Going back to the piece from Ayn Rand... what do you suppose would happen if we voted today to discontinue our Welfare system? Would all those people on welfare go out to get jobs?
That's a very eloquent piece of writing by a renowned fictional author (aka non-economist). I presume this is from Atlas Shrugged.
This is a more blunt way of making my "Monopoly Game" analogy that I posted on here. I don't think either one represents particularly relevant factual analysis based on years of economic research by professionals.
but it does highlight the individual liberties aspect of it. thats the part you also seem to be missing. the government is taking from the productive to the advance of the unproductive. it is mob rule. and it cannot be sustained.
the individual will not endlessly work for the benefit of the masses.
it is a good thought though, i mean being so selfless that they are willing to give everything up for the eake of everyone. the fact remains that people will look out for themselves before they look out for their neighbor. it is human nature. you cant fight that.
Duty I have a question for you. Do you think the government has a right to listen in on everyones phone calls to make sure we aren't planning terrorist attacks on our country?
Going back to the piece from Ayn Rand... what do you suppose would happen if we voted today to discontinue our Welfare system? Would all those people on welfare go out to get jobs?
not all but many would be able to if they wanted to have them. why? because we would be spending less on the welfare system and paying less into it. the employers would have more money to spend on hiring people that are now not mooches but productive.
not all of those people would go out and get jobs but the ones who had any drive or self respect would. the ones who didnt would get worse and worse untill they either died, or realized that they need a job to survive. they need to be productive
if people dont want a job i cant help them. if they dont want to work hard, i cant help them.
im sure also that in the real world there would not be a flat cut off date. as in two weeks from now there is no welfare. it would be phased out. those who went out and got jobs first would be the best off. they would have no break in household income. the people that have been on the welfare system the longest would be the first to go. there would be ample warning, say a year. you have one year to find a job. (able bodied people of course) after that, you are on your own. extend this out over a few years and dont allow new applicants. some people would get worse. some people would get off their ass and find a job. either way, we are both paying less in taxes and being more productive as a nation... and an individual.
Duty I have a question for you. Do you think the government has a right to listen in on everyones phone calls to make sure we aren't planning terrorist attacks on our country?
nope. however, that isnt waht happened. even though that isnt what happened, the way it was done i dont agree with.
Duty I have a question for you. Do you think the government has a right to listen in on everyones phone calls to make sure we aren't planning terrorist attacks on our country?
nope.
haha I know you don't, I'm asking Duty, wait your turn! haha Kidding
the system we are setting up is becoming more and more a command and control style government monopoly. thats not what the government should be here for. i just want to have less government influence on my life. that is all. the more im taxed the more im being told what i can and cannot do. i dont like this erosion of civil liberties or this creation of mob rule liberties.
Duty I have a question for you. Do you think the government has a right to listen in on everyones phone calls to make sure we aren't planning terrorist attacks on our country?
nope.
haha I know you don't, I'm asking Duty, wait your turn! haha Kidding
Going back to the piece from Ayn Rand... what do you suppose would happen if we voted today to discontinue our Welfare system? Would all those people on welfare go out to get jobs?
not all but many would be able to if they wanted to have them. why? because we would be spending less on the welfare system and paying less into it. the employers would have more money to spend on hiring people that are now not mooches but productive.
not all of those people would go out and get jobs but the ones who had any drive or self respect would. the ones who didnt would get worse and worse untill they either died, or realized that they need a job to survive. they need to be productive
if people dont want a job i cant help them. if they dont want to work hard, i cant help them.
im sure also that in the real world there would not be a flat cut off date. as in two weeks from now there is no welfare. it would be phased out. those who went out and got jobs first would be the best off. they would have no break in household income. the people that have been on the welfare system the longest would be the first to go. there would be ample warning, say a year. you have one year to find a job. (able bodied people of course) after that, you are on your own. extend this out over a few years and dont allow new applicants. some people would get worse. some people would get off their ass and find a job. either way, we are both paying less in taxes and being more productive as a nation... and an individual.
You think they're just going to sit around and get worse and worse until they die? Ehh.. no.. They're going to swarm your house, drag you out into the street, set you on fire, and help themselves to everything you own. French Revolution, anyone?
but it does highlight the individual liberties aspect of it. thats the part you also seem to be missing. the government is taking from the productive to the advance of the unproductive. it is mob rule. and it cannot be sustained.
the individual will not endlessly work for the benefit of the masses.
it is a good thought though, i mean being so selfless that they are willing to give everything up for the eake of everyone. the fact remains that people will look out for themselves before they look out for their neighbor. it is human nature. you cant fight that.
There you go again.. give up "everything for the sake of everyone" ... no. That's not how it works. THAT'S socialism.
