i 've been thinking that there should be a new social program for the less fortunate. you see they spend their money trying to help all those in need of assistance for whatever reason. but the poor rich people never got to have the indescriminate sex of a single mom, or the 25 year drunk of a homeless person. they didn't get to spend their life playin video games or watchin movies. they never got to sleep in.
so i think that the government should set up a charity for achievers who didn't get a life cause they spent theirs earning the money that you are all so quick to hand out."
["give more to the rich? what are you, anti-Robin Hood?"]
55 comments
It doesn't have to be, Wolight. I'm pretty much with Joe on this ^.^ Fundie, not fundie, I don't care. He's glorifying ACHIEVERS, not just rich people. I mean, he does make the glaring generalization that all single moms have indiscriminate sex, and that all homeless people are drunks, which is just stupid, but generally I agree with him ^.^
Murderous intents: check
Sure, just forget that the "rich" people give less to charities than "average" people. This is a difference of about 0.4% of their yearly income if I remember correctly (1.4% vs 1.0%). And those people chose to never sleep in or to not have indiscriminate sex. They valued money over a life. Their choice, their consequences. They can start whining when they can't afford to sustain a basic way of life.
So because the rich people in your fantasy world chose to get rich rather than "get a life", we should give them more money? How does that help? Even in your fantasy world, you would think that you would want to give them things like movies, video games, weekends, hookers, and booze (possibly all at the same time, to cover all of the things that they missed out on, according to you).
Uh ... Joe, dude, the rich already HAVE money. That's why they're the RICH.
The "anti-Robin Hood" comment apparently was from Ethan, the "Freedom is Slavery" guy in the previous post. Also, judging from the picture, this Joe isn't the balloon guy with the hilarious expanding-earth videos.
Sherrif of Nottingham thirded.
Joe, you'd find it instructive if you endured a brief period of poverty. I suggest, say, 20 to 30 years.
I don't think the desire to murder a medieval legendary figure qualifies as murderous intent, and I still don't think ridiculous generalizations (I missed the ones about rich people never playing video games, sleeping in, or watching movies O.o Moron) alone qualify Joe here as a fundie.
If you spend your entire life earning money, you've wasted your life and no one owes you a damn thing.
I slogged through ten pages of this joe and his illogical, disjointed attempts at explaining his social services for the insanely rich. Take this jewel: "this is the meaning of this thread.
some people laid around or fucked up or just made bad decisions or whatever. other people scrimped and saved and gave 1000% never slept and built a country with a free economy and free education and so on. now just like in the story of the little red hen, everyone wants to eat what they had no hand in baking. so i'm saying since the red hen is giving everyone her food that they, "couldn't" make, they should give aher a vacation to enjoy life like they got to while she was baking their dinner.
the moral i guess is stop giving away other peoples money. stop demanding that the services that are providing for you provide more or for more people. stop allowing immigrants (white ones too) to vote. they didnt contribute they should have no say. they voted by picking the country they liked to live in. nothing is free stop saying that it should be. if you hate the system that you live in walk away and start your own."
I have a huge ache in my head now. A few responders suggested joe walk away and start his own system. One responder asked, "isn't everyone born equal?" to which joe said:
"no, some have no legs. others no eyes. some are retarde like everyone in here calls me. these are unfortunate but not my problem. why should they be?" Someone suggested he didn't know the democratic-republic in which he lived and joe was quick on the uptake with, "i know politics i was raised in it. i didn't say that they were wrong i just said that they arent the same and the differances hinder their survival. this is not my concern. (unless i can benefit from helping them)"
I vote for the Scrooge Award. At this point I swear, I heard ... so let them die and be done with it!
Joe tried justifying his position: "because i have people that i wish to spend my money on. i cant spend enough of it on them because someone decided that someone lse needs my money more. fault does not matter. why should i have to pay or not get my daughter something that she wants because another dad didn't do his job. your principle is to forcibly bleed out my gains for anothers benefit {...} i used to lose 48%, before i got into drugs and realestate. the problem is that i'm living like a leper because of these programs"
Ahhh. Drugs. Starting to make sense now.
We finally understand joe after one commenter asked why joe opposed medical marijuana (stated in another thread). To this joe-the-humanitarian-of-the-year replied saying, "cause the government would make a fortune that right now i make."
Lovely. Joe sells drugs and is making a 'fortune'. This 'fortune' is not taxed because his "job" is illegal, and hardly has SSI or state and federal taxes deducted from it. But out of the untaxed 'fortune' joe has amassed, he is unable to buy his daughter what she wants and he's angry that he's paying too much in his taxes, all of which supposedly goes to whiners for things they don't deserve or haven't worked for like basic health care, a meal, clothes, or help in training for a job.
One has to wonder if those drugs joe allegedly sells, ever leave his bedroom.
"Both of those had a chance and made something of it, so what's wrong with taking from those guys who have more than they need to give someone else a chance to have a decent life?"
