Unemployment: Best Indicator of Integrity

[Dan Rowden]

Tomas,

Just for clarity:

Or, the Town Mooch can scrape some pennies together from his welfare buddies, buy a one-way plane fare to Australia and live with David and his parents, or Dan and his girlfriend. As the gun laws are more strict there, he'd have more time to socialize with Dan's girlfriend and David's mom ;-)

Dave's mother died months ago and my flatmate is not a "girlfriend". It's only when you see that term in print you realise how ghastly it is.

Re: the point of this thread, there's yet a feature of most societies not mentioned (as far as I've noticed) and that is the obligations society regularly imposes on individuals: one is forced at the point of a punitive gun to obey laws one may find morally repulsive; to be educated to a pre-determined standard; in some cases, to vote; in many cases to be conscripted and kill and or die for said society; to pay taxes; to refrain from utilising common property etc etc.

Nice that a society can find such obligations a perfectly moral state of affairs but wants to argue it has no moral obligation to the rudimentary survival of any person. There's something wrong with this picture.

[Shardrol]

I would not give him the toast. Fuck that.

I might be persuaded to buy him a bullet, though (assuming he will only use in on himself).

Understood. Can't be any clearer than that - thanks for letting us know who you are.

And yet if I were in a position of needing help I would be much more likely to ask for it from David Hodges than from Unidian. This is because Unidian is an angry guy; I therefore distrust what he says about compassion. David Hodges is not an angry guy & I feel he would be fine about giving me a piece of toast if I simply asked for it rather than trying to use emotional blackmail.

[Dan Rowden]

Another important thing to realize is that if voluntary indolence ever becomes normalized, there will be no humane turning back. The society will probably collapse, because nobody is going to forcibly put the indolent to work, but they will be too many for the workers to sustain, so the productive citizens will band together to protect themselves and the results of their work from moochers, and the moochers will band together to forcibly take what they are unwilling to earn.

it's a huge risk. if the number of the voluntary indolent gets too high for the society to sustain, there will be nothing we could do about it. it would be like trying top stuff toothpaste back into a tube.

This is a very unpersuasive argument. One could offer it regarding anything at all, including future technologies: i.e. much of everything we spoke of in the latest podcast. People have always tried to make this argument with respect to our philosophical outlook: "What if everyone suddenly adopted your outlook - society would collapse into its own footprint like badly constructed New York skyscrapers!" We currently have a system where people can spend time on welfare. It's real, right here, right now. Do you see hordes of people quitting jobs so as to entertain themselves in the indolent luxuries of the poverty line? Should "indolence" - a term I'm starting to get shit off with, frankly, as its pejorative nature is not conducive to this debate, which has been less philosophical than religious - start to become "normalised" society will adapt itself economically and ideologically (the latter of necessity since such a adaptation must be taking place for the normalisation process to have started in the first place).

For me this argument is a red herring anyway, as indolence is not the issue. The issue is one's ability to assist a deluded society in its delusions. In a differently ideated society one would have a totally different attitude to employment (as opposed to work).

I am personally unwilling to wager our society on a completely untried and generally uncontrollable policy hatched in the mind of some selfish idiot with a self-esteem problem.

Your need to lace every other post with personal abuse diminishes what intellectual credibility your posts have Victor.

[vicdan]

David Hodges is not an angry guy & I feel he would be fine about giving me a piece of toast if I simply asked for it rather than trying to use emotional blackmail.

I am convinced of it. For myself, I would certainly never give in to blackmail -- try to force me, and I will resist to the end. Simply asking is a different matter.

This is something Unidian will never understand, because what he is really looking for is not sustenance, but justification. He doesn't just want to take other people's money, he wants to feel that it's the righteous and moral thing to do.

[Jamesh]

Time for a little bit of Nietzsche, from what I was reading on the train to work today.

"You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy - perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers - erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge.

What was silent in the father speaks in the son; and often I found the son the unveiled secret of the father.

