Philosophical Question

[DemocratSinceBirth]

If an able bodied person refuses to work what is society's obligation to him?


There is a question like that on the political compass test...


www.politicalcompass.org


I think society has an obligation not to let him starve but not much beyond that.

[bryant69]

1. The problem comes in determining if someone has refused to work

But I would agree with your assessment, beyond that sticky question.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I Would Stipulate The Person Was Offered Work And Refused It

[sweetheart]

11. The need torturers in Guantanamo

The job pays 6 bucks an hour.

If the person refused the work, does it make them a noncontributor, shirking their obligation?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. You're Asking Somebody To Commit An Immoral Act.

What if the job was picking up trash from the side of the road?

[iamjoy]

25. What If It's Just Dangerous or Dirty?

not immoral, but dirty and dangerous and low paying?

What if some one refuses to work in a coal mine for $6 an hour? Or refuses to be a fisherman paid for fish caught?

When you mention immoral - what's immoral? What if some on is a vegetarian and the only job is in a slaughter house? What if some one is a Christian and is offered a job as a stripper or prostitute? In both cases, these are immoral acts to the person in questions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. The Person Just Refuses To Work.

I don't think any society is going to refuse to help a woman because the only jobs she was offereed and refused were a stripper or hooker.


What if I refused to work?


Just spent every last penny I had and the was flat broke.


What is society's obligation to me?

[sweetheart]

98. Society's obligation did not change

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.


http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Well, given the rights above, a person can't expect to live materially well without a job,
but they have every right to shelter, food, education and all the basics of society.

Forcing someone, in any way, is slavery, enslavement, and what our coroproate cutlure is indoctrinating
people to heard-instinct on to each other.

[bryant69]

70. Very weak and sad response

Kind of pathetic actually that that's what you come up with - you think America's bums are bums because they refused to torture?

Bryant

[sweetheart]

83. hardly, what a silly response yourself

The response shows very clearly that 'work' is more than just a job, but something
that contributes to the society, to that community. The post, proves that, by
showing that turning down a job, can actually be that very contribution.

Society is based on more than jobs and adam smith's invisible hand... there is
beneath that a family and a love for each other, that used to be presumed, and still
is when people are honest about things. The question probed that rather simply,
and it does indeed explore the op.

Its only sad, when people are small...

[bryant69]

93. You can't govern based on love for each other

And trying to do so simply leads to tyranny.

Bryant

[sweetheart]

96. based on a social contract of course

And nowhere in the social contract of rousseau did i
read anything about 'get a job'. The obligation of citizenship
is more than 'get a job', it is less than that too. It is complex
and not linear, an obligation to live your life to its fullest that
it light the flame of others as much as humanly possible... your
obligation in life is to shine bright, and whatever it takes in your
path of truth to be that beacon.

There is plenty to go around, plenty of shelter, plenty of medicine,
food and everything, plenty. Not a single person should suffer want
in our world, want of education, want of a living wage, want of medicine
and shelter. Only with this minimum of human rights, is one even
capable of getting a job.

The social contract is primary, prescient to jobs, cradle to grave as they say,
and a job only defines part of those years. Volunteering isn't a job, but
is a way that many epople contribute in old years... what i'm seeing is a reduction
of the social contract to a job, and its just plain ignorant to suggest that
its come to that... if the land of ignorance buys it, fine, but there's more to it,
and that people think, even here, that free markets are the definition of society,
and not a tiny part of the fabric that weaves us together.

[sweetheart]

3. presuming work entitles one

People say that they 'work' for a living, thereby entitling them to say someone who's not
'working' is not contributing. But this presumes that money is really quantifying the
social value of work.

But what entitles? Is standing around a furniture shop all day doing sales valuable work
that society can't do without? Are we going to starve if the stock broker doesn't broke?
So then we are basing 'work' on what is really just an arbitrary class system where some
animals do stupid things and are called 'valuable', whilst the real people who do the work,
growing the food, making our clothes and survival needs, these people are paid so little,
that they are permanently enslaved by a system that tells them that work will make them free.
"Arbeit mach frei."

American corporatism and its corresponding society that is 'ours' but that we don't own,
or have any choice in, is one where we are all enslaved for idiocy and war crimes, and that
is called useful work. Then, what is a free person's obligation to society but to wake up
and throw off the shackles that imprison him/her mentally, physically and economically...
and maybe at the end, the person will have the time to meditate on what life is about,
observing that work and entitlement had nothing to do with anything expect ego, attachment
and expectation, not the bond that brings people together in a community.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. What If Someone Wants To Stay Home All Day, Smoke Weed, And Watch Internet Porn?

eom

[sweetheart]

7. Frankly, i'd pay bush to do just that

I'm willing to consider letting all republicans do just that,
and all the drugs war nazis too.

With work like that, we'd be much better off if most americans
did absolutely nothing... the work is more evil than sitting
one one's ass, smoking grass and masturbating to porn all day.
.
.
and hence why cannabis is the USA's largest cash crop, as the
working-non-working population is doing exactly that, just getting
by until the evil war empire goes bankrupt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. They're called preachers.

Or, unindicted conmen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Pretending to work pays better and is less work than not working.

