What made YOU hate poor people?

**stuckathuntermtn** · 07-03-2009, 03:32 PM

Anyone who says minimum wage causes inflation clearly has not taken a basic economic course. There is this thing called the "Wage Price Spiral" in which wages and prices cause each other to go up.
Downbound: you're still a bigger idiot.
Doughboy: Sounds like the government policy of feeding the poor, no matter how lazy they are kept you fed as a kid. What about all the other little kids? Now that you've grown up and you hate your dad, it's a bad program?
SaHM, FTW, again.
Here is a random website with a good definition. I am in no way implying that this website is a verifiable source of info.

Cravenmorehead · 07-03-2009, 03:39 PM

The poor are always the scapegoat for why the rich can't have every damn nickle instead of 90%. "Oh my God......you mean I have to pay these people?"

**doughboyshredder** · 07-03-2009, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Cravenmorehead

All you care about is money. Stupid greedy fuck.

The big problem now is too many people....period.

furthest thing from the truth, and................. I agree with you.

**doughboyshredder** · 07-03-2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Cravenmorehead

Yeah....that's why my people say I'm the best boss they've ever worked for.
I have practically zero turnover. My people can pay their bills, they don't get laid off and become a burden on society. They keep their houses, pay their rent, and can actually live. You guys and your trickle down philosophy are SO wrong.

What do you do when you have someone that is an underproducer or underachiever?

Have you ever fired someone that you could have justified keeping on for a lower wage?

**doughboyshredder** · 07-03-2009, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

Doughboy: Sounds like the government policy of feeding the poor, no matter how lazy they are kept you fed as a kid. What about all the other little kids? Now that you've grown up and you hate your dad, it's a bad program?

First off I don't hate my dad. I don't respect what he did when he was young. That is a big difference. The simple fact is that my dad and many of his friends could have worked, but didn't because of social welfare programs. If there had not been social welfare programs he would have been forced in to a position where he would have had to work harder, or we would have had to go without even more.

I know that there are some people that absolutely need help. I have a great friend that is one of those people. She is a divorced single mom that works 40 hours a week and takes care of 3 kids. She deserves it, and I have no problem with our taxes being used to help people that are trying to help themselves

I am really not a heartless bastard, I just have been dirt fucking poor, and have seen the social assistance programs and the damage they cause from a first hand perspective.

**Jer** · 07-03-2009, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by stuckatbrokebackmtn

Downbound: you're still a bigger idiot.

I dunno, dude. Has DBT ever tried doing this to his skis?:

Is that a fucking sump pump in there?

Basically, stuck has come to the conclusion that being a hard-core LOCAL ski bum is pretty lame except for the skiing part. He's tired of having 5 roomates, a job at the carwash and no money. Stuck - you're poor by choice. Either accept it and stop whining or do something about it.

**stuckathuntermtn** · 07-03-2009, 05:10 PM

dude, you need to use the multi quote feature. Although, you have created a well written and intelligent argument, which is rare around here. Bravo.

**Jer** · 07-03-2009, 05:23 PM

Heater, bag of Quickrete, bag of dog/cat food or something and WTF????

**nickwm21** · 07-03-2009, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

Anyone who says minimum wage causes inflation clearly has not taken a basic economic course. There is this thing called the "Wage Price Spiral" in which wages and prices cause each other to go up.

you contradicted yourself... based on the wage price spiral theory, if minimum wage increases than prices increase. hence inflation. I guess you need to take macro again

**Jer** · 07-03-2009, 06:23 PM

And what's with the cardboard under that shitshow? Are you afraid those Pow+'s are gonna leak ATF all over your garage floor?

Stuckatbrokebackmtn = enigma wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a mystery.

**wetcoaster** · 07-03-2009, 07:21 PM

There is a well-proven correlation between "welfare state" benefits and people who choose not to enter the labor force. So yes, it is fair to say that some people mooch off of the system.

But I couldn't look someone in the eye and tell them that nobody actually needs these handouts. Housewives fleeing abusive husbands. People caught, through no fault of their own, in the downturn of the economy, and so on.

