What is the empirical justification for entitlement of standard of living or...

[Hydrogen_Catalyst]

What is the empirical justification for entitlement of standard of living otherwise known as "safety net"...?

Let's take this step-by-step to come to a logical, rational conclusion.

What is the reasoning behind those who stand behind the ideology that all people no matter what; deserve to have food, shelter, health care, and the basics of life?Basic life essentials, like food and health care?

I think that statement is incorrect. Here we will knock down the premises behind that statement; instead moving in favor of individual liberty, free choice, and the property rights of the individual upheld against obligatory sacrifice to the collective.

Who feels that we deserve/ are entitled to a basic standard of living with life essentials? Why? What is your evidence?

I say, NO.
NO ONE should be entitled to a standard of living. Work and reap the fruits of your own labor under the absolute laws of nature manifested through supply and demand, scarcity, and the free market guided by the invisible hand.

If you work hard, you shall receive. If you don't have to work to earn anything there is no incentive to work and to innovate.

Without the scientist, the industrialist, the business owner, and other prime movers like myself made possible through the individual rights made possible by capitalism blazing a new path through the free marketplace many of our innovations would not be here.

In our post-modern world free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, weight, social class, and religion; anyone can be "rich" and anyone can be "poor" based on your individual responsibility and individual choice.

For some reason, some people seem to think in this country that they should never have to struggle, that they should just be either provided everything they need because they need it and there are people who can provide, or because they feel like they shouldn’t have to struggle while others prosper. But what they don’t understand is that those who struggle are usually stronger people because of their struggle, and they are more likely, not just to survive, but to thrive and prosper as well, given that they don’t succumb to their struggle. In order to be successful, you can’t think you can make it, you have to KNOW you can make it.

Personal responsibility. Nothing more.

Why would someone who can't come up with their own standard of living even have a family or make the voluntarily choice to start a family anyway? Or the voluntary choice of eating out everyday, subscribing to HBO, HD channels, live in places they cannot afford, and other things? Live within your means and work hard.

I think it is important to always have $10,000 in a checking account at all times for emergencies. I also have over $10,000 in VISA credit lines and a nifty American Express card alone, I worked to make this money and understand the free market.

I also made the voluntary choice to live within my means and not start a family/get someone pregnant when I am not ready to start a family. And not buy expensive foods or get in debt to buy a Lambo.

What people need to understand is, a public safety net is morally wrong. Private charities should do it.

We have the freedom to succeed, and with that, must come the freedom to fail based on your choices.

[Hydrogen_Catalyst]

Man is an end to himself.

If I seek only what's good for me, and you seek only what's good for you, add up all such terms for the whole society, and it must add up to this: everyone in society is seeking what is good for the whole society

Human selfishness, when the dominating force in the economy, will act as bulwarks to individual liberty. This is because each individual will be actively working toward their own interests.

Subsequent unequal distribution of property, income and the like are all derived from individual phenomena, that is the fault or virtue of the individual who acquires more or less. Economic models and policies need not to be critiqued on their relative merit; competition is the (ideally) sole force in the market.

No one should feel entitled to a basic standard of living. In all cases, one has to work and pick the fruits of their own labor.

Without the scientist, the industrialist, the business owner, and other prime movers like myself made possible through the individual rights made possible by capitalism blazing a new path through the free marketplace many of our innovations would not be here.



The final scene of Atlas Shrugged Part I illustrates this, but I do not want to spoil the movie and I encourage everyone to watch it instead of me giving the details.

The development of the free market meant that humanity as a whole could have stopped collectively making accomplishments after the free market because everything that an accomplishment should be was already achieved in the free market.

The free market globalization brings with it the the finality of human history, the system that can deliver all of humanity's accomplishments from now on.

Supply and demand is an absolute law of nature. As real and irrefutable as gravity, newton's three laws of motion, classic mechanics, and general relativity.

The free market is the logical extension of the laws of nature, like supply and demand; just like Darwinian evolution is the logical extension of natural selection and other observable data.

