Entitlement

[az2000]

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.

I couldn't follow the rest of your post. I agreed with many things you said, but it wasn't clear how it addressed what I've said.

A majority can vote to deprive you of your full rights to use (and dispose of) your property via zoning laws and building codes, for what *they* deem to be the best interests of *society*.

People who use the terms "socialism" and "entitlement" as conversation-chilling pejoratives would never call that socialization of the market (predicating society's interest over an individual's financial interest of their own property) by those terms. Instead, we're treated to a proper definition of Socialism.

But, when a majority vote to bail out financial markets, and extend unemployment benefits, suddenly conversations are chilled with slurs like "socialism" and "entitlement." What Plato thought centuries ago is of little importance.

Are you trying to say an "entitlement" is different than Socialism?

 

[Harrekin]

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?

Bitch please, there were plenty of awesome (at the time) games on DOS.

QBasic made many many possibilities too.

There's your flaw.

The rest is, Welcome to Europe?

 

[Nutes and Nugs]

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.

How true, like most of the liberals in riu.
You are with Buck and his friends or you're labeled a racist
Plain and simple.

I used to reply to non political threads with them but they will shoot you down.
Start calling you names or any reason they can find to demean you.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I couldn't follow the rest of your post. I agreed with many things you said, but it wasn't clear how it addressed what I've said.

A majority can vote to deprive you of your full rights to use (and dispose of) your property via zoning laws and building codes, for what *they* deem to be the best interests of *society*.

People who use the terms "socialism" and "entitlement" as conversation-chilling pejoratives would never call that socialization of the market (predicating society's interest over an individual's financial interest of their own property) by those terms. Instead, we're treated to a proper definition of Socialism.

But, when a majority vote to bail out financial markets, and extend unemployment benefits, suddenly conversations are chilled with slurs like "socialism" and "entitlement." What Plato thought centuries ago is of little importance.

Are you trying to say an "entitlement" is different than Socialism?

lets take a concrete example.

the bailouts of the banks.

i opposed them, because they are, in effect, Fascist Socialism.

if one wishes to engage in a capitalist venture, and that shit fails you FAILED.
when the government comes in, pats you on the head and uses other people's money to keep your venture afloat, The State has imposed their will on the populace for the benefit of their cronies.

if i, as an individual decided that AIG (just as an example) is too important to allow for failure i can willingly buy their stocks, float them a loan, give them a gift of cash, or buy them out in the hopes that the business turns around and ill make a profit. thats freedom.

when The State decides that i must buy their stocks, float them a loan, give them a gift of cash or buy them out, thats Socialism, and specifically, Fascism, the imposition of The State's will upon the people to benefit it's corporate cronies.

Boo000oo0ooosh did it, and Barry Seotoro did it, because BOTH of them (and the system as a whole) are heavily corrupted by Democratic Socialism (courtesy of Benito Mussolini).

if i decide to drop my life savings into a plot of land, and farm it, if the bottom falls out of the barley market, i will NOT get bailed out. ill lose my farm, and go bust.
AIG doesnt have that risk any more, and now can freely gamble with their investors money, secure in the knowledge that the feds will bail them out any time their shit comes up snake eyes.

and for this largesse (with taxpayers money) all The State demands is that AIG do as they are bid by The State. it's a win win situation since the risks are laid off on the tax payers, but the profits are reserved for the company as long as they keep lining the pockets of the politicians who control the purse strings. it costs AIG a little of their profits to secure themselves against loss, and thats an easy decision right there.

the extension of unemployment benefits is a subject fraught with perils. unemployment benefits are long enshrined in the system, and thus are what IS , and as such are defended (as extant) by Conservatives.
expanding them to Two Motherfucking Years is some New Shit, and though unemployment benefits are quite Socialist by nature, a little bit of Socialism is healthy for a capitalist society.
opposing the expansion of unemployment (being New Shit) is naturally resisted by Conservatives, and embraced by lefties. opposing the expansion is chracterized by the left as opposing the existence of unemployment benefits as a concept (which is Horse Shit), but thats how the game is played.

when you push unemployment to Two Motherfucking Years, your getting pretty fucking close to the totally Marxist "Basic Universal Income" bullshit that is the genesis of this fail ass thread.

remember, Democatic Socialism (Fascism) IS Marxism, just the slow creeping type, so identifying that selfsame creeping Socialism as Socialism is hardly "chilling the conversation" it's calling a spade a spade.

it may hurt some Feels, but Feels are not protected under the constitution, and Fascism (and in fact all forms of Marxism) hurts more than Feels when it takes hold.

 

[Nutes and Nugs]

Time for a song kids.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Bitch please, there were plenty of awesome (at the time) games on DOS.

