Somebody needs to pay for my 15 kids....

[AAFitz]

In any case, you aren't advocating economic freedom, you are advocating slavery.

I'm not advocating anything. If you don't work, your economic freedom is strongly limited, for natural reasons. Basically, I'm just telling you how it is today. I have no idea what you're smoking right now.

I know what you are telling me, and I realize you do not understand the full implications of your suggestion, which is why I am letting you know, that you are advocating slavery, albeit with possibly even altruistic intentions....though I personally suspect, selfish ones.

As far as smoking, I never inhale.

[Symmetry]

"Arbeit macht Frei," would be the full phrase you would want to Google. "Jedem das Seine" might be appropriate too.

Is a pretty good line, not in the sense it has been used, but the saying; Work gives freedom. Or "Working gives you freedom" is solid stuff.

In the major sense that it was used, it didn't, and should be a warning to anybody to whom it's told.

So are you warning me about something? You are so far out in left field I have no clue what you are talking about.

Are you against homeless shelters? Are you against food banks?

He's calling you a nazi. That is the phrase that was put on the concentration camps and sym broke Goodwin's Law ITT. Though it was a sublime way to break the law I suppose. Either way, he's just muttering incoherently while thinking he is clever. You are best to just ignore him as he brings nothing to any discussion.

I can at least point out that you meant to say Godwin's Law, and that you misunderstood it. But hey, I'm totally following Schroeder's Cat on this.

[BigBallinStalin]

WARNING- CAN MAKE YOU NAUSEOUS

Ok, so, she didnt get abortions. There are 15 children alive now that need to be cared for. After congratulating her on what had to be a difficult decision to have the children, what do you suggest?

I suggest we should cut pay for those who work for the government to pay for them. They get paid way too much given they are just a burden on society, and more funds would be available for taking care of children, which would help reduce the rate of abortions.

Every time I here a government worker complaining about welfare it makes me sick, because government jobs are welfare for those that cant do actually productive jobs. All you freeloaders should be cast into the wind and earn money in a real job like the rest of us.

I suggest the 3 fathers and 1 mother take care of the 15 children. That's a 4 to 15 ratio, which is approximately a 4 to 16 ratio, which is a 1 to 4 ratio. So each adult needs to earn enough and be responsible for 4 children. If they need food assistance, it should be MRE's. If they need housing, it should be military-style Barracks. They should all be required to work in order to receive ANY assistance. Failure to work and provide for these children should be means for imprisonment for child endangerment and abandonment. They should not receive ANY money from the government as a form of assistance, only food/shelter etc.

Ok. Your plan is to start locking up parents and sending kids off to foster homes and orphanages. I'm sure that's what Jesus would say too.

Thanks for the honest answer in any case. I wont even suggest you are wrong.

"Required to work in order to receive ANY assistance" means to me "you must prove that you are working in order to receive X benefits."
It is similar to the government already requiring people to meet condition A in order to receive benefit Y.


But if I wanted to label my ideological opponents as Nazis because ad hominem fallacies are totes cool,
or if I wanted to repaint disagreeable public policies with lame straw man fallacies,
then I would completely agree with your and Symmetry's characterizations of bedub's stance.

[thegreekdog]

Not completely with a short post...but Ill post enough so you can understand the idea.

We have a system right now, where the lowest paying jobs, pay so little, that one can barely afford much more than food. Not everyone can even work at those jobs, and our unemployment rate right now is fairly high, in that many do not have jobs. If, everyone unemployed went to work right now, the real wages would drop significantly.

Further, for those, that did not go to work, if no assistance was provided, they would die. For many, their only choice would be to work at a job, if they could find it, which is hardly guaranteed, or die.

I would consider the working conditions in many factories in China right now to absolutely fit the definition of slavery, or child slavery to be more precise. They work, or they starve to death, and there is no realistic chances of every breaking that cycle.

Ill just stop there, because it is absolutely a complex theory, but the point is that with our current system, stopping aid, would absolutely create slavery, if it cant be qualified that the way it is.

Unfortunately, I still don't understand the idea.

Before corporations and governments, if someone did not hunt or gather, he or she died. Was that slavery?
I work right now. Am I enslaved?
A CEO of a multinational corporation making $40 million a year also works. Is he or she enslaved?

Or is your theory only limited to poor people (who, by the way, not only make enough to feed themselves, but they make enough to purchase vehicles, televisions, refrigerators, houses, and other such items)? If there was no welfare program, would, as BBS suggests, individuals have more disposable income with which to donate?

[BigBallinStalin]

Not completely with a short post...but Ill post enough so you can understand the idea.

