Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden

[Conserative Morality]

You could go to the Worksource near me right now and say that you'll pay 5 guys to dig ditches and they will fight to be the first to accept.
The whole 'workers supporting lazy non-workers' is a fucking myth.

I was thinking more that they were under the impression that there was some overarching 'welfare' that was given out to the unemployed.

[Genivaria]

You could go to the Worksource near me right now and say that you'll pay 5 guys to dig ditches and they will fight to be the first to accept.
The whole 'workers supporting lazy non-workers' is a fucking myth.

I was thinking more that they were under the impression that there was some overarching 'welfare' that was given out to the unemployed.

Is it only to the unemployed because if not then I fucking want in with my lousy 21 hours/week.

[Sanctissima]

The unemployed still benefit from welfare. Probably more than anyone. I fail to see your point.

'Welfare'

Could you define that term, please?

Name some Federal programs that fit?

Unemployment payments, access to most taxpayer-funded public services, stuff like that.

I live in Canada, not the US, so I'm not particularly well-versed on the subject, but I know enough that your implication that the unemployed don't benefit from welfare is clearly false.

[Conserative Morality]

Unemployment payments,

Unemployment benefits aren't for people who don't work. They're restricted to people recently laid off. If you haven't worked in the past year, or quit or were fired from your job, you don't get jack.

access to most taxpayer-funded public services, stuff like that.

I live in Canada, not the US, so I'm not particularly well-versed on the subject, but I know enough that your implication that the unemployed don't benefit from welfare is clearly false.

This is the first time I've heard of public services referred to as welfare.

[36 Camera Perspective]

In modern society, if there was such a situation where, say, the child needed her and her specifically for some weird genetically fucked up reason, she should be allowed to refuse and let it die, yes. Killing in such a manner is only acceptable if done humanely and after other options are exhausted.

FFS, people call me a despicable, vile, evil sonofabitch, but this? From you? Fuck me sideways, you truly have fallen to the beasts of forlorn "reason".

By the way, moral outrage is always self-serving

[Sanctissima]

Unemployment payments,

Unemployment benefits aren't for people who don't work. They're restricted to people recently laid off. If you haven't worked in the past year, or quit or were fired from your job, you don't get jack.

access to most taxpayer-funded public services, stuff like that.

I live in Canada, not the US, so I'm not particularly well-versed on the subject, but I know enough that your implication that the unemployed don't benefit from welfare is clearly false.

This is the first time I've heard of public services referred to as welfare.

Yes, hence my point.

Welfare state, mate.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Unemployment payments,

Unemployment benefits aren't for people who don't work. They're restricted to people recently laid off. If you haven't worked in the past year, or quit or were fired from your job, you don't get jack.

access to most taxpayer-funded public services, stuff like that.

I live in Canada, not the US, so I'm not particularly well-versed on the subject, but I know enough that your implication that the unemployed don't benefit from welfare is clearly false.

This is the first time I've heard of public services referred to as welfare.

Are you making a distinction between being laid off and being fired?

[The East Marches II]

No. I'm fine with TEM not working so he doesn't have to pay for those he sees as worthless.

I think TEM is making a flawed calculation as a rational agent. Sometimes what is not in our immediate short-term self-interest can still be better for us on the long run. Even if we're going to calculate our actions selfishly, there's still a place for social welfare. I would rather feed somebody with an almost negligible tax than have them break into my house later on.

The price of a bullet is cheaper than welfare. Once they are dead and can't breed more poor. Problem solved. I don't keep losing even more money long term.

[Khornatenreich]

CM, I thought you were a respectable liberal. That perception has completely eroded.

NOW do you see why I think nihilist literature should be banned and its advocates imprisoned?

For once I'm taken to agree with you on something.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, hence my point.

Welfare state, mate.

... your point is that those who normally work receiving temporary unemployment benefits when laid off after working for an extended period is proof that those who don't work are living off the money of those that do?

Are you making a distinction between being laid off and being fired?

Yes.

[Khornatenreich]

I think TEM is making a flawed calculation as a rational agent. Sometimes what is not in our immediate short-term self-interest can still be better for us on the long run. Even if we're going to calculate our actions selfishly, there's still a place for social welfare. I would rather feed somebody with an almost negligible tax than have them break into my house later on.

The price of a bullet is cheaper than welfare. Once they are dead and can't breed more poor. Problem solved. I don't keep losing even more money long term.

