Post: #1

A blog post from a philosopher that I enjoy reading. For the sake accountability, I will state right that he writes from a conservative Catholic point of view which I know isn't everyone's cup of tea:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/09/...ty-si.html

Quote:From a natural law point of view, we have a grave duty to help those who are in poverty. But we are also obliged to recognize that inequality is simply part of the natural order of things. The two things -- poverty and inequality -- simply have nothing essentially to do with one another. Pope Leo XIII expressed this position eloquently in his 1878 encyclical on socialism, Quod Apostolici Muneris, which vigorously reaffirms the duty of the rich to aid the poor, but also vigorously condemns socialism, which he calls “evil,” “depraved” and a “plague.” And one of the problems he has with it is precisely its egalitarianism:

In the next part, a quote from the 1878 encyclical mentioned above is quoted that refers to why socialism is to be rejected

Quote:[W]hile the socialists would destroy the “right” of property, alleging it to be a human invention altogether opposed to the inborn equality of man, and, claiming a community of goods, argue that poverty should not be peaceably endured, and that the property and privileges of the rich may be rightly invaded, the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate. (Emphasis added)

Don't want to bog down the rest of the post with long ass quotes so I will give a brief tl;dr of what the rest of the post says. The author of the post draws a distinction between concern for the less fortunate and concern with making everyone equal and points out that even though the two ideas are commonly thought to be interchangeable they are in fact not. The author of the post also furthers quotes the encyclical which acknowledges that there is indeed a difference between human beings in terms of intelligence, ability, talent and that this is just the natural order of things.

A common thread of discussion is the notion of equality and how it has been abused in order to further agendas that aren't beneficial to society at large so I thought this post could lead to further discussion. What exactly should be due to a person by virtue of him being a human being and what should only be due to him based on his ability?

Post: #2

Helping the poor is charity. Politicians buying votes and forcing you to pay for it is socialism.

I think it all comes down to respecting ownership. I can CHOOSE to help others. Or the government can take my property and money at gunpoint to use as it pleases - whether or not any poor are even helped.

Post: #3

Absolute material equality is not a necessary goal of socialism. Plenty of mainstream facets of the civilized world like social security, universal education, labor laws, 40-hour work weeks, aid to the disabled among other things were brought about in part through socialist agitation, and all were decried by the reactionaries of their day as the greatest of socialist evils.

Socialism is also perfectly capable of recognizing and embracing natural differences among people in terms of ability and talent. Maybe some strains reject it but it's not an axiom of socialism that people must be regarded as uniform in intelligence, ability or anything else. This is an old and lazy straw man.

Post: #4

(09-24-2015 11:55 PM)chagataev Wrote:  Absolute material equality is not a necessary goal of socialism. Plenty of mainstream facets of the civilized world like social security, universal education, labor laws, 40-hour work weeks, aid to the disabled among other things were brought about in part through socialist agitation, and all were decried by the reactionaries of their day as the greatest of socialist evils.

They are evil. They were evil then and they're evil now. And 40 hour work weeks are a result of the capital accumulation following the industrial revolution and the age of capitalism, not a result of legislation. Legislators can only get away with things like 40 hour work weeks and abolition of child labour once those things are happening by default anyway. Imposing them before the capital exists to support them is to impose starvation on people.

(09-24-2015 11:55 PM)chagataev Wrote:  Socialism is also perfectly capable of recognizing and embracing natural differences among people in terms of ability and talent. Maybe some strains reject it but it's not an axiom of socialism that people must be regarded as uniform in intelligence, ability or anything else. This is an old and lazy straw man.

That's some serious true believer talk. Socialism has always been about "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". So sure, you can have plenty of ability and talent, but you'll be punished for it by parasitism, and by extension, the more of a useless urchin you are the more you're allowed to parasitize others. You won't receive the personal benefits of intelligence and ability and industry like you would under capitalism.

(09-24-2015 10:47 PM)Wutang Wrote:  What exactly should be due to a person by virtue of him being a human being and what should only be due to him based on his ability?