We have a system right now, where the lowest paying jobs, pay so little, that one can barely afford much more than food. Not everyone can even work at those jobs, and our unemployment rate right now is fairly high, in that many do not have jobs. If, everyone unemployed went to work right now, the real wages would drop significantly.

Further, for those, that did not go to work, if no assistance was provided, they would die. For many, their only choice would be to work at a job, if they could find it, which is hardly guaranteed, or die.

I would consider the working conditions in many factories in China right now to absolutely fit the definition of slavery, or child slavery to be more precise. They work, or they starve to death, and there is no realistic chances of every breaking that cycle.

Ill just stop there, because it is absolutely a complex theory, but the point is that with our current system, stopping aid, would absolutely create slavery, if it cant be qualified that the way it is.

How would you define 'voluntary'?

And, how do you explain the increase of wealth which the US has experienced over the past 200 years?

[DoomYoshi]

I'll pay for them. But then their MINE! I can always use some cheap workforce. . . . What did you say? Would that be illegal? Pff, the law gets in the way again.

It's not illegal if you don't declare their wages...

[Gillipig]

In any case, you aren't advocating economic freedom, you are advocating slavery.

I'm not advocating anything. If you don't work, your economic freedom is strongly limited, for natural reasons. Basically, I'm just telling you how it is today. I have no idea what you're smoking right now.

I know what you are telling me, and I realize you do not understand the full implications of your suggestion, which is why I am letting you know, that you are advocating slavery, albeit with possibly even altruistic intentions....though I personally suspect, selfish ones.

As far as smoking, I never inhale.

I doubt you understand what I wrote when you use that word. Here's what I said "Working gives you freedom", I then clarified "working gives you economic freedom". Do you want to tell me that you get more money from social security than working? Unless that's what you're arguing you have missunderstood me. I never suggested any change, I just told you how it works. If you work, you get more money and therefore more economic freedom than if you don't. I can't believe you're even arguing the validity of that claim. You're very far of the mark if you think I'm a capitalist. The fact that I'm from Sweden should tell you otherwise.

[Neoteny]

You are all racist hicks.

I guess, just in case anyone wants an actual semblance of context on this, here's a link to the local news website.

http://www.wfla.com/story/20451514/ange ... ldren-back

I'm not going to deny that any person with more than, say, five kids (or even fewer, really) is anything other than deranged in the worst possible sense, but the fact that she was upset about a housing dispute and was demanding that "someone" pay for the more immediate circumstance of living in a motel room with a dozen other people after being evicted makes it a little less sickening than the welfare queen racist stereotype that is portrayed via tactics of outright lying by ignorant hicks like the OP. I don't have much sympathy for her, but I have trouble stooping so low.

Feel free to mail her a check.

Why would he send his own money when he can vote for people to force you to send your money? It's a win-win for him. He will be seen as supporting poor working mothers and will be seen as punishing those that, for unknown, but unfair, reasons, make more money than poor working mothers.

Because supporting the state coercion and its theft of other people's wealth is more humane and self-satisfying?

I don't think these comments are fair. There's clearly something wrong with having this many children. The fact of the matter is they will have to be supported somehow (and will always be unless we somehow limit this sort of activity [having kids, as in; whatever her reasons, she really needs to stop]), and I don't trust the magical libertarian solution of relying on racist hicks to contribute willingly. If it were in my means, I would happily donate to those children, and, if you looked at any other context to this story, people have been donating food an other supplies to the family. To be honest, many of the donors are probably not in great positions to give either.

So, your smartass comments are neither smart, nor ass enough for my tastes.

That's a long-winded way of saying that you won't donate to her. If marginal tax rates were significantly lower, then more money is freed up for donations--and the wiser use of such funds (as compared to government provision). There would be more money for charitable organizations to seek through more effective marketing. So much for your 'racist hicks won't contribute enough' straw man fallacy.

It's a fair enough criticism because that's the consequence of supporting state-funded provision of whatever your ideology favors--assuming you favor the government provision of such welfare services. You completely failed to explain how that criticism is not indicative of your position; you pulled a PhatScotty dodge, which isn't fair. Furthermore, It's not fair to ignore such a consequence, but that seems to be part-and-parcel of being 'liberal' or progressive.

I guess if you want to add "pretentious dick" to "racist hick," I would be happy to subsidize such a change. I mean, no, I won't donate anything to her, because I can't afford to, though I'm happy a portion of my paycheck, and everyone else's, is going to help those kids to some degree, despite the despicable circumstances that got them where they are. I'm happy about that because I don't trust others to do what I have, and will do. The idea of government assistance is predicated on the concept that people were not getting the assistance they needed in the first place, and so government used their broader scope to achieve that end. There are probably improvements that could be made to the system, but I have said (it feels like) millions of times on this site that I trust us (me and you) more than I trust just you, even if we have to deal with all the shitty people that makes us who we are.