The free market will always be the most efficient engine of progress and motor of history.

The free market is based on mathematical proofs derived from what David Hume called a relation of ideas. It is demonstrably certain.

Just like a triangle having 3 sides is demonstrably certain.

Efficiency is the end all be all of existence. That's literally all life is about-- cutting costs, eliminating redundancies, raising productivity, etc. Leftist ideas like "freedom" and "democracy" and "rights" only serve to hinder the pursuit of these objectives. The only freedom that matters is economic freedom. Everything else is subservient. If one can't prove his worth by being economically useful, then he's on his own. Free markets. Private enterprise. We are the prime movers, sent by the gods to usher in paradise on earth.

[Catmatic Leftist]

http://animalsarejustlikestars.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/facial-monkey.jpg

[cu247]

@ Paragon: The puppy was cuter :rolleyes:

[Catmatic Leftist]

@ Paragon: The puppy was cuter :rolleyes:

Nooooooooooooooooooooo you're wronggggggggggggggggg monkeys are sooo much more cuter. My chinese zodiac is a monkey. Monkeys rule.

[Zav]

What is the empirical justification for entitlement of standard of living otherwise known as "safety net"...?
People have needs, and often-times society prevents people from meeting these needs via exploitation, war, etc. Thus, it is society's responsibility to provide for these people.


Let's take this step-by-step to come to a logical, rational conclusion.
Alright. Let's.

What is the reasoning behind those who stand behind the ideology that all people no matter what; deserve to have food, shelter, health care, and the basics of life?Basic life essentials, like food and health care?
Empathy.


I think that statement is incorrect. Here we will knock down the premises behind that statement; instead moving in favor of individual liberty, free choice, and the property rights of the individual upheld against obligatory sacrifice to the collective.
You are entitled to your opinion. I shall dissect it as I move down the post.

Who feels that we deserve/ are entitled to a basic standard of living with life essentials? Why? What is your evidence?
I do, and so do millions, if not billions of others. Humans are social creatures with the capacity for emotion. Most people are at least somewhat empathetic. We evolved in such a way that we need each other.


I say, NO.
NO ONE should be entitled to a standard of living. Work and reap the fruits of your own labor under the absolute laws of nature manifested through supply and demand, scarcity, and the free market guided by the invisible hand.

If you work hard, you shall receive. If you don't have to work to earn anything there is no incentive to work and to innovate.
The richest people in the world work less than the poorest. There is no such thing as a "Free Market" in a Capitalist system because there will inevitably be exploitation of the poor by the rich for the sake of making the rich richer. Africa is the poorest continent on the planet, yet it has some of the most hard-working people on the planet. In China, a very Capitalist country, workers work sometimes 22 hours a day, yet are paid next to nothing because there are no labor laws.


Without the scientist, the industrialist, the business owner, and other prime movers like myself made possible through the individual rights made possible by capitalism blazing a new path through the free marketplace many of our innovations would not be here.
Innovation arises from necessity, not the free market. Capitalism does not grant individual rights. It creates boxes in which people are trapped working for the business owner. The only "free" person is said business owner.


In our post-modern world free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, weight, social class, and religion; anyone can be "rich" and anyone can be "poor" based on your individual responsibility and individual choice.
Discrimination still exists, hence we still classify people into the categories you mentioned. If you are born in the U.S., you have a much greater chance of becoming wealthy than someone in Sudan. Those who are white, male, fit, rich, and Protestant in the U.S. will have an exponentially better chance at becoming wealthy than those who are black, female, overweight, poor, and atheistic. In Capitalism, as in feudalism, opportunity is determined by birth.


For some reason, some people seem to think in this country that they should never have to struggle, that they should just be either provided everything they need because they need it and there are people who can provide, or because they feel like they shouldn’t have to struggle while others prosper. But what they don’t understand is that those who struggle are usually stronger people because of their struggle, and they are more likely, not just to survive, but to thrive and prosper as well, given that they don’t succumb to their struggle. In order to be successful, you can’t think you can make it, you have to KNOW you can make it.