Nothing is 'due' to anyone, since 'due' as far a 'welfare' is concerned, simply means 'third party robbery'. This robbery is a result of democratic constitutions, whereby one faction (the political class) trades 'loot for power' with another faction (the parasite class). It is not a result of any objective moral reasons.

Welfare is enormously destructive to human societies long-term, and it reverses evolution. The 'heartless' attitude that people should be required to sink or swim is only heartless to the short sighted. Viewed long term, it is an act of compassion to future generations.

In terms of charity (i.e. 'voluntary welfare payments'), these are often beneficial to the providers. The simplest example is community 'tit for tat'. If you rescue someone from a terrible position, they feel indebted to you, and will likely help you if you fall in dire straights yourself (and if they don't their reputation will be damaged).

Also families have an in-built genetic incentive to rescue family members who fall in dire straights.

Finally there is a sexual selection aspect. It is well known that 'pro social' behaviour is considered attractive by women. The reason for this is simple: if a man is so strong, or has so much surplus resources, that he can comfortably spend energy and resources to help others (with no benefit to himself), that evidences his genetic quality. A stupid, lazy, weak, untalented man is unable to do such a thing - it is an ability reserved to superior men who can produce well in excess of their own requirements. This is the reason why rescuing a child from a river is a false example of 'pure selflessness'. A man who successfully rescues a child from a river receives a massive boost in reputation in his community, proves his physical strength and bravery, and receives increased preference from women as a result.

Post: #5

Let them starve. When you're down on your luck you will find a way to pull yourself out of such a gutter. Some of the stories on this forum of guys living in cars and showering at the gym are prime examples of being down on their luck.

Woman follows her tingles and gets knocked up by a wannabe thug? She deserves no sympathy for laying on her back and spreading her legs. Once upon a time women like this starved.

Call me callous and unsympathetic. I've heard too many stories of poor people making mistake after mistake of their own volition. There's a reason they're poor and they deserve no help from people who followed the rules and did what was expected of them.

Post: #6

Isn't it Ronald Reagan who said something like : "The best solution to poverty is a job"???

Post: #7

I don't believe in helping people from other countries, but I will help a neighbour (anyone in my country).

I would love to be wealthy enough to do things like hand out $100 bills at Christmas to random people in big stores.

Post: #8

(09-25-2015 02:49 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  That's some serious true believer talk. Socialism has always been about "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". So sure, you can have plenty of ability and talent, but you'll be punished for it by parasitism, and by extension, the more of a useless urchin you are the more you're allowed to parasitize others. You won't receive the personal benefits of intelligence and ability and industry like you would under capitalism.

This has always been the problem with marxist and softer socialist approaches. It doesn't take into consideration the more venal and parasitic attributes of human nature. There are people who will naturally exploit and abuse a system given to them no matter what. Socialism does not offer adequate checks and balances to counteract this. It just exacerbates all the problems by putting faith in human nature and authoritarian (leader) structures. The flaw is that it's unrealistic and hopelessly optimistic. This is why this ideology has been revitalized again and again with hippies and coffee shop hipsters wearing Che Guevara crap. They really don't understand nuance.

It's a bit ironic since popular socialist type policies have led to the death and murder of millions worldwide.

Post: #9

(09-25-2015 08:16 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  This has always been the problem with marxist and softer socialist approaches. It doesn't take into consideration the more venal and parasitic attributes of human nature. There are people who will naturally exploit and abuse a system given to them no matter what. Socialism does not offer adequate checks and balances to counteract this. It just exacerbates all the problems by putting faith in human nature and authoritarian (leader) structures. The flaw is that it's unrealistic and hopelessly optimistic. This is why this ideology has been revitalized again and again with hippies and coffee shop hipsters wearing Che Guevara crap. They really don't understand nuance.

It's a bit ironic since popular socialist type policies have led to the death and murder of millions worldwide.

In my ideal world, the would be some kind of safety net for people who are temporarily down on their luck - the kind of safety net that would prevent people from losing their jobs to living on the streets and becoming unemployable. Something to help people who genuinely need it to get back on their feet.

But in any instance where this safety net is provided, it is exploited as you describe above, with generation after generation living on welfare.

