"TommCatt"
cox.net> wrote in message
news:XWWMj.471$4m2.187@newsfe09.phx...> James Whitehead wrote:
>>
>> The idea was this freedom offers a general freedom - nothing to do with
>> free to do the impossible. Lots of people in "free" societies work in
>> jobs they would rather not do - so that doesnt strike one as ".free"
>
> Why isn't it free? Show me the force being used to make this person work
> at this job he would rather not do.
Social, economic. Behavioural. How many middle class kids aspire to be coal
miners or trawlermen.
>
> He chose the job in the first place. He chooses every day to stay at the
> job. He chooses to go home, pop a cold one and veg out in front of the TV
> instead of taking some night course to learn a new, higher paying skill.
>
That's not choice - its behavioural conditioning. A few just a few may break
out of this (prison) but then they tend to lack any society and humans are
social animals. If your guy lives in a small town or village there would be
no night course - if there were - who runs them- here it would be the state.
The other option of a commercial course would be unaffordable- and i cant
see him getting a loan from a commercial bank in these times... And
immediately he takes this step he finds himself apart from his society. The
Open University offers such a chance - a state institution founded by
socialist Harold Wilson. You have to pay- but its a feature of many
graduates that they lose friends and divorce is common. Worse the actual
degree is looked down on by quite a few other graduates. On application
forms the college where one obtained the degree is often important. OU is
considered second rate by many.
> Don't listen to what people say -- look at what they do. These people who
> complain the have to work at a job they don't like are full of it! They
> could have a better job, they could enjoy a better standard of living --
> but it will cost them time and effort and extra responsibilities. They are
> more than happy to complain. That makes them feel better. They are content
> with the work they do and the life they lead. If they were really all that
> unhappy -- *they would go out and do something about it*!!!
>
Even if they could its a big step. Are not relationships in general often
unhappy - but the needs of the kids - the house etc mean divorce and a life
in Tahiti painting naked natives is a rare event.
>> Do you think Bill Gates labors to survive? Or anyone worth a few million
>> dollars?
>
> I can guarantee you don't work as hard as Bill Gates. He segments his work
> days (usually 6, sometimes 7 days per week) into 15-minute blocks of time
> and spends about an hour each week going over his schedule with his
> assistant to see if there were any blocks of time that was wasted and how
> to prevent it next week.
>
> I don't work that hard? Do you? Do you work as hard as any random
> millionaire? I seriously doubt it. You'd be too busy to complain as much
> as you do.
>
Cant think of why you think i'm complaining - i'm not - i'm describing the
world as i see it. Gates has an assitant! I wont speak for myself but
someone who gets up a 5.30, cleans the house - goes out to work - comes home
6.30 cooks for the family then does paperwork for the next day till around
11.30. but it is a she! Gates gets a day off! Loads of people work longer
and harder than Gates.
> And while we're at it, very few people (in Capitalist countries) labor to
> survive.
Depends what you mean by survive - being social animals most people live in
social networks - they need these - without which they become tramps (US
bums) and nutcases- or go off to Arles and cut their ears off.
>Our productivity is so high, it takes very little labor to bring in enough
>to survive. We don't even talk about surviving. Staying alive is no longer
>a goal we strive for. What we are all doing now is growing or maintaining
>our *standard of living*! Maybe we can *retire early*! But survive?! When
>was the last time you were concerned about surviving?
>
>>> If I continue to be frugal, and make sound financial decisions, there
>>> may
>>> come a time when my capital provides a more valuable service to the
>>> market
>>> than my labor. At that point (which we try to time to coincide with the
>>> time we reach retirement age) I can withdraw my immediate labor from the
>>> market and make a living by providing my stored labor.
>>
>> Well yes? but my ignorant point was that most people want to *not* work -
>> this disrupts the naive logic of your picture above.
