Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Work and Welfare

Page: 1 2(3)4

17:05 / 02.05.03

because in your world resources are not finite, people do not die and difficult decisions do not have to be made.....because these are all done out of your bloody sight in countries far away so that you can sit here with you f**king computer in comfort that is bought on the backs of others.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:17 / 02.05.03

Hang on...I'm momentarily confused. How do you organize a mass cull with dignity? Supply nibbles?

17:22 / 02.05.03

How about addressing what I have posted rather than making flippant comments?

I have. Repeatedly. But none of them are relevant, by definition. We know that a criticism of Leaptopia isn't valid, because it is a criticism. And it can always be rebutted by invoking dignity, modesty and EDUCATION.

On a more serious note, I am genuinely interested in people's views on work and welfare, as stated in the abstract. I guess that lots of people here see problems in the current system, but I'd be interested in what comments and criticisms people have of the Basic Income idea. Is such a notion a natural consequence of Human rights? Its a vain hope, but we might return to normal service...

22:21 / 02.05.03

Leap:

Yes. Where would you have them go?

As I have repeatedly pointed out, I am not complicit in the LeapTopia scenario, so this would not be my concern. If I Ruled The World, I would not remove the welfare system, so the 3% would continue to enjoy a basic existence within our society; I would therefore not be faced with the problem of relocating them (or their corpses).

Again, what would you have happen?

Again, I'm not the one proposing the LeapTopian Solution; as I appear to have to inform you repeatedly, I'd have opted for a welfare system which would ensure that disposing of that 3% would not be my problem.

I accept that mass culling may happen, although I fail to see why bedlam and rape would manifest in a society that is based on the idea of human dignity

Because your "society that is based on the idea of human dignity" effectively excludes from 'humanity' that 3% whose disabilities render them incapable of supporting themselves within that society: once resources are exhausted (as decided, naturally, by the charitable giver(s)), they are to be denied food, shelter, education, medical care; as non-workers, they are to be considered "unworthy" of a position within society, a burden. They are to be exiled (somewhere), slaughtered (with "dignity", of course), allowed to scavenge, starve, rot and die.

Essentially, this 3% becomes a sub-underclass, sub-human even. Having dehumanised them to this degree - and having failed to suggest any way to address their situation other than saying communities and individuals might treat them however they wished - there's relatively little to stop any 'legitimate' member of society raping, mutilating, killing them for sport. Dehumanise one section of humanity to a sufficient degree and torturing them becomes easy: not my opinion, but the findings of social psychologists the world over - the good old Power of Context again. With no fear of any legal retribution (I mean, it's not like these dregs are entitled to rights or anything)why wouldn't one play with them a little before killing them? They're mere vermin, aren't they? Generally "unworthy"? Where's my shotgun again? Shoulder or kneecap?

These are the consequences of your posited society, Leap.

23:42 / 02.05.03

I think you might have issues if you are into playing with vermin.

I rarely see the homeless haggled on the street, in fact it's usually the other way around. I don't mean to sound mean, these are just observations.

on what to do about the unemployed. Offer them jobs. There's so much work that needs to be done in this country, just make jobs to get those things done and hire people. It would cost a lot of tax dollars but it would be better than just welfare. And if they are single parents, then provide free childcare or jobs that don't require them to leave the house (whatever those might be).

23:59 / 02.05.03

Yes, Adamant, but if you actually read the genesis of this thread, you'll realise we're not talking about the homeless and/or unemployed under the present system, but the 3% of society who are, by dint of permanent physical or psychological disability, incapable of working to support themselves - in Leap's (thankfully) theoretical model of a society in which all support is withdrawn from that 3% and they are either exiled (he hasn't yet told us where), culled or simply left to scavenge as best they can (the ones that are physically mobile, presumably), or die a lingering death from exposure, disease, or malnutrition.

The fact that it's considered acceptable to exile, starve or slaughter this 3% effectively dehumanises them, so they become more akin to vermin, or human litter - a straightforward disposal problem.

And yes, I expect some of the more physically able might go down 'haggling'...

01:44 / 03.05.03

lol
sorry I hadn't kept up. Why make this about the 3% that can't work? There's no point. Just cause some wacko thinks they should be culled or exiled... well that's no reason to discuss it. Really, it's not a defensible position. Oh well, moving on to different threads.