How that's a straw man is beyond me, especially since my criticisms had actually 0% to do with the state of welfare and my political opinions on it, and 100% for calling jay a racist and a liar for withholding context. Where that money I've contributed might have otherwise gone, I dunno. But I don't see how you can accuse me of dodging anything when you bust all up in here with your tax fetish to attack my charity for a post criticizing those who are using a disgusting stereotype to achieve a political end. That you didn't get a "f*ck you" outright is a factor of my respect for you. You think fewer taxes and government assistance leads to more charity, while I find that hard to believe. We've been over that I think. And it's a boring as f*ck discussion. But I'm not dodging anything. I think jay is a lying racist. I also think these things about the welfare system, and I think your religion is silly.

Does it still count as a Phatscotty dodge without a YouTube video?

[Lootifer]

I have a man crush on Neoteny.

[Neoteny]

I will have 15 of your babies.

[AAFitz]

In any case, you aren't advocating economic freedom, you are advocating slavery.

I'm not advocating anything. If you don't work, your economic freedom is strongly limited, for natural reasons. Basically, I'm just telling you how it is today. I have no idea what you're smoking right now.

I know what you are telling me, and I realize you do not understand the full implications of your suggestion, which is why I am letting you know, that you are advocating slavery, albeit with possibly even altruistic intentions....though I personally suspect, selfish ones.

As far as smoking, I never inhale.

I doubt you understand what I wrote when you use that word. Here's what I said "Working gives you freedom", I then clarified "working gives you economic freedom". Do you want to tell me that you get more money from social security than working? Unless that's what you're arguing you have missunderstood me. I never suggested any change, I just told you how it works. If you work, you get more money and therefore more economic freedom than if you don't. I can't believe you're even arguing the validity of that claim. You're very far of the mark if you think I'm a capitalist. The fact that I'm from Sweden should tell you otherwise.

I dont know shit about sweeden except to say you are in the dark more than most right now. Further, some absolutely get more from social security than if they were working. But, Im also not arguing that is a good thing either.

You have been very clear here though, so if you were not suggesting that no aid should be given, and that by dropping aid, people would be given more freedom because they would then have to work, and would mysteriously get economic freedom, from that simple act, then I was absolutely in error.

[AAFitz]

Not completely with a short post...but Ill post enough so you can understand the idea.

We have a system right now, where the lowest paying jobs, pay so little, that one can barely afford much more than food. Not everyone can even work at those jobs, and our unemployment rate right now is fairly high, in that many do not have jobs. If, everyone unemployed went to work right now, the real wages would drop significantly.

Further, for those, that did not go to work, if no assistance was provided, they would die. For many, their only choice would be to work at a job, if they could find it, which is hardly guaranteed, or die.

I would consider the working conditions in many factories in China right now to absolutely fit the definition of slavery, or child slavery to be more precise. They work, or they starve to death, and there is no realistic chances of every breaking that cycle.

Ill just stop there, because it is absolutely a complex theory, but the point is that with our current system, stopping aid, would absolutely create slavery, if it cant be qualified that the way it is.

Unfortunately, I still don't understand the idea.

Before corporations and governments, if someone did not hunt or gather, he or she died. Was that slavery?
I work right now. Am I enslaved?
A CEO of a multinational corporation making $40 million a year also works. Is he or she enslaved?

Or is your theory only limited to poor people (who, by the way, not only make enough to feed themselves, but they make enough to purchase vehicles, televisions, refrigerators, houses, and other such items)? If there was no welfare program, would, as BBS suggests, individuals have more disposable income with which to donate?

Well, by your answer you understand it fully, but simply disagree with it.

And my theory absolutely is limited to poor people, because it is the current system, and social climate that has made it impossible for all to go out and make enough to earn more than food. Further, if they did all go out tomorrow and get a job, wages would plummet, and even more people would be poor.

If there was no welfare people, as BBS suggests, individuals very much might have more disposable income with which to donate, but they might not have as many people they need to donate too, because they would be dead.

Further, I actually suggest that without welfare, there would be less disposable income, because there would be more workers which would lower the wages, and even more money would end up being concentrated in the upper levels of income earners, thereby reducing the amount of money in the economy, as the Bush era tax cuts seemed to prove conclusively.

That all being said, I'm all for changing welfare, and there are many abuses of the system, but that hardly means dropping welfare altogether would even give all of those 15 kids a chance of surviving. Further, I'm not even suggesting here that is a bad thing. It might even be the best thing for society and the human race at large, to let people and children die of starvation if they cannot afford to feed themselves.