So, I'm willing to suffer some abuses of the system to ensure that it is there for those who actually need it. It isn't a black and white issue of nobody ever getting welfare benefits or paying everyone we can afford to stay at home and watch TV.

**Jer** · 07-03-2009, 07:25 PM

...and what's with the paper under your bottom bracket? Is that leaking ATF too?

Man - your garage is a real horrorshow.

**Moeghoul** · 07-03-2009, 07:44 PM

That's an interesting use of home appliances to rocker a pair of beater planks.

**doughboyshredder** · 07-03-2009, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

dude, you need to use the multi quote feature. Although, you have created a well written and intelligent argument, which is rare around here. Bravo.

If I read the whole thread before responding to a post, then I my response has been altered by other peoples responses. I prefer to respond as I read the thread. My statements are more reactionary this way. And, I get to pad my post count.

oh, and thanks

Cravenmorehead · 07-04-2009, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by nickwm21

you contradicted yourself... based on the wage price spiral theory, if minimum wage increases than prices increase. hence inflation. I guess you need to take macro again

Bullshit.......inflation is a product of the money supply......and velocity.
You're taking the bottom feeders of the economy and blaming an economic disaster fueled by excessive leverage of which they were essentially zero participants. It's fucking macro greed on the part of the top of the food chain. Place the blame where it belongs.

That's why it is a "theory" and not truth.

**johngenx** · 07-04-2009, 12:29 AM

I did thousands of hours of volunteer work in our inner city with respect to low income housing. Most of the families I worked with were not collecting welfare, but worked very hard at very low paying jobs. Some of the families were on social assistance, and often it was caused by an illness. In fact, many of the poor families I encountered had ended up either in low paying menial jobs or on welfare due to an illness of some sort. Even with socialized health care, the ramifications of being sick without disability benefits can be horrendous.

Most of the folks I came to know actually faced higher costs in many areas thanks to their low incomes. Banking charges are just one example. My wife and I, thanks to a healthy investment portfolio our bank wants to keep, offers us no service charges for any of our banking. Many banks have closed branches in lower income neighbourhoods, driving people to cheque-cashing services that have very high fees. Even if they do have a chartered bank close, they don't have the "good customer" profile and end up paying very high service charges.

"Why don't poor people just get better jobs?" Well, most of the working poor I knew were just plain on the short end of the stick with respect to potential. We're not all raised in nurturing upper-middle class homes and not everyone has the right DNA in their brain. It's just the way it is. But, does that mean they can't be treated with dignity and respect? I hope not.

Job mobility is one major hurdle. With most employers withholding your pay for many weeks after you start, changing jobs can be a big deal for many low income wage earners. Living paycheque to paycheque is real, and waiting a couple of weeks for the pay periods to begin, you can end up not meeting the rent. There are lots of little policies like that creating friction in the low income job market. This asymmetry in the market gives an advantage to employers and keeps wages lower than a true market might set.

Landlords often take advantage of low income tenants. They know that damage deposits create major mobility problems. Yes, I know that many landlords have been burned by low income renters, but the inability for even a good tenant to raise a damage deposit for a new place means limited mobility.

Welfare and employment insurance programs are not based on any "love thy neighbour" ideal. Nope, they are selfish programs once championed by the likes of industrialist Henry Ford. They were designed to smooth the business cycle and keep money moving in the economy even in downturns. Ford and many other business people were more than willing to trade some "good time" profits and pay some taxes to ensure the survival of their firms thanks to the lack of depressions. The Welfare State Compromise was formed in the post WW2 period and launched the rise of the North American and Western European dominance of the world economy. Massive infrastructure projects and the smoothing of the business cycle created such a strong economic base that even recessions were minor blips to sustained growth.

Are there people that abuse welfare payments? I'm sure there is, but I'd rather not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Those systems are a lifeline for many people and keep families/people from taking drastic measures. Societies with strong welfare components have low crime.

There are many examples of "low government intervention" nations around the world. Low or no taxes and no welfare systems typically mean little or no regulation, corrupt business and government, extreme poverty, no middle class, and high crime. Think about what sets all socialist nations (yes, the US is a nation balancing socialism with a capitalist economic structure) apart from the "rest" of the world? A strong civil society with good basic social systems, high government intervention and regulation that ensures business serves society and tremendous investment in infrastructure.

