Election meaningless unless we change for the better

[pmward]

Tom, I don't disagree with you but how do you feel about the fact that our current system doesn't really provide people freedom for many options. It's not like you can say well, I don't really want to drive a taxi...I guess I'll just go become a hunter gatherer. Our system of private land ownership rights has taken one of the essential components of survival away from people. It's like if we privatized air. I understand how one has the right to own his body and the fruits of his labor but how do you extend that to something that no man created, the earth itself? So when our society says, if you don't produce then you die in a ditch...it sounds kind of anti libertarian to me....it sounds more like a gulag forced labor camp. I especially feel for the native americans on this one....many of whom are dying in ditches. Out here in the west, lands that they used to hunt and fish and farm are now tied up as million acre ranches by dicks like Ted Turner. How's that fair?

I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve heard in any topic so kudos to you, my friend, for outdoing yourself.

So if corporations and privatized land ownership didn’t come into existence, then nomadic hunter/gatherers with no skills in hunting nor gathering, who were “useless” in their times would somehow be able to feed themselves on the abundance of berries falling out of the sky into their mouths and deers running past them into trees, knocking themselves unconscious and falling onto sharp rocks that field dressed them via gravity?

Or you’re suggesting the homeless living/dying in ditches are only useless at 2020-era skills like cleaning toilets and excel spreadsheets but somehow have massive innate skills in hunting and gathering that would allow them to thrive off the land if not for greedy capitalists?

That's because you're not too well versed it seems in the issues of libertarianism and land ownership. You want to have your cake and eat it too...in other words you want freedom from tyrannical governments except when they are enforcing your specious claims to own, exploit, and reap the value of that which you did not create.

The citizen's dividend is a proposed policy based upon the principle that the natural world is the common property of all persons. It is proposed that all citizens receive regular payments (dividends) from revenue raised by leasing or taxing the monopoly of valuable land and other natural resources.

Does that make more sense?

Yep, the idea of ownership is a fallacy. It is not truly possible to own anything. The very concept of ownership is a concept invented by the human mind. Deep philosophical territory there, but true none the less.

This isn't a new fangled socialist idea either...

Thomas Paine summarized his view by stating that "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." Paine saw inheritance as being partly a common fund and wanted to supplement the citizen's dividend in a tax on inheritance transfers.

That's how you get the concept of universal basic income off the ground...and provide for the basic needs of individuals so they don't die in ditches.

All religions I've studied have some basis in this as well. The concept of equality (the lowest of the low is no less valuable than the highest of the high), taking care of the earth, taking care of each other, and of life itself as the most precious and most limited resource are all common threads. Whether you're a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, some tribal or aboriginal religion, or insert whatever other religion here, they all have this same common thread. These are ideas that go back as far as we have written proof. All "sin" (for lack of a better word) comes from the very idea that I myself am separate, different, and somehow better than ANY other living creature; that I deserve more, and that it's justifiable for some other living being to suffer for my gain. It is in reversing this thought and realizing that I am no better than ANY other living thing, that I do not deserve any more than any other living being, and that in helping others I am actually helping myself where true "enlightenment" happens. This is a process that has been going on in society since the beginning of time, it's a process that continues today, and it's a process that will continue to evolve into the future.

[pmward]

We have no lack for resources in 2020.

Wow. Okay.

If you truly believe we do not have the basic resources to fit the basic needs for all life, you are wrong.

So why does anyone in 2020 "die" then? Couldn't the 90 year old with heart failure be connected to enough machines to keep them alive, in a coma, forever? We have an unlimited number of ICU beds, an unlimited number of respirators, and an unlimited number of ICU nurses. We have no lack for resources in 2020.

This is a gross exaggeration and a stretch of what I am trying to say. You either are intentionally trying to stretch what I'm saying to the point of ridiculousness as a debate strategy, or you did not actually read and/or understand what I was saying. Is there anything I need to elaborate on to help you understand what "right to life" means?

Also, you assume we need to tax to support these hopeless cases I'm referring to. I hate to tell you, but you can print all the money needed to provide basic shelter, food, physical and mental health care, etc for all the hopeless cases in this country and it's not going to cause massive inflation. There is no tax required.

