First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Socialism
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 9/28/10

Weapon-01 wrote:

The historical role of Karl Marx was that he taught an epistemology in the light of which the discredited idea could be resurrected and made seemingly safe against any attempt at refutation. This Marxian theory consists of three dogmas:

(1) As long as there is no socialism, mankind is divided into social classes the vital interests of which are irremediably opposed to one another.

(2) A man's thinking is necessarily always determined by his class affiliation. His thoughts mirror the special interests of his class, incurably antagonistic to the interests of the members of all other classes.

(3) The conflict of the class interests results in the pitiless class-struggle that unavoidably leads to the victory of the most numerous and most wronged class, the proletariat. Then the everlasting age of socialism dawns.

As this doctrine sees it, there cannot be any peaceful discussion concerning any serious problems between people belonging to different classes. They can never come to an agreement. For the result of their thinking will always be "ideological," i.e., determined by the special interests of their own class. The war between the classes is permanent. It will come to an end only by the radical "liquidation" of all "exploiting classes" and their "sycophants," the wretched peoples who betray their class comrades.
~Ludwig von Mises


I have a relative, an historian, who thinks Marx got it wrong. The idea of a class struggle dynamic as a template to explain history is no more nor less valid than Toynbee's cycles of history. My cousin thinks however that Marx's eternal classless 'utopia' is naive and wrong. Classes will always develop, a proletariat will always form and their revolution with bring down the prior order. At the time we talked he thought the 'worker's' time was up and that the new proles were the consumer.

That was a 20 year old conversation though. I wonder what he thinks on the subject now?



5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/28/10

amersfoort wrote:

Hmm perhaps I made a mistake, I'm not talking about 100% socialism here.
I'm talking about measurements that contain some socialism, like for example health care, I have heard alot of horrible stories from the US about how people cannot afford some health bills and are forced to live without their neccessery treatments (this is probably overexxagerated) however, a part of this must be true.
In my own country, I never heard of such stories, since injured people are brought in the hospital, get treated and are then afterwards presented the bill, but the treatment comes first, and the bills aren't that high because most of the costs are being payed through taxes.

The thing is, whenever a politician in the USA (like Obama) tries to change something towards a more socialistic something, he will be seen as a pure socialist, wich is apparently a very hardcore curse word.

Now about payments for the work you do, In my country the people who earn the most pay alot more taxes, and people who are without a job get money so that they can live towards some standards, ofcourse this might seem unfair and very abuseable, however some people just cannot work due to injuries or things like that. They too deserve to live a comfortable life don't you think?

One of the reasons I'm posting this is this too:
In my vacation I was working at a great storage facilitie, here I worked with adults who earned very litlle, however every day they worked untill the had sweat all over their bodys, in other words they worked really hard.
Then I thought by myself, a CEO of a huge company probably works just as hard as these people, but why does he earn so much more?
Ofcourse there should be a difference, that CEO probably did alot to reach his/her current point, and should desereve a good paycheck, but do the people who work untill their back hurts not deserve a good paycheck? I believe they do.

In my eyes, socialism spreads the wealth over a entire nation, so that everyone can live a comfortable life, wich in my eyes almost everyone deserves.


In the united States, people have a long 160 years tradition of free-trading mixed economies. And it was always assumed what you earned was rightfully yours to keep. Such as.. A miner who dug up some gold from the ground belonged rightfully to the miner.
Health care through the several states, had always been handled either through payment, insurance, or voluntary charities through churches or free clinics.

Secondly, people in the united States, already have that tax structure A Progressive Income Tax, which we pay under threat of imprisonment, financial ruin, extortion, secret/forced confessions, even ultimately even death. All at the hands of the IRS.
Which when thought logically, the progressive income tax is really a tax to punish hard working people who reject any form of welfare, while people on the receiving end can do nothing, drink beer, watch the game, at the expense of someone else.
(BTW, if you think this is perfectly alright, try enforcing this tax yourself without a government costume, or cracker-jack prize on your chest.)