They are like enthusists; yet it is not the heart that fires them - but revenge. And when they become elegant and cold, it is not the spirit but envy that makes them elegant and cold. Their jealousy leads them even on the path of thinkers; and this is sign of their jealousy; they always go too far, til their weariness in the end lies down to sleep in the snow. Out of everyone of their complaints sounds revenge; in their praise their is always a sting, and to be a judge seems bliss to them."

While this is clearly demonstrated in modern feminism and the politically motivated, it also could be applied to certain participants in this thread (and to me for that matter)

[vicdan]

Your need to lace every other post with personal abuse diminishes what intellectual credibility your posts have Victor.

Dude, you are very far down on the list of people i would look to for validation of my intellectual credibility, if I looked for it at all.

[Tomas]

Tomas,

Just for clarity:

Or, the Town Mooch can scrape some pennies together from his welfare buddies, buy a one-way plane fare to Australia and live with David and his parents, or Dan and his girlfriend. As the gun laws are more strict there, he'd have more time to socialize with Dan's girlfriend and David's mom ;-)

-tomas-
I done gone back and changed that area of contention...




-dan-
Dave's mother died months ago and my flatmate is not a "girlfriend". It's only when you see that term in print you realise how ghastly it is.

-tomas-
Around this neck of the world it's "roommate" or if you rent/own a house they're called a "housemate".

Then, in the 'Kevin comes to america' thread, one or two posters stated (correctly-incorrectly) that David lives with his parents... I hadn't noticed where David corrected this... about his mom's passing.




-Dan-
Re: the point of this thread, there's yet a feature of most societies not mentioned (as far as I've noticed) and that is the obligations society regularly imposes on individuals: one is forced at the point of a punitive gun to obey laws one may find morally repulsive; to be educated to a pre-determined standard; in some cases, to vote; in many cases to be conscripted and kill and or die for said society; to pay taxes; to refrain from utilising common property etc etc.

-tomas-
I'd love to change the world, but i don't know what to do...

Well just bleedin' move somewhere else, get out of the cities! Move where Daybrown is... he'll keep your ass busy with the herbal gardening.

Hey, i was drafted (conscripted) into the military, it's kill or be killed. Friggin' got blasted by a rocket propelled grenade.

Become a conscientious objector or go to military prison for refusing military service... that is an option, you're gonna get three square meals and a cot to sleep on.

This bullshit about crying wolf because life ain't fair, it's the orwellian "society" that made me go on the welfare dole...



-Dan-
Nice that a society can find such obligations a perfectly moral state of affairs but wants to argue it has no moral obligation to the rudimentary survival of any person. There's something wrong with this picture.

-tomas-
No group-think "society" here, pal. So change the order of things in society, you know? Start at your own backyard neighbor's fence. Talk to the neighbor about changing the welfare state. Hold a sign on a busy street and demand a revolution... But sitting on your ass collecting welfare $$$ and bitching then on top of it all refusing to work for real change doesn't cut it anywhere.

Fast a couple days a week, give that food that would have gone into your mouth (and the shit paper you would have wiped with) to the lesser-well-off. Shut the damn TV off a couple days a week, get some lower-wattage bulbs to save electricity. Give that money back to the state.

My family grew up dirt-poor, my parents lost the farm (grandma's homestead), five years of drought, no crops as they we're hailed out and rusted out. Who to blame? - the grandparents who migrated from Norway and Lapland. My grandma was a Sammi - born in a teepee north of the Arctic Circle. Is it her fault when she arrived at New York in 1901 (she was 25) she didn't beg for food, she made it on her own. It's called character. She, Berthea, was born in 1875 and died in 1966, she was wonderful to "talk" with in her native language. Her norwegian husband Iver, (my gramps) was born in 1864 and died in 1938. Her walking cane (stick) from her early years, is but 12 feet from me. Her nickname for me, "Lars", because i resembled her younger brother, Lars, who remained in northern Lapland..