Am I saying that a completely socialistic society will work? No. Oh, and most "communist" nations were actually totalitarian dictatorships masquerading as "communism" so they don't count. But, people do need to compete, and we need avenues of achievement.

Gene Rodenberry put some serious thought into this. He obviously read Marx, and understood it. (Not many people have read it, simply believing it some evil work) Star Trek painted a future where people all had their basic needs met (no one wanted for food or shelter) and there was no money, but people competed for authority. Some people were ensigns and some people were Captains.

But, back to where we are. Extremes do not work. A completely unfettered capitalistic market system is used in many nations, and they are corrupt, poor, and lack growth and direction. This is also true of tightly controlled dictatorships. No, the successful nations find a middle ground. They establish a welfare state that smooths the business cycle, they tax to build infrastructure, they regulate business to ensure competition, and they allow enough leeway so that those that compete on the basis of economic success can do so.

I haven't even written about how we might be leaving mentally ill people out if we discontinued welfare and other social payments. Cruel...

Cravenmorehead · 07-04-2009, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by johngenx

I did thousands of hours of volunteer work in our inner city with respect to low income housing. Most of the families I worked with were not collecting welfare, but worked very hard at very low paying jobs. Some of the families were on social assistance, and often it was caused by an illness. In fact, many of the poor families I encountered had ended up either in low paying menial jobs or on welfare due to an illness of some sort. Even with socialized health care, the ramifications of being sick without disability benefits can be horrendous.

Most of the folks I came to know actually faced higher costs in many areas thanks to their low incomes. Banking charges are just one example. My wife and I, thanks to a healthy investment portfolio our bank wants to keep, offers us no service charges for any of our banking. Many banks have closed branches in lower income neighbourhoods, driving people to cheque-cashing services that have very high fees. Even if they do have a chartered bank close, they don't have the "good customer" profile and end up paying very high service charges.

"Why don't poor people just get better jobs?" Well, most of the working poor I knew were just plain on the short end of the stick with respect to potential. We're not all raised in nurturing upper-middle class homes and not everyone has the right DNA in their brain. It's just the way it is. But, does that mean they can't be treated with dignity and respect? I hope not.

Job mobility is one major hurdle. With most employers withholding your pay for many weeks after you start, changing jobs can be a big deal for many low income wage earners. Living paycheque to paycheque is real, and waiting a couple of weeks for the pay periods to begin, you can end up not meeting the rent. There are lots of little policies like that creating friction in the low income job market. This asymmetry in the market gives an advantage to employers and keeps wages lower than a true market might set.

Landlords often take advantage of low income tenants. They know that damage deposits create major mobility problems. Yes, I know that many landlords have been burned by low income renters, but the inability for even a good tenant to raise a damage deposit for a new place means limited mobility.

Welfare and employment insurance programs are not based on any "love thy neighbour" ideal. Nope, they are selfish programs once championed by the likes of industrialist Henry Ford. They were designed to smooth the business cycle and keep money moving in the economy even in downturns. Ford and many other business people were more than willing to trade some "good time" profits and pay some taxes to ensure the survival of their firms thanks to the lack of depressions. The Welfare State Compromise was formed in the post WW2 period and launched the rise of the North American and Western European dominance of the world economy. Massive infrastructure projects and the smoothing of the business cycle created such a strong economic base that even recessions were minor blips to sustained growth.

Are there people that abuse welfare payments? I'm sure there is, but I'd rather not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Those systems are a lifeline for many people and keep families/people from taking drastic measures. Societies with strong welfare components have low crime.

There are many examples of "low government intervention" nations around the world. Low or no taxes and no welfare systems typically mean little or no regulation, corrupt business and government, extreme poverty, no middle class, and high crime. Think about what sets all socialist nations (yes, the US is a nation balancing socialism with a capitalist economic structure) apart from the "rest" of the world? A strong civil society with good basic social systems, high government intervention and regulation that ensures business serves society and tremendous investment in infrastructure.

