Diogenes the Cynic

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:38 am

Scott, is receiving welfare only moral so long as you don't want to be on it?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:53 am

I'd think that need is more of an indication than desire. If one can not support himself by conventional means (which would include both psychological and physical ability), then that is what welfare is for. Since "can't" includes ability to tolerate working conditions (as well as considering if anyone would hire this person), can't and won't can be tricky to differentiate.
.

vicdan · Post by **vicdan** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:29 am

Unidian wrote:Not really. Studies show that only 3-6% of working people would stop working if a small but adequate guaranteed income were available. Most people would continue working, because most people like to have more than the minimum.

Ah, those funny studies... Have they looked a generation into the future, to the time when being a non-working freerider would become normative? The number is 3-6% right now because people consider such free-riding immoral. Change that, and this number will go up a lot.

Conversely, of course, we could continue to feed the free-riders, but build the moral condemnation of such free-riding into the very fabric of society; but then you would complain about people treating you with contempt for merely wanting to force them to support your indolence, wouldn't you?

For me, there's no other life to live. Slavery is not a life.

Well then, I suggest you check out of this life, because you are still a slave to your need to eat and drink, your need to be protected from the elements, etc. -- you are even slave to gravity, because you aren't able to simply will yourself to fly.

I see little meaningful difference between this sort of oppression and the kind practiced by wealthy plantation owners of the 1800's, except that the beatings have stopped.

That's kinda like not seeing the difference between murdering someone and calling them an idiot, except for the fact of the death itself.

The beatings are exactly the point. Force -- direct, purposeful coercion -- is what distinguishes slavery from voluntary association. Plantation slaves were slaves not because their master wouldn't feed them if they didn't work (as then they could simply procure their own food), but because their master would hurt them if they didn't work.

There is a world of a difference between pushing someone off a skyscraper, and saying "if you jump from a skyscraper, I won't catch you". Your whole insane argument about slavery of work is based exactly on ignoring this critical distinction.

You are a 'slave' to work in the same way you are a 'slave' to gravity, when you jump off a skyscraper. Others can choose to feed your indolent ass, and they can choose to catch your falling ass, respectively, but in neither case does the availability of such a choice render you their slave, nor does it impose upon them any sort of obligation to rescue you from the consequences of your own choices (not working and jumping off the edge, respectively).

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:35 am

Trevor,

I think people who can't afford basic living (groceries, a roof over their heads, heating and water bills) should be on welfare. But people who are capable of doing so, and choose not to, shouldn't.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:42 am

vicdan wrote: Have they looked a generation into the future, to the time when being a non-working freerider would become normative? The number is 3-6% right now because people consider such free-riding immoral. Change that, and this number will go up a lot.

I believe the number would go up some due to that, but Nat mentioned that many people would continue to work because they want more than the minimum that would be provided. I'd look more at your statement about normative, and consider that if people had a lower bar to jump over to "compete with the Joneses" then there would be less competitive force to have more than the minimum.

Add then to the spiraling effect of the more people on welfare, the less one gets for the work they do, which makes not working at all to get the minimum more attractive. I know of people who refuse overtime because it would put them in a higher tax bracket, and they would be working for free. I expect the same mentality would apply as soon as a person was working just to provide essentially the same income as minimum provision, and they would ask if working was really worth it. Even before everyone was satisfied with the minimum and leaving no one left to work, the system would collapse.

The reason people are willing to support those who can not support themselves is to reduce crime and other behaviors that would likely increase if certain people had no other way to meet their needs. It's better to sacrifice a portion of one's paycheck regularly than to be held at gunpoint or have your house broken into every now and then - or to have beggars at your door every day.
.

vicdan · Post by **vicdan** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:43 am

sschaula wrote:I think people who can't afford basic living (groceries, a roof over their heads, heating and water bills) should be on welfare. But people who are capable of doing so, and choose not to, shouldn't.

That's my basic view as well. I have no problem supporting on welfare those who, for whatever reason, cannot reasonably support themselves (and in fact I think that our society does far too little to help people like that). Simply not wanting to work is not one of such reasons though.

I have nothing against those who choose not to work. I merely don't want them to force me to support them.

vicdan · Post by **vicdan** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:47 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The reason people are willing to support those who can not support themselves is to reduce crime and other behaviors that would likely increase if certain people had no other way to meet their needs. It's better to sacrifice a portion of one's paycheck regularly than to be held at gunpoint or have your house broken into every now and then - or to have beggars at your door every day.

Indeed. There are perfectly good pragmatic reasons for a welfare system, and there are even pragmatic reasons to support some voluntarily indolent; but Unidian wants far more than that. He wants us to endorse, as morally laudable, the choice not to work while extorting his basic living from others, and to further acknowledge his moral superiority to us working "good slaves" -- you know, the ones who voluntarily stay on the plantation and serve their master, still acting as slaves even after they are freed.

