Export thread
Should welfare be "painful"?
#1
strawman
strawman
Assumptions:
Let's assume a nation with a great welfare system. If you choose not to work, you get enough help to feed yourself, house yourself, clothe yourself, and receive reasonable medical care - not fabulous, but livable. Suppose as well that there are enough jobs of a varied nature that any able-bodied person who desires to work can do so, and will receive more than they would on welfare.
Supposition:
I suspect that a measurable percentage of that nation's able population will choose to live on welfare rather than "work". Perhaps the extra income isn't enticing enough, or they have unreported income sources, etc.
Question:
Should welfare be "painful" enough to encourage able persons to get a job, and if so, in what ways can a nation force able people to work without significantly affecting welfare for those unable to work?
"Painful" is merely a placeholder. You could instead attack it from the angle of creating incentives to work, rather than making not-working painful (carrot vs stick) or you can use the word "difficult" or "time consuming" in place of painful - but keep in mind that non-able persons might be significantly negatively affected.
Let's assume a nation with a great welfare system. If you choose not to work, you get enough help to feed yourself, house yourself, clothe yourself, and receive reasonable medical care - not fabulous, but livable. Suppose as well that there are enough jobs of a varied nature that any able-bodied person who desires to work can do so, and will receive more than they would on welfare.
Supposition:
I suspect that a measurable percentage of that nation's able population will choose to live on welfare rather than "work". Perhaps the extra income isn't enticing enough, or they have unreported income sources, etc.
Question:
Should welfare be "painful" enough to encourage able persons to get a job, and if so, in what ways can a nation force able people to work without significantly affecting welfare for those unable to work?
"Painful" is merely a placeholder. You could instead attack it from the angle of creating incentives to work, rather than making not-working painful (carrot vs stick) or you can use the word "difficult" or "time consuming" in place of painful - but keep in mind that non-able persons might be significantly negatively affected.
#2
GasBandit
GasBandit
In my opinion, while receiving public assistance ("welfare"), you should be disenfranchised. Your ability to vote (there is no "right" to vote) would be restored once you are no longer on the dole.
#3
MindDetective
MindDetective
Here's something to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
"Pain" by any definition may not work properly as an incentive to move "out" of the system simply because "out" may not be in any recognizable direction. The skills required to even progress out of the hole may not be readily available to many either. It isn't that they can't acquire skills but they need to know how, and where to start. For many of those who are lost below the poverty line, it may not be a choice but rather a learned state of mind.
As an analogy: you put a dog in a big room with a lot of holes in the wall. Only a couple of them will lead to another room but most of them just lead to holes back into the room it is placed. You apply an electric shock to the dog and there is no reason to expect it will figure out which hole will offer relief from that pain. The dog must be guided out. Painful shocks CAN be used to do this, but not indiscriminate shocks. Without direction, the dog will only learn to live with the shocks.
"Pain" by any definition may not work properly as an incentive to move "out" of the system simply because "out" may not be in any recognizable direction. The skills required to even progress out of the hole may not be readily available to many either. It isn't that they can't acquire skills but they need to know how, and where to start. For many of those who are lost below the poverty line, it may not be a choice but rather a learned state of mind.
As an analogy: you put a dog in a big room with a lot of holes in the wall. Only a couple of them will lead to another room but most of them just lead to holes back into the room it is placed. You apply an electric shock to the dog and there is no reason to expect it will figure out which hole will offer relief from that pain. The dog must be guided out. Painful shocks CAN be used to do this, but not indiscriminate shocks. Without direction, the dog will only learn to live with the shocks.
#4
Wahad
*Which I realize is awkwardly phrased, but I could see some people who might be described as not being in complete control over their faculties not having the ability to vote.
Wahad
Why? Is one a lesser person for being, say, physically handicapped and thus unable to work, or a single mom? What could possibly diminish the 'ability' to vote in a person other than imperfect mental health*?In my opinion, while receiving public assistance ("welfare"), you should be disenfranchised. Your ability to vote (there is no "right" to vote) would be restored once you are no longer on the dole.
*Which I realize is awkwardly phrased, but I could see some people who might be described as not being in complete control over their faculties not having the ability to vote.
#5
GasBandit
GasBandit
The burden of justifying their lack of enfranchisement is not on me - there is no right to vote. Frankly, there are too many people voting already as it is. The entire concept that everybody seems to take at face value that anyone and everyone can and should be able to vote is both false and destructive. To me, you have to have skin in the game to even be considered as a potential voter. If it were up to me, this would be coupled with prerequisite military service.Why? Is one a lesser person for being, say, physically handicapped and thus unable to work, or a single mom? What could possibly diminish the 'ability' to vote in a person other than imperfect mental health*?
*Which I realize is awkwardly phrased, but I could see some people who might be described as not being in complete control over their faculties not having the ability to vote.
#6
Adammon
Adammon
The 26th Amendment is surprised by this lack of right to vote.
(I suppose the critical piece of the 26th which doesn't necessarily undercut you argument here is that it doesn't allow the right to vote being denied because of age. Just like the 19th doesn't for sex or the 15th for race.)
Even the 14th is misleading about that right:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
(I suppose the critical piece of the 26th which doesn't necessarily undercut you argument here is that it doesn't allow the right to vote being denied because of age. Just like the 19th doesn't for sex or the 15th for race.)
Even the 14th is misleading about that right:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
#7
strawman
So any method that would move people out would probably have to deal with this (over a long period of time) than any other type of person who voluntarily stays on welfare.
strawman
That's a very salient point, because children raised by those who have spent their life in welfare may learn that way of living, and it becomes a cycle.Here's something to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
So any method that would move people out would probably have to deal with this (over a long period of time) than any other type of person who voluntarily stays on welfare.
#8
PatrThom
PatrThom
I'd be happier seeing those on the dole not be in control of their finances. If someone else is going to have to provide for you, feed you, and clothe you, then they get to decide what you eat, what you wear, and how much discretionary income you get.
Here's the rub. That's your job. If you're on welfare, your 'job' will be to oversee the care and feeding of another welfare family. Income and guidelines are all Federally mandated, and any shortfalls due to poor planning on your part will be made up by taking from your budget. You wouldn't be allowed to freeze/starve to death, but you would definitely be moved from 'live with few luxuries' to 'live with no luxuries.'
Granted, I'm no expert, but I see that lack of freedom as plenty of incentive to get your life under control.
--Patrick
Here's the rub. That's your job. If you're on welfare, your 'job' will be to oversee the care and feeding of another welfare family. Income and guidelines are all Federally mandated, and any shortfalls due to poor planning on your part will be made up by taking from your budget. You wouldn't be allowed to freeze/starve to death, but you would definitely be moved from 'live with few luxuries' to 'live with no luxuries.'
Granted, I'm no expert, but I see that lack of freedom as plenty of incentive to get your life under control.
--Patrick
#9
GasBandit
It's a different story in some STATE constitutions, however... but it seems state governmental powers are even less consequential than the constitution these days... and the latter seems to rank well below a politician's opinion of the moment.
GasBandit
You caught on to the rub there... those amendments say you can't be denied voting privileges because of age, sex, color, etc. There's no actual delineation of enfranchisement in the U.S. Constitution or its amendments.Amendments
It's a different story in some STATE constitutions, however... but it seems state governmental powers are even less consequential than the constitution these days... and the latter seems to rank well below a politician's opinion of the moment.
#10
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
I feel like that wouldn't work in real life.I'd be happier seeing those on the dole not be in control of their finances. If someone else is going to have to provide for you, feed you, and clothe you, then they get to decide what you eat, what you wear, and how much discretionary income you get.
Here's the rub. That's your job. If you're on welfare, your 'job' will be to oversee the care and feeding of another welfare family. Income and guidelines are all Federally mandated, and any shortfalls due to poor planning on your part will be made up by taking from your budget. You wouldn't be allowed to freeze/starve to death, but you would definitely be moved from 'live with few luxuries' to 'live with no luxuries.'
Granted, I'm no expert, but I see that lack of freedom as plenty of incentive to get your life under control.
--Patrick
#11
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
This thread is kind of silly, since it has so many assumptions it doesn't really resemble anything that looks like a real society or life in our present.
But I can't resist jumping in to lol at gasbandit
But I can't resist jumping in to lol at gasbandit
#13
strawman
Added at: 19:53
Why doesn't it surprise me that Charlie thinks thought experiments are silly?
strawman
SCIENCE!This thread is kind of silly, since it has so many assumptions it doesn't really resemble anything that looks like a real...
Added at: 19:53
Why doesn't it surprise me that Charlie thinks thought experiments are silly?
#14
Adammon
Added at: 17:09
Adammon
Because he doesn't do much time actually thinking?SCIENCE!
Added at: 19:53
Why doesn't it surprise me that Charlie thinks thought experiments are silly?
Added at: 17:09
If I was to take on a liberal view of the constitution, I'd say the founding fathers assumed that they didn't need to enshrine the right to the vote in the constitution any more than writing "This constitution is to be written on paper." would be considered a curious addition.You caught on to the rub there... those amendments say you can't be denied voting privileges because of age, sex, color, etc. There's no actual delineation of enfranchisement in the U.S. Constitution or its amendments.