Am I saying that a completely socialistic society will work? No. Oh, and most "communist" nations were actually totalitarian dictatorships masquerading as "communism" so they don't count. But, people do need to compete, and we need avenues of achievement.

Gene Rodenberry put some serious thought into this. He obviously read Marx, and understood it. (Not many people have read it, simply believing it some evil work) Star Trek painted a future where people all had their basic needs met (no one wanted for food or shelter) and there was no money, but people competed for authority. Some people were ensigns and some people were Captains.

But, back to where we are. Extremes do not work. A completely unfettered capitalistic market system is used in many nations, and they are corrupt, poor, and lack growth and direction. This is also true of tightly controlled dictatorships. No, the successful nations find a middle ground. They establish a welfare state that smooths the business cycle, they tax to build infrastructure, they regulate business to ensure competition, and they allow enough leeway so that those that compete on the basis of economic success can do so.

I haven't even written about how we might be leaving mentally ill people out if we discontinued welfare and other social payments. Cruel...

Thank you for your insight. I agree.

**doughboyshredder** · 07-04-2009, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by johngenx

I did thousands of hours of volunteer work in our inner city with respect to low income housing. Most of the families I worked with were not collecting welfare, but worked very hard at very low paying jobs. Some of the families were on social assistance, and often it was caused by an illness. In fact, many of the poor families I encountered had ended up either in low paying menial jobs or on welfare due to an illness of some sort. Even with socialized health care, the ramifications of being sick without disability benefits can be horrendous.

Most of the folks I came to know actually faced higher costs in many areas thanks to their low incomes. Banking charges are just one example. My wife and I, thanks to a healthy investment portfolio our bank wants to keep, offers us no service charges for any of our banking. Many banks have closed branches in lower income neighbourhoods, driving people to cheque-cashing services that have very high fees. Even if they do have a chartered bank close, they don't have the "good customer" profile and end up paying very high service charges.

"Why don't poor people just get better jobs?" Well, most of the working poor I knew were just plain on the short end of the stick with respect to potential. We're not all raised in nurturing upper-middle class homes and not everyone has the right DNA in their brain. It's just the way it is. But, does that mean they can't be treated with dignity and respect? I hope not.

Job mobility is one major hurdle. With most employers withholding your pay for many weeks after you start, changing jobs can be a big deal for many low income wage earners. Living paycheque to paycheque is real, and waiting a couple of weeks for the pay periods to begin, you can end up not meeting the rent. There are lots of little policies like that creating friction in the low income job market. This asymmetry in the market gives an advantage to employers and keeps wages lower than a true market might set.

Landlords often take advantage of low income tenants. They know that damage deposits create major mobility problems. Yes, I know that many landlords have been burned by low income renters, but the inability for even a good tenant to raise a damage deposit for a new place means limited mobility.

Welfare and employment insurance programs are not based on any "love thy neighbour" ideal. Nope, they are selfish programs once championed by the likes of industrialist Henry Ford. They were designed to smooth the business cycle and keep money moving in the economy even in downturns. Ford and many other business people were more than willing to trade some "good time" profits and pay some taxes to ensure the survival of their firms thanks to the lack of depressions. The Welfare State Compromise was formed in the post WW2 period and launched the rise of the North American and Western European dominance of the world economy. Massive infrastructure projects and the smoothing of the business cycle created such a strong economic base that even recessions were minor blips to sustained growth.

Are there people that abuse welfare payments? I'm sure there is, but I'd rather not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Those systems are a lifeline for many people and keep families/people from taking drastic measures. Societies with strong welfare components have low crime.

There are many examples of "low government intervention" nations around the world. Low or no taxes and no welfare systems typically mean little or no regulation, corrupt business and government, extreme poverty, no middle class, and high crime. Think about what sets all socialist nations (yes, the US is a nation balancing socialism with a capitalist economic structure) apart from the "rest" of the world? A strong civil society with good basic social systems, high government intervention and regulation that ensures business serves society and tremendous investment in infrastructure.

Am I saying that a completely socialistic society will work? No. Oh, and most "communist" nations were actually totalitarian dictatorships masquerading as "communism" so they don't count. But, people do need to compete, and we need avenues of achievement.

Gene Rodenberry put some serious thought into this. He obviously read Marx, and understood it. (Not many people have read it, simply believing it some evil work) Star Trek painted a future where people all had their basic needs met (no one wanted for food or shelter) and there was no money, but people competed for authority. Some people were ensigns and some people were Captains.

But, back to where we are. Extremes do not work. A completely unfettered capitalistic market system is used in many nations, and they are corrupt, poor, and lack growth and direction. This is also true of tightly controlled dictatorships. No, the successful nations find a middle ground. They establish a welfare state that smooths the business cycle, they tax to build infrastructure, they regulate business to ensure competition, and they allow enough leeway so that those that compete on the basis of economic success can do so.

I haven't even written about how we might be leaving mentally ill people out if we discontinued welfare and other social payments. Cruel...

Well said.

**Jer** · 07-04-2009, 07:55 AM

Gen X Jong - while I agree with many points in your post, this paragraph:

Originally Posted by jongenx

Gene Rodenberry put some serious thought into this. He obviously read Marx, and understood it. (Not many people have read it, simply believing it some evil work) Star Trek painted a future where people all had their basic needs met (no one wanted for food or shelter) and there was no money, but people competed for authority. Some people were ensigns and some people were Captains.

is probably the most bizarre thing I've ever read here - and that's saying a lot. Saying the crew of the starship Enterprise was a great representaion of future society as a whole is like saying the crew of an aircraft carrier is a great representaion of US society as a whole. Of course they had their food/shelter/medical needs met - THEY WERE ON A FREAKING FEDERATION STARSHIP. Are you weraing a Klingon outfit right now?

Man - you were doing really good until your Spock ears popped out of your hat.

..and I'd venture to guess that a few more than "not many people" have read Karl Marx.

**nickwm21** · 07-04-2009, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Cravenmorehead

Bullshit.......inflation is a product of the money supply......and velocity.
You're taking the bottom feeders of the economy and blaming an economic disaster fueled by excessive leverage of which they were essentially zero participants. It's fucking macro greed on the part of the top of the food chain. Place the blame where it belongs.

That's why it is a "theory" and not truth.

jeeebus. u need to smoke some weed and calm down. I didnt blame anyone for anything, I just said that Stuckahm had a stupid point that actually contradicted his argument.. obviously more goes into inflation than just minimum wage, but it is one factor. Inflation is natural, with the population growing everyday and the worlds resources becoming more and more scarce, prices are going to rise, and wages are going to have to rise to keep up with them. But the past 40 years, the fed and Alan Greenspan, have been feeding inflation with the boom and bust mentality... that needs to change but im not smart enough to figure out the answer

**johngenx** · 07-04-2009, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Jer

Saying the crew of the starship Enterprise was a great representaion of future society as a whole is like saying the crew of an aircraft carrier is a great representaion of US society as a whole. Of course they had their food/shelter/medical needs met - THEY WERE ON A FREAKING FEDERATION STARSHIP. Are you weraing a Klingon outfit right now?

Man - you were doing really good until your Spock ears popped out of your hat.

..and I'd venture to guess that a few more than "not many people" have read Karl Marx.

I just find it interesting that Rodenberry paints a picture of a future where people do not have money and all their basic needs are met, but still express their need to compete. It's a pop culture way of looking at things.

As for many people reading Marx, I suppose in terms of numbers, it is a large number, but as a percentage of the population, I imagine quite low.

Marx's writings contain many prophetic ideas, including the technical revolution and massive increases in the productivity of labour. His theory that we will come to a crossroads as the rise in GDP is either distributed through labour or hoarded by an elite few seems to be rapidly approaching.

**stuckathuntermtn** · 07-04-2009, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by johngenx

I did thousands of hours of volunteer work in our inner city with respect to low income housing. Most of the families I worked with were not collecting welfare, but worked very hard at very low paying jobs. Some of the families were on social assistance, and often it was caused by an illness. In fact, many of the poor families I encountered had ended up either in low paying menial jobs or on welfare due to an illness of some sort. Even with socialized health care, the ramifications of being sick without disability benefits can be horrendous.

Most of the folks I came to know actually faced higher costs in many areas thanks to their low incomes. Banking charges are just one example. My wife and I, thanks to a healthy investment portfolio our bank wants to keep, offers us no service charges for any of our banking. Many banks have closed branches in lower income neighbourhoods, driving people to cheque-cashing services that have very high fees. Even if they do have a chartered bank close, they don't have the "good customer" profile and end up paying very high service charges.

"Why don't poor people just get better jobs?" Well, most of the working poor I knew were just plain on the short end of the stick with respect to potential. We're not all raised in nurturing upper-middle class homes and not everyone has the right DNA in their brain. It's just the way it is. But, does that mean they can't be treated with dignity and respect? I hope not.

Job mobility is one major hurdle. With most employers withholding your pay for many weeks after you start, changing jobs can be a big deal for many low income wage earners. Living paycheque to paycheque is real, and waiting a couple of weeks for the pay periods to begin, you can end up not meeting the rent. There are lots of little policies like that creating friction in the low income job market. This asymmetry in the market gives an advantage to employers and keeps wages lower than a true market might set.

Landlords often take advantage of low income tenants. They know that damage deposits create major mobility problems. Yes, I know that many landlords have been burned by low income renters, but the inability for even a good tenant to raise a damage deposit for a new place means limited mobility.

Welfare and employment insurance programs are not based on any "love thy neighbour" ideal. Nope, they are selfish programs once championed by the likes of industrialist Henry Ford. They were designed to smooth the business cycle and keep money moving in the economy even in downturns. Ford and many other business people were more than willing to trade some "good time" profits and pay some taxes to ensure the survival of their firms thanks to the lack of depressions. The Welfare State Compromise was formed in the post WW2 period and launched the rise of the North American and Western European dominance of the world economy. Massive infrastructure projects and the smoothing of the business cycle created such a strong economic base that even recessions were minor blips to sustained growth.

Are there people that abuse welfare payments? I'm sure there is, but I'd rather not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Those systems are a lifeline for many people and keep families/people from taking drastic measures. Societies with strong welfare components have low crime.

There are many examples of "low government intervention" nations around the world. Low or no taxes and no welfare systems typically mean little or no regulation, corrupt business and government, extreme poverty, no middle class, and high crime. Think about what sets all socialist nations (yes, the US is a nation balancing socialism with a capitalist economic structure) apart from the "rest" of the world? A strong civil society with good basic social systems, high government intervention and regulation that ensures business serves society and tremendous investment in infrastructure.

Am I saying that a completely socialistic society will work? No. Oh, and most "communist" nations were actually totalitarian dictatorships masquerading as "communism" so they don't count. But, people do need to compete, and we need avenues of achievement.

Gene Rodenberry put some serious thought into this. He obviously read Marx, and understood it. (Not many people have read it, simply believing it some evil work) Star Trek painted a future where people all had their basic needs met (no one wanted for food or shelter) and there was no money, but people competed for authority. Some people were ensigns and some people were Captains.

But, back to where we are. Extremes do not work. A completely unfettered capitalistic market system is used in many nations, and they are corrupt, poor, and lack growth and direction. This is also true of tightly controlled dictatorships. No, the successful nations find a middle ground. They establish a welfare state that smooths the business cycle, they tax to build infrastructure, they regulate business to ensure competition, and they allow enough leeway so that those that compete on the basis of economic success can do so.

I haven't even written about how we might be leaving mentally ill people out if we discontinued welfare and other social payments. Cruel...

I mean this in a totally hetero way when I say "I love you".

**Jer** · 07-04-2009, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by johngenx

I just find it interesting that Rodenberry paints a picture of a future where people do not have money and all their basic needs are met, but still express their need to compete.

Again - he painted a picture of a future Federation Starship, not a picture of a future society. One could argue that the crew of the Enterprise was it's own little society, but usually when you're crewing a starship or an aircraft carrier it is a given that your basic needs are taken care of. Do you think soldiers aren't competetive? Yet all their basic needs are met. The future is now.

