Tax funded Safety Nets are important.

[Technosoul]

So you are saying our present country with its tax supported welfare program is your enemy?

Well, guess you were not interested in checking out message number 7. So too bad, your loss.

Here is the thing - if our culture shows proof that we can end poverty without taxation via charity or religious programs then I say "no need for the taxfunded welfare system". However if the churches and secular charity groups fail us in being able to fund such programs that insure that no child or person will suffer hungar (or will be forced to do crimes to eat) then I see no other choice but to support mandatory tax funded programs - and would even advocate they be expanded for everyone in a user friendly manner who needs such help. Housing, fairly new clothing, are also important for a decent society and no one should be sleeping in the streets because they cannot find shelter.

If that is important to you, then you should take up the cause and create a super-organization of volunteers and provide means for donations from all those people who you think will support your plan. Just talking about it will not get the job done and your idealism cannot be manifested as you have recommended if you are not willing to "take responsiblity" for what you say is right. So get busy and save us taxpayers from being forced to help the needy.

[Cephus]

I think there needs to be a limited safety net, so long as it's short-term and intended solely to get people back on their feet and self-sufficient again. Anything that seeks cradle-to-grave entitlement needs to go IMO.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul I have not reviewed your comments in other threads as why you do not appove of co-ops. Perhaps they are not for everyone and some people would not like that type of work environment. However, the system is productive and they seem to do well economically. In other situations you have worker unions, who must bargan with the employer on behalf of the employee, at first that system worked well because we ended up with better working conditions, fair breaks. and fair pay for a fair days work. But now the unions deduct for their services, and it is greed verses greed at the barganing tables, mostly having to do with pay rates. .

Well, I have given support to co-ops as a viable alternative to the rigid, top-down order most common in America. What I've said is co-ops are by no means an end goal.
I should mention that some anarchists in Argentina have even rejected unions for the "greed versus greed" reason. Anarachism in Argentina practically NEVER gets coverage in mainstream media, probably because they are challenging the state and corporations with moderate success:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/articl.../06/16/6660672

Quote by: Technosoul I guess the word treason might seem threatening but we are not talking about changing how the state governments work, abolishment would occur only if some group was able to overthrow the government. It would be nearly impossible to arrange for a way to vote the government out of existance. So you tell, what should we call the act of overthowing a government and leaving no one in charge, except for people who might eventually work together to subdue their bosses in the workplace. ????? Do you think this can be done via a revolution of peaceful protests, or what?

It would ultimately be a combination of both, regardless of my position on it.
I prefer peaceful means, but self-defense ewould end up being necessary I'm afraid.
What people should do is rebel against any stupid decisions made in the workplace or start co-operatives. Also, often it is what NOT to do. Do not become a landlord, a self-interested manager or boss, feel threatened by talk of fairness in the workplace, treat workers as expendable or like their opinions shouldn't matter, etc. Fairly common sense stuff, I think.
One thing I recommend you do is look into labor history--see how free the market is.
The state cracked down on workers every step of the way.
They used police or hired private "Pinkertons" to enforce the status quo and keep impoverished workers in line. That's why I'm very skeptical of state socialism or Marxism. To me, the idea of using the state to create a stateless society is not that practical.

Quote by: Technosoul Living like a hermit in a cave and being able to survive by fishing, hunting, and growing an apple tree next to the cave, is cool for the few who can locate such an islolated place deep in the woods. But everyone living in a populated culture is in fact a prisoner of that culture, that is to say, dependant upon most everyone else, and in some way, others are dependant upon him, if he is capable of doing his share.

I agree, but I haven't been talking about isolated hermits.

Quote by: Technosoul I do not know what you mean by the phase "self-destructive goals". But among that thought I would imagine you are talking about people who prefer to be just plan lazy, so they try to find a way to live off of public welfare and they they watch TV all day - when in fact they are able to work if they would just get motivated and find a job. The government should view this as a mental-medical problem and we should put our PH.Ds to work on finding a cure for that disorder.

The cure (or proper treatment) is to create an actual work-ethic in society. Currently, most people work only to avoid poverty. Hence, people rightly associate the global economy with disdain and humiliation. I think most people on welfare even look for work, but it is who one knows. So calling this an individual mental disorder is probably an oversimplification.