I'd like to give you some watching material on the subject of socialism.

Friedrich von Hayek: His Life and Thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtCvJeRK3lE

Calculation and Socialism | Joseph T. Salerno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7zzH8ruLDc

Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis [Hans-Hermann Hoppe]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DIFVvrczXs

The Marx Nobody Knows [Gary North]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8ySFP8CveI
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 9/28/10 , edited 9/28/10

Weapon-01 wrote:

In the united States, people have a long 160 years tradition of free-trading mixed economies. And it was always assumed what you earned was rightfully yours to keep. Such as.. A miner who dug up some gold from the ground belonged rightfully to the miner.
Health care through the several states, had always been handled either through payment, insurance, or voluntary charities through churches or free clinics.

Secondly, people in the united States, already have that tax structure A Progressive Income Tax, which we pay under threat of imprisonment, financial ruin, extortion, secret/forced confessions, even ultimately even death. All at the hands of the IRS.
Which when thought logically, the progressive income tax is really a tax to punish hard working people who reject any form of welfare, while people on the receiving end can do nothing, drink beer, watch the game, at the expense of someone else.
(BTW, if you think this is perfectly alright, try enforcing this tax yourself without a government costume, or cracker-jack prize on your chest.)

(bold: mine)

In the United States people have had a centuries long tradition of "you got a problem? shoot it." Other countries have their centuries long traditions that work as well, or not, FOR THEM.

(bold)You like using dismissive terms as regards badges and uniforms. You do understand, I hope, that your constant display of contempt for agents of the state marks you as very radical. This would incline others to take you about as seriously as a member of one of your American free militias who believes the United States is still under military rule from World War II, and that the UN is sending black helicopters to personally persecute them.
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/28/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Weapon-01 wrote:

In the united States, people have a long 160 years tradition of free-trading mixed economies. And it was always assumed what you earned was rightfully yours to keep. Such as.. A miner who dug up some gold from the ground belonged rightfully to the miner.
Health care through the several states, had always been handled either through payment, insurance, or voluntary charities through churches or free clinics.

Secondly, people in the united States, already have that tax structure A Progressive Income Tax, which we pay under threat of imprisonment, financial ruin, extortion, secret/forced confessions, even ultimately even death. All at the hands of the IRS.
Which when thought logically, the progressive income tax is really a tax to punish hard working people who reject any form of welfare, while people on the receiving end can do nothing, drink beer, watch the game, at the expense of someone else.
(BTW, if you think this is perfectly alright, try enforcing this tax yourself without a government costume, or cracker-jack prize on your chest.)

(bold: mine)

In the United States people have had a centuries long tradition of "you got a problem? shoot it." Other countries have their centuries long traditions that works as well, or not, FOR THEM.

(bold) Your understand that your constant display of contempt for agents of the state marks you as very radical and inclined to be taken about as seriously as a member of one of your American free militias who believes the United States is still under military rule from World War II, and that the UN is sending black helicopters to personally persecute them.


If other countries desire socialism, (Ireland is a good example) the people must consent to it. It is a social movement, it is a process of convincing people one at a time, public forums, or whatever else is available to convince others. That's how it happened in Germany with the democratic election of Hitler at 98% of the whole national vote.

But if a whole people do not desire socialism, then...
"Who are you (the socialist promoter) to enforce an idea on us (people of a territory) who want nothing to do with it?"
Elected socialist "leaders" such as FDR, LBJ forced socialism on people against their consent, in the form of Social Security, mass theft of wealth (taxation / mass money printing), Medicare etc, then benefits only two groups of people. Those who receive the benefits from socialism, and the State whose power grows in the knowledge that is has the power to rightfully plunder from one man to give to another, without fear of prosecution of the law.
In this a pattern grows, that the State uses plundered money to hire tax/regulatory-agents (men with guns), to plunder more money from more people, to hire more tax-agents.