What is the difference between directly taxing someone to take their money, and inflating the currency to the point the purchasing power of their money is less?

Oh, right, because we can print all of the money needed and it's not going to cause inflation. Because you just said it wouldn't.

Or are you saying it won't cause massive inflation, but it would cause some inflation? Like, say 5% inflation? That's not massive, right?

So someone retired with a $1M nest aid, after the non-massive inflationary money printing has $950k worth of purchasing power left. Is that not a tax? Is that any different than if instead of printing money we just charged him a 5% wealth tax on all existing money? Either way he ends up with $950k of spending power relative to time zero.

You assume (wrongly) that providing the basic shelter, food, and necessities for the life of the "hopeless cases" would inflate the currency. I don't think you really understand what actually causes inflation. Simply "printing money" alone doesn't cause inflation... see the trillions we've printed and given to banks in the last 12 years that have had 0 effect on inflation. If we can print to help the rich and not cause inflation, why on earth could we not help the people that actually need that money? Would not our society be a better place if that money we printed went to the people that actually needed it?

[pmward]

Food for thought: If all the QE money the fed printed the last 12 years went to the needy... there would be no more needy. Moreover, since it would actually helped consumption, we would have had better economic growth.

[pmward]

Food for thought: If all the QE money the fed printed the last 12 years went to the needy... there would be no more needy. Moreover, since it would actually helped consumption, we would have had better economic growth.

You assume that giving poor people money will make them no longer poor. That is a fallacy. They will still likely make poor choices and end up poor again in short order. So do we just keep throwing more and more money at them, hoping they will change their ways?

Unless you disincentivize poor choices, it is an endless cycle. Also, beggars can't be choosers, so their should be restrictions on the use of any money that is not earned.

I've said multiple times in this thread that there are more effective ways to help than just giving money. I've also specifically said multiple times that this is discussion is in the context of the "hopeless cases". We can provide a floor. We can build more shelters, provide food, provide basic physical and mental health care, birth control, etc to these "hopeless cases". I'm not saying we need to meet all their needs. I'm saying we CAN meet their basic needs, and the only thing that prevents us from doing so is a lack of desire to do so. Our current system is definitely inefficient and can be greatly improved. But it requires capital to be invested to make those improvements.

[pmward]

Food for thought: If all the QE money the fed printed the last 12 years went to the needy... there would be no more needy. Moreover, since it would actually helped consumption, we would have had better economic growth.

The fed can print money but it can't print food, it can't print houses, it can't print electricity.

Where are all of these things going to come from that the newly printed money would be used to buy? Who is going to produce those things? And why would they produce those things for the same price relative to before the massive QE money printing, since the money is worth less now?

And what led you to participate on a Permanent Portfolio message board, which espouses to putting 25% of your portfolio into gold coins, held directly in your possession to prevent inflation from excessive money printing? Not trying to say you aren't welcome here, you are welcome, it just seems the PP would run counter to your beliefs on macroeconomics.

There is no limit on food these days. If they can print money, they can print food. There is no reason they cannot build more shelters, and shelters are not exactly going to be competing with family housing. Last I checked, we have a pretty bad unemployment rate right now. We have capacity to build infrastructure. And yes I do believe in investing in gold, and I do have a 20% static gold allocation, but not necessarily for the same reason you do. I do however believe there are limitations, and there are ways they can definitely print money that would cause problematic inflation... but helping the "hopeless cases" would not be it.

[pmward]

Food for thought: If all the QE money the fed printed the last 12 years went to the needy... there would be no more needy. Moreover, since it would actually helped consumption, we would have had better economic growth.

The fed can print money but it can't print food, it can't print houses, it can't print electricity.

Where are all of these things going to come from that the newly printed money would be used to buy? Who is going to produce those things? And why would they produce those things for the same price relative to before the massive QE money printing, since the money is worth less now?

And what led you to participate on a Permanent Portfolio message board, which espouses to putting 25% of your portfolio into gold coins, held directly in your possession to prevent inflation from excessive money printing? Not trying to say you aren't welcome here, you are welcome, it just seems the PP would run counter to your beliefs on macroeconomics.

