We hold these truths to be self evident.......

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Kadarin
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
"The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." ~Benjamin Franklin

/thread

Moonie wtfpwned by old Ben Franklin. Personal responsibility FTW.

:D

I wish some of you folk had better analytical skills. I specifically mentioned the founders time and the freedom to settle free land as a way to 'catch it yourself' that no longer exists. You can't catch it yourself any longer. You need a job to provide money. You need cash to enter into to the system.

If you feel that way it's because you've defined 'liberty and happiness' as things which require money.

I've never made 30k in my life but my liberties are exercised and happiness has been great (at least at certain times dependent upon other factors). I'm currently living perfectly well and content on less than 20k, working a job only part time so that I can explore my happiness.

I wish you folk had better analytical skills. You have 20,000 a year and a job and that allows you to explore your happiness. You are dependent on a job. That was my point.

And as I said, I'm just working part time. I can quit tomorrow and live fine for quite some time. I keep the job because I like the people and it gets me exercise. I'm not dependent on any way upon a job. Jobs are utterly meaningless to me, as is money.

'live fine for quite some time' says it all' You are job dependent by admission, no?

I 'think' I could probably survive without one, though I would be breaking the law in a few ways (insurance, child support, etc). Instead I could simply employ myself, which I've done in the past. Works fine because of my minimal needs. By employ myself I mean fix computers, consult, do odd jobs, etc for cash only. Or I could just get another job...any job, which isn't a problem since there's always something out there. I certainly am not in a situation where I need government interference. If anything I need less government interference...insurance should never be mandatory (actually in my opinion it shouldn't even exist), fees/taxes/etc should be lower, and so on.

You probably could. You definitely could if you could get land to farm.

Maybe I don't want to farm.

I want to be president of Google.

:D
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
Moonbeam, the results of a free market society gave you the capability to post a thread bitching about it. ;)

Yes, but I am a market winner. I am bitching for those who cannot.

Those who cannot, or those who will not?

I think you have failed to recognize that many do not have jobs due to their own choices. And I don't think I want to consume products nor services that those people would contribute under government-funded employment.

There are plenty of jobs available out there right now. But people either don't want those jobs, or they are not qualified to get them. Would you want just anyone cooking your food, or nursing your wounds? Or driving your kid's bus? Or working on a plane's engine?

Even if government could provide water for all, you can't force everyone to drink it. ;)


Oh I don't know. They can cover the desert with solar cells and build wind mills and support the infrastructure that would require, just so long as the wage was sufficient to live on. They can demolish cities and rebuild them with intelligence and efficiency and then live in them.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
Moonbeam, the results of a free market society gave you the capability to post a thread bitching about it. ;)

Yes, but I am a market winner. I am bitching for those who cannot.

Those who cannot, or those who will not?

I think you have failed to recognize that many do not have jobs due to their own choices. And I don't think I want to consume products nor services that those people would contribute under government-funded employment.

There are plenty of jobs available out there right now. But people either don't want those jobs, or they are not qualified to get them. Would you want just anyone cooking your food, or nursing your wounds? Or driving your kid's bus? Or working on a plane's engine?

Even if government could provide water for all, you can't force everyone to drink it. ;)


Oh I don't know. They can cover the desert with solar cells and build wind mills and support the infrastructure that would require, just so long as the wage was sufficient to live on. They can demolish cities and rebuild them with intelligence and efficiency and then live in them.

So, are they choosing to do this for a living? :confused:

If not, then do we force them to do this?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
It seems silly to provide just the means to an end. The government should provide happiness (ie: food, shelter, clothing, money) to all it's citizens. Then everyone could be happy, and those who wished to work would still be free to do so, while the rest of us just kicked back and enjoyed life.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Nebor
It seems silly to provide just the means to an end. The government should provide happiness (ie: food, shelter, clothing, money) to all it's citizens. Then everyone could be happy, and those who wished to work would still be free to do so, while the rest of us just kicked back and enjoyed life.

