GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan R wrote:However, I still work in the civilization because I have personally found a loophole that works for me – the phenomenon of the security guard.

There are plenty of jobs that a person can do without interfering too much with basic indolence. You just need to find something that matches your temperament.

Victor,

it sure does. I remember you talking a lot about how everyone agreed with you in chat -- and then nobody came to your defense in the actual discussion. You even expressed bitter astonishment about how all of those 'supporters' of yours vanished when the push came to shove, those summer soldiers.

Oh, that happens quite a bit. Take this forum for example - full of people who support voluntary unemployment (all 3 QRS plus several others) and I still get the bulk of it. The reason for their absence or low participation is not that they don't support or agree with me. The reason is that with the exception of David Quinn, they are afraid of you. If it were somebody less formidable, they'd be piling on.

Same thing happened at FP. Trust me, tons of people support this, especially at a place like GF. They are just too busy worrying about looking bad to speak up for very long. On the other hand, the opposition will turn out in droves because they get to agree with you.

Everyone should have a right to not work, yet survive. Having to work for a living is slavery.

Being forced to work under threat is a form of slavery in my view, yes.

The need to work is rendered 'slavery' by the mere existence of the possibility that others could support the indolent -- the would-be moocher is enslaved by those who never touched him, but merely refuse to give him the fruits of their labor.

Correct. Economically-forced work is distinguished from man's natural condition (what you call "stomach slavery") by the existence of civilization and society. Where the capacity exists to eliminate forced work and it is not eliminated, that society has chosen to embrace slavery through inaction. As the saying goes, "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Those who work have a moral obligation to support those who choose not to.

Yes, but you leave out a crucial detail. The size of the non-working class must remain relatively small so that the class could be supported at little actual cost to the workers. This is the purpose of keeping the guaranteed income at a minimal dignified level, affirming human nature and ensuring that most people will still prefer to work for the greater material rewards available. It is not moral to demand all of the working people's assets to support the non-working. That would be equivalent to slavery in its own right.

Rather, the financial amount sacrificed by the working must be several orders of magnitude less valuable in terms of perceived utility than the freedom gained by the non-working beneficiaries. You know about the diminishing marginal utility of money and all that. Adopting a more progressive income tax structure could further ensure that only those who can afford to sacrifice a relatively small amount of utility in the form of money were required to do so. I don't support taxing the poor and lower middle-class to support this, because their money is worth so much more in terms of subjective value that it would be oppressive to do so.

The indolent do not have a moral obligation to free the workers from the imposed duty to support the indolence. The moral obligation to free others from various forms of slavery is very one-way like this.

Wrong. One cannot be freed from freedom. Under my proposal, everyone has an un-forced, un-coerced choice about whether to work in the economic system or not. Persons can either become employed, accepting the responsibility of contributing to the voluntarily unemployed (a situation which already exists in regard to other taxes), or they can join the voluntarily unemployed class themselves. If they have a problem with supporting others, they don't have to. Everybody has a choice, and nobody has to starve or be homeless either way.

Those who endorse this involuntary support of indolence are morally superior to those who do not.

Yes, those who believe that all people should be have access to food, clothing, shelter, and medicine regardless of employment status or any other consideration are morally superior to those who do not believe this. We give these necessities to convicted prisoners and there would be a (justified) moral outcry if we suddenly refused to do so. It is an issue of human rights. My proposal reflects a position on human rights which does not even exist in the mainstream yet - but it is nonetheless an advancement. Just as chattel slavery was abolished 150 years ago, economic slavery will one day be abolished, and those who support my position now will be viewed as moral pioneers.

This sort of thinking is still at the stage where its proponents can expect to be shat upon at every turn, but one day, people will wonder how anyone with a conscience could have disagreed.

Unidian wrote:Oh, that happens quite a bit. Take this forum for example - full of people who support voluntary unemployment (all 3 QRS plus several others) and I still get the bulk of it. The reason for their absence or low participation is not that they don't support or agree with me. The reason is that with the exception of David Quinn, they are afraid of you. If it were somebody less formidable, they'd be piling on.

I thought I was useless, silly, laughable, not up to my usual standards, growing senile -- even taken over by body snatchers?..

Make up your mind, dude.