I assure you, their are no "free-militias" anywhere in the united States. Closest thing to an actual running militia is in New York and Virgina, but even those guys are ceremonial at best.
And no, we're not under military rule from WW2... it's actually from the post 1865 under Lincoln, we're under military rule.

F&#k the UN.

10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/28/10 , edited 9/28/10

amersfoort wrote:

Hmm perhaps I made a mistake, I'm not talking about 100% socialism here.
I'm talking about measurements that contain some socialism, like for example health care, I have heard alot of horrible stories from the US about how people cannot afford some health bills and are forced to live without their neccessery treatments (this is probably overexxagerated) however, a part of this must be true.
In my own country, I never heard of such stories, since injured people are brought in the hospital, get treated and are then afterwards presented the bill, but the treatment comes first, and the bills aren't that high because most of the costs are being payed through taxes.

The thing is, whenever a politician in the USA (like Obama) tries to change something towards a more socialistic something, he will be seen as a pure socialist, wich is apparently a very hardcore curse word.

Now about payments for the work you do, In my country the people who earn the most pay alot more taxes, and people who are without a job get money so that they can live towards some standards, ofcourse this might seem unfair and very abuseable, however some people just cannot work due to injuries or things like that. They too deserve to live a comfortable life don't you think?

One of the reasons I'm posting this is this too:
In my vacation I was working at a great storage facilitie, here I worked with adults who earned very litlle, however every day they worked untill the had sweat all over their bodys, in other words they worked really hard.
Then I thought by myself, a CEO of a huge company probably works just as hard as these people, but why does he earn so much more?
Ofcourse there should be a difference, that CEO probably did alot to reach his/her current point, and should desereve a good paycheck, but do the people who work untill their back hurts not deserve a good paycheck? I believe they do.

In my eyes, socialism spreads the wealth over a entire nation, so that everyone can live a comfortable life, wich in my eyes almost everyone deserves.


If people who don't work get free monies, then what's their motivation to work ? If nobody is working then the economy is shit and everybody suffers. Especially those who do work since they have to foot the bill for those who are lazy and don't do anything, why should people who don't do anything get a free ride off the labor of those who do work ?

People who don't work but are capable of working should get nothing.

Why should I go out and get a job where I'd have to work a 8 hour day, when I could just stay at home and watch cable tv and play video games instead ? Is what will happen.

And your analogy doesn't quite work, its not about how hard one works, its about the type of work one does. The people who are working at the warehouse are doing physical labor, anyone can do that. a CEO has to manage an entire company, its completely different from moving some boxes to and from. Management && business skills take years of schooling. No just anyone can manage an entire large corporation all by himself, but just about anyone can do physical labor. So naturally the CEO deserves to make more.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 9/28/10 , edited 9/28/10

Weapon-01 wrote:


If other countries desire socialism, (Ireland is a good example) the people must consent to it. It is a social movement, it is a process of convincing people one at a time, public forums, or whatever else is available to convince others. That's how it happened in Germany with the democratic election of Hitler at 98% of the whole national vote.

But if a whole people do not desire socialism, then...
"Who are you (the socialist promoter) to enforce an idea on us (people of a territory) who want nothing to do with it?"
Elected socialist "leaders" such as FDR, LBJ forced socialism on people against their consent, in the form of Social Security, mass theft of wealth (taxation / mass money printing), Medicare etc, then benefits only two groups of people. Those who receive the benefits from socialism, and the State whose power grows in the knowledge that is has the power to rightfully plunder from one man to give to another, without fear of prosecution of the law.
In this a pattern grows, that the State uses plundered money to hire tax/regulatory-agents (men with guns), to plunder more money from more people, to hire more tax-agents.

I assure you, their are no "free-militias" anywhere in the united States. Closest thing to an actual running militia is in New York and Virgina, but even those guys are ceremonial at best.
And no, we're not under military rule from WW2... it's actually from the post 1865 under Lincoln, we're under military rule.