>
> Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Sure, there are some people who are
> content to sleep in late, watch TV all day and the only work-related
> effort they make each month is to go to the bank to cash the welfare
> check. But most people need to work. The human psyche demands a reason for
> existing. Work gives us a role, a function, a purpose. Even if the job is
> personally unfulfilling, it allows us to maintain our dignity. We pay our
> own way through this world, thank you.
>
So no choice - i wonder why so many then buy a lottery ticket who are in
work?
> If you have trouble grasping this concept, that may be why you have such a
> negative view of life. Most people reading this, however, will know.
>
Bah bah bah - to most people. I have trouble grasping the concept as its
empty. A cow in a herd is not free - and you paint the picture of the herd
and sing its praises. And what you write abouve is called Bad Faith...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism)
>> Also your capitalism depends are surplus value which only has value in
>> forcing someone else to work.
>
> This is such an insanely stupid statement that you must explain it. Walk
> us through an example of this, highlighting the economic principles behind
> it.
>
>> Otherwise you appear to think that you can generate wealth at no cost-
>> which is physically impossible. That is the major flaw with capitalism -
>> everyone cant be rich - therefore wealth = someone else being poor.
>
> So, you think that if you have increased your earnings that this was only
> possible because someone else had to decrease theirs. That would be too
> depressing!
Reality is far more depressing - cows dont die of old age - they get made
into Big Macs
>
> So answer me this: how can the world, every generation growing in
> population, yet every generation growing in wealth. The US, with a
> population of about 300 million, has really almost no poverty to speak of.
> The average "poor" person in the US has at least one car, color TV,
> refrigerator, microwave oven, has a 50/50 chance of owning his own home
> and can stand to lose about 20 pounds. This is what we now consider
> "disenfranchised." If you add up all the wealth of all the people living
> in the "first" world, you have more wealth than existed in the entire
> world just a generation or two ago.
>
So? Its comparative. If its so good being "disenfranchised." why do so
many middle class Americans seek to avoid it?
> There is simply not enough poor people in the entire world to make that
> many people rich.
>
>> Howver does the point remain that the 80%% acheived richness not through
>> captialism but through state education?
>
> Show me the person who started his education poor and completed his
> education rich. Did he create his wealth in the classroom or in the
> workplace? This is such an amazingly stupid statement that I wonder that
> you aren't just throwing it out to get a reaction.
Its your point - the state offers evening classes for your blue collar
worker - the state offers these poor a chance of education and so wealth...
please i'm not saying this is good or bad - but its true isnt it.
>
>>> Now, when I say loan, I don't necessarily mean "I give you X now if you
>>> agree to return X to me later." It could well be "I give you X now if
>>> you
>>> agree to stop doing whatever you were doing to get yourself into this
>>> predicament." This would seem to be imminently fair. If someone says, "I
>>> can't work now because I'm an unwed mother with a small infant" and we
>>> say, "Here's some help, provided that you stop having children you can't
>>> provide for and, after the baby is old enough to place in childcare, you
>>> obtain employment" and after a couple of years go by she returns to us
>>> and
>>> says, "I can't work now because I'm an unwed mother with /two/ children,
>>> one a small infant," it is not unreasonable for us to say, "Um. Wait a
>>> minute."
>>
>> Yes - and then what? Let them starve?
>
> This is it? This is the sum total of your response? This is the depth of
> your intellectual prowess?
Well - let them eat cake?
Your the one moaning - what would you do?
>
>>> So one of the things I think most people object to is the growing sense
>>> of
>>> entitlement in some people, the feeling that they have the /right/ to
>>> take
>>> whatever resources they wish from the market while they continue their
>>> self-destructive behavior.
>>>
>> well they dont - they take very little - most working people would NOT
>> swap with them - so why the dislike of these poor people who are
>> work-shy. How much tax is spent on them- as i've said elsewhere its from
>> this underclass that most crime originates which costs the US Billions.
>> Looking logically at the problem its probably far cheaper for the tax
>> payer to pay them to do nothing.