Dude, that sounds way cool, man. I mean, dude, why the hell would I want to be, like, president of some bigass company like google? Man, that sounds like a total drag. That sounds like a lot of fuckin' bullshit work, man. You know, the more I think about it, I don't even want to work, dude, not at all. Hell yeah. That would be, like, an easier life for me, because when I was in school, man, all I ever did was drink cold beer and red hot weed, man, haha you know it brotha. Fuck the establishment, man. I just want to party dude. That's how I roll. And if the government forces me to work, man, fine dude, I'll just like be a bus driver, and just like make people sandwiches dude. That would be ok man. And like if the man finds me smoking on the job, I'll just drop that cig in some dude's sandwich, fuck him man, don't like it, don't eat it dude.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And also slavery is no longer legal.

But we can no longer move West and settle on decent farm land and make a living and follow our dreams for ourselves. Now in order to live in today's society people need jobs.

So it would seem to me that if you need a job to live then a job should be a government Constitutional duty to provide and no job that you can't live on and have dreams you can build from is slavery and ought to be illegal.

Why is it not the duty of the citizens of the United States to abolish their current system and institute new ones as to them shall most likely affect their safety and happiness?

Speaking of the lack of analytical skills..........the passage you quote in your topic title is located in the declaration of independence and is not found in the constitution--thus there is no (implied) constitutional mandate for such.

/end thread

Watch the premature ejaculations there Corn. I know where my quote came from. I relied on the Bill of Rights, including ones unenumerated plus freedom from slavery as my Constitutional basis and the Declaration for the source for a right to change the government. Please apply some analytical skills.

No, you relied on the declaration of independence as your basis for the discussion and then made up your own definition of slavery:

......no job that you can't live on and have dreams you can build from is slavery and ought to be illegal.

Your definition of slavery is not slavery and debases the suffering of those people who have suffered actual slavery. In order to achieve your non-constitutionally mandated utopian dream monies must be confiscated from those who do have jobs that pay so-called "living wages" to be supposedly redistributed to those who do not. The ironly is that this scenerio is closer to real slavery than your definition.

I defined slavery as being fed clothed and housed but paid nothing for your forced labor as superior to being driven by hunger, nudity, and homelessness to working a job for a salary that can't provide you with those things. You are welcome to your opinion. I don't share it. And don't tell me what I did or didn't do because I know exactly what I did. Thanks.

To have to work to survive and then not make enough to survive is criminal in my opinion.

OK, so you don't understand what slavery is. Thanks for clearing that up.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
It seems silly to provide just the means to an end. The government should provide happiness (ie: food, shelter, clothing, money) to all it's citizens. Then everyone could be happy, and those who wished to work would still be free to do so, while the rest of us just kicked back and enjoyed life.

You think this way because you don't study yourself. Note, please, that you only value what you pay for.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
Moonbeam, the results of a free market society gave you the capability to post a thread bitching about it. ;)

Yes, but I am a market winner. I am bitching for those who cannot.

Those who cannot, or those who will not?

I think you have failed to recognize that many do not have jobs due to their own choices. And I don't think I want to consume products nor services that those people would contribute under government-funded employment.

There are plenty of jobs available out there right now. But people either don't want those jobs, or they are not qualified to get them. Would you want just anyone cooking your food, or nursing your wounds? Or driving your kid's bus? Or working on a plane's engine?

Even if government could provide water for all, you can't force everyone to drink it. ;)


Oh I don't know. They can cover the desert with solar cells and build wind mills and support the infrastructure that would require, just so long as the wage was sufficient to live on. They can demolish cities and rebuild them with intelligence and efficiency and then live in them.

So, are they choosing to do this for a living? :confused:

If not, then do we force them to do this?

