Tell me, what difference(s) do you see between the market and government?
Where do I begin? They are different in so many ways; in some ways the market is superior, in other ways the government is. Maybe you could narrow the question down a little.
Consumariat:Not much. I donate monthly to a local children's hospice, and also to a mental health charity.
Why aren't you doing more? I guess you want children to go hungry! Shame on you!
Consumariat:But all of that is irrelevant because charity has never, and can never, provide the level of security that government can.
Go right ahead and try to prove that.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Consumariat:Where do I begin? They are different in so many ways; in some ways the market is superior, in other ways the government is. Maybe you could narrow the question down a little.
What fundamental and/or inherent difference(s) do you see between the market and government? Begin wherever you like.
Because I am financially constrained. If others who were not so constrained donated more then charity would work brilliantly. But they don't, and so government needs to step in.
Well as a historical point, the welfare state, NHS, and state pensions were introduced because charity was failing to deal adequately with the social problems of the 19th and early 20th century. By and large, they have succeeded.
Consumariat:Because I am financially constrained.
Clearly you're not, because clearly you're not doing your utmost to help those poor starving children. Right now you're posting on an internet forum. That's not helping the children, is it? Why aren't you thinking of them?!
Consumariat:Well as a historical point, the welfare state, NHS, and state pensions were introduced because charity was failing to deal adequately with the social problems of the 19th and early 20th century. By and large, they have succeeded.
You call that proof?
Clearly you're not, because clearly you're not doing your utmost to help those poor starving children. Right now you're posting on an internet forum. That's not helping the children, is it? Why aren't you thinking of them?
Is this the best you can manage? It's not me who is claiming to be a saint. It's YOU who is claiming that we would all suddenly become saints if only the government got rid of Child Benefit. A bonkers notion.
It's a corroborating argument. There is no such thing as 'proof' of anything, just inference to the best explanation, and claims that are contingent on available evidence.
Consumariat:Is this the best you can manage? It's not me who is claiming to be a saint. It's YOU who is claiming that we would all suddenly become saints if only the government got rid of Child Benefit. A bonkers notion.
Go right ahead and point out just where I said that. You really should try to keep things more straight in your head.
Consumariat:It's a corroborating argument.
Really now? Are you sure about that?
Consumariat:There is no such thing as 'proof' of anything, just inference to the best explanation, and claims that are contingent on available evidence.
1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
So you're saying the above doesn't prove anything? Really?
Go back in time and undo all those Structural Adjustment Programmes that robbed the third world of it's sovereignty. Oh, and in the mean time we feed them to the best of our abilities.
This is a non-answer. There are people who are desperately more poor in undeveloped countries. You've already made it a standard that no one goes hungry, so I'm asking what we do about them? What more can government do to help them right now, as people are miserably starving?
"Let's assume you are correct (I don't believe you are), the truth is that we do not have a free market in the sense that you are advocating, and so there still needs to be a way of providing for those that suffer under the current economic system."
with a system based on stealing...all bets are off. all kinds of corruption can happen with that. i will never support a system that goes against the teachings of God. thou shall not steal.
i do believe the free market can handle those children much more humanely. i'll leave it to others here to describe the how and why.
How about someone - anyone - answers the questions in my first post. What happens if you lose your job and have more than 3 kids? Or if you get a pay cut, or if your partner fucks off or dies? What happens to you and your family in any of those situations? The truth is you will not answer this question because you know it will reveal you all for what you are - callous, malevolent, and spiteful.
Retreating so soon, Consumariat? Why am I not surprised. I don't think your retreat will last though. Clearly I (for one) am not taking your bait. So let's try this again.
What happens if you lose your job and have more than 3 kids? Or if you get a pay cut, or if your partner fucks off or dies? What happens to you and your family in any of those situations? The truth is you will not answer this question because you know it will reveal you all for what you are - callous, malevolent, and spiteful.