>
> Oh.
>
> My.
>
> God!
>
> And just what do you call this economic system that has extortion as the
> basis for operation?
>
Logical... not emotional jealousy and greed. I dont care either way - but
i'm fed up at people moaning about the benefits the poor get - if its so
good - then join them - if its not they why are you and they moaning - they
may have a car a tv but they live shit lives. But so what - i dont care that
much - i know that a child has just died in africa - and another and
another - and this lap to sold on ebay could have saved them. So Bill Gates
can now buy off his guilt by charity which costs him nothing. Or as little
as.
>>> ... Medical insurance is
>>> a luxury; it is a luxury only recently available in human history; it is
>>> a
>>> luxury millions of Americans elect to do without.
>>>
>> elect or cant afford. Obviously its stupid to not get health insurance -
>
> Not, it not stupid. There is a risk involved, sure. Even when we are
> young, healthy and strong, we could still be struck down in an accident or
> come down with a debilitating disease. But when we weigh the risks against
> the benefits of that extra money early in our working lives, it can be
> quite a wise financial move NOT to get health insurance for, say, the
> first decade or so of our working lives -- or buy just the much lower cost
> hospitalization insurance.
>
> It's a bit of a risk. Everything we do comes with /some/ risk. We each
> weigh how much risk we feel comfortable with against the reward we expect
> to receive from our action.
>
What about health insurance for your own children? Do you gamble withy
their well being - and your parents - do you let them suffer through their
own fault or bad gamble?
>>> In a way, it speaks well of the success of Capitalism that we have
>>> forgotten that subsistence living has been the normal state of human
>>> existence for most of history. We are no longer occupied daily with
>>> staying alive until the next harvest. When we have reached the point
>>> that
>>> lack of medical insurance is seen as a crisis, it would seem that we
>>> have
>>> solved all the difficult problems facing life and we're just looking
>>> around for something to keep us busy.
>>
>> sure. We have people in society who do not want to work. The problem is
>> what to do with them.
>
> Yes, that is the problem. Your solution, as expressed above, is to keep
> paying them so they don't turn to crime and rob us.
>
Its the only one yet demonstrated - i've mentioned others - letting them
starve - killing them - youve yet to give your solution. It appears to be -
giving them just enough not to die. And my point is history has shown that
such a low level of social support breeds disease, crime, violence to the
level that interfers with capitalism. In several cases to the extent of
generating a rebelious rabel. If i can walk the streets knowling any likely
migger is a home stonned on state benefit i'd say the taxes would be worth
it. I've argued it would be *cheaper* - no need for prisions or police
patrols. Why then not go for this - its the only sensible solution isnt it?
>>> OK, I'm looking. What has [socialism] achieved in the USA? While you're
>>> looking,
>>> shall we count the bodies of its murdered victims just during the 20th
>>> Century? What are the latest estimates -- about 150 million? And you
>>> look
>>> to this force to educate us?
>>
>> Now you've lost me - you seem to argue against state education - its lack
>> is not life threatening - yet such an education you argue accounts for
>> 80%% of rich Americans - which is i think - you think - a good thing. Now
>> thats called a "contradiction."
>
> Not my contradiction. /You/ are the one arguing that the 80%% of the people
> who are wealthy but not born wealthy are wealthy because of Socialized
> education. Oh, but you don't call it "Socialized education." You call it
> "state education."
I said the rich breed the rich - middle class people in the main had middle
class parents - social mobility is low. I though you said 80%% of the rich
were not from wealthy families - so i assumed they would not have gone to
private schools.
>
> Most people arguing from your point of view have this annoying tendency to
> think of any government expenditure or program as examples of Socialism.
> State funded education may be a Socialized educational system or it may
> not be. Whether or not it is Socialist in nature is a good deal more than
> who is footing the bill up front.
The state foots the bill from taxation. Redistribution of wealth and
resources to the less well off is in my book socialism. And please - i'm not
saying its a good or bad thing. State run schools in poor areas are forms
of socialism.