Is there no system to provide assistance only for those who really need it, as I can't think of one welfare state which works this way.

Post: #10

(09-25-2015 08:25 AM)Horus Wrote:  In my ideal world, the would be some kind of safety net for people who are temporarily down on their luck - the kind of safety net that would prevent people from losing their jobs to living on the streets and becoming unemployable. Something to help people who genuinely need it to get back on their feet.

But in any instance where this safety net is provided, it is exploited as you describe above, with generation after generation living on welfare.

Is there no system to provide assistance only for those who really need it, as I can't think of one welfare state which works this way.

That system already exists: it's called charity. Unlike welfare, whereby they receive it automatically for political reasons, charity is voluntary. If someone needs charity, as they have fallen on hard times or have suffered a terrible injury etc, they go to the respective charity organization and make their case. If your case doesn't justify charity in their eyes, you get nothing. These charities would rely on marketing their legitimacy with examples of the cases they take on and the success they have in their cases returning to work.

To receive charity, which has limited resources and is funded only as long as its donors believe it is worthy, your case must be strong. You must also, in cases of temporary charity, submit to following the demands of the charity (which would be tailored to getting them back on their feet and off the charity as soon as possible). In cases of permanent charity, you'd have to have a damn strong case, i.e. crippled beyond being able to work, through no fault of your own. Probably 95% of those currently on welfare wouldn't get a dime, and would have to choose starvation or working.

Post: #11

(09-25-2015 02:49 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(09-24-2015 11:55 PM)chagataev Wrote:  Absolute material equality is not a necessary goal of socialism. Plenty of mainstream facets of the civilized world like social security, universal education, labor laws, 40-hour work weeks, aid to the disabled among other things were brought about in part through socialist agitation, and all were decried by the reactionaries of their day as the greatest of socialist evils.

They are evil. They were evil then and they're evil now. And 40 hour work weeks are a result of the capital accumulation following the industrial revolution and the age of capitalism, not a result of legislation. Legislators can only get away with things like 40 hour work weeks and abolition of child labour once those things are happening by default anyway. Imposing them before the capital exists to support them is to impose starvation on people.

That the material conditions exist to support something is no guarantee that it will happen. The living standards of the average person have often lagged behind large economic booms until the fruits of the increased production have been distributed (the industrial revolution, the gilded age, the ming dynasty expansion, the 16th century english expansion, to mention some of the larger economic expansions in human history which followed the pattern of living standards *decreasing* for the average person for a number of years until the produce was distributed better). At one point the material conditions existed that would support a 40 hour work week, but people still worked 80 hours. Then, through a combination of legislation and union activism, both backed by socialist agitation, capital was forced to concede a 40 hour work week. 80 hours work weeks could have continued on for some time while the conditions for a 40 hour work week existed, with the benefits flowing to capital. Your point is no point at all.

And if the whole gamut from child labor laws to universal education is evil, how much more is evil -- publicly administered courts and police forces? Libertarians are like left-liberals who bang on about Islamic immigration -- wait until they get what they wish for.

Quote:That's some serious true believer talk. Socialism has always been about "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". So sure, you can have plenty of ability and talent, but you'll be punished for it by parasitism, and by extension, the more of a useless urchin you are the more you're allowed to parasitize others. You won't receive the personal benefits of intelligence and ability and industry like you would under capitalism.

None of this says that absolute economic equality is a necessary goal of socialism. The in the USSR there never existed absolute economic equality. Plenty of more intelligent people went on to become engineers or whatever else and made more money than the average worker. This is not to defend the USSR too strongly. But "absolute material uniformity" is NOT an axiom of socialism in some way (there, of course, are no set axioms of any ideology).

And socialism can promote economic mobility for the talented, and has done so. I don't know how anyone can deny that universal education and expanded access to high education promoted social mobility. Especially in the middle on the 20th century when school systems attempted to select more strongly for intelligence, plenty of working class people who would never complete much education without the socialist reforms to school access completed secondary and tertiary education.