It's a different story in some STATE constitutions, however... but it seems state governmental powers are even less consequential than the constitution these days... and the latter seems to rank well below a politician's opinion of the moment.
#15
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I don't think that welfare should be 'painful,' or that anyone forced to go on welfare should feel like they are being punished. In the case of an able-bodied person that can get work but simply doesn't have it, it should feel like 'help', and temporary help at that. The only way I see to really encourage someone to try to better their situation and get off of welfare is to have a counselor or other guide that the recipient can regularly meet with, that can help with job placement, finance problems, etc. If the recipient just needs a helping hand to get back to another job, then that's great. If they need more to be able to develop the skills to find a job in the first place, then that should be the goal of what welfare ultimately provides.
I realize such a program is unlikely, and if it were it would be rife with logistics problems and corruption (and in many places such systems are already existing, and do run into those same problems), but as a basic outline for what I think it 'should' be like, that's it.
I realize such a program is unlikely, and if it were it would be rife with logistics problems and corruption (and in many places such systems are already existing, and do run into those same problems), but as a basic outline for what I think it 'should' be like, that's it.
#16
blotsfan
blotsfan
I think that in a perfect system, people on welfare should be required to go to a place where they get help looking for jobs and can take classes to provide job skills (and be required to apply for a certain number of jobs per week).
#17
Tress
Tress
EDIT: Never mind, I misread the OP.
In your thought exercise, would being on welfare have the same amount of stigma and shame associated with being on welfare now? That may be enough to keep deadbeats off of it.
In your thought exercise, would being on welfare have the same amount of stigma and shame associated with being on welfare now? That may be enough to keep deadbeats off of it.
#18
Officer_Charon
Officer_Charon
I think I've posted my views on welfare before, and received a blast in the face due to poor wording on my part.
My statistical sampling may be skewed, but it does seem as though the majority of those with whom I come into contact with, at least from an arresting standpoint, tend to be either on welfare, or the children of someone on welfare.
My statistical sampling may be skewed, but it does seem as though the majority of those with whom I come into contact with, at least from an arresting standpoint, tend to be either on welfare, or the children of someone on welfare.
#19
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
We'll put you down as, "Undecided."I feel like that wouldn't work in real life.
--Patrick
#20
@Li3n
Added at: 07:56
Realy, why does that always come up... the problem isn't that we're giving money to gangsters/gangbangers/etc., the problem is that they're not in jail...
@Li3n
I forsee no employer taking advantage of this rule to get his employees to vote for who they say or for no one...In my opinion, while receiving public assistance ("welfare"), you should be disenfranchised. Your ability to vote (there is no "right" to vote) would be restored once you are no longer on the dole.
Next thing you'll tell me is that the rich spend way less time in jail, if at all...My statistical sampling may be skewed, but it does seem as though the majority of those with whom I come into contact with, at least from an arresting standpoint, tend to be either on welfare, or the children of someone on welfare.
Added at: 07:56
Yes, they'll all chose to live on welfare because of tax evasion...Supposition:
I suspect that a measurable percentage of that nation's able population will choose to live on welfare rather than "work". Perhaps the extra income isn't enticing enough, or they have unreported income sources, etc.
Realy, why does that always come up... the problem isn't that we're giving money to gangsters/gangbangers/etc., the problem is that they're not in jail...
#21
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
The problem is that marijuana isn't legal
#22
Mathias
This thread has been all "poor people - lazy and stupid"
Mathias
I'm kinda with him on this.SCIENCE!
Added at: 19:53
Why doesn't it surprise me that Charlie thinks thought experiments are silly?
This thread has been all "poor people - lazy and stupid"
#23
strawman
First level:
Poor people are lazy and stupid. How can we make them not be lazy?
Second level:
Some poor people are lazy - how do we differentiate them from poor people who are truly not able to work, and how can we encourage those who can to work for a living?
Third level:
Ideally, we would take care of all the needs of those who are unable to take care of their own needs. We see now that people are abusing the very limited welfare we currently provide, and that is leverage welfare opponents are using to discourage welfare expansion. Is there a way to avoid this very specific type of welfare abuse - which, in theory, would allow us to overcome objections due to abuse and actually take better care of the poor than we are now.
strawman
It's easy to get stuck on the superficial, but honestly if people aren't thinking about it more than superficially then their insights aren't going to be that valuable anyway. Perhaps a cheat sheet is in order:I'm kinda with him on this.
This thread has been all "poor people - lazy and stupid"
First level:
Poor people are lazy and stupid. How can we make them not be lazy?
Second level:
Some poor people are lazy - how do we differentiate them from poor people who are truly not able to work, and how can we encourage those who can to work for a living?
Third level:
Ideally, we would take care of all the needs of those who are unable to take care of their own needs. We see now that people are abusing the very limited welfare we currently provide, and that is leverage welfare opponents are using to discourage welfare expansion. Is there a way to avoid this very specific type of welfare abuse - which, in theory, would allow us to overcome objections due to abuse and actually take better care of the poor than we are now.
#24
Dave
Dave
As someone who has been on Welfare, I have my own views on it. I'll expound in a bit but I have to go to a meeting.
#25
GasBandit
Added at: 10:24
GasBandit
Actually, at the time of the founding fathers, you had to own real estate to vote.If I was to take on a liberal view of the constitution, I'd say the founding fathers assumed that they didn't need to enshrine the right to the vote in the constitution any more than writing "This constitution is to be written on paper." would be considered a curious addition.
Added at: 10:24
STF... wait... actually, there IS a whole lot that this could solve.The problem is that marijuana isn't legal
#26
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
I've always thought that welfare should be tied to some kind of work training program. You take money for welfare you get enrolled in a landscaping course, or a janatorial course or whatever makes sense for the area like a machinist course for the rust belt. Candidates get training and the businesses get better trained job candidates.
#27
Dave
Dave
When my wife and I first got together I broke my leg and lost both my jobs. We ended up not only going on government assistance for food stamps, but also government housing and - yes - welfare. So for a time I was living in the projects on food stamps getting government assistance to make ends meet. Here's what I saw while I was there.
Frankly, this whole thread pisses me off because it minimizes the pain and suffering for people in the position of having to swallow their pride and ask for help and assumes that those who do are lazy, shiftless sub-humans who are nothing more than a fucking drain on the real and better society.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030
- Lots of single minority mothers with children. The fathers were absent either because they bailed or were in jail. Most of these mothers did not work, mainly because any work they did would only exacerbate their situation by lessening the amount of aide they received while all of their paychecks would go to daycare expenses. Getting a job for them would have hurt them!! This is not their fault but was because of the system.
- Lazy fucking bums/drug addicts. Not as many of these as you might think. Frankly the majority were single moms, but this subgroup did exist. Again, most of them were minority and most of them had some form of criminal record, mostly for either drugs or petty crimes. And once you go down that road it's nearly impossible to do anything else about it. I'll be linking a book at the end of this that I think some of you may need to read. You heartless bastards, you! Back to the point, yes, some of these people existed. But the fact they exist does not detract from the fact that there are those who need help and nobody but the government will do so.
- The rest were like us - people fighting tooth and nail to get out from under the thumb of the establishment. And trust me when I say it was fucking hard as shit to remove ourselves from the situation. For example, I was making about $6.50 an hour bar-tending and about the same from my second job (once I got hired again). At the same time we were living for free somewhere and getting a stipend for food and expenses. When I got my jobs back (finally!) we started losing these perks, yet I didn't make enough to pay for them myself. Luckily, we got into what's called Section 8 housing that was rent scaled to match a certain percentage of our income. Were it not for that, we wouldn't have been able to afford a place and would have been thrown out of our current residence. What could we have done? I could have quit my jobs.
Frankly, this whole thread pisses me off because it minimizes the pain and suffering for people in the position of having to swallow their pride and ask for help and assumes that those who do are lazy, shiftless sub-humans who are nothing more than a fucking drain on the real and better society.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030
#28
strawman
strawman
Either I'm really bad at setting up the parameters, or people are bad at reading and understanding. Probably more my fault than anything. I'm not talking about people who need help. I'm not saying get rid of welfare. I'm not saying let's make it hard or painful for people who need it to get it.
I'm saying that if we truly want to take care of people who are having a difficult time, we need to give them more, and make it more easily and readily available.
How do we prevent abuse, though?
So I've set up what I thought was a very simple, limited discussion with a set of assumptions and a single question to see if there's a way to tackle the problem of abuse. Not to make it hard for people who need it, or to make people feel like dirt for requesting help. My OP has nothing of that nature in it.
Of course if we get bogged down in emotional aspects of our CURRENT, and irrelevant to this question, system, then we're never going to be able to approach the problem.
But, you know, I don't control the thread. If what you have to say is more important to you that the topic at hand then I don't blame you for enlightening everyone.
But you do have a great point of view, and I would like your input - is there a way to tell the difference between your group #2 and the other people who actually need help? If there's a way to tell the difference, is there a way to encourage them to become self-sufficient without negatively penalizing the other groups who are already trying to get out of their situation?