Being forced to work under threat is a form of slavery in my view, yes.

And yet not a single person is forcing any would-be moochers to work. You do understand that in order to constitute coercion by a given individual, it must actually be caused by the said individual, right? I am no more coercing you by refusing to feed you, than I would be smashing you on the ground by not catching you after you jump off a skyscraper roof.

Correct. Economically-forced work is distinguished from man's natural condition (what you call "stomach slavery") by the existence of civilization and society. Where the capacity exists to eliminate forced work and it is not eliminated, that society has chosen to embrace slavery through inaction.

But you demand a different sort of slavery -- slavery to your desire for indolence.

Anyway, get real. The society has the ability to provide a limited number of people with, oh, say, free cars. Since many people would want to have free cars, and some of those would have trouble buying cars on their own, are those peoples slaves to the society's refusal to give them free cars? How about big-screen TVs? Slavery abounds! Wouldn't it then be better to never create such forms of slavery, by never developing the capacity to satisfy those wants in the first place?

Once your argument is applied to various related problems, its ludicrousness becomes self-evident. Your concept of 'slavery' is so insane and perverted -- and so narcissistic, so belittling of the actual slavery of various sorts -- that it would take some industrial-strength bias to even consider taking it seriously.

As the saying goes, "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Which in this case means "for good men to refuse to give in to moochers' moral blackmail".

Yes, but you leave out a crucial detail. The size of the non-working class must remain relatively small so that the class could be supported at little actual cost to the workers.

So after you fill your quota of legit moochers, the remaining wanna-be moochers will be forced to remain enslaved. What to do, what to do!

It is not moral to demand all of the working people's assets to support the non-working. That would be equivalent to slavery in its own right.

it is equivalent to slavery in its own right. You demand less from each worker, but you demand it of far more people.

You know about the diminishing marginal utility of money and all that.

I taught you about the diminishing marginal utility of money and all that...

Wrong. One cannot be freed from freedom. Under my proposal, everyone has an un-forced, un-coerced choice about whether to work in the economic system or not.

No, they don't. You just said it yourself -- only a small fraction of people could do that without utterly wrecking the economy. Well, the simple fact of human nature is that if indolence becomes morally acceptable, the number of those who would wish to be indolent will increase far, far higher than 3-6%. It's the society-wide contempt for mooching (not for indolence, but for indolence at others' expense) that keeps the numbers this low.

If they have a problem with supporting others, they don't have to.

But they do have to support the moochers if they work. They cannot engage in creative labor without you demanding your cut simply because they work and you don't.

Yes, those who believe that all people should be have access to food, clothing, shelter, and medicine regardless of employment status or any other consideration are morally superior to those who do not believe this.

Oh, I believe that too -- I just don't believe that extorting the money for these things from others, when you are capable of procuring them yourself, is acceptable. This teeny little difference is evident -- you believe in moral extortion and blackmail and coercion, and I do not.

We give these necessities to convicted prisoners and there would be a (justified) moral outcry if we suddenly refused to do so.

Yes, because we tossed 'em in prison. It's the "you break it, you buy it" principle. In forcibly depriving the prisoners of the ability to earn their own living, we accept the responsibility to provide it for them. No such obligation is evident in your argument.

We are responsible for the consequences of our choices. However, your unwillingness to support yourself is not a consequence of our actions.

Just as chattel slavery was abolished 150 years ago, economic slavery will one day be abolished, and those who support my position now will be viewed as moral pioneers.

Oh, dude, you truly have convinced yourself that moral extortion is actually good and proper, huh?.. Dear me...

This sort of thinking is still at the stage where its proponents can expect to be shat upon at every turn, but one day, people will wonder how anyone with a conscience could have disagreed.

Not until scarcity is abolished technologically, they won't.

Victor,

DQ: If the state were to stop funding public universities tomorrow, the academics would be up in arms. They would be loudly arguing that the state has a moral obligation to keep that high-brow part of the culture alive, irrespective of what is produced from it.

V: No, David. They would be making a pragmatic argument -- that higher ed is incredibly important for the long-term well-being of society -- and not an a-priori moral argument as Unidian does, that the taxpayers must fund the academia because academics simply don't want to do anything else.

