I promised that on Monday I'll tell my ideas about how speculators will destroy the M&S. But to make it understandable, at first I have to talk about the socialists (social-democrats) who want to protect the M&S.
I want to prove that socialism is not a philosophical idea. Philosophies are based on "values", axiomatic ideas that are accepted as "good", but themselves are unmeasurable and unprovable. For example liberals stand on the idea "personal freedom is good" (oversimplification). There is no logical way to choose between such philosophies, the decision is made on the basis of the results the system provides. The peaceful way of the selection is personal choices: "I'm satisfied by the fruits of this philosophy, I support it", the nasty way is ideological war: "this system could build stronger army, so it's better".
From the axiomatic values set of rules can be deduced logically. They manage the everyday life.
Socialists do cite values like solidarity, altruism, equality. From these values a system of sharing is logically derived. If I have more, than I should help the one with less to make us more equal, and also I shouldn't blame him for having less. The technical system for it is tax-welfare: take from the rich and give to the poor. So far so good.
However add aliens to the system: foreigners, immigrants, illegal immigrants. The above values do not differentiate between them and insider people. So if we follow logic, we must distribute the taxed money according to the depth of need the people in. Obviously the disaster victims and the starving Africans would win. However in reality the social-democratic systems distribute the taxed money to citizens who have much-much more than the mentioned ones. Also, immigrants are not equal recipients of the welfare despite they live in the country. On the top of that taxation affects citizens only and social democrats don't even try to tax people living abroad.
If we follow the logic properly we must either include everyone to the re-distribution or add another axioms to explain why we differentiate between citizens and aliens. The first way is walked by communists who did attempted to conquer the whole world, forcing the redistribution everywhere. Their slogan mentioned exactly this point. The second way is to axiomatize that aliens are less of a person, therefore not included into solidarity, altruism, unity. The national-socialists chosen that way. Both are self-consistent philosophies that were not proven to be wrong, they were simply defeated. The national-socialists lost WWII, the communists were abandoned by the people who wanted the higher capitalists life standards.
Unlike communists and national-socialists, the social-democrats are not followers of a different philosophy, they are simply wrong and if they would be rationals, they could easily be defeated by the simple question: "why don't you equally help the poor and unfortunate around the World?" Please note that "I want but can't" is objectively not true as they could send more aid to Africa (at the cost of taxing more or giving less welfare to citizens). Also the "it's not my business" is not true, since accepting that idea would mean to stop all kind of country sized welfare and limit the redistribution to micro-communities (simple example: why do the tax of a Houston businessman goes to a Seattle welfare-recipient but not to a Mexican immigrant in Houston?).
Despite social-democracy is obviously wrong, it's pretty widespread, because it's a psychological symptom. It's the rationalization of being social, being governed by pre-historic subroutines. These subroutines demand to help in-group members as they are likely to have similar genetics while hostile to out-group members who are merely competitors in the race of spreading genes. The social wants to help the "unfortunate" country-mate as he is "one of us", but doesn't want to help the alien as he belongs to "them". Giving money to Africans is "nice" (conspicuous waste, form of show of how rich we are), but not "our duty".
While the social-democracy is logically flawed, its followers cannot be converted as their "beliefs" are merely rationalizations of underlying irrational psychological schemes. Defeating social-democracy cannot be achieved by philosophical talks, as they won't listen and act irrationally like calling anyone questioning their beliefs "evil" (theoretically the speaker being evil does not invalidate his speech). We also can't defeat it as communism was defeated since the people are willing to live on a lower life standard rather than "being evil". Theoretically social-democracy can be cleansed from the planet in a war as a non-welfare capitalist country is stronger and able to form a stronger army, but it needs one country to turn first (which is impossible due to the first 2 reasons).
Monday I'll tell how the negative-sum speculators will destroy this nonsense.
PS: spare me from the social nonsense "we must pay welfare or they commit crimes". If they would be foreigners, you wouldn't hesitate to fight them. But since they are "one of us", harming them - even if they started the violence - sounds terrible to socials. Not to me.
--------------------
Another moron by me. I want your morons too, so send them!
I want to prove that socialism is not a philosophical idea. Philosophies are based on "values", axiomatic ideas that are accepted as "good", but themselves are unmeasurable and unprovable. For example liberals stand on the idea "personal freedom is good" (oversimplification). There is no logical way to choose between such philosophies, the decision is made on the basis of the results the system provides. The peaceful way of the selection is personal choices: "I'm satisfied by the fruits of this philosophy, I support it", the nasty way is ideological war: "this system could build stronger army, so it's better".
From the axiomatic values set of rules can be deduced logically. They manage the everyday life.
Socialists do cite values like solidarity, altruism, equality. From these values a system of sharing is logically derived. If I have more, than I should help the one with less to make us more equal, and also I shouldn't blame him for having less. The technical system for it is tax-welfare: take from the rich and give to the poor. So far so good.
However add aliens to the system: foreigners, immigrants, illegal immigrants. The above values do not differentiate between them and insider people. So if we follow logic, we must distribute the taxed money according to the depth of need the people in. Obviously the disaster victims and the starving Africans would win. However in reality the social-democratic systems distribute the taxed money to citizens who have much-much more than the mentioned ones. Also, immigrants are not equal recipients of the welfare despite they live in the country. On the top of that taxation affects citizens only and social democrats don't even try to tax people living abroad.
