Ahovking

Legislating the poor into prosperity?

32 posts in this topic

Can you Legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few people argue in favor of legislating the poor into prosperity. Generally, the goal is guaranteeing subsistence by shaving a small amount of the wealthy's prosperity.

 

I won't engage in your straw-man argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now pandora comes here and you both argue over capitalism.Well ya you can do that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few people argue in favor of legislating the poor into prosperity. Generally, the goal is guaranteeing subsistence by shaving a small amount of the wealthy's prosperity.

 

I won't engage in your straw-man argument.

Well does shaving a small amount of the wealthy's prosperity makes or helps the poor become prosperous?

 

Now pandora comes here and you both argue over capitalism.Well ya you can do that

The question has nothing to do with capitalism nor socialism, as both systems attempt to

Legislating the poor into prosperity with social programs and welfare etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100

 

The Mincome Experiment created what could succesfully be called "The First Town Without Poverty". It gave a basic income to every human being in the town, this experiment proved to be beneficial for the entire town as a whole. More data on the experiment in the link. Whether this would work on a national scale in any country is iffy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100

 

The Mincome Experiment created what could succesfully be called "The First Town Without Poverty". It gave a basic income to every human being in the town, this experiment proved to be beneficial for the entire town as a whole. More data on the experiment in the link. Whether this would work on a national scale in any country is iffy.

 

 

"During the Mincome program, the federal and provincial governments collectively spent $17 million, though it was initially supposed to have cost only a few million."

 

gg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you Legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity?

What do you mean "the wealth out of prosperity??"

 

if it means taking so much money from the rich (via taxes, regulation etc) till they became poor then i say no

 

but if taking just enough money from the rich (taxes, regulation etc) to make the poor have better lives (or at the very least save them from falling under the cracks) then i would say yes

 

OOC: i don't want this to turn into another multipage debate Ahovking, let's keep this civil

Edited by Ax3hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the poor were to gain prosperity there would be no need of government to help the poor so it is in the interest of government to never let the poor prosper.

Edited by Quew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the poor were to gain prosperity there would be no need of government to help the poor so it is in the interest of government to never let the poor prosper.

 

There is bitter truth in that statement.

 

I believe a *true* capitalist market with public and adequate oversight would sustain and self correct and legislate itself and all participants into prosperity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the poor were to gain prosperity there would be no need of government to help the poor so it is in the interest of government to never let the poor prosper.

 

Well historically, there will be always "poor" people, there will be always people that will fall under the cracks and (at least for me) the government should do the best it can (while maintaining it's present quality of life) to lift up the poor so they would have a chance to gain prosperity.

 

BUT if there will be such a time where there will be no more poor people i would say keep the social security programs and NHS. Better be safe than sorry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always the Venus Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zn8MRKOskw

 

Similar to the economy in Star Trek - replicators can make everything so there is no want.

 

Curious to know how much truth there is to this concept in the future.

 

Oddly enough, this concept was also presented in an episode of the Twilight Zone, with a cameo by James Doohan no less.

Edited by Kinyodas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always the Venus Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zn8MRKOskw

 

Similar to the economy in Star Trek - replicators can make everything so there is no want.

 

Curious to know how much truth there is to this concept in the future.

 

Oddly enough, this concept was also presented in an episode of the Twilight Zone, with a cameo by James Doohan no less.

 

I actually LOVE the idea of replicators like machines that will transform the economy to purely a demand based economy. 

 

But how will you get this idea off the ground? there are special interest groups who will try to stall this project anyway they can (assuming the technical problems are solved of transforming the matter & energy around you into complex structures like a burger or something else). 

 

And like everything else in this world. This new replicator has a probability of getting a price tag since everyone wants to cash in on this new product. 

 

But if you can provide me with the solution to these problems then i will gladly support a kickstarter replicator program if i have the money\\

 

OOC: if i nailed anything wrong then i'm sorry, i haven't watched the Venus project since it's too darn long

Edited by Ax3hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you Legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity?

 

you cannot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually LOVE the idea of replicators like machines that will transform the economy to purely a demand based economy. 

 

But how will you get this idea off the ground? there are special interest groups who will try to stall this project anyway they can (assuming the technical problems are solved of transforming the matter & energy around you into complex structures like a burger or something else). 

 

And like everything else in this world. This new replicator has a probability of getting a price tag since everyone wants to cash in on this new product. 

 

But if you can provide me with the solution to these problems then i will gladly support a kickstarter replicator program if i have the money\\

 

OOC: if i nailed anything wrong then i'm sorry, i haven't watched the Venus project since it's too darn long

 

Baby steps. I watched a show called Star Tech with various entities trying to replicate the technology from the Star Trek universe and while there is progress, it is so far away. As far as replicators, think 3D printer with the ability to make complex materials on the fly, aka matter from energy. Unfortunately or fortunately, once this discovery is reality, the economy man has known for eternity instantly becomes outmoded and ancient. So while there is a vested interest in both stopping this discovery and keeping it a secret, as seen in the Twilight Zone episode, if someone who could had any humanity within, could they keep it for themselves?