Personal responsibility. Nothing more.
A few people are lazy, yes. Most people are not. In order to be successful, one must have confidence, yes, but one also needs privilege, luck, and good birth.

Why would someone who can't come up with their own standard of living even have a family or make the voluntarily choice to start a family anyway? Or the voluntary choice of eating out everyday, subscribing to HBO, HD channels, live in places they cannot afford, and other things? Live within your means and work hard.
People have the instinct to start a family. We're mammals, and that is what we are programmed to do. Capitalism causes people to eat out, to watch exorbitant amounts of television, buy huge homes, designer clothes, fancy jewellery, and luxurious cars through the creation of artificial demand by way of the media.

I think it is important to always have $10,000 in a checking account at all times for emergencies. I also have over $10,000 in VISA credit lines and a nifty American Express card alone, I worked to make this money and understand the free market.

I also made the voluntary choice to live within my means and not start a family/get someone pregnant when I am not ready to start a family. And not buy expensive foods or get in debt to buy a Lambo.
Good for you. I hope you're happy, though I doubt you are. You are conscious of your resources. Everyone used to be when there was no illusion of infinite growth (as purported by U.S. media).


What people need to understand is, a public safety net is morally wrong. Private charities should do it.

We have the freedom to succeed, and with that, must come the freedom to fail based on your choices.
What you need to understand is that morality is entirely relative, and that claiming a concept is morally wrong or right is no basis for an argument. Private charities cannot support the need for aid, and will charge for it in order to make a profit from its charity, which in my opinion is highly unethical.

[#FF0000]

We have safety nets and things to keep people somewhat fed and watered and healthy because the idea of society is to avoid the Hobbsean state of nature.


In our post-modern world free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, weight, social class, and religion; anyone can be "rich" and anyone can be "poor" based on your individual responsibility and individual choice.

You are an absolute lunatic if you don't think people don't have privilege based on gender, race, or class.

[Zav]

Man is an end to himself.

If I seek only what's good for me, and you seek only what's good for you, add up all such terms for the whole society, and it must add up to this: everyone in society is seeking what is good for the whole society
No. That is a false conclusion. In that instance everyone would be seeking what is good for themselves. In order for everyone to seek what is good for everyone, everyone must be seeking what is good for society as a whole.


Human selfishness, when the dominating force in the economy, will act as bulwarks to individual liberty. This is because each individual will be actively working toward their own interests.
This would only be true if every person was both a business owner and a worker for someone else. Competition prevents this from happening, as older, larger, richer, and more powerful businesses will squash newer ones unless the new business forms a new need, which is why there is so much artificial need.

Subsequent unequal distribution of property, income and the like are all derived from individual phenomena, that is the fault or virtue of the individual who acquires more or less. Economic models and policies need not to be critiqued on their relative merit; competition is the (ideally) sole force in the market.
This acquisition of property is the result of exploitation, largely, and not virtue or hard work, because previously existing businesses will invariably try to prevent people from rising to their (the businesses) level. Regardless of how much people work, most people do not become rich at all, and just sell their labor for a subsistence wage.

No one should feel entitled to a basic standard of living. In all cases, one has to work and pick the fruits of their own labor.
These fruits will be few, worm-eaten, and spoiled due to aforementioned enslavement, except in the few cases in which an aspiring entrepreneur is extremely lucky, as is the case will Bill Gates.


Without the scientist, the industrialist, the business owner, and other prime movers like myself made possible through the individual rights made possible by capitalism blazing a new path through the free marketplace many of our innovations would not be here.
I have already countered this in my previous post.



The final scene of Atlas Shrugged Part I illustrates this, but I do not want to spoil the movie and I encourage everyone to watch it instead of me giving the details.

The development of the free market meant that humanity as a whole could have stopped collectively making accomplishments after the free market because everything that an accomplishment should be was already achieved in the free market.