You are also miscategorizing the "productive" and "unproductive"
Duty I have a question for you. Do you think the government has a right to listen in on everyones phone calls to make sure we aren't planning terrorist attacks on our country?
nope.
haha I know you don't, I'm asking Duty, wait your turn! haha Kidding
I don't either.
Ok, that is strange to me that you don't mind them dipping into your pay check and taking your hard earned money, but you have a problem with them listening in on your phone call to order a pizza... The first seems a LOT more invasive. I personally don't want either thing to happen.
This is where I have a HUGE problem with the way liberals think. They say they are pro-choice, but they really aren't. They are pro-abortion. Other then that, they think the rest of the "choices" in life should be made by the government. I don't want the government to decide where my kids go to school, where my money goes from my pay check, I also don't want them listening in on my phone calls, I don't think it is the governments job to legislate morality (this is where I disagree with far right Republicans)... With most liberals it seems like there is a double standard, they don't want to interfere unless it fits their cause.
Going back to the piece from Ayn Rand... what do you suppose would happen if we voted today to discontinue our Welfare system? Would all those people on welfare go out to get jobs?
not all but many would be able to if they wanted to have them. why? because we would be spending less on the welfare system and paying less into it. the employers would have more money to spend on hiring people that are now not mooches but productive.
not all of those people would go out and get jobs but the ones who had any drive or self respect would. the ones who didnt would get worse and worse untill they either died, or realized that they need a job to survive. they need to be productive
if people dont want a job i cant help them. if they dont want to work hard, i cant help them.
im sure also that in the real world there would not be a flat cut off date. as in two weeks from now there is no welfare. it would be phased out. those who went out and got jobs first would be the best off. they would have no break in household income. the people that have been on the welfare system the longest would be the first to go. there would be ample warning, say a year. you have one year to find a job. (able bodied people of course) after that, you are on your own. extend this out over a few years and dont allow new applicants. some people would get worse. some people would get off their ass and find a job. either way, we are both paying less in taxes and being more productive as a nation... and an individual.
You think they're just going to sit around and get worse and worse until they die? Ehh.. no.. They're going to swarm your house, drag you out into the street, set you on fire, and help themselves to everything you own. French Revolution, anyone?
Hahaha They are going to have trouble doing that at my house! I promise I've got more fire power than they do!!! haha
Duty I have a question for you. Do you think the government has a right to listen in on everyones phone calls to make sure we aren't planning terrorist attacks on our country?
nope.
haha I know you don't, I'm asking Duty, wait your turn! haha Kidding
I don't either.
Ok, that is strange to me that you don't mind them dipping into your pay check and taking your hard earned money, but you have a problem with them listening in on your phone call to order a pizza... The first seems a LOT more invasive. I personally don't want either thing to happen.
This is where I have a HUGE problem with the way liberals think. They say they are pro-choice, but they really aren't. They are pro-abortion. Other then that, they think the rest of the "choices" in life should be made by the government. I don't want the government to decide where my kids go to school, where my money goes from my pay check, I also don't want them listening in on my phone calls, I don't think it is the governments job to legislate morality (this is where I disagree with far right Republicans)... With most liberals it seems like there is a double standard, they don't want to interfere unless it fits their cause.
We pay taxes to ensure our collective safety well-being, and quality of life. If you don't want the protections and benefits of being part of this society, get the hell out. Go live somewhere else. You won't have to pay taxes to our government any more. Or go be your own Thoreau.
Duty I have a question for you. Do you think the government has a right to listen in on everyones phone calls to make sure we aren't planning terrorist attacks on our country?
nope.
haha I know you don't, I'm asking Duty, wait your turn! haha Kidding
I don't either.
Ok, that is strange to me that you don't mind them dipping into your pay check and taking your hard earned money, but you have a problem with them listening in on your phone call to order a pizza... The first seems a LOT more invasive. I personally don't want either thing to happen.
This is where I have a HUGE problem with the way liberals think. They say they are pro-choice, but they really aren't. They are pro-abortion. Other then that, they think the rest of the "choices" in life should be made by the government. I don't want the government to decide where my kids go to school, where my money goes from my pay check, I also don't want them listening in on my phone calls, I don't think it is the governments job to legislate morality (this is where I disagree with far right Republicans)... With most liberals it seems like there is a double standard, they don't want to interfere unless it fits their cause.
We pay taxes to ensure our collective safety well-being, and quality of life. If you don't want the protections and benefits of being part of this society, get the hell out. Go live somewhere else. You won't have to pay taxes to our government any more. Or go be your own Thoreau.
That arguement doesn't fly. Because the federal government could say the same thing to you about listening in on your phone calls. They could say "We listen to ensure our collective safety, well-being, and quality of life. If you don't want those protections and benefits of being part of this society, get the hell out."