I don't think you can separate morality from pragmatism that easily. You simply have a different moral system to Unidian's - one that is based on what you currently perceive as being pragmatic to society. In effect, you are saying that it is immoral for Unidian to justify his tax-funded "indolence" by making use of his own moral system. Or to put it more simply, Unidian's immorality consists of the fact that he isn't adopting your moral system.

In the Soviet Union, many intellectuals were forced into concentration camps against their will simply because the authorities didn't like their views and thought it would be more pragmatic for society to have them removed into labour camps. This action by the state can be viewed as "immoral" in a number of different ways - for example, as individuals being forced into a situation against their will (Unidian's view), or as a waste of intellectual talent (your view).

Since the state is acting here in a non-pragmatic fashion, and since you regard pragmatism as one of the highest virtues in life, then it is hardly a large leap to conclude that your thinking on this issue is just as moralistic as Unidian's thinking is.

Surely your mind is not so corrupt yet that you cannot recognize this simple fact. "Fund my academic pursuits because I can't do anything else" is emphatically not an argument advanced by the academia proponents.

If the state were to say to the academic community, "We are going to close down the universities and all academics will be sent to work on farms for the rest of their lives", then I'm pretty sure they would start making those kinds of arguments. For they would recognize that they are dealing with irrational, short-sighted leaders, and that making appeals to their rational, pragmatic sides probably wouldn't work. So they would probably try a whole gamut of various arguments to try and keep the universities open. We don't really know because universities (in the West) have never been seriously threatened in the way that Unidian's mode of life constantly is.

In other words, academics know that they are safe because they are part of a long-standing institution. They are not under any undue stress and don't have to resort to more desperate measures to justify their existence.

-

Unidian wrote:Victor,

it sure does. I remember you talking a lot about how everyone agreed with you in chat -- and then nobody came to your defense in the actual discussion. You even expressed bitter astonishment about how all of those 'supporters' of yours vanished when the push came to shove, those summer soldiers.

Oh, that happens quite a bit. Take this forum for example - full of people who support voluntary unemployment (all 3 QRS plus several others) and I still get the bulk of it. The reason for their absence or low participation is not that they don't support or agree with me. The reason is that with the exception of David Quinn, they are afraid of you. If it were somebody less formidable, they'd be piling on.

Is that bullshit supposed to spur me on to post more on this issue? If so, you know me less well than you think. The reason I don't post more on it is that it's not a big priority. Suggesting it's out of fear of Victor is just plain insulting.

hehe, I was going to suggest that to Nat, but then I decided instead to sit back and watch someone respond to being accused of fearing me. :)

David Quinn wrote:In the Soviet Union, many intellectuals were forced into concentration camps against their will simply because the authorities didn't like their views and thought it would be more pragmatic for society to have them removed into labour camps.

Right. it's this little 'force' thing that's a factor here.

Nat BTW is also trying to label me morally inferior for disagreeing with his moral system. The difference between us is that I can show how laughable and ridiculous his system is, and he cannot return the favor.

If the state were to say to the academic community, "We are going to close down the universities and all academics will be sent to work on farms for the rest of their lives", then I'm pretty sure they would start making those kinds of arguments.

Actually, they would probably be arguing that being forced to work on a farm is inhumane; and they would be right. Once again, your example relies on explicit application of coercion.

In other words, academics know that they are safe because they are part of a long-standing institution. They are not under any undue stress and don't have to resort to more desperate measures to justify their existence.

Yeah, that's because they justify their existence by actually proving that academia constitutes a good investment of funds, duh! If they had to resort to Unidian's argument, that would merely mean that they couldn't make the pragmatic argument -- that academia would have become a useless social institution.

Do try to keep up, David. Being delusional is no excuse for being slow.I know you can do better than this.

vicdan wrote:Who would you proffer? Socrates? Plato? Aristotle? Spinoza? Kant? Locke? Hume? Mill? Nietzsche? Sartre? Quine? Carnap? None of them were moochers. Not a single one was of the "feed me lest I fail to manifest greatness of thought" school of social reasoning.

Perhaps strictly true, yet Nietzsche's productive years as a philosopher were all spent whilst living off a University pension during which time he did nothing that the establishment would in fact have deemed productive. I agree with Nat that your attempts to redefine the terms of this debate should be resisted, because "mooching" and "indolence" are really red herrings.