The free market globalization brings with it the the finality of human history, the system that can deliver all of humanity's accomplishments from now on.
The first sentence is irrelevant. The second provides no supporting evidence, and the third is greatly flawed. The second and third are related; the second presumes the third. Every socio-economic system in history has failed. The fact that Capitalism has been around for 200 years and still is means nothing, as all the others were much longer. The argument for Capitalism as the end-stage of human existence forgets that in the real world, nothing is infinite, and thus infinite growth is physically impossible. Capitalism requires fuel, and a whole lot of it. In fact, Capitalism is entirely rooted in the Industrial Revolution and the mining of fossil fuels, which are running out rapidly. It is quite unsustainable. The current state of affairs cannot be sustained with any fuel, renewable or not. The IEA reports a greater use of energy in the modern Capitalist world than the sun, the basis for all life and the ultimate origin of all the energy on the planet can provide.


Supply and demand is an absolute law of nature. As real and irrefutable as gravity, Newton's three laws of motion, classic mechanics, and general relativity.

The free market is the logical extension of the laws of nature, like supply and demand; just like Darwinian evolution is the logical extension of natural selection and other observable data.

The free market will always be the most efficient engine of progress and motor of history.

The free market is based on mathematical proofs derived from what David Hume called a relation of ideas. It is demonstrably certain.

Just like a triangle having 3 sides is demonstrably certain.
The Law of Supply and Demand is one of society, not nature. It presumes that the two are not only correlated, but that changes in the one ultimately cause opposite change in the other. A better law would include Value. If I discover a better way to make electric cars and I make them, both supply and demand will increase. If Value (not price) decreases, both supply and demand will decrease. The free market is NOT an extension of nature, because, as I have said several times, it exploits and undermines, which is contrary to our evolutionary need to have positive relationships, but more importantly, is only a human behaviour, one that is extremely inefficient. Capitalism runs on a straight course off a cliff, that cliff being the point at which finite resources run out faster than they can be replaced and become depleted. It runs on inefficiency, always producing more than needed to sell more.

Efficiency is the end all be all of existence. That's literally all life is about-- cutting costs, eliminating redundancies, raising productivity, etc. Leftist ideas like "freedom" and "democracy" and "rights" only serve to hinder the pursuit of these objectives. The only freedom that matters is economic freedom. Everything else is subservient. If one can't prove his worth by being economically useful, then he's on his own. Free markets. Private enterprise. We are the prime movers, sent by the gods to usher in paradise on earth.

The meaning of life is relative, and no, increasing efficiency in that manner is only the way to be a more successful business within Capitalism. If all one sees are numbers, I must say that I would find such a person to be incredibly shallow. Again, the planet is finite. There cannot be any such thing as infinite growth, because it does not fit within the boundaries of physics. Those concepts serve to make life better for the sake of life. We are social creatures, and these ideas have been around since we became sentient, in one form or another, and will be around until the species dies. They hinder the progress of Capitalism, yes, yet you will find them to be quite popular. Economic freedom does not grant other freedoms, as people are innately socially free, and is only a product of current conditions. Thus economic freedom is the most inferior of liberties. Capitalism cannot provide anything near a utopia. It can only provide violence, injustice, and exploitation. Africa and Asia, the two poorest continents,with billions of people, are the butt of Europe and North America. Capitalism can only provide a measure of "happiness" for the very, very, few rich, while Communism can provide this for everyone. Please refrain from employing religious references in one's arguments in the future.

[GPDP]

We are the prime movers, sent by the gods to usher in paradise on earth.

This is what Objectivists actually believe.

[#FF0000]

What is the reasoning behind those who stand behind the ideology that all people no matter what; deserve to have food, shelter, health care, and the basics of life?Basic life essentials, like food and health care?

My reasoning is that people shouldn't be left to die in the street when there is more than enough to keep them alive and healthy.


Who feels that we deserve/ are entitled to a basic standard of living with life essentials? Why? What is your evidence?