And of course, there is plenty of parasitism under capitalism. The majority of the finance industry for example. Rent-seekers, inheritors, beneficiaries of nepotism. Such things can exist in any society regardless of economic system, but socialist policies can and do smooth them over, to varying degrees of success depending on implementation.

Post: #12

(09-25-2015 03:59 AM)PABeaulieu Wrote:  Isn't it Ronald Reagan who said something like : "The best solution to poverty is a job"???

The best solution to poverty is a secure, well-paying job. Which the contemporary economy does not produce enough of.

Post: #13

(09-25-2015 09:56 AM)chagataev Wrote:  At one point the material conditions existed that would support a 40 hour work week, but people still worked 80 hours. Then, through a combination of legislation and union activism, both backed by socialist agitation, capital was forced to concede a 40 hour work week. 80 hours work weeks could have continued on for some time while the conditions for a 40 hour work week existed, with the benefits flowing to capital. Your point is no point at all.

Pure fantasy. Sounds like something straight out of Das Kapital. These lies and class-struggle fairy-tales have done untold damage to the world, and unfortunately as you're proving, they never just fade away. Perhaps if the USSR had undergone the same ideological purging treatment as post-Nazi Germany things might have been different, but it just gently 'collapsed', sending waves of its infectious Leftism westwards, leading to what we have today.

(09-25-2015 09:56 AM)chagataev Wrote:  And if the whole gambit from child labor laws to universal education is evil, how much more is evil -- publicly administered courts and police forces? Libertarians are like left-liberals who bang on about Islamic immigration -- wait until they get what they wish for.

Depends on what laws those courts and police are enforcing. All the libertarians demand is that they keep the peace rather than committing their own injustices.

(09-25-2015 09:56 AM)chagataev Wrote:  And of course, there is plenty of parasitism under capitalism. The majority of the finance industry for example. Rent-seekers, inheritors, beneficiaries of nepotism. Such things can exist in any society regardless of economic system, but socialist policies can and do smooth them over, to varying degrees of success depending on implementation.

The finance industry is one the government is the most heavily involved in. It is the most regulated and intervened in industry in existence, to the extent where banks have government regulators offices in them. On top of that the 'money' they use is produced by government fiat and regulated by a central bank. It's the closest to central planning any industry is going to get. Get rid of all that and the parasitism ends.

Post: #14

(09-24-2015 11:55 PM)chagataev Wrote:  Absolute material equality is not a necessary goal of socialism. Plenty of mainstream facets of the civilized world like social security, universal education, labor laws, 40-hour work weeks, aid to the disabled among other things were brought about in part through socialist agitation, and all were decried by the reactionaries of their day as the greatest of socialist evils.

Socialism is also perfectly capable of recognizing and embracing natural differences among people in terms of ability and talent. Maybe some strains reject it but it's not an axiom of socialism that people must be regarded as uniform in intelligence, ability or anything else. This is an old and lazy straw man.

I disagree with your contention that socialism somehow brought about comforts of modern society. For example, children didn't stop working because of child labor laws. Children worked for thousands of years up until the industrial revolution. There wasn't even a concept of "child labor" because it was assumed everyone worked or you died. Child labor ended because capital became intensive enough and labor productive enough to allow the parents to make enough money to allow the child to stay home. This was brought about from technological innovation and competition brought about by free market capitalism.

Children not working was a new thing in Western History, and throughout most of the world to this day, children still work because they have to to survive. For example, in Bangladesh, they passed child labor laws. According to reports, when children were forced out of sweatshops, they moved to child prostitution or died. So government just cant stop people from working. It doesn't work like that.

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Deterrence_Act

And that is without even getting into the failure of Social Security. And how we have tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities there.

Post: #15

Phoenix Wrote:Pure fantasy. Sounds like something straight out of Das Kapital.

That union agitation and legislation led to decreased work weeks and other labor laws is fantasy? I can't imagine how. Legislation passed, supported by organized labor, or organized labor which had always had intellectual ties to socialism won concessions, and then work weeks went down and children stopped working.

Quote:These lies and class-struggle fairy-tales have done untold damage to the world, and unfortunately as you're proving, they never just fade away. Perhaps if the USSR had undergone the same ideological purging treatment as post-Nazi Germany things might have been different, but it just gently 'collapsed', sending waves of its infectious Leftism westwards, leading to what we have today.

