NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:26 pm**

Honestly, there are people who can't. They may be at fault, but they may not be able to deal with things such as life. People are so used to being with family and having all there stuff done for them, they may not have learned all the basic things of life.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:29 pm**

New Nicksyllvania wrote:
That's one factor, but it's not as if poor people just spend their whole time eating McDonalds. Another factor is that, when a poor mother is faced with a choice to buy either a pack of 5 organic turkey slices full of nutrients at $3.95, or a pack of 20 ultra value turkey slices, devoid of any useful nutrients, that goes at $1.50, she will choose the latter.

Contrary to popular belief, "organic" products are not magically nutritionally superior to non organic products

This needed to be said a long time ago.
Organic is generally another way of saying 'pocket pump for the rich"

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:30 pm**

New Nicksyllvania wrote:
That's one factor, but it's not as if poor people just spend their whole time eating McDonalds. Another factor is that, when a poor mother is faced with a choice to buy either a pack of 5 organic turkey slices full of nutrients at $3.95, or a pack of 20 ultra value turkey slices, devoid of any useful nutrients, that goes at $1.50, she will choose the latter.

Contrary to popular belief, "organic" products are not magically nutritionally superior to non organic products

Whatever, it was just a hypothetical example.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:37 pm**

Maybe if they were smart enough to work together and seize the means of production, they would be smart enough to take care of themselves...

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:44 pm**

Maybe, but the human instinct is to not band together unless there is a problem universally recognized. For example when WW2 broke out America was neutral cause they were nowhere near it, but the day after they get hit by an attack they band together and fight the Axis. Afterwords they and the USSR have a dangerous situation on there hands cause each of them think they are right, then people are unable to take care of themselves because there minds are on something else. This is another way i think of this thing.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:44 pm**

New Nicksyllvania wrote:Then their would certainly be an individual smart enough to seize the means of production for himself so that he does not have to do any menial labour.

At the same time, I would hope the greater group would be wise enough to keep class traitors and former-oligarchs well away from positions of power.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:45 pm**

Hydesland wrote:That's one factor, but it's not as if poor people just spend their whole time eating McDonalds. Another factor is that, when a poor mother is faced with a choice to buy either a pack of 5 organic turkey slices full of nutrients at $3.95, or a pack of 20 ultra value turkey slices, devoid of any useful nutrients, that goes at $1.50, she will choose the latter.

So taxing the unhealthy choice would be better, because it would force struggling poor people to pay even more than they currently do? What about lowering the cost of healthy food? That seems less anti-poor.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:46 pm**

Unhealthy2 wrote:
Hydesland wrote:That's one factor, but it's not as if poor people just spend their whole time eating McDonalds. Another factor is that, when a poor mother is faced with a choice to buy either a pack of 5 organic turkey slices full of nutrients at $3.95, or a pack of 20 ultra value turkey slices, devoid of any useful nutrients, that goes at $1.50, she will choose the latter.

So taxing the unhealthy choice would be better, because it would force struggling poor people to pay even more than they currently do? What about lowering the cost of healthy food? That seems less anti-poor.

I already said I didn't really support it, or at least see the point.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:47 pm**

Unhealthy2 wrote:
Hydesland wrote:That's one factor, but it's not as if poor people just spend their whole time eating McDonalds. Another factor is that, when a poor mother is faced with a choice to buy either a pack of 5 organic turkey slices full of nutrients at $3.95, or a pack of 20 ultra value turkey slices, devoid of any useful nutrients, that goes at $1.50, she will choose the latter.

So taxing the unhealthy choice would be better, because it would force struggling poor people to pay even more than they currently do? What about lowering the cost of healthy food? That seems less anti-poor.

The big food companies would most likely care more about profits than the people. Money to them is endless, long as the public eats up whatever they can make.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:50 pm**

Nazi Flower Power wrote:I'm very disorganized and lazy, so it always amazes me that there are people who can't take care of themselves as well as I do. How can such people still exist after millions of years of evolution? It's actually the best argument I can think of for creationism.

I think we do enough to save the stupid from themselves, but I get the feeling our society is drifting in a direction where we will do more and more to coddle them. That has been the trend for the last couple of centuries -- more and more coddling all the time.

An explanation would be nice? I'm not sure what you mean by the world coddling people.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 4:09 pm**

Regiria wrote:
Mystic Skeptic wrote:Seriously, one of the core believes I have is that the foundation of freedom is personal responsibility. People have to be able to choose their own course of action and live with the results - even if it is disastrous. I always figured most people are smart enough to make sound and wise decisions with their life. There will always be people who make dumb decisions, but I always presumed that the majority of folks are smart enough to do the right thing for their own self interest.

That was your first mistake.

