Wage Slavery? The poor are poor because....

[Chestaan]

I'll ignore the first part because it's such a load of bollocks.

As to the second part, because the utility of the poor matters? A society is efficient if it maximises the overall utility of all members of society, how can you hope to that if you completely write off such a huge section of society?

So, a huge section of society are starving people who cannot afford basic amenities? Tell me more. Nevermind the poorest of the poor are probably better well off in America, Canada, or England than Zimbabwe, Haiti, or Ethiopia.

Who said anything about starving people? Maximisng utility has a lot more to it than just ensuring that people have food.

[Viritica]

Yes. It's democracy with the goal of establishing socialism.

Not sure how welfare automatically entails social democracy.

No, that's democratic socialism.

Social democracy seeks to establish democratic socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

[Me-lek]

how do we fix the poor being poor and the rich being rich?
by banning humans, everyone suffers equally.

[Divair2]

No, that's democratic socialism.

Social democracy seeks to establish democratic socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy.

[Bezombia]

how do we fix the poor being poor and the rich being rich?
by banning humans, everyone suffers equally.

IF YOU BAN PEOPLE THAN ONLY THE CRIMINALS WILL HAVE PEOPLE

[Lolloh]

I believe that people are poor because the rich hog all the resources for themselves. The poor don't CHOOSE to be poor, who wants to live in a dirty shack with TV dinners as meal staples?

I believe that the poor are poor because they aren't given a chance, by either society or the government, to do things in life. The government doesn't give protection so they stay out of gangs and don't do drugs, doesn't provide protection against rape and violance within schools, and doesn't bother to offer anybody a free education past high school.

[The Scientific States]

What the fuck do you know about being poor?

This is making me way angrier than it should, but Jesus Christ.

Nothing. But everyone knows the poor tend to not be bright or unable to provide anything of value to the world. What does my knowledge of being poor have to do with this?

Why attempt to fix a problem that is tied in with the capitalist system, when we could ignore it to ensure maximum productivity for all?

What the hell are you talking about?

[Chestaan]

I believe that people are poor because the rich hog all the resources for themselves. The poor don't CHOOSE to be poor, who wants to live in a dirty shack with TV dinners as meal staples?

I believe that the poor are poor because they aren't given a chance, by either society or the government, to do things in life. The government doesn't give protection so they stay out of gangs and don't do drugs, doesn't provide protection against rape and violance within schools, and doesn't bother to offer anybody a free education past high school.

They do if the government is anyway half decent, i.e most of the countries of Europe.

[Lolloh]

Nothing. But everyone knows the poor tend to not be bright or unable to provide anything of value to the world. What does my knowledge of being poor have to do with this?

Why attempt to fix a problem that is tied in with the capitalist system, when we could ignore it to ensure maximum productivity for all?

What the hell are you talking about?

Yeah! You're saying that we should ignore the poor because it helps the economy? Please tell me that when your megamansion gets raided by Occupy Wall Street and burned to the ground.

Poor can be excellent and very smart, as proven by the fact that scholarships were invented so that talent isn't wasted.

Knowlegde of the poor is important for this. Saying "the poor are lazy bums who don't do anything" is implying that you know how the poor behave. What you know, and why you know it, is important.

If you listen to Fox News, you'll think the above statement is true. If you ask (most) poor people, it's completely false.

[Threlizdun]

You are correct in stating social welfare alone will not end poverty and inequality. It is ridiculous however to not recognize that social welfare is capable of alleviating some of the damage present. Poverty is not conducive to productivity. Poverty lessens skillsets and education, increases alienation and social tension, lessens physical and mental health, and leads to a rise in criminal activity. All of these things are greatly detrimental to productivity.

Why then, would that be preferable? Even today America enjoys the benefits from a mostly unregulated free market that existed for both the first thirty years of the last century to the last twenty or so years (nevermind all the cronyism in between). Poverty is not conductive, I agree, but neither is spending trillions on anti-poverty programs that do not alleviate poverty (e.g. since Johnson's Great Society programs have been enacted, poverty has only increased). Rather, instead of limiting the market's ability to help society progress through extensive programs who cause as much problems as they fix, I think it would be more beneficial to do things like cut the taxes on the poor by giving the people a window wide enough for their obese asses to fit through, if they desire.

Except anti-poverty measures and market regulations absolutely are conducive to productivity. Seriously, there is no reason to oppose this unless you are a sadist.

[The Scientific States]

What the hell are you talking about?

Yeah! You're saying that we should ignore the poor because it helps the economy? Please tell me that when your megamansion gets raided by Occupy Wall Street and burned to the ground.

Poor can be excellent and very smart, as proven by the fact that scholarships were invented so that talent isn't wasted.

Knowlegde of the poor is important for this. Saying "the poor are lazy bums who don't do anything" is implying that you know how the poor behave. What you know, and why you know it, is important.

If you listen to Fox News, you'll think the above statement is true. If you ask (most) poor people, it's completely false.

I'm not saying we should ignore the poor....I'm disagreeing with his post, since it's entirely wrong, and it's offensive to those who are impoverished, or have experienced poverty.