Also, do you want group think here that will only confirm your bias, or do you want people here that will bring up ideas and challenge your beliefs? Seems to be a pretty bad choice to try to make someone that pokes holes in your beliefs feel unwelcome. You should question your beliefs. I should question mine as well, and I have extensively. Matter of fact, my beliefs once upon a time were more similar than different to your beliefs. But I was able to poke holes in them and find my way a bit closer to the truth (I think fully getting to 100% truth is impossible FWIW), so they are no longer my beliefs. If you actually let your guard down and be come willing to listen to what me and some others here have been saying, become willing to question things you've blindly accepted as truth, you may be surprised at what you find on the other side. Do you want the blue pill or the red pill?

[pmward]

I'm not saying we need to meet all their needs. I'm saying we CAN meet their basic needs, and the only thing that prevents us from doing so is a lack of desire to do so.

How do you define which of their needs are basic?

20 years ago, internet wasn't a "basic" need, but these days, it seems like it is.

30 years ago access to a bank account wasn't a basic need, you could use cash everywhere, get a job in cash, pay cash for rent, but today places require direct deposit and most commercial landlords don't accept cash.

10 years from now... something else might be considered a basic need, right?

How do we prevent scope creep? Is sex a basic need? All humans desire it and need it for mental health purposes.

How about belonging to a tribe? Is that a basic need? What if a person is a dick and isn't likable? Should we force others to invite that person to be part of their group, so he doesn't feel bad?

How about a sense of purpose? Is that a basic need? Humans get massively depressed without a purpose. What if you don't have one, perhaps due to lack of skills, lack of creativity, a genetic disorder, your mom smoked cracked and you were a premature infant? Should the government provide you a purpose?

Or can we medicate away the basic needs of sex, belonging, and purpose with pharmaceuticals that stabilize your mood in spite of not being able to get those things provided from the government?

And if you, PMward, decide that food, healthcare, shelter, cell phone with internet are basic needs, then what if some extreme leftists say that a car is also a basic need. And another one says a boat. And another suggests a mansion. How do you know where to stop? Because from the perspective of the people receiving these generous handouts, it will never be enough.

They will never tell the government to stop giving them free shit.

I'm sorry, but these arguments are all incredibly weak.

Is it really costly to equip shelters with old used computers available for the homeless to be able to access the internet? Especially if it might help some of them to get employed? No, it's dirt cheap.

Bank account is a necessity these days. Is this costly to provide? No, bank accounts are free.

Sex is a strong biological desire, but it is not an "unalienable right".

No being a part of a tribe is not a basic need. BUT providing more homeless shelters does help create a "tribe" to provide for the social needs.

Sense of purpose is not something that can be provided. But mental health care can help.

And of course there needs to be rules and definitions created. I think suggesting that a "mansion" could ever become a "basic need" is a ridiculous stretch.

[pmward]

Why does it seem like the difference between "basic rights" as defined by leftists always involve taking something from me, to give to someone else.

And here is the root if the issue right here. Go back and reread everything I've said, as I've already identified this self centered world view, and the belief that "I deserve more than them" as the only real roadblock to truly helping others that need it. Generosity and care for others is the scarcest resource in our society.

Taking my money in the form of direct taxation or via inflationary money supply expansion, to provide the "basic right" of some resource to a third party in need.

Taking my ability to freely move on public roads in my vehicle in order to provide the "basic right" of free speech, allowing protesters to surround my car and prevent me from leaving, to express to me that black lives matter.

But when it comes to libertarian view of basic rights, such as right to self defense, right to gun ownership, right to be transact commerce, right to be left alone, etc, all of which require nothing be taken from a third party, the leftists lose their shit over that.