06:35 / 03.05.03

Guess the "wacko" feels it is morally defensible...

The Natural Way

10:27 / 03.05.03

Yeah, but how long are you going to keep it up 'nesh? I think if Leap truly believes exiling/culling/etc people is preferable to and less "dehumanising" than paying taxes....well....I suggest he might be impossible to persuade. It's such an extreme position right from the get-go.

He's a frightening idealist and I don't want to know anymore.

11:04 / 03.05.03

I know what you're saying, Runce, and I agree. I guess I just wanted to actually pin him down on the specifics of what would become of that unfortunate subgroup, as he was doing such a good job of glossing over that particular aspect of LeapTopian idealogy. Now he actually has admitted that that blameless 3% would either be starved, exiled or slaughtered outright - and he considers this a morally acceptable alternative to paying taxes - there's probably little more to be said. Different moral compass, different yardstick of "humanity". I'll happily bow out of this discussion now.

Regrettable Juvenilia

17:48 / 05.05.03

I'm more with Runce here, as you might guess. I keep being sucked back into it, but "loony from the get-go" seems a fair and accurate assessment. Once you have someone literally saying "mass culling may happen... in a society that is based in the idea of human dignity" and then implying that to disagree is to live in an ivory tower and be afraid of making the necessary hard decisions, I think it's best to throw in the towel.

There's also the problematic way that LeapTopia has skewed the terms of the debate so that people who might object the current set-up in the UK or another western nation state, on the grounds that it actually marginalises and oppresses the very people Leap seems to think are living an easy life off the backs of honest taxpayers, are put in the position of defending the system as it exists. Which I think is where Mister Disco's post comes in, as a counter-balance to that.

08:14 / 06.05.03

Haus –

Hang on...I'm momentarily confused. How do you organize a mass cull with dignity? Supply nibbles?

Small cheesy biscuits mostly. Although dips could be laid on with sufficient acts of charity.

Ganesh –

If I Ruled The World, I would not remove the welfare system, so the 3% would continue to enjoy a basic existence within our society; I would therefore not be faced with the problem of relocating them (or their corpses).

And how would you deal with a world that is vastly overpopulated (and rising)?

your "society that is based on the idea of human dignity" effectively excludes from 'humanity' that 3% whose disabilities render them incapable of supporting themselves within that society: once resources are exhausted (as decided, naturally, by the charitable giver(s)), they are to be denied food, shelter, education, medical care; as non-workers, they are to be considered "unworthy" of a position within society, a burden. They are to be exiled (somewhere), slaughtered (with "dignity", of course), allowed to scavenge, starve, rot and die.

As opposed to Ganesh world where resources are never limited, populations never too high, and indeed people all too willing to submit their own judgement to a central controlling agency who “know better than all the ignorant peasants” [Paraphrase from you attitude of “Govt is necessary because people cannot do things by their own judgement” rather than quoted]. Would you deny that this is your stance, and if so, how have I misunderstood you?

If a lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity you do not try to carry more folks than can be held without it sinking; and you certainly do not pack it with people who cannot actually row! You would feel so guilty that you pack the boat with more than can be carried (and in doing so sink the boat).

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:17 / 06.05.03

No, people who cannot row are never allowed onto lifeboats.

See what I mean?

09:34 / 06.05.03

you certainly do not pack it with people who cannot actually row!

So then when they say, "Women and children first!" they mean women who can row in the boat, all the other ladies and all the kids overboard?

09:55 / 06.05.03

Yes.

I can see none of you have probably EVER been in a position where you have to choose who can live and who can die.

Those of you who are parents think on this.

You are on a plane with your two infants, the plane starts to crash and you have only one parachute with the ability to save yourself and one child. Do you:

1. Put the parachute on and jump leaving both behind?
2. Put the parachute on jump with which ever child is best placed to survive both the drop and longterm?
3. Put the parachute on and gather both children, plummeting to your death and theirs because the parachute is overloaded?
4. Sit in the plane, uncertain of what to do, and all dying in the resulting crash?