How best to help the other groups is really another discussion entirely. I'm trying to focus just on this one, tiny aspect of the whole process - because I see it as a major stumbling block that's preventing communities from providing more support to the poor - the specter (valid or not) of abuse of the system.
I'm saying that if we truly want to take care of people who are having a difficult time, we need to give them more, and make it more easily and readily available.
How do we prevent abuse, though?
So I've set up what I thought was a very simple, limited discussion with a set of assumptions and a single question to see if there's a way to tackle the problem of abuse. Not to make it hard for people who need it, or to make people feel like dirt for requesting help. My OP has nothing of that nature in it.
Of course if we get bogged down in emotional aspects of our CURRENT, and irrelevant to this question, system, then we're never going to be able to approach the problem.
But, you know, I don't control the thread. If what you have to say is more important to you that the topic at hand then I don't blame you for enlightening everyone.
But you do have a great point of view, and I would like your input - is there a way to tell the difference between your group #2 and the other people who actually need help? If there's a way to tell the difference, is there a way to encourage them to become self-sufficient without negatively penalizing the other groups who are already trying to get out of their situation?
How best to help the other groups is really another discussion entirely. I'm trying to focus just on this one, tiny aspect of the whole process - because I see it as a major stumbling block that's preventing communities from providing more support to the poor - the specter (valid or not) of abuse of the system.
#29
Dave
Dave
The problem lies with the current political and social system of making it easier to stay within the system of governmental assistance than it is to get out of it. There is no real incentive to remove yourself from welfare because the middle class no longer exists. Politicians have to go super-conservative and be hard on crime, which is slanted astronomically towards those who are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. The war on drugs and a culture of racial and economic profiling ensures that unless you are lucky enough to be born white and of a certain economic level, you are unlikely to ever be anything more than poor unless you are exceedingly lucky.
The system needs to be reset starting with the restructuring of the middle class to be a viable entity. This means that the rich and corporations who make their insane amounts of wealth on the backs of those who see little to no reward from their efforts need to start paying their fair share. The prison system needs to be overhauled to make it less of a financial cash cow to keep people incarcerated. The health care system needs to be overhauled so that one illness or injury can no longer financially ruin a person or family.
Right now this country, its laws and the underlying current of "I got mine" attitude is slanted against anyone who is brown, poor or young. We have become a cesspool of greed and graft, favoring the rich and powerful.
Until we can stop our governmental cronyism, it'll never change without a revolution.
The system needs to be reset starting with the restructuring of the middle class to be a viable entity. This means that the rich and corporations who make their insane amounts of wealth on the backs of those who see little to no reward from their efforts need to start paying their fair share. The prison system needs to be overhauled to make it less of a financial cash cow to keep people incarcerated. The health care system needs to be overhauled so that one illness or injury can no longer financially ruin a person or family.
Right now this country, its laws and the underlying current of "I got mine" attitude is slanted against anyone who is brown, poor or young. We have become a cesspool of greed and graft, favoring the rich and powerful.
Until we can stop our governmental cronyism, it'll never change without a revolution.
#30
strawman
strawman
So your answer to "Should welfare be "painful" enough to encourage able persons to get a job" is
I suppose I'm frustrated by that attitude. It's like saying the only way to move a mountain is to wait for an earthquake. Rather than working on the problem little by little, people expect, or wait for, a leader to appear and force things to change wholesale. The funny thing is that Martin Luther King wouldn't have happened if others hadn't already been moving things in the right direction, using small steps, for decades.
Why is it that people feel that because a sea change is necessary, we should simply stop thinking about making minor changes, nevermind actually implementing them?
I could understand a response of "There is no way to discern between people able to work and those truly in need" or "Even if we could tell the difference we can't come up with a plan to help them become self sufficient" - but a response that says, "It's pointless to discuss because the system is corrupt" is silly - especially because even once you have the proposed sea change you still have to face these issues.
In fact, my assumptions already state that the sea change has occurred for the purposes of this discussion. It posits that if that change occurs, then we will still have this problem.
What are you arguing against, exactly? Neither of us wants the poor to suffer or live in indignity.
Which is interesting. While a sea change would be ideal, it is disappointing that you feel there are no minor steps that could help in any way.it'll never change without a revolution.
I suppose I'm frustrated by that attitude. It's like saying the only way to move a mountain is to wait for an earthquake. Rather than working on the problem little by little, people expect, or wait for, a leader to appear and force things to change wholesale. The funny thing is that Martin Luther King wouldn't have happened if others hadn't already been moving things in the right direction, using small steps, for decades.
Why is it that people feel that because a sea change is necessary, we should simply stop thinking about making minor changes, nevermind actually implementing them?
I could understand a response of "There is no way to discern between people able to work and those truly in need" or "Even if we could tell the difference we can't come up with a plan to help them become self sufficient" - but a response that says, "It's pointless to discuss because the system is corrupt" is silly - especially because even once you have the proposed sea change you still have to face these issues.
In fact, my assumptions already state that the sea change has occurred for the purposes of this discussion. It posits that if that change occurs, then we will still have this problem.
What are you arguing against, exactly? Neither of us wants the poor to suffer or live in indignity.
#31
Dave
Dave
I'm not saying it has to be a revolution, but we are in a pretty downward spiral and have been for years where the rich write the laws to get richer and fuck the rest of us. Meanwhile, politicians get rich from backroom dealings and lobbyists and pass legislation that does nothing more than further the ends of their toadies as opposed to their true constituents.
I had true hopes that Obama would be the change we needed, but he's as much a corporate crony as Bush II was. the problem is, there's no real incentive for them to change as they keep getting richer and their lives better by doing these sort of things. Look at Ron Paul. He's talking about things that need to be done but nobody is listening to him because his ideas are different. Not all of them are right in my views, but he's at least looking at our system and saying, "This shit ain't working! Let's try something new!" And those in power and control what we hear and see are ignoring that because it's not what they want to have happen. They want things to continue down the same path because they are profiting from the misery and degradation of others.
The only reason I say revolution is not because it's something I want or that I think would be a good thing, I just don't see the entrenched establishment changing for any other reason because they don't have to.
I had true hopes that Obama would be the change we needed, but he's as much a corporate crony as Bush II was. the problem is, there's no real incentive for them to change as they keep getting richer and their lives better by doing these sort of things. Look at Ron Paul. He's talking about things that need to be done but nobody is listening to him because his ideas are different. Not all of them are right in my views, but he's at least looking at our system and saying, "This shit ain't working! Let's try something new!" And those in power and control what we hear and see are ignoring that because it's not what they want to have happen. They want things to continue down the same path because they are profiting from the misery and degradation of others.
The only reason I say revolution is not because it's something I want or that I think would be a good thing, I just don't see the entrenched establishment changing for any other reason because they don't have to.
#32
@Li3n
Added at: 19:03
Dude, if we knew that we'd be writing a book about it... and getting a Nobel Prize in Economics for it...
@Li3n
I for one wouldn't bet on that being true... i mean look how many business decisions where clearly fuelled by cocaine use.Why are there more poor people who do drugs?
Added at: 19:03
So I've set up what I thought was a very simple, limited discussion with a set of assumptions and a single question to see if there's a way to tackle the problem of abuse. Not to make it hard for people who need it, or to make people feel like dirt for requesting help. My OP has nothing of that nature in it.
Dude, if we knew that we'd be writing a book about it... and getting a Nobel Prize in Economics for it...
#33
GasBandit
GasBandit
Mmm, I think it's more akin to a computer finally getting so screwed up that you just need to format the hard drive and reinstall the OS.I suppose I'm frustrated by that attitude. It's like saying the only way to move a mountain is to wait for an earthquake.
#34
Dave
Dave
Let me expound. I know that more poor people don't use drugs, but they use cheaper drugs with more horrible side effects, and are far, far, FAR more likely to get arrested and incarcerated than those who used cocaine to make business decisions. So while the amount of drug use is about the same regardless of economic or racial background, it's the poor and minorities who make up the bulk of arrests and prosecutions.I for one wouldn't bet on that being true... i mean look how many business decisions where clearly fuelled by cocaine use.
#35
@Li3n
@Li3n
Well if the problem is getting arrested for it... then i think i might have an idea...Let me expound. I know that more poor people don't use drugs, but they use cheaper drugs with more horrible side effects, and are far, far, FAR more likely to get arrested and incarcerated than those who used cocaine to make business decisions. So while the amount of drug use is about the same regardless of economic or racial background, it's the poor and minorities who make up the bulk of arrests and prosecutions.
#36
GasBandit
He's got some very good, very libertarian ideas about economics - but he falls into the trap that too many libertarians fall into - the thought that if we just dismantle our military then everybody will just leave us alone.
GasBandit
No, nobody's listening to him because his foreign policy aptitude is even more jaw-droppingly horrible than Herman Cain's. Unless you agree that we should just go ahead and let Iran have all the nukes it wants.Look at Ron Paul. He's talking about things that need to be done but nobody is listening to him because his ideas are different.
He's got some very good, very libertarian ideas about economics - but he falls into the trap that too many libertarians fall into - the thought that if we just dismantle our military then everybody will just leave us alone.