 

On another note, there may be an economy within - people will have to create the designs for the replicator much like a 3D printer with the added equation of material mass, density, etc. so plans may be leased or sold - until open source and people with the ability simply want to help and share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baby steps. I watched a show called Star Tech with various entities trying to replicate the technology from the Star Trek universe and while there is progress, it is so far away. As far as replicators, think 3D printer with the ability to make complex materials on the fly, aka matter from energy. Unfortunately or fortunately, once this discovery is reality, the economy man has known for eternity instantly becomes outmoded and ancient. So while there is a vested interest in both stopping this discovery and keeping it a secret, as seen in the Twilight Zone episode, if someone who could had any humanity within, could they keep it for themselves?

 

On another note, there may be an economy within - people will have to create the designs for the replicator much like a 3D printer with the added equation of material mass, density, etc. so plans may be leased or sold - until open source and people with the ability simply want to help and share.

 

3D printing is indeed the baby steps into the way of making the poor move their way into prosperity, we may be experiencing our generation's industrial revolution tech wise (or at least for me) with Smartphones being manufactured here and there, coupled with technologies that only exists in Sci Fi movies becoming a reality

 

But i severely challenge your view that the economy man is going to become outdated, this invention has a high probability of getting a price tag/ copyrighted (the US DMCA laws are total BS for the modern world in my view) and then we need to manage the pricing of these resources.

 

But i agree with you that mankind still has a humanity within and will change for the better if this video is any indication:

Edited by Ax3hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He also has stuff on that venus project if you are intrested.

 

 

Yes this one talks about US violence but it is closely connected to welfare so it fits even if a little off center.

 

At present welfare is made to preserve the poor in poverty.

Edited by Quew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He also has stuff on that venus project if you are intrested.

 

 

Yes this one talks about US violence but it is closely connected to welfare so it fits even if a little off center.

 

At present welfare is made to preserve the poor in poverty.

 

for the first video, remember that even though the "poor" people of America do have the standards to live comfortably (although i really question his sources), society still perceives the poor as people who has insufficient standards of living, so i don't care if the poor people has color tv's, if society still perceives the poor as the poor, then i would support the poor into greater prosperity (replacing the color tv's to HD tv's would be nice). And although poverty MIGHT be a choice, the people in the United States seemed to have a lack of a proper education so they don't have the knowhow in getting out of the gutter and into prosperity.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/american-schools-vs-the-world-expensive-unequal-bad-at-math/281983/

 

Oh and the problem with charities is that they don't have the same coverage as government welfare programs, although i am currently serving in a community and service organisation. I prefer a government run program since it has far better coverage than any charities except UN sponsored ones.

 

I also notice that the dates of all of these sources seems to coincide or close with the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections......hmmmm interesting, it might be republican sponsored propaganda but i have no proof though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a lack of proper education in the USA then it is not for lack of funding in fact america has the highest in the world for education funding it even spends more then on the military at some point you have to face the fact the government spending makes more problems then it solves.

 

As for chairty if you think the government is going to do something you are less likely to work on the problem yourself also the closer you are to just maintaining your situation the less you can donate so saying charity will not reach everyone you can not know that because you have not seen the other world were government has stayed the hell out of everyones way.

 

The dates of these is not political the man is from canada what use has he to bug the american political cycles more so when he knows well that it is unimportant who you vote for as there will be no change, i think you need to look at some more of his videos so you know where he is coming from and you do not look like your talking from fear or preprogramming.

 

All in all you have to consider would you raise a gun to your freinds and family and order them to give you money so you can be charitable?

Because if not then you are a hypocrite and if you would then you are a soiciopath with government only the rulers win and only for a time for everyone else loses.

There is no good that can come out of government only great suffering.

 

Look into his stuff in my opinion most of his stuff is very compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a lack of proper education in the USA then it is not for lack of funding in fact america has the highest in the world for education funding it even spends more then on the military at some point you have to face the fact the government spending makes more problems then it solves.

 

As for chairty if you think the government is going to do something you are less likely to work on the problem yourself also the closer you are to just maintaining your situation the less you can donate so saying charity will not reach everyone you can not know that because you have not seen the other world were government has stayed the hell out of everyones way.

 

The dates of these is not political the man is from canada what use has he to bug the american political cycles more so when he knows well that it is unimportant who you vote for as there will be no change, i think you need to look at some more of his videos so you know where he is coming from and you do not look like your talking from fear or preprogramming.

 

All in all you have to consider would you raise a gun to your freinds and family and order them to give you money so you can be charitable?