F&#k the UN.



Uh... no.. you've got German History wrong. The best Hitler did with an unrigged election was 33% at that was with thugs and intimidation that the German police were either unwilling or unable to stop. Quite, possibly because they were afraid of being called thugs with baubles on their chest. After he completely controlled the apparatus of the state, included who was permitted on the voter rolls, and who scrutinized the voting... yeah sure he posted near unaminous popular vote.

As for the rest of your rant. I'll let you be from now on. I'm sure I'm distracting you from filling a van somewhere with ammonium nitrate.

(edit: Oh and Hitler wasn't a socialist. He was a fascist. RIGHT wing, not left)
Posted 9/28/10

Weapon-01 wrote:


If other countries desire socialism, (Ireland is a good example) the people must consent to it. It is a social movement, it is a process of convincing people one at a time, public forums, or whatever else is available to convince others. That's how it happened in Germany with the democratic election of Hitler at 98% of the whole national vote.

But if a whole people do not desire socialism, then...
"Who are you (the socialist promoter) to enforce an idea on us (people of a territory) who want nothing to do with it?"
Elected socialist "leaders" such as FDR, LBJ forced socialism on people against their consent, in the form of Social Security, mass theft of wealth (taxation / mass money printing), Medicare etc, then benefits only two groups of people. Those who receive the benefits from socialism, and the State whose power grows in the knowledge that is has the power to rightfully plunder from one man to give to another, without fear of prosecution of the law.
In this a pattern grows, that the State uses plundered money to hire tax/regulatory-agents (men with guns), to plunder more money from more people, to hire more tax-agents.

I assure you, their are no "free-militias" anywhere in the united States. Closest thing to an actual running militia is in New York and Virgina, but even those guys are ceremonial at best.
And no, we're not under military rule from WW2... it's actually from the post 1865 under Lincoln, we're under military rule.

F&#k the UN.
Could you try metaphorically shoot yourself in the foot once again? I don't think you caught your own self-contradiction due to your own bad aim and itchy trigger finger.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 9/28/10

Allhailodin wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Hmm perhaps I made a mistake, I'm not talking about 100% socialism here.
I'm talking about measurements that contain some socialism, like for example health care, I have heard alot of horrible stories from the US about how people cannot afford some health bills and are forced to live without their neccessery treatments (this is probably overexxagerated) however, a part of this must be true.
In my own country, I never heard of such stories, since injured people are brought in the hospital, get treated and are then afterwards presented the bill, but the treatment comes first, and the bills aren't that high because most of the costs are being payed through taxes.

The thing is, whenever a politician in the USA (like Obama) tries to change something towards a more socialistic something, he will be seen as a pure socialist, wich is apparently a very hardcore curse word.

Now about payments for the work you do, In my country the people who earn the most pay alot more taxes, and people who are without a job get money so that they can live towards some standards, ofcourse this might seem unfair and very abuseable, however some people just cannot work due to injuries or things like that. They too deserve to live a comfortable life don't you think?

One of the reasons I'm posting this is this too:
In my vacation I was working at a great storage facilitie, here I worked with adults who earned very litlle, however every day they worked untill the had sweat all over their bodys, in other words they worked really hard.
Then I thought by myself, a CEO of a huge company probably works just as hard as these people, but why does he earn so much more?
Ofcourse there should be a difference, that CEO probably did alot to reach his/her current point, and should desereve a good paycheck, but do the people who work untill their back hurts not deserve a good paycheck? I believe they do.

In my eyes, socialism spreads the wealth over a entire nation, so that everyone can live a comfortable life, wich in my eyes almost everyone deserves.


If people who don't work get free monies, then what's their motivation to work ? If nobody is working then the economy is shit and everybody suffers. Especially those who do work since they have to foot the bill for those who are lazy and don't do anything, why should people who don't do anything get a free ride off the labor of those who do work ?

