Democratic Socialist Demands Free Housing

[Into the Night]

I figured you would make allowances for those who are UNABLE to work, T.A.. I suspect most people will do that. Even in our most primitive times, some cared for people who were unable to provide for themselves.

But for the lazy and incompetent, how to "get rid of them one way or the another?"

That can become a rather barbaric slope...as I suspect you recognized.

Talk to me about that.



May I respectfully suggest they may not be a drain on society, but may provide the need for a transformation much needed right now.

They may allow us to see that we will soon (may already have) reached a point where it makes no sense to pay enough humans a living wage so that everyone can live adequately without having to "earn" that living.

We can, of course, just kill those people who are lazy...or who are not competent enough to compete reasonably with computers and robots. Essentially, just put them out on an ice floe.

BUT, there may come a time, relatively soon, where the numbers of people we will have to "get rid of' will be significant.
(That time is right now. We already have way too many people who are not able to compete successfully with machines.)

We can talk about that here in our discussion.

Okay...let's start with the question of how we resolve that problem.

Just kill 'em?

Perhaps have them dig holes with a shovel for 6 hours a day...and spend 2 hours filling them in...5 days a week, fifty weeks a year?

Others may want to join in this discussion about how to rid society of them?

Communism never works, Doofan.

 

[Lionfish]

Providing respectable housing would fix that. You are such a hater.

Nordie, how many homeless have YOU taken in?

 

[Noking]

Is that your expert opinion as a moron?

But no, stooge - Breitbart is one of the few reliable sources of honest and accurate information.

Get back to watching CCP NOW! - you need to know what you "think" about issues.

If you find moron publications credible, then you've got some serious problems.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

THINGS THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE QUESTION ABOVE:

People who inherit money and do nothing to contribute...is that okay?

Yes. The people who made that money have every right to do what they please with it in terms of giving it away when they die. The government has no right to it. In fact, I'd call inheritance taxes theft.

People who marry into it and do nothing to contribute...is that okay?

Again, the person who made the money at some point did so and who they marry is their choice.

People able to grift others into giving money to them and do nothing to contribute...is that okay?

That's fine too. You, I, or anybody else is free to do with their own money what they want with it

The problem comes when the government forcibly takes someone's money and then uses it not for the common good of all, but to prop up someone in particular.

How do we set a standard for what "contributing" means?

Doing meaningful work that returns both pay to the person doing it and is beneficial to society, however marginally.

Do female and male prostitutes "contribute" enough and in a way that makes them okay?

Yes. Prostitution is generally illegal because of other issues it creates, not because it's done for money.

So it would be okay with you to have our government essentially condemn people to starve or freeze to death? You would not consider that too barbaric?

If they were unwilling to work when it was offered and they were capable, yes. For the mentally ill and otherwise genuinely handicapped, we should have care in an institutionalized setting for them where they can be taken care of properly. Those are not the person's fault. Note: Stupid, illiterate, lazy, and mendacious are NOT handicaps. They are self-inflicted.

Okay, that is certainly a stance to be advocated...one that I would vigorously opose...one I would vote against if advocated by a political party. But I accept there are others (who may be a majority) would would vote for it. I would vote for euthanasia rather than that.

I'm willing to bet a majority would vote for it. "Workfare" isn't a new idea. In fact, Clinton signed a bill requiring that into law when he was president.

Okay, also a stance to be advocated...and my reply would be the same as above. Essentially that would be condemning people to starve or freeze to death...and I would prefer euthanasia to that.

I see no reason to coddle the undeserving and unwilling.

I know of people who would never be able to obtain a GED certificate. By the way, I did not graduate from high school (quit in my senior year to join the Air Force...and earned a GED equivalence while in service. I have since graduated from college with a BA in Economics and Philosophy...and done all the work for an MA in Industrial psychology but never completed the dissertation.)

Anecdote is not evidence.

I would not want to put people into prison for being stupid...or lazy.

Stupid is a leading cause of people being in prison. It's a leading cause of crime.

Okay, if doing mindless work like digging holes and filling them in is something you would vote for...I understand. I would never do so.

I would not advocate for make-work. Work should be productive regardless of how menial it may appear.

Most lazy people end up harming productivity no matter what. That also has been true for a very long time.

Lazy long ago in terms of a job often got you beaten or killed by your peers if not your overseers.

Well, I am not sure we would "pay: them (get them food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and a few amenities) to do nothing. We would be "paying" them for doing the one thing they are good at...staying the hell out of the way. Not harming productivity.

If that's the case we should just by woodchippers and toss them in. Much cheaper than keeping them around.

But I understand people like you who might not agree with that.

I don't agree with it.

Thanks for discussing this with me, T. A.. It is a complex, potentially fraught problem.

No problem. That is what this board should be about after all.

Question, if I may: Do you see that having EVERYONE work might cause productivity problems because in order to provide jobs for humans...we might have to take jobs away from much more productive machines? Any thoughts on that?

New jobs and things to do are nearly continuously invented. There was a Twilight Zone episode, among other science fiction, that looked at that issue. A big part of the problem now is that there are almost onerous labor laws that make employment of the marginally productive difficult or impossible to do.

For example, about twenty years ago, Progressives in Arizona managed to get a higher minimum wage on the ballot and it passed. The wage was also tied to the cost of living index meaning it went up each year incrementally. The law they wrote had no room for exceptions. Everybody got the wage who worked at minimum wage.