[Chestaan]

Why then, would that be preferable? Even today America enjoys the benefits from a mostly unregulated free market that existed for both the first thirty years of the last century to the last twenty or so years (nevermind all the cronyism in between). Poverty is not conductive, I agree, but neither is spending trillions on anti-poverty programs that do not alleviate poverty (e.g. since Johnson's Great Society programs have been enacted, poverty has only increased). Rather, instead of limiting the market's ability to help society progress through extensive programs who cause as much problems as they fix, I think it would be more beneficial to do things like cut the taxes on the poor by giving the people a window wide enough for their obese asses to fit through, if they desire.

Except anti-poverty measures and market regulations absolutely are conducive to productivity. Seriously, there is no reason to oppose this unless you are a sadist.

Of course, but when have "libertarians" let a little thing like economics get in the way of their baseless ideas?

[Lolloh]

Yeah! You're saying that we should ignore the poor because it helps the economy? Please tell me that when your megamansion gets raided by Occupy Wall Street and burned to the ground.

Poor can be excellent and very smart, as proven by the fact that scholarships were invented so that talent isn't wasted.

Knowlegde of the poor is important for this. Saying "the poor are lazy bums who don't do anything" is implying that you know how the poor behave. What you know, and why you know it, is important.

If you listen to Fox News, you'll think the above statement is true. If you ask (most) poor people, it's completely false.

I'm not saying we should ignore the poor....I'm disagreeing with his post, since it's entirely wrong, and it's offensive to those who are impoverished, or have experienced poverty.

I was agreeing with your post, sorry if that wasn't clear.

However, I think it's everyone who makes people poor. The rich steal their wages, the middle-class ignores them, the government strips them of almost everything, they fight themselves to the death for meager resources, and employers exploit them for ridiculously low wages!

[The Scientific States]

I'm not saying we should ignore the poor....I'm disagreeing with his post, since it's entirely wrong, and it's offensive to those who are impoverished, or have experienced poverty.

I was agreeing with your post, sorry if that wasn't clear.

However, I think it's everyone who makes people poor. The rich steal their wages, the middle-class ignores them, the government strips them of almost everything, they fight themselves to the death for meager resources, and employers exploit them for ridiculously low wages!

Sorry, it seemed like you thought I was agreeing with TLT. My apologies.

Anyways, the latter paragraph is untrue. The rich don't steal their wages, and though some middle class people ignore them, others don't, and work hard for charitable organizations and the like. The government, or most civilized, first world governments, give the poor benefits, and don't make them pay taxes, which is a good thing.

[Bezombia]

I'm not saying we should ignore the poor....I'm disagreeing with his post, since it's entirely wrong, and it's offensive to those who are impoverished, or have experienced poverty.

I was agreeing with your post, sorry if that wasn't clear.

However, I think it's everyone who makes people poor. The rich steal their wages, the middle-class ignores them, the government strips them of almost everything, they fight themselves to the death for meager resources, and employers exploit them for ridiculously low wages!

Not to mention that it's almost completely impossible to get rich if you weren't born rich/stumbled onto wealth by chance.

[Viritica]

Social democracy seeks to establish democratic socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy.

Okay... Having some welfare =/= social democracy.

[Lolloh]

Sorry, it seemed like you thought I was agreeing with TLT. My apologies.

Anyways, the latter paragraph is untrue. The rich don't steal their wages, and though some middle class people ignore them, others don't, and work hard for charitable organizations and the like. The government, or most civilized, first world governments, give the poor benefits, and don't make them pay taxes, which is a good thing.

Your apology is accepted.

However, it's true. Rents are maybe 10% of a person's income, which rich landlords take. Then, taxes go to the rich, who need "bailouts." Finally, the profit for those rich people comes out of the wages of the workers. The charity organizations work, but they're simply not well-funded enough, and the government (US, at least) gives barely any benefits, is trying to cut what they already give. They can't pay taxes because then the entire system would fall under the wrath of the poor.

[The Liberated Territories]

Why then, would that be preferable? Even today America enjoys the benefits from a mostly unregulated free market that existed for both the first thirty years of the last century to the last twenty or so years (nevermind all the cronyism in between). Poverty is not conductive, I agree, but neither is spending trillions on anti-poverty programs that do not alleviate poverty (e.g. since Johnson's Great Society programs have been enacted, poverty has only increased). Rather, instead of limiting the market's ability to help society progress through extensive programs who cause as much problems as they fix, I think it would be more beneficial to do things like cut the taxes on the poor by giving the people a window wide enough for their obese asses to fit through, if they desire.

Except anti-poverty measures and market regulations absolutely are conducive to productivity. Seriously, there is no reason to oppose this unless you are a sadist.

A sadist is on "who enjoys inflicting pain on others, sometimes in a sexual sense." Not support poverty programs does not directly inflicted pain on others. And I certainly do not get erotic because of it.

Explain how they are conductive to productivity.

So, a huge section of society are starving people who cannot afford basic amenities? Tell me more. Nevermind the poorest of the poor are probably better well off in America, Canada, or England than Zimbabwe, Haiti, or Ethiopia.

