OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arryn:
What humans deserve is "the chance for a better life", not the better life itself. The latter should be earned.

And it still would be. Providing a hard bottom that people cannot fall below that allows them to avoid starving and suffering from poor health does not mean that they are experiencing a life of luxury.

---

When there are people, who are capable of working, who _refuse_ to work even when offered a job - let them starve.

I'm all for there being more jobs for people. I think that, for instance, jobless people could be put to work cleaning streets and vacant lots, doing manual labor in our municipal, state, and national parks. Doing things that the country would benefit from, at least at the local level.

Others could be paid for cooking food for the others working, or for doing laundry for them, or watching over the others kids. The ones who did good work, who showed responsibility, could be promoted to better positions.

But frankly - in this country there are a bunch of people who don't think they should _have_ to work. People with "Will Work for Food" signs - who spit and curse at you if you offer them some work.

Again - let 'em starve. If they get hungry enough, maybe they'll do some work.

I never said that society owes you success. I said that society owes you protection from starving to death and abject poverty.

Lots of people who have been homeless and jobless can tell you that it's not hard to avoid starvation in this country. Soup kitchens, church Groups giving out food - even scavenging behind restaurants.

Starvation isn't much of an issue in the USA, at least not in urban areas.

I can never understand why basic medical care isn't considered to be something that society should pay for. After all, people don't seem to have a problem with the sewer system being paid for by taxes, and that's the single most important part of your health care. After all, you as an individual wouldn't be hurt by dumping your own personal sewage into the river.

Again - what world are you living in? The sewage in the river would hurt _everyone_.

quote:

---

If humans have an innate right to be taken care of by our society, then why must we pay for rent, food, or anything else we might want in our ordained right to happiness?

You would pay for them because you want better than the bare minimum.

---

[/quote]

Who determines the bare minimum? The people who chose to live at the bare minimum? What happens when someone says, "It isn't right - they have food and shelter, but it's inhumane that they don't have cable television, and can't eat at McDonald's every day."

If enough people decide that the bare minimum is enough - what then? Let's say 50% of the population (all the men) decide, hey screw it - they got a sofa, a TV to watch the game, and enough money for beer at $8.99 a case, that's good enough. What then? Oh, and _then_ they vote that their standard of living should be higher.

Like I said - it'd be real nice if government were helping to provide jobs, which it isn't anymore. Looking after those who can't look after themselves - instead of dumping people from insane asylums (thank you Reagan and Bush). Providing at least child health care, instead of subsidies for corporations.

But to say that government has to ensure that the people have an _adequate_ life when they could get off their lazy arses and work???

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
What on earth are you talking about? I've never even read catholic dogma, so I have no idea where you got this particular notion.

Coincidence, then, that you parrot one of their notions. Bound to happen, alas, since they've influenced (infected?) much of Western civilization.

Is an employee who's job is outsourced responsible for this? Nope.

Yes and no. Speaking as someone whose job was outsourced, and am presently unemployed, I can state that I'm not living on the street, nor am I depending on the goodness of others for my support. Unlike many, I prepared for the possibility. IOW, I was practicing personal responsibility.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
When there are people, who are capable of working, who _refuse_ to work even when offered a job - let them starve.

I am unable to understand how people can feel this way.

Starvation isn't much of an issue in the USA, at least not in urban areas.

Which is why I didn't want to even bring it up in the first place. The social safety net in the U.S. is adequate in most ways.

Again - what world are you living in? The sewage in the river would hurt _everyone_.

As long as you have a nearby river your sewage only hurts people other than yourself. At the very least, universal medical coverage would help to keep people healthy and on the work force.

Who determines the bare minimum? The people who chose to live at the bare minimum?

The bare minimum is the point where a person has enough food to eat without being malnourished, shelter to prevent them from freezing to death, and medical care so that the simple preventable and treatable illnesses can be dealt with. The only one there that's hard to define is the medical care one.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Oh - so someone who works 60 hours a week, takes good care of his family, looks after his friends, and volunteers to help people in his neighborhood find jobs, become literate, etc, is "a social parasite" because they don't care about the billions of people they don't personally know?

Well, since this person clearly cares about people that he doesn't personally know, I'm not sure what your argument is. He obviously helps people he hasn't met before. Or would this person actually not care at all if a few billion people they haven't met yet suddenly died?

---

He's not "caring about people he doesn't personally know" - he's helping people, in his neighborhood, whom he does get to know. Perhaps more importantly, he's helping people who are willing to help themselves.

He's _not_ sending money to Gloria Struthers to feed the starving kids in the Philipines, and he doesn't much care about the well being of the trailer park trash single mother with 8 kids.

You don't have to care about the faceless billions in order to not be a "social parasite". Arguably, anyone with a decent productive job (as opposed to CEOs, politicians, ambulance chasers and used car salesmen) is a productive member of society, paying taxes, providing for their family, and not a social parasite. Even if they don't do a damn thing for the homeless, jobless, spineless, etc.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cainehill:
When there are people, who are capable of working, who _refuse_ to work even when offered a job - let them starve.

I am unable to understand how people can feel this way.

---

Which one? The ones refusing to work, or those not caring if the lazy sods die?

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Coincidence, then, that you parrot one of their notions. Bound to happen, alas, since they've influenced (infected?) much of Western civilization.

Or perhaps it's because the notion happens to be correct.

IOW, I was practicing personal responsibility.

Yet you still are not completely responsible for everything that happens in your life. After all, it wasn't your decisions that led to outsourcing.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Or perhaps it's because the notion happens to be correct.

Nope. It's a value judgment you (and others) have made. It's not an immutable law of the universe.