10:44 / 06.05.03

Options 3 and 4 would gain you Darwin Awards, whilst so would option 1 would kind of fail the test of time (as your offspring would find survival rather challenging if that was you attitude).

Which leaves option 2.

And of course if anyone thinks that THAT is an easy answer is clearly talking out of their arse. That does not however stop it from being the sensible one.

Hattie's Kitchen

11:31 / 06.05.03

That's easy, just decide which child you love more. Or pick the child you think is least likely to turn into a slapper. Yeah. Dead simple.

Sheesh...

11:37 / 06.05.03

I'm not even a parent, and I can answer that.

I put the parachute on the older child, instruct them to hold on to their sibling as hard as they can then push them both out of the plane, sacrificing myself for their future.

Simple.

Funny how that option never came up in the choices...

And Leap, you are probably right that we have never been in a situation where we have to decide who lives and who dies. And speaking for myself, I would never want to be.

That doesn't invalidate our arguments though.

11:39 / 06.05.03

So I take it you responded to the voices in your head rather than what I actually posted?

11:45 / 06.05.03

Lullaboozler –

First: for info, my other post was a response to Hatties Kitchen (what do you know, no one answers for a while then two come at once!).

Second: I put the parachute on the older child, instruct them to hold on to their sibling as hard as they can then push them both out of the plane, sacrificing myself for their future.

Funny how that option never came up in the choices...

I specifically said infants to cover the idea that we are talking about those who cannot help themselves.

Funny how that point was missed by yet more selective reading….

And Leap, you are probably right that we have never been in a situation where we have to decide who lives and who dies. And speaking for myself, I would never want to be.

Last time I checked, mother nature did not give a f**k about whether you want to be. Such is life.

12:26 / 06.05.03

I specifically said infants

I know you did. I've been following this thread too long to generalise.

to cover the idea that we are talking about those who cannot help themselves

You never said *that*. And if we are talking about infants who cannot look after themselves, then the few kilos they weigh isn't going to cause the parachute to fail if I take both of them.

Last time I checked, mother nature did not give a f**k about whether you want to be. Such is life.

I never said it did. I understand the random nature of life - and can live with it. Doesn't mean I WANT to be in certain situations though. Also, you didn't address how not ever being in such a situation invalidated arguments based on it.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:09 / 06.05.03

I can see none of you have probably EVER been in a position where you have to choose who can live and who can die.

So are we to glean from this that you have been in such a position, Leap? (AD&D doesn't count.) What an utterly terrifying prospect...

14:28 / 06.05.03

Lulboozler –

You never said *that*. And if we are talking about infants who cannot look after themselves, then the few kilos they weigh isn't going to cause the parachute to fail if I take both of them.

I keep getting yelled at for apparently picking on the helpless, yet have said repeatedly that I only oppose welfare to the unremittingly feckless (those who CAN work but who REFUSE to and would rather SPONGE). Charity to those who CANNOT work (or indeed to those who either have had an incidence of ill-luck and who will not simply sponge from what they are given but who actually will make use of it to rebuild their self-support or those who have fallen on such and will probably here-after need support), I then go on to say, should be given charity by the individual based upon the givers judgement of whether prospective receiver is either feckless or helpless and as to whether they the giver can afford to give.

The point I was making here is that regarding the limitation of resources – we cannot necessarily save everyone and when seeking to do so in a situation where we cannot is mostly likely going to lead to failure for a great many more than if we ‘simply’ (!) either let them die or killed them ourselves. Picking apart the technicality of the metaphor is missing the point.

Because I point all this out, on a board given over in the majority to left-of-centre idealists, I am thought a monster, when in fact I am only a pragmatist.

I never said it did. I understand the random nature of life - and can live with it. Doesn't mean I WANT to be in certain situations though. Also, you didn't address how not ever being in such a situation invalidated arguments based on it.

Not so much random as simply “Out of your control”…..the knowledge that such situations do often arise, regardless of whether you wish to be part of them, is no basis for an argument against being prepared to deal with them………….

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:23 / 06.05.03

Because I point all this out, on a board given over in the majority to left-of-centre idealists, I am thought a monster, when in fact I am only a pragmatist.

Actually, for the record, I think most people see you as a sort of Ruritanian idealist with a few core obsessions, rather than a monster, and certainly not a pragmatist.