However, when the people suggesting it are the ones arguing that abortion is evil and murder, I simply cannot refrain from pointing out the hypocracy of that.

[thegreekdog]

Not completely with a short post...but Ill post enough so you can understand the idea.

We have a system right now, where the lowest paying jobs, pay so little, that one can barely afford much more than food. Not everyone can even work at those jobs, and our unemployment rate right now is fairly high, in that many do not have jobs. If, everyone unemployed went to work right now, the real wages would drop significantly.

Further, for those, that did not go to work, if no assistance was provided, they would die. For many, their only choice would be to work at a job, if they could find it, which is hardly guaranteed, or die.

I would consider the working conditions in many factories in China right now to absolutely fit the definition of slavery, or child slavery to be more precise. They work, or they starve to death, and there is no realistic chances of every breaking that cycle.

Ill just stop there, because it is absolutely a complex theory, but the point is that with our current system, stopping aid, would absolutely create slavery, if it cant be qualified that the way it is.

Unfortunately, I still don't understand the idea.

Before corporations and governments, if someone did not hunt or gather, he or she died. Was that slavery?
I work right now. Am I enslaved?
A CEO of a multinational corporation making $40 million a year also works. Is he or she enslaved?

Or is your theory only limited to poor people (who, by the way, not only make enough to feed themselves, but they make enough to purchase vehicles, televisions, refrigerators, houses, and other such items)? If there was no welfare program, would, as BBS suggests, individuals have more disposable income with which to donate?

Well, by your answer you understand it fully, but simply disagree with it.

And my theory absolutely is limited to poor people, because it is the current system, and social climate that has made it impossible for all to go out and make enough to earn more than food. Further, if they did all go out tomorrow and get a job, wages would plummet, and even more people would be poor.

If there was no welfare people, as BBS suggests, individuals very much might have more disposable income with which to donate, but they might not have as many people they need to donate too, because they would be dead.

Further, I actually suggest that without welfare, there would be less disposable income, because there would be more workers which would lower the wages, and even more money would end up being concentrated in the upper levels of income earners, thereby reducing the amount of money in the economy, as the Bush era tax cuts seemed to prove conclusively.

That all being said, I'm all for changing welfare, and there are many abuses of the system, but that hardly means dropping welfare altogether would even give all of those 15 kids a chance of surviving. Further, I'm not even suggesting here that is a bad thing. It might even be the best thing for society and the human race at large, to let people and children die of starvation if they cannot afford to feed themselves.

However, when the people suggesting it are the ones arguing that abortion is evil and murder, I simply cannot refrain from pointing out the hypocracy of that.

You need to refine your theory I think... at least refine it to include poor people only. I would have liked your theory better had it included everyone.

[BigBallinStalin]

You are all racist hicks.

Because supporting the state coercion and its theft of other people's wealth is more humane and self-satisfying?

I don't think these comments are fair. There's clearly something wrong with having this many children. The fact of the matter is they will have to be supported somehow (and will always be unless we somehow limit this sort of activity [having kids, as in; whatever her reasons, she really needs to stop]), and I don't trust the magical libertarian solution of relying on racist hicks to contribute willingly. If it were in my means, I would happily donate to those children, and, if you looked at any other context to this story, people have been donating food an other supplies to the family. To be honest, many of the donors are probably not in great positions to give either.

So, your smartass comments are neither smart, nor ass enough for my tastes.

That's a long-winded way of saying that you won't donate to her. If marginal tax rates were significantly lower, then more money is freed up for donations--and the wiser use of such funds (as compared to government provision). There would be more money for charitable organizations to seek through more effective marketing. So much for your 'racist hicks won't contribute enough' straw man fallacy.

It's a fair enough criticism because that's the consequence of supporting state-funded provision of whatever your ideology favors--assuming you favor the government provision of such welfare services. You completely failed to explain how that criticism is not indicative of your position; you pulled a PhatScotty dodge, which isn't fair. Furthermore, It's not fair to ignore such a consequence, but that seems to be part-and-parcel of being 'liberal' or progressive.

I guess if you want to add "pretentious dick" to "racist hick," I would be happy to subsidize such a change. I mean, no, I won't donate anything to her, because I can't afford to, though I'm happy a portion of my paycheck, and everyone else's, is going to help those kids to some degree, despite the despicable circumstances that got them where they are. I'm happy about that because I don't trust others to do what I have, and will do. The idea of government assistance is predicated on the concept that people were not getting the assistance they needed in the first place, and so government used their broader scope to achieve that end. There are probably improvements that could be made to the system, but I have said (it feels like) millions of times on this site that I trust us (me and you) more than I trust just you, even if we have to deal with all the shitty people that makes us who we are.

