Democratic Socialist Demands Free Housing

[Into the Night]

I figured you would make allowances for those who are UNABLE to work, T.A.. I suspect most people will do that. Even in our most primitive times, some cared for people who were unable to provide for themselves.

But for the lazy and incompetent, how to "get rid of them one way or the another?"

That can become a rather barbaric slope...as I suspect you recognized.

Talk to me about that.



May I respectfully suggest they may not be a drain on society, but may provide the need for a transformation much needed right now.

They may allow us to see that we will soon (may already have) reached a point where it makes no sense to pay enough humans a living wage so that everyone can live adequately without having to "earn" that living.

We can, of course, just kill those people who are lazy...or who are not competent enough to compete reasonably with computers and robots. Essentially, just put them out on an ice floe.

BUT, there may come a time, relatively soon, where the numbers of people we will have to "get rid of' will be significant.
(That time is right now. We already have way too many people who are not able to compete successfully with machines.)

We can talk about that here in our discussion.

Okay...let's start with the question of how we resolve that problem.

Just kill 'em?

Perhaps have them dig holes with a shovel for 6 hours a day...and spend 2 hours filling them in...5 days a week, fifty weeks a year?

Others may want to join in this discussion about how to rid society of them?

Communism never works, Doofan.

 

[Lionfish]

Providing respectable housing would fix that. You are such a hater.

Nordie, how many homeless have YOU taken in?

 

[Noking]

Is that your expert opinion as a moron?

But no, stooge - Breitbart is one of the few reliable sources of honest and accurate information.

Get back to watching CCP NOW! - you need to know what you "think" about issues.

If you find moron publications credible, then you've got some serious problems.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

THINGS THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE QUESTION ABOVE:

People who inherit money and do nothing to contribute...is that okay?

Yes. The people who made that money have every right to do what they please with it in terms of giving it away when they die. The government has no right to it. In fact, I'd call inheritance taxes theft.

People who marry into it and do nothing to contribute...is that okay?

Again, the person who made the money at some point did so and who they marry is their choice.

People able to grift others into giving money to them and do nothing to contribute...is that okay?

That's fine too. You, I, or anybody else is free to do with their own money what they want with it

The problem comes when the government forcibly takes someone's money and then uses it not for the common good of all, but to prop up someone in particular.

How do we set a standard for what "contributing" means?

Doing meaningful work that returns both pay to the person doing it and is beneficial to society, however marginally.

Do female and male prostitutes "contribute" enough and in a way that makes them okay?

Yes. Prostitution is generally illegal because of other issues it creates, not because it's done for money.

So it would be okay with you to have our government essentially condemn people to starve or freeze to death? You would not consider that too barbaric?

If they were unwilling to work when it was offered and they were capable, yes. For the mentally ill and otherwise genuinely handicapped, we should have care in an institutionalized setting for them where they can be taken care of properly. Those are not the person's fault. Note: Stupid, illiterate, lazy, and mendacious are NOT handicaps. They are self-inflicted.

Okay, that is certainly a stance to be advocated...one that I would vigorously opose...one I would vote against if advocated by a political party. But I accept there are others (who may be a majority) would would vote for it. I would vote for euthanasia rather than that.

I'm willing to bet a majority would vote for it. "Workfare" isn't a new idea. In fact, Clinton signed a bill requiring that into law when he was president.

Okay, also a stance to be advocated...and my reply would be the same as above. Essentially that would be condemning people to starve or freeze to death...and I would prefer euthanasia to that.

I see no reason to coddle the undeserving and unwilling.

I know of people who would never be able to obtain a GED certificate. By the way, I did not graduate from high school (quit in my senior year to join the Air Force...and earned a GED equivalence while in service. I have since graduated from college with a BA in Economics and Philosophy...and done all the work for an MA in Industrial psychology but never completed the dissertation.)

Anecdote is not evidence.

I would not want to put people into prison for being stupid...or lazy.

Stupid is a leading cause of people being in prison. It's a leading cause of crime.

Okay, if doing mindless work like digging holes and filling them in is something you would vote for...I understand. I would never do so.

I would not advocate for make-work. Work should be productive regardless of how menial it may appear.