Quote by: Technosoul The other mode of operation that you might call a self-distructive goal is when women know that they can only continue to remain on welfare if they have a depdendant child, so they make sure that they have enough children to last them for years, and when their teen daughters are old enough, they do like Mama did and then they support Mama when she is too old to have anymore kids, with the incoming welfare checks, and good household managment. This has been going on for generations, and they even "keep" their men so that they also do not have to work (which would be an automatic cut off of welfare checks). The men do things like buy used cars, tinker with them a bit and then resell them for a few hundred dollar profit, no car lots, just a sign in the window of the car is all they need. The women also request help from the local chruches, and when they go to the store they buy three bags of food, then call the store and ask them it someone left a bag by misstake (which they really brought home) and the manager says "look at your reciet and tell us what is missing, it was probally restocked, and we will replace the items missing". So they go back to store with the reciet and get some free stuff. (basically getting the most expensive items at half price). Tricks of the trade. Each time they shop a different store so no one catches on to their little scams.

These conditions do exist, but cannot be addressed by encouraging more poverty. What I think is necessary is what I've stated: Create a cooperative atmosphere where work is encouraged--not only for individual gain but for all involved. This is where the idea of democracy can come in handy. If people have greater stakes in their own futures, they will likely want to be more involved.

Quote by: Technosoul So that is the big hangup with welfare programs, it is the scam artists, who know how to do it "within the rules and laws" of that program, they are better informed then the people hired to do the interviews at the department office. They call it "street smarts" which is a form of education for sure., but not the kind that is productive or good for the rest of our culture.

The solution is similar to how we can solve "identity theft." Get rid of credit cards, ID cards and the like--things that do NOT establish anyone's identity (which is blatantly obvious when ID theft exists and is such a serious issue).
When we get rid of the state/private creation of poverty, the power of all cheaters in society will be reduced.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

As for the "dog-eat-dog" discussion. Yes, people are reduced to something less than human under capitalism. It's not as though we are seen as animals or something--but rather as numbers, invisible credit ratings and "potential clients" (or whatever).
"Dog eat dog" basically just means being cruel to one another for individual gain.
Other than that, it's not like dogs have banks and guns to keep each other in line.

Grandpa h.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: I don't trust any society unless they trust me with my rights. If they can't they are my enemy, and surely not something I would support.

That's two separate things. This society doesn't trust you to manage your rights properly AND they can't be counted on to assist their fellow citizen in times of need.

And eliminating ALL social programs, a'la the right wing position is the WRONG way to look at the situation. Most of the "I got mine" scumbags out there would let their own parents rot in the street. It is necessary to have the government administer these programs for just that reason.
What we must do is NOT eliminate social programs but we must kick out the incompetants in government and clean it up so these programs will be administered efficiently and sensibly. Just because we never address the wasteful antics of Congress doesn't mean these ideas are bad ones.
We bitch and whine about some able bodied man on welfare and scream for the whole program to be scrapped bacause of it but we ignore welfare whores like Ted Stevens who fleeces the government for things like: "...the Los Angeles Times reported that the fishing village of Dillingham, Alaska, at least, is secure, now that a $200,000 Homeland Security anti-terrorism grant has paid for 60 "downtown" surveillance cameras (with 20 more to come). Dillingham (pop. 2,400) is about 300 miles from Anchorage, with no roads linking it to anywhere. " LINK

[Osborn F Enready]

My safety net is as follows.

1.)Stakes around yard, with no trespassing signs around my stockpiled food, ammo, weapons and such within the bunker.

2.)Shoot all people who are too stupid to read the sign in rule 1.



It's an incredible concept.


People today, do everything backwards.

They go in debt for cars, houses, boats and all kinds of ridiculous CRAP, and put off emergency supplies until "they can comfortably aquire them". (since when is going in debt for 50 years on a home and cars and credit cards COMFORTABLE?!?)

First you buy the guns, then you buy the ammo, then you buy the food. After that, THEN you move out on your own, and do the rest.

Any person that couldn't live for a month off their own stores is in bad shape from the word go.

If you need more than a month, save longer, and build a "bigger" safety net.

[Osborn F Enready]

Hey Techno, Granpa......

How much money have you spent in your life so far?

How much have you saved up in case money stops coming in?

How many supplies do you have to provide food, or the ability to get food (hunting/fishing/trapping) should the need arise, and the "safety net" you base your life on breaks down?

The only saftey net that is ALWAYS THERE, is your ability to plan for the problems YOU may face, and by making sure YOU plan accordingly.


What do you people think would happen, if we went to war with several nations? You think checks and food will still be coming? How about a NUCLEAR war? How about an economic war, where it takes $300,000.00 to buy a loaf of bread? :rolleyes:

Safety Nets are feel good programs when "times are good enough to allow them".

Those times are gone.

[Technosoul]

thanks for idea - just posted new topic about "rights" in philosophy forum.