#37
@Li3n
There's no actual advantage in a nuclear war... even 1980's computers know that.
@Li3n
Why not? You really think anyone in a comfy position of power would actually start a nuclear war... the actual crazy people end up leading terrorist cells from inside a secret bunker, while the people leading governments take passive advantage of their actions...Unless you agree that we should just go ahead and let Iran have all the nukes it wants.
There's no actual advantage in a nuclear war... even 1980's computers know that.
#38
Dave
Dave
- We need to stop telling countries what they can and can't do. Look at the position Iran is in. I'd want nukes, too. They are surrounded by countries that want them either neutered or destroyed. They don't want the bomb to be offensive, but to keep others in check - just like the US wanted to do in the early days.
- Paul doesn't want to dismantle the military, he wants to go a more isolationist route where we consolidate our military power back in the US instead of spreading ourselves thin guarding the rest of the world. I both agree and disagree with this approach. It has merit, but we've learned that strict isolationism doesn't work.
#39
GasBandit
And the only reason there hasn't been a third world war is because of the abandonment of isolationism.
GasBandit
Why not? You really think anyone in a comfy position of power would actually start a nuclear war... the actual crazy people end up leading terrorist cells from inside a secret bunker, while the people leading governments take passive advantage of their actions...
There's no actual advantage in a nuclear war... even 1980's computers know that.
Iran is surrounded by unfriendly countries because they've spent the last 3 decades threatening everybody else with death, damnation and hellfire. Hell, days ago they even threatened OPEC, their last remaining friends in the world most likely, that if any of them increased output during Iran sanctions they'd take it as provocation. Iran's government is Bat. Shit. Crazy. To commiserate with them on any level takes a staggering amount of willful ignorance, self delusion, and straight out idiocy.I was using Paul as an example of how outside-the-box thinkers are ignored while we are spoon-fed homogeneous candidates that may look a little different and talk a little different but in the end are all the same underneath and in their actions.
- We need to stop telling countries what they can and can't do. Look at the position Iran is in. I'd want nukes, too. They are surrounded by countries that want them either neutered or destroyed. They don't want the bomb to be offensive, but to keep others in check - just like the US wanted to do in the early days.
- Paul doesn't want to dismantle the military, he wants to go a more isolationist route where we consolidate our military power back in the US instead of spreading ourselves thin guarding the rest of the world. I both agree and disagree with this approach. It has merit, but we've learned that strict isolationism doesn't work.
And the only reason there hasn't been a third world war is because of the abandonment of isolationism.
#40
Officer_Charon
Officer_Charon
Re: poor/minority drug arrests: One could make a case for the fishing being easier in a small pond rather than a large lake - i.e. if subject and traffic stops in low-income areas tend towards a more common incidence of drug arrests, more officers will conduct such stops in these areas, because the likelihood of them making a bust appears to be higher. Thus perpetuating the cycle.
Of course, all that does is reinforce my image of being a racist, classist bigot, out to keep the little man down.
Once again, I've not presented my thoughts on this case accurately - I'm sorry for that.
Dave's insights into the system are far more accurate than my findings, because he's actually been able to speak to the people on the inside: this might come as a shock to y'all, but folks in the projects don't tend to talk to the police, which tends to result in a level of returned antipathy. Once again, a self-perpetuating cycle.
I don't pretend to have the answers - I can only offer observations from my side of things.
Of course, all that does is reinforce my image of being a racist, classist bigot, out to keep the little man down.
Once again, I've not presented my thoughts on this case accurately - I'm sorry for that.
Dave's insights into the system are far more accurate than my findings, because he's actually been able to speak to the people on the inside: this might come as a shock to y'all, but folks in the projects don't tend to talk to the police, which tends to result in a level of returned antipathy. Once again, a self-perpetuating cycle.
I don't pretend to have the answers - I can only offer observations from my side of things.
#41
Dave
Dave
Iran's government is our fault!! They had a great government and the US went in and fucked it all up. To NOT commiserate with them on some level takes a staggering amount of willful ignorance, self delusion, and straight out idiocy.
#42
GasBandit
GasBandit
What we fucked up was not backing the Shah like we said we would and leaving him to twist in the wind (*cough*JimmyCarter*cough*). If you want to go back to 53 to point the finger at us, so be it, but it doesn't change the fact that the government there NOW is the worst that has ever been, and is not of our design. Are you saying it's our fault so we can't do anything about it? If your dog is rabid, do you say "welp, it's my fault so I can't stop it, just turn it loose and let it bite whatever it wants?"Iran's government is our fault!! They had a great government and the US went in and fucked it all up. To NOT commiserate with them on some level takes a staggering amount of willful ignorance, self delusion, and straight out idiocy.
#43
Dave
Dave
You you are saying we should put them down and kill them?What we fucked up was not backing the Shah like we said we would and leaving him to twist in the wind (*cough*JimmyCarter*cough*). If you want to go back to 53 to point the finger at us, so be it, but it doesn't change the fact that the government there NOW is the worst that has ever been, and is not of our design. Are you saying it's our fault so we can't do anything about it? If your dog is rabid, do you say "welp, it's my fault so I can't stop it, just turn it loose and let it bite whatever it wants?"
#44
GasBandit
If you need more examples of that, check out what's happening in Iraq since we pulled up stakes, and imagine that with nuclear weapons in the mix.
GasBandit
I'm saying that our arguable culpability in them reaching the point of insanity that they have in no way indicates it is a good idea for us to wash our hands of the situation and go home, assuming everything will just work out for the best.You you are saying we should put them down and kill them?
If you need more examples of that, check out what's happening in Iraq since we pulled up stakes, and imagine that with nuclear weapons in the mix.
#45
Adammon
Adammon
Welfare for some, tiny American flags for others.
#46
Covar
???
Covar
If you need more examples of that, check out what's happening in Iraq since we pulled up stakes
???
#47
@Li3n
I mean look at North Korea... they got nukes while everyone was looking for WMD's in Iraq... and when was the last time we heard anything about them?
@Li3n
And they'll continue to talk even more smack... while being 100% sure no one is going to invade coz now they got nukes... start WW3, yeah, no...Iran is surrounded by unfriendly countries because they've spent the last 3 decades threatening everybody else with death, damnation and hellfire. Hell, days ago they even threatened OPEC, their last remaining friends in the world most likely, that if any of them increased output during Iran sanctions they'd take it as provocation. Iran's government is Bat. Shit. Crazy.
I mean look at North Korea... they got nukes while everyone was looking for WMD's in Iraq... and when was the last time we heard anything about them?
#48
GasBandit
Iran is much better supplied.
And really - you're holding up North "almost starts world war 3 at least once a decade" Korea as an example of how nuclear proliferation into rogue states is harmless? Really?
GasBandit
Heard a great deal about them actually - went on high alert during the Kim succession due to uncertainty. NorK's problem is they have nuclear tech (thanks, Clinton) but haven't quite gotten the hang of using it yet... they've botched several tests, not just of detonations but also of delivery systems.And they'll continue to talk even more smack... while being 100% sure no one is going to invade coz now they got nukes... start WW3, yeah, no...
I mean look at North Korea... they got nukes while everyone was looking for WMD's in Iraq... and when was the last time we heard anything about them?
Iran is much better supplied.
And really - you're holding up North "almost starts world war 3 at least once a decade" Korea as an example of how nuclear proliferation into rogue states is harmless? Really?
#49
Mathias
Mathias
I was going to say... North Korea can barely get Mentos and Diet Coke rocket to work right.Heard a great deal about them actually - went on high alert during the Kim succession due to uncertainty. NorK's problem is they have nuclear tech (thanks, Clinton) but haven't quite gotten the hang of using it yet... they've botched several tests, not just of detonations but also of delivery systems.
Iran is much better supplied.
And really - you're holding up North "almost starts world war 3 at least once a decade" Korea as an example of how nuclear proliferation into rogue states is harmless? Really?
#50
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
This topic got fun.
#51
Dave
Dave
Aw yeah! Go figure a welfare thread would get testy. Next topic: is abortion murder?
Discuss.
Discuss.
#52
PatrThom
PatrThom
No, Dave. One problem solved at a time.
I realize my previous suggestion may have its flaws, but I believe there absolutely must be some sort of disincentive to remaining on welfare, otherwise everyone would do it, whether they needed to or not. On the one hand, a really good welfare system should not punish people for using it, but neither should it encourage them to stay.
One of the 'silent killers' of Democracy is our current system's frequent habit of stripping convicted felons of their voting rights. On a raw numbers basis, the Poor are more likely to be convicted of a felony (often one of drug use/possession) than the Rich. This means that an ever-growing segment of poor people is often permanently and irrevocably stripped of their right to vote. Say what you will about the 1%, but pure arithmetic shows that 1% of the people only (directly) control 1% of the votes. Just like share dilution or The One, every time a felon loses the right to vote, each of the remaining votes becomes more valuable. It is really not that hard to see why the interests of poor people might be underrepresented at the polls when a disproportionately high number of poor people are actively (and legally!) prohibited from voting at all.