If we follow the logic properly we must either include everyone to the re-distribution or add another axioms to explain why we differentiate between citizens and aliens. The first way is walked by communists who did attempted to conquer the whole world, forcing the redistribution everywhere. Their slogan mentioned exactly this point. The second way is to axiomatize that aliens are less of a person, therefore not included into solidarity, altruism, unity. The national-socialists chosen that way. Both are self-consistent philosophies that were not proven to be wrong, they were simply defeated. The national-socialists lost WWII, the communists were abandoned by the people who wanted the higher capitalists life standards.
Unlike communists and national-socialists, the social-democrats are not followers of a different philosophy, they are simply wrong and if they would be rationals, they could easily be defeated by the simple question: "why don't you equally help the poor and unfortunate around the World?" Please note that "I want but can't" is objectively not true as they could send more aid to Africa (at the cost of taxing more or giving less welfare to citizens). Also the "it's not my business" is not true, since accepting that idea would mean to stop all kind of country sized welfare and limit the redistribution to micro-communities (simple example: why do the tax of a Houston businessman goes to a Seattle welfare-recipient but not to a Mexican immigrant in Houston?).
Despite social-democracy is obviously wrong, it's pretty widespread, because it's a psychological symptom. It's the rationalization of being social, being governed by pre-historic subroutines. These subroutines demand to help in-group members as they are likely to have similar genetics while hostile to out-group members who are merely competitors in the race of spreading genes. The social wants to help the "unfortunate" country-mate as he is "one of us", but doesn't want to help the alien as he belongs to "them". Giving money to Africans is "nice" (conspicuous waste, form of show of how rich we are), but not "our duty".
While the social-democracy is logically flawed, its followers cannot be converted as their "beliefs" are merely rationalizations of underlying irrational psychological schemes. Defeating social-democracy cannot be achieved by philosophical talks, as they won't listen and act irrationally like calling anyone questioning their beliefs "evil" (theoretically the speaker being evil does not invalidate his speech). We also can't defeat it as communism was defeated since the people are willing to live on a lower life standard rather than "being evil". Theoretically social-democracy can be cleansed from the planet in a war as a non-welfare capitalist country is stronger and able to form a stronger army, but it needs one country to turn first (which is impossible due to the first 2 reasons).
Monday I'll tell how the negative-sum speculators will destroy this nonsense.
PS: spare me from the social nonsense "we must pay welfare or they commit crimes". If they would be foreigners, you wouldn't hesitate to fight them. But since they are "one of us", harming them - even if they started the violence - sounds terrible to socials. Not to me.
--------------------
Another moron by me. I want your morons too, so send them!
56 comments:
And next up you can tell us why so-called liberals or neo-liberals totally support a worldwide free market and never have protectionist policies or try to back monopolies.
(Interestingly, classical liberals in the UK believed that it wasn't enough to give everyone personal freedom, you had to also make sure that they had an equal opportunity to use it. That's why our welfare state came from liberal thinkers, not socialists.)
My experience with FL and random trade pugs is that it is impossible to wipe. However, I usually ensure that the vehicles used to stack pyrite are manned by people capable of half-intelligent communication; even if it means manning one myself...
By the way killing FL with 0 towers is a huge faceroll even without any usage of pyrite. I simply can't see how can someone fail at there.
(Or maybe I haven't seen everything that can happen in a trade pug)
I usually dont leave comments, but this wery simplified and somewhat inaccurate.
For me, socialist approach is to try and insure everyone has the same starting points - equal access to education, health care and basic social security in case of need.
Now, you are saying it is all derived from taxes - yes it is, but in cases of economic downturn, those who used to pay for it, now derive the benefits.
Look at how France addressed the issue of economic crisis. There was an article in Economist, where they actually acknowledged that the French social net spread actuially helped meliorate the results of the crisis, and while the rebound would not be quick, the depth of the crisis was nowhere near close to what happened in other countries without the safety net.
You can say everyone who is laid off is an M&S, but hey, up until that point they were productive citizens, who gave, in order to take back in time of need.
Next point is immigrants. Let me make it clear from start, im not of them, so i dont have that bias. However, the "developed" world is aging, and its systems of support (pensions and some health systems) are relying on having a decent share of population employed and active in order to generate enough of revenue to support the aging.
Without an influx of young, productive immigrant families, the situation in many countries would be worse in the that regard, rather than being bolstered by their activity.
You cannot take complex issues and just give judgement on a very simlistic split of the world in "us" and "them". The immigrants can often be skilled workers (where developed countries leach on education paid by underdeveloped), or low pay workers who take jobs that domestic population does not want to take.
If you take M&S as your lowest determinant of popluation - those who are a) incapable of work and b) those who dont want to work, you would in reality see that the share of these is actually not that high. You make it sound in your blog as if there are masses of such peope, and a minority of those who actually do something for a living.
I personally think that society should take care of those who are not physically or mentally able to work.
1000 years ago, most people were farmers, and one farmer did not produce much more than he needed for his own family. If one person did not work, it was a huge deal.
In 1900, 1 farmer grew enough to feed 12 people.
In 1960, 1 farmer fed 25 people.
Today, 1 farmer feeds around 130 people.
If one person isn't contributing today, it is not ideal, but it isn't really that big a drain on the rest of us. It isn't like we're giving this person an iPhone.
But if we do nothing to give these lazy people their basic needs, they must turn to crime. Rather than starve to death, they will steal or worse.
Aside from the losses their crimes cause, and the added police, each prisoner costs around $20,000 per year. Ignoring these people is only thinking short term, in the long term it is very expensive.
You have to ask yourself, Gevlon. Will you murder people for being lazy? Because if not, basic welfare (food, shelter, NOT money) is the cheapest way to deal with them.
