The General Politics Thread

dead1

traptunderice wrote
while Marxists bend the law in order to prevent the implicit threat that Western society never wants to talk about, that some people live in awful conditions which can be rectified.

Dude, a lot of people lived in dreadful conditions in the Soviet Union and other Commie crapholes.Socialism/Communism failed miserably.And in Australia at least social security is so good that unemployed people live in 3 bedroom homes with a yard, pay next to nothing for medication and get discounts on everything from food to cinema tickets and haircuts. And if you have more than 4 kids, Government even gives you a Tarago people mover.It's so good a lot of them don't want to work. Hence institutionalised social security dependency on a grand scale. There's whol suburbs full of people who don't work and have found ways to get out of mandatory work programs (e.g. dodgy education courses including doing University degrees over 8-12 years, carer's leave when they're not caring for anyone etc).There are some people that live in dreadful conditions and are homeless but many of these people are drug addicts and alcoholics or are mentally ill.Government and aid agencies would give them benefits, a home and all the perks if these people wanted to.Very often they do not and you cannot force people to be something they don't want to be.Some aborigines in the North also live in bad conditions. Again Government and aid agencies provide massive amounts of aid including housing and $60,000 4WD/SUVs.Again the massive drug and alcohol problems in these communities coupled with social welfare dependency means they don't often try to improve their lot.

traptunderice wrote
Where recognizing that some people starve and live on dimes is something that it's hard to argue against always seeking to correct.

People make their own choices and create their own circumstances.

I lived in a poor suburb where unemployment was rife. I went to University and got out of the poverty trap. My brother got a good paying job as well.

Yet so many of my friends became drug addicts (mainly thanks to Pulp Fiction - that movie inspired a lot of my friends to get onto the hard stuff) who are uneployed. Even many of the one's that didn't become drug addicts became unemployed "dole bludgers."

They had the same opportunities as I did. They just chose not to exercise one them and instead came up with lame excuses as to why they can't work.

Funniest one was at a party where one guy was sitting smoking pot.

He had blue eyes and blond hair. He considered himself Aboriginal (so many white Australians do because the social security benefits are better than for non-Aboriginals).

As he was smoking bongs, he talked about how he couldn't get a job because he was Aboriginal.

Truth was he couldn't get a job because he sat around all day smoking drugs. Only "work" he did was the odd burglary or casual assault at the local pub.

These are the results of income distribution policies.

traptunderice

State capitalism =/= communism. And if you knew anything about me, I'm not really for standard social welfare program bullshit nor Soviet bollocks, but that may just point to your ignorance of what the Left actually wants and assume that we all just want a free ride so we can smoke our marijuana. Even then, your stories are anecdotal and it's great that you knew all these people who fucked their lives up but first-hand testimonies can blind you to actual trends. Even then assuming that people are just lazy is kinda a dumb assumption right off that bat. Many people have a sense of fulfillment from not subsisting on others, e.g., it's kinda exciting when you first move out on your own. These people you deem lazy are they just deficient or broke from the get-go? Rather than assume people are nonfunctional fuck ups, coming from their perspective and what they see as possible and what actually is would go a long way to explaining their problems.

People point to the trend among black men leaving behind families which is honest to god a horrible actuality in most black communities. Rather than writing off these men as deficient fathers or lazy fucks, looking at broader trends of what masculinity is conceived as and how cognitive dissonance develops from what is expected of the individual and that they can't reach it. The notion that people can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps is hokey bullshit. People are always responding to and developing in a social environment which for the most part determines what opportunities or chances they will have. The individual isn't in a vacuum and keeping your nose to the grind doesn't always pan out.

dead1

traptunderice wrote
Many people have a sense of fulfillment from not subsisting on others,

Many do, but many like a free ride.

traptunderice wrote
These people you deem lazy are they just deficient or broke from the get-go? Rather than assume people are nonfunctional fuck ups, coming from their perspective and what they see as possible and what actually is would go a long way to explaining their problems.

They are non-functional fuck ups. Many of them have been in prison for everything from assault to armed robbery to durg dealing to social security fraud. Marxist theories of self fulfilment through work do not apply to these people.Many of them were given jobs by the government and other agencies involved in employment and they usually didn't last 2 months (very often they resigned). They didn't care for work or anything.When they were in high school, they wanted to be professional musicians or music producers. Given that this requires hard work, they kinda bumbed around doing nothing for the next decade or so. After that I had nothing to do with them.They know government benefits are good. And their parents displayed the same attitudes too. The parents weren't criminals or drug addicts, but preferred to sit at home drinking coffee than ever do an honest day's work. My parents were the same - dad scammed an invalid pension so he wouldn't have to work (he could easily do office work, call centre work or whatever but he didn't want to work).

The individual isn't in a vacuum and keeping your nose to the grind doesn't always pan out.

Where there is a will there is a way.

I grew up in poverty surrounded by fuck ups (my parents included), crime and substance abuse and now I am middle class with a good education and a good job.