It just doesn't make sense to me that you want it both ways. The government can interfere and it's ok as long as it fits your agenda. That is a double standard and very selfish of such a "for the common good" type of person...
yeah youre right, the tiny number of people in the US on welfare will rise up and beat people in the name of mooching off of others. that will get public support going for them. people will fight back, provided that that we still have the right to own a gun at that point. but we probably would considering we just got rid of welfare. crime might go up for a short amount of time but those people will learn that (and i know its cleche) crime does not pay. they will get arrested or get killed trying to rob someone. the crime rout will not work for them. most people will go out and try to get a job. most people on welfare are actually trying to get a job. itll light a fire under their butts to do so if they have less to fall back on. when i was homeless and jobless not being on welfare helped me get my ass in gear and get a job. I never considered welfare. i didnt want to be a mooch.
That arguement doesn't fly. Because the federal government could say the same thing to you about listening in on your phone calls. They could say "We listen to ensure our collective safety, well-being, and quality of life. If you don't want those protections and benefits of being part of this society, get the hell out."
It just doesn't make sense to me that you want it both ways. The government can interfere and it's ok as long as it fits your agenda. That is a double standard and very selfish of such a "for the common good" type of person...
They could say that.. and I would disagree because I don't see how it advances my safety in any way. What is my agenda? I'm not saying that the government should interfere. I am saying that our society has progressed to a point where we are capable of supporting an elevated standard of living. I am also saying that the best way to increase the value of money is to make it move -- and the best way to make it move is put it in the hands of people who spend.
if the activities of some people harm others, such as harmfully pollute their water or air, and if the harm can be objectively proven (a concept foreign to environmentalists), then it's the government's failure to protect individual rightsnot "market failure." And a tax on emissions is not a valid solution, because it implies that it's okay to violate rights as long as you pay government for the privilege.
The allegation of "market failure" is used by leftists and other power-lusters to justify government interference in the free market, such as price controls, coercive union legislation, massive regulations, taxation schemes, antitrust laws, minimum wage laws, etc. The net effect of such policies is to suppress innovation and productivity, punish ambition and ability, fuel inflation, and destroy wealth on a massive scale.
Such destructive consequences are not a "market failure" but a barbaric sabotage of the market by the government. If I pour muck into my Mercedes fuel tank and the engine dies, it's not an "engine failure" but a mindless sabotage of a wonderful machineand the free market is the most wonderful "machine" of all.
That arguement doesn't fly. Because the federal government could say the same thing to you about listening in on your phone calls. They could say "We listen to ensure our collective safety, well-being, and quality of life. If you don't want those protections and benefits of being part of this society, get the hell out."
It just doesn't make sense to me that you want it both ways. The government can interfere and it's ok as long as it fits your agenda. That is a double standard and very selfish of such a "for the common good" type of person...
They could say that.. and I would disagree because I don't see how it advances my safety in any way. What is my agenda? I'm not saying that the government should interfere. I am saying that our society has progressed to a point where we are capable of supporting an elevated standard of living. I am also saying that the best way to increase the value of money is to make it move -- and the best way to make it move is put it in the hands of people who spend.
Well we have the right to disagree that taxes don't advance my safety in any way either. Your rights are no more important or valid than ours.
yeah youre right, the tiny number of people in the US on welfare will rise up and beat people in the name of mooching off of others. that will get public support going for them. people will fight back, provided that that we still have the right to own a gun at that point. but we probably would considering we just got rid of welfare. crime might go up for a short amount of time but those people will learn that (and i know its cleche) crime does not pay. they will get arrested or get killed trying to rob someone. the crime rout will not work for them. most people will go out and try to get a job. most people on welfare are actually trying to get a job. itll light a fire under their butts to do so if they have less to fall back on. when i was homeless and jobless not being on welfare helped me get my ass in gear and get a job. I never considered welfare. i didnt want to be a mooch.
When people are backed into a corner, they fight. They aren't looking for "public support" -- they aren't doing any lobbying. Welfare serves to placate them by providing basics to survive. Once this is removed, they will turn to crime out of necessity. They won't learn a lesson, even if they are arrested or killed, because they have no other choice. They will be willing to risk their lives, because inaction would cost them their lives.
I'm not saying they would succeed in taking over the country, or that they would win a revolution. But there would be loss of life on both sides. Is that really what we want? We want people to be motivated to kill?
That arguement doesn't fly. Because the federal government could say the same thing to you about listening in on your phone calls. They could say "We listen to ensure our collective safety, well-being, and quality of life. If you don't want those protections and benefits of being part of this society, get the hell out."