Most lazy people end up harming productivity no matter what. That also has been true for a very long time.

Lazy long ago in terms of a job often got you beaten or killed by your peers if not your overseers.

Well, I am not sure we would "pay: them (get them food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and a few amenities) to do nothing. We would be "paying" them for doing the one thing they are good at...staying the hell out of the way. Not harming productivity.

If that's the case we should just by woodchippers and toss them in. Much cheaper than keeping them around.

But I understand people like you who might not agree with that.

I don't agree with it.

Thanks for discussing this with me, T. A.. It is a complex, potentially fraught problem.

No problem. That is what this board should be about after all.

Question, if I may: Do you see that having EVERYONE work might cause productivity problems because in order to provide jobs for humans...we might have to take jobs away from much more productive machines? Any thoughts on that?

New jobs and things to do are nearly continuously invented. There was a Twilight Zone episode, among other science fiction, that looked at that issue. A big part of the problem now is that there are almost onerous labor laws that make employment of the marginally productive difficult or impossible to do.

For example, about twenty years ago, Progressives in Arizona managed to get a higher minimum wage on the ballot and it passed. The wage was also tied to the cost of living index meaning it went up each year incrementally. The law they wrote had no room for exceptions. Everybody got the wage who worked at minimum wage.

One of the issues that immediately cropped up was there were a number of companies that employed the handicapped and severely handicapped doing simple tasks like stuffing envelopes or simple assembly of something they could manage. This included people who were blind, wheelchair bound, limited mobility, or having restrictions on what they could do with their hands. These businesses were previously exempted from minimum wage as they wouldn't otherwise be profitable. Most employed their workers part time and accommodated their schedules of things like medical care and the like. The workers often felt a real satisfaction in having something to do and making a contribution to society.

The new minimum wage law, which the advocates said would raise these worker's wages found instead that the companies went out of business and terminated all of their employees. They simply couldn't pay them what was demanded by law and make even a small profit, which was all they previously made.

My position is that we should be trying to maximize the utilization of people in our society for its betterment. We should not coddle or tolerate those who choose to be lazy and / or stupid. We should NOT encourage an Idiocracy. Socialism encourages an Idiocracy.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes. The people who made that money have every right to do what they please with it in terms of giving it away when they die. The government has no right to it. In fact, I'd call inheritance taxes theft.


Again, the person who made the money at some point did so and who they marry is their choice.


That's fine too. You, I, or anybody else is free to do with their own money what they want with it

The problem comes when the government forcibly takes someone's money and then uses it not for the common good of all, but to prop up someone in particular.


Doing meaningful work that returns both pay to the person doing it and is beneficial to society, however marginally.


Yes. Prostitution is generally illegal because of other issues it creates, not because it's done for money.


If they were unwilling to work when it was offered and they were capable, yes. For the mentally ill and otherwise genuinely handicapped, we should have care in an institutionalized setting for them where they can be taken care of properly. Those are not the person's fault. Note: Stupid, illiterate, lazy, and mendacious are NOT handicaps. They are self-inflicted.


I'm willing to bet a majority would vote for it. "Workfare" isn't a new idea. In fact, Clinton signed a bill requiring that into law when he was president.


I see no reason to coddle the undeserving and unwilling.


Anecdote is not evidence.


Stupid is a leading cause of people being in prison. It's a leading cause of crime.


I would not advocate for make-work. Work should be productive regardless of how menial it may appear.


Lazy long ago in terms of a job often got you beaten or killed by your peers if not your overseers.


If that's the case we should just by woodchippers and toss them in. Much cheaper than keeping them around.


I don't agree with it.


No problem. That is what this board should be about after all.

New jobs and things to do are nearly continuously invented. There was a Twilight Zone episode, among other science fiction, that looked at that issue. A big part of the problem now is that there are almost onerous labor laws that make employment of the marginally productive difficult or impossible to do.

For example, about twenty years ago, Progressives in Arizona managed to get a higher minimum wage on the ballot and it passed. The wage was also tied to the cost of living index meaning it went up each year incrementally. The law they wrote had no room for exceptions. Everybody got the wage who worked at minimum wage.