I managed to do a splendid job of it during my 30 year stint with the Gov't. And, they're still paying me for it!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Do You See What I'm Getting At?

The archetype of the person that refuses to work.


They do exist and survively largely due to the largesse of their parents or friends.

My friend's friend had wealthy parents. He came down to live with my friend... We all live in Florida... He would sleep to eleven in the morning, sit out all day by the pool, and repeat the process every day...


It started to piss my friend off after awhile... He was a manufacturers rep for a shoe company. He would spend days on the road going from shoe store to shoe store in the southeaast hawking his goods while this cat was living the life of Hugh Herfner or something...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Hell, who can blame him.

In my entire working career, I can count on the fingers of one hand the days that I leapt out of bed and joyfully anticipated going to work.

The greatest day of my life was the day I retired and didn't have to show up at the time-clock. And, believe me, if they had offered me early retirement, I'd have been out of there in a shot.

There's a helluva lot of people in this country, and around the world, investing in lottery tickets with the dream that they won't have to work anymore.

[Beam Me Up]

6. The problem with the question is the word "obligation"

Legal, ethical, moral -- what kind of obligation is being referred to? E.g., a society may have no legal obligation toward someone who does not contribute, in fact refuses to contribute, to that society. However, 'morality' may dictate otherwise in that we may all have 'moral obligations' to one another regardless of our individual appreciation of them. For example, some feel it is immoral to kill another, even in self defense.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Ethical And Legal Obligation

Since society has decided that suicide should be against the law presumably have created for themselves the obligation of not letting a person starve to death.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Do you know anybody who refuses to work?

I don't.

I know people who can't find jobs. I know people who don't want to do some jobs. I've never met anybody who didn't want to be doing something.

[Ellis Wyatt]

30. "refusing to work"

encompasses people who know they have unemployment for 30 weeks and therefore don't really do much to get a job. Maybe spend an hour updating their resume on Monster, and that's it.

That's "refusing to work" in my mind because they are not attempting to get a job.

Even without unemployment, people who just don't put effort in to finding a new (or better) job. That's "refusing", much like how I "refuse" to go to get in shape. I still go to the gym periodically, but I don't put anywhere near the effort that a reasonable person would be able to say that I'm trying to get in shape. That to me, is refusing.

Your situation will never happen because it never happens that someone walks up to a stranger and offers them a job.

The "obligation of society" is a term that always bothered me. If we are talking about some form of financial support, then that's the government (forceful support) or charities (willful support).

Saying that society SHOULD provide some form of a support, would imply that you're saying that a good citizen should look to help someone, and if someone didn't provide what you deem as appropriate support for charitable efforts, you'd think they are a bad person

Saying that society MUST (is obligated to) provide some form of a support, then that's somone essentially holding me hostage and telling me that, metaphorically, the next hour of my life is not my own, and that it is owned by some unemployed person that I need to support for that hour.

It's a very different stance, and why I would feel more comfotable giving $200 to charity than paying $100 in taxes. It's voluntary - my decision. Not forceful.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. People who can't get a job are refusing to work?

Bullshit.

[Ellis Wyatt]

44. huzzah for reading comprehension

Nowhere did I say, or imply your BS interpretation of my statements.

I said that people who are not ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR WORK, are therefore, REFUSING TO WORK, since no one is going to walk up to them on the street and offer them a job.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. My Question

My question was a sincere one. Maybe it needed refinement but I really was referring to the archetype "lazy " person.

[gollygee]

40. That's an assumption

that if someone is unemployed 30 weeks they don't want a job.

Let's take Flint for example. The local economy collapsed. Anyone who had the money to move moved away. Now there aren't very many jobs there to get. If there isn't a job near you, and you lack the money to move to where a job is, what do you do?

[Ellis Wyatt]

45. I was not talking in generalities

The previous poster said that no one was "refusing to work". I was arguing that "refusing to work" also should including "refusing to look for work".

I know people specifically, who have been on unemployment (in fact, I know someone now) who know that there is a 30 week window for unemployment, and will take a lengthy and extended vacation from life, figuring that "it's not going to take me 6 months to find a job; I'll start in a few weeks", then that few weeks turns into a month or two, and then they end up finally rushing to get something in the last couple months of unemployment.

I know people who have viewed it that way, and I'd venture to guess that they aren't the only ones.

My point again is that refusing to actively look for work (and to me that's more than just posting your resume online and submitting it a couple times a week) is tantamount to refusing to work. Looking for a job IS WORK and those aren't doing it sufficiently are refusing to work.

[ComerPerro]

41. and you don't have to give up that $200 to charity, that's what it is about

plus it feels good saying you would.

And you seem to be full of RW talking points.


If unemployed people collecting unemployment got it so good, then you must be really stupid for working.

[Ellis Wyatt]

46. I have no idea

what your point is.

Who said unemployed people have anything good?

And yeah, I'm a RWer. I'm the one (the only one) who was chiding Olberman for asking for $4 million a year when he knows that MSNBC is looking to cut $750 million, and that his extra $3 million in salary will come at the expense of lower-end employees getting fired so he can have his $3 million raise.

