Sign in to follow this  
lordie

Welfare

Recommended Posts

[?] It isn't even banned most places.

An exaggeration for expressive effect. But focusing on the aesthetics of expression does not deal with the point, to wit, feeding animals endangers them. The same applies to people. It is a manipulation that make them less able to feed themselves, dependent on their keepers for survival, and being less fearful of their keepers they are more likely to attack them, and destroy their property.

"allow"? That's a pretty creepy sentence you've put together there. Very 1930s eugenics sounding. More importantly, your premise is flawed. The species would not be doomed so long as a portion of the species possessed the necessary traits to survive. Anything else would, at most, simply cause a decrease in population size. And, just to be clear, none of us know what traits will be needed to survive the future, thus the survival of the species depends on the sort of genetic diversity you get when you allow people to develop traits you don't like.

The manipulation is already underway and has been for my entire life. My desire is not to initiate it but to end it. Funny how that is twisted around.

Survive under what conditions is the question. If natural pressure is artificially removed then the perception of survivability is skewed. When natural pressure returns, and it will, die off will be devastating.

Just picture pets dislocated after a natural disaster, starving because no one comes to feed them. Most domesticated animals are not able to go feral and will just starve instead. Hunting skills are learned and must be honed before they are effective. Instinct is not always enough. Domesticated animals are deprived of these skills and knowledge. And social programs are the means to domesticate human beings. To control their actions and environment, limit their movement, and make them more docile, all for the purpose of extracting a desired resource from them with as few complications as possible.

I'm not suggesting limiting genetic diversity, I'm proposing limiting the behavioral modification by the state, for the sake of the survival of our species.

People need to earn what they need to survive, by fulfilling the desires and needs of others. There is nothing more egalitarian or altruistic than the free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An exaggeration for expressive effect.

Otherwise known as a statement that is not true; to wit,

feeding animals endangers them.

Feeding animals can be dangerous for animals and for people in the ways you mention, but it is not automatic. If it were, it would be illegal everywhere, which it is not.

It is a manipulation that make them less able to feed themselves

Feeding an animal does not make it less able to feed itself. At worst, it demotivates the animal from trying to feed itself. Often, however, feeding an animal is necessary to help it become able to feed itself. Most mothers know this part fairly well.

dependent on their keepers for survival

Well, if you destroy an animals natural habitat, what else should it be dependent on? Where is a human's natural habitat, again?

and being less fearful of their keepers they are more likely to attack them, and destroy their property.

I have never been attacked by any of the birds that use my feeders, and the only damage they have done to my property has been accidental. None of them have ever stuck around for the winter, either.

My desire is not to initiate it but to end it.

In my view, it is the desire to control our species that is the problem, not the type of control that is desired.

And social programs are the means to domesticate human beings.

I would agree that they are a means of doing so. They are far from the only means. The average banker is far more domesticated than the average hood rat, after all.

People need to earn what they need to survive, by fulfilling the desires and needs of others.

That translates to "You should be dependent on other people." There are squirrels in the camping areas of Yosemite that do tricks to get people to feed them. Fulfilling the desires of people to earn what they need to survive has sort of stripped them of the ability to survive in the wild. They are fat and happy, though...

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geeze

I like your responses

But welfare was for the poor

And welfare to work was for the poor to learn to work .as for feeding wild animals i done that a few times they learn to fed for themselves but sometimes we must feed them

Peace

Lordie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad that so many Americans will first denounce people who are rich and then turn around and denounce those who are poor.

Why is it sad, and who is doing that?

denounce people who are rich

Only the poor, envious and socialist folk espouse such ignorant denouncements. For different reasons, perhaps.

then turn around and denounce those who are poor

Who does that? Cite examples, please......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember. Those who work and pay taxes are PAYING for those handouts...

REVPO

And those who simply own, are not.. which is where much of the problem lies..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An exaggeration for expressive effect. But focusing on the aesthetics of expression does not deal with the point, to wit, feeding animals endangers them. The same applies to people. It is a manipulation that make them less able to feed themselves, dependent on their keepers for survival, and being less fearful of their keepers they are more likely to attack them, and destroy their property.

The manipulation is already underway and has been for my entire life. My desire is not to initiate it but to end it. Funny how that is twisted around.

Survive under what conditions is the question. If natural pressure is artificially removed then the perception of survivability is skewed. When natural pressure returns, and it will, die off will be devastating.

Just picture pets dislocated after a natural disaster, starving because no one comes to feed them. Most domesticated animals are not able to go feral and will just starve instead. Hunting skills are learned and must be honed before they are effective. Instinct is not always enough. Domesticated animals are deprived of these skills and knowledge. And social programs are the means to domesticate human beings. To control their actions and environment, limit their movement, and make them more docile, all for the purpose of extracting a desired resource from them with as few complications as possible.

I'm not suggesting limiting genetic diversity, I'm proposing limiting the behavioral modification by the state, for the sake of the survival of our species.

People need to earn what they need to survive, by fulfilling the desires and needs of others. There is nothing more egalitarian or altruistic than the free market.

which is why public housing is such a quite, pastoral place..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are should make the same amount of money . Or at least put a freeze on prices not only help the poor but others as well

Peace

Lordie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And social programs are the means to domesticate human beings. To control their actions and environment, limit their movement, and make them more docile, all for the purpose of extracting a desired resource from them with as few complications as possible.