One of the issues that immediately cropped up was there were a number of companies that employed the handicapped and severely handicapped doing simple tasks like stuffing envelopes or simple assembly of something they could manage. This included people who were blind, wheelchair bound, limited mobility, or having restrictions on what they could do with their hands. These businesses were previously exempted from minimum wage as they wouldn't otherwise be profitable. Most employed their workers part time and accommodated their schedules of things like medical care and the like. The workers often felt a real satisfaction in having something to do and making a contribution to society.

The new minimum wage law, which the advocates said would raise these worker's wages found instead that the companies went out of business and terminated all of their employees. They simply couldn't pay them what was demanded by law and make even a small profit, which was all they previously made.

Okay. We disagree significantly...and that happens.

My position is that we should be trying to maximize the utilization of people in our society for its betterment. We should not coddle or tolerate those who choose to be lazy and / or stupid. We should NOT encourage an Idiocracy. Socialism encourages an Idiocracy.

As I see it, the main reason we invent machines is to take work away from (ease the workload of) humans...starting way back with the wheel. Ya take down an elephant and have to get it back to the cave so the group can eat. At some point, someone saw that there was a mechanical advantage to transport the heavy load back to the cave...and the wheel was born.

Just about all the other inventions (maybe with the exception of the Rubik's Cube and Trojan prophylactics) also had in mind to ease the workload of humans. Currently we have machines (or can relatively easily invent them) to do that to an incredible degree. Actually, so much that paying humans a reasonable wage to do most jobs no longer makes sense...and that is a situation getting more extreme with each passing year. Currently, we have what essentially are billions of mechanical slaves working for us, we'd almost have to invent work and then get industry to pay good salaries in order to accommodate everyone...even the lazy.

Of course, we may evolve to the point where factory owners and capitalistic investors will see the problem and say, "We've got to pay enough humans sufficient money so that all can be contributors and can earn enough to live a decent life...even though our profits will be much less."

After all, no billionaire really needs or wants that much money...or needs/wants multi-million dollar houses in a dozen locations...or huge yachts...or fleets of cars...or caches of jewels...or golden toilet seats.

I just suppose that kind of thinking is less likely to happen than changing our desires to cling to what we used to call, "The Protestant Work Ethic."

I may be wrong. I may be 100% full of shit about that.

The fact that so far, nobody else has even commented on any of this...seems to indicate that may be the case.

Once again. Thanks for sharing, T. A.

 

[IBDaMann]

That is an answer...and I am not responsible if you are too stupid to realize that.

Of course, Frank Apisa has to blame others for the stupidity of his positions. It becomes painfully obvious that he is so thoroughly ashamed of the fact that he has been relegated to regurgitating embarrassing gibberish that he resorts to hurling insults at those who notice his perdicament.

Frank Apisa, aka Ross Dolan, still hasn't posted a single honest word on JPP.

Go get educated and then come back. Maybe then you can discuss things intelligently.

Of course, Frank Apisa needs for others to just go away, because every moment he is scrutinized by others is another moment of intense shame at his miserable state of mental slavery.

 

[countryboy]

‘Squad’ Member Ayanna Pressley: ‘Eviction Is an Act of Violence,’ ‘Housing Is a Human Right’​

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) says that her “HELP Act would give a lifeline to families facing eviction and vital resources during this time of crisis,” arguing that “housing is a human right” and that “evictions are an act of policy violence.”

‘Squad’ Member Ayanna Pressley Calls Eviction ' Act of Violence'

Rep. Ayanna Pressley says her HELP Act would give families facing eviction legal resources, arguing that “housing is a human right.”

www.breitbart.com

That's a man baby!

 

[QP!]

What you are describing is theft, Frank...

You call it theft if you are a child.

When governments take taxpayer money away to deliver back services that cannot be fully and properly delivered without such aggregation that is not theft in a democracy as the people elect the Politicians who make these decisions as their representatives.

It does not matter that a group of citizens will agree with CERTAIN spending priorities (roads, military, etc) but not others (healthcare, etc) and vice versa, as everyone has a right to agree with and disagree with the priorities they want to.