^So let me get this straight, you believe that if some of the affluent's excess is allocated to help the poor, that undermines their whole purpose for living? I'm sorry, but that's one of the biggest loads of crap I've heard that didn't come from a politician.
You have to read the whole quote I was quoting from. He said that if someone worked their whole lives to earn money, and THEN we took money from them, why would that be wrong? In the case of many rich people (in fact, most of the actually RICH people), they didn't work their whole lives to earn money - I'm referring to a specific subset of the wealthy, namely those who have spent their entire lives trying to amass their wealth.
^Ah. Gotcha. Hmmm. Well, if one were to be logical about it, if one made amassing money their sole purpose in life; to have any of that money taken for any reason (Which would include more than just charity.) that would indeed undermine their purpose in life.
Being poor is not synonymous with being lazy or unmotivated. If it were, I'd be the first one calling for welfare to be immediately scrapped.
HI. My name's Joe and this is my first meeting of Dickhead's anonymous.
Bitter Gun-Toting Man Shoots Up Post Office, that story and much, much more tonight on your local news leader, WTF channel 6.
@Angel Kaida
The fact that if they spent their entire lives trying to earn that "more than they need," by taking it away from them you're essentially invalidating their entire lives?
It´s difficult to do it from a legend from the Middle Ages. So, are you hinting that the poor people are Bill Gates or Tom Cruise?, or that the poor people deserve their fate?. Thank God I´m a Catholic.
I've been homeless, without the need for a "25 year drunk". I've lived under a bridge in winter, I didnt have video games or movies, I couldnt afford them. (and you need electricity to use them),
"...the reason we prefer the free market over another form of organization is for its ability to provide for the general welfare?"earned through a lifetime of effort. In fact, I think it's BECAUSE I come from a working-class family that I have this belief.
@Angel Kaida
Who is this "we" you're referring to? And for the record, saying that people are "just picking on the poor" when they advocate the sanctity of personal property is just as stupid a generalization as the ones Joe makes.
It may be a generalization, but it's hardly "stupid." Consider the evidence before me. I know that there are people that rail against welfare. I know that they do so because of a supposed sanctity of property. I hardly ever hear them complain about other instances where the sanctity of property is violated. It is therefore reasonable to draw the conclusion that the sanctity of property is merely a tool. Now you could be an exception to this, by definition a generalization will have exceptions. So fine, you don't dislike the poor, congratulations.
I believe firmly that people have the right to keep the money they have earned through a lifetime of effort.
I’m sorry but that is a rather meaningless statement. That’s like Republicans saying they are for low taxes or Democrats saying they are for civil liberties. Seriously, who outside extremists is for high taxes, no civil liberties, or the arbitrary appropriate of property. If you want to contribute to the discussion you have to go beyond those platitudes and give me some real substance. We are in a modern Liberal world; of course you have the right to property. But where a democratic government has, with appropriate process and approval of the majority, decided that some of your income should be devoted to assisting the less fortunate, then why do your property rights trump the government? Still more importantly, setting aside political concerns, why is it wrong that you should be required to contribute to programs that assist the poor considering the facts I mentioned above: 1) that no one earns anything alone; and 2) that the free market cannot support full employment?
It may be a generalization, but it's hardly "stupid." Consider the evidence before me. I know that there are people that rail against welfare. I know that they do so because of a supposed sanctity of property. I hardly ever hear them complain about other instances where the sanctity of property is violated. Well, first of all, I have heard people complaining about the other instances, but I agree that it's not talked about by as many people as often. There's a reason for that.
It is therefore reasonable to draw the conclusion that the sanctity of property is merely a tool.
Here's where you get the knee-jerk emotional reaction that defies logic :) Never mind that taxes paying for welfare affect EVERYBODY and eminent domain and adverse possession laws are used much more rarely. While I DO think these policies are stupid (particularly adverse possession, because the property owner doesn't even have to be paid for his stolen property), I have not been personally affected by them; most people haven't. But everyone has a chunk of their income requisitioned by the government to pay for "social programs," so it's logical to think that maybe that's why they're more worried about it. Well, at least it's more logical than the conspiracy-against-the-poor theory.
But where a democratic government has, with appropriate process and approval of the majority, decided that some of your income should be devoted to assisting the less fortunate, then why do your property rights trump the government?
Yeah, I guess you're right on this one - when the government has decided that someone else's interests are more important than your individual rights, who are you to question that? Why do your rights trump the government? I'm so glad we live in a world where governments always have the best interests of their citizens at heart. [/sarcasm]
1)I don't think it's true that no one earns anything alone - maybe people don't create entire products on their own, but by no definition of the word "earn" is the stipulation implied that the earner must do that. If someone has worked and been paid fairly for it, they have earned their pay. If no one earns anything alone, then no one owns anything or has any right to anything other than what's been given to them by someone else.
2.) ...And I really don't see what the employment rate has to do with private property. Are you saying that we should pay people to stay out of the economy because unemployment is necessary to keep inflation down? O.o; But that still wouldn't relate. What ARE you saying?
