Originally posted by xmarksthespot
But then she could live a more comfortable life, she could spend more time with her kids and quit one of her two jobs perhaps. Instead of having to pay for person B.
She shouldn't have had kids. They're a poor economic decision.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I thought Social Security was a universal thing in the US. Pensions are here.
I'm not sure. If it is true I would say it's something that needs change.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosAh, but then the same could be said of Person B's parents, no? Should she have to curtail her life choices to pay for someone else's. If anything hers was still a better economic decision if she intends for her children to be productive members of society and is trying to make them so via their education; than Person B's parents decisions to produce a drag on the economy.
She shouldn't have had kids. They're a poor economic decision
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I have money, i have a decent amount of money actually, but I meant not everyone does and there are people out there that have 0 dollars.
yes, thats fine.
I happen to think there are ways of making people capable of earning a living by themselves, and not having them become dependent on government handouts.
One of my more socialistic ideas is that, everyone in an anarchist society needs a job. I actually consider employment to be something of a human right... but not exactly.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Whos paying for those government incentives though?
actually, it would be the elimination of certain market laws that encourage short term gain investing.
wait, I said in that paragraph that gvt should be doing this. Federalism means a downward allocation of power to smaller groups, ideally, in my opinion, to communities and individuals.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
That's why I think governmental budgets should be voted on in referendum by the people. Because then the government has to defend their ideas for spending tax dollars before they get to spend them.
people are not nearly well enough educated in economics, nor are elections the best method for teaching people objective fact. It reminds me of an idea I had, where people vote for individual members of a cabinet, like, minister of defense and minister of environment, in hopes of making them more aware of the broad array of issues and what not. I don't personally feel it would work any longer. People are so brand loyal to parties, and care so little about the political system.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah. Thiefery decided by a majority is still just that. And no. Taxes would still feel like being raped...just worse, cause you know that you'll be raped again next year.
Okay but in an attempt to be bi-partisan, assuming taxes will always be around. What would you do to make sure that the government acts responsibly with your money and not use it for vacations and pay raises all the time?
Basically if they are going to rape you anyways, what can we do to make sure that your raped with as little discomfort as possible?
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosWell, I'd have to calculate. It probably also depends what leaders would do, and how I feel about the person. Personally I am cursed with a "conscience" though, if he was really so evil I might not support him. On the other hand, if I do, there'd still be options for the people living in our community.
You mentioned starting a protection agency before. Your private army is making a great deal of money to keep Person A alive.
Originally posted by Aster PhoenixMake the government extremely small and taxes extremely low?
Okay but in an attempt to be bi-partisan, assuming taxes will always be around. What would you do to make sure that the government acts responsibly with your money and not use it for vacations and pay raises all the time?Basically if they are going to rape you anyways, what can we do to make sure that your raped with as little discomfort as possible?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Society today is more than happy to continue buying products from businesses that have immoral practices. Some move to catch them on illegal ones but since Persons A and B are in an anarchist society no laws have been broken.Person A doesn't hire union workers and has already used Bardock's protection agency to get rid of workers rights groups.
so, you are again making the argument that people who are out to do evil are a good point against anarchist society?
I get it. If all you want to do is screw someone over or murder and rape, then anarchy probably isn't for you (or its for you too much, whatever). Its a valid criticism
The point is that, when I look at human behaviour, I don't just see this mega negative. Look at Bill Gates. He has, individually, done immense things with his wealth. yes, I know its a huge if, but if capitalism can be harnessed to address local and community based problems, it can work.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, thats fine.I happen to think there are ways of making people capable of earning a living by themselves, and not having them become dependent on government handouts.
And I think your right in allot of cases, but not in every one.
One of my more socialistic ideas is that, everyone in an anarchist society needs a job. I actually consider employment to be something of a human right... but not exactly.
But if you make a job into a right then people will demand the right to the job they want.
People are so brand loyal to parties, and care so little about the political system.
You are 1 billion percent right on that!!!!
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Is that a question for me or for you?
Perhaps both.
You want a society where Person B in punished because his parents were poor and so will starve to death or become a slave, yes?
A society where Persons A and C pay a small amount of money (enough that they're living) and keeps Person B alive so that the labor he provides continues to be of use seems better over all.
Personally I'd like a system where none of them would have any money and a dictatorial process would assign them all to whatever they're good at. Fostering skills even in people like Person B so that everything runs efficiently and the excess can go to maintaining society.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Make the government extremely small and taxes extremely low?
Okay but assume that the tax amount will stay roughly about what it is now. How would you make sure that the government spends it on the right things and doesn't squander it on failed programs and nonsense perks and pay raises for themselves?
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosSo you'd like communism?
Perhaps both.You want a society where Person B in punished because his parents were poor and so will starve to death or become a slave, yes?
A society where Persons A and C pay a small amount of money (enough that they're living) and keeps Person B alive so that the labor he provides continues to be of use seems better over all.
Personally I'd like a system where none of them would have any money and a dictatorial process would assign them all to whatever they're good at. Fostering skills even in people like Person B so that everything runs efficiently and the excess can go to maintaining society.
But you give anarchists are hard time for possible minor problems in their ideology.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
And I think your right in allot of cases, but not in every one.
If a person is unwilling to work in order to keep themselves alive, then I'm not too worried
a better point for you would be the father who has a job and is addicted to drugs and doesn't feed their kids. No F&CS in an anarchist society.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
But if you make a job into a right then people will demand the right to the job they want.
Its more the idea that they deserve the ability to make a living off of their labor. I used "right" just because it conveys what I mean, sort of