Initial jobless claims increase ""unexpectedly""

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The safety net is not equated to your compassion. It is forced on everyone including those that have desire to be part of it. Your compassionate donation is indistinguishable from that forced from others who hate it. Your compassion is truly dinguished, in voluntary donations outside of the tax system.

Are there better options to keep the beggars off ones lawn?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Are there better options to keep the beggars off ones lawn?

-spence

Are you compassionate, or do you just want to keep the beggars off your lawn? If you're compassionate, offer the beggars a sandwich. If your too offended by their presence, have the government force the rest of us to feed them and get them off your lawn.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are you compassionate, or do you just want to keep the beggars off your lawn? If you're compassionate, offer the beggars a sandwich. If your too offended by their presence, have the government force the rest of us to feed them and get them off your lawn.

you got it
in this most terrible of times, just curious. Has anyone ever knocked at your door and offered to shovel your driveway? Mow your lawn, etc?
Yet we had mile long soup kitchen lines in the 30's.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are you compassionate, or do you just want to keep the beggars off your lawn? If you're compassionate, offer the beggars a sandwich. If your too offended by their presence, have the government force the rest of us to feed them and get them off your lawn.

Can you really rely on individual compassion when the people are part of a system? I can offer the beggar a cookie, but if my neighbor isn't doing the same for others the problem will still be there.

The changing pressures of industry and population can't often be normalized by individual action alone.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Can you really rely on individual compassion when the people are part of a system? I can offer the beggar a cookie, but if my neighbor isn't doing the same for others the problem will still be there.

The changing pressures of industry and population can't often be normalized by individual action alone.

-spence

spoken like a true Marxist

you should sneak into your neighbor's house and steal a cookie when he's sleeping...much more civilized than putting a gun to his head...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

spoken like a true Marxist

you should sneak into your neighbor's house and steal a cookie when he's sleeping...much more civilized than putting a gun to his head...

No, simply an observation. Just like how societal norms break down under the pressure of high urban population. While you're telling someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, their friends are looting your car.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Can you really rely on individual compassion when the people are part of a system?

Paul's compassion is what I was responding to. Compassion is a highly personal response. It is the personal response of an individual to the plight of another. It is inherent in human nature, not in the nature of a bureaucracy. Though individuals may collectively create bureacracies, even with compassionate intent, once it leaves their hands it operates as an impersonal mechanism. It knows no personal choice or preference or feeling, and it is not received with gratitude, but with expectation. The "system" owes, is required by law, to dole the handout. There is no person to thank or feel beholden to. Instead of gratitude when the gift is given, there is anger when it isn't. And those that pay, rarely meet the recipients and rarely feel the warm flow of personal generosity. And, as the needy grow, in response to the legal confiscation of their substance, those that pay are told they need to pay more.

This is a result of the statist's distrust of the individual, and the continual assault on individual freedom with the excuse that the individual is not capable of solving the problems of humanity. The individual is too selfish. Only the collective can eliminate the problems that ail us.

We must be part of the "system."

I can offer the beggar a cookie, but if my neighbor isn't doing the same for others the problem will still be there.

When the needy become, as apparently they are about to do so, half of the population, then, indeed, everyone and his neighbor (if he is not needy) will have to offer the cookie.

The changing pressures of industry and population can't often be normalized by individual action alone.

-spence

Yes, the collective must decide what is normal.

Isn't it interesting that as being "our brother's keeper" becomes more a responsibility of the government, the number of needy brothers expands.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Paul's compassion is what I was responding to. Compassion is a highly personal response. It is the personal response of an individual to the plight of another. It is inherent in human nature, not in the nature of a bureaucracy. Though individuals may collectively create bureacracies, even with compassionate intent, once it leaves their hands it operates as an impersonal mechanism. It knows no personal choice or preference or feeling, and it is not received with gratitude, but with expectation.

The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.

The "system" owes, is required by law, to dole the handout. There is no person to thank or feel beholden to. Instead of gratitude when the gift is given, there is anger when it isn't. And those that pay, rarely meet the recipients and rarely feel the warm flow of personal generosity. And, as the needy grow, in response to the legal confiscation of their substance, those that pay are told they need to pay more.

I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.

This is a result of the statist's distrust of the individual, and the continual assault on individual freedom with the excuse that the individual is not capable of solving the problems of humanity. The individual is too selfish. Only the collective can eliminate the problems that ail us.

The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.

When the needy become, as apparently they are about to do so, half of the population, then, indeed, everyone and his neighbor (if he is not needy) will have to offer the cookie.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.

Yes, the collective must decide what is normal.

Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.