The only requirement I ask is that there's something that anybody can do and survive unless, of course they can do nothing at all, such as a loved one who has lapsed into a vegetative state, perhaps. Nobody has to do anything but then they have to figure out on their own how to survive. Jobs could be of any complexity or area of specialization. Sweep the streets, pick up trash, go through the garbage to recycle, but pay a living wage where one person can live by his own labor.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Corn: OK, so you don't understand what slavery is. Thanks for clearing that up.

M: OK, so I understand it better than you.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Corn: OK, so you don't understand what slavery is. Thanks for clearing that up.

M: OK, so I understand it better than you.

Doubtful.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Nebor
It seems silly to provide just the means to an end. The government should provide happiness (ie: food, shelter, clothing, money) to all it's citizens. Then everyone could be happy, and those who wished to work would still be free to do so, while the rest of us just kicked back and enjoyed life.

You think this way because you don't study yourself. Note, please, that you only value what you pay for.

I never understand what you're saying. Sounds to me like you want every American to be a slave to a job.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Corn: OK, so you don't understand what slavery is. Thanks for clearing that up.

M: OK, so I understand it better than you.

Doubtful.

Well then stop with the assertions and make a case. I told you my opinion that having to work and having less than a slave is worse than slavery.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Corn: OK, so you don't understand what slavery is. Thanks for clearing that up.

M: OK, so I understand it better than you.

Doubtful.

Well then stop with the assertions and make a case. I told you my opinion that having to work and having less than a slave is worse than slavery.

So don't make anyone work. The government should just give them everything they need. Duh. Problem solved.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
Moonbeam, the results of a free market society gave you the capability to post a thread bitching about it. ;)

Yes, but I am a market winner. I am bitching for those who cannot.

Those who cannot, or those who will not?

I think you have failed to recognize that many do not have jobs due to their own choices. And I don't think I want to consume products nor services that those people would contribute under government-funded employment.

There are plenty of jobs available out there right now. But people either don't want those jobs, or they are not qualified to get them. Would you want just anyone cooking your food, or nursing your wounds? Or driving your kid's bus? Or working on a plane's engine?

Even if government could provide water for all, you can't force everyone to drink it. ;)


Oh I don't know. They can cover the desert with solar cells and build wind mills and support the infrastructure that would require, just so long as the wage was sufficient to live on. They can demolish cities and rebuild them with intelligence and efficiency and then live in them.

So, are they choosing to do this for a living? :confused:

If not, then do we force them to do this?

The only requirement I ask is that there's something that anybody can do and survive unless, of course they can do nothing at all, such as a loved one who has lapsed into a vegetative state, perhaps. Nobody has to do anything but then they have to figure out on their own how to survive. Jobs could be of any complexity or area of specialization. Sweep the streets, pick up trash, go through the garbage to recycle, but pay a living wage where one person can live by his own labor.

And what happens when there are simply more people than jobs?

The government pays people to do nothing? Or to do meaningless tasks?

And don't you think people, under your system, are forced to do jobs they don't want to do? Isn't that a type of slavery?
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Funny thing......my wife and I are looking to hire an in-home caregiver for our son. The responsibilities are rather easy, just keep my kid safe and occupied for 8 hours a day. Actually, only 6 hours as the kid naps for 2. We're offering $10/hour. Around these parts, this is more than a "living wage". We've had only a handful of inquires in 2 months of advertising the offer..........I know, anecdotal evidence is worth squat....we're still looking though.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Nebor
It seems silly to provide just the means to an end. The government should provide happiness (ie: food, shelter, clothing, money) to all it's citizens. Then everyone could be happy, and those who wished to work would still be free to do so, while the rest of us just kicked back and enjoyed life.

You think this way because you don't study yourself. Note, please, that you only value what you pay for.

I never understand what you're saying. Sounds to me like you want every American to be a slave to a job.