I'm not sure what you could mean here. The collapse of the USSR was no fall of Constantinople that sent leftist intellectuals fleeing across the world. It resulted in a marked decrease of far left thought across the west. Really far leftist thought in the west was way more popular in the 60s than now.

Quote:Depends on what laws those courts and police are enforcing. All the libertarians demand is that they keep the peace rather than committing their own injustices.

In any event for public police forces and courts to exist they need to be publicly funded. At this point you are admitting the possibility for government-funded public services, so the argument is no longer whether publicly-funded services are morally justifiable but which ones are practically beneficial.

Quote:The finance industry is one the government is the most heavily involved in. It is the most regulated and intervened in industry in existence, to the extent where banks have government regulators offices in them. On top of that the 'money' they use is produced by government fiat and regulated by a central bank. It's the closest to central planning any industry is going to get. Get rid of all that and the parasitism ends.

This is no argument to the point that there is parasitism under capitalism, and that currently the finance industry exemplifies this. That there exist government regulations is irrelevant. Financiers making billions off of mortgage-backed securities that eventually crashed the world economy is an example of how under capitalism people can make huge sums of money, as long as they already have huge sums of money to finance their schemes, while providing no value. True without government support they would not have been bailed out as they were, but even though their companies would then have collapsed they would have walked away with the millions they'd made in the interim, keeping the wealth they had made by creating no value.

The point is there is plenty of parasitism under capitalism, and policies with strong links to the legacy of socialism can and have encouraged social mobility allowing people to use their talents who would not have had the opportunity to do so under a free-market system with no support.

Socialism at its core should be about saying that no wealthy person should have an advantage over a poor person if the poor person is more talented, intelligent and capable.

Post: #16

(09-25-2015 10:34 AM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  

(09-24-2015 11:55 PM)chagataev Wrote:  Absolute material equality is not a necessary goal of socialism. Plenty of mainstream facets of the civilized world like social security, universal education, labor laws, 40-hour work weeks, aid to the disabled among other things were brought about in part through socialist agitation, and all were decried by the reactionaries of their day as the greatest of socialist evils.

Socialism is also perfectly capable of recognizing and embracing natural differences among people in terms of ability and talent. Maybe some strains reject it but it's not an axiom of socialism that people must be regarded as uniform in intelligence, ability or anything else. This is an old and lazy straw man.

I disagree with your contention that socialism somehow brought about comforts of modern society. For example, children didn't stop working because of child labor laws. Children worked for thousands of years up until the industrial revolution. There wasn't even a concept of "child labor" because it was assumed everyone worked or you died. Child labor ended because capital became intensive enough and labor productive enough to allow the parents to make enough money to allow the child to stay home. This was brought about from technological innovation and competition brought about by free market capitalism.

Children not working was a new thing in Western History, and throughout most of the world to this day, children still work because they have to to survive. For example, in Bangladesh, they past child labor laws. According to reports, when children were forced out of sweatshops, they moved to child prostitution or died. So government just cant stop people from working. It doesn't work like that.

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Deterrence_Act

And that is without even getting into the failure of Social Security. And how we have tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities there.

You are right that for child labor laws and the like to "work" the material conditions have to be there. But there are two factors here: production and distribution. You can have the material conditions to support no child labor while child labor is still a practical necessity due to distribution of wealth. Through a combination of child labor legislation, resultant union agitation for higher wages to make up the differences, and legislation forcing employers to comply to labor's demands to some varying degree, organized labor affected the distribution of wealth and got a larger share while doing away with child labor. This is socialism, one facet of a very broad ideology with thousands of currents.

Post: #17

(09-25-2015 10:46 AM)chagataev Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 10:34 AM)Steve_Jay Wrote:  

(09-24-2015 11:55 PM)chagataev Wrote:  Absolute material equality is not a necessary goal of socialism. Plenty of mainstream facets of the civilized world like social security, universal education, labor laws, 40-hour work weeks, aid to the disabled among other things were brought about in part through socialist agitation, and all were decried by the reactionaries of their day as the greatest of socialist evils.

