GENIUS FORUMS

Yep. That difference is part of the reason I oppose the late-term variety, and I also support welfare. For me, it's all about respecting the right to life. You can't live long if you're aborted as an infant, nor are your prospects too good if you're starving in the street.

Human rights are about freedom from oppression. Late-term abortion is oppressive, and so is forced work.

I agree that human rights are all about freedom from oppression, but forced work is not oppression: it's a fact of life. If you move away from society, you still have to work to support yourself.

Scott: it doesn't have to be a fact of life, though, which is the point.

In a civilized nation, it is possible for some people to be non-working. For instance, all women could still stay at home and our economy wouldn't crumble. Or, all priests could stop preaching, all professors could stop teaching, all authors can stop writing, and all other such "non-working" classes could start doing planetary chores.

The thing is... it isn't necessary. When women entered the workforce, a sane society would have reduced how many hours per day each person worked proportionally.

I disagree. Work does have to be a fact of life because someone must always do it. It's oppression to make others work harder so that you can not work at all.

If I'm already convinced that everyone is working too much -- in fact, overworking -- there is no reason to contribute. They work harder because they want more things. It just so happens that by working harder, they produce more than they could ever actually spend on themselves without causing too much damage from their own selfishness -- so they pay taxes.

Scott,

I agree that human rights are all about freedom from oppression, but forced work is not oppression: it's a fact of life.

Would you agree with dictionary that forced work is a form of slavery? If so, are you saying that slavery is a "fact of life?"

If you move away from society, you still have to work to support yourself.

True, but I think of this as a point in my favor. If you move away from society, you lose all the benefits of civilization. I think freedom from forced work ought to be one of those benefits. If society doesn't make people's lives better, why bother with it?

I disagree. Work does have to be a fact of life because someone must always do it.

That is correct. However, the fact that someone must do it does not logically require that everyone must do it.

It's oppression to make others work harder so that you can not work at all.

It's not necessary to do that. A small non-working class could be supported with current tax revenues if they were allocated differently.

Unidian wrote:A small non-working class could be supported with current tax revenues if they were allocated differently.

Like British royalty. Now how would you decide who that small non-working class should be? I imagine there would be a lot of people who would like to be a member of that small class.
.

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.

Again, how do you choose who goes in the group? More than 3-6% would want to joint the class, then you have a certain percent who, for one reason or another, can not provide for themselves (that alone may take up the whole 3-6%).
.

No, did you read my post? Studies show that only 3-6% would want to join the non-working class. The rest would prefer to continue to work, because there is more money in it.

Nobody would choose who joins, it would be self-selecting. That's the whole idea of freedom and choice - everyone has the option to work and make more money or not work and live on a small guaranteed income.

The 3-6% is in addition to those who can't work even if they wanted to. Guaranteed income replaces the disability system as well.

I read it, but took it to mean that studies were showing % of people that the system would support, and the second sentence as your opinion. Adding the clarifier "want to" helped. Nevertheless, I'm having a hard time believing that statistic - do you have a link to those studies?
.

Yep.

For men, however, the work disincentive is very small, only about 6% of annual hours worked for the U.S. experiments, and 1% for Mincome. For women, the labour supply response is more substantial, particularly in the U.S. experiments where hours worked fell an average of 19% for wives, and 15% for single female heads.

Less than I thought, but still more than the 3-6%.
.

Nat,

Would you agree with dictionary that forced work is a form of slavery? If so, are you saying that slavery is a "fact of life?"

Does our society force us to work, or force us to pay taxes?

True, but I think of this as a point in my favor. If you move away from society, you lose all the benefits of civilization. I think freedom from forced work ought to be one of those benefits. If society doesn't make people's lives better, why bother with it?

It does make people's lives better in many ways. You have a bunch of luxuries that aren't just out in the woods somewhere, and you have company to enjoy those luxuries with. Freedom from work wouldn't make people's lives better, because that means others have to pick up your slack. It's oppressive. That would not be a free society.