How that's a straw man is beyond me, especially since my criticisms had actually 0% to do with the state of welfare and my political opinions on it, and 100% for calling jay a racist and a liar for withholding context. Where that money I've contributed might have otherwise gone, I dunno. But I don't see how you can accuse me of dodging anything when you bust all up in here with your tax fetish to attack my charity for a post criticizing those who are using a disgusting stereotype to achieve a political end. That you didn't get a "f*ck you" outright is a factor of my respect for you. You think fewer taxes and government assistance leads to more charity, while I find that hard to believe. We've been over that I think. And it's a boring as f*ck discussion. But I'm not dodging anything. I think jay is a lying racist. I also think these things about the welfare system, and I think your religion is silly.

Does it still count as a Phatscotty dodge without a YouTube video?

But why do you continue to gloss over the fact that your stance inadvertently supports state coercion and its theft of other people's wealth? Acknowledgement of this fact will lead you to an undesirable yet real paradox from your our humane, satisfying intentions and their terrible consequences. You gloss over this fact in order to justify your faith-based assumptions about people and the markets' insufficient ability to coordinate goods (like charity, etc.) without the need of government. On my side, I have evidence and an appreciation of markets, a healthy skepticism of government, and an awareness of its costs and consequences:

David T. Beito's From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967 dismisses many of your concerns.
The Voluntary City has several articles which will instill doubt in your vision of humanity's inability to help others without using coercive force.

Oh, but what of the social costs of government welfare? Why not go beyond our good intentions and examine consequences?
Why not read State Against Blacks by Walter E. Williams and W. E. Williams?
Or Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies or Intellectuals and Society?

Why not become more knowledgeable about the government and markets, instead of adhering to such a mistaken ideology?
(And my stance is supposedly the religious one.)


Your inability to accept the actual consequence of your faith in the state prevents you from seriously criticizing your ideology. This is dangerous because such behavior enables people with many good intentions to advance policies of bad consequences. Such behavior enables politicians to take advantage of such naivety in order to advance their crony capitalist goals. You trust 'us' more than your trusting me, yet magically there's your implicit trust in the government (with its politicians and bureaucrats) to actually achieve their alleged goals of reducing poverty.
(e.g. read Caplan's Myth of the Rational Voter, and Randy Simmons' Beyond Politics).

Good intentions plus government institutions often do not lead to your desired consequences, but more importantly, individuals within a market (i.e. in a free society) can more efficiently discover methods for alleviating poverty through gains in productivity, through voluntary exchange, through selection and variation of various means. But with government provision/control, you hardly get such a broad avenue for creating wealth and alleviating poverty--and you get costly consequences which are difficult for the government to correct (e.g. the 'poverty trap' but no negative income tax; the social costs of the drug war; etc.--all of which comes from the voters' good intentions and the state coercion and funding. That abominable and blind religion in the state is the primary obstacle to the advancement of humanity. What barbarism.).


(Also recommended reading: Doing Bad by Doing Good: Why Humanitarian Action Fails).

[AAFitz]

Not completely with a short post...but Ill post enough so you can understand the idea.

We have a system right now, where the lowest paying jobs, pay so little, that one can barely afford much more than food. Not everyone can even work at those jobs, and our unemployment rate right now is fairly high, in that many do not have jobs. If, everyone unemployed went to work right now, the real wages would drop significantly.

Further, for those, that did not go to work, if no assistance was provided, they would die. For many, their only choice would be to work at a job, if they could find it, which is hardly guaranteed, or die.

I would consider the working conditions in many factories in China right now to absolutely fit the definition of slavery, or child slavery to be more precise. They work, or they starve to death, and there is no realistic chances of every breaking that cycle.

Ill just stop there, because it is absolutely a complex theory, but the point is that with our current system, stopping aid, would absolutely create slavery, if it cant be qualified that the way it is.

Unfortunately, I still don't understand the idea.

Before corporations and governments, if someone did not hunt or gather, he or she died. Was that slavery?
I work right now. Am I enslaved?
A CEO of a multinational corporation making $40 million a year also works. Is he or she enslaved?

Or is your theory only limited to poor people (who, by the way, not only make enough to feed themselves, but they make enough to purchase vehicles, televisions, refrigerators, houses, and other such items)? If there was no welfare program, would, as BBS suggests, individuals have more disposable income with which to donate?

Well, by your answer you understand it fully, but simply disagree with it.

And my theory absolutely is limited to poor people, because it is the current system, and social climate that has made it impossible for all to go out and make enough to earn more than food. Further, if they did all go out tomorrow and get a job, wages would plummet, and even more people would be poor.