It is very simple, really. I am saying that in the world we have created you need a job to get the material resources you need to live if you are not on government assistance or have independent wealth. You can no longer go off and settle your own piece of land. We are now locked into the world we create. The is no easy or obvious way to be self productive so we are essentially slaves to the system, a system that has jobs below a living wage. There are those who can't find jobs that can support them because they have no marketable skills. There is tremendous economic insecurity.

I am saying there should be jobs created by the government sufficient to employee people who have skills below those that can support them in the market place if the market value of their labor is below a living wage. It seems like a being duty to humanity that we do this because everybody should be able to live by his own labor whatever that labor might be.

You want to bypass that and give people money but in free money there is only contempt. You value only what you earn. Everybody ought to be worth a living wage just in principle so everybody should be entitled to that much dignity. I don't want people to be slaves to their jobs. I just don't want any jobs that make people slaves. There can be a million kinds of jobs and people can do what they like but there should be a floor below which we can't go, a job with a wage you can't live on.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Kadarin
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
"The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." ~Benjamin Franklin

/thread

Moonie wtfpwned by old Ben Franklin. Personal responsibility FTW.

:D

I wish some of you folk had better analytical skills. I specifically mentioned the founders time and the freedom to settle free land as a way to 'catch it yourself' that no longer exists. You can't catch it yourself any longer. You need a job to provide money. You need cash to enter into to the system.

the land scape has changed...we moved from farming to manufacturing to service oriented culture a long time ago....as such it is the responsibility of the individual to change...if you do not you wilt.

the quote from Franklin says nothing about a particular job does it? it states one fact and one fact only...personal responsibility will eventually lead to to that happiness....if you choose not to pursue it you choose not to be happy and nothing the government does is going to change that.

It's like smokers who want to quit saying that if a smoking ban is in place they will then be able to quit...why?

because they have no motivation of their own even though they know the hazards of smoking...they need someone to tell them to quit....a very sad and pathetic life.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Corn: OK, so you don't understand what slavery is. Thanks for clearing that up.

M: OK, so I understand it better than you.

Doubtful.

Well then stop with the assertions and make a case. I told you my opinion that having to work and having less than a slave is worse than slavery.

What do slaves "have" other than being fed, clothed, and housed? Why chains for their bondage, scars received when they tried to call in sick, children fathered during rape by their owner, and names that changed when they were sold to another owner.

Yes sir, slaves had it good.......
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Corn: OK, so you don't understand what slavery is. Thanks for clearing that up.

M: OK, so I understand it better than you.

Doubtful.

Well then stop with the assertions and make a case. I told you my opinion that having to work and having less than a slave is worse than slavery.

What do slaves "have" other than being fed, clothed, and housed? Why chains for their bondage, scars received when they tried to call in sick, children fathered during rape by their owner, and names that changed when they were sold to another owner.

Yes sir, slaves had it good.......

No taxes, free room and board, no child support payments. I dunno. Toss up.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

The only requirement I ask is that there's something that anybody can do and survive unless, of course they can do nothing at all, such as a loved one who has lapsed into a vegetative state, perhaps. Nobody has to do anything but then they have to figure out on their own how to survive. Jobs could be of any complexity or area of specialization. Sweep the streets, pick up trash, go through the garbage to recycle, but pay a living wage where one person can live by his own labor.

So maybe you can answer this...whats a living wage? In dollars, not some vague answer "enough to pay the bills and healthcare". Give us a dollar amount.

Based on a city? OK how about three examples for us. One each for expensive, middle of the road, and cheap.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Nebor
It seems silly to provide just the means to an end. The government should provide happiness (ie: food, shelter, clothing, money) to all it's citizens. Then everyone could be happy, and those who wished to work would still be free to do so, while the rest of us just kicked back and enjoyed life.

You think this way because you don't study yourself. Note, please, that you only value what you pay for.

I never understand what you're saying. Sounds to me like you want every American to be a slave to a job.