If it can be provided, then why deny it to people? Especially considering that, in capitalism, workers are exploited and denied the lion's share of the value of their labor because of capitalist property laws in the first place.


NO ONE should be entitled to a standard of living. Work and reap the fruits of your own labor under the absolute laws of nature manifested through supply and demand, scarcity, and the free market guided by the invisible hand.

This is already an impossibility. The fruits of a worker's labor are taken from them because of private property. A worker works, produces so much value, but only receives a tiny fraction of that value back in wages because the worker themselves can't afford to own the factory, farm, workshop or place of business that they work in.



If you work hard, you shall receive

What do you say to the Bangledeshi shoemaker who's worked harder than you can ever imagine?


If you don't have to work to earn anything there is no incentive to work and to innovate.

I don't believe this and I don't think there's a reason to believe this. Humans have a tendency to be industrious and creative. "Laziness" only seems to be a problem when people are alienated and made to give their labor to a boss


Without the scientist, the industrialist, the business owner, and other prime movers like myself made possible through the individual rights made possible by capitalism blazing a new path through the free marketplace many of our innovations would not be here.

And without the worker, where would you "prime movers" be? I doubt Ford would be on the line himself trying to pump out Model T's.


In our post-modern world free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, weight, social class, and religion; anyone can be "rich" and anyone can be "poor" based on your individual responsibility and individual choice.

Like I said before, this is absolutely incorrect. Here's some evidence for you.

Weight/Gender/Socioeconomic Status (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448278/)
Race/Class (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/14/us-usa-segregation-idUSTRE50D7CY20090114)

I can provide more if you want. Like I said, as a white guy who went to a district where there was clear segregation (I was in the majority black school), I'm frankly gobsmacked that you can sit here and say to me that discrimination flat out doesn't exist anymore. That is insane.


For some reason, some people seem to think in this country that they should never have to struggle, that they should just be either provided everything they need because they need it and there are people who can provide, or because they feel like they shouldn’t have to struggle while others prosper. But what they don’t understand is that those who struggle are usually stronger people because of their struggle, and they are more likely, not just to survive, but to thrive and prosper as well, given that they don’t succumb to their struggle. In order to be successful, you can’t think you can make it, you have to KNOW you can make it.


So, what happens then, if everyone on the planet works hard and has a great attitude? Does everyone get to be wealthy and powerful then? No one will have to be forced to man the grill at McDonalds or sit in a sweatshop ever again?


Personal responsibility. Nothing more.

And luck. And birth.


Why would someone who can't come up with their own standard of living even have a family or make the voluntarily choice to start a family anyway?

Uh, there's a lot of factors here. Birth control being hard to find or unavailable, or failing. Lack of education on these matters (which is overwhelmingly the case. The state of sex education in the U.S. is horrendous). There's also social and cultural pressures.


Or the voluntary choice of eating out everyday, subscribing to HBO, HD channels, live in places they cannot afford, and other things? Live within your means and work hard.

Because when you slave away every day people start to lose hope and every so often like to buy a thing or do something to find some kind of comfort outside of lying awake, tired but unable to sleep with a double shift coming up the next morning (and every morning after that) with nothing else to find solace in but thought of the comfort and sweet released promised by suicide.

I mean, could be, anyway.


I think it is important to always have $10,000 in a checking account at all times for emergencies. I also have over $10,000 in VISA credit lines and a nifty American Express card alone, I worked to make this money and understand the free market.

You own a business? If so, a lot of other people worked to make you that money too. So much for people being a means within themselves.


I also made the voluntary choice to live within my means and not start a family/get someone pregnant when I am not ready to start a family.

You also had the benefit of an education, the quality of which is not available to everyone.


And not buy expensive foods

Ah, yes, the fine, expensive culinary adventures available at every corner bodega in the slums of America.


What people need to understand is, a public safety net is morally wrong.

I think it's morally wrong to allow people to starve and die of easily preventable illness just because they are poor. Personal choice is not the end-all-be-all. There is more to the world and the situations people are in than that.