Use one of those large bore percussion revolvers; just dig out & recast the projectile, makes it even cheaper, bill their next of kin for the powder.

[Sanctissima]

Yes, hence my point.

Welfare state, mate.

... your point is that those who normally work receiving temporary unemployment benefits when laid off after working for an extended period is proof that those who don't work are living off the money of those that do?

It still counts as being unemployed.

And if someone can't find a job in more than a year, maybe the problem's them, not society.

[Conserative Morality]

It still counts as being unemployed.

And if someone can't find a job in more than a year, maybe the problem's them, not society.

If they can't find a job in a year, they no longer receive benefits to prevent abuse of the system. So... the system agrees with you?

I really don't see your point here.

So you're basically saying that working people should pay for the livelihoods of those who don't work. And if the former aren't happy about that state of affairs, then tough luck.

Are you sure you aren't a Bolshevik?

[Albrenia]

I think 'those who don't work' are not included in the list of people who recently lost their jobs. Kind of hard to be fired from a job you never had.

[Conserative Morality]

I think 'those who don't work' are not included in the list of people who recently lost their jobs.

I would think that's more of a "Are not working" rather than "Do not work", but if so, then the explanation is simple: the reason we pay them is to prevent labor markets from collapse and reduce criminality whenever a company goes under or a person otherwise loses their job for a good reason.

[Albrenia]

I think 'those who don't work' are not included in the list of people who recently lost their jobs.

I would think that's more of a "Are not working" rather than "Do not work", but if so, then the explanation is simple: the reason we pay them is to prevent labor markets from collapse and reduce criminality whenever a company goes under or a person otherwise loses their job for a good reason.

I agree. I may have worded it a bit clumsily though.

[36 Camera Perspective]

I think TEM is making a flawed calculation as a rational agent. Sometimes what is not in our immediate short-term self-interest can still be better for us on the long run. Even if we're going to calculate our actions selfishly, there's still a place for social welfare. I would rather feed somebody with an almost negligible tax than have them break into my house later on.

The price of a bullet is cheaper than welfare. Once they are dead and can't breed more poor. Problem solved. I don't keep losing even more money long term.

But what's the price of losing all that human capital?

[Genivaria]

The price of a bullet is cheaper than welfare. Once they are dead and can't breed more poor. Problem solved. I don't keep losing even more money long term.

But what's the price of losing all that human capital?

Manpower in strategic terms is a pretty damn important resource.
Unless you're China treating your workers as endlessly expendable is not a sustainable mindset.

[The East Marches II]

The price of a bullet is cheaper than welfare. Once they are dead and can't breed more poor. Problem solved. I don't keep losing even more money long term.

But what's the price of losing all that human capital?

Poor don't have such value anymore. Automation has rendered (or will soon render the rest) a net drain.

[The East Marches II]

But what's the price of losing all that human capital?

Manpower in strategic terms is a pretty damn important resource.
Unless you're China treating your workers as endlessly expendable is not a sustainable mindset.

>Not using robots and genetically grown super soldiers

The future is now old man

[Genivaria]

Manpower in strategic terms is a pretty damn important resource.
Unless you're China treating your workers as endlessly expendable is not a sustainable mindset.

>Not using robots and genetically grown super soldiers

The future is now old man

Played alot of Stellaris I see.

[The East Marches II]

>Not using robots and genetically grown super soldiers

The future is now old man

Are you a time-traveler?

No, even better, a madman.

[Rostavykhan]

No. I'm fine with TEM not working so he doesn't have to pay for those he sees as worthless.

So you're basically saying that working people should pay for the livelihoods of those who don't work. And if the former aren't happy about that state of affairs, then tough luck.

Are you sure you aren't a Bolshevik?

IMO those who choose not to work voluntarily are no better than bourgeois exploiters, and deserve no assistance if they choose not to contribute.

Though bums are different from unemployed who are searching or work, or underpaid workers.

[Genivaria]

Are you a time-traveler?

No, even better, a madman.

Damn I liked my edit reply better.
"Played alot of Stellaris I see."

[Albrenia]

So you're basically saying that working people should pay for the livelihoods of those who don't work. And if the former aren't happy about that state of affairs, then tough luck.

Are you sure you aren't a Bolshevik?

IMO those who choose not to work voluntarily are no better than bourgeois exploiters, and deserve no assistance if they choose not to contribute.

Though bums are different from unemployed who are searching or work, or underpaid workers.

Stance on those unable to work due to disability, injury or insanity?