DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
no........ these rights are "unalienable."you mean to say the government does not grant us our rights?
Entitlement
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Go rob a federal bank and tell me again how laws don't mean a thing, princess
darrellduaner
Active Member
we have a right to nothing!
we should be entitled to a fair hearing when accused of wrongdoing
should be entitled to live without the fear of violence or coercion
we should be entitled to a fair hearing when accused of wrongdoing
should be entitled to live without the fear of violence or coercion
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
I won't be entitled to get away with it, will I?
We are "entitled" to nothing. Glad you agree.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
you have Natural Rights. its a choice to stand up for them, or not. standing up for them can get a SSWAT team at your door. these rights have been stated above, and in a certain document of note, from 1787. I won't repeat them here. our natural rights are clear to see, in fact.......I hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, as in.........no Wiki's, or Goggles, or stoner's bleary-eyed opines needed 
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
yes.......bring a tank and a tactical team to inform me I have no rights..........at least
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"Isn't that Communism? – If you have any respect for your intelligence, don't use that argument in pretty much any situation. We often hear this tossed at many social subjects like minimum wage and health care for example. Communism is about the public ownership of the means of production, and this is not what the idea of basic income is about. In fact, I'm hoping to convince you in this article that UBI would be very beneficial for a more benign functioning of Capitalism.
You can't make up new rights! – The idea of a UBI is nothing new. Rather than being a new right, it gives some real meaning and application of the rights affirmed in the Art. 3 of the Universal declaration of human rights. - "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Those rights sound very abstract without examining them in the context of reality. What does the right to life mean without the right to have water and food ? How free and safe can you be if you have to live on the street? When there is so little real application of those rights in the "developed" countries today, what could we say about the rest of the world... On the other hand the right of private property from the same declaration has a very real consequences applied by police forces and armies around the world.
If people get a basic income nobody would want to work anymore! - This is without doubt the most common argument against Basic Income, and it's absurd on many levels. It's wishful thinking to imagine that if everybody has his survival and basic needs assured, consumer culture is somehow miraculously going to disappear. Most people want to have more and better stuff, that's what they have been taught to desire since the youngest age. There are of course those people who are less interested in material possessions, but that doesn't mean that they don't have other costly needs – would it be traveling or a hobby for example.
Besides, what almost every person really seeks is recognition by other people and the sense of fulfillment. Both of those come easily to a person's life when they are doing something beneficial for their community.
People who are inspired by what they know and what they do are not going to stop doing it just because they don't have to worry to pay their rent and food, this is nonsense. On the other hand if a person is doing a low paid degrading job just because it's the only way to secure his survival, it is indeed very probable that this person would not want to continue doing the same job, and that's really good news.
The only people who would use this argument are those who are themselves demotivated and know that they don't want to work. The only way to see the world through this perspective is if you yourself don't have any real aspirations.
Employment is a voluntary exchange between consenting parties - This is another argument, often brought by capitalist libertarians, might sound good in a law-book, but actually has very little to do with reality. They often define the idea of basic income (and taxation in general) as violence. This only makes sense in our culture where paper is more valued than life. When I think of violence, irreversibly polluting billions of liters of fresh water while fracking for private profit sounds considerably more violent to present and future generations. This of course is just an example, greed is destroying the environment and people's life all around the globe in many different ways.
How detached from reality a person has to be to see a voluntary exchange of consents between an employer who doesn't even need to negotiate because there is plenty of labor at his disposal, fighting for the same underpaid degrading job; on the other hand an employee with his/her family's survival on the line. It is hypocritical or extremely short sighted to present what is often the theft of human capital as a consensual agreement between equal individuals.
The exchange between employers and potential employees would be very different if the survival of one of the parties didn't depend on that exchange. Basic income is not going to destroy the consensual exchange, it is going to improve it. Employers will have to value the people that they want to hire, by providing them better working conditions or higher wages. And this will be especially true for the jobs that "nobody wants to do" - like cleaning public toilets or sewers for example. If those services are vital to the health of the entire community and are obviously quite unpleasant to do, shouldn't they be well rewarded and people who do them treated with respect?"
http://piecefit.com/index.php/en/system-failure-all/a-rigged-economy/item/520-debunking-the-myths-around-the-universal-basic-income
Relevant
Shouldn't we first define the word "entitlement?" It seems to me it's used like the word "socialism" to imply an absolute, black-and-white "something you didn't pay for yourself."