That is correct. However, the fact that someone must do it does not logically require that everyone must do it.

Everyone should work to support themselves, and not leech off of others, in my opinion. I think the government should stop providing for people that do.

However, I'm glad you're living the life you desire and I consider you to be lucky.

It's not necessary to do that. A small non-working class could be supported with current tax revenues if they were allocated differently.

I don't think capable people should get money for nothing, unless the giver is willing. I am unwilling. Any way you put it, I still find it an oppressive action...to not work while others support you.

Unidian, call yourself a self-employed secularized priest. People prefer it to philosopher living off of welfare.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Unidian, call yourself a self-employed secularized priest. People prefer it to philosopher living off of welfare.

churches should be taxed, rather they should be an entirely privately funded thing since it's so personal, you go to the church? you support it, no public funds should at all go into any religious activity or institution

Elizabeth,

Less than I thought, but still more than the 3-6%.

You don't know how I arrived at the 3-6% figure based on this data and I don't have the motivation to explain it, because there are a lot of factors involved. Suffice it to say that a reduction in hours worked is not the same is adopting full unemployment, zero hours per week. I stand by my statement that when properly analyzed and interpreted, this data predicts a rate of full voluntary unemployment in the range of 6%.

That said, the society could easily tolerate 50% voluntary unemployment or more and still produce all necessities if it had the will to do so. Most economic production is unrelated to necessary items, and contributes nothing to society other than new fodder for the cycle of materialistic consumerism, as well as social and environmental degradation.

Scott,

Does our society force us to work, or force us to pay taxes?

Both.

It does make people's lives better in many ways. You have a bunch of luxuries that aren't just out in the woods somewhere, and you have company to enjoy those luxuries with. Freedom from work wouldn't make people's lives better, because that means others have to pick up your slack. It's oppressive. That would not be a free society.

Do you value your freedom to avoid giving up a small percentage of your income more than you value someone else's freedom to decide what to do with the majority of their waking lives?

No freedom is without a price. When chattel slaves were freed, the Southern plantation economy collapsed and many fortunes were lost. That price was worth paying, however, because slavery is wrong. We didn't hesitate then and we should not hesitate now.

Everyone should work to support themselves, and not leech off of others, in my opinion. I think the government should stop providing for people that do.

Then you think people should be allowed to become homeless and/or starve in the world's richest nation to save comfortable people a few dollars.

That is what is going to happen, because regardless of your preferences or mine, some people are simply going to refuse to work. Are you really prepared to let them fall by the wayside?

However, I'm glad you're living the life you desire and I consider you to be lucky.

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

I don't think capable people should get money for nothing, unless the giver is willing. I am unwilling. Any way you put it, I still find it an oppressive action...to not work while others support you.

I find it infinitely more oppressive to force people to give up the majority of their waking lives to save others a few dollars. 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.

I think we need a second emancipation proclamation, in the form of a guaranteed minimum income.

Trevor,

Unidian, call yourself a self-employed secularized priest. People prefer it to philosopher living off of welfare.

Not a bad idea. Maybe that ULC ordination will come in handy after all. :)

Unidian wrote:I don't have the motivation to explain it, because there are a lot of factors involved.

I understand. That would be too much like work. ;)
.

Are you employed, Elizabeth?

That said, the society could easily tolerate 50% voluntary unemployment or more and still produce all necessities if it had the will to do so. Most economic production is unrelated to necessary items, and contributes nothing to society other than new fodder for the cycle of materialistic consumerism, as well as social and environmental degradation.

I think too many people would become creatures of entertainment, perhaps living in virtual worlds. Too much anxiety would arise between those that worked and those who choose not to. The non-employed would become breeders for something "real" to do.

Still I agree we drastically need to reduce the wasted use of resources, via reducing consumerism and reducing employment in low value-adding types of work, like the following industries: advertising, financial, legal, fashion, luxury, war. We need to have more inventive minds engaged in bringing forth sustainable progress and improvement in real qualities of living, that set up the circumstances for natural global population declines, which in turn lead to resources being applied to purify the environment, allowing for what is left of the wonderous variety of life to survive the human nightmare we are inflciting upon the environment.