@Samus: the socials routinely kill people in their way assuming they are not in-group members. Killing a welfare leech seems terrible. Killing an Iraqi is just minor inconvenience. I'm being asocial has the same problem with killing useless welfare-leech as you have with killing Iraqi people.
Are you seriously advocating war as a 'solution'?
Wait, what?
War:
a)Costs money. Why would any non-socialist country care why the socialist country next to them does, as long as they mind their own business? Do you create alts and try to ruin social guilds just because they're 'wrong'?
b) Is strongly negative-sum. A war destroys stuff on both sides.
c) Not only is it negative-sum, modern warfare has the potential of turning all victories into Phyrric victories. Piss someone off hard enough and they will just launch a nuclar/biological/chemical attack on your cities.
War is an irrational solution. It was rational when weapons could kill 1-2 people at a time. When you have weapons that can kill millions, as well as hurt the environment/climate, war becomes the last solution to anything, unless you're certain your opponent is living in the middle ages.
Looking at socialist countries around the world, I don't see as that being the case.
You're losing it, Gevlon. I much rather liked your philosophy of letting people sink or swim based on their own ability.
But advocating active killing becaouse 'they're wrong' is just stupid.
@last Gevlon comment.
Nice 'tu quoque' fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right, and you know it. What the hell happened to the Gevlon I knew?
I don't get this logic.
If non-sociality is better, then every rational person would choose asociality over sociality, since it's better.
If they don't, they're not rational.
However, actively killing someone has NEVER persuaded them to the justness of your cause.
You can't turn an irrational into a rational by waging war on them. They'll just keep being more irrational and crash planes in your buildings.
In the exact defenition of terms social-democracy doesnt excist. I know of no country which actually takes from the rich and give to the poor.
The political weight of money is too big.
In the defenition of an capitalist country I think China is nearest to that. But they´re still in development. (they care about profit, not about human rights etc.)
In point of immigrates, as long as a countra declares unemployment as a problem ("I don´t want do do that job" should get you banned from welfare), they must not get more immigrants. In Germany the new debate is about getting high qualified immigrants because our education-system is broke and the following lack of young engeneers. But ist that caused by the people who want to study but can´t afford it or by government.
Immigration should be a fix when internal human resources are running dry.
Pyrite & FL... ...I´m sorry but I´m a bit shocked every time when I get to hear that a full group can´t make FL normal. We did that one with two vehicles when we were bored and hat nothing to do on a lousy day. I can understand wiping on the HM...
...well in a newbie PuG...
...We did FL unnerfed first try at the first raiday Ulduar appeared (happy times back then).
I mean hello? big pinty red arrow on top of your vehicle and a Big machinery turning into your direction should give you a little clou what to do. (If you ignore the raid message)
I´ve got to watch my M&S guild doing that boss some day...
@Andru: I never promotes wars, nor actively killing people.
One of the social nonsense is what Samus reiterated: we MUST pay welfare or they will commit crime. I say if an M&S comes to rob my house, then "God bless the 2nd" and I won't sleep worse than you sleep because of the dead Iraqies.
Socials would sleep worse as they consider a welfare leech "one of us", while someone from Iraq is "one of them".
Socialism ideas are mostly political and not philosophical ones. They were born at the eves of the french revolution (even before actually, they moved along with the illuminism philosophy) and gave some of the basic thoughts that pushed enraged, poor and hungry people to raise against aristocracy and the king.
When we say socialism, most of us will think at either Karl Marx (who actually envisioned the so colled scientific socialism, which is an economic system, not even a political one) or the former USSR, which based his constitution on a socialist political structure, but was permeated with corruption at every level, beacause having more still means being better (socials, too tied to human nature).
What too many people misses about socialism is his egoistic nature, what made most number of people support it. Socialism was actually something poor people wanted to have, based on the assumption that socially there's no more or less important jobs in a community, thery're all important the same way, therefore having a different economic treatment is unfair. To be exact, also legal treatment was questioned at that time, since rich and nobles actually had more rights than poor people. And this is something that any other existing political system has taken into account, at least they let you think everybody has the same rights.
Altruism is a huge lie in the system, something that was used in many propagandas, but has always been pretty far from the initial thoughts and assumptions that led to the socialism dawn (to be honest I've always seen altruism as a form of egoism, I give you something just because that will make me feel better, not because you need it).
Please, also remember that when socialism was just born, imperialism and nationalism were the biggest competitors (and they've often been in the following years), therefore ideas have always been applied to small communities or at the greates extent to a single nation. If someone had, at that time, the vision of an entire socialist world, they probably didn't dare talking about it publicly.
Political and social structures exists to have rules applied (wether they're good or bad rules) in order to provide everybody a regulated life. Otherwise chaos will reign (not anarchy, chaos, they're two totally different things almost always mistaken. Anarchy is actually the supreme order in which everybody do something because they like doing it and share what they've done with everybody else. In this way everybody have what they need without a currency, without necessarily owning, without even a government. Happyness is something that the work can give, not ownerhips).
The problem of M&S is actually controlled by any existing, existed ot imagined political/philosophical/social system. They exist, have always existed and will always exist because goverments are happy about it, M&S are needed by goverments. They're easy to control.
There's no way to get rid of them. Sure, they damage everybody else life (even among themselves) simply existing, but if you want to be positive, just think about how much fun you can get out of them.
@Samus
People should not be murdered for being lazy. Only for being criminals.
If one chooses to die of hunger because he "cba 2 wrk lulz", that's his own business.
If he tries to take what I've earned, then that makes it my business as well. And something should be done about it. Prison is not the answer. All sorts of thieves and burglars have recidivism rates of above 70%.