>
> First, let us consider a program that definitely /was/ Socialist in
> nature: Hillary-care of '92-'93. I don't want to hit every point but the
> most important was the restrictions. Government appointed agents matched
> doctors with patients, you couldn't just pick a doctor out of the Yellow
> Pages and call for an appointment. No person could pay for medical care,
> from any one under any circumstances. No doctor could charge the patient
> for any part of medical care. These were /imprisonable/ offenses!
>
> This is /control/ and it is /this/ that marks it as Socialist.
>
> Now take state funded education. States differ, but people generally have
> at least some option of sending their kids to /this/ public school or
> /that/ public school. Even those who live in areas of strict districting
> still have the choice of whether or not to send their kids to public
> school at all!
>
Its law in the UK to send kids to school.
> This ability to select private schooling has maintained a small but steady
> level of competitive pressure on the public school systems. I won't go
> into a tirade about the quality of public education, but I don't any will
> argue that it could be better than it is. But it could also be much worse
> than it is. It is the non-Socialist, door to the marketplace ajar nature
> of the system that keeps it at a reasonable quality.
>
> That's one point. Another point is your attempt to place a direct link
> between education and wealth. Yes, a certain level of education is
> necessary in a Capitalism, industrialized workplace. But if you consider
> those 80%% wealthy-but-not-born-wealthy, you will find few advanced
> degrees, a few business degrees, a few degrees of any sort, quite a few
> non-degreed and even a fair number of high school dropouts.
>
Very few who cant read and write...
> Education, as important as it is, does not lead automatically to great
> wealth.
>
>
>> I don't ignore the evils of socialism - i think its stupid as it thinks
>> humans are by nature good.
>> It doesnt work - socialism that is... as for evil i think you mean
>> communism.
>
> Communism or Socialism. Would you rather get shot between the eyes or die
> of starvation? A distinction without a difference.
>
Where are or have these people starved as a result of socialism?
> Communism is to Socialism the same way Democracy is to Capitalism. One is
> a political system and the other is an economic system. It is even
> theoretically possible to have a Communist political system with a
> Capitalist economic system. This is unstable and usually results in the
> collapse of the political system, as all who have tried such a "third way"
> has found out.
>
>> Not true in the UK - private health care is in decline
>
> That's not what a quite glance of recent news articles would lead us to
> believe. It would appear to be the other way around.
>
>>> So far, no one has been able to explain why the market is able to supply
>>> us with 99.999%% of all the goods and services we consume, and supply it
>>> at
>>> the price and quality we demand but somehow can't do the same with
>>> education and, we are now led to believe, medical care.
>>>
>> True - and a decent infrastructure - roads - rail networks - why is the
>> best rail service in the world State owned? Some things work better - if
>> we had no state schools your 80%% would never have become rich. I think a
>> free health service is a good thing in terms of efficiency - But the
>> private sector only exists with a state run legal structure backed up by
>> state run police and military. Remove this and we are left with a third
>> world country.
>
> Utter nonsense. The legal system in the US (Canada and UK, also) are not
> Socialist! This is one of your major problems. You think anything provided
> by any government is Socialism. Your arguments would be much more
> meaningful if you would study a little bit and learn the meaning of the
> words you are using.
>
>> What is vital to Capitalism is a trusted legal system - which underpins
>> it.
yep - a social contract. Of equality - ergo legal aid?
>
> Absolutely. This is the first clear thought I have managed to get out of
> you so far! I give myself full credit and thus I am very proud of myself.
>
silly peacock!
> TommCatt
> --
> Scientists have shown that the moon is moving away at a tiny yet
> measurable distance from the earth every year. If you do the math, you can
> calculate that 85 million years ago the moon was orbiting the earth at a
> distance of about 35 feet. This would explain the death of the dinosaurs.
> The taller ones, anyway.
