People who threaten violence to extort money are extortionists.
The point was, once you pay an extortionist once, what's to keep him from threatening you the next time (especially since you just taught him that it works)?
I'm not "screwing them". I'm minding my own business working and earning a paycheck. They are the ones who want to take from me. Without asking, and without a thank you. Why should I agree? Why should anyone who earns a paycheck agree?
I don't mind working either. But I would like to keep the money I earn. The question is, why should I want Socialism when it seems designed to only make life worse for me?
"Solutions" where non-workers benefit at the paycheck earner's expense, with zero benefit to the paycheck earner, are hard to sell to the paycheck earner. Why would he agree?
"Because the paycheck earner still has more than the non-working benefit recipient" is a new argument with no threats or magic. So that's something. But the worker is still considerably poorer than he was before his paycheck was raided. So I'm not sure why he would want to agree to it unless there were some really good reason. That's why I'm asking: what's supposed to convince him?
I wish someone could tell me why I should be happy my paycheck gets raided to pay for benefits for people who seem to have zero regard for me or other paycheck earners.
This argument was already covered above. I can protect myself for a modest outlay that's a lot less than I'm already paying in taxes.
And even if I couldn't, I don't know why I should think that paying off violent extortionists would result in anything but more violent extortion. Why do you think it might?
History tells me that bad things eventually happen to every society. There's not one single example of any system that endured permanently in peace. So what's the lesson? (Personally, the lesson I learned is not to use "look at history..." as an argument for anything.)
That's an even less interesting argument than "pay us or we'll kill you". What's the point supposed to be?
Apparently working and earning a paycheck so that non-workers can take your earnings and offer you nothing but threats in return is supposed to be considered a privilege. Why would anyone who works and earns a paycheck agree that it is?
Aren't you a wonder of the laws of physics? Producing more than you consume.
Not really. The majority of people produce more than they consume. Where would government handouts come from if they didn't?
How about when you're 80? 90? What if you get injured or get a debilitating disease like ALS?
I produce more than I consume and save the after-tax excess for when I'm 80 or 90. I buy insurance for if I get injured or if I get ALS. That's what the word "responsible" means.
Social programs are about choosing the standard of living all humans deserve and ensuring they get it regardless of personal circumstance.
But that doesn't answer the original question. Why should someone who works and is responsible support Socialism when it only costs him and never benefits him?
Do the other members of society owe a moral debt to the guy who pays for their "standard of living"? Should they? In what way should this moral debt be paid?
Because utopian cartoon worlds aren't real. But I agree that Socialism is a great idea for utopian cartoon worlds. I'm glad we were able to find common ground and reach a genuine understanding.
a. Tell that to the the people who have already tried to answer this question but can't come up with anything better than "pay us or we'll kill you". If that's a real factor for a majority of the population, then a guy would be very foolish not to be an asshole for sheer self-preservation reasons.
b. Shorter version: Person B gets handouts taken from Person A. Person B uses the money to buy something from the same Person A the money was originally taken from. Person A is better off somehow because... magic?
Fortunately for everyone, the people like Person A are a large majority. Because the magic doesn't seem to work too well.
You're avoiding the question. Socialism doesn't solve 80% unemployment scenarios. Nothing does. Fortunately, those scenarios are fictional.
I'm not a truck driver. I'm not a brain surgeon either. But I'm confident I will be able to continue to find work. Why should someone who expects to be able to work for a living (like the majority of everyone who has ever lived does) support socialism?
Why would you believe that paying off would-be violent robbers would work? If someone will threaten and rob you if you don't pay them one amount (say $1000), why would you believe they wouldn't take the $1000 today and threaten you for $5000 tomorrow?
Why don't you go out and try making that deal with those guys? Report back to us how it works out.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an argument better than "pay us off or we'll kill you".
Other things that are cheaper: food, fuel, clothing, entertainment. If you measure the price by "how many hours would the average person have to work to buy it", then almost everything is cheaper.
I'm not seeing this as a positive. I can protect myself for a modest outlay. Guns and ammo and walls and fences cost a lot less than I pay in taxes for non-worker benefits already.
Too bad all of these incidents are in one dimensional space. If only there were a way to go a 3 meters to one side, many of these crashes could be avoided.
The problem with Socialism for someone who actually works for a living is that it doesn't seem like it promises me anything positive. I get to pay for things demanded by non-workers, but I get essentially nothing in return. Not even gratitude. Nor will there be any reason to believe the money is spent efficiently. Why would someone who works, earns a paycheck, and expects to be able to continue doing so want Socialism? Please explain.
In the current plan, the California HSR stations will be far from the 2 major cities of SF and LA. They're planning on putting them at the far reaches of slower local rail lines.
How much more convenient could flying around the state be if they spent $68 Billion making it better? They could build 10 new airports for that amount. They could buy off the TSA special interests and end the security theatre. They could add enough flights to guarantee hourly transit during peak times, so you wouldn't have to book a ticket and arrive early, you'd just show up and get on the next flight. And if there were too many people, they'd just fly a spare plane from the nearest airport, less than 30 minutes away.
If they even spent half the $68 Billion on air travel improvements, you'd end up with a faster, more convenient trip for a lower fare (including subsidy) than rail.
Comcast was voted the Worst Company in America in 2014. Time Warner doesn't win that contest, but they're often a strong contender. ATT Uverse and DirecTV don't have that problem.
At least for me, [witchcraft] gives me really bad migraines. Actually, it does it to my wife and daughters as well. And there are studies that show that it may be related to the rise in Alzheimer's.
The [entity] paying for all those studies saying that it's safe is [Satan], who doesn't have the best track record for being honest about what all their chemicals are doing (see honeybee hive death, different proteins in GMO wheat, pesticides, etc.)
No one will listen to recorded, broadcast lessons. They want a live teacher giving a lecture.
They tried that with sports and no one watches sports broadcasts. Everyone goes to a local game instead, even though the local performances aren't as good as the best athletes in the world.
They tried that with dramatic performances, and no one watches movies. Everyone would rather go to a community theater performance.
They tried that with music, and no one listens to pre-recorded music. Everyone would rather listen to a live performance.
if it's really from wastewater disposal. It should be pretty easy to find an alternate way to dispose of wastewater. Filter it and reuse it or pump it into a big pond and let it evaporate.
Slashdot Mirror
People who threaten violence to extort money are extortionists.
The point was, once you pay an extortionist once, what's to keep him from threatening you the next time (especially since you just taught him that it works)?
I'm not "screwing them". I'm minding my own business working and earning a paycheck. They are the ones who want to take from me. Without asking, and without a thank you. Why should I agree? Why should anyone who earns a paycheck agree?
I don't mind working either. But I would like to keep the money I earn. The question is, why should I want Socialism when it seems designed to only make life worse for me?
"Solutions" where non-workers benefit at the paycheck earner's expense, with zero benefit to the paycheck earner, are hard to sell to the paycheck earner. Why would he agree?
"Because the paycheck earner still has more than the non-working benefit recipient" is a new argument with no threats or magic. So that's something. But the worker is still considerably poorer than he was before his paycheck was raided. So I'm not sure why he would want to agree to it unless there were some really good reason. That's why I'm asking: what's supposed to convince him?
I wish someone could tell me why I should be happy my paycheck gets raided to pay for benefits for people who seem to have zero regard for me or other paycheck earners.
This argument was already covered above. I can protect myself for a modest outlay that's a lot less than I'm already paying in taxes.
And even if I couldn't, I don't know why I should think that paying off violent extortionists would result in anything but more violent extortion. Why do you think it might?
History tells me that bad things eventually happen to every society. There's not one single example of any system that endured permanently in peace. So what's the lesson? (Personally, the lesson I learned is not to use "look at history..." as an argument for anything.)
That's an even less interesting argument than "pay us or we'll kill you". What's the point supposed to be?
Apparently working and earning a paycheck so that non-workers can take your earnings and offer you nothing but threats in return is supposed to be considered a privilege. Why would anyone who works and earns a paycheck agree that it is?
Aren't you a wonder of the laws of physics? Producing more than you consume.
Not really. The majority of people produce more than they consume. Where would government handouts come from if they didn't?
How about when you're 80? 90? What if you get injured or get a debilitating disease like ALS?
I produce more than I consume and save the after-tax excess for when I'm 80 or 90. I buy insurance for if I get injured or if I get ALS. That's what the word "responsible" means.
Social programs are about choosing the standard of living all humans deserve and ensuring they get it regardless of personal circumstance.
But that doesn't answer the original question. Why should someone who works and is responsible support Socialism when it only costs him and never benefits him?
Do the other members of society owe a moral debt to the guy who pays for their "standard of living"? Should they? In what way should this moral debt be paid?
Because utopian cartoon worlds aren't real. But I agree that Socialism is a great idea for utopian cartoon worlds. I'm glad we were able to find common ground and reach a genuine understanding.
a. Tell that to the the people who have already tried to answer this question but can't come up with anything better than "pay us or we'll kill you". If that's a real factor for a majority of the population, then a guy would be very foolish not to be an asshole for sheer self-preservation reasons.
b. Shorter version: Person B gets handouts taken from Person A. Person B uses the money to buy something from the same Person A the money was originally taken from. Person A is better off somehow because ... magic?
Fortunately for everyone, the people like Person A are a large majority. Because the magic doesn't seem to work too well.
You apparently can't think of one either. If you could, you'd tell us. Perhaps we deserve the same fate?
But I've harmed no one. I threaten no one. My only offense is being confident in my abilities and responsible enough to produce more than I consume.
Are threats really your only argument? Isn't there someone who can make any other argument why a confidently employed person would support Socialism?
You're avoiding the question. Socialism doesn't solve 80% unemployment scenarios. Nothing does. Fortunately, those scenarios are fictional.
I'm not a truck driver. I'm not a brain surgeon either. But I'm confident I will be able to continue to find work. Why should someone who expects to be able to work for a living (like the majority of everyone who has ever lived does) support socialism?
Why would you believe that paying off would-be violent robbers would work? If someone will threaten and rob you if you don't pay them one amount (say $1000), why would you believe they wouldn't take the $1000 today and threaten you for $5000 tomorrow?
Why don't you go out and try making that deal with those guys? Report back to us how it works out.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an argument better than "pay us off or we'll kill you".
Other things that are cheaper: food, fuel, clothing, entertainment. If you measure the price by "how many hours would the average person have to work to buy it", then almost everything is cheaper.
I'm not seeing this as a positive. I can protect myself for a modest outlay. Guns and ammo and walls and fences cost a lot less than I pay in taxes for non-worker benefits already.
Got anything besides "pay up or we'll kill you"?
Too bad all of these incidents are in one dimensional space. If only there were a way to go a 3 meters to one side, many of these crashes could be avoided.
The problem with Socialism for someone who actually works for a living is that it doesn't seem like it promises me anything positive. I get to pay for things demanded by non-workers, but I get essentially nothing in return. Not even gratitude. Nor will there be any reason to believe the money is spent efficiently. Why would someone who works, earns a paycheck, and expects to be able to continue doing so want Socialism? Please explain.
Better yet: zeppelins.
In the current plan, the California HSR stations will be far from the 2 major cities of SF and LA. They're planning on putting them at the far reaches of slower local rail lines.
How much more convenient could flying around the state be if they spent $68 Billion making it better? They could build 10 new airports for that amount. They could buy off the TSA special interests and end the security theatre. They could add enough flights to guarantee hourly transit during peak times, so you wouldn't have to book a ticket and arrive early, you'd just show up and get on the next flight. And if there were too many people, they'd just fly a spare plane from the nearest airport, less than 30 minutes away.
If they even spent half the $68 Billion on air travel improvements, you'd end up with a faster, more convenient trip for a lower fare (including subsidy) than rail.
That's normal for business in general. Most businesses end in disappointment after a short time.
Comcast was voted the Worst Company in America in 2014. Time Warner doesn't win that contest, but they're often a strong contender. ATT Uverse and DirecTV don't have that problem.
At least for me, [witchcraft] gives me really bad migraines. Actually, it does it to my wife and daughters as well. And there are studies that show that it may be related to the rise in Alzheimer's.
The [entity] paying for all those studies saying that it's safe is [Satan], who doesn't have the best track record for being honest about what all their chemicals are doing (see honeybee hive death, different proteins in GMO wheat, pesticides, etc.)
No one will listen to recorded, broadcast lessons. They want a live teacher giving a lecture.
They tried that with sports and no one watches sports broadcasts. Everyone goes to a local game instead, even though the local performances aren't as good as the best athletes in the world.
They tried that with dramatic performances, and no one watches movies. Everyone would rather go to a community theater performance.
They tried that with music, and no one listens to pre-recorded music. Everyone would rather listen to a live performance.
Recorded content and broadcasting are a fad.
The FAQ. If a million students see the same lesson, how many genuinely unique questions would be asked?
if it's really from wastewater disposal. It should be pretty easy to find an alternate way to dispose of wastewater. Filter it and reuse it or pump it into a big pond and let it evaporate.
Shorter version: "We spend too much on the military so we should also spend too much on everything else."