If we no longer force people to work to meet their basic needs, won't they stop working?

[ksen]

we don't?

Who is forcing you to work?

Society.

Unless you're telling me that if I don't work I can still meet my nutrition, housing medical needs. Are you telling me I could if I wanted to and I'm just now aware of the money that's out there for those things?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Oh, and debt forgiveness.

High college debt is a major deterrent to entrepreneurship.

Harry, we are actually agreeing.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Harry, we are actually agreeing. STOP THE PRESSES!!!

it must be my lucky day. I'm buying a lotto ticket today! If I win, I'll share with keen so he dosen't have to work anymore!

 

[ksen]

Working for the Man is overrated.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Working for the Man is overrated.

Its often easier than starting your own business. The choices are:
1. Work for the man.
2. Start your own business.
3. Live off your stored labor (retire)
4. Live off donations
5. Win the lotto

 

[Bronzeage]

This seems to presume it is someone else's responsibility to provide you with your needs whilst (as the Brits say) you sit on your arse.

Hence, among other things, it is really, really, really stupid.

Heck even Marx had the ole "From each according to his ability" proviso to getting your needs met.

Exactly. Society should have no obligation to those who won't help themselves. We should aid those who can't help themselves.

Who will decide what "won't help themselves" means?

Does it mean I can't have a kidney transplant because I work two part time jobs, neither of which provide health insurance benefits, and neither pay enough to afford major medical coverage?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do you have a source for this?

He didn't even ask me!


Reasoning aside, workers having disposable income is a good thing, right?


Conservolibertarians might disagree, but I've never heard a solid reason why keeping laborers in poverty is more productive.

Conservoprogressives do disagree, but libertarians do not advocate keeping laborers in poverty.

 

[prideandfall]

Conservoprogressives

apropos of almost nothing, just another shining example of how conservatives don't get the concept of humor, irony, or sarcasm and have no idea how to employ it.

 

[arkirk]

http://www.scottsantens.com/if-we-n...meet-their-basic-needs-wont-they-stop-working



When stated baldly our current system does seem to have a pretty barbaric foundation.

We don't force people to work, let alone force people to work to meet their basic needs. Why do people always want to twist things?

What do you think the welfare reform act in the late '90's was?...........a compassionate act passed to help people in need? It was in fact an act to force people to work for a living...or languish without support of the government. It offered the unemployed poor access to a few short term training programs to introduce people to employment in go nowhere jobs or, in short order, to not eat. It ignored the heavy lifting the government would have to do to actually reinstate these people to functionality in society.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Conservolibertarians

apropos of almost nothing, just another shining example of how conservatives don't get the concept of humor, irony, or sarcasm and have no idea how to employ it.

I've often agreed that those who use the term "conservolibertarian" don't get those concepts. And the person who uses it most is indeed conservative as you say.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I've often agreed that those who use the term "conservolibertarian" don't get those concepts. And the person who uses it most is indeed conservative as you say.

BTW: why the need to always label people?

 

[arkirk]

I've often agreed that those who use the term "conservolibertarian" don't get those concepts. And the person who uses it most is indeed conservative as you say.

BTW: why the need to always label people?

Remember in the future....YOU SAID THAT.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Society should have no obligation to those who won't help themselves. We should aid those who can't help themselves.

the premise of this statement is inherently and fundamentally flawed, because it ignores the fact that "society" makes it impossible for someone to help themselves outside of the framework of "society" in the first place; for which you could make a very valid argument that it becomes society's duty to help everyone who is unwillingly a part of the system.

for example...
there is no fundamental right (human, national, or local) to decide to go "off grid" and fully revert to a pre-civilization state and live like a caveman, being a fully self-sustaining lone hunter-gatherer.
you might be able to get away with it for a time, even groups might be able to, but assuming the rest of the country still exists as it does today, sooner or later someone is going to get a bug up their ass about you being on their land, or some government agency is going to get shitty about you not paying taxes, or declare you a public health risk, or something... checking out of the human condition simply isn't an option.

Yeah, somebody's going to get a bug up their ass about you stealing the use of their land.

Want to go truly off-grid? A ship at sea is the only approach at present.

 

[prideandfall]

Yeah, somebody's going to get a bug up their ass about you stealing the use of their land.

which is why the entire idea of "self reliance" is a crock of shit.

Want to go truly off-grid? A ship at sea is the only approach at present.

even then, you're not really "off grid" - unless you're on a one-person vessel that doesn't use fuel of any kind and you never, ever go into any country's territorial waters -the second you did, you'd get their marine enforcement agency up your ass.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The myth of Ford again. He paid high wages for the reason of giving people enough money to buy his products. Myth.

He paid those wages to attract the skilled workforce needed to make products of high quality and low price with very low employee turnover. He figured out that if you pay more than competing employers you can take their best employees from them.

Do you have a source for this?

You're always asking for sources for things that have been proven on here before. Are you just trying to distract people from the truth?

It's not hard at all to find out why Ford raised his wages. 15 seconds with Google turns up this quite damning article:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...-workers-undermines-the-living-wage-campaign/

which shows why the leftist claim must be false.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. Society should have no obligation to those who won't help themselves. We should aid those who can't help themselves.