But, isn't that the definition of zoning laws, building codes, food inspection, EPA, etc? An alteration of the "free market" to produce something that willing buyers and sellers wouldn't produce themselves?
I've rarely meet someone who comforts themselves with terms like "socialism" and "entitlement" who honestly wants to live in an environment where their neighbor can turn their home into a late-night biker bar, or pollute the air by using their backyard as a smelting plant to recover valuable resources from discarded electronics.
In fact, quite often the loudest among them live in neighborhoods governed by HoAs. They *chose* mutual limits on the use and disposition of their property for a more predictable and harmonious "community."
What could better define socialism than that?
The origins of this country were steeped in "wealth transfer." Consider the Constitutional Convention of 1789. After just 12 years of living under the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation, the founding generation *chose* a larger, more powerful, remote and centralized government. Sure, it was vastly smaller than today. But, it was *vastly* larger than what they had. Like every generation since, they chose stability and security over raw, pure liberty.
For example, prior to the new (federal) government of 1789, New York charged its neighbors usurious taxes for use of its deep-water ports. New Jersey was referred to as a "cask tapped at both ends." New York offered New Jersey repayment of all back taxes and free use of their port if New Jersey would oppose the proposed constitution.
Obviously, there was "wealth transfer" occurring with the creation of that new government.
Every time there is a new view of what is "society's" best interest, there's always a few who are unable to see that it's just one more of the same thing they themselves enjoy. I'm not saying we can't go overboard with entitlements (wealth transfer). But, it's hardly a black/white, absolute definition.
Finally, there are a tiny few "True Believer" libertarians who will say that we should live without building codes, zoning laws, etc. They are the irrelevant fringe. Most who sling around terms like "entitlement" and "socialism" just want the goodies they enjoy -- but don't expand it anymore. They don't realize the unwarranted dramatic effect of the terms they use.
Thoughts?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Socialism, as defined by Marx is IMPOSED upon the proletarians because they arent sufficiently "educated" (read as Indoctrinated) in the principles of "Scientific Marxism"
Socialism is intended to be a middle period between the violent revolution's overthrow of capitalism, and the eventual evolution of the (unfortunate but necessary) Authoritarian Socialist State.
During the (unfortunate but necessary) Socialist Interregnum, the revolutionary Proletariat is "De-Radicalized" (disarmed and oppressed so they cant choose anything other than Marxism) and then the former revolutionary proles, and the non-radicalized "Lumpen Proletariat" are both "educated" in the ways of Marxism whether they like it or not.
Mussolini's innovation in the field of Marxism was to introduce the idea of "Democratic Socialism" as a preparatory stage before the institution of the Authoritarian Socialist State, without the violent revolution.
Democratic Socialism uses democracy's own weakness against it, to whit; populist demagoguery, to undermine democratic rule through the promise of free shit and a better life. it preys upon the cupidity and stupidity of the demos to institute short term benefits at the expense of freedom, liberty and the risk of failure.
As Democratic Socialism slowly ratchets up the Socialism, it gradually cranks down the Democracy, until, like the frog thrown in a pot of cool water, the nation is cooked, in an almost imperceptibly slow manner.
Simultaneously, the weaknesses of Capitalism are used to undermine it's own existence, as industries and companies are gradually "privatized" (lulz, newspeak FTW) into the hands of party apparatchiks, well connected political power brokers, and the wealthy elitists who are often absolutely certain they know whats best for you, and only the ignorant and incompetent could fail to see how awesome they are.
By the time the foolish Demos discovers they have been sold a bill of goods, and their Democracy is vanishing, it is often too late to stop the increasingly powerful and unresponsive bureaucracy and corporatocracy which now dominates their lives, then, the Authoritarian Socialist State can simply impose it's will, as Marx described, and eventually we will all discover how great it is to be a drone, as society finally achieves the purity of an ant colony.