GeneralDiomedes

Although Australia's system appears to approach employment disincentive for households with children, lets remember who they are trying to help: the innocent children of those welfare recipients. As soon as those children leave, the benefits are cut off. As an aside, Australia spends less on welfare than most first world nations by being very targeted in who they help.

Also, lets not forget what a social safety net is there for: to catch you when you fall. It's not there to provide a disincentive to work, or to support able bodied individuals of working age indefinitely. It arose because of really bad periods in history such as this

Which thankfully, haven't repeated themselves. Ask somebody who can remember the Great Depression what they think of the social safety net.

Even before that, income distribution to the poor was handled by the church, who were effectively funded by income taxes. As society has become more secular, the only real common institutional vehicle for it is the government. Private donations to charity won't cut it on a mass scale.

I guess if you are just plain against any form of social assistance, none of this really matters.

traptunderice

GeneralDiomedes wrote
Although Australia's system appears to approach employment disincentive for households with children, lets remember who they are trying to help: the innocent children of those welfare recipients. As soon as those children leave, the benefits are cut off. As an aside, Australia spends less on welfare than most first world nations by being very targeted in who they help.Also, lets not forget what a social safety net is there for: to catch you when you fall. It's not there to provide a disincentive to work, or to support able bodied individuals of working age indefinitely. It arose because of really bad periods in history such as thisWhich thankfully, haven't repeated themselves. Ask somebody who can remember the Great Depression what they think of the social safety net.Even before that, income distribution to the poor was handled by the church, who were effectively funded by income taxes. As society has become more secular, the only real common institutional vehicle for it is the government. Private donations to charity won't cut it on a mass scale.I guess if you are just plain against any form of social assistance, none of this really matters.

But you're an uber-libertarian... :blink:

dead1's lazy anecdotal analysis just doesn't cut it for me.

dead1

GeneralDiomedes wrote
Although Australia's system appears to approach employment disincentive for households with children, lets remember who they are trying to help: the innocent children of those welfare recipients. As soon as those children leave, the benefits are cut off. As an aside, Australia spends less on welfare than most first world nations by being very targeted in who they help.

The problem is that the system is not regulated enough and creates social issues.For example single mums are required to look for work after children hit school age.My wife and one of my co-workers both have friends who have given birth to children specifically so they can continue to stay at home and not have to look for work. :blink:And in my old neighbourhood most of the girls got pregnant in high school because in their eyes getting paid several hundred dollars a fortnight to stay at home is better than going to school and then getting a job.The worst examples I've witnessed involve mothers giving up their kids to grandparents or foster care when the kids hit school age, while keeping the younger ones at home so they can continue to get the full benefit.This shit happens a lot - most of the families I knew in my 20's practicsed these sort of tricks.

GeneralDiomedes wrote
Also, lets not forget what a social safety net is there for: to catch you when you fall. It's not there to provide a disincentive to work, or to support able bodied individuals of working age indefinitely.I guess if you are just plain against any form of social assistance, none of this really matters.

I agree with a social safety net but with the following restrictions:

No-one is eligible for social benefits ala dole or single mothers payment under 18.
Social benefits have a finite life. If you become unemployed, you have 6 months of benefits and then they stop.
Number of education courses for which one is legible to get student assistance is shrunk to exclude all the idiotic ones that do not create skills (e.g. rock music production courses, video game production courses, 8-12 year Uni degrees).

I'd also create the following:

Free government sponsored child care so women who want to work can do so without significant financial penalties. This would be funded by scrapping Australian state governments and creating a fully Federal system and scrapping all the pointless military toys we have (E.g. tanks on a fucking island and 6 hideously expensive submarines of which only 1 works).
A universal education system and not the current misaligned system whereby you get a better education in one state than another.
A universal health care system. Same as above.

traptunderice

So Australia is basically a strong-man argument insofar as all of your proposed restrictions are just how it is if not stricter in America?

dead1

traptunderice wrote
So Australia is basically a strong-man argument insofar as all of your proposed restrictions are just how it is if not stricter in America?

What do you mean by "strong man" argument?

In Europe you used to earn unemployment benefits based on how long you worked (at least Switzerland and Yugoslavia where my parents lived). Same thing applied to your aged pension.

But as opposed to getting a government mandated pittance, if you worked full time for X amount of years you'd retire on 80-90% of your salary.

Expensive to run but good if you can get it.

traptunderice

Straw man eek! I've been listening to too much Biohazard worship.

In the states, well it depends on what state you live in but I'm pretty sure it cannot exceed a year for unemployment benefits. Someone correct me.

dead1

traptunderice wrote
Straw man eek! I've been listening to too much Biohazard worship.

Ahhh...

traptunderice wrote
In the states, well it depends on what state you live in but I'm pretty sure it cannot exceed a year for unemployment benefits. Someone correct me.

In Australia it can be perpetual.

You are meant to fill in a fortnightly book specifying what jobs you've applied for. Usually that means jotting down some websites or company phone numbers.

Then there's the whole using dodgy education courses to "re-set" your dole.

So say 12 months unemployed - 12 months education - 12 months unemployed - 12 months education.

You get social security benefits under both. They're roughly similar other than job title and certain earning restrictions.