Bad things happen to good people. This is unavoidable. But it would certainly be easier if digging yourself out of that hole didn't cave the sides in over yourself while you were working on it. My family's current situation is keeping us out of welfare by only the slimmest of margins. If we don't keep making our saving throws against mechanical failure, acts of God, and the like, we will be right there in line with Dave, and I gotta say...there are those who think that welfare is paradise, but I will avoid buying that ticket for as loooong as possible.
--Patrick
I realize my previous suggestion may have its flaws, but I believe there absolutely must be some sort of disincentive to remaining on welfare, otherwise everyone would do it, whether they needed to or not. On the one hand, a really good welfare system should not punish people for using it, but neither should it encourage them to stay.
One of the 'silent killers' of Democracy is our current system's frequent habit of stripping convicted felons of their voting rights. On a raw numbers basis, the Poor are more likely to be convicted of a felony (often one of drug use/possession) than the Rich. This means that an ever-growing segment of poor people is often permanently and irrevocably stripped of their right to vote. Say what you will about the 1%, but pure arithmetic shows that 1% of the people only (directly) control 1% of the votes. Just like share dilution or The One, every time a felon loses the right to vote, each of the remaining votes becomes more valuable. It is really not that hard to see why the interests of poor people might be underrepresented at the polls when a disproportionately high number of poor people are actively (and legally!) prohibited from voting at all.
Bad things happen to good people. This is unavoidable. But it would certainly be easier if digging yourself out of that hole didn't cave the sides in over yourself while you were working on it. My family's current situation is keeping us out of welfare by only the slimmest of margins. If we don't keep making our saving throws against mechanical failure, acts of God, and the like, we will be right there in line with Dave, and I gotta say...there are those who think that welfare is paradise, but I will avoid buying that ticket for as loooong as possible.
--Patrick
#53
@Li3n
@Li3n
Exactly, nothing's actually changed...And really - you're holding up North "almost starts world war 3 at least once a decade" Korea as an example of how nuclear proliferation into rogue states is harmless? Really?
With photoshop rockets...Iran is much better supplied.
#54
Wahad
Re: Welfare:
My mom and dad divorced when I was two, which forced my mom to go on welfare to be able to raise my sister and me. We lived reasonably comfy and ate reasonably well - no big meals or anything, but the nutrition was there. We went to school, and eventually moved in with her new boyfriend halfway across the country where we moved out of welfare. At that point I was about 6, nearing 7. In the meantime, we often saw our grandparents or had a babysitter because our mom was working or trying to find a job. Or went on vacation because god knows she deserved it. She worked her ass off trying to ensure we had a good home. And we did. We used old toys, got old clothes, and so we got by. Again, our situation is very different from the US, but I'll be damned if I ever let some old rich guy take this hard-working kind of people out of the equation, just because he's gotta get another hand-rolled Cuban cigar. Was it painful for my mom? You'd have to ask her, but . But she was smart and disciplined enough to make it work and she never stopped trying.
Does the system need to change? I don't know. Maybe in the US. But I've seen plenty of poor people here, from immigrants to single moms to disabled people, and they were all grateful as hell to be eligibile to recieve a small stipend so they can get by. Yeah, of course there's always going to be people who cheat the system. But there's as much rich people who do that as there are poors. So based on that, I think the system here is doing just fine.
Wahad
The burden of justifying it is on you, because you brought it up and I do not understand. Hence, my question. What do you mean, there's too many people voting? What do you mean, voting requires military service? Why should it be that way? Why would refusing military service/being refused from military service on physical grounds (I mean, I presume you don't want blind or deaf soldiers, that wouldn't work very well) make the voices of those people not matter? Granted, I can't make any arguments for the USA since I have no familiarity with the political climate other than what I hear from the internet, but the fact that everyone can/should be able to vote has not yet brought our society down to its knees, which you seem to think it will. So are we still doing it wrong?The burden of justifying their lack of enfranchisement is not on me - there is no right to vote. Frankly, there are too many people voting already as it is. The entire concept that everybody seems to take at face value that anyone and everyone can and should be able to vote is both false and destructive. To me, you have to have skin in the game to even be considered as a potential voter. If it were up to me, this would be coupled with prerequisite military service.
Re: Welfare:
My mom and dad divorced when I was two, which forced my mom to go on welfare to be able to raise my sister and me. We lived reasonably comfy and ate reasonably well - no big meals or anything, but the nutrition was there. We went to school, and eventually moved in with her new boyfriend halfway across the country where we moved out of welfare. At that point I was about 6, nearing 7. In the meantime, we often saw our grandparents or had a babysitter because our mom was working or trying to find a job. Or went on vacation because god knows she deserved it. She worked her ass off trying to ensure we had a good home. And we did. We used old toys, got old clothes, and so we got by. Again, our situation is very different from the US, but I'll be damned if I ever let some old rich guy take this hard-working kind of people out of the equation, just because he's gotta get another hand-rolled Cuban cigar. Was it painful for my mom? You'd have to ask her, but . But she was smart and disciplined enough to make it work and she never stopped trying.
Does the system need to change? I don't know. Maybe in the US. But I've seen plenty of poor people here, from immigrants to single moms to disabled people, and they were all grateful as hell to be eligibile to recieve a small stipend so they can get by. Yeah, of course there's always going to be people who cheat the system. But there's as much rich people who do that as there are poors. So based on that, I think the system here is doing just fine.
#55
@Li3n
@Li3n
Because how else are we going to be ready for the bugs when they come...The burden of justifying it is on you, because you brought it up and I do not understand. Hence, my question. What do you mean, there's too many people voting? What do you mean, voting requires military service? Why should it be that way? Why would refusing military service/being refused from military service on physical grounds (I mean, I presume you don't want blind or deaf soldiers, that wouldn't work very well) make the voices of those people not matter?
#56
GasBandit
GasBandit
Yes. Does that mean it should be illegal? No. There are plenty of examples of lawful, even state-perpetrated, murder, and this is one of them. Solved. Next!Aw yeah! Go figure a welfare thread would get testy. Next topic: is abortion murder?
Discuss.
The U.S. (federal) constitution only mentions voting to specifically delineate what reasons you cannot prevent someone voting - Sex, Race, etc. There is no federally guaranteed right to vote, though many state constitutions specify their residents do have one.The burden of justifying it is on you, because you brought it up and I do not understand. Hence, my question.
Specifically, too many people voting who have absolutely no business deciding the direction of the nation. IE, universal enfranchisement is a bad thing. It's a large part of why we're in the messes we are now.What do you mean, there's too many people voting?
That's just a hypothetical.What do you mean, voting requires military service?
Because it would raise the minimum standard for enfranchisement by even the slightest amount. It would require that, in order for someone to have a voice in deciding the future course of the nation, they demonstrate their willingness to die and kill for the nation. Maybe they never actually kill or get wounded, but they've put their proverbial money where their mouth is, so to speak.Why should it be that way?
Because they didn't matter in the first place. Nobody's does until they demonstrate they do. That's the crux here.Why would refusing military service/being refused from military service on physical grounds (I mean, I presume you don't want blind or deaf soldiers, that wouldn't work very well) make the voices of those people not matter?
Remind me, who is "we" again? Sorry.Granted, I can't make any arguments for the USA since I have no familiarity with the political climate other than what I hear from the internet, but the fact that everyone can/should be able to vote has not yet brought our society down to its knees, which you seem to think it will. So are we still doing it wrong?
#57
Wahad
Wahad
Oh, my bad. 'We' in this case is the Netherlands.
Anyway, back to questioning, I'm now wondering if there would be another way to ''raise the minimum standard of enfranchisement'' as you put it. Or should all those disabled people who would be refused from the draft just be ignored? And why, for that matter, people should be so patriotistic - "willing to die and kill for their country" - to be able to vote. In your hypothetical society, should immigrants never be able to vote if they keep hanging on to traditions from their old country? Should people who are planning to migrate be denied the right to vote? Or people who don't really know about politics? Isn't the purpose of a democracy to represent all individuals of the state, not just the ones that are able of body and mind and will salute the flag?
Anyway, back to questioning, I'm now wondering if there would be another way to ''raise the minimum standard of enfranchisement'' as you put it. Or should all those disabled people who would be refused from the draft just be ignored? And why, for that matter, people should be so patriotistic - "willing to die and kill for their country" - to be able to vote. In your hypothetical society, should immigrants never be able to vote if they keep hanging on to traditions from their old country? Should people who are planning to migrate be denied the right to vote? Or people who don't really know about politics? Isn't the purpose of a democracy to represent all individuals of the state, not just the ones that are able of body and mind and will salute the flag?
#58
GasBandit
At any rate, Dutch politics are made very different by a large number of factors.
Any system works better the smaller the scale of implementation. In the US, Local government is generally more responsive than state government, and state government (while sometimes problematic) is light-years more accountable than federal government. The Netherlands is approximately half the size of South Carolina and has about the equivalent population of Florida, and also has much more unified culture. Really, except for an (arguably) common language, there are many states in the US which are as disparate in culture and motivation as different member nations of the EU. Hell, just listen to how many people on this board alone (Americans, mind you) that harbor deep antipathy for Texas. But I digress. The larger the nation, the larger the bureaucratic governmental support structure, and the more cumbersome the whole thing becomes.