My statement, however, was that he "better be giving it to charity" not "the government to should tax it all and take it from him"

[ComerPerro]

47. well, you seem to see them as a burden, and as people who refuse to work

because they don't have to, since they are living comfortably on unemployment.

[Ellis Wyatt]

50. Christ

Will you actually read what I wrote?

I've made the same point now three times and it's been read wrong each time.

I am not saying that the unemployed are a burden. I am not saying that the unemployed are not trying to find a job.

I am not talking in generalities; I'm talking in specifics.

I KNOW PEOPLE WHO TAKE THE ENTIRE 30 WEEKS OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND DON'T LOOK FOR A JOB UNTIL THE END. That's fact. Real people, I could name them. Not a hypothesis, not a "a friend of a friend" or a logical "there's gotta be some". I know them. It's real. The end. No debate. Those SPECIFIC PEOPLE are burdens. Yes. How can you disagree?

Those specific people are not looking for work, which a reasonable person would conclude that they are REFUSING TO WORK.

My initial response was to a guy who says "do you know anyone who refuses to work?" He didn't. I do, because I include these people as those who refuse to work.

[ComerPerro]

54. well, lets see, take a shit job for fifty hours a week at minimum wage

or look for a real job while making more on unemployment (which they paid for while working with their taxes, so STFU about them being a burden).

And your little rant about private charity instead of taxes is just RW libertarian nonsense.

[Ellis Wyatt]

56. seriously, you are bullheaded

the people I am talking about ARE NOT LOOKING FOR WORK!@! ARGHHHHH! How many times do I have to write this before it seeps through your head.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with turning down a job AS YOU LOOK FOR A BETTER JOB. AS YOU LOOK. LOOK! BOLD EXLAMATION POINTS! LOOK FOR A JOB!

Do I need sirens for you to grasp the very simple concept I am trying to convey.

Plain and simple. If you REFUSE TO LOOK FOR A JOB, YOU ARE REFUSING TO WORK.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ellis Wyatt]

63. Ignorant

Maybe in whatever state you are.

Again, I know people who have done this. I know someone WHO IS DOING THIS. Both Massachusetts and New York.

You get a card every month (or two weeks, I forget) that says:

"did you look for a job" you check yes or no. You don't need to give any contacts.
They ask "did you work, and if so how much did you make"
They ask "Were you offered work and refused" you check yes or no

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ComerPerro]

71. facts are usually supported by evidence, bear in mind

you say you know someone who is doing this.

Well, I know someone who is fifteen feet tall.

And, like I said earlier, if these people got it so great and you are tired of them being such a burden on you, maybe you should get on unemployment. Or are they just smarter than you?

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. I Have A Serious Question

I don't think I'm a conservative and have already stipulated I wouldn't let anybody starve but shouldn't every whole person try to do something...

That's all I was getting at...

Can't a person disagree with somebody and not be bad or have bad intentions....


That bothers me more about some here than whether they are latent or cypto-conservatives.


Peace

DSB

[ComerPerro]

84. DSB. I saw this while taking down my profile.

And I am responding because I like you, and have liked you. I think you are a good person, I think you hold up progressive values, and I enjoy your posts.

But I am serious. I am out. Gone. Done.

I am sorry, but I just can't post here anymore. Too many people spout RW positions on a regular basis, too many people worship Lou Dobbs and Joe Scarborough. I don't think a lot of people here value liberal ideas. I think they just hate Bush. And that's not enough for me.

I did respond earlier in your thread that people should work, and people should all strive to be productive members of society. But there is a point that could be reached where "refusing to work" might include not taking a job that pays little and exploits people or is hazzardous. Not so much in the USA now, but around the 1900s, for example.

anyway, though, I'm out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. Most Be Uber Progressives Here Because I'm Getting Pilloried For Asking the Question.

Please don't go.


I don't much care for Lou Dobbs...If he's a populist he's a right wing one... Don't care for Joe Scarborough much...


I didn't think my question was loaded.


A person can use their own definition of what a professional slacker is and then answer what society's obligation is to him.


I'm a softie... I couldn't let anybody starve...


Again... You're not the only liberal or progressive here... Sometimes I feel like I'm Atilla The Hun...


-:)

DSB

[On the Road]

89. Ellis, I Understand Your Frustration

and your point is a good one.

Refusing to work is usually not a clear-cut thing. The kind of thing you describe is about as close as it comes. Yes, it is an undue burden on working people's taxes and society theoretically does not owe that person anything after work is available. People internal state also comes into play -- depression, fear, bad experiences with certain kinds of jobs. I have heard that in some locations you cannot receive unemployment as long as you are able to work a telemarketing job. I'm not sure I would wish that fate on anyone.

Having said that, public assistance depends on setting certain parameters. Parameters for finding employment are notoriously difficult to set. It is true that people abuse the system -- the question is how to fix it in a practical way.

Welfare reform in the mid-90s is an example. By setting a maximum time period, it prevents people repeatedly riding the system like you describe. On the other hand, a lot of people at the bottom of the work force have very unstable work environments and may get laid off several times a year. Like you, I know people to which this applies.

The question is to propose a better system. I don't have an answer. The thought occurred to me that an unemployment check which slowly decreased each week would provide an increasing incentive to find work. But haven't thought through all the ramifications.