[Zav]

This is what Objectivists actually believe.
Really?:blink: That's frightening.

[GPDP]

Really?:blink: That's frightening.

Nah, it was a take on South Park's mockery of Scientology.

They may as well, though. They're such egotistical bastards all they're truly missing from their cultist circle-jerk is a belief that god put them on earth to be rich and lord over all of us.

[Zav]

Nah, it was a take on South Park's mockery of Scientology.

They may as well, though. They're such egotistical bastards all they're truly missing from their circle-jerk is a belief that god put them on earth to be rich and lord over all of us.
Ah, I see. Well, the very religious among them probably do. (See what I did thar?)

[RGacky3]

I'm not gonna respond to every single sentance because its already been done (rather well).

But heres my 2 Cents.

People that are hungry or homeless are not so due to them failing to succede in a society where they have a fair shot, its not like a game of monopoly where you start out with the same money and an equal shot. Most of these people have NO SHOT, because that chance is denied them by the Capitalist system.

Now I am against that system that denies them that chance but on the other hand protects and grants profit and privilege to others (there is a dirrect corrolation), but if your gonna support such a system, the least you can do as a human is understand that Capitalism denies certain people a lively hood while providing wealth for others and have an outside force try and undo that damage.

Heres what I am against, the ENTITLEMENT that Capitalists have to have their property and profit protected, dispite not having earned it at all, all of that profit was made from the muscle and brain of other people, the ONLY REASON these Capitalists have that huge amount of wealth is because of the WELFARE PROGRAM known as private property protection laws.

You want to ge the government out of the market? I agree, we'll start with corporate person hood, and second we'll have land and resource ownership protection, you don't get that.

Capitalism is a government program, you don't like the government? OK, lets end that first.

Without the state protecting capitalists, capitalism would have been dead decades ago.

[Demogorgon]

Why is it when people claim to be about toi make a rational point, they so often resort to religious claims?

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

http://animalsarejustlikestars.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/facial-monkey.jpg

http://illustrateddogbreeds.com/cardigan-welsh-corgi.jpg
http://worldairlinenews.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/lufthansa-italia-a319-100-d-akng-88grd-mxp-mflr.jpg?w=449&h=298

[PhoenixAsh]

I am sure others are going to point this out to you and have. TL:DR (yet) the complete thread,

But HC your opening post is based on the premises of capitalist exploitation using the need to survive as an argument for their continued exploitation of labour and continued repression of those who do not own the means of production other than their labour.

The reason why we deserve the basic rights...and many more btw....are really self explanatory. There does not need to be made a case before them. If you deny the principles behind those argumens you have either some serious catching up to do into revolutionary politics or you should be restricted.


Go here: marxists.org and read up.

[Le Libérer]

HC, so I take it you enjoyed the movie, "Atlas Shrugged?"

[Revolution starts with U]

1. I think Thomas Paine sums up the landed property problem pretty well here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice

2. You have more in common with our views than you would want to admit. We do not believe a person is entitled a high standard of living, merely because he claimed ownership over a given item. He claims ownership, other people do all the work, he reaps all the profits. Talk about a welfare queen, eh?

3. If race (and class) play no role in people's present and future socio-economic status.... does that mean black people (and other minorities) are genetically inferior to you? I don't really see how you could say no to that.

[hatzel]

But but but...what was wrong with the responses you got over here (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110522154807AAOHLPX)? What, weren't they good enough for you? You ungrateful little so-and-so...:mad:

[Zanthorus]

You cannot find 'empirical justification' for moral oughts. That disposes of the premises of this thread. Next troll please.

[Thirsty Crow]

This is an interesting thread, and the issue is well worth bringing it up.