I'm not suggesting limiting genetic diversity, I'm proposing limiting the behavioral modification by the state, for the sake of the survival of our species.

People need to earn what they need to survive, by fulfilling the desires and needs of others. There is nothing more egalitarian or altruistic than the free market.

I agree with you on some aspects of your observations, Pan, but not on others.

Yes, social programs are a tool for domesticating human beings. But I disagree with your cynical view that the purpose is to render people "more docile". That is just one way of viewing things... and I think it is a jaundiced view. It is equally valid to suggest that the "purpose" is to render society more "civil". .. or to enable more people to attain their potential. There are many possible, and perhaps actual, "purposes" for domestic programs. It strikes me that you object to these programs because they are "unnatural, even artificial". But societies themselves are "artificial...man-made... un-natural constructs... as are "markets" and "marketplaces". And "free markets" only exist in fantasy tales. All markets that the world has ever witnessed have been skewed and manipulated by those who would attempt to attain a monopoly, or by those who would create artificial shortages, or those who would strive to destroy a competitor. Competition is a buzz-word that all entrepreneurs pay vocal homage to, while in truth, they do everything in their power to avoid effective competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But welfare was for the poor

The problem with that is that "poor" is a very vague idea leaving lots of room for disagreement over who does and does not qualify. I overheard a guy teasing his friend over the fact that she lives in a million dollar beach front home and is on food stamps. Her response was "They didn't ask me where I live or whether I pay rent." Lack of income is not the same as lack of money is not the same as need for money- but the government can't really measure need, you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with that is that "poor" is a very vague idea leaving lots of room for disagreement over who does and does not qualify. I overheard a guy teasing his friend over the fact that she lives in a million dollar beach front home and is on food stamps. Her response was "They didn't ask me where I live or whether I pay rent." Lack of income is not the same as lack of money is not the same as need for money- but the government can't really measure need, you know?

well, they can, but it gets kinda intrusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things come to mind while reading this thread.

1. Teach a man to fish....

2. Judge not lest ye be judged

3. Charity is Love.

4. Free Agency is an exercise.

Have a blessed day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things come to mind while reading this thread.

1. Teach a man to fish....

2. Judge not lest ye be judged

3. Charity is Love.

4. Free Agency is an exercise.

Have a blessed day.

Teaching someone to fish is only useful if the fish are out there. It is a platitude that assumes an abundance of available resources. It might have been true once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teaching someone to fish is only useful if the fish are out there. It is a platitude that assumes an abundance of available resources. It might have been true once.

"Teach a man to fish..." is a metaphor meaning teach a man to take care of himself. I believe there are enough resources for that to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teaching someone to fish is only useful if the fish are out there. It is a platitude that assumes an abundance of available resources. It might have been true once.

The same is true of giving them someone else's fish. Try giving them all your own first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of responses

Ok well teach a man how to fish is great

But sometimes we have to do more than teach

Peace

Lordie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Teach a man to fish..." is a metaphor meaning teach a man to take care of himself. I believe there are enough resources for that to happen.

but fewer every year. And fewer still that no one lays claim to. The fight has turned to intellectual property because real property is pretty well owned by someone. The metaphor fails the modern world.

The same is true of giving them someone else's fish. Try giving them all your own first.

I would rather eliminate the claim of ownership. It is a fiction anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather eliminate the claim of ownership. It is a fiction anyway.

Ownership is just an impersonal abstraction to obscure the fact that you are referring to everyone's personal stuff. The involuntary elimination of personal property would require violence or at least the threat of violence, much the same as in rape. And just as in rape, the sociopathic perpetrator would blame the violence involved on the victim putting up a fight, or on the situation that made them a target - "They were asking for it", by having stuff that I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ownership is just an impersonal abstraction to obscure the fact that you are referring to everyone's personal stuff. The involuntary elimination of personal property would require violence or at least the threat of violence, much the same as in rape. And just as in rape, the sociopathic perpetrator would blame the violence involved on the victim putting up a fight, or on the situation that made them a target - "They were asking for it", by having stuff that I want.

people don't own stuff. People possess stuff. They claim ownership of other stuff. But that claim has no foundation save that others willingly respect and support it. So, if you get up in the AM and "your car" is gone, it is gone. Society has generally chosen to support your continued claim to own that car, and will, if possible, and not too much work, return that car, but Society has no obligation to do so. That fact that it will incurs in you a debt to society, which society establishes.

In modern society, you have some leeway to negotiate that debt load. That hasn't always been true. You can, of course, negotiate with your feet, but, as you live in the US, you unlikely to find a better deal easily. But you need to understand that, should society fail to support the life needs of a large portion of it's constituents, they will eventually choose not to recognize your claims of ownership. They will act in their own interests, when faced with survival. That is just nature.

Now most of the constituents would like to be part of a working society, but that can't happen when ownership issues eliminate the potential for even those who know how to fish, to fish. If this is not understood, there will be blood. Property redistribution is inevitable. It is just a matter of how it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, they can, but it gets kinda intrusive.

Not really. Need is too closely tied to purpose, and purpose is too intangible, for that to be feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this