later accepted by Bismarck.[1] They refer to a set of social programs implemented in Germany that were initiated by Bismarck in 1883 as remedial measures to appease the working class and detract support for socialism and the Social Democratic Party of Germany following earlier attempts to achieve the same objective through Bismarck's anti-socialist laws.

So an anti-socialist conservative instituted the first welfare system to stave off rising socialism in Germany in 1883, and the socialists stole his thunder.

I don't consider social programs socialist. Socialism is central planning of the economy where the government owns and runs industry and companies, like in communist Russia, communist China though they are moving toward state capitalism.


With socialism there is no pudding. The government thinks you prefer sardines and crackers.

William
05-16-2018, 08:44 PM
I don't consider social programs socialist. Socialism is central planning of the economy where the government owns and runs industry and companies, like in communist Russia, communist China though they are moving toward state capitalism.




I guess it's a matter of semantics, but we agree here. I agree that Socialism in your definition is never going to be successful. But social programmes are essential to civilisation. I think a point of agreement is the best place to leave it - don't you? :)

Mister D
05-16-2018, 08:48 PM
Young people seem to struggle with the concept of socialism.

Peter1469
05-16-2018, 09:24 PM
Progressives aren't a political party. Oh, wait, 1912....

You're talking about Rand. She was an Objectivist. Bit I can't talk of Progressivism?


I have already in enough detail explained to you what her philosophy was and the difference between selfishness and self-interest, yet you keep circling the wagons.


Progress implies change, change in science, technology, education, politics, even economics. Such efforts cost money. So I ask again, what funded that progress? It doesn't just happen as if by magic.


You're right, capitalism is around 500 years old:

https://i.snag.gy/ia6vdY.jpg

It's record in history. And not only did incomes shoot up exponentially, but health, lifestyle, and wealth, what you and others want to redistribute.

Note too the progress you claim from the Stone Age...none whatsoever.

Odd argument to begin with free markets protect individuals but at the same time exploit individuals. What you're doing there is conjoining Adam Smith's view with Karl Marx's.

Mercantilism was much like what we have today, the government controlling the economy.

Corporations are the equivalent of joint-stock companies under Mercantilism. Modern corporation have absolutely no relationship to corporations under fascism. Corporations today are government entities, created by law and protected by the government and given all sorts of favors like subsidies and tax cuts by the government. That collusion is the epitome of corruption.

But if coporations collude with the government, rent seek government favors, then they are part of state capitalism and no part of the free market. As Franz Oppenheimer put it in his 1975 The State: "I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor, and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the ‘economic means’ for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the 'political means'."


It actually depends on how you define socialism. Is welfare socialism? Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany):



So an anti-socialist conservative instituted the first welfare system to stave off rising socialism in Germany in 1883, and the socialists stole his thunder.

I don't consider social programs socialist. Socialism is central planning of the economy where the government owns and runs industry and companies, like in communist Russia, communist China though they are moving toward state capitalism.


With socialism there is no pudding. The government thinks you prefer sardines and crackers.
Joint-stock companies were very different from modern corporation, particularly global corporations. JSCs had very limited purposes and set life-spans.

Chris
05-16-2018, 09:54 PM
I guess it's a matter of semantics, but we agree here. I agree that Socialism in your definition is never going to be successful. But social programmes are essential to civilisation. I think a point of agreement is the best place to leave it - don't you? :)

Right. For example Canada has socialized healthcare but that's not socialism. The Scandanavian countries have socialized much, or had and are now changing back to conservative capitalism.

So, yes, those are social programs. And my main contention in this thread is such programs depend very much on capitalism to fund them.

Chris
05-16-2018, 09:55 PM
Joint-stock companies were very different from modern corporation, particularly global corporations. JSCs had very limited purposes and set life-spans.

True but the collusion between them and the governments back then were much the same.

Peter1469
05-16-2018, 09:56 PM
True but the collusion between them and the governments back then were much the same.
Very true.

Chris
05-16-2018, 09:56 PM
Young people seem to struggle with the concept of socialism.