From all the arguments already stated, I'd like to emphasize this one: http://financial-report.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Lufthansa_airplane.jpg

http://www.google.hr/imgres?imgurl=http://financial-report.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Lufthansa_airplane.jpg&imgrefurl=http://financial-report.info/tag/lufthansa/&usg=__cdlkDngTuyZfDTYhSq6muLFG0zA=&h=585&w=731&sz=139&hl=hr&start=10&zoom=1&tbnid=P87Wa16P3fNr2M:&tbnh=126&tbnw=194&ei=6Mv0TfbWFdGBswaFz9GWBg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dlufthansa%26hl%3Dhr%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D 1024%26bih%3D457%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disz:m%26tbm%3Di sch&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=847&page=2&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:10&tx=120&ty=58&biw=1024&bih=457

[Queercommie Girl]

What is the empirical justification for entitlement of standard of living otherwise known as "safety net"...?

Let's take this step-by-step to come to a logical, rational conclusion.


This is pure metaphysical bullshit. No "moral" justification is needed. Things happen simply because they can happen.

In this case if most workers and poor decide this is what it will be like, then this is what it will be like.

Marx's idea is that communism will happen at some point ultimately because the objective material conditions in society would become sufficient for communism to happen. He never gave any metaphysical ethical justification for it.

[Le Libérer]

HC, so I take it you enjoyed the movie, "Atlas Shrugged?"

But but but...what was wrong with the responses you got over here? What, weren't they good enough for you? You ungrateful little so-and-so...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110522154807AAOHLPX


The final scene of Atlas Shrugged Part I illustrates this, but I do not want to spoil the movie and I encourage everyone to watch it instead of me giving the details.


Predictable. :rolleyes:

[hatzel]

I feel I'd rather watch the film than read the book, as the former option requires a lot less active participation on my part...

[Le Libérer]

My kid was reading the book because he felt it should be a personal requirement. All through it, he would ask me when is it going to get better? I kept telling him, it doesnt.

I would think the same of the movie, which I have no intention of spending time nor money on.

[magicme]

What people need to understand is, a public safety net is morally wrong. Private charities should do it.



We wont need a public safety net after the revolution.

They tried that private charities thing in Britain but had to abandon it as it was a bit of a shock when the Boer War happened and much of the wannabe enlisting turned out to be underfed and not healthy enough to kill people well enough.

When Weimar Germany couldn't/wouldn't afford a proper safety net this gap was filled by political organisations of various types; the bourgoise in Europe and America don't provide the net out of altruism, it's to keep people who the under-productive lol free-market system can't provide with work from getting all political and insurgent. Plus, we pay for it when we're working.

It would be good for the revolutionary leftist movement if the British capitalists cut all the giros but they're not so dumb as to believe their own propaganda like you apparently do.

[Revolution starts with U]

The funniest part is when he goes "How's that libs?! Still think redistribution is a good idea?"
Delusions of grandeur? ..... yes :laugh:

[ComradeMan]

http://animalsarejustlikestars.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/facial-monkey.jpg

I like your cute monkey.

[Catmatic Leftist]

I like your cute monkey.

Thanks. You can buy him off Ebay for $100.

Yup. I'm a dirty cappie.

COME AT ME BRO.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This is what Objectivists actually believe.

This is true. They really do.

There was one who wrote a book "And Thus Man Built The World". Oh, and as a follow up to that publication, one of the Employer's Association think tanks funded a new translation of and provided 1,000 free copies of Atlas Shrugged that were handed out to celebrities and wealthy people. Seriously.

[Kamos]

http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2009/01/funny-pictures-mice-sleep-in-a-bed-and-breakfast.jpg

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2009/01/funny-pictures-mice-sleep-in-a-bed-and-breakfast.jpg


"can i get a slice of bread"

"sure here you go"

"oh fuck the bread is bleeding!"

[PhoenixAsh]

Bonus protein...now shut up an eat your breakfast


:P :P :P :P

[Jimmie Higgins]

Don't you mean: now shut up an eat your bweakfast

[Queercommie Girl]

Bonus protein...now shut up an eat your breakfast


:P :P :P :P

You are so cruel...:crying:

[Jimmie Higgins]

What is the empirical justification for entitlement of standard of living otherwise known as "safety net"...? Yeah, good point above - these are moral positions and have no empirical justification.