People who don't work but are capable of working should get nothing.

Why should I go out and get a job where I'd have to work a 8 hour day, when I could just stay at home and watch cable tv and play video games instead ? Is what will happen.

And your analogy doesn't quite work, its not about how hard one works, its about the type of work one does. The people who are working at the warehouse are doing physical labor, anyone can do that. a CEO has to manage an entire company, its completely different from moving some boxes to and from. Management && business skills take years of schooling. No just anyone can manage an entire large corporation all by himself, but just about anyone can do physical labor. So naturally the CEO deserves to make more.


Your first part is wrong, in the facility I worked the adult-employees barely make more money then welfare, I'm sure their motivation is not the money (I asked them this in a very very carefull way), it's a way of spending the time you have, it gives you a social status and many more benefits.
Saying that if people stop working if they can go into welfare is a wrong argument, working is not only about money.

Yes people who don't work but are capable of working deserve nothing, ofcourse they are parasites, but people who can't work but want too so badly, they do deserve a comfortable life, in a system that supports un-employed people ofcourse you will have parasites, it sucks but it happens.

What I mean is that hard working people also deserve a nice villa, you know some time to relax before you have to do your hard job again.
Ofcourse I understand that anyone can do their work, but I'm talking about DESERVING, there should be a difference in pay checks ofcourse, this is to motivate people.
But people who try their hardest also should be rewarded, whenever they are facotry workers or lawyers.

Posted 9/28/10

Allhailodin wrote:



If people who don't work get free monies, then what's their motivation to work ? If nobody is working then the economy is shit and everybody suffers. Especially those who do work since they have to foot the bill for those who are lazy and don't do anything, why should people who don't do anything get a free ride off the labor of those who do work ?

People who don't work but are capable of working should get nothing.

Why should I go out and get a job where I'd have to work a 8 hour day, when I could just stay at home and watch cable tv and play video games instead ? Is what will happen.

And your analogy doesn't quite work, its not about how hard one works, its about the type of work one does. The people who are working at the warehouse are doing physical labor, anyone can do that. a CEO has to manage an entire company, its completely different from moving some boxes to and from. Management && business skills take years of schooling. No just anyone can manage an entire large corporation all by himself, but just about anyone can do physical labor. So naturally the CEO deserves to make more.
If social intelligence via real life experience is the real making of an innovative CEO, then you're contradicting your own unrealistic second claim about the effect of monetary incentive on individual's performance.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 9/28/10

Allhailodin wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Hmm perhaps I made a mistake, I'm not talking about 100% socialism here.
I'm talking about measurements that contain some socialism, like for example health care, I have heard alot of horrible stories from the US about how people cannot afford some health bills and are forced to live without their neccessery treatments (this is probably overexxagerated) however, a part of this must be true.
In my own country, I never heard of such stories, since injured people are brought in the hospital, get treated and are then afterwards presented the bill, but the treatment comes first, and the bills aren't that high because most of the costs are being payed through taxes.

The thing is, whenever a politician in the USA (like Obama) tries to change something towards a more socialistic something, he will be seen as a pure socialist, wich is apparently a very hardcore curse word.

Now about payments for the work you do, In my country the people who earn the most pay alot more taxes, and people who are without a job get money so that they can live towards some standards, ofcourse this might seem unfair and very abuseable, however some people just cannot work due to injuries or things like that. They too deserve to live a comfortable life don't you think?

One of the reasons I'm posting this is this too:
In my vacation I was working at a great storage facilitie, here I worked with adults who earned very litlle, however every day they worked untill the had sweat all over their bodys, in other words they worked really hard.
Then I thought by myself, a CEO of a huge company probably works just as hard as these people, but why does he earn so much more?
Ofcourse there should be a difference, that CEO probably did alot to reach his/her current point, and should desereve a good paycheck, but do the people who work untill their back hurts not deserve a good paycheck? I believe they do.