It just doesn't make sense to me that you want it both ways. The government can interfere and it's ok as long as it fits your agenda. That is a double standard and very selfish of such a "for the common good" type of person...
They could say that.. and I would disagree because I don't see how it advances my safety in any way. What is my agenda? I'm not saying that the government should interfere. I am saying that our society has progressed to a point where we are capable of supporting an elevated standard of living. I am also saying that the best way to increase the value of money is to make it move -- and the best way to make it move is put it in the hands of people who spend.
Well we have the right to disagree that taxes don't advance my safety in any way either. Your rights are no more important or valid than ours.
I thought you worked for the police force. I had no idea that was privately funded. Or are you saying you don't work to advance my safety?
Is that really what we want? We want people to be motivated to kill?
no, i want people motivated to work, but that wont happen if their needs are being met by a social program that I am paying for and they are mooching from
and again everything you just said is conjecture. you can only guess because we both know that welfare wont end anytime soon.
if the activities of some people harm others, such as harmfully pollute their water or air, and if the harm can be objectively proven (a concept foreign to environmentalists), then it's the government's failure to protect individual rightsnot "market failure." And a tax on emissions is not a valid solution, because it implies that it's okay to violate rights as long as you pay government for the privilege.
The allegation of "market failure" is used by leftists and other power-lusters to justify government interference in the free market, such as price controls, coercive union legislation, massive regulations, taxation schemes, antitrust laws, minimum wage laws, etc. The net effect of such policies is to suppress innovation and productivity, punish ambition and ability, fuel inflation, and destroy wealth on a massive scale.
Such destructive consequences are not a "market failure" but a barbaric sabotage of the market by the government. If I pour muck into my Mercedes fuel tank and the engine dies, it's not an "engine failure" but a mindless sabotage of a wonderful machineand the free market is the most wonderful "machine" of all.
OK.. rather than tax it and use that money to research less destructive alternatives, just ban the activity outright. Outlaw gasoline-powered vehicles, coal-fired power plants, all smoking, wood stoves, outdoor burning, fireworks, candles, farting, gas heat, etc...
Comments
the individual will not endlessly work for the benefit of the masses.
it is a good thought though, i mean being so selfless that they are willing to give everything up for the eake of everyone. the fact remains that people will look out for themselves before they look out for their neighbor. it is human nature. you cant fight that.
not all of those people would go out and get jobs but the ones who had any drive or self respect would. the ones who didnt would get worse and worse untill they either died, or realized that they need a job to survive. they need to be productive
if people dont want a job i cant help them. if they dont want to work hard, i cant help them.
im sure also that in the real world there would not be a flat cut off date. as in two weeks from now there is no welfare. it would be phased out. those who went out and got jobs first would be the best off. they would have no break in household income. the people that have been on the welfare system the longest would be the first to go. there would be ample warning, say a year. you have one year to find a job. (able bodied people of course) after that, you are on your own. extend this out over a few years and dont allow new applicants. some people would get worse. some people would get off their ass and find a job. either way, we are both paying less in taxes and being more productive as a nation... and an individual.
however, that isnt waht happened.
even though that isnt what happened, the way it was done i dont agree with.
it is about individual liberties.
i just want to have less government influence on my life. that is all. the more im taxed the more im being told what i can and cannot do. i dont like this erosion of civil liberties or this creation of mob rule liberties.
You are also miscategorizing the "productive" and "unproductive"
This is where I have a HUGE problem with the way liberals think. They say they are pro-choice, but they really aren't. They are pro-abortion. Other then that, they think the rest of the "choices" in life should be made by the government. I don't want the government to decide where my kids go to school, where my money goes from my pay check, I also don't want them listening in on my phone calls, I don't think it is the governments job to legislate morality (this is where I disagree with far right Republicans)... With most liberals it seems like there is a double standard, they don't want to interfere unless it fits their cause.
exactly what im talking aobut. its not just macro or micro econ. its individual liberties!
It just doesn't make sense to me that you want it both ways. The government can interfere and it's ok as long as it fits your agenda. That is a double standard and very selfish of such a "for the common good" type of person...
they will get arrested or get killed trying to rob someone. the crime rout will not work for them. most people will go out and try to get a job. most people on welfare are actually trying to get a job. itll light a fire under their butts to do so if they have less to fall back on. when i was homeless and jobless not being on welfare helped me get my ass in gear and get a job. I never considered welfare. i didnt want to be a mooch.
I'm not saying they would succeed in taking over the country, or that they would win a revolution. But there would be loss of life on both sides. Is that really what we want? We want people to be motivated to kill?
and again everything you just said is conjecture. you can only guess because we both know that welfare wont end anytime soon.
if i want control your smoking, all i have to do is tax cigars so much that you cant afford them. that is taking away your right to smoke a cigar.