What is the reasoning behind those who stand behind the ideology that all people no matter what; deserve to have food, shelter, health care, and the basics of life?Basic life essentials, like food and health care? First this is a straw-man because you are conflating capitalist "welfare states" and radical class politics which are not the same.


I think that statement is incorrect. Here we will knock down the premises behind that statement; instead moving in favor of individual liberty, free choice, and the property rights of the individual upheld against obligatory sacrifice to the collective. But the individual sacrifice for the minority is OK right, since that's what happens in the market when labor is commodified. Workers sacrifice the full value of their labor effort in order to get a wage that they need in order to survive.


Who feels that we deserve/ are entitled to a basic standard of living with life essentials? Why? What is your evidence? I don't think entitled is right. No on is entitled to anything in society (man-made) through "nature" - people are "entitled" or have rights to things based on how a given society is organized and who is in charge of that organizing. In capitalism this is the capitalist class who have created states to organize society along the lines of entitling the private ownership of production. Originally, the capitalists were not entitled to many of the things they consider natural rights (such as rule of law, property rights, the ability to fully make profits even) because society was organized along the lines of a feudal caste system based on the rule of landlords. In order for private property to be a "right", people had to reorganize society - revolutions.


I say, NO.
NO ONE should be entitled to a standard of living. Work and reap the fruits of your own labor under the absolute laws of nature manifested through supply and demand, scarcity, and the free market guided by the invisible hand.see above. Where is the empirical proof of private property or the market being an absolute law of nature... why do those damn collectivist birds nest in trees they don't own deeds to?


Without the scientist, the industrialist, the business owner, and other prime movers like myself :laugh: I just did a spit-take. Oy we got ourselves a swell here, bring out the good tea-cups and dust off the card table so he don't think the lesser of us.


made possible through the individual rights made possible by capitalism blazing a new path through the free marketplace many of our innovations would not be here.Sure capitalism has been a historical advance, but that largely ended a while ago - now capitalism produces profitable inefficiency.


In our post-modern world free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, weight, social class, and religion; anyone can be "rich" and anyone can be "poor" based on your individual responsibility and individual choice. Aww now you're just being trite:(. But I agree - if we made good choices, like overthrowing the capitalist system and replacing it with democratic control of the means of production by workers, then we would all be richer.


For some reason, some people seem to think in this country that they should never have to struggle, that they should just be either provided everything they need because they need it and there are people who can provide, or because they feel like they shouldn’t have to struggle while others prosper. But what they don’t understand is that those who struggle are usually stronger people because of their struggle, and they are more likely, not just to survive, but to thrive and prosper as well, given that they don’t succumb to their struggle. In order to be successful, you can’t think you can make it, you have to KNOW you can make it.When do you graduate college again? Post again after you've had a job.


Personal responsibility. Nothing more. So in the depression or in 2008, people who lost their jobs, lost their homes or farms in mass numbers all just spontaneously made bad choices at the same time.


Why would someone who can't come up with their own standard of living even have a family or make the voluntarily choice to start a family anyway? Or the voluntary choice of eating out everyday, subscribing to HBO, HD channels, live in places they cannot afford, and other things? Live within your means and work hard. You haven't had many life experiences have you?


I think it is important to always have $10,000 in a checking account at all times for emergencies. I also have over $10,000 in VISA credit lines and a nifty American Express card alone, I worked to make this money and understand the free market. I'm college educated, have been in the workforce for 15 years and my company just cut me down to 2 shifts a week because of THEIR bad choices and need to reduce payroll costs - $10,000 in savings is not possible.


I also made the voluntary choice to live within my means and not start a family/get someone pregnant when I am not ready to start a family. And not buy expensive foods or get in debt to buy a Lambo. What's a lambo?

[Revolution starts with U]

Lamborghini, I imagine.