I would like to add to this thought, because the phrase self interest is always one that I think carries a broader meaning than the people who like to throw it around in brilliant rhetorical fashion tend to think it has. Acting in one's own self interest, first of all, is no guarantee of anyone doing "the right thing". To decide for example, that you should exercise because it is in your self interest, you would have to accept the premise that exercise serves your self interest better than not exercising. Seeing as humans tend to have different opinions and different methodologies to obtain those opinions, not everyone is going to conclude the same thing regarding what serves their self interest best. Someone might conclude that murdering a man and stealing his money is in his best interest, because then they would have more money, and possibly have experienced the joy of murdering someone. Does that make it a moral imperative for all people? Hell no. It is just the reasoning, however it is percieved, of a single individual. In effect, the "right thing" to do probably has more going on than whether or not it is in your own self interest or not. Especially when we are discussing morality.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:51 pm**

Jimanistan wrote:Maybe if they were smart enough to work together and seize the means of production, they would be smart enough to take care of themselves...

You have hands correct?

Congratulations you have the means for production, and you've always had them. Yes I know, I know "but rich people have all the factories", well last time I checked you weren't obligated to work there and they have the right to own what they created and organized. Nor were you barred from making a factory, except ironically by government regulations that prevent people from building factories unless they have professional expertise, barring most people from entering the market.

Just because you want to build a factory with your friends and make cars that you'll share, doesn't mean we should be stopping people from selling their labour to factory owners.

People are all ready smart enough to take care of themselves and to take of their own lives, whether they choose to sell their labour or use it to create their own goods is entirely up to them and shouldn't be subject to the almighty planning board.

If you believe the common person is not intelligent enough to make rational decisions about their life, why on earth would you believe in democracy or so called rule of the proletariat, 100 idiots in a room will not create Shakespeare, so why would we believe that 100 idiots with power to ruin everyone's lives will do any better. Capitalism is the only system in which idiots can't effect your life, stupid CEO, stop buying from his company, stupid school go to a different one. Etc.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:53 pm**

I like to have faith in mankind, yes.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:53 pm**

New Nicksyllvania wrote:No, and we should leave them to drown in their mud FFS clean out the gene pool

Fucking this, man.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:56 pm**

New Nicksyllvania wrote:
That's one factor, but it's not as if poor people just spend their whole time eating McDonalds. Another factor is that, when a poor mother is faced with a choice to buy either a pack of 5 organic turkey slices full of nutrients at $3.95, or a pack of 20 ultra value turkey slices, devoid of any useful nutrients, that goes at $1.50, she will choose the latter.

Contrary to popular belief, "organic" products are not magically nutritionally superior to non organic products

They're just easier to digest.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:15 pm**

Allbeama wrote:
Regiria wrote:
Mystic Skeptic wrote:Seriously, one of the core believes I have is that the foundation of freedom is personal responsibility. People have to be able to choose their own course of action and live with the results - even if it is disastrous. I always figured most people are smart enough to make sound and wise decisions with their life. There will always be people who make dumb decisions, but I always presumed that the majority of folks are smart enough to do the right thing for their own self interest.

That was your first mistake.

I would like to add to this thought, because the phrase self interest is always one that I think carries a broader meaning than the people who like to throw it around in brilliant rhetorical fashion tend to think it has. Acting in one's own self interest, first of all, is no guarantee of anyone doing "the right thing". To decide for example, that you should exercise because it is in your self interest, you would have to accept the premise that exercise serves your self interest better than not exercising. Seeing as humans tend to have different opinions and different methodologies to obtain those opinions, not everyone is going to conclude the same thing regarding what serves their self interest best. Someone might conclude that murdering a man and stealing his money is in his best interest, because then they would have more money, and possibly have experienced the joy of murdering someone. Does that make it a moral imperative for all people? Hell no. It is just the reasoning, however it is percieved, of a single individual. In effect, the "right thing" to do probably has more going on than whether or not it is in your own self interest or not. Especially when we are discussing morality.

I find it hard to disagree strangely, though for different reasons, self-interest varies, while rational self-interest is always beneficial, irrational self-interest which I call greed to make the distinction is not, however irrational self-interest is rarely in one's self-interest, when you murder someone you are often caught and punished, the punishment should be in any case capable of providing a deterrent against that action. However we must not trick ourselves into think laws are what keep us from murdering each other, we don't go about murdering and raping and pillaging because it isn't in our rational self-interest.
For a definition, rational self-interest is an action which benefits a person in the short term with minor adverse long term effects, or long term with minor adverse short term effects, essentially it is the rational choice of the most beneficial action. Irrational self-interest is the taking of a minor short-term effect for major long term negative or vice-versa.
Further we must define the fact that not every mind acts in the same manner, as you said what is rational to some is not to others based on the effects, however self-interest when rational will always be beneficial to the person, the positives outweighing the negative in the long and short term. So long as these conditions are met and not intervened with rational self-interest will always be taken by the sane mind.
All fully functional people are capable of rational self-interest, and when a person takes the opposite route they will sooner or later be adversely affected to such a degree they are forced to accept rational self-interest, barring intervention which artificially inflates benefits or lessens risk.