One of the issues that immediately cropped up was there were a number of companies that employed the handicapped and severely handicapped doing simple tasks like stuffing envelopes or simple assembly of something they could manage. This included people who were blind, wheelchair bound, limited mobility, or having restrictions on what they could do with their hands. These businesses were previously exempted from minimum wage as they wouldn't otherwise be profitable. Most employed their workers part time and accommodated their schedules of things like medical care and the like. The workers often felt a real satisfaction in having something to do and making a contribution to society.

The new minimum wage law, which the advocates said would raise these worker's wages found instead that the companies went out of business and terminated all of their employees. They simply couldn't pay them what was demanded by law and make even a small profit, which was all they previously made.

My position is that we should be trying to maximize the utilization of people in our society for its betterment. We should not coddle or tolerate those who choose to be lazy and / or stupid. We should NOT encourage an Idiocracy. Socialism encourages an Idiocracy.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes. The people who made that money have every right to do what they please with it in terms of giving it away when they die. The government has no right to it. In fact, I'd call inheritance taxes theft.


Again, the person who made the money at some point did so and who they marry is their choice.


That's fine too. You, I, or anybody else is free to do with their own money what they want with it

The problem comes when the government forcibly takes someone's money and then uses it not for the common good of all, but to prop up someone in particular.


Doing meaningful work that returns both pay to the person doing it and is beneficial to society, however marginally.


Yes. Prostitution is generally illegal because of other issues it creates, not because it's done for money.


If they were unwilling to work when it was offered and they were capable, yes. For the mentally ill and otherwise genuinely handicapped, we should have care in an institutionalized setting for them where they can be taken care of properly. Those are not the person's fault. Note: Stupid, illiterate, lazy, and mendacious are NOT handicaps. They are self-inflicted.


I'm willing to bet a majority would vote for it. "Workfare" isn't a new idea. In fact, Clinton signed a bill requiring that into law when he was president.


I see no reason to coddle the undeserving and unwilling.


Anecdote is not evidence.


Stupid is a leading cause of people being in prison. It's a leading cause of crime.


I would not advocate for make-work. Work should be productive regardless of how menial it may appear.


Lazy long ago in terms of a job often got you beaten or killed by your peers if not your overseers.


If that's the case we should just by woodchippers and toss them in. Much cheaper than keeping them around.


I don't agree with it.


No problem. That is what this board should be about after all.

New jobs and things to do are nearly continuously invented. There was a Twilight Zone episode, among other science fiction, that looked at that issue. A big part of the problem now is that there are almost onerous labor laws that make employment of the marginally productive difficult or impossible to do.

For example, about twenty years ago, Progressives in Arizona managed to get a higher minimum wage on the ballot and it passed. The wage was also tied to the cost of living index meaning it went up each year incrementally. The law they wrote had no room for exceptions. Everybody got the wage who worked at minimum wage.

One of the issues that immediately cropped up was there were a number of companies that employed the handicapped and severely handicapped doing simple tasks like stuffing envelopes or simple assembly of something they could manage. This included people who were blind, wheelchair bound, limited mobility, or having restrictions on what they could do with their hands. These businesses were previously exempted from minimum wage as they wouldn't otherwise be profitable. Most employed their workers part time and accommodated their schedules of things like medical care and the like. The workers often felt a real satisfaction in having something to do and making a contribution to society.

The new minimum wage law, which the advocates said would raise these worker's wages found instead that the companies went out of business and terminated all of their employees. They simply couldn't pay them what was demanded by law and make even a small profit, which was all they previously made.

Okay. We disagree significantly...and that happens.

My position is that we should be trying to maximize the utilization of people in our society for its betterment. We should not coddle or tolerate those who choose to be lazy and / or stupid. We should NOT encourage an Idiocracy. Socialism encourages an Idiocracy.

As I see it, the main reason we invent machines is to take work away from (ease the workload of) humans...starting way back with the wheel. Ya take down an elephant and have to get it back to the cave so the group can eat. At some point, someone saw that there was a mechanical advantage to transport the heavy load back to the cave...and the wheel was born.

Just about all the other inventions (maybe with the exception of the Rubik's Cube and Trojan prophylactics) also had in mind to ease the workload of humans. Currently we have machines (or can relatively easily invent them) to do that to an incredible degree. Actually, so much that paying humans a reasonable wage to do most jobs no longer makes sense...and that is a situation getting more extreme with each passing year. Currently, we have what essentially are billions of mechanical slaves working for us, we'd almost have to invent work and then get industry to pay good salaries in order to accommodate everyone...even the lazy.

Of course, we may evolve to the point where factory owners and capitalistic investors will see the problem and say, "We've got to pay enough humans sufficient money so that all can be contributors and can earn enough to live a decent life...even though our profits will be much less."

After all, no billionaire really needs or wants that much money...or needs/wants multi-million dollar houses in a dozen locations...or huge yachts...or fleets of cars...or caches of jewels...or golden toilet seats.

I just suppose that kind of thinking is less likely to happen than changing our desires to cling to what we used to call, "The Protestant Work Ethic."

I may be wrong. I may be 100% full of shit about that.

The fact that so far, nobody else has even commented on any of this...seems to indicate that may be the case.

Once again. Thanks for sharing, T. A.