If there was no welfare people, as BBS suggests, individuals very much might have more disposable income with which to donate, but they might not have as many people they need to donate too, because they would be dead.

Further, I actually suggest that without welfare, there would be less disposable income, because there would be more workers which would lower the wages, and even more money would end up being concentrated in the upper levels of income earners, thereby reducing the amount of money in the economy, as the Bush era tax cuts seemed to prove conclusively.

That all being said, I'm all for changing welfare, and there are many abuses of the system, but that hardly means dropping welfare altogether would even give all of those 15 kids a chance of surviving. Further, I'm not even suggesting here that is a bad thing. It might even be the best thing for society and the human race at large, to let people and children die of starvation if they cannot afford to feed themselves.

However, when the people suggesting it are the ones arguing that abortion is evil and murder, I simply cannot refrain from pointing out the hypocracy of that.

You need to refine your theory I think... at least refine it to include poor people only. I would have liked your theory better had it included everyone.

Well, as I said, I hardly can address it fully on this forum, because its wasted, so you can either think about the ideas or not. I never intended on proving its validity. The idea is essentially an entire chasm of economic theory, that Ive come to believe over a lifetime, based on everything Ive ever learned and seen, so, I can either write a book explaining it, or just put it out there as my opinion, as I did.

[AAFitz]

You are all racist hicks.

Because supporting the state coercion and its theft of other people's wealth is more humane and self-satisfying?

I don't think these comments are fair. There's clearly something wrong with having this many children. The fact of the matter is they will have to be supported somehow (and will always be unless we somehow limit this sort of activity [having kids, as in; whatever her reasons, she really needs to stop]), and I don't trust the magical libertarian solution of relying on racist hicks to contribute willingly. If it were in my means, I would happily donate to those children, and, if you looked at any other context to this story, people have been donating food an other supplies to the family. To be honest, many of the donors are probably not in great positions to give either.

So, your smartass comments are neither smart, nor ass enough for my tastes.

That's a long-winded way of saying that you won't donate to her. If marginal tax rates were significantly lower, then more money is freed up for donations--and the wiser use of such funds (as compared to government provision). There would be more money for charitable organizations to seek through more effective marketing. So much for your 'racist hicks won't contribute enough' straw man fallacy.

It's a fair enough criticism because that's the consequence of supporting state-funded provision of whatever your ideology favors--assuming you favor the government provision of such welfare services. You completely failed to explain how that criticism is not indicative of your position; you pulled a PhatScotty dodge, which isn't fair. Furthermore, It's not fair to ignore such a consequence, but that seems to be part-and-parcel of being 'liberal' or progressive.

I guess if you want to add "pretentious dick" to "racist hick," I would be happy to subsidize such a change. I mean, no, I won't donate anything to her, because I can't afford to, though I'm happy a portion of my paycheck, and everyone else's, is going to help those kids to some degree, despite the despicable circumstances that got them where they are. I'm happy about that because I don't trust others to do what I have, and will do. The idea of government assistance is predicated on the concept that people were not getting the assistance they needed in the first place, and so government used their broader scope to achieve that end. There are probably improvements that could be made to the system, but I have said (it feels like) millions of times on this site that I trust us (me and you) more than I trust just you, even if we have to deal with all the shitty people that makes us who we are.

How that's a straw man is beyond me, especially since my criticisms had actually 0% to do with the state of welfare and my political opinions on it, and 100% for calling jay a racist and a liar for withholding context. Where that money I've contributed might have otherwise gone, I dunno. But I don't see how you can accuse me of dodging anything when you bust all up in here with your tax fetish to attack my charity for a post criticizing those who are using a disgusting stereotype to achieve a political end. That you didn't get a "f*ck you" outright is a factor of my respect for you. You think fewer taxes and government assistance leads to more charity, while I find that hard to believe. We've been over that I think. And it's a boring as f*ck discussion. But I'm not dodging anything. I think jay is a lying racist. I also think these things about the welfare system, and I think your religion is silly.

Does it still count as a Phatscotty dodge without a YouTube video?

But why do you continue to gloss over the fact that your stance inadvertently supports state coercion and its theft of other people's wealth? Acknowledgement of this fact will lead you to an undesirable yet real paradox from your our humane, satisfying intentions and their terrible consequences. You gloss over this fact in order to justify your faith-based assumptions about people and the markets' insufficient ability to coordinate goods (like charity, etc.) without the need of government. On my side, I have evidence and an appreciation of markets, a healthy skepticism of government, and an awareness of its costs and consequences:

David T. Beito's From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967 dismisses many of your concerns.
The Voluntary City has several articles which will instill doubt in your vision of humanity's inability to help others without using coercive force.