Isn't it interesting that as being "our brother's keeper" becomes more a responsibility of the government, the number of needy brothers expands.

Does it? I'd think this is more probably a function of the overall economic condition.

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;761240]The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Yes, the GDP is a result of the system. The system produces the rich. Great wealth is functioned from the system. Some stumble into the automatic outputs and become rich. The backs of "others" are strained by this fortuitous accident backed into by the rich. There, bereft of system grace, go the "others" who were not fortunate enough to stumble into the right output. The outputs were already occupied by the rich, thus denying the "others."

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.

Yes, the antidote to the heartless rich is the compassion of the system. It will divest the greedy of their unfair, ill-gotten gains and place the "others" into the alternate compassionate outputs reserved for those unluckies that didn't accidentally fall into the right slots. Carefully measured, of course.

I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

The "other" must, as you say, function correctly within the parameters of the system. The "other" is responsible for correct feelings for their fortunate, guided, placement into the remunaritive output. The "other" must not incorrectly receive the output entitlement, though it is for the "other" to determine the manner of reception.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.

The corporate elite, of course, as you say, having unjustly, accidentally, fallen into propitious systemic outputs, are as susceptible as the "other" to expecting the entitlements and so must be careful how they receive them lest they be forced to redistribute the gifts back to the system. They must be sure to stroke the correct elements.

The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.

It is a fact that the system requires Federal power for all solutions, lest renegades such as States, local units, so-called individuals create a disfunction in the complex output. This would be inneficient. System compassion would be challenged. Chaos, starvation, death would ensue.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.

The "needy" are the most important cog in the system. Without the needy, the system would collapse.

Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.

"Normal" is always safely in the middle of the flux. "Normal" is always the centrist position in the ever-changing flux of the expanding system. "Normal" cannot deviate toward the dangerous edge of the system. "Normal" must not make definite statements, nor adhere to opinions or beliefs tainted with individualist perception. The amorphous, soft-edged, malleable concensus of the collective is the guide of the "normal." The ever-expanding system must accomodate all new inputs and remold them into system outputs . . .

[spence]

Originally Posted by spence

The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Yes, the GDP is a result of the system. The system produces the rich. Great wealth is functioned from the system. Some stumble into the automatic outputs and become rich. The backs of "others" are strained by this fortuitous accident backed into by the rich. There, bereft of system grace, go the "others" who were not fortunate enough to stumble into the right output. The outputs were already occupied by the rich, thus denying the "others."

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.

Yes, the antidote to the heartless rich is the compassion of the system. It will divest the greedy of their unfair, ill-gotten gains and place the "others" into the alternate compassionate outputs reserved for those unluckies that didn't accidentally fall into the right slots. Carefully measured, of course.

I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

The "other" must, as you say, function correctly within the parameters of the system. The "other" is responsible for correct feelings for their fortunate, guided, placement into the remunaritive output. The "other" must not incorrectly receive the output entitlement, though it is for the "other" to determine the manner of reception.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.

The corporate elite, of course, as you say, having unjustly, accidentally, fallen into propitious systemic outputs, are as susceptible as the "other" to expecting the entitlements and so must be careful how they receive them lest they be forced to redistribute the gifts back to the system. They must be sure to stroke the correct elements.

The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.

It is a fact that the system requires Federal power for all solutions, lest renegades such as States, local units, so-called individuals create a disfunction in the complex output. This would be inneficient. System compassion would be challenged. Chaos, starvation, death would ensue.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.

The "needy" are the most important cog in the system. Without the needy, the system would collapse.

Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.

"Normal" is always safely in the middle of the flux. "Normal" is always the centrist position in the ever-changing flux of the expanding system. "Normal" cannot deviate toward the dangerous edge of the system. "Normal" must not make definite statements, nor adhere to opinions or beliefs tainted with individualist perception. The amorphous, soft-edged, malleable concensus of the collective is the guide of the "normal." The ever-expanding system must accomodate all new inputs and remold them into system outputs . . .

Perhaps you seem to find it more convenient to just argue against a phantom position never really taken. Or, perhaps you think a centrist position is an impossibility so you need to tell me what I think?

Seriously, who are you talking to?

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.


I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.


The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.


This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.


Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.


Does it? I'd think this is more probably a function of the overall economic condition.

-spence

The title of this thread is Spence's communist manifesto

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

The title of this thread is Spence's communist manifesto

That's a stretch.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Are there better options to keep the beggars off ones lawn?

-spence

Yup. While there will always be people who are mentaly ill and need medical attention, anyone can get involved with volunteering helping with the many homeless programs and donating their time to mentoring.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish he will eat for a life time."