A number of things can happen, including death by starvation. Was I supposed to be afraid to say this?
If only there was a constructive conversation to retreat from, Autolykos. You are an unbearable person.
@ Consumariat
You're a labour voter, correct?
Consumariat:If only there was a constructive conversation to retreat from, Autolykos. You are an unbearable person.
That may be, but at least I'm not as unbearable as you.
Now let's try this again. I'm going to keep this up until you respond. Understand?
There are no parties that represent me, Rugged. I will vote labour at the next general election just because they are not the ConDems, and I fully expect Labour to continue on with the same old Neoliberal crap that we have had for the last 30 years. All three parties are as guilty as each other.
Not at all. I anticipated someone saying it.
I'm going to keep this up until you respond. Understand?
Auto, I appreciate your insistence on a good debate, with clear definitions and such. However, not everyone is keen to subject themselves to that kind of debate (often for obvious reason, such as right now). I'll always back your insistence on logical rigor, but I think when it comes to a point like this, it's best to back off, as fruitful discussion seems like the least likely result.
That is just my opinion/speculation. Take it as you will.
*by "back off," I didn't mean you shouldn't have posed your question, just that I think posing it repeatedly in the face of Consumeriat's defiance likely will do no good.*
So where does that leave us? What point(s) were you trying to convey with your questions?
I appreciate your concern, NonAntiAnarchist, but I'm not letting go of this. I'll bump this thread on a daily basis, calling him out on his cowardice and BS, until Hell freezes over, if need be.
Why don't you support the communist and socialist parties? Such as the SWP, SPGB and CPGB. They claim that under socialism starvation and poverty will be eradicated. Sounds good.
Also, why do the poorest in society have the most children?
What point(s) were you trying to convey with your questions?
That child-related benefits prevent the possibility of hunger, and as such they should not be limited to 2 children.
If Duncan Smith he meant to attack those “parts of the benefits system [that] promote 'destructive' behavior”, I say he got it spot on. I’ve thought about private charity, and specially rich-dudes philanthropy, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the best way to help booth those in need and manage to improve the general condition of society is to give those who ask for it a lifelong pension if they agree to be sterilized. The cultural transmission of some habits through the family could be improved, especially seeing what a large part of severely anti-social behavior could result from childhood trauma administered from those who have no business having kids.
Surely, the state has no business sterilizing anyone, but if one must have a public welfare system, one might at least prevent it from being turned into an incentive to force-breed societies’ underclass.
until Hell freezes over
So be it. I hope you live long enough to do that ;)
They prevent even the possibility of hunger (and I hope you meant starvation)? Do they also prevent hunger for the millions of starving, disease-ridden Africans who are in desperately worse positions? What if we had government benefits to the fullest extent, to the point where we provide them in every case there might be a chance of starvation. Would these "benefits" still be effective in preventing hunger/starvation?
If you say "no," then logically you must aknowledge there is no necessary link between gov't benefits and preveting starvation.
I have 6 options to vote for in my area; Tory, Libdem, Labour, Green, UKIP, and BNP. I don't want communism, I want back the Labour Party as it used to be.
But even under old labour there were starving and poverty stricken families. Commies say it’s because of capitalism. They promise to completely get rid of poverty and starvation; surely that’s what you want?
Poverty maybe, but not starvation. If you want to get rid of poverty then you can do no better than lower the unemployment rate. We used to do quite well with that sort of thing. No need for communism, just a sensible mixed economy.
@Consumariat
"what difference(s) do you see between the market and government?"
The "market" is a system or environment in which companies compete and "government" simply happens to be a specific type of compnay. A company that uses force to rape, pillage, and plunder Men and Women in order to redistribute their weath. There is a mental disease called statism which appears to induce insanity creating a desire in people to do business with known rapists, theives, and murderers.
Consumariat is apparently too cowardly to offer his own answer to that question. I don't think anyone else here should be surprised. (As you can see, Consumariat, I'm not shutting up even though you're apparently ignoring me. Call my bluff all you want - I'm not bluffing.)