Oh, and also, not least importantly, you have umpteen bajillion political parties. If we had more than 2 (that actually get elected), we wouldn't have NEAR the problems we do either.
Oh, and don't you have a.. you know... reigning monarch?
So no, the purpose is not to represent all individuals, otherwise there would be a national, universal vote on every issue. The purpose is to make sure that the government is in some way other than by the threat of uprising still be held accountable to the governed in general. If any given person does not feel the government is representing him, that does not give him license to act in contempt of it. It all comes down to a discussion of how we pick our leaders, and who gets to do the picking. That's not an absolute - we don't let felons vote for example. Once one understands there's a line drawn somewhere, it just is a question of where the line is drawn.
GasBandit
Oh great. That means I have to mind my tongue or else I piss off the little woman and have to pay the penalty when I get home. I'm already in trouble for my tendency to use the word "Hollandaise" instead of "Dutch." But I refuse to stop.Oh, my bad. 'We' in this case is the Netherlands.
At any rate, Dutch politics are made very different by a large number of factors.
Any system works better the smaller the scale of implementation. In the US, Local government is generally more responsive than state government, and state government (while sometimes problematic) is light-years more accountable than federal government. The Netherlands is approximately half the size of South Carolina and has about the equivalent population of Florida, and also has much more unified culture. Really, except for an (arguably) common language, there are many states in the US which are as disparate in culture and motivation as different member nations of the EU. Hell, just listen to how many people on this board alone (Americans, mind you) that harbor deep antipathy for Texas. But I digress. The larger the nation, the larger the bureaucratic governmental support structure, and the more cumbersome the whole thing becomes.
Oh, and also, not least importantly, you have umpteen bajillion political parties. If we had more than 2 (that actually get elected), we wouldn't have NEAR the problems we do either.
Oh, and don't you have a.. you know... reigning monarch?
There certainly is. Myriad ways. That was just one I pulled out of a hat because it seemed to be the one most accessible to all walks of life - poor, rich, any ethnicity. Originally in this country, one had to be male, white, and own real estate to vote. These days that wouldn't fly, I don't think, to put it lightly.Anyway, back to questioning, I'm now wondering if there would be another way to ''raise the minimum standard of enfranchisement'' as you put it.
Actually, in my "hypothetical society," military service would also be a fast track to citizenship as well as enfranchisement. As for the why the military, I've already said - it is an active demonstration that you are concerned enough about the course of the nation to risk your own well being and more on its behalf. As for the disabled, they're still citizens, just not enfranchised. It's not perfect but it'd be better than what we have now.Or should all those disabled people who would be refused from the draft just be ignored? And why, for that matter, people should be so patriotistic - "willing to die and kill for their country" - to be able to vote. In your hypothetical society, should immigrants never be able to vote if they keep hanging on to traditions from their old country? Should people who are planning to migrate be denied the right to vote?
These people are definitely high on my list of people who should not be voting.Or people who don't really know about politics?
We are not "a" democracy, we're a republic, though we use forms of government that are very democratic in nature. The purpose of our government is to, in the words of the founders, “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Note that these are all general terms. It is promote the general welfare, not ensure well-being on and individual basis. That would be impossible. And it is also impossible to represent all individuals (even of a single small congressional district) as many of those individuals will have conflicting interests.Isn't the purpose of a democracy to represent all individuals of the state, not just the ones that are able of body and mind and will salute the flag?
So no, the purpose is not to represent all individuals, otherwise there would be a national, universal vote on every issue. The purpose is to make sure that the government is in some way other than by the threat of uprising still be held accountable to the governed in general. If any given person does not feel the government is representing him, that does not give him license to act in contempt of it. It all comes down to a discussion of how we pick our leaders, and who gets to do the picking. That's not an absolute - we don't let felons vote for example. Once one understands there's a line drawn somewhere, it just is a question of where the line is drawn.
#59
Wahad
Wahad
We do have a monarch, but she hardly ever does anything outside of state visits and national holidays. I think she has to sign laws, but I'm pretty sure it's more of a formality than any real political power. The heir apparent is involved with some kind of company that deals with water issues in foreign countries (both keeping excessive water out through dams and such as well as providing drinkable water in areas where it is not easily reached) and the rest of the royal family all have their own charity, but it's more like a celebrity ambassador position to said charity than anything else.
But I guess my problems are perfectly stated by something you said.
Anyway, I'll stop derailing now, since the thread seems to have been usurped a little. My apologies to everyone.
But I guess my problems are perfectly stated by something you said.
The way I see it, drawing a line other than the ones that are already in place (i.e. kids and felons can't vote, as you pointed out) would come uncomfortable close to repeating the above. I understand that not every single individual can be accurately represented in any system other than a small commune, but the point of my question was more that if people on welfare, or simply disabled people, or whatever other group would be excluded in such a way can't vote, then how can we be sure their group is taken care of? I'm not sure the simple goodness in people will be enough to make sure that gets arranged.Originally in this country, one had to be male, white, and own real estate to vote. These days that wouldn't fly, I don't think, to put it lightly.
Anyway, I'll stop derailing now, since the thread seems to have been usurped a little. My apologies to everyone.
#60
@Li3n
Oh gods, not this again...
Republic = not a monarchy... it in no way, shape or form means a country isn't a democracy...
And actually res publica basically means rule by the people (public matter i believe), which is close to what democracy translates to also (people power)...
Britain for example is a democratic monarchy...
@Li3n
We are not "a" democracy, we're a republic, though we use forms of government that are very democratic in nature.
Oh gods, not this again...
Republic = not a monarchy... it in no way, shape or form means a country isn't a democracy...
And actually res publica basically means rule by the people (public matter i believe), which is close to what democracy translates to also (people power)...
Britain for example is a democratic monarchy...
#61
GasBandit
This is the pivotal difference: In its conception, the US Federal Government was not designed to "take care of" anybody. It's a fundamental difference between prevailing European thought and the US model - The founders, having just had to violently throw off the oppressive yoke of an intrusive tyrant, went out of their way to enumerate specific powers for the government and explicitly state "the government of the united states can do these things and NOTHING ELSE." It was supposed to be as small, non-intrusive and as conducive to individual liberty as possible. Over the years, as politicians found they could buy votes with money from the public coffers, the government became ever larger and more intrusive. Now we basically have an entire second class of citizen who is entirely dependent upon government subsidy to live, and it's getting worse as the uninformed but well meaning (and plenty of useful idiots) continue to try to push for small-european-country-style socialism onto a country too big for it to work using a government that was never intended for the purpose.
If a new, lush, resource-rich continent suddenly arose in the pacific, and we tried to settle a new nation there using the current US Government as its model, it'd fail within a generation.
GasBandit
There IS a difference between a Democratic Republic and a Democracy, and all too often people are ignorant of that - sometimes willfully.Oh gods, not this again...
Republic = not a monarchy... it in no way, shape or form means a country isn't a democracy...
And actually res publica basically means rule by the people (public matter i believe), which is close to what democracy translates to also (people power)...
Britain for example is a democratic monarchy...
Yes, she does sign the laws but I was just giving you the gears on that one.We do have a monarch, but she hardly ever does anything outside of state visits and national holidays. I think she has to sign laws, but I'm pretty sure it's more of a formality than any real political power.
You don't have to let every passenger on the bus drive to make sure the bus stays on time.The way I see it, drawing a line other than the ones that are already in place (i.e. kids and felons can't vote, as you pointed out) would come uncomfortable close to repeating the above. I understand that not every single individual can be accurately represented in any system other than a small commune, but the point of my question was more that if people on welfare, or simply disabled people, or whatever other group would be excluded in such a way can't vote, then how can we be sure their group is taken care of?
This is the pivotal difference: In its conception, the US Federal Government was not designed to "take care of" anybody. It's a fundamental difference between prevailing European thought and the US model - The founders, having just had to violently throw off the oppressive yoke of an intrusive tyrant, went out of their way to enumerate specific powers for the government and explicitly state "the government of the united states can do these things and NOTHING ELSE." It was supposed to be as small, non-intrusive and as conducive to individual liberty as possible. Over the years, as politicians found they could buy votes with money from the public coffers, the government became ever larger and more intrusive. Now we basically have an entire second class of citizen who is entirely dependent upon government subsidy to live, and it's getting worse as the uninformed but well meaning (and plenty of useful idiots) continue to try to push for small-european-country-style socialism onto a country too big for it to work using a government that was never intended for the purpose.
If a new, lush, resource-rich continent suddenly arose in the pacific, and we tried to settle a new nation there using the current US Government as its model, it'd fail within a generation.
#62
jwhouk
jwhouk
Hey, great! Job security for me!Well if the problem is getting arrested for it... then i think i might have an idea...
#63
@Li3n
Actually wiki has a nice breakdown on this stuff:
Hell, the original democracies where slave owning and only a small subset of the population actually got to vote (which is how the US started out too actually)... so your proposal would actualyl be closer to the original meaning of teh word.