QBasic made many many possibilities too.

There's your flaw.

The rest is, Welcome to Europe?

PBBBT!

no 3d rendering, no native audio support, no native mouse support, no networking, no native video resolution beyond monochrome command lines, etc etc etc, what kind of Protestant revisionism are you pushing here?

youre a heretic, and thus must be burnt at the stake.
Command.com Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It.

editing Autoexec.bat to add new functionality is for Calvinists and Anglicans

the Path Command associated with any directory other than C: \Dos is non-cannon, are you some kind of mormon or something?

 

[az2000]

lets take a concrete example.

I already had two concrete examples.

1. You would call financial (and presumably labor) bailout "socialism."

2. You (apparently) wouldn't call the other socializations of markets "socialism" because, well... they're the "new normal." You benefit from them. Society needs order or it won't survive. You'd sound like the irrelevant fringe by doing so.

I agree with you on the latter. You don't need to convince me with the parade of horribles again.

But, in either case, a majority felt it was in society's best interest to redistribute wealth. In either case, it is "the state." If you don't like it, can't get a majority to agree with you, you can leave.

All we're dealing with is perceived value of the socialization of the market. Costs vs. gains. Shades of grays, not absolutes.

A majority perceive value. Just because you find yourself in the minority doesn't mean it's "socialism" or an "entitlement."

 

[UncleBuck]

tell us all about your views on multiculturalism again, and how by "multicultural", you mean predominantly black, and how multiculturalism is marxism, and how multiculturalism is an anti-white ruse to bring on "a singular mindset".

 

[UncleBuck]

remember, Democatic Socialism (Fascism) IS Marxism

oh look.

kynes is redefining words again to suit his own retarded arguments.

 

[UncleBuck]

i added to my sig because the white supremacy paranoia simply leaps off the page.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I already had two concrete examples.

1. You would call financial (and presumably labor) bailout "socialism."

2. You (apparently) wouldn't call the other socializations of markets "socialism" because, well... they're the "new normal." You benefit from them. Society needs order or it won't survive. You'd sound like the irrelevant fringe by doing so.

I agree with you on the latter. You don't need to convince me with the parade of horribles again.

But, in either case, a majority felt it was in society's best interest to redistribute wealth. In either case, it is "the state." If you don't like it, can't get a majority to agree with you, you can leave.

All we're dealing with is perceived value of the socialization of the market. Costs vs. gains. Shades of grays, not absolutes.

A majority perceive value. Just because you find yourself in the minority doesn't mean it's "socialism" or an "entitlement."

1: The State bailing out any capitalist venture is by it's very nature poisonous to capitalism, whether thats Citibank gambling on sub-prime mortgages and bundling them into bullshit "securities" to sell to other equally foolish banks who were eager for a taste of the government subsidized loan programs or a guy who decides to open a Buggy Whip factory cuz he is sure horse draw carriages will be coming back in fashion.

2: you cant "socialize" a market without destroying that market. propping up one guy and letting another fail eliminates the very marketyness of the market. when The State decides which endeavours can or cannot fail in their enterprise, you cant be surprised if the market moves to the sectorr thats protected by The State while those without that benefit wither and die.

certain things have been done, and have become The New Normal. you cant undo them without some serious damage to the society as a whole (like social security, unemployment benefits, etc..) stopping their expansion is the duty of a conservative, while eliminating them is another matter entirely. depending on the nature of the program at question, eliminating it might be a good thing in the long run, a bad thing in the long run, or irrelevant, but the strong resistance to the elimination of ANY program or bureau is endemic in bureaucracy.

the terms "conservative" "liberal" "Right Wing" and "Left Wing" have become very confused thanks to history's inexorable march, but the general principles remain.

even the Classical Liberalism of the enlightenment era was resisted by the conservatives of the day (the OG right wing) and advanced by the liberals (the OG left wing) but now, classical liberalism is the foundation for our republic, and is DEFENDED by conservatives, while liberals attack it to advance their "progressive" agenda which is more akin to the monarchies and feudalism of old, than anything new. (look a the hereditary rule by the anointed elites in cuba, north korea, the soviet union etc to see what i mean) they just have new titles, like "The Dear Leader" or "El Presidente" instead of emperor or king.

further, there was no majority of the people whoi thought bailing out Chase, BofA or AIG was a good idea. our representatives took that upon themselves, and many paid for their perfidy in the next election.
barry seotoro's re-election cannot be considered a referendum on his bailout, since Booo000oo000sh's bailout was pretty much the same bullshit (and i hated that one too) there was other shit at play in Barry's re-immaculation and the foolish demos was still swooning and delirious from his "swaggah" while the press was giggling like schoolgirls and getting thrills up their legs every time he opened his gob to let another meaningless platitude slip out.

and finally, even if the majority thinks Socialism is a great idea, that doesnt make it any less Socialist just because it's popular.

when Ireland threw theyr revolt and liberated most of the island they VOTED for Socialism (mild Socilaism well restrained by law and tradition, but Socialism none the less) that it was the preferred choice of the electorate doesnt make Ireland any less a Democratic Socialist Republic, and if they like it, thats fine for Ireland. i prefer my capitalism, thank you, and any attempt to add more Socialism will not be getting my vote.

and if the US goes too far to the left and we start seeing this shit:

ill move to some other country.