If you want to get rid of poverty then you can do no better than lower the unemployment rate.
So why don't we employ everyone to dig holes and end poverty once and for all?
/I'm done here.. You clearly are satisfied being wrong over and over. I mean this not as an insult, but it just seems overwhelmingly obvious from this thread.
My unwillingness to engage with you is merely a result of having done a cost-benefit analysis of our previous encounters. You simply are not worth it. Now, if you were serious about continuing a fruitful conversation, you would not be acting like a petulant troll.
"If only there was a constructive conversation to retreat from, Autolykos. You are an unbearable person."
geeze...consum and auko....you guys are like an old married couple...you guys are so freakin attracted towards each others posts....even if its just for negative reasons....i wish one of you was a female and yall could just meet up and f*** each other already and get this spit/spat over with.
so much for this thread.
Because it would be better to have people building homes.
If you say so, boss.
Consumariat:My unwillingness to engage with you is merely a result of having done a cost-benefit analysis of our previous encounters. You simply are not worth it. Now, if you were serious about continuing a fruitful conversation, you would not be acting like a petulant troll [sic].
Hey, if you can't take it, maybe you shouldn't dish it out.
You know as well as I do that I asked you serious questions that you've so far refused to answer. Really, which one of us do you think is going to look worse here?
This one actually made me chuckle.
limitgov:geeze...consum and auko....you guys are like an old married couple...you guys are so freakin attracted towards each others posts....even if its just for negative reasons....i wish one of you was a female and yall could just meet up and f*** each other already and get this spit/spat over with.
It's Auto, by the way.
But this "spit/spat" won't be over with until Consumariat opens his hermetically sealed eyes and understands just how bass-ackwards his view of the world is. Not until then. As I said before, I will call him out on his nonsense until Hell freezes over, if need be.
ANNOUNCEMENT FROM GOVERNMENT
Dear Citizens,
We admit that we really fucked many of you over last year and redistributed a lot of the monies we stole from you to our banker friends. We also acknowledge we have been fucking many of you over for decades because we like bombing brown people who don't like taking our shit. We are sorry we had to steal millions, billions, and trillions of dollars from our fine and upstanding citizenry to do it. However because the War on Terror has become so expensive we are coming up short taking care of the kiddies. Would you please start blindly trusting us again so we can feed all of the hungry kiddies? Do it for the kiddies sakes. . .
Consumariat: "109,294 adults and children in the UK received at least days of emergency food aid between April and September 2012, with the figure expected to rise to over 200,000 by April 2013." http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/food-banks-trussel-trust-uk-data
"109,294 adults and children in the UK received at least days of emergency food aid between April and September 2012, with the figure expected to rise to over 200,000 by April 2013." http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/food-banks-trussel-trust-uk-data
167.9 billion pieces of mail were delivered by the USPS in 2011. My God, what would everyone do without the USPS to deliver mail? Could FedEx, UPS, and DHL pick up the slack?
What about when Walmart was delivering bottle water days before FEMA? "If the government doesn't do it, EVERYONE WILL DIE". Great attitude. Meanwhile, there is Welfare before the Welfare State.
NonAntiAnarchist:/I'm done here.. You clearly are satisfied being wrong over and over. I mean this not as an insult, but it just seems overwhelmingly obvious from this thread.
He's completely failed in his efforts here. I feel sorry for him.
Oh really? What was your answer to my first question then? A link to the Wikipedia page on 'Scarcity'? As if that's a great debating tactic bound to wow me. All you do is alienate the people who disagree with you by being facetious. It's hardly any wonder that I can't be bothered anymore.
No, actually the point behind that was to show how completely blind you are. But hey, (intellectually) blind people can rectify their blindness. They just need to understand that they're blind first.
And in case you're wondering, I do consider my first post in this thread to be an appropriate response to yours.