[zatara]

(12-02-2016 05:21 PM)John_Galt Wrote:  

zatara:

My point was that Atlas Shrugged ends exactly the way you say no welfare would end: People start destroying shit, and killing each other. Your argument thus didn't make sense, since you seem to think I base my views on Rand, which, as I've explained in great detail, Rand did not create this philosophy, it's simply the law of nature, the way the world has always worked. You mention 150 years of history....what about the previous 6000

My argument was, and is, that in the real world state welfare is a necessarily evil. And that this has been empirically proven by recorded history to date. Whereas in this thread you have repeatedly argued for it to be removed, without awareness of the likely consequences. And you don't seem to have an answer as to how you'd make that work.

I'm still completely baffled as to why you think the plot ending of Atlas Shrugged has any relevance - I didn't mention the novel once in my post. I referred to Randian philosophy because you're echoing some of its core tenets. And because your username is John_Galt.

Quote:

People only die once, but they must be fed everyday. Do you not get that?

The point is people don't simply die, though. That's your naivety problem. In the real world, in all of modern history, significant numbers of desperate people refuse to die and instead will murder/steal to obtain what they need to prevent their death. Which is why almost all modern political systems have (reluctantly, in most cases) implemented and maintained state welfare systems.

The previous 6000 years of history aren't particularly applicable to modern society as the rapid population growth, industrialization, urbanization and most importantly the spread of literacy and resultant awakening of political consciousness of all economic classes since the C19th have radically altered the social and economic structures of the human race.

A pre-modern agricultural peasant had far lower awareness of the quality of life experienced by those in higher socioeconomic strata, had minimal expectations of their rights, and had far less opportunity to violently seize the property of others. Which meant, although not guaranteed, that they would be far more likely to accept death before rebelling. A modern human differs greatly.

[John_Galt]

Again, as I've said previously:

A large number of low intelligent, low resource moronic mob would not stand a chance against a well trained, well funded army, i.e. the National Guard. You think that the Baltimore Riots couldn't have been stopped in 24 hours if the powers that be had willed it? Of course it could have.

The people you're discussing are only a threat because they have numbers and little to lose. But with the proper mentality, they could be dispatched quickly.

Your argument is not one of logistics or "reality", it's a matter of morality. You think it's immoral to let portion of the population die due to their own poor choices. I do not.

Your next argument will be about the politics of such a move, and how it could never happen, blah blah blah.....

But it's irrelevant. The piper must be paid. Maybe not today, but someday.

The only way the system can continue is for a drastic reduction in costs or a drastic increase in productivity. And if there is a drastic increase in productivity, someone will have to convince the wealth owners they need to surrender their wealth to the masses, and I just don't see that happening. I think they'd rather hire a private army to defend their wealth than be continuously taxed at huge margins, margins that won't be supporting 15% of society, but rather 85%. I just don't see that pitch being accepted.

[John_Galt]

Again, as I've said previously:

A large number of low intelligent, low resource moronic mob would not stand a chance against a well trained, well funded army, i.e. the National Guard. You think that the Baltimore Riots couldn't have been stopped in 24 hours if the powers that be had willed it? Of course it could have.

The people you're discussing are only a threat because they have numbers and little to lose. But with the proper mentality, they could be dispatched quickly.

Your argument is not one of logistics or "reality", it's a matter of morality. You think it's immoral to let portion of the population die due to their own poor choices. I do not.

Your next argument will be about the politics of such a move, and how it could never happen, blah blah blah.....

But it's irrelevant. The piper must be paid. Maybe not today, but someday.

The only way the system can continue is for a drastic reduction in costs or a drastic increase in productivity. And if there is a drastic increase in productivity, someone will have to convince the wealth owners they need to surrender their wealth to the masses, and I just don't see that happening. I think they'd rather hire a private army to defend their wealth than be continuously taxed at huge margins, margins that won't be supporting 15% of society, but rather 85%. I just don't see that pitch being accepted.

[zatara]

My argument is not a matter of morality, I have no moral desire to have my tax money going to pay for welfare queens. But I'm a realist, and aware of human history, which means I understand state welfare is the least costly option available to us. Its all very well theorizing that you can cull 10% of the population easily, but that just hasn't worked in modern history.

Calling out the national guard to execute significant numbers of people is not a viable solution in the real world. Why on earth do you think the National Guard, an organization with huge numbers of undereducated, minority, low income members would shoot rioters that would be largely their friends and family? Look at what actually happens when this has been tried - you get the army refusing to obey 'shoot' orders, ala Russia in 1917. Or France in 1789. Or Istanbul in 2016. The only military units that are somewhat reliable in civil unrest situations for this reason are foreign auxiliaries who have no social connections to the rioters, something the US military doesn't possess to rely on.

Or if you want current, living examples, just look to the less developed parts of the world where there are countries with exceptionally high inequality. In large parts of the developing world you can't walk the streets at night, or in many areas during the day, without fear of being robbed. Home invasion rates are sky high. Middle class people get murdered for the contents of their wallet, because the poor are starving.

There is no need to have masturbatory mental fantasies over what a theoretical state with no welfare would look like; you can just look to the past and present to see examples where it has been tried - and we can observe the results. The morality of it is irrelevant. In the long-run, minimal levels of state welfare cost far, far less economically than widespread civil unrest and political upheaval.

[weambulance]

@zatara

You're wasting your time bro. He thinks he's discovered some kind of incontrovertible rule of the universe and any arguments just bounce off that belief.

[Leonard D Neubache]

If the economic system crashes or the US ever defaults on it's debts then we'll see soon enough where the chips land.

Meanwhile, charity was not always doled out by the state. Until recently it was the purview of the individual, the family or the church. As such the receiver was inclined not to be an ungrateful rioting jackass, and they were furthermore draped in the shame of being a burden to people they directly knew rather than a faceless bureaucracy which was a burden itself to every working man and woman. That shame motivated them to get work and turn their lives around. Notice how charity became welfare which became entitlements.

Words matter.

Welfare has become a political carrot to vote for big government. For that reason alone it has to be scaled back drastically. There should be a net recognition of your taxes vs benefits and anyone dropping into negative territory should have their right to vote stripped until they get back in the black. Either that or some other method of preventing government enlarging itself by systematically impoverishing its citizenry.

[zatara]

(12-04-2016 06:44 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

@zatara

You're wasting your time bro. He thinks he's discovered some kind of incontrovertible rule of the universe and any arguments just bounce off that belief.

You're probably right. At the very least he might become more aware of political history from this thread I suppose, even if his theorizing remains obdurate.

[John_Galt]

"National guard would never shoot citizens....blah blah blah..."

Ok. Tell that to the 4 dead UNARMED college students engaging in peaceful protest at Kent State:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

You'd be amazed at what the military will do when ordered and under very stressful circumstances. I don't think you have any experience dealing with or being in the US military, otherwise you'd be aware that the moral line goes from black and white to gray in a millisecond when shit hits the fan.

You also ignore the reality of history for millennia, as Leonard eloquently stated. This is not "the way things always have been". So stop using that false argument. It's unbecoming.

Also, comparing other countries with MASSIVE rates of poverty to the US, where comparably, even the POOR are "Rich" compared to those countries, is really not a solid argument at all.

The US is one of the only countries where the "poor" can be morbidly obese and own a $600 cell phone. Don't even try to claim it's comparable to Africa or Columbia.

[John_Galt]

Someone posted this in the Hillary Clinton thread. Very relevant to the topic: