Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal?
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But the robots will be owned by someone who does want payments.
Years ago "they" talked about how in the future machines would do the work, and our problem would be figuring out how to handle our leisure time. What appears to have happened is that the machines do the work, the machine owners capture the revenue, and all of that "free time" essentially translates to lack of income.
To further clarify, there's a cultural issue - the concept of machines doing, literally, all the work doesn't mesh with the ideology of humanity in it's current iteration. We, as a species, put a certain value not on work itself, but on the mere fact that a person is doing some kind of at least somewhat meaningful job. If machines did all the work, everyone who didn't own machines would, essentially, be on welfare.
Now, consider how the currently working population in general views people on welfare. It's not a flattering image - they're largely considered lazy, shiftless, ambition-less layabouts who would rather sit around a cracked-out government project smoking reefer and playing Call of Duty than bother to make something of themselves, and thus deserve less rights than everyone else. Not that this stereotype is universal, or even represents but a small minority of actual welfare recipients, but that's the common perception. You'll never convince society at large to accept this lifestyle as reasonable without a major sea change in how we view the non-working class, the world over.
And, of course, there's the fact that since this system is born of capitalism, those who own the means of production are not going to give the fruits of their labors away in exchange for nothing. How does a person pay for things when there's no work to be paid for?
Giving money to the Red Cross is not "helping the poor," it's giving money to the Red Cross (to do with as they please).
Helping the poor means volunteering at a battered women's shelter, or giving a family of 6 somewhere to stay for a couple weeks when their landlord decides to sell the house they were renting, so their kids don't have to be brought to school in their fucking 'house.'
Well, yea. That's evident by the fact they offered him money, instead of signing the contract, getting him drunk, then peeing on the contract up as they steal all his land.
Wow, you think the point of insurance is to pay out? I take it you've never had to make a claim.
Ok I don't live in the US
Ah, that explains it.
Yea, in the US, "insurance" is code for "something the government makes you pay for, but doesn't do what you're actually paying for it to do." We're most infamous for our medical insurance in this regard, but rest assured, homeowner's and auto insurance operate in a similar fashion (auto insurance less so, in my experience).
Well if cars drove themselves that would reduce from 99%, say < 1% from the point of view of the driver.
That's not what you said originally - you spoke universally.
Even in the case of self-driving cars, most of the time a crash will be someone's fault, whether it be the driver, programmer, mechanical engineer, salesman, etc. "Most of the time" because force majeure does happen, albeit far more rarely than human negligence.
I was talking about, having to prove negligence, intentionally hiring some one to kill staff would not be covered.
Also corporations already get away with murder, I don't think monetary compensation is adequate, they have bigger better lawyer than you would ever be able to afford.
So, the system is broken. I disagree that means we should throw it out completely, as your statements seemed to imply.
Aspect of growing up in a throwaway society, I suppose.
You've gone off the deep end and are now just spouting a bunch of pedantic nonsense. Too bad that's all you've got. I guess your hatred has destroyed your ability to reason.
Translation: I've run out of counter-arguments, both rational and irrational. Please see sig for clarification.
Do not enter that sauce in the county fair, for it is weak.
A child still suffers if their parent commits a crime and goes away to jail. What's your point?
In this case? Semantics, mainly.
Bad parents give their children bad childhoods.
Sometimes. Sometimes bad parents go to jail, and their kids end up in the hands of people that will give them the opportunities that they would not have had otherwise. Which directly contradicts your previous statement. Thus, I feel compelled to ask you, what is your point, when you make such potentially contradictory statements?
Not enforcing rationality on those expecting handouts because someone else might suffer is itself not rational
How long before we're hiring kids to go pick up nano pore condoms off the beach so we can recycle them in to materials to keep the nanobots off our lawns?
Probably never, but I finally get to make the reference!
It's probably because I just finished Snow Crash last week, but when I read the headline I envisioned the scene where dread pirate Bruce Lee is randomly inspecting his men's condoms prior to mass-buggering Hiro.
I wonder how Neil Stephenson would feel if he knew that articles about scientific innovation in the field of fucking invoked thoughts of his writings...
" social welfare and corporate welfare are the same thing and cost the same amount"
I didn't say there were. My point was that it's not an either/or situation. If I favor cutting foodstamps, it doesn't mean that I favor keeping corporate welfare, nor vice-versa. The false dichotomy is usually presented as such: "You want to cut foodstamps but it's OK with you that we give billions to corporate welfare, right?" Um, no, it's not.
Well, then, we're even, as I never said what you're implying - I said
Seriously - you're pissing and moaning about not letting people starve? Well, until I see you at one of those 'end oil company subsidies' protests, I'm going to ignore your selfish ass.
See? All I said was that I would ignore the anti-social-pro-corporate hypocrites. I never accused you nor anyone else of being one.
"pre-cooked foods are specifically prohibited from purchasing with SNAP funds"
But several states allow fast-food to be purchased under their food-stamp programs.
Several implies "many." Per your link, 4 states allow SNAP to be used on fast food.
That's 8% of states. So, closer to "a few" than "several." But, semantics, blah blah blah, not important.
I do agree that's fucked up. But it's nice to see that it's only a tiny niche of the population who can go that way.
"That you don't know such a simple and fundamental fact of the food stamp program tells me that you're too ignorant of the topic to make informed, logical decisions."
Care to reconsider this in light of your own ignorance of these facets of the program and simple inability to use Google?
Saying "four states out of fifty allow food stamps on fast food" doesn't prove you right, you know. Really, what it says is that corporations have more say over how policy is formed than the people who will be living under it.
I ask: "How about cutting or even eliminating both?"
Before you ask that question, and expect to be taken seriously, you first need to know what you're talking about.
For example, you say
While I don't want anyone to starve, neither do I think that I should be required to effectively hand over cash so that the hungry can shop for whatever goodies they feel like--from roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes even up to fast-food!
This is a factually incorrect belief - pre-cooked foods are specifically prohibited from purchasing with SNAP funds. That you don't know such a simple and fundamental fact of the food stamp program tells me that you're too ignorant of the topic to make informed, logical decisions.
Well, OK, that and the fact that you talk like social welfare and corporate welfare are the same thing and cost the same amount, which couldn't be further from the truth.
I cannot, however, disagree with the contention that our federal government has a serious spending problem. In fact, were we to somehow reign in all the excessive, wasteful, trade-for-votes purchases our illustrious congresscritters make, nobody would even bat an eyelash at social welfare expenditures.
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Ah, ok... so? Where's the proof that the majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" actually do, directly, help the poor? Because it ain't in the website you linked to.
Where is your proof that the majority "don't give a fuck about helping the poor"?
You mean, aside from pretty much anything any member of the Religious Right ever says?
Do I really need any more proof than that? I guess I could link a bunch of articles about how the "Christian" leadership of the town I live in are constantly trying to drive the Victory Mission out (a REAL Christian organization, look 'em up).
Actually, there you go - go find some articles on how the Reverend Larry Rice is received by his "Brothers in Christ." You might be shocked at how much hatred "Christians" have for a man whose goal in life is abolishing poverty and homelessness.
I don't, but I'm not black, either, but I still feel the need to defend them when racists make unfounded stereotypical statements about them. Same goes for religious folk of whatever stripe.
So, you defend baby-sacrificing Bokonists, too? What about White Supremacists, or Neo-Nazis? You gonna defend them against unfair stereotypes as well?
See, here's your problem - you just want to be adversarial, which leads you to say ignorant shit because you don't know better. You ignore the fact that I make a distinction between people who are "Christian" in name only and the true Followers of Christ, because you're too busy being butthurt that someone said something you don't like about a group you've taken it upon yourself to defend, right or wrong.
That's on you, buddy, not me. Try to be more selective and thoughtful in the future.
So, what have you, personally, done to help the destitute?
That's quite a long list, although it's more than just the "destitute", which we simply don't have many of around here, what with food stamps and welfare and public housing and everything else available to them. At least there is some help coming out of that 60% of my labor that various governments confiscate from me. Too bad so much of it goes to killing brown people and oppressing 3rd world countries.
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Ah, ok... so? Where's the proof that the majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" actually do, directly, help the poor? Because it ain't in the website you linked to.
Sorry your momma didn't love you - there's no need to project your ill feelings on the people that are, collectively, the most philanthropic in the world.
Sorry you feel the need to attack and insult someone else so you can feel justified in your self-rightous fervor. FWIW, if you claim yourself to be a "Christian," then that last little line only serves to prove my contention right.
So, what have you, personally, done to help the destitute? Other than say "Dur, the Salvation Army exists!" and call people names, that is.
You know, if not for the fact that our government gives multi-billion dollar, highly-profitable corporations orders of magnitude more welfare dollars than what they spend on keeping the poorest Americans from starving, I might actually give a shit when someone bitches about what people buy with food stamps.
Seriously - you're pissing and moaning about not letting people starve? Well, until I see you at one of those 'end oil company subsidies' protests, I'm going to ignore your selfish ass.
What surprises me is how some people will bitch endlessly about the feds spending $80 billion a year to keep people from starving, but never say a fucking word about the fact they give $85 billion every month to the banks for "quantitive easing."
Priorities in this nation are pretty fucked up, IMO.
Are you really OK with letting a child go hungry, even though their parent might be negligent, when the hunger can be fairly easily fixed?
Yes. Otherwise you promote ghettos and generations of dependence. At some point you got to stop caring more about someone else's situation then they do themselves.
Cause and effect are foreign concepts to you, aren't they?
My city has a long-standing "free food at school for poor kids" program, and it's a wonderful thing - a lot of these kids will tell you, the only actual meals they get are the ones they're fed at school.
Pisses the narcissist crowd off to no end, but fuck 'em. I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but I'm not a fucking monster who would rather starve children than, say, reign in corporate welfare or put reasonable campaign finance rules in place.
How is it punishment to have conditions on what you can do if you want to receive hand outs?
Well, considering that the definition of "punishment" is "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense..."
But I think you've missed the point - the "conditions on you can do if you want to receive [welfare]*" are applied to the mother, but the child still suffers for it.
* How can you call it a hand-out when you already admitted it's conditional? Do you not know what the term 'hand-out' actually means?
Slashdot Mirror
But the robots will be owned by someone who does want payments.
Years ago "they" talked about how in the future machines would do the work, and our problem would be figuring out how to handle our leisure time. What appears to have happened is that the machines do the work, the machine owners capture the revenue, and all of that "free time" essentially translates to lack of income.
To further clarify, there's a cultural issue - the concept of machines doing, literally, all the work doesn't mesh with the ideology of humanity in it's current iteration. We, as a species, put a certain value not on work itself, but on the mere fact that a person is doing some kind of at least somewhat meaningful job. If machines did all the work, everyone who didn't own machines would, essentially, be on welfare.
Now, consider how the currently working population in general views people on welfare. It's not a flattering image - they're largely considered lazy, shiftless, ambition-less layabouts who would rather sit around a cracked-out government project smoking reefer and playing Call of Duty than bother to make something of themselves, and thus deserve less rights than everyone else. Not that this stereotype is universal, or even represents but a small minority of actual welfare recipients, but that's the common perception. You'll never convince society at large to accept this lifestyle as reasonable without a major sea change in how we view the non-working class, the world over.
And, of course, there's the fact that since this system is born of capitalism, those who own the means of production are not going to give the fruits of their labors away in exchange for nothing. How does a person pay for things when there's no work to be paid for?
Giving money to the Red Cross is not "helping the poor," it's giving money to the Red Cross (to do with as they please).
Helping the poor means volunteering at a battered women's shelter, or giving a family of 6 somewhere to stay for a couple weeks when their landlord decides to sell the house they were renting, so their kids don't have to be brought to school in their fucking 'house.'
Indian = someone from India.
Well, yea. That's evident by the fact they offered him money, instead of signing the contract, getting him drunk, then peeing on the contract up as they steal all his land.
And if you live in a climate where you can produce fresh produce all year round.
There's always indoor gardening.
I wonder how Neil Stephenson would feel...
Not as bad as Neal Stephenson would feel (ducks)
You know the worst part? I bothered to spell check the last name.
Wow, you think the point of insurance is to pay out? I take it you've never had to make a claim.
Ok I don't live in the US
Ah, that explains it.
Yea, in the US, "insurance" is code for "something the government makes you pay for, but doesn't do what you're actually paying for it to do." We're most infamous for our medical insurance in this regard, but rest assured, homeowner's and auto insurance operate in a similar fashion (auto insurance less so, in my experience).
Well if cars drove themselves that would reduce from 99%, say < 1% from the point of view of the driver.
That's not what you said originally - you spoke universally.
Even in the case of self-driving cars, most of the time a crash will be someone's fault, whether it be the driver, programmer, mechanical engineer, salesman, etc. "Most of the time" because force majeure does happen, albeit far more rarely than human negligence.
I was talking about, having to prove negligence, intentionally hiring some one to kill staff would not be covered.
Also corporations already get away with murder, I don't think monetary compensation is adequate, they have bigger better lawyer than you would ever be able to afford.
So, the system is broken. I disagree that means we should throw it out completely, as your statements seemed to imply.
Aspect of growing up in a throwaway society, I suppose.
You've gone off the deep end and are now just spouting a bunch of pedantic nonsense. Too bad that's all you've got. I guess your hatred has destroyed your ability to reason.
Translation: I've run out of counter-arguments, both rational and irrational. Please see sig for clarification.
Do not enter that sauce in the county fair, for it is weak.
A child still suffers if their parent commits a crime and goes away to jail. What's your point?
In this case? Semantics, mainly.
Bad parents give their children bad childhoods.
Sometimes. Sometimes bad parents go to jail, and their kids end up in the hands of people that will give them the opportunities that they would not have had otherwise. Which directly contradicts your previous statement. Thus, I feel compelled to ask you, what is your point, when you make such potentially contradictory statements?
Not enforcing rationality on those expecting handouts because someone else might suffer is itself not rational
Good thing I never said that.
How long before we're hiring kids to go pick up nano pore condoms off the beach so we can recycle them in to materials to keep the nanobots off our lawns?
Probably never, but I finally get to make the reference!
It's probably because I just finished Snow Crash last week, but when I read the headline I envisioned the scene where dread pirate Bruce Lee is randomly inspecting his men's condoms prior to mass-buggering Hiro.
I wonder how Neil Stephenson would feel if he knew that articles about scientific innovation in the field of fucking invoked thoughts of his writings...
" social welfare and corporate welfare are the same thing and cost the same amount"
I didn't say there were. My point was that it's not an either/or situation. If I favor cutting foodstamps, it doesn't mean that I favor keeping corporate welfare, nor vice-versa. The false dichotomy is usually presented as such: "You want to cut foodstamps but it's OK with you that we give billions to corporate welfare, right?" Um, no, it's not.
Well, then, we're even, as I never said what you're implying - I said
Seriously - you're pissing and moaning about not letting people starve? Well, until I see you at one of those 'end oil company subsidies' protests, I'm going to ignore your selfish ass.
See? All I said was that I would ignore the anti-social-pro-corporate hypocrites. I never accused you nor anyone else of being one.
"pre-cooked foods are specifically prohibited from purchasing with SNAP funds"
But several states allow fast-food to be purchased under their food-stamp programs.
Several implies "many." Per your link, 4 states allow SNAP to be used on fast food.
That's 8% of states. So, closer to "a few" than "several." But, semantics, blah blah blah, not important.
I do agree that's fucked up. But it's nice to see that it's only a tiny niche of the population who can go that way.
"That you don't know such a simple and fundamental fact of the food stamp program tells me that you're too ignorant of the topic to make informed, logical decisions."
Care to reconsider this in light of your own ignorance of these facets of the program and simple inability to use Google?
Saying "four states out of fifty allow food stamps on fast food" doesn't prove you right, you know. Really, what it says is that corporations have more say over how policy is formed than the people who will be living under it.
Another problem alltogether.
There are numerous advantages to science classes to take place in bars. Top argument would be the increased interest.
Science applied to make your choice of intoxicant more fun is always a plus.
Yea, but if your choice of intoxicant needs to be made more fun, you're not doing something right.
I ask: "How about cutting or even eliminating both?"
Before you ask that question, and expect to be taken seriously, you first need to know what you're talking about.
For example, you say
While I don't want anyone to starve, neither do I think that I should be required to effectively hand over cash so that the hungry can shop for whatever goodies they feel like--from roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes even up to fast-food!
This is a factually incorrect belief - pre-cooked foods are specifically prohibited from purchasing with SNAP funds. That you don't know such a simple and fundamental fact of the food stamp program tells me that you're too ignorant of the topic to make informed, logical decisions.
Well, OK, that and the fact that you talk like social welfare and corporate welfare are the same thing and cost the same amount, which couldn't be further from the truth.
I cannot, however, disagree with the contention that our federal government has a serious spending problem. In fact, were we to somehow reign in all the excessive, wasteful, trade-for-votes purchases our illustrious congresscritters make, nobody would even bat an eyelash at social welfare expenditures.
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Quite bullshit.
Ah, ok... so? Where's the proof that the majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" actually do, directly, help the poor? Because it ain't in the website you linked to.
Where is your proof that the majority "don't give a fuck about helping the poor"?
You mean, aside from pretty much anything any member of the Religious Right ever says?
Do I really need any more proof than that? I guess I could link a bunch of articles about how the "Christian" leadership of the town I live in are constantly trying to drive the Victory Mission out (a REAL Christian organization, look 'em up).
Actually, there you go - go find some articles on how the Reverend Larry Rice is received by his "Brothers in Christ." You might be shocked at how much hatred "Christians" have for a man whose goal in life is abolishing poverty and homelessness.
I don't, but I'm not black, either, but I still feel the need to defend them when racists make unfounded stereotypical statements about them. Same goes for religious folk of whatever stripe.
So, you defend baby-sacrificing Bokonists, too? What about White Supremacists, or Neo-Nazis? You gonna defend them against unfair stereotypes as well?
See, here's your problem - you just want to be adversarial, which leads you to say ignorant shit because you don't know better. You ignore the fact that I make a distinction between people who are "Christian" in name only and the true Followers of Christ, because you're too busy being butthurt that someone said something you don't like about a group you've taken it upon yourself to defend, right or wrong.
That's on you, buddy, not me. Try to be more selective and thoughtful in the future.
So, what have you, personally, done to help the destitute?
That's quite a long list, although it's more than just the "destitute", which we simply don't have many of around here, what with food stamps and welfare and public housing and everything else available to them. At least there is some help coming out of that 60% of my labor that various governments confiscate from me. Too bad so much of it goes to killing brown people and oppressing 3rd world countries.
So... nothing then.
Shame, that.
Time to party like it's 2009!
Again!
They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove, let's face facts - most 'Christians' in America ('cuz let's face it, when we say "religion," they're the group we're likely discussing) don't give a fuck about helping the poor. They just don't.
Quite bullshit.
Ah, ok... so? Where's the proof that the majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" actually do, directly, help the poor? Because it ain't in the website you linked to.
Sorry your momma didn't love you - there's no need to project your ill feelings on the people that are, collectively, the most philanthropic in the world.
Sorry you feel the need to attack and insult someone else so you can feel justified in your self-rightous fervor. FWIW, if you claim yourself to be a "Christian," then that last little line only serves to prove my contention right.
So, what have you, personally, done to help the destitute? Other than say "Dur, the Salvation Army exists!" and call people names, that is.
You know, if not for the fact that our government gives multi-billion dollar, highly-profitable corporations orders of magnitude more welfare dollars than what they spend on keeping the poorest Americans from starving, I might actually give a shit when someone bitches about what people buy with food stamps.
Seriously - you're pissing and moaning about not letting people starve? Well, until I see you at one of those 'end oil company subsidies' protests, I'm going to ignore your selfish ass.
$6.66 dollars a day is the maximum allowance in the state of california...
Is it just me, or does that seem an appropriate figure considering the locale being discussed?
And your idea is fascism, not democracy.
Sadly, the two are not mutually exclusive.
If you were to pick a vegetable from your garden and eat it immediately, it would always have more vitamins than if you froze it and cooked it later.
Plus, you know - a $1 bag of seeds will give you years of fresh veggies, if you have the time, space, and wherewithall to grow them.
You mean the post where you claim that chicken only costs $0.67 per pound?
I think that one belongs in Slashdot Vintage. Chicken hasn't been that cheap for quite some time.
What surprises me is how some people will bitch endlessly about the feds spending $80 billion a year to keep people from starving, but never say a fucking word about the fact they give $85 billion every month to the banks for "quantitive easing."
Priorities in this nation are pretty fucked up, IMO.
frankly, its not my fault they are stupid
No, but it is your fault that you're ignorant.
Are you really OK with letting a child go hungry, even though their parent might be negligent, when the hunger can be fairly easily fixed?
Yes. Otherwise you promote ghettos and generations of dependence. At some point you got to stop caring more about someone else's situation then they do themselves.
Cause and effect are foreign concepts to you, aren't they?
My city has a long-standing "free food at school for poor kids" program, and it's a wonderful thing - a lot of these kids will tell you, the only actual meals they get are the ones they're fed at school.
Pisses the narcissist crowd off to no end, but fuck 'em. I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but I'm not a fucking monster who would rather starve children than, say, reign in corporate welfare or put reasonable campaign finance rules in place.
How is it punishment to have conditions on what you can do if you want to receive hand outs?
Well, considering that the definition of "punishment" is "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense..."
But I think you've missed the point - the "conditions on you can do if you want to receive [welfare]*" are applied to the mother, but the child still suffers for it.
* How can you call it a hand-out when you already admitted it's conditional? Do you not know what the term 'hand-out' actually means?