[hfojvt]

87. he has evidence for himself

and I finally realized the problem with anecdotal evidence. It is evidence to me, but you really have no way to verify it, unless you have some independent way to prove my veracity. But you also have no grounds for refuting it, unless you have some hard evidence.

The key about unemployment is, that they cannot do it for very long, usually no longer than a year, before their benefits run out. Second, that they have paid for those benefits from their previous work, so it is not like they are a total sponge.

FWIW, I can vouch for his anecdote that there are some people who take advantage of unemployment because I did so myself. I looked for work, as required, but not seriously, more like George Costanza. Unemployment was like my first paid vacation in about 9 years, and I enjoyed the hell out of it, wanted it to last forever. I figured that when fall came I would get some substitute teaching jobs and make it on that. Unemployment does not pay very well, but it was enough for me to keep making my house payments, buy a DVD player, and $400 worth of family history books (okay, some of that came from the couple thousand dollars I had in savings).

[skygazer]

62. To whom are they a burden?

Seriously? I see what you're saying but I don't see it as a problem. You don't get unemployment if you haven't paid into it. It's not like anyone can walk into the unemployment office and get unlimited compensation - they have to have been working and paying taxes and contributing to the system which is banked for those times when they need it. So who are they a burden to? They paid into it - whether they're looking for work or not, they have a specific amount banked that is there for them.

[Ellis Wyatt]

67. they are a burden in three areas (off the top of my head)

It makes the unemployment insurance higher for employers, which increases their cost base, which takes away money that they could spend on hiring someone else.

It increases the cost of the unemployment office as they have to administer a larger amount of claims than if the person who isn't looking for work, looked and found a job.

It diverts tax income that could be better used elsewhere to someone who is exploiting the good, and needed unemployment

[skygazer]

72. Well, if you see a problem, take on the system

But as it stands, it's a perfectly legitimate use of the system. You sound like so many people who judge others - tell me, do you stand in the grocery line and criticise the items the food stamp user in front of you is buying?

Though there are certainly people who abuse any system, the majority of people who collect unemployment, or welfare, or other state-funded assistance programs, are people who actually need it. Most people don't want to get handouts and the truth is, it's a lot harder to negotiate those systems, and harder to abuse them, than people seem to think. By focusing on the minority who do take advantage (and in your example, in a small way), you sound much like Reagan and his diatribes against the fictional "welfare queens."

[Ellis Wyatt]

81. Not the point at all

This whole thing came about because someone said "do you know anyone who refuses to work. I don't".

My point was that there ARE people who refuse to work (which has been echoed in this thread), I just got more specific about it.

I'm not talking bad about people on Unemployment as a whole, I'm not saying we should get rid of it (or even make significant changes). I was merely citing an example of someone that I know who is refusing to work.

The end.

[hfojvt]

91. some of that is unwarranted assumption

You are assuming that if I looked harder for work, that I would find work. In my experience, looking harder, only means :banghead: :banghead: harder.

Even when I finally found work it was only part-time work, and when substitute teaching jobs did not happen, money was tight. I kept looking for work even then, but finally had to give up before the frustration made me homicidal.

[hfojvt]

92. as another aside

I did once have a job find me. I had just started unemployment after the temp service laid me off, and I was in the Post Office when this guy from a place where I had applied before asked me if I was still looking for work. Not a good-paying job at all, but, when on umemployment I was not allowed to turn down any job offer.

[Trajan]

119. Your projecting your experience with your lowlife friends ...

Onto the population as a whole ....

SURELY some stop looking for work, but what percentage ? ....

Fallacy of Converse Accident - Applying facts from specific cases to all cases ....

I suppose everyone beats their wife because Joe Allen on 5th street does ....

AND dont forget that We ALL support Stalin because we are Democrats .....

I dont see you lasting long here .. Enjoy your stay ....

[slackmaster]

52. I have known several over the years

They are leeches.

[Nederland]

60. Yes

I know lots of people that refuse to work. If they could, they'd be perfectly content to sit around and smoke pot all day long for their entire lives.

[ComerPerro]

15. depends on "refuse" and "work", really

because this could be borderline fascist.

For example, would we say that one who refuses to work sixty hours a week for one hundred dollars a week is refusing and lazy?

[katsy]

16. A related question might be,,.

The question they asked about should taxpayer $ be used to fund a museum that's not commercially viable.

Is the person or museum valuable to society in ways that can't be measured monetarily? A measure or reflection of our humanity?

[BoneDaddy]

17. I think basic needs is where we can draw the line

but I also can see the problem with allowing someone like that to continue as it is not very good to continue to enable them like that.

[NoPasaran]

18. I think society's obligation goes than further

Than giving him a kick in his lazy ass and telling him to get a job, however pointless and soul-destroying it is, just like everyone else.

[baldguy]

19. Dead bodies in the street drive down property values.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. Exactly. There is a degree of self-interest involved in creating a floor for poverty.

When the poor become too poor, wealth is at risk.

[slackmaster]

59. So do live bums

And dead bodies are a lot easier to get rid of.

:evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

20. What if that 'work' is in the military?? What about felons?

:eyes:

If a person refuses 'involuntary servitude' do they lose what some might regard as basic human rights? Access to the basics of survival - food, shelter, clothing, health care - is regarded by many as fundmental and inalienable. As an opponent of capital punishment, I support such access no matter what.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I Am Assuming Work Exists, Was Offered , And Was Refused.

I would exclude the military because the person might be opposed to violence.


Instead of asking me to clarify my question why do you roll your eyes at me. That's patronizing and insulting.

[TahitiNut]

32. Really?

:shrug:


What part of 'involuntary servitude' (as the proclaimed reason for oppsong a draft) did you not understand? It wasn't about 'killing' - it was about 'servitude.' Try to understand what I posted - not your own straw man.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. It's matter of self-interest...

... those who refuse to work will also refuse to starve.

It doesn't matter, really, what I think about their ethical framework. If I allow someone to starve, they'll do what they need to do to survive. At a minimum, I need to support them to the degree that it keeps them out of my fridge/closet/garage. It's pragmatic.

[TahitiNut]

101. It also brings up the question of motivation (Hierarchy of Needs).

Do we, as a society, wish to increasingly rely upon the threat to an individual's survival for their participation in our economic system? .. participation in our national defense?

As we allow or even encourage threats to survival as the primary motivation for participation in ANY aspect of our common social systems, we then create a context within which abuses and predations are given greater latitudes. The frightened worker is a worker less likely to unionize or honestly help enforce Fair Labor Practices ... or even insist on a Fair Share of compensation for the value of their labor.

Why is it that we even partly accept the "supply side" hoax where we need to 'encourage' people with wealth to become even wealthier by adding more "carrots" to the motivation and, instead of doing the same 'encouragement' (by reduced taxes and increased returns) for labor, we resort to THREATS?? In my view, that's really bassackwards.

IMHO, there's altogether too much of "that's the way it is" thinking ... instead of calm contemplation regarding the ephemerals such as 'justice and 'fairness.' It's really seductive to regard someone who's unemployed as being somehow lazy or worthless ... and think that threats instead of rewards are The Solution. It's like criminal behavior ... some optimal balance between punishment and reward seems to be getting further and further from the reality of our systems.

[gollygee]

21. Food, shelter, health care

I think that is society's obligation to all people regardless of ability or work status

[NashVegas]

22. I Hate Questions Like That

It forces the test-taker to make assumptions.

Does this person happen to be someone who has other people work for him?

Does this person contribute to society in other ways?

Does this person refuse to do *anything,* or does this person refuse to do anything in which he'd be on the short end of the stick in the exploitation game?

[iamjoy]

26. Exaactly My Thoughts

see my reply above

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. Yup. Push poll much? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. That Wasn't My Intention

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. No, No, Yes, And No

He's just lazy.

[NashVegas]

36. That's Your Interpretation

I prefer to have the test makers lay out the specifics.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. Here's The Question Verbatim

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support. Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree


http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

[NashVegas]

94. It's a Bullshit Question

That's an entirely vague, B/W scenario. All opportunities are not equal.

[stillcool]

23. they should go directly to jail...

...unless of course, they have a trust fund. In that case they should be president.

[gollygee]

24. hehehehe

:D

[pdrichards114]

27. IMHO, more problems in the world have been caused by working

Than not working.

Anthropologically speaking we work now more hours per day than at any point in human history and what do we have to show for it. Ecological collapse, global warming and Fox News 24/7.

[Crandor]

34. That's wrong.

Unless you think looking for food 16 hours a day wasn't "work". The notion that early man had any significant amount of free time at all is ridiculous - it would not take long at all for population growth to decrease the available food per capita to the point where nearly all waking hours would be needed to stave off starvation.

[pdrichards114]

77. Nobody worked 16 hours a day looking for food.

Except in hunter gatherer societies which was about 8000 years ago which wasn't even close to the discussion at hand.

Current estimates state that in England around the 12th-13th century, people roughly worked about 1500 hours per year. In the U.S. around the 1850's the average laborer worked more than 3000 hours per year. We are roughly approaching that figure now. The average U.S worker works 40-50 hours a week 1850-2330.

Next time do your research first.

[Trillo]

86. Will Durant estimated that hunter gatherers

worked about 2 hours per day in survival activities.

[pdrichards114]

90. So basically, we have been working longer and longer hours since the beginning.

Damn just plug me into the Matrix now and get it over with. Make me productive 24/7.

[Crandor]

97. Will Durant is an ignorant fool then.

If I estimated that they worked 500 hours a day does that make it so? No, that would just mean I would be an idiot, because it's impossible. Likewise, 2 hours is also impossible, which you would understand if you actually bothered to read my post.

[Trillo]

108. Durants' ideas also seem to agree with

Marshall Sahlins ideas of the Original Affluent Society. Stories left with us by early American writers such as W. F. Cody bolster the view of what life was like in North America prior to 'civilization'.

[Crandor]

111. So is Bush a good president because Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity say so?

Just because people say something doesn't make it true.

[Trillo]

113. What do they have to do with Hunter Gatherers?

:hi:

[Crandor]

114. You claimed they had it great because a few random people say so.

I retorted that that is not sufficient evidence, using an analogy.