Because if not then you are a hypocrite and if you would then you are a soiciopath with government only the rulers win and only for a time for everyone else loses.

There is no good that can come out of government only great suffering.

 

Look into his stuff in my opinion most of his stuff is very compelling.

 

Wut?

 

firstly the lack of education in America is not so much as funding (which they have in droves) but more to political if this article is any indication

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/08/ohio-lawmakers-want-to-ban-schools-from-teaching-scientific-process/

 

secondly how are government welfare programs going to make the people less inclined to work for themselves? we have see Western europe and Scandinavia using in their massive welfare system and i doubt that the people in there are slackers by any means. Instead we have seen a good system that has only been brought down mostly by the PIIGS countries.

 

There are people who are honest workers but just fell into the cracks due to the wrong background/ misfortunes in their families. And every system is not perfect so of course i took the welfare moochers into consideration. Oh and the thing for third world countries is that although the government there is anything but adequate, there is this thing called the UN that will distribute food and housing (if the need arises), and cooperate with charities in the area so that problem is mostly solved, the UN just needs to get it's hands more dirty and we already have Charitable funds around the world that has very good credibility like these ones: 

 

http://www.habitat.org/asiapacific

 

http://www.oxfam.org/

 

My point is that i support welfare programs in first world countries (sorry that i didn't make it clear) but prefer UN sponsored and highly organized charitable funds for 3rd world countries until these countries get their act together, oh and i also donate to local charities since my country is classified as third world.

 

as for the dates. You do know about the 2008 and 2012 are both dates for presidential elections right? even if the dates are completely coincidential those are the times where the Republican party still has sane people in the government. Unlike today where they pull stunts like this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/2014-election-mitch-mcconnells-barack-obama-confrontation-110154.html

 

which just make the American public all the more angrier.

 

all in all i support legislating the poor into prosperity, there will be problems (as every other government system has) but it's certainly better than leaving people to just "get up and work" since there are people who don't have the proper education or knowledge to know the nearest Mcdonalds so they can work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the first link it is only because government is so involved in education can there be laws that try to ban this or that if the government were not involved then the non-militant Athiests and other non hardcore fanatic groups would not have there schools subject to such things take the government gun out of school.

 

You should watch the 2nd video i did not post it just because i thought it was interesting he talks about the link between welfare, violence, and poverty i only said it was off center because it focuses on the violence aspect but this stuff is all linked together.

 

Thou my info talks about America mostly i would manage a guess that if it was profitable to grow food in said 3rd world nations they would do it but with so much free food coming in depressing the prices of said food there is no reason to grow it themselves however there is a similar situation in welfare in the US as there is for food in the 3rd world.

In the short term the 3rd world and the welfare people are proped up by government programs but when the time comes these programs will be cut or the government will implode and the result while in the long run will be a net positive it will result in much greater suffering then if there were efforts to make these things programs uneeded such as letting people get work so they can support themselves.

 

Funny thing about said shutdowns they ended up spending lots more money closing the parks and monuments then if they had left them alone.

Not much of a shutdown.

You can't legislate the poor out of poverty but in theory the government can stop protecting there freinds and get out of the way of the poor so they can get work and/or start there own businesses and climb out of poverty themselves.

 

You should look into the canadian philosopher Stefan Molyneux his stuff is very informative, he is the author incase you do not remember of the two videos i posted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the first link it is only because government is so involved in education can there be laws that try to ban this or that if the government were not involved then the non-militant Athiests and other non hardcore fanatic groups would not have there schools subject to such things take the government gun out of school.

 

first of all, you're going all over the place in this argument. Can you please structure your argument in a better system?

 

now you are talking about banning this......thing that exist in school, what are you referring to?

 

and if you're saying that if the government is not involved in the school system. you're saying that the militant atheists and hardcore fanatic groups would not go on a shooting spree? 

that's essentially saying that if your system is not perfect you should break it down and start over instead of improving said system, totally BS (oh and if you're saying that America's welfare system is not adequate then i will totally ignore you since that statement is weaponsgrade BS)

 

 

You should watch the 2nd video i did not post it just because i thought it was interesting he talks about the link between welfare, violence, and poverty i only said it was off center because it focuses on the violence aspect but this stuff is all linked together.

sorry Quew, it's far too long anyway so i'll try to watch it if Schoolwork is not piling up. No promises though

 

 

Thou my info talks about America mostly i would manage a guess that if it was profitable to grow food in said 3rd world nations they would do it but with so much free food coming in depressing the prices of said food there is no reason to grow it themselves however there is a similar situation in welfare in the US as there is for food in the 3rd world.

In the short term the 3rd world and the welfare people are proped up by government programs but when the time comes these programs will be cut or the government will implode and the result while in the long run will be a net positive it will result in much greater suffering then if there were efforts to make these things programs uneeded such as letting people get work so they can support themselves.