 

[Commander Strax]

Well, you can't have that, but if you're an American citizen you are entitled to:
a heated kidney shaped pool,
a microwave oven--don't watch the food cook,
a Dyna-Gym--I'll personally demonstrate it in the privacy of your own home,
a king-size Titanic unsinkable Molly Brown waterbed with polybendum,
a foolproof plan and an airtight alibi,
real simulated Indian jewelry,
a Gucci shoetree,
a year's supply of antibiotics,
a personally autographed picture of Randy Mantooth
and Bob Dylan's new unlisted phone number,
a beautifully restored 3rd Reich swizzle stick,
Rosemary's baby,
a dream date in kneepads with Paul Williams,
a new Matador, a new mastodon,
a Maverick, a Mustang, a Montego,
a Merc Montclair, a Mark IV, a meteor,
a Mercedes, an MG, or a Malibu,
a Mort Moriarty, a Maserati, a Mac truck,
a Mazda, a new Monza, or a moped,
a Winnebago--Hell, a herd of Winnebago's we're giving 'em away,
or how about a McCulloch chainsaw,
a Las Vegas wedding,
a Mexican divorce,
a solid gold Kama Sutra coffee pot,
or a baby's arm holding an apple?

 

[Red1966]

"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

Those are pretty naive arguments. People will still work because other people still want stuff?" I have to wonder at your nativity if you think whoever wrote that drivel is worth reading, let alone quoting.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

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?

cigarette?

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

Well, you can't have that, but if you're an American citizen you are entitled to:
a heated kidney shaped pool,
a microwave oven--don't watch the food cook,
a Dyna-Gym--I'll personally demonstrate it in the privacy of your own home,
a king-size Titanic unsinkable Molly Brown waterbed with polybendum,
a foolproof plan and an airtight alibi,
real simulated Indian jewelry,
a Gucci shoetree,
a year's supply of antibiotics,
a personally autographed picture of Randy Mantooth
and Bob Dylan's new unlisted phone number,
a beautifully restored 3rd Reich swizzle stick,
Rosemary's baby,
a dream date in kneepads with Paul Williams,
a new Matador, a new mastodon,
a Maverick, a Mustang, a Montego,
a Merc Montclair, a Mark IV, a meteor,
a Mercedes, an MG, or a Malibu,
a Mort Moriarty, a Maserati, a Mac truck,
a Mazda, a new Monza, or a moped,
a Winnebago--Hell, a herd of Winnebago's we're giving 'em away,
or how about a McCulloch chainsaw,
a Las Vegas wedding,
a Mexican divorce,
a solid gold Kama Sutra coffee pot,
or a baby's arm holding an apple?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Those are pretty naive arguments. People will still work because other people still want stuff?" I have to wonder at your nativity if you think whoever wrote that drivel is worth reading, let alone quoting.

"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."

 

[schuylaar]

Bitch please, there were plenty of awesome (at the time) games on DOS.

QBasic made many many possibilities too.

There's your flaw.

The rest is, Welcome to Europe?

you did say DOS?

oh, the memories:

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

"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."

me! over here......I don't want to work! bring me shit.
that's inside every homo sapiens on earth. more resources, for less resources spent. its called survival. I want to work........when I feel like it. the rest of the time its, well......work.

"real aspirations"........"demotivated" EEK!! aka......non-productive.....burden on the state? you little Commie shit. if I want to sit on 5 acres in East Bumble-Fuck, Tennessee, in a rocking chair, eating Twinkies and getting diabetes, that's what I'll do. who will judge if I am "motivated" enough? we can have "Re-Motivation Camps."
my aspirations include producing food, medicine, and energy, and not worryin' about others "motivation."

you should apply to ICLEI. checkem out. its what UN Agenda 21 gets called on Main Street.

 

[schuylaar]

and the there was..the real deal..mystery points on space invaders..press space to play

 

[Padawanbater2]

me! over here......I don't want to work! bring me shit.

If you don't want to work, that's fine, you won't make any progress but I won't leave you outside to die either