Naturally though, the "Intellectual Vanguard" are always just a little bit more special than the rest of the drones, so they get to be the bosses.
The system of Sovereign States designed by the US Constitution, and the Representative Republic it enshrines are the BEST form of government ever devised. laws can only be drafted within the framework of the Republic's founding documents, neither the States, the feds, nor any region should be able to impose it's will on the others, save by the consent of the governed, and the Checks And Balances worked great, for the first 87 years. then Federalism (the nation state instead of the republic) was imposed, a Federally imposed banking cartel was established, and the Money Trust (the rich fat cats of the Gilded Age) started fucking with the settings.
Now the system is all fucked up, we get a Blue Screen every time we try to save our work, we got pop-up ads all over the place, and spy ware, ad ware, and botnets are really in control of our system.
We cant do shit, except pull the plug, reboot, and hope that our anti-virus (the courts) havent been taken over by a Back Door program.
It looks like it may be time to wipe the drive, reload the Constitution, and restore from a clean backup.
Meanwhile, the Marxists are shouting we should switch to their old obsolete easily corrupted mainframe unix system, cus the user cant change any settings, install any tools or even change his password without Central Admin's permission, so the foolish user cant fuck shit up. of course you also cant improve it, stop using it, change to a different system, upgrade the hardware or software, or really do anything, unless Central Admin lets you, so you are just a terminal user on THEIR system, until they decide to end your access permissions entirely. They own your work, your terminal, and even the chair you sit on, so all you can do is press the buttons as directed. now get back to work.
The Ocuupytards and anarcho-__________ist dipshits are shouting we should all switch to linux, just beforte they get into a punchup over which flavour of linux we will have imposed on us.
The religious fucktards are insisting we all go back to Dos 6.1, cuz retrograde technology is awesome! we can all go back to the good old days when C:\> was burned into your CRT's top left corner, everything was "simple" text commands (which required constant interpretation from the High Priests in the IT dept.) and you couldnt share any information unless it fit on a floppy disc, because Networking was a sin. sure, your computer cant really do anything cool, but the Command Line Commandments already forbid such frivolity.
The Liberals demand we all switch to Mac, cuz it is ALMOST as difficult to administer, the restrictions are ALMOST as draconian, and the pool of software you are allowed to use is ALMOST as restrictive as the Unix mainframe systems that spawned it, but not quite. youll have more freedoms than North Korea or Cuba, so STFU and get back to work. Diane Feinstein needs a new Dacha in Big Sur.
The Republicans are demanding we switch to Windows Vista, cuz every time you try to do anything, the fucking User Account Control pops up to make sure you arent fucking up, it wastes resources on shit you arent using, have NEVER used, and WILL NEVER EVER use, it's full of security holes, letting your personal information leak into the NSA's hands (just in case...) it's vulnerable to all manner of attacks hacks, cracks, bugs, exploits and system failures, it only runs on SOME system builds without crashing, it slows everything to a crawl if you dont have the approved drivers installed, and it spends most of it's processor time and disc space writing files you dont want or need, and refuses to allow you to stop it's retarded buildup of useless junk in your system.
and the Spoonerite Libertarians are advocating for having NO system. we should be spending our time pounding maize on the ruined lanes of dilapidated highways, wearing leather clothes that will last us the rest of our lives, and climbing the wrist thick vines growing on the skeletons of once-mighty skyscrapers.
fuck that shit.
Last edited:
I was referring more to how it is popularly used today (the "talk radio" ad homin. A cheap way to stop all conversation. Label something "socialism!" and we're done talking because we've identified some core fault opposite to freedom and consensual relationships.).
Isn't it a matter of degrees? In a world where everything is defined by consensual agreement, we'd be responsible for purchasing enough land to buffer ourselves from our neighbor's choice to convert her home into a late-night biker bar. Instead of using government to force my neighbor to limit how she enjoys her property (via zoning laws), we'd be responsible for ensuring our enjoyment of our property.