You're making the same old bland populist arguments. I have no interest in populist arguments. I do not consider myself either a liberal nor a conservative; I do not consider myself a Democrat nor a Republican. I am a free-thinker, and I absolutely refuse to accept any dogmas. I only have interest in truth, and in what is best for the human race as a whole. FWIW, I believe you have a right to own guns and defend yourself and your family. I believe you have the right to transact commerce. But I also believe you have the responsibility to help those less fortunate that have an equal "unalienable rights" of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" that you do, that currently are not receiving those rights. If you really value those rights, shouldn't it piss you off that there are people out there that are not getting them? Shouldn't you want to fight for them? It pisses me off to no avail that there is still avoidable mass suffering in this world, that people that are no less valuable than I am are treated as if they are.

what is missing is that anyone who has gotten ahead by either a little or a lot has gotten there by making good choices and taking responsibility, it is a little confusing how it is so poorly understood that the idea of taking by force, and eliminating the responsibility for decision making on both the victim of theft (taxes inflation) along with the choice of who to help and how, and on the recipient who gets there needs met with no responsibility, might rankle the people who are putting in the effort... and seems complete contrary to everything we know about how success works.

[doodle]

Tom, I think your entire philosophy rests upon some things that you hold to be axiomatic truths that maybe just aren't so....your system is undergirded by a particular philosophy that has logical contradictions in it as well. In other words, you justify particular uses of force that support your philosophy while dismissing others. Can you explain why you think one individual should have the right to lock away millions of acres of productive land and all the assets on that land pretty much free of charge and have these rights enforced by government force?

I'd much prefer he have to rent those acres from the nation as a whole....seems more fair to me.....say 2000 a year rent

[sophie]

Following up to TF's post....

The claim that resources are unlimited is not exactly believeable. If that were true, they'd be worth nothing and there would be no incentive to limit their distribution in any way. Prices are fixed by supply AND demand. In this case, you're saying that demand is there but supply is infinite, so price should be zero. The fact that it isn't says that supply is not infinite, and that there is a cost to supplying it (e.g. people's labor).

Here's another analogy. Have you ever read the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy novels? In one of the later ones, the protagonist (Arthur Dent) and his companions are stranded on prehistoric Earth with a bunch of former telephone sanitizers and business consultants. They immediately decide to adopt the leaf as legal tender, in order to make everyone exorbitantly rich. Except that led to a teensy inflationary problem, with a going rate of 3 major deciduous forests needed to buy one ship's peanut. So they quite logically decided to revalue the leaf by burning down all the forests.

The whole field of economics exists because supplies of everything are limited. Sorry pmward, but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You only get to decide how to handle those limited resources. The question, then, is whether the government is a wiser administrator for those resources, by taking them away from some and directing them towards others, than the individuals who have created those resources. As a libertarian-leaning person, I would say that in the vast majority of cases, the government is not the optimal choice. If it were, why would San Francisco, with its exceedingly liberal government, have a much greater homeless problem (proportionally) than, say, Des Moines, IA, which is run with a much more conservative outlook?

[glennds]

If it were, why would San Francisco, with its exceedingly liberal government, have a much greater homeless problem (proportionally) than, say, Des Moines, IA, which is run with a much more conservative outlook?

Weather?

Seriously, all along the Pacific coast the theory is that homeless people migrate there because it is harder to survive being homeless in cold sub-zero climates. That's what I've always heard at least, in Portland and Vancouver, Canada.

[glennds]

You assume (wrongly) that providing the basic shelter, food, and necessities for the life of the "hopeless cases" would inflate the currency. I don't think you really understand what actually causes inflation. Simply "printing money" alone doesn't cause inflation... see the trillions we've printed and given to banks in the last 12 years that have had 0 effect on inflation. If we can print to help the rich and not cause inflation, why on earth could we not help the people that actually need that money? Would not our society be a better place if that money we printed went to the people that actually needed it?

I've been trying to buy a house for several years and the housing prices in my area are rising by 15% per year. Because the fed keeps printing money, lowering interest rates, and buying up mortgage-backed securities.

My rent has been going up 15% per year too, because of the same reason. Because rent prices and housing prices move in tandem.

Since housing is the biggest expense of most people, around 50% for many, it's tough to say there's no inflation when rent is going up 15%.

Of course, the official CPI-U numbers will say that's not true, because rent in SF and NYC are down 10% due to COVID. So on average, rents are only up 2% nationally.

That average doesn't do me any good when my rent goes up 15%. Directly because of money printing.

You're talking about asset price inflation more than consumption expense inflation. If you're on this discussion board, presumably you own other appreciating investment assets. My guess is they have benefited in the same way and for the same reasons that housing prices and rent have gone up. If I'm right, then you shouldn't complain about something on one hand when you are benefiting from the same phenomenon on the other hand because you can't have it both ways.