 

Dude, third world farmers do grow food despite aid coming through. It's just the buyers and middlemen pay them so little for all their hardwork that if things screwup (let's say a disaster of sorts) that they don't have any money to cover up for their expenses and we have said homelessness and famines in third world country.

 

There are government programs like India's bank account for everyone program and Indonesia's Free Healthcare for every single people that is Indonesian program that are trying to address these issues and will be finished by the end of the decade (i think).

 

So in the short term when UN aid comes through it's making sure that the people living in these BS conditions do have the ability to fight off the hunger and the malnutrition. But when these 3rd world government programs come through (i have heard reports that these programs are profitable) the people will (hopefully) be lift off the poverty and into prosperity.

 

Funny thing about said shutdowns they ended up spending lots more money closing the parks and monuments then if they had left them alone.

Not much of a shutdown.

You can't legislate the poor out of poverty but in theory the government can stop protecting there freinds and get out of the way of the poor so they can get work and/or start there own businesses and climb out of poverty themselves.

So let's see http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/16/news/economy/shutdown-economic-impact/

 

The US government loss 24 billion in only 16 days of the shutdown and it's economic growth slows down to 2.4% instead of the forecasted 3%

 

yeah , let's keep shutting down the government forever, i'm sure that somehow we will make a profit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you forget you listed a link about an effort to ban teaching certain things did you not even look at your own link?

The term government gun is a referance to how government sets education policy i never said anything about shooting sprees.

Anytime government sets policy on the how and what of things anyone who defies that policy will end up in a cage or dead, thus take the government gun out of schools.

 

The welfare system in America right now fuels poverty and if you choose to ignore me then that is your choice but threating me does not change facts.

A massivly oversimplification of the 2nd video would be thus -welfare subsidizes single mother households children who grow up in single mother housholds have higher rates of crime the crime in poor areas is blamed on poverty and thus the excuse for more welfare is made-

 

I am sure i left out some really important info but if you want that then you will need to look into it when you can.

 

CNN as unrelyable as ever, they failed to point out how much extra was spent walling off the parks and monuments, the growth they said was lost is only a guess and there guesses are wrong a lot when it comes to economy so they are shooting in the dark with blanks.

The American economy has been so mashed thrashed smashed and hashed that it is hard to get any relyable information so anyone making preditions like shown in the CNN article are blowing smoke and fearmongering in this case about the non-shutdown shutdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you tax the wealthy and give it to the poor.. they wont prosper, your supporting someone act/nature thats the reason why they aren't wealthy for example, someone could be poor due to a drug problem, someone who doesn't save and constantly spends on junk, works at a low paying job and refuses to work harder or aim higher, expects to find their dream job to come to them so until then they will wait and live off welfare. 

You could educate the poor into Prosperity, when you give them money your more supporting them rather than giving them a chance to prosper. 

Even if i am wrong, i don't think we want people who have poor paying jobs and drug problems to prosper, we want the people with low paying jobs to aim higher and make something of themselves, and people wasting their money on drugs needs to stop buying drugs and get their life back on track. 

Edited by Ahovking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how educated our population becomes, we will always need people to cook, clean, and provide manual labor. We need to dispose of this idea that these professions are somehow "lesser" than other ones, and value them at the rate they are actually worth. Any business that can't afford to pay its employees a living wage doesn't deserve to be in business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how educated our population becomes, we will always need people to cook, clean, and provide manual labor. We need to dispose of this idea that these professions are somehow "lesser" than other ones, and value them at the rate they are actually worth. Any business that can't afford to pay its employees a living wage doesn't deserve to be in business.

Most jobs are pay at a rate the job is actually worth, The problem is Manual Labor isn't worth a whole lot when compared to other jobs, people claim the problem is business aren't paying their fair share in taxes and wages which simply isn't true, the real problem out of control increases of cost of living.

And some professions are "lesser" than others, just compare a mcdonalds worker and a doctor , it requires years of training and studying and a lot of money to become a doctor while to become a mcdonalds worker you can just be a high school job out... although both jobs are needed, the doctor is ultimately more important to society, and contributes greatly more to our civilisation... in other words a mcdonalds worker is lesser in value and worthy when compared to a doctor.

 

Any business that can't afford to pay its employees a living wage doesn't deserve to be in business.

Cost of living could rise due to government policy for example and the normal wage would goes from a liveable wage to a non liveable wage.. forcing wages up makes people with no to few skills unemployable (i should know, 10 years ago i could employ a high school drop out and train him and still make a profit.. now, i avoid employing anyone who hasn't already got skills because wages are so high i wouldn't be making a profit if i had to train them) as well as making small businesses that employ people go bankrupt giving more market share to big corporations.

The problem isn't a living wage.. its rising cost of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now