Perhaps capital punishment for every crime would be too harsh (some people get better, then there's false convictions etc), but how about capital punishment for any crime committed by someone who has been tried and found guilty at least twice before?
Recidivists are worse than worthless and the currently prevalent human rights bullshit is helping them at the expense of everyone else. Criminals don't deserve any rights - they waived them when they ignored their victim's rights.
Then once we've established a system where people can't consistently live off crime, its relatively safe to stop feeding the leeches. They will either learn to fend for themselves legally or be purged.
If radical action was taken, crime could be halved within 5 years (half of average prison sentence + 3 years (the time period with aforementioned 70+% recidivism rate) regardless of any welfare being provided or not.
P.S. All numbers in this post apply to USA, simply because it was the easiest to get the stats on. I expect that they are loosely applicable to most developed countries.
@Andru
The ones, who profit (and their profit is in form of power, not money, which is just a tool) from wars just can't care less about the total sum being negative.
And also infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. Therefore some major die-off in one form or other is inevitable.
@Gevlon
You mistakenly think I am making a moral argument. I am merely weighing the practical costs of different solutions.
I am not talking about welfare money. I specifically said NOT money. Basic needs are cheap.
Added police and prisons are expensive, and you are a fool if you think that gun makes you 100% safe. The criminal might have a gun too, or you might accidentally shoot a friend or family member, or they might accidentally shoot you.
Don't tell me why it's morally okay, tell me why you think your way is the best/cheapest solution.
Exclusivity is a wonderful thing. Enforcing it, on the other hand, can be difficult, but if done properly, can lead to some amazing achievements with similar-minded people. Often times, the best exclusive groups are the ones that are not well known to the M&S.
Rightfully so, I say!
PS: spare me from the social nonsense "we must pay welfare or they commit crimes". If they would be foreigners, you wouldn't hesitate to fight them. But since they are "one of us", harming them - even if they started the violence - sounds terrible to socials. Not to me.
Gevlon - paying welfare is preventitive while fighting is reactive. The rich or aka Machiavellian goblin is trying to prevent violence towards himself and minimize risk to his body and industry. Sure you can stop welfare and "fight" the M&S but in a nation of laws that can only be done AFTER the violence to body or industry has been done. In the US they use both approaches and tolerate M&S on M&S violence and crime. Once the M&S violence/crime spills into Goblin neighborhoods the reaction is swift, overwhelming, and highly visible.
That these aforementioned Goblin measures are co-opted or missapplied is a result of fellow Goblins trying to win favor of the voting M&S. Think of it like the AH where you have a Goblin who is selling glyphs for 300g and another Goblin comes and sells the same glyphs for 10g. The 300g Goblins sells it at that price because he can and requires less effort to make good G/hr. The 10g goblin sells at his price because he knows he can get more G/hr selling glyphs to M&S and drive 300g goblin out of business. The 10g goblin has harmed 300g goblin and helped the M&S because there is personal profit in it for him. So now Mr 300g goblin becomes Mr 7.5g goblin selling lower in order to get more M&S business than Mr. 10g goblin.
The Goblin advocating welfare policies to get votes does so knowing that when he gets into power his personal fortunes will rise, but to get to power he needs to boot another Goblin out. So Goblins battle for power by trying to get votes which means pandering to the M&S in order to get their votes. Perhaps this, more than any other reason, is why M&S get boosted in real life. Sometimes Goblins can do stupid things for selfish and shortsighted reasons when solely motivated by personal profit.
@Samus: simple, give one leech welfare and soon you'll get two (either by having kids, or by another low-paid worker says "I won't work 10 hours in a dirty job to get 15K when I can get 10K for nothing")
On the other hand imprisonment or being shot surely not make them multiply. True, they multiply DESPITE it, but at least we don't actively spread them.
You can't turn an irrational into a rational by waging war on them. They'll just keep being more irrational and crash planes in your buildings.
That´s religion (fanatics) and not basic "value" system. A "value" -system usually can´t produce suicidecommandos... ...the honor code in Japan WWII was an almost religious cult, same to the Circle of the SS in Germany.
It´s been some time since we had some serious trouble with Nazis in Germany. Same to Monarchs in Japan oh yes and same in Germany (WWI).
@Gevlon
Okay, I'll give you real numbers.
We HAVE welfare now. Anyone who is going to do like you say and slack off to take the welfare is doing it already.
There are 4 million people on welfare, who are getting about $150 a month, for a total of about $7.2 billion a year.
If we stop welfare completely, and only 1 in 10 (or 400k total) wind up in prison, it would cost $8 billion a year.
It is no different than giving foreign aid to a country rather than invading them, not because they deserve aid but because wars are expensive.
You can't turn an irrational into a rational by waging war on them. They'll just keep being more irrational and crash planes in your buildings.
That´s religion (fanatics) and not basic "value" system. A "value" -system usually can´t produce suicidecommandos... ...the honor code in Japan WWII was an almost religious cult, same to the Circle of the SS in Germany.
It´s been some time since we had some serious trouble with Nazis in Germany. Same to Monarchs in Japan oh yes and same in Germany (WWI).
But when those fanatics have atomic bombs or missiles then what? Goblins are everywhere even in the "fanatic" society. Rulers and leaders are in power because they are goblins or propped up by the goblins. And if we simplistically look at what happens on the AH when two Goblins do battle, and extrapolate that behvior to real life, bad things happen. I believe a true Goblin is motivated by something other than "monetary profit" or power. Profit and power as a sole measuring stick to establish "Goblin-ness" is more harmful to society than any misguided altruism that boosts the M&S. Goblins, because they control an abundance of resources and power, are capable of unleashing a tremendous amount of violence and chaos. The wars that have plagued mankind were not started by the M&S - they were started by Goblins. M&S as defined in this blog, are incapable of starting a war - they lack the motivation and resources to do so. The only way an M&S can ever wage war is if they are supported by the Goblins within their power structure - the "king makers".