They sure didn't say, "We are victims" of american hegemony, mere peasants of the Bank$ter$. Oh poor me, sit on my hands... for the welfare dime.

There is a certain fawkin' "wake-up age" when one realized the upper, middle, poor classes aren't equal but refusing to work because one doesn't "have to" is not going to change the system. One simply remains a creature of the state but crying wolf and nobody giving a rip to your pleas. You are washed up. I'm not buying into Unidian's lucid dreams nor your storyline Dan.





Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

[Tomas]

.



-the parasite-
Unidian - It's a matter of small cost vs. great benefit.

-tomas-
Better to give (the small cost) to the needy family, because the return magnifies severalfold. The great benefit? is to provide the family unit sustenance, vitality, and the knowledge that a helping hand (or two) will help to relieve the abject poverty now everywhere.

People on corners holding signs asking, "Will work for food" are commonplace. So many of these men and women have their children hidden, down by the railroad tracks, underpasses, walking the malls, waiting for dad-mom to return with a sandwich knowing full-well that they "earned" that food and money... not waiting at the soup kitchen, food bank at some church outreach funded by the State. This instills in the kids, parents, always-forming minds that they made it on their own.

Obviously, i can't stop for every person on the highway corner who asks for a job, it's a hit-and-miss deal, i don't look away at the gnarly guy who looks like he just climbed out of a dumpster, and i hire him for a job or two around my house, yard, or at the neighbors, or at my one of my businesses... i have several who were homeless, the seriously down-and-out who are now "successful", not necessarily living the american dream nonsense, but making it their way.




-the parasite-
If someone comes up to me with a gun to his own head and says "give me a slice of toast or I will shoot myself,"

-tomas-
Give 'em a hand up, not a hand out. Disarm the motivation those on a downward spiral, show them by example there is a better way! Provide the tools necessary (your experiences) that food stamps, rent, fuel assistance doesn't have to be "had" on the sly.

Until one alters their own style of thinking, you certainly cannot honestly philosophize onto another that, why "my way", is superior logically. It is simple dishonesty to imply that living as a free man clear of state-supported sponsored philosophy is the way to go. Living on ones' own financial means - is just that, making it your way.




-the parasite-
I will not start arguing with him over whether or not he is to be held responsible for his own predicament, etc.

-tomas-
This is exactly what you must do. Evading responsibility is just piling one body upon another. Why then bother checking for a pulse as (the guests on this forum are observing) to whether any genius solution can be had without help from outside sources (the state apparatus with all its tentacles). Why live a lie?




-the parasite-
I will just give him the goddamned piece of toast.

-tomas-
So you will just walk away and leave him in his own ignorance?

What a fawking lame argument that is. So you receive welfare money and justify clutching your pittance knowing (that) when you buy some gasoline, a shirt... that you are paying taxes on that? - that's just double-taxation without representation (living a lie).
Begging for your $$$ sustenance at the welfare line, going home and clicking on the internet, showing up here at Genius Forums and ranting that i just ripped off the working-stiff and no-less bragging about it! Loserville.




-the parasite-
Why? Because it's easy for me to do and it obviously means a hell of a lot to him.

-tomas-
No, you are both in the same boat and neither of you are functionally-able to row that boat to land.




-the parasite-
Faced with such a scenario, I would willing to make a small sacrifice in order to effect an enormous positive change in someone else's life.

-tomas-
Sure, you refuse to work for that welfare money (government daycare allowance) and leave the other schlep foundering in his own cesspool, neither of you able to utilize the oars in the boat. No learning skills evident.




-the parasite-
It's a no-brainer for me.

-tomas-
Suppose so, you've never done a lick of work in your life! Your parents raised you well! (and they must be so very proud of how you turned out.)




-mr hodges-
I would not give him the toast. Fuck that.

-tomas-
At the very least, the welfare bum should provide the toaster so they could share the toast. Of course that begs the question... where would they get the "freebie" electricity, and who would have the last crumbs of the toast?




-mr hodges-
I might be persuaded to buy him a bullet, though (assuming he will only use in on himself).

