Reponsibilities

Renae · Mar 24, 2017

soylentgreen said:
Yes all those things. I live in a country where we still do have a cradle to grave welfare system.

And a right is an agreement between people. The rights mentioned above are those that the people of nz have agreed to and the government enforces.

A right, confers no obligation on another to provide for the exercise of said right. All of those, even a right to a gun, are not rights, they are wishes.

(You do have a right to self defense, and thus the right to possess a means of defense ergo a gun, but you do not have a RIGHT to a gun)

What you say, Renae, what are you on about?

It's simple really, for you to have a RIGHT to say medical care, it means someone else must be FORCED to provide you the means to said care. For you to have a RIGHT to a house would mean another person would be forced to concede property (wealth generally) so that you might enjoy your supposed RIGHT.

Now, let me ask you, what gives you the RIGHT to demand government to take from others and give to you? How are those people free if they are being forced to provide for your needs?

Renae · Mar 24, 2017

soylentgreen said:
I can give you links from many sources. You on the other hand are reduceds to nothing more than biased sources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/donald-trump-joseph-mccarthy/399056/
McCarthyism is resurfacing in politics | The Daily Cardinal
McCarthyism: Then and Now - Progressive.org
https://qz.com/572752/princeton-theorist-republicans-today-are-taking-notes-from-mccarthyism/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42589894?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Some of these are university papers.

You have no clue what socialism is which is quite clear from you inability to do any more than just say you know.

It is obvious that you cannot argue your position. It is obvious that you have just accepted what you have been told and refuse to look at anything or even look around the world to try and understand what socialism is. A poor effort toi reason on your part and my point is clearly made.

I can discuss it all day, you've made it clear that you believe that your position is superior and that I am incapable, so no matter what effort I put into the discussion you've already shown your hand, I'm wasting my time and effort. Oh and even your links prove my point, McCarthy was anti-communist. Thanks for the fail, it's been fun to watch.

scott42 · Mar 24, 2017

Renae said:
A right, confers no obligation on another to provide for the exercise of said right. All of those, even a right to a gun, are not rights, they are wishes.

(You do have a right to self defense, and thus the right to possess a means of defense ergo a gun, but you do not have a RIGHT to a gun)

What you say, Renae, what are you on about?

It's simple really, for you to have a RIGHT to say medical care, it means someone else must be FORCED to provide you the means to said care. For you to have a RIGHT to a house would mean another person would be forced to concede property (wealth generally) so that you might enjoy your supposed RIGHT.

Now, let me ask you, what gives you the RIGHT to demand government to take from others and give to you? How are those people free if they are being forced to provide for your needs?

I find it unfortunate that you automatically choose to use the word 'Forced', when we're discussing aid to those with less. I find it deeply unfortunate, because desire (such as the desire to hoard what you have and others do not) is the cause of suffering.

You have my pity, because wealth and property is forever, but your interest in such things is not. I've no wish to watch anyone suffer.

Renae · Mar 24, 2017

scott42 said:
I find it unfortunate that you automatically choose to use the word 'Forced', when we're discussing aid to those with less. I find it deeply unfortunate, because desire (such as the desire to hoard what you have and others do not) is the cause of suffering.

You have my pity, because it's only 'likely' that wealth and property will last forever, but your interest in such things is not. I've no wish to watch anyone suffer.

So you admit you believe it's proper to take from those you believe have more than they need? What is the acceptable amount of "stuff (wealth/property)" that you deem acceptable for any one person or family?

You wish to take, by force that which is not yours and distribute it in a manner that makes you feel good through Government force. To assuage suffering, you wish to deny others, interestingly, immoral worldview.

Back to the original point, socialism isn't freedom, and you just flat admitted that. Thanks

scott42 · Mar 24, 2017

Renae said:
So you admit you believe it's proper to take from those you believe have more than they need? What is the acceptable amount of "stuff (wealth/property)" that you deem acceptable for any one person or family?

You wish to take, by force that which is not yours and distribute it in a manner that makes you feel good through Government force. To assuage suffering, you wish to deny others, interestingly, immoral worldview.