A true Goblin is trying to create a stable power structure because that is what eventually leads to a society with the least amount of M&S, helps perpetuate the Goblin philosophy, promotes knowledge/science, and maximizes profit; profit being defined not just in monetary terms but in social terms as well (happiness, self actualization, etc). And the cohesiveness of a stable society with the maximum amount of enlightened goblins will be of great value against an unforseen threat or undefined disaster.
Any goblin who uses profit or power as the only yard stick to measure success creates more M&S and chaos. Perhaps we also need to start categorizing Goblins into different stratas? Hob-goblin are greedy bastards who could care less about social stability and perpetuating goblin philosophy - money and power is the only measure of success and their activities undermine society. The simple Goblin wants to maximize his time and money; he doesn't destabalize society or create addtional M&S. The Ultra-Goblin seeks to create a stable society and perpetuate goblin philosophy because therein lies the greatest benefit to himself and his fellow goblin and creates the most favorable Goblin to M&S ratio.
Or maybe this whole "Goblin" thing is self-indulgent and full of crap. =)
Gevlon, I would like to see your opinion on the beginning of the German constitution "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar" (official translation "Human dignity shall be inviolable", I'd translate it "the dignity of every human being is inviolable").
It is a great concept, but sadly we as a race don't live by it. Not even Germany as a country really lives by it, because it differentiates between "us" and "them" granting aliens not the same dignity as the people already living in Germany.
Giving welfare to at least the M&S in its own borders, is an expression of human dignity. It really doesn't matter if anyone is too lazy to work or whatever his excuse is to not earn enough money to provide for himself. Every human being has the right to not to starve only for that: being a human.
And in that way the former communist and national-socialist countries you mentioned were actually proven to be wrong. They cared even less about human dignity than democratic countries now do.
@Visalyar: 'You can't turn an irrational into a rational by waging war on them. They'll just keep being more irrational and crash planes in your buildings.'
The solution to that problem is to exterminate them, not placate them.
However, Gevlon wasn't talking specifically about religious whackos, nor did he specifically advocate waging war on anyone. What he is saying is that we should take the M&S free ride away and let them starve. If they turn to crime rather than starve quietly, then we kill them.
Paying welfare to keep them from becoming criminals is literally tribute. Like the danegeld paid to the viking raiders to keep them from sacking towns, it doesn't solve the actual problem. The M&S demand their welfare payments and threaten to attack us if they don't get them. If anyone else did that, we would call it a protection racket and try to throw them in prison (see: Mafia), but because it's lazy, useless M&S doing it, we say 'oh those poor unfortunate souls, we must help them.' Piss on that. Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute.
@Visalyar
Don't take it literally. Replace 'planes' with 'radio-commanded car bombs'.
Irrationality isn't found only in religious fanaticism.
@Jana
That is precisely why democracies don't go to war, and oligocracies and autocracies do. It's a lot easier to want more power and get it when you don't risk losing it all at the whim of public opinion.
Also, infinite growth can be supported on a planet. Either through a technological singularity, or escape to the stars. It's reasonably assumed that Earth is close to both.
It's not relevant though. The population boom slowed down and reversed in developed countries already. Rising per capita GDP is the best anti-population measure one can have.
The desire to help others is an "ape-subroutine from prehistoric times", as you would put it. In other words, it's a part of fundamental human nature. And just like with all other basic human urges, it's not something that can be overcome by rational debate or effectively banned by law.
In the big picture, professional beggars and charity organizations serve a purpose not entirely unlike that of prostitutes: they provide the rest of society with an outlet to indulge their prehistoric desire (in this case, the desire to help their fellow apes) at a fairly reasonable cost.
And yes, just like all other ape-subroutines, the urge to help can be easily abused by inscrupulous people. Politicians, journalists and advertisers of all stripes are always eager to take advantage of our primordial desires to feed, to mate, to be safe and accepted. Why should the desire to help others be exempt from this leeching?
@Samus: I don't question that. I say paying 8B now is better than paying 7B for something that will escalate and will be 9B next year.
@Bryksom: how do you measure "dignity"? If I say "starving to death does not affect dignity" how can you disprove me?
@Ephemeron: violence is also a pre-historic subroutine and we defeated it by "rational debate or effectively banned by law". Of course it's not completely defeated. But in enlightened societies, most people don't become violence victim often. I don't claim that we can completely destroy sociality. But we can limit it to the level of murderers and robbers.
@Samus
Most people would be happy to only give welfare recipients what they absolutely needed to survive: food, clothing, shelter from elements. But actually, welfare recipients w/o jobs do have nice cellpones, cars, cable TV, jewlry, etc.
Furthermore, these welfare leeches still commit crimes b/c they want more jewlry, drugs, etc. And even worse, b/c they DO NOT HAVE TO WORK, they have plenty of free time to do more drugs, and cause more trouble for the rest of us. Plus they cost the healthcare system insanely huge amounts of money, and spread diseases like HIV, Hep C, etc.
@Andru: "Irrationality isn't found only in religious fanaticism."
Well yes, but defeating a social system is far easier than defeating a religion-kind ideal. You can correct the believers but not the fanatics, thats all I wanted to say.
And in iraq and afghanistan it is more a religious war than a war between nations. And 9/11 was not an aggresive act by another nation or social system, but by some fanatics.
@Sjonnar: sorry didn´t mak clear the first passage was a quote.