It is very simple, really. I am saying that in the world we have created you need a job to get the material resources you need to live if you are not on government assistance or have independent wealth. You can no longer go off and settle your own piece of land. We are now locked into the world we create. The is no easy or obvious way to be self productive so we are essentially slaves to the system, a system that has jobs below a living wage. There are those who can't find jobs that can support them because they have no marketable skills. There is tremendous economic insecurity.

I am saying there should be jobs created by the government sufficient to employee people who have skills below those that can support them in the market place if the market value of their labor is below a living wage. It seems like a being duty to humanity that we do this because everybody should be able to live by his own labor whatever that labor might be.

You want to bypass that and give people money but in free money there is only contempt. You value only what you earn. Everybody ought to be worth a living wage just in principle so everybody should be entitled to that much dignity. I don't want people to be slaves to their jobs. I just don't want any jobs that make people slaves. There can be a million kinds of jobs and people can do what they like but there should be a floor below which we can't go, a job with a wage you can't live on.

Alright, so how about if the government just paid the difference to those working "undesirable" or "slave wage" jobs to bring their pay level up to the level of everyone else?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Nebor
It seems silly to provide just the means to an end. The government should provide happiness (ie: food, shelter, clothing, money) to all it's citizens. Then everyone could be happy, and those who wished to work would still be free to do so, while the rest of us just kicked back and enjoyed life.

You think this way because you don't study yourself. Note, please, that you only value what you pay for.

I never understand what you're saying. Sounds to me like you want every American to be a slave to a job.

It is very simple, really. I am saying that in the world we have created you need a job to get the material resources you need to live if you are not on government assistance or have independent wealth. You can no longer go off and settle your own piece of land. We are now locked into the world we create. The is no easy or obvious way to be self productive so we are essentially slaves to the system, a system that has jobs below a living wage. There are those who can't find jobs that can support them because they have no marketable skills. There is tremendous economic insecurity.

I am saying there should be jobs created by the government sufficient to employee people who have skills below those that can support them in the market place if the market value of their labor is below a living wage. It seems like a being duty to humanity that we do this because everybody should be able to live by his own labor whatever that labor might be.

You want to bypass that and give people money but in free money there is only contempt. You value only what you earn. Everybody ought to be worth a living wage just in principle so everybody should be entitled to that much dignity. I don't want people to be slaves to their jobs. I just don't want any jobs that make people slaves. There can be a million kinds of jobs and people can do what they like but there should be a floor below which we can't go, a job with a wage you can't live on.

Alright, so how about if the government just paid the difference to those working "undesirable" or "slave wage" jobs to bring their pay level up to the level of everyone else?

So you dont believe in compensation reletive to the position? Why is that? Why should someone with no college degree make as much as someone WITH a degree? Why should a high school dropout make the same as a graduate?

And BTW...when you say "up to the level of everyone else"...what exactly IS that?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

The only requirement I ask is that there's something that anybody can do and survive unless, of course they can do nothing at all, such as a loved one who has lapsed into a vegetative state, perhaps. Nobody has to do anything but then they have to figure out on their own how to survive. Jobs could be of any complexity or area of specialization. Sweep the streets, pick up trash, go through the garbage to recycle, but pay a living wage where one person can live by his own labor.

So maybe you can answer this...whats a living wage? In dollars, not some vague answer "enough to pay the bills and healthcare". Give us a dollar amount.

Based on a city? OK how about three examples for us. One each for expensive, middle of the road, and cheap.

Not sure I would want to go with dollars, but perhaps something like a social credit. Such credits would be good for government sponsored housing and that would be constructed by folk being paid the credits. You could own a place for a lifetime but your kids would have to get their own if they weren't a part of the normal outside economy. Similarly with food and clothing. Those working for social credit would create their own wealth and repay government loans that got stuff started. They could be paid in housing food and clothes sufficient for normal life and perhaps a 5 to 10 percent savings account in dollars. Food could be prepared at a community kitchen from locally grown sources. It shouldn't be hard figure out what it takes to live at a very basic level.