Back to the original point, socialism isn't freedom, and you just flat admitted that. Thanks

I refrain from stealing, so no.
I also refrain from slander or being dishonest, so you're incorrect about this too.
I cannot admit to anything you've suggested, and I apologize for not being able to feel the potential frustration or anger you might have been reaching for.

soylentgreen · Mar 24, 2017

Renae said:
A right, confers no obligation on another to provide for the exercise of said right. All of those, even a right to a gun, are not rights, they are wishes.

(You do have a right to self defense, and thus the right to possess a means of defense ergo a gun, but you do not have a RIGHT to a gun)

What you say, Renae, what are you on about?

It's simple really, for you to have a RIGHT to say medical care, it means someone else must be FORCED to provide you the means to said care. For you to have a RIGHT to a house would mean another person would be forced to concede property (wealth generally) so that you might enjoy your supposed RIGHT.

Now, let me ask you, what gives you the RIGHT to demand government to take from others and give to you? How are those people free if they are being forced to provide for your needs?

How typical that when it comes to anything to do with governance an american always gives this crap about being forced.
As i said a right is what people agree upon not what is forced upon them, that is coercion. I have aright to medical care because i live in a country where the majority has voted that such rights should exist. These rights come from the people voting into power political parties who understand that they have been mandated to uphold these rights.

I live in a democracy where such things are given more priority or less priority by the government that gets voted in on the basis of their political platforms to either push for these rights and strengthen them or by policies to concentrate expenditure in other areas.

You however come from a country where rights are simply a lip service such as your current president who will ignore what the people want because he is the kind who insists he will tell you how to make america great rather than give the people any voice. i understand why you think it is force it is because you live under a regime that forces its ideals upon you. Your freedom is only what your politicians allow you to have.

You have no idea what socialism is because you have no idea how to exercise your political rights, you have no ability to elect people who will represent you but only those who will tell you what to think and do.

Renae · Mar 24, 2017

scott42 said:
I refrain from stealing, so no.

Yes, we know, you vote for it to be legalized.

scott42 said:
I also refrain from slander or being dishonest, so you're incorrect about this too.

Eh?

scott42 said:
I cannot admit to anything you've suggested, and I apologize for not being able to feel the potential frustration or anger you might have been reaching for.

You support socialism, and you believe that the source of suffering is some have more than others, that needs to be changed... did you not just say that?

Renae · Mar 24, 2017

soylentgreen said:
How typical that when it comes to anything to do with governance an american always gives this crap about being forced.
As i said a right is what people agree upon not what is forced upon them, that is coercion. I have aright to medical care because i live in a country where the majority has voted that such rights should exist. These rights come from the people voting into power political parties who understand that they have been mandated to uphold these rights.

I live in a democracy where such things are given more priority or less priority by the government that gets voted in on the basis of their political platforms to either push for these rights and strengthen them or by policies to concentrate expenditure in other areas.

You however come from a country where rights are simply a lip service such as your current president who will ignore what the people want because he is the kind who insists he will tell you how to make america great rather than give the people any voice. i understand why you think it is force it is because you live under a regime that forces its ideals upon you. Your freedom is only what your politicians allow you to have.

You have no idea what socialism is because you have no idea how to exercise your political rights, you have no ability to elect people who will represent you but only those who will tell you what to think and do.

You support mob rule, and have repeatedly insulted my intelligence in this conversation. You attack me, at every turn as being intellectually inferior because I do not share your world view.

I think this conversation has run it's course, it obvious you are only here to troll.

soylentgreen · Mar 24, 2017

Renae said:
I can discuss it all day, you've made it clear that you believe that your position is superior and that I am incapable, so no matter what effort I put into the discussion you've already shown your hand, I'm wasting my time and effort. Oh and even your links prove my point, McCarthy was anti-communist. Thanks for the fail, it's been fun to watch.

Your words reveal exactly where you are coming from. You cannot even be bothered to read the links if you still maintain that it is only about communism. In todays world mccarthist propaganda is still used and is aimed at socialists.

You are wasting your time because all you can offer is propaganda about socialism.

soylentgreen · Mar 24, 2017

Renae said:
You support mob rule, and have repeatedly insulted my intelligence in this conversation. You attack me, at every turn as being intellectually inferior because I do not share your world view.

I think this conversation has run it's course, it obvious you are only here to troll.