"Paying welfare to keep them from becoming criminals is literally tribute. Like the danegeld paid to the viking raiders to keep them from sacking towns, it doesn't solve the actual problem."
Thats a very interesting comparison...
...I think I´ll quote that some times...(positive)
"What he is saying is that we should take the M&S free ride away and let them starve. If they turn to crime rather than starve quietly, then we kill them."
This solution could get us into "war?" with M&S. Since I saw the newest "ways" of blizz I fear that we could loose there (35% buff, smaller skilltrees, tooltips for blind ones erasing class quests, etc.). But we still can see how far the first step gets us.
1st thing : congratulations for mentioning nazis and soviets in a non-passionate way. They're interesting subjects or examples when people don't spill their guts on the matter.
Then, about your PS : I think reality proves it wrong. It's something quite established that some criminality is highly correlated with the lack of wealth of some people/families. But anyway : this is not the only reason for welfare and it should be kept in mind that a poor person who receives welfare doesn't become a rich person.
Another subject related to welfare is health. Some more capitalistic countries (USA among others) have treated the issue of health as a personal issue while other countries (France) have considered that health is a matter of public interest. As France became more capitalistic since 2007 (more expensive access to doctors and drugs) we now have 25% of the population who declares postponing/cancelling medical and dental services due to the cost. This could be considered as "normal" from a capitalistic point of view but it's viewed as "bad" from a social perspective.
On the matter of helping other countries vs. helping our citizens : we expect some return from the welfare spent on our citizens. By the way, food stamps generate huge returns since they are reinvested so quickly in the economy so they only cost about 1/4th of what they're worth. Also, people who need welfare might be more numerous than what you think in places that you wouldn't have imagined : see here.
Gevlon, you are ignoring pragmatic aspects of wealth redistribution. Many of today's leading economists argue that you can redistribute wealth in a way that is a positive gain for the economy as a whole.
This applies to stimulus packages during economic recovery, public sponsored health care, mandatory unemployment insurance and more.
The number of people on welfare has gone down, not up. It peaked in the mid 90s at around 11.5 million and has been going down ever since to the 4 million we have now.
Welfare has been around for decades. No one is just now saying "people get free money with welfare? I had no idea! I need to get on that!" Whatever "make people lazy" effect has already happened.
It is only $150 a month. Most Americans wouldn't even know how to feed themselves on that little, it is clearly not enough to afford the cell phones, jewelry, etc. that some people assume out of ignorance and/or racism. Besides, I only wanted to get them food, shelter and other basic necessities directly, not any cash.
And welfare is embarrassing. It is the real life equivalent of wearing questing greens. What you are saying is like saying "if he can have questing greens for free, he won't bother to do dungeons or raids!"
No. His social mind won't be satisfied with that. You have epics, so he must have epics. You have the car/cell phone/jewelry, so he must have that too. There are only very few people who can ignore that "ape subroutine" and be content with poverty.
I think you are being anti-social rather than asocial here Gevlon. You should not care what happens to these lazy people, good or bad. Will they die? Will they have all their dreams come true? It makes no difference to you, only cost.
It costs me $25 a year for this very effective crime prevention method, that has been around for decades and not had any of the bad effects you predict. Do not tell me another way is "right," that is social thinking. Tell me a cheaper way if you have it.
Gevlon you are seriously missing the whole point of socialism and ‘killing’ the M&S that demand welfare payments.
Goblins understand people and understand how to organise other people and make money from their labour. Very few millionaires and NO billionaires have ever been able to get rich without employee’s. Workers (even highly educated ones) however are generally not good at organising people so they work for goblins.
Due to the demands of business workers are inherently unstable financially. Employers pay them the bare minimum wages that they can get away with and if it becomes cheaper to outsource or automate their role they will fire them. Without a financial safety net (the welfare state) these workers are fucked.
If these people feel they have nothing to lose they will revolt. In fact every revolution in history has started because the working class was squeezed to harshly… and it doesn’t matter how smart or hard working those goblins are if outnumbered 99 to 1 they will lose and die. The vast majority of people who maintain the world’s infrastructure are NOT goblins they are M&S.
The fact of the matter is that the goblins who control 50% of the worlds wealth comprise of just 1% of the population. They are seriously outnumbered by the rest of us.
The welfare state is a system designed to stave of revolutions by the working class nothing else.
Also a politics question for Gevlon.
Most of your views on welfare, socialism and M&S seem to mirror those of the American Tea Party.
Would you support such an organisation in your own country?
Regarding "Give them welfare of they will commit crimes"
Sorry but no.
The notion that Welfare keeps poor people from becoming criminals is absurd.
Government run Welfare is simply a system that enables the lazy to be lazy. Those who receive government welfare generally need not demonstrate even a half-assed willingness to work to get off welfare, they can simply veg out and get their checks for years without having to put forth much if any effort. (Note: this changed a little bit in the US when Republican legislators made a few reforms in the 90s).
On the other hand, living a life of crime to meet your needs comes at great personal risk of injury, and requires a lot of effort to make it profitable. If you end up stealing anything but cash you have a new problem...grocery stores don't take jewelry or TVs as payment you know.
I'd hazard to say that holding a steady job, even if its at or near minimum wage is easier and would net you a higher stream of income than cat burglary and stick-em ups.
If you are really interested in reducing criminal activity then point your attentions to the absurdity of prohibition(re: drug war).
@cheezewhizz
As nitpicky as it gets, but I can't help myself:
Tiger Woods became a billionaire solely through playing golf.
Of course he didn't do it completely alone, but having an agent doesn't really constitute being able to organize people.