But what is NOT, is theft when you disagree with the priorities chosen but ALL GOOD when it is the priorities you do agree with.

That issue is settled at the ballot box by ensuring you chose the politicians who represent YOUR priorities.

If you do not like that Democracies function that way the answer is to move to another country that reflects your view.

 

[QP!]

Yes. The people who made that money have every right to do what they please with it in terms of giving it away when they die. The government has no right to it. In fact, I'd call inheritance taxes theft.
...

^ and that is stupid.

The consideration of taxes as income or "money incoming", as is the root and history of the word is taken from the perspective of the person RECEIVING it and NOT the person giving it.

that the person giving it paid taxes on it is as irrelevant as saying Companies paid taxes on almost all of their inputs before paying employees and thus employees should pay no taxes on the income they got as that money was already taxed prior to them getting it.

Of course the person receiving inheritance INCOME should pay income tax on it. There is no logic honest argument against it. And saying 'income gained by hard work should be taxed', but 'income gained by inheritance should not' is just rich people lobbying to exempt the MAIN forms of income they get.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you find moron publications credible

New York Times, WaPo?

No, I don't find them credible, because they are demagogues who make Goebbels look like a straight shooter.

I turn to reliable and honest reporting, such as Breitbart.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's a man baby!

View attachment 81337

If that's not altered, there IS a lot of beard stubble..

 

[QP!]

It is as specious an argument as saying 'Capital Gains income should be taxed less than income gained from working a job because the money put in to stock was already taxed when it was earned as income'.

first there are a lot of 'professional traders' who only make their income from trading stocks so why that income should be taxed lower than someone at a regular day job makes sense.

and again the argument of 'that money was already taxed', because rich people are often using money made elsewhere and taxed falls apart as you will not find money in the Capital system that is not 'already taxed' over and over and over before ending up as any form of income for the individual. Corporations pay layers of tax before giving the employee income too.

So rich people create this artificial and arbitrary category by saying 'but ya i was taxed once already and taxing me a second time is wrong, so my secondary (and greater income most times) should be tax free'.

Well then an individual working two jobs could say 'my first income was taxed too, so my second income, in the same way a rich guy gets a break, should be given a break'.

People can spin and spin and spin for the rich but in the end this is simple. These are all just forms of income (money incoming as the word denotes) to an individual and taxing 'all forms of income equivalently' is absolutely fair and only rich people lobbying gets them a break on that.

 

[QP!]

*...so why that income should be taxed lower than someone at a regular day job makes (no) sense.

FMP

 

[T. A. Gardner]

As I see it, the main reason we invent machines is to take work away from (ease the workload of) humans...starting way back with the wheel. Ya take down an elephant and have to get it back to the cave so the group can eat. At some point, someone saw that there was a mechanical advantage to transport the heavy load back to the cave...and the wheel was born.

The reason we invent machines to do various things and work various jobs is because the machine(s) does it better, faster, and cheaper than humans do.

Just about all the other inventions (maybe with the exception of the Rubik's Cube and Trojan prophylactics) also had in mind to ease the workload of humans. Currently we have machines (or can relatively easily invent them) to do that to an incredible degree. Actually, so much that paying humans a reasonable wage to do most jobs no longer makes sense...and that is a situation getting more extreme with each passing year. Currently, we have what essentially are billions of mechanical slaves working for us, we'd almost have to invent work and then get industry to pay good salaries in order to accommodate everyone...even the lazy.

Better than human slaves... Which by the way, for most of history were something allowed in societies because humans did the work faster, cheaper, and better than animals did. Paying humans a "reasonable wage" to do something that wasn't worth that wage has been a part of human history like forever too. It is only with a combination of ill-founded compassion for the stupid and lazy, along with an excess of capital, that the idea of paying people not to work or paying them more than they are worth to do some menial task has taken place. The problem with that idea is when it is coupled with democracy and the concept of socialism, that society as a whole starts to force certain individuals--the wealthy if you will--to be magnanimous with their wealth whether they want to or no.

Also, almost all societies that did allow slaves required usually by custom or law, that the owner was responsible for their treatment and that that treatment had to meet certain standards. That is, abusing or starving slaves wasn't allowed. Other societies put limits on the term of service like say, 10 years, or something.