USA = constituitonal republic with a representative democracy...
Hey look, there's even a nice map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Index_2010.png
@Li3n
No, it's actually the fact that many people think a Democratic Republic is different instead of most republics being representative democracies, which is why wikipedia actually redirects the query for it, while the article itself actually shows that the UK is also a representative democracy, while not being a republic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_RepublicThere IS a difference between a Democratic Republic and a Democracy, and all too often people are ignorant of that - sometimes willfully.
Actually wiki has a nice breakdown on this stuff:
Democracy is a more general term, and applies to the US system just fine, and using it as a short term for some sort of direct democracy where you can vote to exterminate the mormons is misleading...Power structure
Power source
Legal system
- Aristocratic
- Popular
- Constitutional
- Democratic
- Theocratic
- Canonical
- Ecclesiastical
Hell, the original democracies where slave owning and only a small subset of the population actually got to vote (which is how the US started out too actually)... so your proposal would actualyl be closer to the original meaning of teh word.
USA = constituitonal republic with a representative democracy...
Hey look, there's even a nice map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Index_2010.png
#64
GasBandit
GasBandit
Like I said, willful ignorance. You're trying to substitute democracy for Democracy. USA = constitutional republic with representative democracy, not USA = "A Democracy."
#65
@Li3n
There's no such thing as a state that's just a Democracy...
So even if we accept your little semantic exercise, you still can't say the US is a republic, not a democracy... even saying it's a republic, not a direct democracy makes no sense...
Any government that use any accepted type of democracy is a democracy by definition...
You want to make the argument that's there are limits set up against the tyranny of the majority, use more accurate terminology and don't it sound like a republic can't be a democracy...
EDIT:
Hey look, the greeks even had a word for bad democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy
Those guys had one for everything...
@Li3n
Like I said, willful ignorance. You're trying to substitute democracy for Democracy. USA = constitutional republic with representative democracy, not USA = "A Democracy."
There's no such thing as a state that's just a Democracy...
So even if we accept your little semantic exercise, you still can't say the US is a republic, not a democracy... even saying it's a republic, not a direct democracy makes no sense...
Any government that use any accepted type of democracy is a democracy by definition...
You want to make the argument that's there are limits set up against the tyranny of the majority, use more accurate terminology and don't it sound like a republic can't be a democracy...
EDIT:
Hey look, the greeks even had a word for bad democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy
Those guys had one for everything...
#66
GasBandit
GasBandit
It does exist as a concept, sometimes called the "pure" democracy. And I guarantee you if I walk down the street, half the people I ask "what kind of government do we have?" will respond "a democracy." Believe me, I've had this argument over 9000 times. In any case... .The question posited to me was, "since the US is a democracy, shouldn't every single individual have a voice in the government?" to which the answer is no, we are not a [pure] Democracy, we are a Republic - and thus not every single person is necessarily represented. Then you jumped in with an assumption and a half-formed argument that went off on a tangent. Don't derail my derail!There's no such thing as a state that's just a Democracy...
#67
Adammon
Adammon
A banana isn't an orange, but it's still a fruit.
#68
GasBandit
GasBandit
Even a monkey can tell the difference.A banana isn't an orange, but it's still a fruit.
#69
Adammon
Adammon
I am in full agreement with you on trying to explain the difference between democracy, Democracy and Republic. Two are actual forms of government and one is a type of government.Even a monkey can tell the difference.
#70
GasBandit
Cause... banana.
GasBandit
I did not mean to imply you were a monkey. I meant to imply that Atlee Three-N was subsimian.I am in full agreement with you on trying to explain the difference between democracy, Democracy and Republic. Two are actual forms of government and one is a type of government.
Cause... banana.
#71
Adammon
Adammon
Oh, I knew who and what you were implying. I just wanted to make sure your numpty-rader was finely tuned.I did not mean to imply you were a monkey. I meant to imply that Atlee Three-N was subsimian.
Cause... banana.
#72
@Li3n
Saying that the US isn't a democracy, but a republic is akin to saying evolution is just a theory... makes it look like you have no clue what you're talking about...
@Li3n
Ok, lets try this again... there's nothing to prevent a republic from being a "pure" Democracy... i mean the constitutional part is more of an impediment for the "pure" Democracy then the republic part..." to which the answer is no, we are not a [pure] Democracy, we are a Republic
Saying that the US isn't a democracy, but a republic is akin to saying evolution is just a theory... makes it look like you have no clue what you're talking about...
#73
GasBandit
GasBandit
Maybe you haven't run into it as much, not being a foreigner, but not a year goes by that I don't have to correct some boob who say "Nuh uh, we're not a republic, we're a democracy!" Hence, "no, we're a republic." Democracy is not just a process, the word can also mean a specific form of government.Ok, lets try this again... there's nothing to prevent a republic from being a "pure" Democracy... i mean the constitutional part is more of an impediment for the "pure" Democracy then the republic part...
Saying that the US isn't a democracy, but a republic is akin to saying evolution is just a theory... makes it look like you have no clue what you're talking about...
#74
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
This is a really dumb argument, but I'm just chiming in that I seem to remember that being called a "Direct Democracy", where the populace votes on every decision.
#75
@Li3n
Both statements are the same mistake, flipped over.
Hell, let's play a game, name one state in the history of forever that was a Democracy the way you where using it... ( i won't even demand that none of the other labels applying to it... because no one was ever had a democracy without limits on it outside an anarchic commune)...
@Li3n
But that's akin to someone saying that Venus is a planet, so it must have life and you countering that it's not a planet...Maybe you haven't run into it as much, not being a foreigner, but not a year goes by that I don't have to correct some boob who say "Nuh uh, we're not a republic, we're a democracy!" Hence, "no, we're a republic."
Both statements are the same mistake, flipped over.
Except that there's no such thing as a government that is just a democracy... even what you deemed a "pure" democracy would actually be an anarchy...Democracy is not just a process, the word can also mean a specific form of government.
Hell, let's play a game, name one state in the history of forever that was a Democracy the way you where using it... ( i won't even demand that none of the other labels applying to it... because no one was ever had a democracy without limits on it outside an anarchic commune)...
And if you saw that list i posted you'd know even that splits between at least 2 way of doing it...This is a really dumb argument, but I'm just chiming in that I seem to remember that being called a "Direct Democracy", where the populace votes on every decision.
#76
ElJuski
ElJuski
this thread has turned really boring.
no, welfare shouldn't be painful. However, the system should be revised so that we're actively encouraging people to work and get out of welfare--and this means more than just telling poor black people to get off their ass and get a job, goshdamnit.
no, welfare shouldn't be painful. However, the system should be revised so that we're actively encouraging people to work and get out of welfare--and this means more than just telling poor black people to get off their ass and get a job, goshdamnit.
#77
@Li3n
@Li3n
But that would actually imply putting effort into looking for a real solution... and that's just too much work... not that we're lazy ourselves or anytihng.and this means more than just telling poor black people to get off their ass and get a job, goshdamnit.
#78
strawman
But if this can be done without pain (and again, I'm using the term "pain" loosely as a placeholder here) or discomfort, then that would be awesome.
What is it that motivates people who have been trapped for so long that not only do they see no way out, but when they do see it, they don't recognize it, or are unable to change so they can follow it?
strawman
Can we do that without making it painful? I mean, if all your basic need were met you might still want more, and thus go to the effort of getting off welfare and into a more comfortable living. However I know people who would be fat happy slobs if their basic needs were met. I like to think that everyone has an internal drive - instinctual, almost - that makes them want to attain a good standard of living, but I've long since been disabused of that notion. Many people are actually satisfied if they are fed and warm, and don't seek anything greater.the system should be revised so that we're actively encouraging people to work and get out of welfare
But if this can be done without pain (and again, I'm using the term "pain" loosely as a placeholder here) or discomfort, then that would be awesome.
What is it that motivates people who have been trapped for so long that not only do they see no way out, but when they do see it, they don't recognize it, or are unable to change so they can follow it?
#79
@Li3n
But even so, i disagree, maybe a few really are satisfied, but like the drug test thing i'm betting they're in a minority, the problem is more that to get out they usually need to put in 3-4 times the effort someone not in that situation does...so you can't really compare it to you putting in a few extra hours to get more money so you can build a new patio or something.
@Li3n
Dude, it's only been like 100 years since being fed and warm stopped being considered a good standard of living, and that's just in the developed world, plenty of people still have it as a goal they'll need to work way harder for then any 9-5 worker.that makes them want to attain a good standard of living, but I've long since been disabused of that notion. Many people are actually satisfied if they are fed and warm,
But even so, i disagree, maybe a few really are satisfied, but like the drug test thing i'm betting they're in a minority, the problem is more that to get out they usually need to put in 3-4 times the effort someone not in that situation does...so you can't really compare it to you putting in a few extra hours to get more money so you can build a new patio or something.
#80
strawman
strawman
So there's a bump in effort required, and we need to focus on eliminating that bump? Interesting thought, but I don't see it. Maybe you can give me an example so I better understand this impediment.the problem is more that to get out they usually need to put in 3-4 times the effort someone not in that situation does.