I worked for 10 years paying taxes so I figure that, along with the few people who are happy with their meagre contribution to my existence I'm pretty well covered for a while yet. I guess the remainder can rest assured that their tax dollar is going towards more meaningful things like contributing to the cost of the Dalai Lama coming here to explain our various delusions. Irony, anyone?

Dan Rowden wrote:Perhaps strictly true

Ah, the truth comes out!

yet Nietzsche's productive years as a philosopher were all spent whilst living off a University pension during which time he did nothing that the establishment would in fact have deemed productive.

He earned his pension, and he was disabled.

The point here is that while he could work, he worked -- and when he became disabled, he ceased to; but even if he hadn't earned his pension, I would have supported giving him disability payments. he didn't choose to not work.

And so you can't cite even NIetzsche in support of your position.

I agree with Nat that your attempts to redefine the terms of this debate should be resisted, because "mooching" and "indolence" are really red herrings.

No, they are not. The question of being able to support yourself, yet instead choosing to demand that others support you, under threat of moral condemnation, is the very essence of the argument.

I have nothing against those who cannot work. I have nothing against those who don't wish to work, and find some other legitimate means of supporting themselves. I have everything against those who, in wishing to indulge their indolence, choose to extort money from others.

Victor,

Nat BTW is also trying to label me morally inferior for disagreeing with his moral system. The difference between us is that I can show how laughable and ridiculous his system is, and he cannot return the favor.

I can't return the favor in the minds of those who have no conscience. If allowing people to starve or be homeless doesn't bother someone, then of course the moral argument is not going to appeal to them. You can't preach vegetarianism to the butcher.

Moral arguments rely on shared values for their relevance. In this case, one either believes that all people are entitled to the necessities of life, or they don't.

You don't.

Yeah, that's because they justify their existence by actually proving that academia constitutes a good investment of funds, duh! If they had to resort to Unidian's argument, that would merely mean that they couldn't make the pragmatic argument -- that academia would have become a useless social institution.

This argument relies on one accepting the bigoted and false assumption that what the voluntarily unemployed do is of no value to society. On the contrary, there are any number of potentially valuable functions performed by the voluntarily unemployed. The anti-conformist, freedom-loving statement made by voluntary unemployment is a social service in and of itself, as someone previously suggested. But I'm sure David, Dan, Trevor, and possibly others will note with interest your bigoted view that they are "useless."

Like I said in the debates at FP, you repeat the talking points of Hannity and Ayn Rand on this issue. In that sense, you are as immoral and myopic as they are, in my view.

Unidian wrote:I can't return the favor in the minds of those who have no conscience. If allowing people to starve or be homeless doesn't bother someone, then of course the moral argument is not going to appeal to them. You can't preach vegetarianism to the butcher.

Allowing people to starve through their own conscious choice, when they could choose to alleviate their hunger, does bother me somewhat, but I would poke my eye out with a sharp stick before allowing people to use that feeling as a leverage to blackmail me. Freedom uber alles, dude. People are free to make their own choices. They just aren't free to blackmail me into handling the consequences for them.

Moral arguments rely on shared values for their relevance. In this case, one either believes that all people are entitled to the necessities of life, or they don't.

You don't.

No, I don't -- not entitled. I simply believe in freedom, whereas you mouth the word, but those words amount to freedom for some at the expense of coercion for most.

This argument relies on one accepting the bigoted and false assumption that what the voluntarily unemployed do is of no value to society. On the contrary, there are any number of potentially valuable functions performed by the voluntarily unemployed. The anti-conformist, freedom-loving statement made by voluntary unemployment is a social service in and of itself, as someone previously suggested.

Why don't you ask those who work whether they find such a 'anti-conformist' statement valuable? Or don't you see how hypocritical and self-serving it is for you to be the arbiter of the value of your contribution?

It's extremely easy to be anti-conformist when you force others to pay for your actions.

Like I said in the debates at FP, you repeat the talking points of Hannity and Ayn Rand on this issue. In that sense, you are as immoral and myopic as they are, in my view.

Trying to shackle me up to Ayn Rand never gets old. Do it again, Nat!