-tomas-
Best to fill the whole clip and hope it's an automatic.



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Nat is mostly right but will never convince the ones so attached to some century old rhetoric.

Most people in modern societies are driven to increase or maintain their status or levels of entertainment, comfort or availability of distractions. This is and will remain the reason why they work. It isn't a struggle for 'survival' of the body or to maintain the health of the state anymore since decades. Our economies are not based on 'hard' currencies, it's based on consumer demands and not on basic necessities - they are just a given. So when providing free health care, free housing, free education and free food in a wealthy society, not one thing will change since this is not why most people apply for jobs anyway [to the degree of course the housing and food involved couldn't become some form of entertainment or distraction in themselves - they should remain spartan]. One may think one tries to find a job for survival but it's mostly a rejection of alternatives that drives one to a job, not some archaic need for salary, even while most people fool themselves with that myth. The lack of availability of alternatives is what drives otherwise valuable people to crime, lying, abuse and other ways to cope, by creating an alternative in a system which denies alternatives out of an almost religious type of thinking. Or in other words: it still suppresses the poor, it still fears the ones in the basement. By denying a basic life most of these people won't become any much good to society at all by climbing some fictive ladder - which is another myth. It's more likely they just become more diseased as to work around the limitations.

[As a side-note: a partner, family, a pet, a hobby, a stereo are included in my definitions of status, entertainment and distractions. They have hardly anything to do with personal survival and as such are a direct result of being able to afford such a thing.]

Free basic necessities will uplift the people in the gutter and give them perspective and dignity. It won't help the free-loaders at all. They will keep loading for free as they're already doing at any opportunity. They might try to register double for free housing and rent them out to illegals or something. So they can buy a new plasma screen TV for themselves or a new car.

I think the main distinction one has to make is that providing a basic living for free leaves a lot to be desired. To think anyone would desire such life of sitting on a chair staring at the wall is showing a total misunderstanding of people's motives. The ones who desire such lives have already the opportunity to create it by suggesting disability, entering crime or force someone else , like an emotional dependent like family members or partners, to labor for them. Those opportunities are already endless and cannot be avoided in a system which doesn't provide alternatives: a free basis life without requirements.

[Shahrazad]

The ones who desire such lives have already the opportunity to create it by suggesting disability, entering crime or force someone else , like an emotional dependent like family members or partners, to labor for them.

I disagree. I don't particularly care for work, especially the hard kind, and I would never consider any of the other forms of getting a free ride such as crime and marrying a rich man. I am an unambitious person and would rather sit around and do nothing than work like a slave all my life for a modest amount of money. The former choice was never offered to me in my youth, and by now I don't need it.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Sher: crime and marrying money are not the best ways to secure a basic existence; I think Diebert even pointed out that crime only appears necessary to those who bought into the religion of no alternatives. Simply by filling out the right paperwork (provided you have no dignity), it's easy for a person to live off of welfare.

You think that housing is too expensive to live off of welfare? Look into group homes and other subsidized housing projects.

[Pye]

Diebert, I'd be interested to know of you, if willing, the following things:

your age
what you do for a living
if you are in relationship with a woman (or a man)
your living circumstances i.e. alone, w/partner or what have you

thx

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The ones who desire such lives have already the opportunity to create it by suggesting disability, entering crime or force someone else , like an emotional dependent like family members or partners, to labor for them.

I disagree. I don't particularly care for work, especially the hard kind, and I would never consider any of the other forms of getting a free ride such as crime and marrying a rich man. I am an unambitious person and would rather sit around and do nothing than work like a slave all my life for a modest amount of money. The former choice was never offered to me in my youth, and by now I don't need it.

But that's not the point Shar. The point was that for those really not wanting to have a job there always are opportunities. Like those wanting drugs can hit the streets and score. Making unemployment a lethal crime of some kind doesn't help anyone at all.