Today, slavery still exists. One common form of it is countries, like India, and throughout Asia, where debt is inheritable. That is a means to put someone in what amounts to slavery.

Of course, we may evolve to the point where factory owners and capitalistic investors will see the problem and say, "We've got to pay enough humans sufficient money so that all can be contributors and can earn enough to live a decent life...even though our profits will be much less."

I would assume a better alternative is find a way off the planet. When the human population reaches a point where there are simply too many people, the easiest solution if it is available, is simply ship the excess off to who-knows-where there aren't many people and let them deal with the situation there. That was a big driver of colonization from roughly the 13th century to the 19th.

After all, no billionaire really needs or wants that much money...or needs/wants multi-million dollar houses in a dozen locations...or huge yachts...or fleets of cars...or caches of jewels...or golden toilet seats.

If they made that money fair and square, so to speak, what right do YOU or I have to steal it from them to use as WE see fit rather than as they, the person that made it, sees fit?

I just suppose that kind of thinking is less likely to happen than changing our desires to cling to what we used to call, "The Protestant Work Ethic."

That work ethic isn't a bad thing.

I may be wrong. I may be 100% full of shit about that.

The fact that so far, nobody else has even commented on any of this...seems to indicate that may be the case.

Once again. Thanks for sharing, T. A.

Same. Nice to have a discussion versus a stupid slapping match like some here simply can't do otherwise.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The reason we invent machines to do various things and work various jobs is because the machine(s) does it better, faster, and cheaper than humans do.

Yup...which essentially is what I said. Machines, for the most part, are invented to take work away from humans. The do"do it better, faster, and cheaper than humans." Best, in my opinion is to have machines, robots, computers doing as much of the work we want/need done as possible...and to have as little of it done by humans as possible.

Just an opinion.

Better than human slaves...

Much better...and so many more.

Which by the way, for most of history were something allowed in societies because humans did the work faster, cheaper, and better than animals did. Paying humans a "reasonable wage" to do something that wasn't worth that wage has been a part of human history like forever too. It is only with a combination of ill-founded compassion for the stupid and lazy, along with an excess of capital, that the idea of paying people not to work or paying them more than they are worth to do some menial task has taken place. The problem with that idea is when it is coupled with democracy and the concept of socialism, that society as a whole starts to force certain individuals--the wealthy if you will--to be magnanimous with their wealth whether they want to or no.

I would want to be the guy trying to "force" someone like Trump, Bezos, Musk or so many other billionaires of today to be magnanimous with their wealth. I would love to be the guy "forcing" them to accumulate a much as possible even if some assholes like me suggest that is not in their best interests.

I would almost guarantee great results.

Also, almost all societies that did allow slaves required usually by custom or law, that the owner was responsible for their treatment and that that treatment had to meet certain standards. That is, abusing or starving slaves wasn't allowed. Other societies put limits on the term of service like say, 10 years, or something.

Yup. Here is what the god of the Bible says about slavery at Leviticus 25:44ff:

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you BUY them from among the neighboring nations. You may also BUY them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES."
Leviticus 25:44ff

I find that harsh...and I understand the arguments that mitigate against what is said there.
'
BUT the mechanical slaves that we now possess have no such "harsh" problems involved...or at least, much fewer of them. They work willingly for us. And they are the best slaves that have ever been possessed. The slavery of the machines seems more moral and ethical to me.

I just cannot understand why we would want humans taking jobs from them...just because we are forcing the humans to work in order to live. Let the machines do as much of the work as possible...even if it means humans will not be able to work the long hours they presently do...even if it means not all humans will be able to work. We are better off if the machines do as much of the work as possible...we have more to go around because they are more productive.

Today, slavery still exists. One common form of it is countries, like India, and throughout Asia, where debt is inheritable. That is a means to put someone in what amounts to slavery.

Granted.

I would assume a better alternative is find a way off the planet. When the human population reaches a point where there are simply too many people, the easiest solution if it is available, is simply ship the excess off to who-knows-where there aren't many people and let them deal with the situation there. That was a big driver of colonization from roughly the 13th century to the 19th.