Obviously, nobody (except a tiny irrelevant fringe) would choose to live that way. So, in the spirit of the founding generation who "socialized" New York's deep water port (for the "common good" of the nation), some generation in the past sought a more predictable, government-enforced standard for how we use our property as individuals. How we might consent (for example, my neighbor cutting me in on 10% of her proceeds) doesn't matter. It's all about stability, predictability at the expense of perfect liberty.
My point was, we rarely hear those who use terms like "socialism" and "entitlement" as pejoratives rail against these things we take for granted. What has become the "new normal" goes unstated. But, something new? OMG! "Socialism! Entitlement!"
Last edited:
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
everything that is "Social" is not "Socialist"
all co-operation is not based on the state's imposition of the state's imperatives (thats the core of "Socialism", BTW)
if New York's representatives of the people decide to impose a tax to build a port, the people have selected their representatives and thus give their consent to the wisdom of their chosen leaders.
if it turns out the majority of the people dont want a port, they can recall those representatives, and select new ones who will cancel the project.
under Socialism, if the state wants a port, they build a port and the people can pound sand.
Socialism does not ASK to do shit, they TELL YOU HOW IT'S GONNA BE and if you dont like it, you can eat a dick. if you STILL object, you can eat dicks in Gulag.
the blurring of the lines between Society and Socialism is a key tool in Democratic Socialism's cancerous growth.
libraries are not Socialist, nor are roads, theatres, museums, fire departments, police stations, monuments, public works projects, water systems, sewer systems or snow plows.
those are all things Society values, so Society selects representatives to implement.
meanwhile in a capitalist society, even if nobody but me wants a theatre or library, i can build one myself if i so choose, or i can team up with other like minded persons, form a company and we can finance it together. under socialism, what the state wants, the state gets, and ONLY what the state wants is allowed.
you can have fucktons of social programs public works projects and other things commonly called "socialism" , but under real Socialism, you cant have any capitalism at all, unless the state gives you special, and specific permission.
see the difference?
Democratic Socialism is STILL Socialism, just a slower, more insidious version, with less violence at it's inception. thats the only real difference. the end game is still the same, an Authoritatian Socialist State, with the nebulous promise of a Communist Utopia at the end of the rainbow. 100+ years of Marxism has NEVER resulted in a Communist Utopia., that should tell you something about the value of Marxist Promises.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
oh look bucky cant find a flaw in my description of Socialism, so he makes a snide comment that takes no substantive position.
did anyone count how many times bucky DIDNT cite a flaw in my description?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
But, I've given examples of "cooperation" which come at the business-end of a gun, authority sanctioned by a vote of the majority.
A majority voting to take my wallet isn't "socialization" of an otherwise free, market-based, consensual relationship?
The State only exists through the consent of the governed. If a majority vote to nationalize New York's port (as happened in 1789, after the founding generation had 12 lovely years of the libertarian Articles of Confederation), a minority will have something taken from them in a manner they wouldn't consent to in a "free market."
Today, if a majority votes to bail out a financial market, or extend unemployment benefits, all we hear is "socialism! entitlement!"
If you're saying the modern users of the terms (to poison conversations) are using it incorrectly according to accepted academic norms, I would agree. But, as I said, I wrote about them, not academia.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
in case anyone was wondering, kynes is a john birch society type who is still fighting the cold war and "multiculturalism". i would put him into the group of "educated racists" like you would find occasionally at american renaissance, rather than the belligerent jew-hating skinhead types of racists over at stormfront.
i reserve the right to tell him to save it for stormfront though since he would still fit in over there (minus the non-hatred for jews).
i reserve the right to tell him to save it for stormfront though since he would still fit in over there (minus the non-hatred for jews).
Being new, I should identify my political leanings. I wouldn't disagree *generally* with Kynes about multiculturalism, reverse racism, etc. I'd say I'm an economic liberal and social conservative.
I could agree with both of you on different topics. (Just trying to establish common ground so we're all be friends.).
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
That ain't gonna work.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
in a republic, as defined by our constitution, if you dont like the way the society's representatives are doing shit, and you cant convince enough people to vote for you, you can pack your bags and go to another state, another country, a deserted island, or even another planet.