[Trillo]

117. If some claim the sky is blue, it could also be true.

Another analogy.

According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

I do agree it isn't absolute proof.

[Crandor]

118. I notice you still haven't addressed my original post.

And I don't care what some crackpot says - food is finite. A hunter-gatherer society that's not on the brink of starvation is one that has recently had either a disease epidemic or a war. The only reason we aren't starving today is thanks to agricultural technology. Of course if the population continues to grow unchecked, even that will fail, but now we would probably end up causing an extinction-level event in the process. But that's another topic.

[Crandor]

99. Your claim: "we work now more hours per day than at any point in human history"

Hunter gatherer societies are perfectly relevant. That's part of human history too, isn't it?

In the U.S. around the 1850's the average laborer worked more than 3000 hours per year.
So even you admit that your claim was wrong, unless the 1850s weren't part of human history either.

[pdrichards114]

100. I should have said

1. Written human history. Without writing we really have no fucking clue what we did/didn't do. Hunter/Gather societies had an oral tradition. I'm not saying Hunter/Gatherer societies aren't relevant to human history, they are, but not much can be said about what they did or didn't do so including them in the discussion is pointless.
2. Regarding the 1850's claim, I was just wrong, it was before I did my research.

My point is, we are working harder now than in most of human history, and I should be more careful with blanket statemnents

[Crandor]

102. We're also living far better than in most of written human history

And we may be working longer hours than people did in the Dark Ages, but most work today is not all that physically demanding - we don't have to be harvesting the fields by hand and such any more.

[pdrichards114]

103. I would say different. Not better not worse. Just different

Sure we don't have to deal with the plague, bad oral hygiene, and physically demanding work nearly as much. But we have to deal with smog, traffic, Fox news, Paris Hilton, tickle me elmo, Rush Limpballs, the asshole who cuts into line, Mall-Wart and the list can keep going and going....

[sandnsea]

42. Bequeath him a stock portfolio

And then cut taxes on the 'income' to make sure he never has to worry about that nasty thing called work.

Some days. :eyes:

[gollygee]

43. And drugs!

make sure to give him lots of drugs! Especially crack because that's what "those types" like best!

[Bluerthanblue]

49. everyone 'works' the odd thing is

those who actually do the things in life that others would rather not do, often receive very little compensation for it.

In an "ownership society" where humans have made 'rules' that remove the freedom to sleep in the street, find food where you can, and dictates what is 'acceptable': socially (dress or lack there-of, cleanliness, loitering, threats of incarceration or actual detention) I believe we owe everyone the basics- food, shelter, clothing.

Because we build prisons that house many people who live outside the social 'norms' and pay people to 'guard' the world from their free-living. We also pay people exorbitant sums to "work" at playing ball games, sing songs, walk around naked, and pretend to be 'leaders' etc.

Guess my question to the tester would be, "what is 'work'"? and what is 'society's' obligation to protect the 'individual' against the oppression caused by: inherited wealth, unchecked power, and political abuse?

[slackmaster]

51. I say let him starve

It's his choice.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Maybe My Question Needed Refinement.

But I was addressing an archetype- the freeloader...

I'm not referring to a person who can't find work or a woman who refuses to work because the only job available is hooker or stripper.


I'm talking about a person who is content to do "nothing"...

[gollygee]

57. How can our government establish who is a "freeloader"

and who can't find work? If we create a system that makes sure "freeloaders" don't get anything for free, then we will lose people who simply can't find work in the cracks. I'd rather every freeloader get food, shelter, and free health care, than have one struggling person get forgotten.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. That's An Interesting Argument.

If you see my original post I stipulated I would not let this "person" starve.



Yes, I endorse the Blackstone Ratio applied to freeloaders.


Better to feed one hundred freeloaders than to let one legitimately struggling person starved...


But that still doesn't addresss the question...

[gollygee]

68. I already answered the question

in post #21

[DaveJ]

74. Yes

You are correct, and I think I can address the 'freeloader problem'.

First of all, everyone gets food, shelter, and healthcare anyway. That's what people fail to take into account. The issue is, HOW they get it. Should freeloaders spend all their time begging me for change on the streets, asking to shack up with me (these are usually relatives), and creating mountains of useless paperwork? Just give people what they need and these useless activities go away.

If a larger number of freeloaders are created, well, as many people suggested, most jobs are pretty useless anyway. Does the world really need more furniture salesmen and paper pushers? Heck, even half the fast food jobs can be (and will be) computerized soon.

Bottom line is that people DO get ALL their necessities for free anyway. I am for admitting that fact, and better organizing the process.

[NashVegas]

95. Oh ... The Freeloader

Such as someone like Paris Hilton? You know, inherited wealth, jetsetting about?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. I'm Not Impressed With Her As A Person

eom

[Nederland]

58. What do you mean by "Society"?

I would say that government has absolutely no responsibility to do anything for such an individual. Individuals or certain charitable organizations can feel free to do what they want to help, but government should do nothing. The reason is twofold. One, there is the whole issue of how you determine whether or not the individual in question can really work or not. Governments tend not to be very good at making those determinations on a large scale, and the potential for abuse is simply too great. Second, when government acts it is using money collected from all taxpayers, many of whom may have different opinions on the best way to deal with such individuals. By letting individuals chose the methods and means by which to help those people, you ensure that everybody is seeing their money spent in a manner that they approve of.