Victor,

Allowing people to starve through their own conscious choice, when they could choose to alleviate their hunger, does bother me somewhat, but I would poke my eye out with a sharp stick before allowing people to use that feeling as a leverage to blackmail me. Freedom uber alles, dude. People are free to make their own choices. They just aren't free to blackmail me into handling the consequences for them.

Yeah, I know. Principles before people. If someone said they would kill themselves if you didn't give them a cheese sandwich, you'd start shouting about how you'd be damned before you'd give up your cheese sandwich to that kind of "blackmail," and they would die. The reality to which this analogy refers happens every day across this nation.

I'd just give them the cheese sandwich and save a life at little real cost to myself. That's the difference between us.

No, I don't -- not entitled. I simply believe in freedom, whereas you mouth the word, but those words amount to freedom for some at the expense of coercion for most.

Freedom (supposedly the most valuable thing in your value system) for some at the cost of what equates to a cheese sandwich for most. Apart from "the principle of the thing," nobody is going to miss the small amount collected from them to give freedom to their fellow citizens. Hell, we wouldn't even need a tax increase if existing funds were spent differently.

You just don't want to work while others escape that unfortunate fate scot-free. This attitude says a lot about the true nature of work, and none of it is good.

Why don't you ask those who work whether they find such a 'anti-conformist' statement valuable? Or don't you see how hypocritical and self-serving it is for you to be the arbiter of the value of your contribution?

It's extremely easy to be anti-conformist when you force others to pay for your actions.

Yeah, and while we're at it, why don't we ask Joe Six-Pack about the value of the art funded by the NEA. I'm pretty sure his opinion on pieces like "Piss Christ " is already pretty well known, and yet most intellectuals continue to argue for government funding of the arts. Joe's opinion is understood as stemming from his ignorance and is accordingly disregarded, as it should be in this case as well.

Trying to shackle me up to Ayn Rand never gets old. Do it again, Nat!

No problem. You two actually have a good bit in common - you're both intellectuals who grew up under Soviet communism, rejected it, came to America, and started extolling the virtues of markets. Rand went further than you have in most respects, but when it comes to voluntary unemployment, I can't imagine her position being much different from yours.

BTW, I just got booted out of a chat room at a conservative board an hour or so ago. I'd been arguing voluntary unemployment there as well, and naturally, they took a dim view of it and of me. You might be interested to know that a lot of their arguments were identical to yours, except phrased in the NASCAR vernacular that is associated with their comparatively lower intelligence.

In fact, if you'd been in there during the discussion, I'm sure you'd have been proclaimed the hero of the day. :)

Some points I missed earlier:

No, they don't. You just said it yourself -- only a small fraction of people could do that without utterly wrecking the economy. Well, the simple fact of human nature is that if indolence becomes morally acceptable, the number of those who would wish to be indolent will increase far, far higher than 3-6%. It's the society-wide contempt for mooching (not for indolence, but for indolence at others' expense) that keeps the numbers this low.

Wow, you must hate employment as much as I do to assume that huge numbers would quit work in exchange for a meager income. It apparently doesn't occur to you that most people choose to work because they want stuff. A guaranteed minimum income does not pay for SUVs and X-boxes. Human nature is such that most people are materialistic and be counted on to remain so for the foreseeable future. Most people will keep working because they want more than the minimum. How you can fail to see this in our society of conspicuous consumption is beyond me.

Oh, I believe that too -- I just don't believe that extorting the money for these things from others, when you are capable of procuring them yourself, is acceptable. This teeny little difference is evident -- you believe in moral extortion and blackmail and coercion, and I do not.

I believe that all human beings are universally entitled to the necessities of a decent life. Cry about it all you want, but that's where I stand. Calling it "extortion" or "blackmail" is just like Southern plantation owners bellyaching about the terrible injustices visited upon them by the emancipation proclamation. "It's theft! Violation of property rights! Un-biblical! Immoral! Wrong!"

No... slavery is wrong, mm-kay?

Nat: We give these necessities to convicted prisoners and there would be a (justified) moral outcry if we suddenly refused to do so.

Victor: Yes, because we tossed 'em in prison. It's the "you break it, you buy it" principle. In forcibly depriving the prisoners of the ability to earn their own living, we accept the responsibility to provide it for them. No such obligation is evident in your argument.