#81
GasBandit
Oh fine, I'll drop it for now, too.
I'll be someone's anecdotal evidence for this case - if I, personally, was sent 20k a year tax-free (and could be reasonably assured of its perpetuity), I'd quit in a heartbeat. Would I be rich and bathing in luxury? No, I'd be eating ramen and store-brand peanut butter sandwiches... but I'd still do it. I'd stay home with the little woman and never look out a window.
GasBandit
this thread has turned really boring.
no, welfare shouldn't be painful. However, the system should be revised so that we're actively encouraging people to work and get out of welfare--and this means more than just telling poor black people to get off their ass and get a job, goshdamnit.
Yeah, an argument about semantics is way more fun!But that would actually imply putting effort into looking for a real solution... and that's just too much work... not that we're lazy ourselves or anytihng.
Oh fine, I'll drop it for now, too.
I'll be someone's anecdotal evidence for this case - if I, personally, was sent 20k a year tax-free (and could be reasonably assured of its perpetuity), I'd quit in a heartbeat. Would I be rich and bathing in luxury? No, I'd be eating ramen and store-brand peanut butter sandwiches... but I'd still do it. I'd stay home with the little woman and never look out a window.
#82
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
I'll use this as an example of something I'm sure you'd agree with--not everyone is a leader.I'll be someone's anecdotal evidence for this case - if I, personally, was sent 20k a year tax-free (and could be reasonably assured of its perpetuity), I'd quit in a heartbeat. Would I be rich and bathing in luxury? No, I'd be eating ramen and store-brand peanut butter sandwiches... but I'd still do it. I'd stay home with the little woman and never look out a window.
#83
Bowielee
Bowielee
I'm going to enter this as a thought experiment and leave my personal feelings about the real welfare system out of it. For the record, I do support real life welfare because without it, my dickhead father would have been able to get custody of me from my mother and I'd probably still be paying off the therapy bills.
Anyhoo...
My problem with the entire setup and supposition is that the welfare system that is described is so ideal that there's no reason to "force" anyone to get off of it. What is the reason for there being a motivation in the first place? You're basically describing a utopian ideal and asking if we should force people to go against that ideal for no other reason than "just because".
Also, from a sociological standpoint, there's no need for a change in a system that is already running smoothly. If people are raised on an ideal that they only have to work if they want to, they will only work if they want to. It's far to Star Trek.
Anyhoo...
My problem with the entire setup and supposition is that the welfare system that is described is so ideal that there's no reason to "force" anyone to get off of it. What is the reason for there being a motivation in the first place? You're basically describing a utopian ideal and asking if we should force people to go against that ideal for no other reason than "just because".
Also, from a sociological standpoint, there's no need for a change in a system that is already running smoothly. If people are raised on an ideal that they only have to work if they want to, they will only work if they want to. It's far to Star Trek.
#84
@Li3n
Plus, it's basic supply an demand, when anyone can do the shitty manual labour job and there's plenty of other poor people to do them the pay will always be low... and as becoming skilled labour takes money...
@Li3n
Well, check out Jay's post: https://www.halforums.com/threads/5...op-growing-up-poor-cracked.27054/#post-902902So there's a bump in effort required, and we need to focus on eliminating that bump? Interesting thought, but I don't see it. Maybe you can give me an example so I better understand this impediment.
Plus, it's basic supply an demand, when anyone can do the shitty manual labour job and there's plenty of other poor people to do them the pay will always be low... and as becoming skilled labour takes money...
#85
ElJuski
ElJuski
Here's the thing guys, and yes, very anecdotal, but I don't think you guys truly understand how the poor live. They're not socialized like we are. The kids I work with are largely homeless, their parents steal their social security checks, they have major drug and behavioral issues, and are largely ignored by the rest of society and the government itself. My kids thrive on pure survival instinct-- they don't think they can live past the age of 21 before being shanked or shot because of some triffling beef on the street.
Now, imagine telling these kids, their parents, and these kid's children that life would be better pushing buttons at a fast food cash register for ten bucks an hour. The concept is so wholly beyond them. So, Gas, as a white dude that has a job and free time to dick around on the internet, it's real easy for you to see how you could sit and loaf around eating ramen all day. You have absolutely no understanding, however, of the severe socio-economic indoctrination that is going on with the poorest of the poor, which is where this shit is all stemming from.
If you want to fix welfare, you need to fix the underlying issue of socialization of the welfare class. They're not doing it because they're lazy--for the most part, at least, and you'll always have a few assholes, no matter what, but that's the price we pay to do something just--they're doing it because they have no fucking clue how the world works besides pure, guttural, survival instinct.
But what do I know? I'm a glorified babysitter.
Now, imagine telling these kids, their parents, and these kid's children that life would be better pushing buttons at a fast food cash register for ten bucks an hour. The concept is so wholly beyond them. So, Gas, as a white dude that has a job and free time to dick around on the internet, it's real easy for you to see how you could sit and loaf around eating ramen all day. You have absolutely no understanding, however, of the severe socio-economic indoctrination that is going on with the poorest of the poor, which is where this shit is all stemming from.
If you want to fix welfare, you need to fix the underlying issue of socialization of the welfare class. They're not doing it because they're lazy--for the most part, at least, and you'll always have a few assholes, no matter what, but that's the price we pay to do something just--they're doing it because they have no fucking clue how the world works besides pure, guttural, survival instinct.
But what do I know? I'm a glorified babysitter.
#87
Krisken
Krisken
Man, I wish I was on welfare. It sounds like it's DA BOMB.
#88
Bowielee
Bowielee
Well, seeing as we're not following the original parameters (in that this is all theoretical and not tied to the current welfare system). The absolute best deterent for welfare from a psycho-sociological standpoint is the stigma of being on welfare itself. In its initial incarnation, this is exactly how it was viewed. It was completely immasculating to be a man after the great depression and to have to get a handout from the government and not provide for your family.
This has all changed. We now have entire generations who have grown up "in the system". They have been raised without the stigmatization of the welfare system. Actually, I'm usually a bleeding heart liberal, but all the touchy-feely "it's OK to need help sometimes" attitude has led to this. The stigmatization was a built in mechanism that would keep people from abusing the system. To some extent that still exists, as was the case with my mother, and I believe in Dave's case as well. Either way, it was a good deterent. The irony of me pointing that out is that I DO feel that it's OK to need help sometimes and we should do our damnest to help it out, however, we shouldn't remove that stigma entirely as it was a good deterrent.
This has all changed. We now have entire generations who have grown up "in the system". They have been raised without the stigmatization of the welfare system. Actually, I'm usually a bleeding heart liberal, but all the touchy-feely "it's OK to need help sometimes" attitude has led to this. The stigmatization was a built in mechanism that would keep people from abusing the system. To some extent that still exists, as was the case with my mother, and I believe in Dave's case as well. Either way, it was a good deterent. The irony of me pointing that out is that I DO feel that it's OK to need help sometimes and we should do our damnest to help it out, however, we shouldn't remove that stigma entirely as it was a good deterrent.
#89
Mathias
It's... so ... hard....
Mathias
I just got into a Facebook fight with an acquaintance of mine. He was bitching about how Indian Reservations get government subsistence yadda yadda... just because they're Native American... I asked him if he's serious, because being a white male, age 18-55 is so goddamn hard in the USA.Man, I wish I was on welfare. It sounds like it's DA BOMB.
It's... so ... hard....
#90
ElJuski
ElJuski
dude it's a bitch when I find out my groupon expired
#91
GasBandit
GasBandit
Turns out a single parent with 3 kids making minimum wage has more disposable income than a family making 60k/year.
#92
Bowielee
Disposable income is cash in hand, only 2 of those programs involve any money at all going to the people receiving the aid.
Protip, even on section 8 housing (which by the way usually deplorable, run by slum lords who see it as a guaranteed check) people still pay a portion of the rent based on income.
It really does go to show that you and the author of the article don't know what the definition of disposable income is, or how aid programs work.
Bowielee
That is one of the most slanted and misrepresented charts of data I've ever seen.Turns out a single parent with 3 kids making minimum wage has more disposable income than a family making 60k/year.
Disposable income is cash in hand, only 2 of those programs involve any money at all going to the people receiving the aid.
Protip, even on section 8 housing (which by the way usually deplorable, run by slum lords who see it as a guaranteed check) people still pay a portion of the rent based on income.
It really does go to show that you and the author of the article don't know what the definition of disposable income is, or how aid programs work.
#93
@Li3n
Yeah, i'm sure the single parent with 3 kids has a higher standard of living...
@Li3n
So you can use food stamps and medical insurance to buy TV's in Eagleland? Sounds awesome, where do i sign up...Turns out a single parent with 3 kids making minimum wage has more disposable income than a family making 60k/year.
Yeah, i'm sure the single parent with 3 kids has a higher standard of living...
#94
Krisken
Krisken
Egads, how did you find that site? They didn't even bother to link to sources. Terrible, terrible nonsense. What is dangerous is someone out there will take this all for fact with no actual interaction with the poor beyond a dirty person on the street asking for money.
#95
ElJuski
ElJuski
lolololol