[DaveJ]

66. Answer: Food, shelter, healthcare.

Many working Americans do not feel secure about maintaining at least two of these three things (shelter and healthcare). But technology is advanced enough to supply these necessities. It's only greed among the have's that makes them hard to obtain.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

75. How do we define work?

Taking a job anywhere? Or a person who won't honestly earn money?

[Az]

78. What of the mind

Able bodied does not mean able mind. And sometimes the disability of the mind may not be so obvious. Depression and other motivation disorders can be devistating but difficult to recognise.

[question everything]

79. You need to put it in perspective

of the thousands, or millions - I don't know - that are assisted by our tax money, how many fall into this category?

How many continue to smoke, or eat unhealthy food, or engaged in unsafe sexual practice.. have no medical insurance and we end up footing the bill? What about drivers and their passengers not using seat belts?

AIDS still gets a lot more funding - per affected person - than other diseases, starting with Alzheimer's and non-lung cancer and heart disease. And AIDS is the only disease that can be prevented, except for children born with it.

Yet no one has ever posed that question.

So I say - we are human. We all make mistakes. And if a small percentage of our payments go to people who "do not deserve them" - so be it.

[DaveJ]

85. The cure to society's ills

The rich want us to think the cure to all these maladies is work. That is, of course, because they benefit from our work.

In reality the cure to society's ills are different depending on the person. For many, work does prevent them from taking part in unhealthy practices. For others, it may be sports. For others, it may be just playing video games or surfing the web. Personally, if I did not have to work I would be able to create my own business, but since I spend 60 hours a week on work, I can't. I'm a slave to the current system.

[treestar]

104. Is there a job he is qualified for open and in a country where he is allowed to be?

If not, society I think owes him training for an open job.

If there are no jobs open, then society could support him until there is.

If there appears to be an open job he is qualified for in a place where he is allowed to be, then it would seem society can demand he take the job or starve, though it is of course always possible there will be disagreement about whether he or she can really do the job. Including the person's own opinion. Then there is the question whether the job is really dangerous, and does society have a right to demand anyone take the job involuntarily.

The real word isn't simple!:smoke:

In fact, is there capital for him to start his own business? That would be another consideration. Suppose he has an idea he wants to pursue but no capital and no one else is interested, or not interested enough for now? How long should he have to try that?

Or suppose he could teach, but can't afford the courses the state requires to keep up his license, even though, in the past, he taught for ten years. Can the state give in on this, or shouldn't the state give him a break on the fees for the courses?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. Good Points... All...

Anybody that wants to work should have work...


And no I wouldn't force someone to do dangerous work if that wasn't their bent...


What I was getting at is your professional freeloader and leaving it up to the definition of the poster to determine what constitutes one.


I think if we were honest with ourselves and with other posters our definitions would be more or less the same...

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

105. Can somone explain to me

how many people on this board freely flip back and forth indirectly supporting utilitarianism and individual Liberty? The two don't blend, you cannot have both without violating the other. Either human life is a means to an end or it is not, pick one damnit.

For example... wealth redistribution. I steal from one man because he has amassed a great surplus of wealth and give it to another who has been able to because it is obivous his marginial utility per unit of wealth is significantly greater than the utility lost from taking the unit of wealth from the wealthy man. Utilitarianism in a nutshell. Meaning we've conquered a greater evil by settling for a lesser one, as it is undeniable that we stole from this first man. By taking from him we have stolen life, and liberty. Meaning we have seized some of his justly(disputable) aquired property which was is a product of his time, therefore his life. By taking from him a portion of his life the individual has been violated for the good of society. Society as a whole is better off.

Make your pick.

[Crandor]

110. Wealth redistribution isn't wrong because of "individual liberty"

It's wrong because when people know that it happens, they have no reason to become wealthy in the first place. The result is you get a place like the USSR, who could copy things other countries had already done but made few original inventions. So while wealth redistribution seems to benefit society, in the long term it doesn't.

[The Traveler]

112. Your assumptions are based on incorrect facts

** edited for typos ... aggravated by a sticking "d" key**

It turns out, the Soviet Union invented and created quite a lot. Especially in terms of weaponry. Their prowess in this area was a matter of professional concern for me in the years 1979-1990 ... trust me. They had some quite innovative stuff. Check out the Backfire bomber and its various weapons systems, for example. Wished we had stuff like that in those days. I observe also they invented Soyuz ... a remarkable spacecraft still in use. The AK-47 is recently the topic of a book that plausibly posits that it is the weapon of greatest impact in the 20th century. And obviously you never saw the Bolshoi perform.

The problem in the USSR was not redistribution of the Czarist wealth to the people, but rather the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a relatively small elite at the expense of the people. That was a club remarkably similar in structure and function to the CEO club we see now in America. They governed the mechanisms of production, contributing little except the creation of ever impenetrable layers of bureaucracy devised to create the appearance they were exercising due diligence. They were skillful at shifting blame down hill and moved to a new position every few years, gaining new wealth and privileges as they did so. If you work in corporate America today, this should be a modus operandi you find familiar.