This is relevant to the overall discussion because the biggest driver of wealth disparity in recent years IMO is that Fed policies have driven asset values up considerably, and the part of the population that is not participating in appreciating investment assets has fallen behind at a fairly rapid pace thus widening the chasm of disparity.

[Tortoise]

If it were, why would San Francisco, with its exceedingly liberal government, have a much greater homeless problem (proportionally) than, say, Des Moines, IA, which is run with a much more conservative outlook?

Weather?

Seriously, all along the Pacific coast the theory is that homeless people migrate there because it is harder to survive being homeless in cold sub-zero climates. That's what I've always heard at least, in Portland and Vancouver, Canada.

I live in CA, and there are certain conservative-leaning coastal cities here (e.g., Newport Beach) that don't have nearly the kind of homeless problem that leftist coastal cities like L.A. and San Francisco do. That stark difference makes it quite clear to me that the politics of a city has a big influence on the size of their homeless population.

[Cortopassi]

If it were, why would San Francisco, with its exceedingly liberal government, have a much greater homeless problem (proportionally) than, say, Des Moines, IA, which is run with a much more conservative outlook?

Well, that's EASY!

[pmward]

Following up to TF's post....

The claim that resources are unlimited is not exactly believeable. If that were true, they'd be worth nothing and there would be no incentive to limit their distribution in any way. Prices are fixed by supply AND demand. In this case, you're saying that demand is there but supply is infinite, so price should be zero. The fact that it isn't says that supply is not infinite, and that there is a cost to supplying it (e.g. people's labor).

Here's another analogy. Have you ever read the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy novels? In one of the later ones, the protagonist (Arthur Dent) and his companions are stranded on prehistoric Earth with a bunch of former telephone sanitizers and business consultants. They immediately decide to adopt the leaf as legal tender, in order to make everyone exorbitantly rich. Except that led to a teensy inflationary problem, with a going rate of 3 major deciduous forests needed to buy one ship's peanut. So they quite logically decided to revalue the leaf by burning down all the forests.

The whole field of economics exists because supplies of everything are limited. Sorry pmward, but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You only get to decide how to handle those limited resources. The question, then, is whether the government is a wiser administrator for those resources, by taking them away from some and directing them towards others, than the individuals who have created those resources. As a libertarian-leaning person, I would say that in the vast majority of cases, the government is not the optimal choice. If it were, why would San Francisco, with its exceedingly liberal government, have a much greater homeless problem (proportionally) than, say, Des Moines, IA, which is run with a much more conservative outlook?

I did not say all resources are unlimited. You guys totally twist everything I say to the extreme. What I said is the resources to provide the basic needs of all are there. Sure, we can't give Tesla's to all... but Tesla's are not a basic need or an "inalienable right". So please let's stop exaggerating these ideas to their extreme.

To your last point. If these people that are EQUAL to you in every way are out there suffering, and unable to attain that "unalienable right" to life, liberty, and happiness... and if nobody is willing to step up and help them on their own.... THAT IS THE WHOLE ENTIRE REASON GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO BEGIN WITH. There is no purpose for government other than to ensure the rights of it's people are taken care of and provided for. To post this here yet again "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". In the libertarian/anarchist world where there is no (or very little) government there can never be equality, there can never be freedom, there can never be liberty, and there will always be tyranny, inequality, and oppression. These are the very things our country was built to avoid. A certain sect of the population benefits greatly from these ideas.... the rest suffer for them. Greater "freedom and liberty" for some at the expense of the "freedom and liberty" of others.

It doesn't matter if someone is responsible or not. It doesn't matter if someone makes good choices or not. Every person is equal, and no person should be left for dead, and to do so is a crime against humanity, and goes against everything our country stands for. I don't care about politics. I don't care about economics. What are discussing here is above all of that and takes precedence. What we are discussing here is core beliefs. What we are discussing here is far more in the realm of philosophy than economics or politics. When they formed our country where did they start? They sure didn't start with economics. They didn't start with politics either. They started with philosophy. Only when that philosophy of core beliefs is in place can you even begin to talk economics or politics... otherwise you wind up with inequality, tyranny, and oppression every damn time.