@Andru
I had to wait for all the arguments, that was used here, to get used, prior to this reply. Now, it can be proven by the comments alone.
"However, actively killing someone has NEVER persuaded them to the justness of your cause."
On the contrary, it actually did it many-many times in history, and it's exactly the way used right now by the legions of welfare leeches. Feed the useless, give out welfare, and they won't rob or kill you. Justness of the case of socialists had been proven to the world by the serial killers and mass robberies.
"You can't turn an irrational into a rational by waging war on them."
But you sure can stop them from bothering you with it.
You 2 man FL. Even with 8 monkeys in your team, how the fuck do you manage to fuck it up that badly?
@Grim
Tiger Wood's has an estimated net wealth of $600 million. This makes him very wealthy but not a billionaire.
@cheeswhiz
I'm sorry but you're completely wrong. There far fewer welfare recipients than there are people who will never be on welfare. The lack of welfare would never be considered as something that squeezes the middle class.
@samus
People w/o jobs get a lot more than 150/month in welfare, especially when they have nothing to do all day except have ten kids. If you think they dont' have jewelry, cell phones, etc., then you obviously have never met too many inner city welfare recipients. The first thing they buy w/ the welfare check is jewlery (or drugs), then they complain they need more money for food . . . except that half the time they're obese.
And oh yeah, do you have any idea how many patient's I've seen that get disability (which is a lot of money) b/c they're "too fat to work"?
Your analysis of "Welfare is protection money" is wrong, since welfare does almost nothing to improve criminal rates. Indeed, the whole "Poor people must have money or they resort to crime" is a false dichotomy.
I will use my country, Brazil, as an example. About 40 million people live off welfare right now in Brazil, about 20% of the population. It increased about 4x since 2001 (was about 10million then), and thus poverty rates had a very sharp decline, we have about 50% less poor people right now. However, homicide rates have increased about 60% in average in that same period, and people stealing things, more than doubled!
There are immediate measures that reduce crime rates, such as more policing or better juridical institutions (ie., making the law be applied), or long-term actions, specially in more affirmative cultural actions, or better education.
Most of the positive criminal effects that can be seen from welfare are indeed a result of those. Believing that welfare is the solution for crime is childish, and a very dangerous mindset, since many robbers indeed are mid-high class people, that see crime as an easy or thrilling way to get revenue, or do that "for fun".
On the other hand, M&S "cba to plan my heist lol" and will most likely be shot, arrested or both. Seeing all criminals as morons, however, is stupid, and indeed we should hardly care about moronic criminals.
It is hard to have a rational arguement with people who think that german socialism and communism is the typical socialist model.
Socialism believes that the state must act where the market fails. The state has a role in every single government in the western world including America and yet you seem have an obsession with Nazis and Communisms which is to put it mildly not intelligent.
You also seem oblivious to the fact that socialism and the market can and does work together.
Your examples of America(USA) being the pinacle of success of the free market is ludicrous far right nonsense. The USA comsumes the worlds resources (as do the majority of the west) out of any proportion to need or fairness. The far right ideal use of the market system unfairly penalises the poor under valuing their labour and disproportionately taxing them. The far right believes in low taxes only for themselves.
Welfare varies state by state in the US, but averages $500 per month per person (both money and food assistance are considered here). This isn't munificent, but I could (and have) lived on less.
Gevlon is right - pay the Danegeld and you will never be rid of the Dane.
Do you as a tax payer benefit from welfare?
As I have said before the vast majority of your readers benefit from state welfare. They get their education paid for, their security (police and army) paid for and medical needs helped with if needed. Which of these do you wish to take away?
Gevlon, do your really think that the 'English Poor Laws' were so great?
" @Samus: simple, give one leech welfare and soon you'll get two (either by having kids, or by another low-paid worker says "I won't work 10 hours in a dirty job to get 15K when I can get 10K for nothing")"
It's easy to say that, but if you know anything about the people who are actually on welfare (at least in my part of the US), it is quickly shown to be inaccurate.
For the most part, the people who stay on welfare indefinitely are people who really do not have the mental or physical capacity to hold down a job.
And then there are the huge numbers of people on welfare who are on it for a few months to a couple years for any number of temporary reasons. Would it be better if these people had planned their lives better to avoid becoming dependent? Or if they had family to take care of them instead of the state? Maybe. But I'm not willing to consign them to starvation because of their failures.
As Samus says, even from a completely asocial, goblin point of view, it is *cheaper* to pay for a moderate level of social welfare than it is to imprison such people, or to protect yourself from the kind of lawlessness that would be rampant in the absence of any social safety net.
Also, knowing that the worst that can happen from a failed venture is some time of dependency while you put your life back together, rather than death by starvation or the rest of your life in debtor's prison is a huge business innovation incentive. It's hard to take risks, even very profitable ones, when losing puts your life on the line.
The reason I have no sympathy with people who refuse to take risks to make gold in wow, yet bitch about some of us making thousands per day easily is that there is very little penalty for being wrong. all it takes is a few dailies to get back on your feet and get started again.
Yes there will always be a few slackers who prey on the system, but there are a lot more of these folks mooching off mommy, daddy, grandma, or bosses who don't realize they are worthless than there are on welfare.
How do we handle store theft? Gas (petrol) drive off? and other stealing not from people but from places? Should the gas pump have a missile launcher on it to blow up the car that just pumped and ran? Shoulde the bagger at the store have a glock to gun down shoplifters?
I agree that we have to do something better that just giving them money to sit at home and reproduce and but killing them.... I cannot accept that. I was in the Navy and our pay was so low at lower ranks that is you had a wife and kid you also got welfare just to make ends meet until you made rank (E-5+) or got out and got a job in the privet sector. Would you cut those people of?