@Angel Kaida
Well, first of all, I have heard people complaining about the other instances, but I agree that it's not talked about by as many people as often. There's a reason for that. Here's where you get the knee-jerk emotional reaction that defies logic :)
Yeah, I guess you're right on this one - when the government has decided that someone else's interests are more important than your individual rights, who are you to question that? Why do your rights trump the government? I'm so glad we live in a world where governments always have the best interests of their citizens at heart. [/sarcasm]
Keep in mind that I do respect you, you have made strong arguments so far. But frankly the above is very immature. Rights are absolutely held, but they are not absolutely applied. It does not destroy your right to property to be taxed even for a reason you disagree with. If that were the case, then limits to free speech (such as false warning, libel, slander, threats) would destroy free speech. If the right to privacy were absolutely asserted then the government could never, under any circumstances, enter your home. Enough limitations on life, liberty, and property can effectively destroy those rights. And in those instances the government is wrong. Is anything less than total deprival of property a destruction of the right to property? I would say so; 90% or even 50% of your income transferred to others is wrong. But is 40% wrong? 30%? Does it matter how much you have left over and where that places you in the socio-economic hierarchy? These questions are difficult to answer. But when we are talking about as little as 10% of your income going directly to the poor, for example, it can hardly be argued that your right to property is destroyed.
I don't think it's true that no one earns anything alone - maybe people don't create entire products on their own, but by no definition of the word "earn" is the stipulation implied that the earner must do that. If someone has worked and been paid fairly for it, they have earned their pay. If no one earns anything alone, then no one owns anything or has any right to anything other than what's been given to them by someone else.
I find that odd that in one sentence you assert that someone can be an “earner” without having “earned” the object obtained while in the second sentence you talk about ownership through fair compensation’. Do you know what we called someone that has earned something he didn’t work to? A thief.
But let’s get beyond this word play. I know you don’t advocate theft and we are likely stumbling over semantics. The meat of this issue, as I see it, is the difference between ownership and social product. I do not contend that a social product destroys the institution of property. People can own things and the market is an excellent tool, in proper operation, that will efficiently distribute the social product as property. The market, being an aggregation of free exchange, takes on the virtue of free exchange. And in free exchange interests in property are destroyed and created at the instant of exchange. In short, even though all value is a social product, we can reasonably assert exclusive rights to property.
The significance of social product is simply that the towering heights achieved by the economy today are not the result of individual effort; they are the result of the great mass of society both present and past. Consider someone who is successful and is deserving of that success, say Bill Gates. Now I do not doubt that Gates owned all of his property. But let’s be honest, if Gates was living in some state of nature, that is to say without the benefit of society, would he have been able to build his great wealth, e.g. his houses, his luxuries, etc? Certainly not. The point is that Bill Gates took advantage of society, in a perfectly fair manner, and made great contributions, thus his great wealth. However, you cannot deny that Bill didn’t create all of his luxuries, in fact you do not as you stated, “
maybe people don't create entire products on their own
”
I argue that while the market can efficiently distribute ownership, it doesn’t always justly distribute the social product. When the fabulously wealthy can enjoy luxuries previously unattained in human history whilst at the same time we have poor that cannot afford medical care there is no justice. To assert that the market is justice is to assert that a congregation of numerous exchanges is justice. That’s the economic equivalent of an argumentum ad populum. My solution is income redistribution, preferably through programs rather than direct transfer. But I want qualify my solution here. Considering the deficiency of the market in this respect, I believe it is morally justifiably to redistribute income, while respecting property as much as possible of course; however I do not believe it is morally required. That is to say, I do not believe that people are asserting a valid right to not participate in income redistribution because it is justifiable for the government to do so (1). But if the government chooses not to, then there is no failure on the part of the government.
And I really don't see what the employment rate has to do with private property. Are you saying that we should pay people to stay out of the economy because unemployment is necessary to keep inflation down
That’s close but not quite. We can approach this issue two ways. Theoretically speaking there is a relationship between inflation the employment. Considering that you implied it in your question I assume you know how it operates, the evidence for it, and the evidence against, so I won’t belabor that approach here. The second approach is simply empirical. Looking at the unemployment rate published by the Department of Labor we can say with confidence that we haven’t had full employment. Either way, the point is that the market cannot, or has not, support(ed) full employment. Basically, we aren't paying them to stay out, we are paying them because they can't get in.
The reason this is significant is that it supports the justifications suggested above. Not only can the market unjustly distribute the social product, but it doesn’t even accommodate all of the people that want to participate and earn. It is morally justifiable for those that have to assist those that can’t have. And where the majority agrees, with due process protection of rights, it is equally justifiable for the government to appropriate public funds for that end.
(1)Above I said that it is justifiable for the government to redistribute income. I covered why the act is justified but not why the government is an appropriate agency to act. Both are required for me to make the statement that income redistribution is justified. For the sake of brevity I will simply say that the government, like private actors, can be licensed to undertake this endeavor. It is not wrong for the government to act as an agent in this by appropriating public property because the object of that appropriation is justified.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