[Tortoise]

In the libertarian/anarchist world where there is no (or very little) government there can never be equality, there can never be freedom, there can never be liberty, and there will always be tyranny, inequality, and oppression.

That's quite the crystal ball you have! I envy your ability to imagine all hypothetical worlds without government and summarily conclude that none of them would ever work.

I don't care about politics. I don't care about economics.

It kind of seems like you do.

What we are discussing here is far more in the realm of philosophy than economics or politics. When they formed our country where did they start? They sure didn't start with economics. They didn't start with politics either. They started with philosophy. Only when that philosophy of core beliefs is in place can you even begin to talk economics or politics... otherwise you wind up with inequality, tyranny, and oppression every damn time.

One of the main branches of political science is political philosophy. Philosophy is at the core of politics; you can't cleanly separate the two. That's why people tend to get so passionate and worked up when they discuss politics.

You claim that you are rising above the fray of politics when you discuss your philosophical positions, but you are not. Your philosophy gives you a clear political leaning just as it does for the rest of us here.

[pmward]

Things like "philosophy" and "core beliefs" are indeed a hinderance. Because we are necessarily saying that these things are the most important. They are more important than economics. They are more important than money. They are more important than taxes. They are more important than inflation. They are more important that "rightists". They are more important than "leftists". They are more important than everything. Selling out on them necessarily is a loss for all. We are a country that has become really good at selling these things out. What our country, and our society as a whole really could use is more discussion of core beliefs and philosophies. Because anytime you leave these things out, you wind up with selfishness in the driver seat (both left and right are guilty of this). When we adopt these core beliefs we say that no sacrifice is too large to uphold them, that no cost it too great, that to sell them out even in any way is a loss to our society and humanity as a whole.

[Tortoise]

The idea of the centrality of individual freedom and responsibility is a core philosophical belief.

[doodle]

The idea of the centrality of individual freedom and responsibility is a core philosophical belief.

I agree with these....however I have an issue with land. Many of our founders were aware of this issue...in fact the issue with who owns the resources goes back thousands of years to Greece. We are entitled to the fruits of our labor, but no man created the earth and the animals and the trees and minerals. Those are the common resources of all humanity. However, our system has allowed certain private entities to lock the value of these common resources away for their own personal gain. That is a big issue that we need to come to terms with.

[pmward]

The idea of the centrality of individual freedom and responsibility is a core philosophical belief.

But the problem that I've mentioned multiple times and has not been refuted is that there is no clean line of demarkation where one persons rights end and others begin. There is an overlapping gray area, where one persons individual right conflicts with another persons individual right. One persons right to live can conflict with another persons right of choice in whether or not to wear a mask. So to look at just the individual, i.e. the self-centered world view, is innately flawed. You have to look at multiple angles to paint the full picture. One has to zoom out and look at the whole. You have to be willing to set yourself, and all your wants and desires aside, and say what is best for humanity as a whole? Is it ok if I gain while another suffers? Is it ok if inequality exists? Is it ok if oppression exists? Is it ok if poverty exists? Should we leave Darwinism to sort it out? Or should we, as a civilized society that has placed equal value on all human lives, work for this greater good? Should we be willing to make sacrifices to help those in need?

Another interesting question (and a belief I also personally hold) would be if anyone can actually prevent this greater good from eventually happening? What I see when I look back at history is a never ending and very slow progression over time away from small self-centered worldview, and more towards an integrated whole worldview. Sure there are bumps along the way, periods of regression, but the greater trend is clear. "Liberalism" and "concervativism" are both moving targets. One generations "liberalism" is the next generations "conservatism". There are always going to be people that pioneer change, and there are always going to be people that resist change. But the change will always happen regardless. Looking at the generations younger than us, it's clear that the evolution from generation to generation is continuing, as it always has.

[pmward]

That's what happens when you remove skin in the game. You incentivize irresponsible decisions.