Note: Apologies, I am almost certain this will sound redundant here and there.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:22 pm**

Bottle wrote:
Mystic Skeptic wrote:Seriously, one of the core believes I have is that the foundation of freedom is personal responsibility. People have to be able to choose their own course of action and live with the results - even if it is disastrous. I always figured most people are smart enough to make sound and wise decisions with their life. There will always be people who make dumb decisions, but I always presumed that the majority of folks are smart enough to do the right thing for their own self interest.

I am having difficulties maintaining my faith in this.

Not long ago I read article (which I have since lost) where they studied the ability of people to plan for the future. As expected; the subjects fared quite poorly. I didn't want to believe it, but then I started looking around me. People are very bad at setting their priorities around anything that is in the future. Consider these:

1) Fitness - It is epidemic how many people don't exercise or eat well, fully knowing the toll it will take on them in the future.
2) Savings - The majority of Americans don't even have an adequate cash reserve, let alone retirement savings, yet consumer spending continues to increase every year.
3) Insurance - Enough people went without health insurance that the government had to legislate it to being mandatory to own! Life insurance, renters insurance, etc. all are under-owned. The only insurance most mpeople own is because it is mandated.
4) Education - Drop out rates in high school can be 50%-75% !

I could go on. There certainly are people who live responsibly and reap the benefits and rewards of having done so - but I am starting to think that it might be a majority of people out there incapable of caring for themselves in one or more of the above areas. Certainly there are people who experience events beyond their control - but it would be foolish to believe that is the rule rather than the exception - particularly when it is as prevalent as is.

So my question to you is on many levels. Do you believe the majority of people are smart enough to care for themselves? If so, what do you think should be done with/about the people who choose unwise decisions? If you do not believe that the majority of people are smart enough to take care of themselves, what do you propose be done to avert catastrophe for them and the society they live in?

Gotta give you a nice *golfclap* for that impressive show of privilege.

Come volunteer with me at the free clinic in Southwest DC for a few weeks, then tell me about how those people are overweight, poor, uninsured, and undereducated because they're LAZY or STUPID, K?

thank you that about sums up what I would say to this poster as well. That, and I tend think that anyone who cannot spell the word beliefs correctly and use it in a sentence has no right to judge whether anyone else is intelligent or not.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:23 pm**

Yes people can take care of themselves. That would be why society is still standing. [/thread]

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:25 pm**

United Dependencies wrote:Yes people can take care of themselves. That would be why society is still standing. [/thread]

Should read "people can take care of each other".

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:27 pm**

Big Jim P wrote:
United Dependencies wrote:Yes people can take care of themselves. That would be why society is still standing. [/thread]

Should read "people can take care of each other".

~~What?~~

edit-Oh.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:29 pm**

Big Jim P wrote:
United Dependencies wrote:Yes people can take care of themselves. That would be why society is still standing. [/thread]

Should read "people can take care of each other".

Should read both

Yes, people can take care of themselves and each other when the situation demands, society stands as a testament to that (crumbling though it may be)

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:29 pm**

I would just like to take this time to say... The Adrian Empire is awesome.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:32 pm**

The Adrian Empire wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:
United Dependencies wrote:Yes people can take care of themselves. That would be why society is still standing. [/thread]

Should read "people can take care of each other".

Should read both

Yes, people can take care of themselves and each other when the situation demands, society stands as a testament to that (crumbling though it may be)

Society is crumbling because our individual monkey spheres are shrinking. I am down to about a dozen or so, and every one of them is a relative.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:34 pm**

Big Jim P wrote:
The Adrian Empire wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:
United Dependencies wrote:Yes people can take care of themselves. That would be why society is still standing. [/thread]

Should read "people can take care of each other".

Should read both

Yes, people can take care of themselves and each other when the situation demands, society stands as a testament to that (crumbling though it may be)

Society is crumbling because our individual monkey spheres are shrinking. I am down to about a dozen or so, and every one of them is a relative.

What in the name of Almighty Cabbage are you on? I have plenty of monkey spheres, picked up a twelve pack last week

Regardless :rofl:

Faith Hope Charity wrote:I would just like to take this time to say... The Adrian Empire is awesome.

Ahh shucks, :blush:

I'll be sigging that you know.

Posted: **Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:37 pm**

Faith Hope Charity wrote:I would just like to take this time to say... The Adrian Empire is awesome.

This.

NationStates

are people really smart enough to care for themselves?