In my eyes, socialism spreads the wealth over a entire nation, so that everyone can live a comfortable life, wich in my eyes almost everyone deserves.


If people who don't work get free monies, then what's their motivation to work ? If nobody is working then the economy is shit and everybody suffers. Especially those who do work since they have to foot the bill for those who are lazy and don't do anything, why should people who don't do anything get a free ride off the labor of those who do work ?

People who don't work but are capable of working should get nothing.

Why should I go out and get a job where I'd have to work a 8 hour day, when I could just stay at home and watch cable tv and play video games instead ? Is what will happen.

And your analogy doesn't quite work, its not about how hard one works, its about the type of work one does. The people who are working at the warehouse are doing physical labor, anyone can do that. a CEO has to manage an entire company, its completely different from moving some boxes to and from. Management && business skills take years of schooling. No just anyone can manage an entire large corporation all by himself, but just about anyone can do physical labor. So naturally the CEO deserves to make more.


Sorry to butt in, but I had to say this: someone who grew up in America can not comprehend what he is talking about and how does that work. While I lived in US I had few verbal fights trying to explain that system, to no avail. Few examples:

1. Yes there are people who abuse the system, but they are mostly immigrants (no true european will say it, but thats how it is).
2. That system ensures that the worker will get more than minimum wage (it is what he gets when unemployed for a while).
3. of course, you have to prove that you cannot work (illness disability,...) or have lousy living conditions etc to get social help. So watching tv and playing video games is out of question when you can not afford either.

And actually his analogy works great, and that is the heart of communism: why do we even need CEO and all the complexities of "free market", when only few people get really rich but everybody needs to work? How is that paper shufflers and politicians earn more then people who actually produce goods (like grow food for example)? To keep it simple: only thing that changed since Marx's time are living conditions of working class. And that is all.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 9/28/10
People are fond of bringing up welfare parasites but those same people dismiss the idea that there can be abusers of unregulated capitalist systems as well, Robber Barons, Enrons, inherited sinecures etc...

I put it to you that one Enron did far far more damage to everyone and stole from more people than an army of welfare bums could do If they had a generation.

10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/28/10 , edited 9/28/10

blancer wrote:


Sorry to butt in, but I had to say this: someone who grew up in America can not comprehend what he is talking about and how does that work. While I lived in US I had few verbal fights trying to explain that system, to no avail. Few examples:

1. Yes there are people who abuse the system, but they are mostly immigrants (no true european will say it, but thats how it is).
2. That system ensures that the worker will get more than minimum wage (it is what he gets when unemployed for a while).
3. of course, you have to prove that you cannot work (illness disability,...) or have lousy living conditions etc to get social help. So watching tv and playing video games is out of question when you can not afford either.

And actually his analogy works great, and that is the heart of communism: why do we even need CEO and all the complexities of "free market", when only few people get really rich but everybody needs to work? How is that paper shufflers and politicians earn more then people who actually produce goods (like grow food for example)? To keep it simple: only thing that changed since Marx's time are living conditions of working class. And that is all.


We need the CEO because without the CEO all the people who work for him are now unemployed. Without businesses there are no jobs.

Since you have to have an economy there will always be those who make more than others, there will always be rich and always be poor. So long as an economy exists. And no society can exist without an economy of some kind. No system exists that can eliminate rich and eliminate poor.

Its only natural that business owners make more than the workers, all the profits are his since its his business. Someone who only does physical labor doesn't deserve to make as much as a manager or the owner, for without the owner, everybody who works for that company is now unemployed.

Besides we need companies like Intel and AMD, Nvidia, ect because without them we'd have no computers or graphics cards, these companies are responsible for advancing our technology, without them our technology would still be back in 1900's.

Without Caterpillar or Ingersoll Rand(Bobcat) producing and advancing farming equipment(tractors, harvesters, ect), farming today would still be done by hand and production would be 1000 times less than it is today.