Remarkably many seem to favor it these days just the same.

CCitizen
06-04-2018, 11:15 PM
Young people seem to struggle with the concept of socialism.

Scandinavian Socialism is based on more individual rights. Communism was a totally different ideology based on extra duties of individuals.

CCitizen
06-04-2018, 11:17 PM
I am 100% against Social Darwinism and survival of the fittest. All humans must be helped -- even people who can not provide for themselves.

CCitizen
06-04-2018, 11:21 PM
I don't know what 'contemporary liberals' (whoever they are) do, cos I don't speak your political language
Deuteronomy 15:10
Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.
Deuteronomy 16:17
Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you.
Proverbs 11:24-25
There is one who scatters, and yet increases all the more, and there is one who withholds what is justly due, and yet it results only in want. The generous man will be prosperous, and he who waters will himself be watered.
Proverbs 21:26
…the righteous gives and does not hold back.
Proverbs 22:9
He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.
Proverbs 28:27
He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses.


Thank you! Indeed, The Old Testament in which we as Jews believe and the Christian New Testament command giving to the poor. I donate 10% of my income to Orthodox Jewish charities. The Law is The Law.

donttread
06-05-2018, 07:35 AM
I think you conflate humanitarianism and natural law to begin with.

Social Darwinism is a Progressive thing, not a conservative one. Darwin considered humans valuable. Survival of the fittest was not his idea but a bastardization of his ideas on evolution. SeeLarry Arnhart's Darwinian Conservatism for a conservative view of Darwin.

You seem to confuse the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness with being provided with it by society.


It's not that simple due to the tilted table. I'm a fiscal conservative , especially at the federal level. However states have more freedom to run social programs and are a little better at it.
Bottom line Hundreds of "Paris Hilton's and millions of homeless should not exist in the same society at the same time. It is a sign that the society has failed

CCitizen
06-05-2018, 08:44 PM
Bottom line Hundreds of "Paris Hilton's and millions of homeless should not exist in the same society at the same time. It is a sign that the society has failed

I agree 100%. By not taxing millionaires more, our Society lets millions of people prematurely die due to poverty and illness. That is inhumane.

Peter1469
06-05-2018, 08:48 PM
I agree 100%. By not taxing millionaires more, our Society lets millions of people prematurely die due to poverty and illness. That is inhumane.

How much more should they pay? The top 5% pay almost 60% (https://www.google.com/search?q=Top%205%25%20pay%20in%20taxes) of the federal income tax.

CCitizen
06-05-2018, 09:00 PM
How much more should they pay? The top 5% pay almost 60% (https://www.google.com/search?q=Top%205%25%20pay%20in%20taxes) of the federal income tax.
Many people inherited millions of dollars from their family.

None of my ancestors were rich.

From my great-grandparents I have inherited Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Most of my great-grandparents took part in Russian Revolution 1917.

Giving rich people's money to the poor was great. Sadly Socialism did not work out after Jews were expelled from most important party positions in 1930s.

MisterVeritis
06-05-2018, 09:17 PM
Many people inherited millions of dollars from their family.

None of my ancestors were rich.

From my great-grandparents I have inherited Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Most of my great-grandparents took part in Russian Revolution 1917.

Giving rich people's money to the poor was great. Sadly Socialism did not work out after Jews were expelled from most important party positions in 1930s.
Fucking Marxist idiot. Did I type that out loud?

CCitizen
06-05-2018, 09:20 PM
Of course in USSR, Communism did not work out. But in Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, Welfare State does seem to work.

nathanbforrest45
06-05-2018, 09:26 PM
Of course in USSR, Communism did not work out. But in Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, Welfare State does seem to work.

Not really. You can only spend other people's money for so long and those countries are getting close to an empty wallet.

CCitizen
06-05-2018, 09:33 PM
Is the suffering of millions of people due to poverty, disability, lack of free medicine really a necessity?

roadmaster
06-05-2018, 09:46 PM
Of course in USSR, Communism did not work out. But in Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, Welfare State does seem to work.
Not only did it not work out, over 67 million were killed in Russia under Marxist communist rule. Communism belongs no where.