Who said anything about starving people? Maximisng utility has a lot more to it than just ensuring that people have food.

Umm...if you are are alive, you can be productive. And if you are productive, what more do you want that you cannot work to achieve yourself? Charity programs exist. Their are whole entire businesses based around it... people can rely on other people for it, voluntarily. But an entire nation is NOT someone to rely on, especially when your problem (poverty) suddenly becomes the interest of all 300 million of us.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What the fuck do you know about being poor?

This is making me way angrier than it should, but Jesus Christ.

Nothing. But everyone knows the poor tend to not be bright or unable to provide anything of value to the world. What does my knowledge of being poor have to do with this?

Why attempt to fix a problem that is tied in with the capitalist system, when we could ignore it to ensure maximum productivity for all?

Your knowledge, or lack thereof, of being poor would have a direct influence regarding the quality of your insight regarding poverty and poor people.

Even a low-IQ poor person like me is able to see that.

[The Liberated Territories]

Nothing. But everyone knows the poor tend to not be bright or unable to provide anything of value to the world. What does my knowledge of being poor have to do with this?

Why attempt to fix a problem that is tied in with the capitalist system, when we could ignore it to ensure maximum productivity for all?

Your knowledge, or lack thereof, of being poor would have a direct influence regarding the quality of your insight regarding poverty and poor people.

Even a low-IQ poor person like me is able to see that.

But democracy says my opinion is equally as valid as everyone else's! I have a right to not control people too!

[The Scientific States]

Your knowledge, or lack thereof, of being poor would have a direct influence regarding the quality of your insight regarding poverty and poor people.

Even a low-IQ poor person like me is able to see that.

But democracy says my opinion is equally as valid as everyone else's! I have a right to not control people too!

Your posts are sounding more and more satirical.

[Chestaan]

Except anti-poverty measures and market regulations absolutely are conducive to productivity. Seriously, there is no reason to oppose this unless you are a sadist.

A sadist is on "who enjoys inflicting pain on others, sometimes in a sexual sense." Not support poverty programs does not directly inflicted pain on others. And I certainly do not get erotic because of it.

Explain how they are conductive to productivity.

Who said anything about starving people? Maximisng utility has a lot more to it than just ensuring that people have food.

Umm...if you are are alive, you can be productive. And if you are productive, what more do you want that you cannot work to achieve yourself? Charity programs exist. Their are whole entire businesses based around it... people can rely on other people for it, voluntarily. But an entire nation is NOT someone to rely on, especially when your problem (poverty) suddenly becomes the interest of all 300 million of us.

How is any of that relevant to my point? And eradicating poverty is in the best interest of all of us, as I have mentioned before, to maximise societal utlity, and hence have a truly efficient system, we must reduce poverty.

[The Liberated Territories]

But democracy says my opinion is equally as valid as everyone else's! I have a right to not control people too!

Your posts are sounding more and more satirical.

Actually, as you might have guessed, they started out that way, but then got serious, and then got satirical again.

A sadist is on "who enjoys inflicting pain on others, sometimes in a sexual sense." Not support poverty programs does not directly inflicted pain on others. And I certainly do not get erotic because of it.

Explain how they are conductive to productivity.



Umm...if you are are alive, you can be productive. And if you are productive, what more do you want that you cannot work to achieve yourself? Charity programs exist. Their are whole entire businesses based around it... people can rely on other people for it, voluntarily. But an entire nation is NOT someone to rely on, especially when your problem (poverty) suddenly becomes the interest of all 300 million of us.

How is any of that relevant to my point? And eradicating poverty is in the best interest of all of us, as I have mentioned before, to maximise societal utlity, and hence have a truly efficient system, we must reduce poverty.

It is not the interest of all of us. Am I a good enough example of that? I do not object to ameliorating poverty, heck, I'm all for it! But as long as that interest is involuntarily served through the state apparatus, and continue to be largely ineffective in a long term scope, I cannot say that I will support such programs. What I was talking about as there were other ways to deal with poverty without implementing anti-poverty programs.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Your knowledge, or lack thereof, of being poor would have a direct influence regarding the quality of your insight regarding poverty and poor people.

Even a low-IQ poor person like me is able to see that.

But democracy says my opinion is equally as valid as everyone else's! I have a right to not control people too!

Democracy says no such thing. Democracy, as an abstract concept, is unable to speak. I believe that you mean that the idea that your opinion is as valid as anyone else is a basic underpinning of democracy. This, too, is incorrect. In a free and democratic society (particularly in a republic with a Constitution), you have the right to vote your conscience. You also have the right to speak your mind within certain public safety limitations. This does not make your opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's. Indeed, your posts are evidence that one can opine freely regarding matters about which one has no education, insight, or experience whatsoever.

[Genivaria]

Your knowledge, or lack thereof, of being poor would have a direct influence regarding the quality of your insight regarding poverty and poor people.

Even a low-IQ poor person like me is able to see that.

But democracy says my opinion is equally as valid as everyone else's! I have a right to not control people too!

1. Democracy is incapable of speech as it is not a person.
2. Where exactly does it say that everyone's opinion is equally valid?
Some opinions are informed and some get their opinions from Fox News.