Who will decide what "won't help themselves" means?

Does it mean I can't have a kidney transplant because I work two part time jobs, neither of which provide health insurance benefits, and neither pay enough to afford major medical coverage?

That sounds like can't, not won't.

- - - Updated - - -

which is why the entire idea of "self reliance" is a crock of shit.

Want to go truly off-grid? A ship at sea is the only approach at present.

even then, you're not really "off grid" - unless you're on a one-person vessel that doesn't use fuel of any kind and you never, ever going into any country's territorial waters -the second you did, you'd get their marine enforcement agency up your ass.

Register under a flag of convenience to keep them off your ass.

And living off the grid doesn't mean you don't have to produce something, either for direct consumption or to trade for things you do need (the fuel in your example--although I was picturing a sailboat.)

 

[arkirk]

Exactly. Society should have no obligation to those who won't help themselves. We should aid those who can't help themselves.

How about you read the whole quote instead of the dismally snipped quote?

You're talking to the wall. You will never get from either dismal or Loren the slightest admission that "promote the general welfare" is a function of government, even though it is a part of the Constitution. What is lacking in our constitution is "keep the affluent happy by insuring their constantly increasing wealth." They appear so tied to their bookkeeping functions they seem to have forgotten. It is as if their own personal well being relied on keeping welfare costs to the barest of minimums. The problem with this type of thinking is that it keeps people on welfare, unemployment, and in need. Loren goes out of his way to portray the poor as squanderers of wealth when in reality, they are by necessity the most frugal among us.

 

[prideandfall]

And living off the grid doesn't mean you don't have to produce something, either for direct consumption or to trade for things you do need (the fuel in your example--although I was picturing a sailboat.)

but this again comes right back to my original point - it's only in extreme circumstances that anyone could truly "take care of themselves", and it's such an extreme that if a large enough number of people did it, the entire concept of civilization as we know it would basically collapse.

civilization and individual lives should be a symbiotic relationship: the entire reason we became group animals in the first place is because you don't need society or even a higher order intellect to get the fundamental truth of nature: pooling resources so everyone contributes to the group's betterment results in everyone in the group doing better.

 

[laughing dog]

You're always asking for sources for things that have been proven on here before. Are you just trying to distract people from the truth?

Unlike you, I am trying to distinguish between actual facts and truthiness.

It's not hard at all to find out why Ford raised his wages.

You do realize it is up to the claimers to substantiate their claims.

15 seconds with Google turns up this quite damning article:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...-workers-undermines-the-living-wage-campaign/

which shows why the leftist claim must be false.

It is clear you did not read the article. It does not provide any actual evidence as to Ford's motivation. It provides circumstantial (and reasonable) explanations.

The reality is that we don't know what motivated Ford to increase payments to workers (interestingly, part of the scheme was a form of profit-sharing). It may very well be a myth that Ford raised payments to his workers so they could afford hsi cars. On the otherhand, it may have been one factor that did motivate him. Nothing in that article, or any article I have seen, disputes my interpretation. Which is why I asked for a source.

 

[ZiprHead]

Working for the Man is overrated.

Its often easier than starting your own business. The choices are:
1. Work for the man.
2. Start your own business.
3. Live off your stored labor (retire)
4. Live off donations
5. Win the lotto
6. Be a member of the lucky sperm club

FIFY

 

[fast]

We don't force people to work, let alone force people to work to meet their basic needs. Why do people always want to twist things?

What do you think the welfare reform act in the late '90's was?...........a compassionate act passed to help people in need? It was in fact an act to force people to work for a living...or languish without support of the government. It offered the unemployed poor access to a few short term training programs to introduce people to employment in go nowhere jobs or, in short order, to not eat. It ignored the heavy lifting the government would have to do to actually reinstate these people to functionality in society.

I don't like the connotation of "force". It reeks of disingenuousness. How about "encourages"? Oh, why add the qualification of "or languish without support of the government" and "to not eat"? It seems like you too see that people are not being forced to work.

If the only restaurant open at two in the morning is Burger King and I choose to eat at that only available restaurant, am I forced (without qualification) to eat there? No, I'm not.

Electric companies don't force people to pay their electric bills. Sure, there is pressure to pay. Some pressure is great at times. For instance, late fees pressure people to pay in a timely manner, and threat of disconnection pressures people to pay. Do as they say or face the consequences. But, no one demands they have lights no more than society demands that they eat.

Society may demand of parents that their children eat, but no rich person is forced to work so that their kids eat, nor are the poor parents threatened if they do not get a job. They might take their kids away if they don't feed them, but the charge won't be that they didn't get a job...it'll be neglect by not feeding their children.

You think single black female adults are going to be hauled off to jail for not working? There might be consequences, such as not eating, but why transfigure the fact there are consequences to the choices people make and twist the truth of the matter by slipping in your qualifications? The fact one might starve in no way implies people are being forced to work.

"You must work" and "you must work or possibly die" are not the same, yet people want to conflate them.

Slave labor is a another matter altogether. Those people are forced to work, and even though they technically could choose to suffer the consequences, it's still the case there is force to work even if they resist that force--and this would be a topic highlighting free will, but let's not go there.