Just to name a few examples. Many more tho.

IN fact its because of the free markets that technology such as farming tools advances as it does, if the economy was a state run economy, the state would be producing tractors, but with no competition, there is no reason for the state to advance them. Free markets make competition between manufacturers, people want to buy the "Latest and the Greatest" equipment, so manufactures pour monies and resources into developing newer, better, faster and more efficient equipment(this also applies to other things like tvs and cell phones and shit) so people will buy them.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/28/10

amersfoort wrote:

Your first part is wrong, in the facility I worked the adult-employees barely make more money then welfare, I'm sure their motivation is not the money (I asked them this in a very very carefull way), it's a way of spending the time you have, it gives you a social status and many more benefits.

Saying that if people stop working if they can go into welfare is a wrong argument, working is not only about money.

Yes people who don't work but are capable of working deserve nothing, ofcourse they are parasites, but people who can't work but want too so badly, they do deserve a comfortable life, in a system that supports un-employed people ofcourse you will have parasites, it sucks but it happens.

What I mean is that hard working people also deserve a nice villa, you know some time to relax before you have to do your hard job again.
Ofcourse I understand that anyone can do their work, but I'm talking about DESERVING, there should be a difference in pay checks ofcourse, this is to motivate people.

But people who try their hardest also should be rewarded, whenever they are facotry workers or lawyers.


Physical labor is not deserving of a large paycheck. Since anyone can do it the laborers are not very valuable, easily replaced, pay is based on worker value. Can just anyone be a nuclear engineer or a particle physicist ?

So we should do nothing to eliminate the system parasites ? We should just offload them to the taxpayers ?

That's not how it works, you don't just give people a free house, there's no motivation if you do that. Besides where does the money come from for the houses ? Who pays for it ? If you give people free stuff they get lazy.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/28/10
I just wish Americans really looked hard at European economy and realize what we consider poor is more middle class in Europe. You notice when you buy a Item off the self in a store there is no sales tax shown after you bought it. Why it just may cause a problem for the government's if there sheep understood just how much is being stolen from them.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 9/29/10

Allhailodin wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Your first part is wrong, in the facility I worked the adult-employees barely make more money then welfare, I'm sure their motivation is not the money (I asked them this in a very very carefull way), it's a way of spending the time you have, it gives you a social status and many more benefits.

Saying that if people stop working if they can go into welfare is a wrong argument, working is not only about money.

Yes people who don't work but are capable of working deserve nothing, ofcourse they are parasites, but people who can't work but want too so badly, they do deserve a comfortable life, in a system that supports un-employed people ofcourse you will have parasites, it sucks but it happens.

What I mean is that hard working people also deserve a nice villa, you know some time to relax before you have to do your hard job again.
Ofcourse I understand that anyone can do their work, but I'm talking about DESERVING, there should be a difference in pay checks ofcourse, this is to motivate people.

But people who try their hardest also should be rewarded, whenever they are facotry workers or lawyers.


Physical labor is not deserving of a large paycheck. Since anyone can do it the laborers are not very valuable, easily replaced, pay is based on worker value. Can just anyone be a nuclear engineer or a particle physicist ?

So we should do nothing to eliminate the system parasites ? We should just offload them to the taxpayers ?

That's not how it works, you don't just give people a free house, there's no motivation if you do that. Besides where does the money come from for the houses ? Who pays for it ? If you give people free stuff they get lazy.


How does Physical work not deserve a large paycheck?
These people work their ass off, infact most of them have back problems etc because of their hard work, how does that not deserve a good paycheck?

Ofcourse we should try to get rid of the parasites but sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.

Yes it is how it works, my example (btw have you given a example/proof yet?) about the facilitie workers that barely make more money then welfare still work very hard, while it is not for the money.

Stop talking about the very small amount of people who abuse a social system and start talking about the people who would gain what they deserve thanks to a social system.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.