CCitizen
06-05-2018, 09:52 PM
Not only did it not work out, over 67 million were killed in Russia under Marxist communist rule. Communism belongs no where.
Sadly 1.4 million prisoners died in GULAG and another 700,000 were executed. These 2.1 million deaths were a great tragedy. No need to exaggerate.

roadmaster
06-05-2018, 09:54 PM
Sadly 1.4 million prisoners died in GULAG and another 700,000 were executed. These 2.1 million deaths were a great tragedy. No need to exaggerate.

Wrong they have evidence and records unlike the holocaust.

Dr. Who
06-05-2018, 11:14 PM
GETTING BACK ON TOPIC: Humanitarianism, seems to always be what “we” give to “them”. Its supreme appeal is that it trumps all other systems and faiths, since it brings comfort to those persecuted in the name of all ideologies, religious and secular. It is elevated over all other forms of giving. Dissent falls silent and we drop our coins into the great collecting box of conscience, satisfied we have done our duty.

Humanitarianism derives from the word humane which is having or showing compassion or benevolence. It is at the core of most faiths.

Peter1469
06-06-2018, 05:06 AM
Many people inherited millions of dollars from their family.

None of my ancestors were rich.

People who amass wealth have the right to direct how their money is distributed when they die. How would it be legally and ethically taken by the State?


From my great-grandparents I have inherited Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Most of my great-grandparents took part in Russian Revolution 1917.

Liberty, Equality and fraternity was the motto of the French Revolution- a rather nasty and terrible part of human history.


Giving rich people's money to the poor was great. Sadly Socialism did not work out after Jews were expelled from most important party positions in 1930s.

You advocate for theft.

midcan5
06-06-2018, 05:17 AM
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Ayn Rand


The irony here is Rand was on social welfare at the end of her life making her one of the grandest hypocrites of ideological nonsense.


Whittaker Chambers 1957 Review of Ayn Rand

"Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible." Whittaker Chambers

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2705853/posts

donttread
06-06-2018, 04:45 PM
People who amass wealth have the right to direct how their money is distributed when they die. How would it be legally and ethically taken by the State?


Liberty, Equality and fraternity was the motto of the French Revolution- a rather nasty and terrible part of human history.


You advocate for theft.


Better to untilt the table CC

MisterVeritis
06-06-2018, 05:39 PM
Is the suffering of millions of people due to poverty, disability, lack of free medicine really a necessity?
If these issues are important to you then you organize your friends and you use your funds to do what you like. Leave the government and the taxpayers out of your schemes.

CCitizen
06-07-2018, 07:44 PM
If these issues are important to you then you organize your friends and you use your funds to do what you like. Leave the government and the taxpayers out of your schemes.
My own Moderate Autism and Moderate Depression are important to me. By extrapolation I can see that 10 Million Americans with Severe Disability are failed by Society to a much greater degree.

MisterVeritis
06-07-2018, 07:56 PM
My own Moderate Autism and Moderate Depression are important to me. By extrapolation I can see that 10 Million Americans with Severe Disability are failed by Society to a much greater degree.
Your problems are not a claim against me.

If your problems are important to you then start an organization, raise money and disburse your money as you see fit.

CCitizen
06-07-2018, 09:40 PM
Your problems are not a claim against me.
Unfortunately, without extensive government help, people who can not support themselves are left without much help.

MisterVeritis
06-07-2018, 09:53 PM
Unfortunately, without extensive government help, people who can not support themselves are left without much help.
Only a complete idiot believes as you do.

CCitizen
06-07-2018, 09:58 PM
Only a complete idiot believes as you do.
Most Conservatives do not resort to personal attacks.

Most people in need would rate the help they got as below unsatisfactory.

MisterVeritis
06-07-2018, 10:10 PM
Most Conservatives do not resort to personal attacks.
Most people in need would rate the help they got as below unsatisfactory.
Only a complete idiot believes as you do.

You be the solution you look for. Stop whining.