I am not sure if he has pulled that card here yet, but he staunchly considers himself morally superior to those who aren't willing to accede to his ethical blackmail.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:50 am

vicdan wrote:Unidian wants far more than that. He wants us to endorse, as morally laudable, his choice not to work, and to further acknowledge his moral superiority to those working "good slaves"

Phrased that way, it sounds like he is looking for an ego boost.
.

vicdan · Post by **vicdan** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:53 am

I really don't think it's an ego boost thing; not that he isn't driven by ego, but I have known him for a long time, and I see no ego boosting from him on this account. I think, rather, that he feels his choice to be in fact ethically repugnant, and he is simply over-compensating in trying to cleanse himself of this taint.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:34 am

Why do I have the feeling I've seen this whole fight before?

EI - you have to build it into the system that you still get the minimum so that your McJawb earns you over the minimum. That's pretty easily done.

Incidentally, the socialist candidate, Royal, is one of the two contenders for the French presidency this year. :)

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:22 am

Scott,

I think people who can't afford basic living (groceries, a roof over their heads, heating and water bills) should be on welfare. But people who are capable of doing so, and choose not to, shouldn't.

I'm in favour of a class system. As I pointed out briefly, I think a philosopher functions in the same capacity as a priest -- helping people who are too busy with practical labour to think deeply to interpret the universe.

A priest class is necessary to a functioning society. I think the degeneration of old religion is leading to newer ones, where scientists, engineers, doctors, and other professionals are taken to be authorities on spiritual issues. The fact of the matter is the opposite: such professionals are those most in need of spiritual help.

The amount of stength of character needed for someone to go against the grain and decide that their time is better spent in idleness than at a job practically guarantees that their temperament is more like a priest than a worker. I have no problem considering Nat a state-funded secular priest, and saying that his non-working profession is on par with that of any conventional worker.

So long as he keeps thinking and communicating with people, he is performing a necessary service.

ChochemV2 · Post by **ChochemV2** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:32 am

I don't think a separate class would work. Religious institutions are given free reign because people want it to be so while most people wouldn't understand what a philosopher does. If you add some state funded philosopher exception it would probably take on a more "scientist" form in such a way that the state would demand results so a philosopher could maintain their welfare status. Sure, you could BS a few papers a year but does anyone here really want another form of institutionalized philosophy?

Not only that but it gives the government the ability to just cut you off, to censor any philosopher who says something it doesn't like much like it tries, and succeeds, to do with the NEA. People don't understand art so they don't want any of their money to go towards funding it and as a result we have a pitifully minuscule arts budget.

We are well past the days where the independently wealthy and royalty support philosophy and the arts and government, especially our government, is run by the masses who largely don't understand philosophy and art.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:39 am

If you want to make money being a priest, write books, get a tv show, make an internet site of your ideas...

It shouldn't be up to the government to establish a priestly class.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:09 am

Scott: I wasn't defending the government doing this officially. If it was official, the people joining the class would not have the strength of character to be doing it -- they'd be freeloaders.

I think someone like Nat does it well because he struggled to get where he is. If it was easy for anyone to do it, it wouldn't be a separate class.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:10 am

On Friday, April 13th, Unidian started this thread when he wrote:Diogenes was asked, why do people give to beggars but not to philosophers? "Because they think they may one day be lame or blind, but never expect that they will turn to philosophy," Diogenes replied.

As a secular priest, Nat should have known that Americans would be especially unreceptive to this anywhere near April 15th...
.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:25 am

Trevor,

Where would the money come from if the government wasn't doing it officially?

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:39 am

Ask Nat, I guess.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:15 am

It helps to have a qualifying disability.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:31 am

There are many times when I wish I had a qualifying disability.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:55 am

Can't blame you. It's a blessing, as far as I'm concerned. It does cause certain difficulties, but they are outweighed by the value of not having to work.

Chuang Tzu's parable of the "useless tree" talks about this idea.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:10 am

Scott: I find it incredibly unlikely that any of of the Genius moderators actually suffers from a mental disability, let alone all three of them. Depending on your country, it can be really easy to get diagnosed as unfit for work.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:15 am

David Quinn quite clearly meets almost all the criteria of schizoid personality disorder, where only four are required for a positive diagnosis. As far as I know, Kevin is no longer on the dole, and Dan is an admitted bludger (which I support, BTW). I don't think it's "incredibly unlikely" that any of the QRS has a disorder. At least one of them clearly does, by all diagnostic standards.

But you're right, it isn't terribly hard to get a disability ruling for a psychological condition if you know how to present your case. I'm not a bludger myself, but I don't oppose it. Bludging is non-violent and non-individualized. It is an acceptable response to an oppressive society.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:38 am

I would but I am an honest person. Not saying you guys aren't.

ChochemV2 · Post by **ChochemV2** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:55 am

Easy? I've got a friend with pretty serious bi-polar disorder and the government refuses to give him any aid even though he certainly needs it to continue schooling. Without myself and my family he'd be screwed since his parents are completely useless.

Either way, I think philosopher's contribute as much or more to society compared to scientists and artists and both of those groups are subsidized to some degree. The only difference is you can easily see what the money goes to whereas a philosopher's output is more abstract.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:15 am

Chochem,

Get your friend in touch with voc rehab. I understand they have plenty of money available for school for people with disabilities.
.

GENIUS FORUMS

Diogenes the Cynic

Re: Diogenes the Cynic