There were other problems imposed by requirements of ideological purity. For example, their biologists for a long time were required to adhere to the Lamarkian theory of evolution, which posited that a giraffe's neck grew long because generations of giraffes aspired to reach the food above. (Darwin held random mutation and natural selection drove the process, a notion not compatible with Marxist-Leninist ideology. Poor Darwin. He just never gets a break.)

There was little hunger in the Soviet Union, but also few people experienced abundance due to concentration of power and hence control of resources. (We seem to be heading there.)

The error of the capitalist is that they believe money equally motivates all. I know a couple of researchers in the pharmaceuticals industry. They are pretty well paid, but cannot be called rich. When they get a drug to market they get a pretty nice bone by my standards but by and large the majority of spoils are not dispersed to the creative staff. Rather, their managers make the big bucks. The creative staff would be just as happy to receive their paychecks from the government. For them, the work is the buzz ... beating a disease, relieving suffering, understanding better the fundamental mechanisms of life and disease ...

Creative people, people who invent things, like Kalashnikov or Edison sometimes acquire wealth ... but most don't, Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates invented the graphics user interface. The people who did are not billionaires today. Creative people create because they like to.

The failure of Leninism is far more complex than the simplistic parable you provide, and in their path to collapse the Leninist committed many errors which, quite frankly, appear similar to me in structure and effect to the behavior of capitalist societies today. Your parable is demon stably false. The lesson conveyed is therefore more than a little bit suspect.

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

120. I agree

In the long run trend society is certainly worse off, however not in the immediate but not in the immediate. Basic rule of economics is that people respond to incentives, alter incentives and people will act differently. However the alteration of incentives was certainly not the sole reason for the the USSR's downfall but certainly a part of its downfall.

However there seem to be hundreds on this board that feel income redistribution is just.

[sweetheart]

115. property is theft

Your argument presumes that the entitlement is just. But neither man
has earned their wealth, one has a gifted entitlement, and that elite school
manufactured the science of economics used to bias poeple towards the
disenfranchised and unintitled by absolutist definitions of property rights
without any sense of the public weal.

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

121. Property is theft?

Do you believe in absolute ownership of your own life? Do you excersize primary ownership over it?

Economics is a legitimate social science. It was not dreamt up with the motivation of disenfranchising the population. It acts by describing the noticable trends in human economic behavior. Once quantified and down to mere equations and laws people alter their economic behavior to act according to what the science has determined to be the best course of action. Good economics does not describe the normative.

[ismnotwasm]

109. Hmm

Very subjective question. Personally I don't care if someone refuses to work, takes advantage of the "system" or "chooses" to beg on street corners for a living. Why such individuals exist is a more profound question for me.
I see many subtle abuses of health care by middle class insured people who refuse to change lifestyle in the name of individual rights. Fine by me. Ends up costing us all, but it seems many would rather look at we consider lazy.

The concept of society is complex, and what is obligated to an individual really depends on what we have available or are willing to give. I don't know many people who are non-workers who don't have other problems, either physical, emotional, or mental. The usual rebuttal to that is that many people with those type of problems work very hard, and function as best as they can, and sometimes excel. Some can't, or won't.

Does "society" create non workers or unwilling workers by it's structure? If so, do they have their place or some sort of value?

Does society improve itself or do the individuals in it make the changes?

(As an aside--are we really wage slaves contributing to a broken system? Shit I hope not)

Since I'm just yammering, I guess my answer would be covering basic needs--available shelters, food and air to breathe is always nice. I have trouble with the word obligation.
I lived on welfare for a long time, I met many non workers-- was one. When Clinton changed the system I thought it was too much too soon even though I knew THAT system was broken. I still do. Maybe I have a little more empathy for those who will never find their way.
My life changed through my own choices, and available resources--not the welfare system. I still feel funny being in a middle class income even after all this time. I probably always will. But that has nothing to do with my own willingness to work and what I do today has everything to do with it. But everybody isn't me, and I know it.

Obviously our social structure is not the "to each according to need, and from each according to ability"--A concept that didn't work. In America, It's more of a pig pile. When you're on top, you can breathe. When you're on the bottom you suffocate. Those in the middle get enough to survive, but you feel the pressure.

[Dastard Stepchild]

116. We've been trying to sort this out since the 1500s...

Suffice it to say, I won't be holding my breath for a resolution any time soon. :)

In 1563, Justices of the Peace were authorised and empowered to raise compulsory funds for the relief of the poor and, for the first time, the poor were put into different categories:

those who would work but could not: these were the able-bodied or deserving poor. They were to be given help either through outdoor relief or by being given work in return for a wage.

those who could work but would not: these were the idle poor. They were to be whipped through the streets, publicly, until they learned the error of their ways.

those who were too old/ill/young to work: these were the impotent or deserving poor. They were to be looked after in almshouses, hospitals, orphanages or poor houses. Orphans and children of the poor were to be given a trade apprenticeship so that they would have a trade to pursue when they grew up.

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/elizpl.html

[ThomWV]

122. I Presume You Are Talking About RETIREEs

In many cases able bodied but unwilling to continue working.