It's why the 8 year University degree is so appealing to some. Centrelink (Government agency responsible for social security) stays off your back which they don't if you're unemployed .

When I was at Uni, some people were doing this. One of my flatmates just changed degrees every 2 years (he was doing 3 year degrees and didn't want to work).

The worst 2 cases were two of my mates who both got "carer's" pensions, which is meant for people who look after disabled people. Again Centrelink stays off your back if you're a certified carer and you even get a bit more money than usually.

One was meant to be looking after his girlfriend who had very bad Multiplesclerosis (MS). He spent most of his time playing guitar in his shed with his mates.

Another was meant to be looking after his grandmother but spent most all his time smoking weed and getting drunk.

I've also known people who have claimed carer's pensions because their kid has an allergy to eggs. WTF :blink:

In my experience, Australia is a good argument for stricter social welfare security.

Of course if you want to give lazy loungeabouts your money, I recommend you pay for them out of your taxes.

traptunderice

You argue for a more liberal plan than the states have lol.

dead1

traptunderice wrote
You argue for a more liberal plan than the states have lol.

Dunno what the States have.

There has to be fairness in the system and at the same time it's critical to curb social security dependency.

GeneralDiomedes

dead1 wrote
My wife and one of my co-workers both have friends who have given birth to children specifically so they can continue to stay at home and not have to look for work. :blink:

Well, that's one way to decrease reliance on immigration 😉

GeneralDiomedes

traptunderice wrote
But you're an uber-libertarian... :blink:

More like militant centrist. I don't stray too far left or right anymore, although I've had my phases throughout my years.

traptunderice

Ahhh I remember you reading some libertarian bollocks on foreign aid that referred to the IMF which made me upchuck a little. Or maybe I completely made that up.

GeneralDiomedes

traptunderice wrote
Ahhh I remember you reading some libertarian bollocks on foreign aid that referred to the IMF which made me upchuck a little. Or maybe I completely made that up.

Well, I remember you assuming a lot 🙂

Goat

Right, off to Sheffield for the weekend to get shouted at by 10,000 Trots. Have a good one, peeps.

heatseeker

traptunderice wrote
State capitalism =/= communism. And if you knew anything about me, I'm not really for standard social welfare program bullshit nor Soviet bollocks, but that may just point to your ignorance of what the Left actually wants and assume that we all just want a free ride so we can smoke our marijuana. Even then, your stories are anecdotal and it's great that you knew all these people who fucked their lives up but first-hand testimonies can blind you to actual trends. Even then assuming that people are just lazy is kinda a dumb assumption right off that bat. Many people have a sense of fulfillment from not subsisting on others, e.g., it's kinda exciting when you first move out on your own. These people you deem lazy are they just deficient or broke from the get-go? Rather than assume people are nonfunctional fuck ups, coming from their perspective and what they see as possible and what actually is would go a long way to explaining their problems.People point to the trend among black men leaving behind families which is honest to god a horrible actuality in most black communities. Rather than writing off these men as deficient fathers or lazy fucks, looking at broader trends of what masculinity is conceived as and how cognitive dissonance develops from what is expected of the individual and that they can't reach it. The notion that people can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps is hokey bullshit. People are always responding to and developing in a social environment which for the most part determines what opportunities or chances they will have. The individual isn't in a vacuum and keeping your nose to the grind doesn't always pan out.

:wub:

Anything I can say is pretty redundant. Except most people just have no conception of how systematic every case of injustice is in the world, i.e. it's almost never the fault of the afflicted--it's a result of political or economic systems that perpetuate the injustice. Even disease and famine is strongly correlated to economics...it ain't just "nature".

Karmakosmonaut

heatseeker wrote
it ain't just "nature".

Neither is a human beehive, right?

Trapt, have you ever considered that your views on humanity and its self-awareness are not very flattering?

traptunderice

Karmakosmonaut wrote
heatseeker wrote
it ain't just "nature".
Neither is a human beehive, right?Trapt, have you ever considered that your views on humanity and its self-awareness are not very flattering?

Psychological determinism has really no foundations whatsoever. Maybe that wouldn't be the proper phrase for it. Evolutionary psychology or sociobiology are bunk. Humans have a capacity for free will which isn't present in animals. So little of what humans do is controlled by instinct and how could you possibly develop a notion of instinct which points to the fact that black males are deadbeat dads. That would fall in line with sociobiology and E.O. Wilson is bunk.

How so, karmakrazy? All I think I have said is that people have a sense of fulfillment through their accomplishments, that they are shaped by social forces, and that through a recognition of harmful social forces that can be challenged, people can have greater access to a more pure form of the first of my set, i.e., a labor that
they enjoy and improve through partaking in.

Even the man who cleans out septic tanks for a living will feel fulfilled when he comes home to his family and insofar as he isn't alienated from his labor through having some form of worker's participation in how his job is done, he won't hate his boss, he won't be flat broke when he comes home, the need to drink away worries dissolves to some degree that he can come home to his family and has time at home to hone a skill, take up carpentry, read a book, enjoy a concert, play with his kids, after a long shower, of course.

« Previous Page Next Page »