There doesn't need to be, because my position is that everyone is entitled. I favor supporting prisoners, and I favor supporting the voluntarily unemployed. I favor supporting anyone and everyone who needs support. Period.

But, for the record, if it somehow came down to a choice between supporting criminals or supporting the voluntarily unemployed, I can tell you which group society would be better off without. That most people would disagree with me here, choosing criminals over the voluntarily unemployed, says a lot. Barrabas, anyone?

We are responsible for the consequences of our choices. However, your unwillingness to support yourself is not a consequence of our actions.

Don't be so sure. Societal values have a lot to do with forming viewpoints and beliefs. I can envision societies in which I might find myself strongly motivated to do economic work. But ours is not one of them. Materialism and consumerism fail to motivate me to fart, much less become employed.

vicdan wrote:

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I'm sure I could come up with a process utilitarian argument to justify indolent philosophers that would run around the most efficient way to guarantee that there will be philosophers is to insure that all people who show potential to be philosophers are fully backed in their attempts (since the value of philosophy isn't measured for centuries after their death).

Hop to it then. Go ahead and actually come up with such an argument, and back it by data (since it would be a utilitarian argument), instead of proclaiming that you could do it.

That sounds like quite a bit of effort. I'd rather stick to my proclamation: I'm sure I could come up with one.

Then again... maybe I can't. Are the conditions for creating philosophers of merit even measurable?

No, their arguments weren't really the same as Vic's arguments. Vic doesn't advocate eliminating the welfare system. Nor does he support "post partum abortions for the disabled" He's putting the line at ability to work, which is really the more mainstream liberal position.

At any rate, like you I'd give the man the sandwich - but after a while I'd start to wonder what on earth he wanted my sandwich for. In other words, I'd save the man's life, but I'd find it odd. I don't really think at the level of a sandwich it really makes sense since I have one sandwich and it is either you or me who eats.

On the other hand, assuming Nat remains on disability benefits at around his current income for 50 years, it costs one tenth of a cent for each person in the US to maintain his standard of living for 50 years
It's a hell of a lot better than a lot of other things we pay for...

Katy,

No, their arguments weren't really the same as Vic's arguments. Vic doesn't advocate eliminating the welfare system. Nor does he support "post partum abortions for the disabled" He's putting the line at ability to work, which is really the more mainstream liberal position.

Doesn't matter to me. Any position short of "nobody should go hungry or homeless" is illegitimate in my eyes. I'm opposed to anyone who thinks that some people should be denied the necessities of life, no matter how they justify it or where they "draw the line." It's the equivalent of saying "some blacks can be considered people, but not the really dark-skinned ones."

He also doesn't need any help or apologetics from our side of the fence. Keep in mind that when you attempt to "correct" me on things like this, you're going to bat for a man who thinks some of your friends ought to be homeless and starving. Do you really want to contribute even slightly to the cause of someone who would have people like Dan and I (since he doesn't believe my disability claim) out in the street? If Dan and I were Jews, would you say, "Well, technically, Goebbels' arguments weren't quite as bad as Hitler's?"

I'm being hard on you here because I expect more from you.

At any rate, like you I'd give the man the sandwich - but after a while I'd start to wonder what on earth he wanted my sandwich for. In other words, I'd save the man's life, but I'd find it odd. I don't really think at the level of a sandwich it really makes sense since I have one sandwich and it is either you or me who eats.

You know what the analogy is referring to, so you should also know that you have way more than one sandwich. You have two dozen or more, and you're only being asked for one.

On the other hand, assuming Nat remains on disability benefits at around his current income for 50 years, it costs one tenth of a cent for each person in the US to maintain his standard of living for 50 years
It's a hell of a lot better than a lot of other things we pay for...

Not in their minds. You'll never hear them bitching louder or longer about anything than they will about "moochers." It's the tired old "welfare queen" bit repackaged in terms. "Mainstream liberals" don't disagree with conservatives that "welfare queens" ought to be left out to dry, they just naively deny that such people exist. Nothing (including paying for kids to be shot in Iraq) bugs them as much as paying for somebody to stay home while they go to work.