The idea that you preferred slave work and wallowing in your lack of ambition a bit more doesn't change the presence of the ways out that are used by others. Personally I love hard work if the rewards are just as good as the work is hard, in other words if a specific desire if fulfilled, during work or after it by spending the reward. To hell with ethics!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, I'd be interested to know of you, if willing, the following things:

your age
what you do for a living
if you are in relationship with a woman (or a man)
your living circumstances i.e. alone, w/partner or what have you

Weird question from someone who doesn't even share her own name and fame here ;) What if I told you I'd dislike all the potential bother?

I provide my own income and always have. But the only reason I see need for a job in this day and age is to afford attachments and luxuries. If I'd strip my life down to bare essentials, I don't see the need for having to deserve any of that. Not in a society drifting on waste. The idea that anyone but the greatest fool would desire stripping down life is hilarious.

[Pye]

I just thought you might be willing to provide the same kind of contextual forthrightness that you often ask of others.

guess not.

:)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Pye: actually, it looked like you were trying to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, and Diebert was not willing to provide you with ammunition.

[Pye]

It's unfortunate that questions of contextual living circumstances in a thread about work should raise such suspicions of "ammunition." That's some of you guys' m.o., not mine.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

You'd need a stronger argument than that to justify asking Diebert -- and only Diebert -- for this information. What part of his argument would it clarify?

[Pye]

oh for shitsake . . . .

Let's leave Diebert's mantle over him. That's a revealing answer of sorts, too.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

There is no conclusion you can justly draw from my defense of Diebert's right not to answer these questions. There are any number of reasons he doesn't want to reveal his employment status. Some of these could have nothing to do with his argument.

[Pye]

Trevor, there's no need to keep humping this. Clearly, when someone does not answer a certain question(s), they have their reasons for not wanting others to know.

[Shahrazad]

Trevor,

Sher: crime and marrying money are not the best ways to secure a basic existence;

You'll never get an argument from me there.

I think Diebert even pointed out that crime only appears necessary to those who bought into the religion of no alternatives. Simply by filling out the right paperwork (provided you have no dignity), it's easy for a person to live off of welfare.

In Canada? Good for you, then. In my country, there is no such thing as welfare. There never could be, imo, since 39% of the population lives below the poverty level. 39% idleness is way too high for the productive population to carry, especially if you keep in mind that children and older people who are above the poverty line don't work either.

[Shahrazad]

Diebert,

But that's not the point Shar. The point was that for those really not wanting to have a job there always are opportunities. Like those wanting drugs can hit the streets and score.

I agree that those who really would rather die than work an hour a week have another way out. But that was not the point at all. Your point seemed to be that not many people would quit their jobs on account of Nat's welfare system because those people who want minimum subsistence have already found a way of surviving. This is where I greatly disagree. I think most people who feel overworked, underpayed and/or have to put up with humiliation in order to keep their jobs would quit. Wouldn't you?

If there's a good thing to be said for Nat's system is that it would greatly improve worker conditions. Instead of employers implicitly threatening to fire the employees, the employees would be threatening to quit. It would be a worker's market, not a corporate market.

Making unemployment a lethal crime of some kind doesn't help anyone at all.

Who suggested this?

-

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Sher,

In Canada? Good for you, then. In my country, there is no such thing as welfare. There never could be, imo, since 39% of the population lives below the poverty level.

The idle class always exists, by whatever name it goes by. Sometimes it takes great wealth to join, but most of the time only a certain linguistic canniness. (How many men have called themselves monks...?)

Welfare is not an option for most Canadians simply because they don't have the historical sense to recognize it for what it is.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I just thought you might be willing to provide the same kind of contextual forthrightness that you often ask of others.

I never asked posters their age, profession or status of Woman in their lives. Anyway, that information is easier to give while hiding behind nicknames. For me it's a practical matter, or perhaps instinctual: don't make too much sound, don't leave behind smells in any potential predatory environment, under the googling eye of Archon. I don't believe in sages walking around in nature without caution, fearless, while all they really are without are their wits.