So what about the people that are not capable of having "skin in the game"? Do you just write them off? I'm not disagreeing with any of the arguments you made there on the sect of society that is capable of being "productive". But there is a point where this falls apart. There is a point where you eventually wind up culling everyone that doesn't have "skin in the game" and/or makes "irresponsible decisions" and setting the rules up for to favor the people that (in many ways through pure random luck) are capable of having "skin in the game" and making "responsible decisions". If this is the line you support, to incentivize those with traits you see as most favorable and disincentivize those with traits you see as less favorable... well you just described discrimination, inequality, oppression, and tyranny to a T.

[doodle]

I'm not arguing for public land ownership. I acknowledge those are issues with commonly held property. Check out Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine....it's a short treatise on this topic. He argues that poverty and wealth are not natural states of man, they are the product of civilization....therefore a construct of man. Compared to kings and queens the American indians were very poor, yet compared to the poor of Europe they were very well off. We have created these conditions through engineering a certain social structure that is built upon land ownership. Paine makes a much more convincing argument than I could hope to here so probably best to direct you there.

[doodle]

Just rereading it myself...hows this for fundamental philosophical belief...the condition of no man should be worse once society has made the turn towards civilization than it was before it made the transformation to landed agriculture.

[pmward]

It doesn't matter if someone is responsible or not. It doesn't matter if someone makes good choices or not. Every person is equal, and no person should be left for dead, and to do so is a crime against humanity, and goes against everything our country stands for. I don't care about politics. I don't care about economics. What are discussing here is above all of that and takes precedence. What we are discussing here is core beliefs. What we are discussing here is far more in the realm of philosophy than economics or politics. When they formed our country where did they start? They sure didn't start with economics. They didn't start with politics either. They started with philosophy. Only when that philosophy of core beliefs is in place can you even begin to talk economics or politics... otherwise you wind up with inequality, tyranny, and oppression every damn time.

the philosophical position of caring for your fellow man is not the sole property of the emotional or the left, just because some chose to resolve those issues unemotionally with ideas that have some basis in reason.
helping the poor and unfortunate by taxing the haves and handing out to the needy is a bit like trying to teach somebody to swim by holding their head under water till they grow gills, it feels like you are doing something because we must (being enlightened and caring humans that we all are) the problem is nobody has ever learned to swim by being held under , nobody has ever grown gills, and the act of teaching them to swim this way pulls everybody closer to drowning...

taking, giving, and teaching responsibility matters, all forms of charity must take this into account in order to work..

Not every person is capable of being taught how to swim. These are the people I'm referring to. I'm not saying give money to everyone who asks. Most of our homeless for instance have underlying mental health issues that prevent them from being a productive member of society. Some of them, if given the resources, can recover and turn into a productive member of society. Others are simply not capable, mostly through random bad luck. What do you do with them then? If society isn't willing to help them, and the government turns their back on them as well, what happens to them?

[pmward]

the group you are talking about is a very small percentage of the total number of needy, the vast majority can learn to swim or to at least keep their head above water and float. if you do away with disincentives that discourage the givers from giving, and stop taking from them to support the bad decision makers i bet the charitable nature of the American people prevails, (it would surprise me if it didn't, even with getting double tapped Americans lead when it comes to giving)

This group is a minority yes, but that's precisely what this whole tangent in the discussion started from. How the inequality of those that are the minority is unjust. This so happens to be the most needy minority sect. And no I would disagree and say there is no evidence that the "charitable nature of the American people" prevails. I look back in U.S. history and I do not even see a shred of evidence that this would happen. Charity already exists, the American people as a whole are already choosing to not be "charitable in nature".

Now, when you discuss the sect of the population that can be taught to swim, sure investing in teaching them is much better than just giving them money and enabling them. But the government still needs to exist, and still needs capital to teach them. If they don't teach them, who will?

And let us not forget our discussion from this weekend, that still has not been refuted, that when we step further back and look at all groups of minorities as a generalization, that the opportunities cannot be equal. If the input variables for every group were equal then the outcomes would be in the realm of statistical randomness. And we don't have that now do we? The very division, consistency, and trend of outputs favoring people of one certain set of traits is far different than the outputs of people exhibiting other sets of traits. And that in a no government system, this problem not only does not go away... but it actually gets worse because the rules of a completely "free market" always tilt towards the majority. It always rewards the haves and punishes the have nots.