Oh, that happens quite a bit. Take this forum for example - full of people who support voluntary unemployment (all 3 QRS plus several others) and I still get the bulk of it. The reason for their absence or low participation is not that they don't support or agree with me. The reason is that with the exception of David Quinn, they are afraid of you. If it were somebody less formidable, they'd be piling on.

I can't speak for anyone else but I know I didn't go to bat for you because I had no interest in the topic by the time you tried to force everyone into the discussion. After ten or fifteen iterations of the same topic, three times as many threads ruined by you and Vic arguing, and it being absolutely obvious that you would never resolve anything I was tired of the subject. I didn't want to be involved, I didn't want to read about it and I didn't even know you had said anything until we all got a tongue lashing in chat (because I had stopped reading the threads).

Let it go Nat, you and Vic will never concede to each other and you certainly won't compromise so what's the point of getting all worked up over this topic? You know what you believe and you think it's right, isn't that enough?

Nat,

As I stated, I agree that the right thing to do is to prevent starvation. I just don't think it's fair to paint everyone the same color black. I'd be willing to bet good money that if Elated managed to somehow get his "post term abortions for the disabled" publically accepted and up for debate, we'd quickly find Victor "on our side." And Elated's view is probably more likely to get heard on capital hill than yours are.

I'm not supporting Victor; he's a big boy and can fight his own fights. I am, however, suggesting that there are shades of gray, and that it is not useful to alienate people who might be on your side at some point. In any election I can foresee within our lifetimes, I suspect the three of us would vote together.

On a spectrum you've got
Nat: Not working is good
Katy: Not working is weird, but I'd rather they not die.
Vic: Not working should have natural consequences (unless there's a reason)
My Father: Not working has natural consequences.
Mandy (church girl): Everyone can work.
Elated: The disabled should be shot.

While in the end it comes down to "would you vote for this measure" - you also have to look at "would you vote for other measures that get us to the point we could have a vote on this issue?"

Absolutely I would disagree completely with a policy that put you and/or Dan (or anyone else) on the street, and I disagree with anyone who supports such a policy. I think it is wrong morally (especially if we assume a reorganization of taxes instead of increase of taxes) and it is wrong pragmatically, and even financially as homeless broke people are more likely to turn to crime and crime costs more than welfare.

All I am suggesting is that there are shades of gray. In the world we live in, politics is almost always a shade of gray.

Just out of curiousity: Today is Vic-Just-Became-King day. What are you going to do about welfare, Vic? :)






And practicality...you know you're not going to change his mind. He knows he's not going to change your mind. You have (as you stated) drawn your argument out in those other threads, as well as in your article. You know this argument isn't going to make you happy. Why are you still doing it?

Chochem,

I can't speak for anyone else but I know I didn't go to bat for you because I had no interest in the topic by the time you tried to force everyone into the discussion. After ten or fifteen iterations of the same topic, three times as many threads ruined by you and Vic arguing, and it being absolutely obvious that you would never resolve anything I was tired of the subject. I didn't want to be involved, I didn't want to read about it and I didn't even know you had said anything until we all got a tongue lashing in chat (because I had stopped reading the threads).

You must be confused. I don't consider you a supporter and never have.

Let it go Nat, you and Vic will never concede to each other and you certainly won't compromise so what's the point of getting all worked up over this topic? You know what you believe and you think it's right, isn't that enough?

Yeah, it's always me that's "getting all worked up." Apparently nobody sees the two pages where he badmouthed me by name in every conceivable way before I engaged him. I was trying to avoid engaging him for this very reason. I end up being perceived as "getting all worked up" when he is provoking it by having fits of self-righteous hysteria over my position and nobody notices.

Katy,

Katy: Not working is weird, but I'd rather they not die.

Glad to hear you'd rather not have yourself killed, even though you are "weird" in your own opinion.

All I am suggesting is that there are shades of gray. In the world we live in, politics is almost always a shade of gray.

There are no shades of gray in homelessness or starvation.

And practicality...you know you're not going to change his mind. He knows he's not going to change your mind.

Correct. He enjoys provoking this repetitive debate over and over because he knows that majority opinion is on his side, and he can make me look bad as a result. Victor argues only for the purpose of belitting others and bolstering his massive ego. For all his intellect and education, his motivations are precisely those of the kid who pulls the wings off of flies. Everyone used to know this, although memories seem to be getting short now that myself and QRS have been his sole targets for a while and nobody else has been getting bashed.