Society imposes certain restrictions on your liberty, so that SOCIETY can function. if you are certain you can make a life for yourself without anybody else, you can try to do so.
expecting everybody else to accept your demands, despite their own imperatives being quite different is not society, its petulance.
only angsty emo twits have the kind of self absorbed egotism that demands all do as he bids, or they are robbing him of his liberty to do as he pleases.
if you decide it's super important for your liberty to drive on the wrong side of the street, society sends coppers to bust you, hopefully before you Liberty your way into a minivan full of kids who's mom is obeying society's strictures.
you may not like the restrictions, you may even oppose the restrictions but to blithely insist they dont apply to you cuz "Muh Liberties" and obstinately inssit on a Spoonerite belief that any law you didnt approve personally must be invalid, is ridiculous and anti-social.
if you simply MUST do something that's against the law then you get to face a jury of your peers, and hope they agree with your stance. if they dont agree, you may have to take one for the team, and spend some time in lockup
arguing that some hypothetical minority didnt approve a societal decision doesnt change the fact that SOCIETY makes the rules, and if you dont care for the result, the door is open, and you can move to the Principality of Spooneria and pledge fealty to King Lysander. nobody is stoppin ya.
thats why we have elections, so the imperatives of the majority are exercised, while we have a constitution to ensure that the majority doesnt steamroll over the minority opinion.
the courts act as referee to settle disputes between the individual and society, as well as settling disputes between individuals, with the constitution as their holy writ.
if that doesnt work for ya, theres lotsa different systems in play all over the world, but dont be surprised if they are less amenable to "Muh Liberties" than this one, and dont be shocked if it turns out their doors are enter only, and the only exit is locked and guarded.
Conservatives dont like new shit. thats what makes them Conservatives.
they only accept change when you can demonstrate that the new shit is better than the old shit, and sometimes even then, they dont embrace the new shit happily
adding new programs, new entitlements, and new systems to give more of their shit to others is naturally resisted by conservatism. only a fool is surprised that Conservatism is primarily interested in Conserving what is, and rejecting the new. "If it aint broke, dont fix it" is an axiom that always applies. thats why Conservatives save and invest, they plan for the future based on past performance.
Liberals and Progressives, and all the other left wing varietal names are dedicated to Hope & Change. they love to jump on the bandwagon, and try the new shit (even if it's really old shit with a new name, like Marxism) , and embrace it even if it's a pig in a poke, or a proven failure (like Marxism) they dont ask "is it better?" they rush forward on a frothy wave of feels, looking for some Hope & Change, and if shit doesnt pan out, they figure they can always try some other new shit, even if it is just more of the same old shit with yet another new name, (like Marxism). lefties figure, even if it costs society a shitload of dough to try each new (or newly re-branded) idea, well thats just the cost of being so full of Feels, and they can always get those mean old Conservatives to foot the bill anyhow. This is why liberals speculate, and lose their shirts (see Solyndra, et al) and then expect society to bail them out.
expecting Conservatives to embrace new untested, unproven ideas without complaint, or taking umbrage when those schemes are described accurately as Socialism (see Obamacare, which is actually Corporate Fascism, which is a subset of Socialism) is ridiculous.
opposing liberal's new, muttonheaded, starry eyed, Hope & Change bulklshit is what Conservatives do.
without Conservatives, we would be in a real mess as each new Hope & Change scheme piles on top of the last one that failed until society collapses (see the Weimar Republic, Imperial Rome, and the Qin, Song, Han, and Ming dynasties in china for more details)
likewise, if left to their own devices, conservatives would stagnate becoming moribund and pointlessly obsolete (see Native Americans, Great Britain, almost all of Africa, and most of Polynesia for more details)
Last edited:
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and if you listen to Bucky, i'm the devil himself, and i drink the blood of unchristened children to preserve my powers.
Be aware, if you disagree with Bucky on any issue, you are automatically a racist, homophobic, bircher, retard, child molester, and fool.
i can disagree on one subject and agree on another with anyone, my opinions are my own, and i dont hide them, nor do i demand anyone else accept them.
bucky however expects your compliance with his every opinion, and when that opinion changes (as often happens) you are expected to change with him.