Mob rule what a joke. Do you not even have a clue how democracy works and what an election is. Pathetic. I cannot be insulting your intelligence because you have yet to display any use of it for me to insult. So far all you have done is repeat the mindless mantras of the brain washed by using words like forced or mob rule.

No it is not trolling to point out you lack the education to debate this subject. It is just you having no real defense and can only call names on any who point out your weakness.
I just do not have the patience to treat you inability to do anything but give propagandist slogans with a respect you fail to deserve.

scott42 · Mar 24, 2017

Renae said:
Yes, we know, you vote for it to be legalized.

You support socialism, and you believe that the source of suffering is some have more than others, that needs to be changed... did you not just say that?

No. I've no wish to preach, but no.
What I said was that 'desire was the cause of suffering', and that includes the desire to have more than another. I've never mentioned we should 'rob from the rich and give to the poor'

Renae · Mar 24, 2017

scott42 said:
No. I've no wish to preach, but no.
What I said was that 'desire was the cause of suffering', and that includes the desire to have more than another. I've never mentioned we should 'rob from the rich and give to the poor'

Uhm, you support socialism....

So desire. So how do you motivate people to achieve without having a return on the invested time?

scott42 · Mar 24, 2017

Renae said:
Uhm, you support socialism....

So desire. So how do you motivate people to achieve without having a return on the invested time?

I believe people are capable of giving (rather than investing) their time or effort. I believe people can show their best, and without having to be forced. I also believe that if we try our best to do what's right at every opportunity, less people would need help to begin with.

Renae · Mar 25, 2017

scott42 said:
I believe people are capable of giving (rather than investing) their time or effort. I believe people can show their best, and without having to be forced. I also believe that if we try our best to do what's right at every opportunity, less people would need help to begin with.

That's really beautiful... sadly it's also naively idealistic. Human nature cannot be wished away.

scott42 · Mar 25, 2017

Renae said:
That's really beautiful... sadly it's also naively idealistic. Human nature cannot be wished away.

There is a difference between knowing what's what, and believing it. I'm not naive.
I know what's base within human nature; I simply prefer to remember that human nature is a many-faceted thing.

scott42 · Mar 25, 2017

Renae said:
That's really beautiful... sadly it's also naively idealistic. Human nature cannot be wished away.

Corrected:
There is a difference between knowing what's what, and believing it. I'm not naive.
I know what's base within human nature; I simply prefer to believe human nature is a many-faceted thing.

Tim the plumber · Mar 25, 2017

scott42 said:
Corrected:
There is a difference between knowing what's what, and believing it. I'm not naive.
I know what's base within human nature; I simply prefer to believe human nature is a many-faceted thing.

If I work next to a man who does very little and gets paid the same I am not happy.

How do you punish those who do not work hard in your ideal world?

Renae · Mar 25, 2017

scott42 said:
Corrected:
There is a difference between knowing what's what, and believing it. I'm not naive.
I know what's base within human nature; I simply prefer to believe human nature is a many-faceted thing.

As Tim points out, when you remove incentive, you create animosity.

Perotista · Mar 25, 2017

scott42 said:
It bothers me that the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world has people in charge with limited ideas or notions.

When it comes to elected leaders, we, the people elect them. We chose them. Granted, we had two bum choices for president last year. But that is due to our two party system. Yet even so, 8 million of us decided to vote third party. For a candidate we knew that stood no chance of winning whether than choose between two evils. It is the two major parties who decide whom we will vote for in November. We have a system whereas 30% of the total electorate decides one candidate and another 30% decides the other. One party is far right, the other far left, so that leaves those out of the decision making who are in the center, center left or center right. Independents or the non-affiliated have no say as to whom they will have to choose from. Independents make up 40% of the total electorate.

The sad thing is both major parties are bent on keeping the status quo, the business as usual. They reward those who support them, donate to them. Both major parties owe their heart and soul to the moneyed elite. To corporations, Wall Street Firms, Lobbyist, Special Interests, mega money donors, neither will bite the hand that feeds them. They may talk bad about them from time to time, but it is hollow rhetoric and done with a wink and a nudge to ensure those moneyed elite knows they will be taken care of even if bad things are said about them.