Oh, but what of the social costs of government welfare? Why not go beyond our good intentions and examine consequences?
Why not read State Against Blacks by Walter E. Williams and W. E. Williams?
Or Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies or Intellectuals and Society?

Why not become more knowledgeable about the government and markets, instead of adhering to such a mistaken ideology?
(And my stance is supposedly the religious one.)


Your inability to accept the actual consequence of your faith in the state prevents you from seriously criticizing your ideology. This is dangerous because such behavior enables people with many good intentions to advance policies of bad consequences. Such behavior enables politicians to take advantage of such naivety in order to advance their crony capitalist goals. You trust 'us' more than your trusting me, yet magically there's your implicit trust in the government (with its politicians and bureaucrats) to actually achieve their alleged goals of reducing poverty.
(e.g. read Caplan's Myth of the Rational Voter, and Randy Simmons' Beyond Politics).

Good intentions plus government institutions often do not lead to your desired consequences, but more importantly, individuals within a market (i.e. in a free society) can more efficiently discover methods for alleviating poverty through gains in productivity, through voluntary exchange, through selection and variation of various means. But with government provision/control, you hardly get such a broad avenue for creating wealth and alleviating poverty--and you get costly consequences which are difficult for the government to correct (e.g. the 'poverty trap' but no negative income tax; the social costs of the drug war; etc.--all of which comes from the voters' good intentions and the state coercion and funding. That abominable and blind religion in the state is the primary obstacle to the advancement of humanity. What barbarism.).


(Also recommended reading: Doing Bad by Doing Good: Why Humanitarian Action Fails).

I think you are ignoring quite a bit of history in your hypothesis here. In any case, there is a big difference between arguing about the structure and amount of welfare, and the idea of welfare at all.

I see welfare abuse on a daily basis, and absolutely am sickened by it, but also know that it is hardly the real problem with our current economic system, and that its mostly a red herring, for those trying to cover up the real, obvious problems.

I don't actually mean to imply you here, and actually respect your opinion on it, and I sympathize with parts of it, but think you have missed the mark because of a failure to apply historical examples to it adequately.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm arguing NOT against welfare, but the government provision of welfare--which is the fundamental problem that Neoteny, the supporter of state coercion and exploitation, ignores.

If you want to argue history, then I provided my reading list, so what would you recommend?

[AAFitz]

I'm arguing NOT against welfare, but the government provision of welfare--which is the fundamental problem that Neoteny, the supporter of state coercion and exploitation, ignores.

If you want to argue history, then I provided my reading list, so what would you recommend?

The course of action that I would suggest, is a course of action I cannot suggest. - Tom Clancy(Clear and Present Danger)

But seriously, I dont want to argue history. I simply feel history, all the history that I have learned, and lived, refutes your claim. However, I am hardly defending welfare as it stands, and am all for reform of it.

As I said before, my additions to this thread have been to point out the hypocracy of complaining that unborn children are killed in one thread, and that someone needs help raising some in another.

I also feel that you are decidedly naive to think there would be enough charity to help replace welfare. The income of the upper one percent rose dramatically, I believe during the bush years, by as much as 100% per year, and while I am just guessing, if not making it up, I speculate that charity did not increase by that same ratio by any stretch.

The other factor that has no bearing here, is that money put into the bottom of the economy pretty much enters the economy immediately, and removing it, I feel would actually weaken the economy, rather than strengthen it.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm arguing NOT against welfare, but the government provision of welfare--which is the fundamental problem that Neoteny, the supporter of state coercion and exploitation, ignores.

If you want to argue history, then I provided my reading list, so what would you recommend?

The course of action that I would suggest, is a course of action I cannot suggest. - Tom Clancy(Clear and Present Danger)

But seriously, I dont want to argue history. I simply feel history, all the history that I have learned, and lived, refutes your claim. However, I am hardly defending welfare as it stands, and am all for reform of it.

As I said before, my additions to this thread have been to point out the hypocracy of complaining that unborn children are killed in one thread, and that someone needs help raising some in another.

I also feel that you are decidedly naive to think there would be enough charity to help replace welfare. The income of the upper one percent rose dramatically, I believe during the bush years, by as much as 100% per year, and while I am just guessing, if not making it up, I speculate that charity did not increase by that same ratio by any stretch.

The other factor that has no bearing here, is that money put into the bottom of the economy pretty much enters the economy immediately, and removing it, I feel would actually weaken the economy, rather than strengthen it.

Time to get reading, AAFitz.

[thegreekdog]

@AAFitz - Okay. If your definition of slavery is having to work, then your theory should apply to everyone. That's all I'm saying.

For the rest, let me put BBS's point another way (or make my own point).