Won't happen till there is a disaster though.

Scott wrote:Dave,

Are you a Republican?

No.

I don't really have a fixed political viewpoint. It tends to shift around depending on what I've been reading lately. In general, I am anti-government, but I recognize that there are certain functions where government is the best solution. Generally I feel that government has an obligation to act morally, which seems to be a minority position.

I am pro-abortion.

As for welfare being theft, I think the argument should be that the benefits outweigh the cost. Keeping people alive is more important than absolute respect of private property. Similarly with public schooling - everyone benefits from living in an educated society. (That does not change the underlying fact that these benefits are funded by theft - just that there is a greater good that outweighs that.)

To advocate that you are entitled to an income by the mere fact of your existence and that I somehow owe it to you - I find that offensive. It's like if I was out cutting my lawn, and my neighbor came over and said, "Cut my lawn too. I don't feel like doing it."

Unidian wrote:Are you employed, Elizabeth?

Self employed, trading the markets. I still have not made back everything I lost in the recent crash, so although there is work to it, and full-time commitment to sitting in front of the computer, income is not guaranteed but loss is a distinct possibility. I'm self-supporting, though (for the time-being, anyway).
.

Nat,

Do you value your freedom to avoid giving up a small percentage of your income more than you value someone else's freedom to decide what to do with the majority of their waking lives?

Personally, no. I can afford to lose a bit of money. It's the principle of the idea, though. Having a supposedly free government take some people's earned income and give it to those who choose to do nothing. Maybe we shouldn't consider ourselves a free country, if that is going to be the case.

No freedom is without a price. When chattel slaves were freed, the Southern plantation economy collapsed and many fortunes were lost. That price was worth paying, however, because slavery is wrong. We didn't hesitate then and we should not hesitate now.

Slavery was wrong, but indentured servitude was right. The reasons why slavery was wrong is because the slaves didn't have a choice, they were stuck being a slave for their entire lives, and they were often abused. The reasons why indentured servitude was right were that the indentured servants signed the contracts themselves, they were done working when they contract was up, and they were treated like an asset rather than a tool.

We don't live in a work society. We live in a money society. You pay the man and he doesn't bug you.

You say no freedom is without a price. I guess that's true, if the price is others not working while the workers get taxed for their laziness.

But equating that quote to working in today's society being like slavery just isn't truthful. There are many ways to get money that don't involve much work, in the conventional sense. Some of the fastest earning people in business today are starting their own online companies and not dealing at all with bosses, time cards, or deadlines.

Then you think people should be allowed to become homeless and/or starve in the world's richest nation to save comfortable people a few dollars.

No. I think the government shouldn't have a part in taking people's money and giving it to non workers. It should be up to the people of the city what they do with their homeless.

But despite what anyone does, some people are just not cut out to live in society. Or possibly to live anywhere. What should we do with them? I don't know...anything we try, they ruin it.

That is what is going to happen, because regardless of your preferences or mine, some people are simply going to refuse to work. Are you really prepared to let them fall by the wayside?

No, I am not.

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

I think stealing people's money isn't a life. No offense.

I find it infinitely more oppressive to force people to give up the majority of their waking lives to save others a few dollars. 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.

I think we need a second emancipation proclamation, in the form of a guaranteed minimum income.

Like I said, there are new ways of earning money. It doesn't have to take up your whole day.

Regardless, there aren't righter wrongs. Stealing is stealing.

Dave,

As for welfare being theft, I think the argument should be that the benefits outweigh the cost. Keeping people alive is more important than absolute respect of private property. Similarly with public schooling - everyone benefits from living in an educated society. (That does not change the underlying fact that these benefits are funded by theft - just that there is a greater good that outweighs that.)

I can agree with that.