Socialism is also perfectly capable of recognizing and embracing natural differences among people in terms of ability and talent. Maybe some strains reject it but it's not an axiom of socialism that people must be regarded as uniform in intelligence, ability or anything else. This is an old and lazy straw man.

I disagree with your contention that socialism somehow brought about comforts of modern society. For example, children didn't stop working because of child labor laws. Children worked for thousands of years up until the industrial revolution. There wasn't even a concept of "child labor" because it was assumed everyone worked or you died. Child labor ended because capital became intensive enough and labor productive enough to allow the parents to make enough money to allow the child to stay home. This was brought about from technological innovation and competition brought about by free market capitalism.

Children not working was a new thing in Western History, and throughout most of the world to this day, children still work because they have to to survive. For example, in Bangladesh, they past child labor laws. According to reports, when children were forced out of sweatshops, they moved to child prostitution or died. So government just cant stop people from working. It doesn't work like that.

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Deterrence_Act

And that is without even getting into the failure of Social Security. And how we have tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities there.

You are right that for child labor laws and the like to "work" the material conditions have to be there. But there are two factors here: production and distribution. You can have the material conditions to support no child labor while child labor is still a practical necessity due to distribution of wealth. Through a combination of child labor legislation, resultant union agitation for higher wages to make up the differences, and legislation forcing employers to comply to labor's demands to some varying degree, organized labor affected the distribution of wealth and got a larger share while doing away with child labor. This is socialism, one facet of a very broad ideology with thousands of currents.

You have things backwards. Factories didn't make children work, their families made them work because they had to to survive. Child labor laws don't make people less poor. If people need their children to work it is because they are poor to begin with.

Child labor didn't end in the US because of laws. Child labor laws were passed after much of the practice ended because society was productive enough and wealthy enough to where they could afford children not to work. So the law really didn't have an adverse effect on business at that point. It was more symbolic.

Also unions bargaining for wages is not socialism. Socialism is public ownership of the means of the production. There is nothing inherently socialist about individuals forming voluntary associations to have more bargaining power. You can have unions in a free market as long as they don't have government privileges.

As for the redistribution of wealth. Where does this money come from? To whom would it be allocated? How would it be allocated for that matter?

Post: #18

Look around. Actionable opportunities are there for you to volunteer your time and/or money

For example - in NYC there is a volunteer program to teach programming and computer science to public school kids. I think its a great life skill that can help them succeed in the future and it should be taught and embraced younger

Post: #19

(09-25-2015 02:49 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Welfare is enormously destructive to human societies long-term, and it reverses evolution. The 'heartless' attitude that people should be required to sink or swim is only heartless to the short sighted. Viewed long term, it is an act of compassion to future generations.

Post: #20

There shouldn't be any centralized safety net for anyone. The left is great at pulling on the heartstrings and feels. Like The Beast1 said, fuck them. There is no reason any adult (barring mental illness) shouldn't be able to support themselves. I used to give my change to bums, but after a few too many panhandlers I refuse to give them a penny. I gave a guy down on his luck a few bucks for a bootleg DVD out of sympathy, which turned out to be filmed inside the movie theater. A few weeks later I saw him walking out of his place of work.

The only safety net anyone needs is their family and friends. Hell, I've had to borrow money from my parents before and I felt like an asshole because of it. I've also loaned my brother some cash when he hit a tight spot and he paid me back as soon as he could. This is the only charity that we need but the Left is hellbent on destroying that too. You can't ask your family for help when you're raised by the state.

I, like everyone here, work for my money. I look out for my own and fuck the rest. Why should I help someone who made poor decisions so they can have their cake and eat it too? Fuck them. Let charities fill the gaps but stop pressuring me to help the "less fortunate". Have you ever driven through a trailer park? Most residents spend their days at home and drive nicer cars than me. That's where everyone's "charity" and "compassion" is going.

If I didn't have ambition, I would sign up for welfare and spend my days getting drunk in a trailer park Ricky style. I mean why not? The state will pay you to pound Old E's and put spinners on your car.