In the end, we really have but one political party. It has two wings, a Republican wing and a Democratic wing with both wings and the one party answering to the moneyed elite. It doesn't matter which candidate wins, which ever one does will still owe them. Such is our political system, a system that drives away the brightest and the best. A system that rewards loyalty to the party and those whom supply the money to the party.

scott42 · Mar 25, 2017

Tim the plumber said:
If I work next to a man who does very little and gets paid the same I am not happy.

How do you punish those who do not work hard in your ideal world?

Perhaps you need to pay more attention to your work?

scott42 · Mar 25, 2017

Renae said:
As Tim points out, when you remove incentive, you create animosity.

I believe that you and Tim walked a different path than myself.
With that, the lessons you've learned have come from a different range of experiences. It doesn't mean you're incorrect, only that I'm quite thankful I didn't walk your path.

Renae · Mar 25, 2017

scott42 said:
I believe that you and Tim walked a different path than myself.
With that, the lessons you've learned have come from a different range of experiences. It doesn't mean you're incorrect, only that I'm quite thankful I didn't walk your path.

It's not about paths, it's about human nature. Humans, strive to succeed, and success takes many forms. Wealth is merely one form of success. But as history as shown, when you remove incentives, humans react poorly.

soylentgreen · Mar 25, 2017

Tim the plumber said:
If I work next to a man who does very little and gets paid the same I am not happy.

How do you punish those who do not work hard in your ideal world?

You do not. You punish those who cheat the system. But to punish those who have been caught in the poverty trap is futile it achieves nothing. Instead the better path is to make sure that the goal of welfare is to enable people to rise out of the poverty trap and better themselves. If the welfare system is arranged so as to give incentive to better one self then people will take that opportunity. If on the other hand you arrange it so they get a fee ride then they will also take that opportunity.

The mistake of people like renae is that they have no understanding that socialism by its very nature must be a dynamic philosophy. Always changing in order to keep up with an ever changing society. She like others have fixated on one aspect, one time period and refuses to acknowledge any progress in the philosophy.

The question you ask is one that has been answered long ago. Once upon a time it was thought that welfare was there only to succor the poor. That philosophy has changed because it became apparent that it only lead to dependency and institutionalisation of the poor. The thinking now is that welfare is there to support the poor by creating opportunities to improve their education and create skills that will give them job opportunities.

Tim the plumber · Mar 25, 2017

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

If I work next to a man who does very little and gets paid the same I am not happy.

How do you punish those who do not work hard in your ideal world?

scott42 said:
Perhaps you need to pay more attention to your work?

Or I could just slow down to his pace and not care because clearly nobody else does. Just like all the other humans do.

Tim the plumber · Mar 25, 2017

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

If I work next to a man who does very little and gets paid the same I am not happy.

How do you punish those who do not work hard in your ideal world?

soylentgreen said:
You do not. You punish those who cheat the system. But to punish those who have been caught in the poverty trap is futile it achieves nothing. Instead the better path is to make sure that the goal of welfare is to enable people to rise out of the poverty trap and better themselves. If the welfare system is arranged so as to give incentive to better one self then people will take that opportunity. If on the other hand you arrange it so they get a fee ride then they will also take that opportunity.

The mistake of people like renae is that they have no understanding that socialism by its very nature must be a dynamic philosophy. Always changing in order to keep up with an ever changing society. She like others have fixated on one aspect, one time period and refuses to acknowledge any progress in the philosophy.

The question you ask is one that has been answered long ago. Once upon a time it was thought that welfare was there only to succor the poor. That philosophy has changed because it became apparent that it only lead to dependency and institutionalisation of the poor. The thinking now is that welfare is there to support the poor by creating opportunities to improve their education and create skills that will give them job opportunities.

So how do you achieve a business actually working when clearly you don't want any freeloaders sacked?

Personally I like price work where I can earn lots more when I work faster. Then there is no need to punish anybody. The slow and lazy just get less.

Reponsibilities

Renae

Renae

scott42

New member

Renae

scott42

New member

soylentgreen

Renae

Renae

soylentgreen

soylentgreen

scott42

New member

Renae

scott42

New member

Renae

scott42

New member

scott42

New member

Tim the plumber

Renae

Perotista

scott42

New member

scott42

New member

Renae

soylentgreen

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber