or that people are entitled to even distribution of resources. the main reason was to push for/maintain fairness which in a sense is tied into entitlement.
im outi
Roberth
Which is what got us into this whole mess: some idiots in congress thought that no matter how poor, lazy, or irresponsible you were, you DESERVE to own a home. And here we are: trying to deal with yet another of the fuck-ups government inflicted upon us.
Without that particular sense of entitlement–a pooling of resources for the good of the social group–human beings would have died before they figured out that they could put fig leaves over their junk and start a civilization.
And the experts whom they trusted to be honest with them told them that they could.
We’ve grown too large for that to work any more. We are not a collective. We pool resources among our families, not with strangers.
Reality would like to disagree with you. The people in this world are now more united in interdependence than they have ever been. If we stopped altogether and spontaneously began existing again as a species of tiny clanlike communities, I guarantee you the shit would hit the fan in a way that would make what we have today look like a paradise. Life would be far more difficult and survival would be far less of a guarantee–and survival is ultimately the one overarching criterion for the behavior of any species.
We are not equipped to survive on our own. Not before, not now, not ever. Period.
Please, go on, elaborate how. Because last time I checked civilization cannot exist with out a large group being a collective.
You aren’t this dumb.
Name one point in the existence of humans on this planet where we survived on our own.
i highly doubt that entitlement on the level we are talking about existed in their minds at that time. it was probably called survival and you probably weren’t entitled to it, you had to contribute to it. eventually they figured out that as a collective it worked better. although we are both speculating. however, i think war is a strong case against the argument you make because essentially it is a disagreement on entitlements and weve made it this far with it being very prevalent in society (maybe even more so in our beginnings when we werent as civilized and lacked the intelligence for high levels of diplomacy and were probably attacking and killing other clans for food). i still think inherently a human has no entitlement to anything and the reason govt exits is because people think otherwise and there needs to be an entity to facilitate this belief.
im outi
Roberth
No, but I was that tired. Disregard. Derping around on a keyboard before slumping over. Hell, I don’t even remember posting that, but it’s here, so it must’ve happened.
Neanderthals took care of their sick, and those with deformities. Those people never contributed to the collective, and where just consumed. But they still took care of them.
You only think that people don’t deserve anything because you grew up in an environment where such ideas are promoted.
I don’t mind paying taxes, but I do find it absolutely ridiculous that a small business owner can fail because of hard times, and a multinational corporation with gets a bail out because of the poor decisions of executives. Honestly, small businesses hire more Americans because they don’t have the resources to ship jobs overseas. The problem this man is facing is entirely self inflicted, no one made him build a house that size. But I think this man isn’t all that different from the average American. Most people tend to buy the largest, most expensive house they can afford, regardless of how much hardship it will cause them.
To every single fool who parrots that people “aren’t owed anything” and they ought “earn” something, in order to “justify” their having it, I posit a simple socio-economic query:
What did the rich (i.e. multi-mutli-millionaires on up to multi-multi-billionaires) do to “earn” their wealth, to “justify” their having everything, precisely?
Please, do tell.
This is an earnest question.
I do not think you have a reasoned answer.
Blue ball comes slowly.
OK new plan. We don’t raise taxes on the 1%, but they are all forced to live in the projects for at least one month. That means no access to their fortune, no access to their business contacts, no nothin. They gotta live like that for one month. Then they can go back to doin whatever it is that they do.
I honestly think this would bring about more change than any government policies being discussed.
They stole, raped, and sold people.
Do I get a cookie?
Edit: All of them would be dead in like the first day.
Were you defending them?
I know YOUR head is on straight, my man…
And you left out murdered, cheated, and lied.
Blue ball comes slowly.
Obviously you haven’t taken any time to read the bill, so I will keep this simple for you. 2 major ways. #1 A business with 50 or more full time employees either have to provide all full time employees health insurance that meets government guidelines or pay a $2,000 per employee fine. The $2,000 fine will be much cheaper than providing the insurance. #2. Obama care redefines full time worker as someone working 30 hrs or more a week. With this business will have to make sure they only have 49 employees who can get over 30 hrs a week. Over all this not only is going to hurt businesses, this is going to crush the lower middle class. Already because of federal overtime rules the working poor are working two jobs because employers can afford to pay them if they get over 40 hrs will have get by with not being allowed to work more than 30 hrs and will have to struggle to find a and work a 3rd or 4th job.
Smart companies that have the means to will just relocate to another company. Companies that cannot will most likely just close or downsize. Would you work a job if you were not going to get paid? Owners are no different than workers.
The lesson would last for about 30 seconds. Much of their problem isn’t experiential, so much as endemic to their brain chemistry.
If you brought a rich person into the projects, the first thing they would do is figure out how to make money down there. Once they figure it out property values would start to go up as they built businesses. The poor would no longer be able to afford to live in that neighborhood and would have to move to another poor area. Making money is a skill like building a box. If I know how to build a box you can come and steal all my boxes and I will be OK because i can make more boxes. Same with money, If more people would just spend have the time learning how to create wealth out of nothing instead of bitching about someone else having wealth, there would be a lot more wealth.
I don’t claim to be an economic expert. One of my pet peeves, and this is especially bad online, is people who transform into economists, military experts, political pundits, string theorists, etc. at the drop of a hat. Still, your last few sentences strike me as some of the most absurd nonsense I’ve ever read. When, in our planet’s entire history, with our finite land and resources, have we been able to get anything for free? Haven’t we tried, like in the 1920s and recently, only to have everything collapse because it wasn’t based on reality?
Seems to me that manufacturing is still the only way to “generate” wealth, and even that has to reach a limit. That’s what I don’t understand about all this “information economy”, or “service economy” stuff that gets thrown around. Look around! It doesn’t work because you can’t get something for free. Of course, if you know how to generate wealth and anyone can do it, why are you keeping it a secret, especially if it comes from nothing?
Is this a serious question? Did Brin and Page not invent Google? Did Zuckerberg not have a hand in Facebook? Did Gates and Jobs not bust their asses to make Microsoft and Apple, respectively?