@tweell
You state that if you pay the Dane geld you will never be rid of the Dane… but do you honestly think that reducing the welfare state will get rid of poor people? And if we did let poor people starve in the streets do you really think they would accept it and die peacefully?
You are also forgetting the fact that the vast majority of the world does not follow a western democratic model.
By removing the poor from our societies we also remove the soldiers needed to protect our nations from those that would invade and TAKE that wealth by force.
I think the comparison between M&S in game and M&S in real life is flawed. Despite your best efforts, you won't get rid of them from the general populace and pickups, since they are equally entitled to play the game; they pay the same $15 a month you do. Sure you can avoid them: It's called guild-only runs. I have this feeling you are just seeing if you can get the same guild feeling (camaradarie, cohesion, and skill) in pick up groups. You can't.
Your ideas are sound. The reason many don't "get it" is because they try to fit a conservative society into the existing liberal governments. This will never work.
Until the government of a nation turns away from the tax/welfare system the society itself cannot change. This would never happen peacefully. Since the socials don't want to fight with each other it never happens.
The socials WILL fight to gain socialism though, that has happened many times. Even the American revolution was a fight to advance closer to Socialism from the state it was in before.
ALL societies in the past several thousand years of human history have eventually degraded into Socialism of some kind, followed soon after by total collapse.
As long as there are people who believe it is a "duty" to support others we will have socialism. Which means... forever.
The ideal of "You only have what you have spent time and energy to get. If you don't spend the time and energy for what you want then you will have nothing." is a dream that can never happen if socials are more than a very small minority in the society.
Some talk of personal freedom and the freedom to use it. This means nothing more than the choice to live under a bridge if you want or to have only garbage to eat. It does not mean the freedom to do whatever you wish and have others provide your life support. It also means you have the freedom to live in a huge mansion with lots of cars and swimming pools if you are willing to go get them. It should not mean you have to share with anyone else who was not willing to spend the effort of working to get them.
I doubt I will ever see such a society (large enough to be considered a nation) on this planet before I expire. This saddens me.
Heh, we 2-man FL when it comes up as the weekly. 1 Warrior to drive (mostly ICC gear, no HM gear), 1 Mage for turrets (no gear past Ulduar, I changed to Pally main). We reverse to my Pally driving and his badge gear Boomkin and do it again. You'd need a LOT of scrubs to wipe on him.... in any gear.
"paying welfare is preventitive while fighting is reactive."
Complete and total BS.
Paying welfare is for one thing and one thing only: It makes me feel better about myself.
If you really want to help them, help them learn a trade or get a job. If you want them to be poor tomorrow so you can "feel good about yourself" again then give them welfare.
Also, a common myth in the thread seems to be that welfare means "money". Government housing is welfare, food stamps are welfare, the cable and color TV from so-called 'subsistence checks' are welfare.
I am all for keeping someone alive if they really don't want to die. I'll gladly support bread and water. Beyond that, no. It's welfare.
Bobbins said...
"... Socialism believes that the state must act where the market fails. The state has a role in every single government in the western world including America ..."
You are correct. Hence the reason America is sliding back closer to the rest of the world in the last 50 years.
The American government is way too big and tries to do too much. Smaller government, that DID NOT act when the market failed would create better markets in the long run.
If you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you subsidize a behavior, you will get more of that behavior. We subsidize single women with children in the US, and our marriage rate has been dropping ever since then. When welfare was changed to provide a maximum total rather than a lifetime in the 90's, it was supposed to spell the end for hundreds of thousands of deserving citizens. Strange - by subsidizing that behavior less, we got less of it. When theories meet facts that invalidate them, why do people cling to their false beliefs?
"The poor we will always have with us." This is true by definition. They may be much better off than the poor of a hundred years ago, but they're still poor.
Don't try emotional arguments, prove me wrong with facts! (Good luck!)
@Anonymous
'The American government is way too big and tries to do too much. Smaller government, that DID NOT act when the market failed would create better markets in the long run.'
I agree. I find it incredibly bizzare that the USA props up wealthy individuals using the taxes from poorer people. Kind of like an inverse welfare system I suppose.
With regard to your views on Socials and the inherent unchanging nature, you and your readers might find this recent research interesting.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm
Although research of this type is naturally met with a degree of scepticism it is not the first link between dopamine levels and behaviour within a social environment.
Samus seems right here -- why does Gevlon care what happens to the welfare leeches -- prison is more expensive than welfare, better for me if there is welfare.
Sidenote: Samus also made me think of an interesting point -- if being on welfare is actually the equivalent of getting questing greens for free, the only people who would choose welfare and not try to get out if it are in two groups.
One: M&S, idiots or lazy people who can't get out.
Two: asocial people who don't want more than questing greens.
As an asocial, if you were content with no vanity items, no convenience items, seems like you would be very happy with welfare.
Do you have any idea what 'liberalism' is? It's just the concept of the social contract, outlined by Thomas Hobbes (and later expanded by Montesquieu, Locke, and Rousseau)
Your very (lack of) knowledge of socialism and liberalism shows that you should stick to economics and not philosophy, because philosophy can't be boiled down to economic terms, and you're a far better economist than philosopher.
@cheezewhiz
Jay Gould, one of the richest men in American history, observed that "I can hire one half the working class to kill the other half." Saying that "the welfare state is a system designed to stave of revolutions by the working class nothing else" is as much an oversimplification as anything Gevlon has said.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled deconstruction of Utopian socialism.
Post a Comment