Listen - I can actually bring myself to agree with some of Marx's ideas - then again I agree with some of pretty much anybody's ideas. On the face of it, a lot of communist philosophy sounds pretty good, however when you figure in the human factor everything naturally turns to shit. That's pretty much the problem wirh most forms of government.

So I'm not trying to shoot down your original post, I'm just saying the Star Trek analogy is beyond freaky. I wonder what Marx would think of the Jedi Knights?

Cravenmorehead · 07-04-2009, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Jer

Again - he painted a picture of a future Federation Starship, not a picture of a future society. One could argue that the crew of the Enterprise was it's own little society, but usually when you're crewing a starship or an aircraft carrier it is a given that your basic needs are taken care of. Do you think soldiers aren't competetive? Yet all their basic needs are met. The future is now.

Listen - I can actually bring myself to agree with some of Marx's ideas - then again I agree with some of pretty much anybody's ideas. On the face of it, a lot of communist philosophy sounds pretty good, however when you figure in the human factor everything naturally turns to shit. That's pretty much the problem wirh most forms of government.

So I'm not trying to shoot down your original post, I'm just saying the Star Trek analogy is beyond freaky. I wonder what Marx would think of the Jedi Knights?

Yoda would make a fuckin' great dictator. Imagine how that would mindfuck the speechwriters. Yodaprompter would take some major programming x-perts......I see a whole new economy emerging from that simple change.
New textbooks, syntax check.......we could start with him taking Biden's place.

**johngenx** · 07-04-2009, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Jer

So I'm not trying to shoot down your original post, I'm just saying the Star Trek analogy is beyond freaky. I wonder what Marx would think of the Jedi Knights?

If you read the Star Trek books, they delve much deeper into the overall society and look past the military aspect of Star-Fleet. Also, the Jedi Knights are from Star Wars, not Star Trek. Not the same at all. My point is that we use money as the current yardstick of competition for people, and this is not necessary. Also, it is not necessary to deny some (a significant percentage of the world population) the basic requirements of life in the name of "competitive freedom." Honestly, the Star Trek (again, not Star Wars) reference is mostly just for fun. Perhaps we can move on from it?

If you eschew all forms of government, I fail to see how we would progress much past the hunter-gather stage of human evolution. Somalia perhaps has no government, and I wonder how many would hold it up as an ideal. Chaos is the rule in that environment.

Governments are not evil or corrupt, but the people that can inhabit them might be. This is why transparency and democracy are key. Look inward and we can see that governments in our nations have been trying to erode both of those keys to preventing corruption for decades. September 11, 2001, has been a boon to those looking to keep power locked behind closed doors.

To me, the greatest terrorist damage has not come in the form of buildings or human life, but in the erosion of individual rights with respect to privacy. Our societies are built on a foundation of balancing the rights of the individual with the needs of the collective. Now we face a concentration of power based on the removal of individual rights in the name of the needs of the collective, but truly benefiting only a few powerful people. Shame.

It is true that our poorest people (in Canada, not sure how deep poverty is in parts of the US) are rich compared to many of the world's poor. I think this sucks, but I don't think the solution is to make our poor poorer. I think it is to create a world where famine is non existent and clean water and a sustainable food supply are basics that no one goes without.

Of course, can our world sustain 7 billion people living in the first world lifestyle that consumes 20,000 calories per day of various forms of energy? Probably not using today's energy sources and technology. What this means is that for us to raise the level of the rest of the world, we have to lower ours. I think except perhaps for some minority of exceptionally altruistic people, that is probably not going to happen. Or can it? Check out Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save." Interesting read even for the most jaded among us...

http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/

login area

STORIES

VIDEOS

FEATURED FILM

STORIES

VIDEOS

FEATURED FILM

STORIES

VIDEOS

FEATURED FILM

SKI

SNOWBOARD

AVI SAFETY

MEN'S CLOTHING

WOMEN'S CLOTHING

BRANDS

ATHLETES

Featured Resorts

Resorts by Location

Thread: What made YOU hate poor people?

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

Most Recent Video

Most Recent Blog

Most Recent Photo

Home

Ski

Snowboard

Surf

Travel

Gear

Shop

Company