08:51 / 07.05.03

Aha, so because I advocate a society based primarily in liberty and personal enfranchisement, where the govt is small and charity is an act governed by personal judgement, and accept that such a societies level of wealth and its population carrying capacity would be lower, rather than advocating a society based primarily in management and institutional enfranchisement, where govt is big and welfare an act of enforced taxation and institutionalised judgement, in the understanding that such a societies wealth and its population carrying capacity is higher, I am a “Ruritanian idealist”.

‘What price liberty’ heh?

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:36 / 07.05.03

Well, exactly. You have a series of ideals. That is, you are not a pragmatist. You have a vision of your ideal state. It's not a dirty word, you know. It's nice to have ideals.

12:04 / 07.05.03

Haus –

Well, exactly. You have a series of ideals . That is, you are not a pragmatist. You have a vision of your ideal state.

I am a pragmatist because I realise that in a “liberty biased” life resources are more limited, whilst if you actually want higher levels of resources you need to accept a big govt system based on welfare and institutionalised control (leading to a loss of personal enfranchisement (something that in its disempowering of the people i. discourages responsible behaviour, further re-enforcing the ‘need’ for policing and leading to a police state and ii. is fundamentally anti our essential human nature to remove a great deal of our own command over our own lives)).

It's not a dirty word, you know. It's nice to have ideals.

I realise that Haus, but it also implies impracticality……………

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:25 / 07.05.03

I'm not sure that "essential human nature" really belongs in the arsenal of the pragmatist, though.

12:53 / 07.05.03

Haus –

I'm not sure that "essential human nature" really belongs in the arsenal of the pragmatist, though.

Why do you think not?

Is it not pragmatic to understand we have an essential human nature consisting, in the least, of: drinking water, eating food, breathing air, needing shelter/warmth, being primarily social, being primarily self-governing (as adults)? Is that not the beginnings of the basic essential nature of adult mammals?

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:58 / 07.05.03

Well, no. The essential nature of any animal is respiration, irritability, nutrition, growth, excretion, reproduction and the one beginning with m. You have just elided needing food and water with needing self-government and social context, and have used the term "primarily" without any apparent purpose. The need for water and air and the need for self-government are very different characteristics, and this is the kind fo thing that makes the term "essential human nature" a good sign that your pragmatism is a little less pragma and a little more ism than you might have thought.

If you just use common sense, it is self-evident.

13:16 / 07.05.03

There are some basic things that apply to adult mammals; some of which are the physiological ones (water, air, food, shelter) and some of which are the psychological ones (sociality, self-government).

Look at adult mammals and although and you will see self government as an inherent trait. The process of moving from child to adult is one of learning self-government.

13:20 / 07.05.03

Perhaps you could reference or link to these "basic" psychological traits of adult mammals? I must've missed that particular Biology lecture...

13:29 / 07.05.03

You could start really simple and just go fro something like Attenborough’s “Life on Earth”! For Christ’s sake Ganesh are you really not competent to actually figure / find that out for yourself?!!

At the heart of the process of growing up is the process of gaining independence. Self-government. If you need that pointing out to you it is not so much that you missed that lecture but that you probably need to re-sit the entire subject!

13:34 / 07.05.03

Mmph - I think applying subjective human values and concepts such as 'self-government' to animals smacks of something very like anthropomorphism. Which is an instance of one of the problems I have with your arguments, Leap: you use concepts such as liberty, dignity, self-government, as if they are somehow innate and fundamental to human existence: whereas those concepts have been created by humans and are mutable. You're perfectly willing to admit that you're using these terms in ways which are specific to your thinking; but the problem with that is that those terms can only function in the way you want them to within that system (hence, perhaps, some of the circularity of the discussions we've been having here). You can't decide that a term has a particular meaning which is specific to your system, and then claim the same concept to be a pre-existing attribute of 'human nature'.

13:37 / 07.05.03

'Life on Earth' concerns itself with evolutionary processes, and one can draw extremely general points concerning the notional nature of individual adulthood. I don't remember "inherent" psychological traits being a feature, however, so perhaps you'd like to have another go at evidencing your opinion?

Page: 1 2(3)4