If the ostensible point of welfare is to help people care for themselves, shouldn't the goal of welfare to take people who are on welfare and get them off of welfare? If that is the goal, then there are two follow-up questions. Is the government provision of welfare, in its current form, successful on getting people off of welfare? I would say no given that more people are receiving government assistance now than ever. The second question is whether Congress or the president wishes to help people get off welfare? I believe the answer to that question is also a qualified no.

[jay_a2j]

WARNING- CAN MAKE YOU NAUSEOUS

Ok, so, she didnt get abortions. There are 15 children alive now that need to be cared for. After congratulating her on what had to be a difficult decision to have the children, what do you suggest?

I suggest we should cut pay for those who work for the government to pay for them. They get paid way too much given they are just a burden on society, and more funds would be available for taking care of children, which would help reduce the rate of abortions.

Every time I here a government worker complaining about welfare it makes me sick, because government jobs are welfare for those that cant do actually productive jobs. All you freeloaders should be cast into the wind and earn money in a real job like the rest of us.

I suggest, if YOU can't afford to raise 15 kids, or the father isn't prepared to, than take precautions to NOT GET PREGNANT! I applaud her decision not to kill her 15 kids, but if you can't take care of them maybe you could have been a little more careful. Now that they are here maybe CPS could find a "sitter" while she went to work so she can get them stuff.

[jay_a2j]

"Arbeit macht Frei," would be the full phrase you would want to Google. "Jedem das Seine" might be appropriate too.

Is a pretty good line, not in the sense it has been used, but the saying; Work gives freedom. Or "Working gives you freedom" is solid stuff.

In the major sense that it was used, it didn't, and should be a warning to anybody to whom it's told.

Working gives you economical freedom, and it's a far better saying than "Not working gives you freedom". Altjough I wouldn't say that sentence in german, due to obvious missunderstandings lol.

If your only choice is to work or die, that is not freedom. Its slavery.

Really? I live in the USA. I'm FREE right? Well, if I don't work, I DIE. My family DIES. My two dogs DIE. I'm a slave right?

[patches70]

The second question is whether Congress or the president wishes to help people get off welfare? I believe the answer to that question is also a qualified no.

It's a good way to keep the votes coming in every election cycle. Don't we want everyone to vote? (laughs)

[Gillipig]

In any case, you aren't advocating economic freedom, you are advocating slavery.

I'm not advocating anything. If you don't work, your economic freedom is strongly limited, for natural reasons. Basically, I'm just telling you how it is today. I have no idea what you're smoking right now.

I know what you are telling me, and I realize you do not understand the full implications of your suggestion, which is why I am letting you know, that you are advocating slavery, albeit with possibly even altruistic intentions....though I personally suspect, selfish ones.

As far as smoking, I never inhale.

I doubt you understand what I wrote when you use that word. Here's what I said "Working gives you freedom", I then clarified "working gives you economic freedom". Do you want to tell me that you get more money from social security than working? Unless that's what you're arguing you have missunderstood me. I never suggested any change, I just told you how it works. If you work, you get more money and therefore more economic freedom than if you don't. I can't believe you're even arguing the validity of that claim. You're very far of the mark if you think I'm a capitalist. The fact that I'm from Sweden should tell you otherwise.

I dont know shit about sweeden except to say you are in the dark more than most right now. Further, some absolutely get more from social security than if they were working. But, Im also not arguing that is a good thing either.

You have been very clear here though, so if you were not suggesting that no aid should be given, and that by dropping aid, people would be given more freedom because they would then have to work, and would mysteriously get economic freedom, from that simple act, then I was absolutely in error.

I wish to apologize to myself for wasting time arguing with you. If you don't know anything about other countries politics, then you're too ignorant to hold a political discussion. Clearly you're just an idiot. Like you said:

I dont know shit

[2dimes]

WARNING- CAN MAKE YOU NAUSEOUS

Ok, so, she didnt get abortions. There are 15 children alive now that need to be cared for. After congratulating her on what had to be a difficult decision to have the children, what do you suggest?

I suggest we should cut pay for those who work for the government to pay for them. They get paid way too much given they are just a burden on society, and more funds would be available for taking care of children, which would help reduce the rate of abortions.

Every time I here a government worker complaining about welfare it makes me sick, because government jobs are welfare for those that cant do actually productive jobs. All you freeloaders should be cast into the wind and earn money in a real job like the rest of us.

I suggest, if YOU can't afford to raise 15 kids, or the father isn't prepared to, than take precautions to NOT GET PREGNANT! I applaud her decision not to kill her 15 kids, but if you can't take care of them maybe you could have been a little more careful. Now that they are here maybe CPS could find a "sitter" while she went to work so she can get them stuff.

Are you suggesting people have to stop practicing Christianity?