If he ever turns on anyone else, they will know it.

You have (as you stated) drawn your argument out in those other threads, as well as in your article. You know this argument isn't going to make you happy. Why are you still doing it?

Yeah, ask me why I'm doing it. Good move. I guess you didn't see the two pages where he intentionally baited me by name and tried to smear my position in the full knowledge that if I responded, this is what I'd get for my trouble. Make sure not to ask him why he is still carrying on about it and blatantly trying to beat a dead horse. His position is fully argued in those threads I linked as well - but that isn't what he wants. He wants more public bloodletting, and as always, he's going to get it on a silver platter.

You guys get taken for this ride every single time, and as usual, he's got you writing apologetics for him and asking me why I'm causing it. LOL. I gotta admit, he's good at what he does. After he got me fired as an admin at Common Ascent using the exact same tactic, he sent me a mocking PM reading "Cool, isn't it?"

I'm not dropping it. As long as he wants to throw down the gauntlet, even though he's doing it strictly to satisfy his perverse need for sadistic and divisive dialogue, I'm not backing down. This issue is too important to shut up about just because there's a bully on the block and someone thinks his intended victims should just move out of the way. I've had it with this kind of marshmallow attitude. I'll disown people over this, if need be.

And yes, I know nothing would please him more. But he's going to get his way regardless, so I'm not worried about that. Either he gets to provoke me into another divisive argument as he's now doing, or he gets to bash my position and do the world a small but significant disservice scot-free while I sit there cowering, afraid to respond because I know this sort of thing is going to happen. Losing isn't a factor for guys like him, they are going to win whichever way they go. It's the rest of us who have to deal with the fallout. That being the case, I have to go with what's best for the big picture (fighting back) and let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise, he wins by default.

People of character understand that the way to deal with bullies is to hit back, even if you have to get hurt in the process. If you don't, they will dominate everything unopposed, and that is just not right.

Bullied? Who is being bullied? Do you mean those in society in a weaker position or those in this debate? I hope you mean the former.

Anyone, screw it, this misconception farm is not going to feed anyone here at this board so I guess I need to inject some sanity - i.e. clarity.

Watch this space:

Unidian wrote:Just for the record, there is no such thing as an "indolent philosopher."

Just for the record, this accurate and significant observation is pivotal to my position in this argument.

Dan,

Bullied? Who is being bullied? Do you mean those in society in a weaker position or those in this debate? I hope you mean the former.

Both, actually. The attitudes evidenced in the discussion are characteristic of how unpopular opinions and differing values are received by the society at large.

Just for the record, this accurate and significant observation is pivotal to my position in this argument.

I wish you luck in getting anywhere with it, but I wouldn't set my expectations too high. The chances of our opponents in this debate recognizing our work as anything more than ad-hoc self-justification for "indolence" are slim to none.

We'll deal with it, but it'll take a lot of work. Not sure I'm up to it, really. I've got too much other work to do. I'll try and get to it in my break........

And yes, I did post the "afraid of him" thing in hopes of spurring a few people into action. I know there are others here who support voluntary unemployment without any hemming and hawing reservations, and it bugs me when they don't speak up much and I have to pull almost the whole load. For the record, I don't suppose you're afraid of him personally so much as you just give it a low priority, as you stated. But I wish you'd give it a higher one, since you're quite good at making the case and it really is an issue of considerable importance. It's an issue that concerns our very meal tickets, in fact.

More importantly, it also concerns the meal tickets of perhaps thousands of potentially talented thinkers who are currently wasting away against their will in McDonald's or Wal-Mart because of compulsory employment. Don't we need all the help we can get over here? Instead of creating change and inspiring the human imagination as they should be, our philosophical brethren are trapped in the soulless cubicles of the world. Without people like us going to bat for their freedom, they are helpless and lost. I, for one, feel that we ought to make doing something about their oppression a very high priority.

We should do this not only for their sake or our own, but for the sake of the entire society (including our misguided critics), who will all eventually benefit from the intelligent perspectives currently being wasted, broken, and sacrificed on the altar of Almighty Mammon, God of This World.