Okay, here is an area where we disagree. In my opinion "a better alternative" is to allow humans to work less...and in fact, to refuse to allow certain humans to work at all. Those who are lazy or incompetent should not be allowed to work at all...to gain the advantages that work allows people to get.

You think the better alternative is to find a way off the planet.

We disagree.

If they made that money fair and square, so to speak, what right do YOU or I have to steal it from them to use as WE see fit rather than as they, the person that made it, sees fit?

I just do not think of it as stealing. Governments and governments have to be funded. If we have a way to fund them without everyone working...why not do it. The people who do work get more...LOTS MORE. And the people who do not work at least get to live...with food, shelter, and the other necessities of life.

You...AND MANY OTHERS...disagree. Fine.

That work ethic isn't a bad thing.

Perhaps. But perhaps it is not a good thing either.

Perhaps it is becoming an unnecessary burden.

Same. Nice to have a discussion versus a stupid slapping match like some here simply can't do otherwise.

This has been a pleasure, T. A.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I would want to be the guy trying to "force" someone like Trump, Bezos, Musk or so many other billionaires of today to be magnanimous with their wealth. I would love to be the guy "forcing" them to accumulate a much as possible even if some assholes like me suggest that is not in their best interests.

I would almost guarantee great results.

Right up until you run out of billionaires...

 

[Ross Dolan]

Right up until you run out of billionaires...

Oops.

Somehow I erroneously edited out the word "NOT" from the first part of that sentence.

I meant it to read, "I would NOT want to be the guy trying to "force" someone like Trump, Bezos, Musk or so many other billionaires of today to be magnanimous with their wealth. I would love to be the guy "forcing" them to accumulate a much as possible even if some assholes like me suggest that is not in their best interests."

Frankly, I would love to "run out of billionaires." I suspect you would not. Is that an area where we are in disagreement?

I have a question for you if we are.

 

[Lionfish]

Oops.

Somehow I erroneously edited out the word "NOT" from the first part of that sentence.

I meant it to read, "I would NOT want to be the guy trying to "force" someone like Trump, Bezos, Musk or so many other billionaires of today to be magnanimous with their wealth. I would love to be the guy "forcing" them to accumulate a much as possible even if some assholes like me suggest that is not in their best interests."

Frankly, I would love to "run out of billionaires." I suspect you would not. Is that an area where we are in disagreement?

I have a question for you if we are.

Frankie, just how many homeless have YOU taken in?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can't help you with your irrational hatred of them...I am not a Democrat.

As an outsider, I suggest that most of the damage being done to America (the American dream sounds a bit dramatic)...is being done by people like you on the right. Always has been that way. The American right has been on the wrong side of American history in most of its major conflicts. During Revolutionary days, the American conservatives were the ones saying that we all owed fealty to George III and that people like the Founding Fathers were traitors. They called themselves "Tories"...Brit speak for "conservatives."

During the Civil War, American conservatives were the rebels and slave owners. During WWI, American conservatives were "let them kill each other, we stay out" people. Even during WWII, there were a number of American conservatives who were enamored of Hitler.

So perhaps you should channel your scorn, contempt, and hatred in the opposite direction.

(To suggest you have no scorn or contempt considering the stuff you post...is an absurdity.)

ROFL

You sure lie a lot.

Reality doesn't suit you, so you make up a fantasy that does.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Oops.

Somehow I erroneously edited out the word "NOT" from the first part of that sentence.

I meant it to read, "I would NOT want to be the guy trying to "force" someone like Trump, Bezos, Musk or so many other billionaires of today to be magnanimous with their wealth. I would love to be the guy "forcing" them to accumulate a much as possible even if some assholes like me suggest that is not in their best interests."

Frankly, I would love to "run out of billionaires." I suspect you would not. Is that an area where we are in disagreement?

I have a question for you if we are.

We are in disagreement there. Like it or not, guys like Bezos and Musk are what move progress and wealth for a great many, not everyone, but many, forward. Sure, they make billions. But there are lots of others that make hundreds of thousands to millions because of them. They don't profit in a vacuum where they're the only one making all the money.