Third Debate Blow by Blow - Page 5

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

If you re-read my entire post instead of cherry-picking, things might make more sense.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Poverty is not something that can be erased with the wave of a wand, or through income redistribution. If the real answer was for you to live in squalor so the world's poor could be lifted up, would you choose that route? Because socialism doesn't work. It's been proven time and again.

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Socialism has not been shown NOT to work. Socialism is not a governance principle, in point of fact, many socialistic programs DO work. Medicare/Medicaid, social security etc do in fact help people live better lives than they would have been otherwise (the proof is in the fact that between the periods right before these programs came to exist and right afterward, controlling for other economic externalities, elder members of society got appreciably better access to healthcare, etc than before). Socialism in conjunction with capitalism works amazingly well -- together they bring balance to two unbalanced economic theories. So don't tell me socialism doesn't work... Socialism is NOT communism. Communism DOESN'T work.

Income redistribution, a retarded meme that has never existed, describing the provision of social alms to the poor is about as fundamental a principle in our ethical framework as anything else. It has never been about getting people out of poverty. It is about making those who are in poverty have better chance at survival so they can get themselves out of poverty. It is about reducing THEIR burden on society, from diseases to economic damage done by a large disgruntled uncared for group.

There is no danger of me living in squalor to help the poor -- in point of fact, there is so little money needed for the provision of basic food and medical attention for the poor it is almost laughable that you are using this as an argument. I read recently that you could end starvation world wide with $38B/year. That is nothing. We don't do it because people with philosophies similar to your don't think it is worth it. I think it is.

Don't give me your crap about income redistribution. You live the life you lead because the poor don't suffer as much here.

Originally Posted by midwinter

I have now asked you two questions. They are simple questions. They are un-nuanced questions.

1) Do you care if your clothes are made by slaves?

2) Do you know who made your clothes?

You sort of answered #2, noting that they are made by people in "China, Guatemala and India."

I'll condense both of these questions into a nice, clear, question:

3) do you care about the conditions in which the goods you purchase are made?

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Answers to both: What difference does it make to you, and what would you do about it? How do you know if anything you buy/enjoy/use has been touched by the hand of slave labor? Are you in a position to do anything about it?

Originally Posted by midwinter

You still haven't answered my questions.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

You haven't paid attention. I've been here long enough to know you prefer to split hairs over questioning your preconceptions. So there you go.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Answers to both: What difference does it make to you, and what would you do about it? How do you know if anything you buy/enjoy/use has been touched by the hand of slave labor? Are you in a position to do anything about it? And if you give up this "thing" that has been produced by slave labor, do you realize you could be contributing to the starvation or death of that person?

Don't self-centeredly think you have the right answers to the important and sometimes life and death decisions other people must make to improve their own lives. For many people it's work or die, not just work or go on unemployment.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

You haven't paid attention. I've been here long enough to know you prefer to split hairs over questioning your preconceptions. Discussion is not your real goal, just agreement with your viewpoint. Well, you can't change your view if you don't change your vantage point.

Originally Posted by addabox

So as long as slavery is an economic system that produces goods, we have an obligation to consume those goods, lest slaves go hungry.

I think it's clear that the answer to poverty in America is nothing so radical as a progressive tax code, but rather work houses. Sure, they'll be ruthlessly exploited, but lets say we make it a choice between that and letting them die like dogs in the gutter.

By those lights, we are totally doing right by them.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Are you referring to this?

Originally Posted by addabox

I am. Is it to much to hope that you're going to make a case for the misunderstood workhouse?

Originally Posted by addabox

No, that's me. Midwinter wants to get down to cases.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

So, you can really remedy starvation with your $388 annual contribution? Do it. Make your contribution. The end result of this would be accelerated population growth, famine and more starvation (I'm making the assumption you are referring to third world poverty). More money is not the answer to everything, just like technology is not the utopian answer to everything (as we seem to think in the western world).

At first glance you provide arguments which seem emotionally satisfying, but you eventually do advocate for socialism.

The theoretical framework you describe will work for a while, until the size and influence of government providing these "freebies" (keep in mind government also continues to grow and grow... it tends to want to feed itself) but these social programs eventually become unsustainable.

What is more immoral... providing "free" services that come at the expense of everyone equally whether they are needed or not, or debasing the financial system by printing more money which accelerates the eventual poverty of all?

Originally Posted by midwinter

Indeed. I'm asking a simple question.

.

The malthusian cycle is not a local phenomenon when food is transported around the world. In any event, it seems that you have misunderstood Malthus's argument which depended upon the fact that the society at large was agrarian and agriculture production directly correlated to number of workers was the sole economic driver. While there may be nations that are operating near Malthus's trap, the very fact that working hands can produce goods other than agriculture means that his argument falls apart. Regardless, if you were right, Europeans who have lots of food would have a booming population as well...


What I am arguing is that the core framework of socialism is based upon Christian charity.


This only happens if you let it happen. At no point have we ever really set up an agency which is designed to run small and efficient. That may be changing.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

The old "how long have you been beating your wife" question. How about you provide some of your own answers?

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

The old "how long have you been beating your wife" question. How about you provide some of your own answers?

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Theory and philosophical absolutes have little to do with real life. What I know, I know from first hand experience. Not everything, but the years have a way of acting as a governor against unsubstantial personal views. The answers you provide indicate you are a student, not a person who has learned from life.

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Heh.

How old do you think I am?

Edit: And I pointed out several real world examples to back up the theory and philosophical ramifications of thought... You do understand that your voiced concern over giving money for food for the hungry will only cause more people to be born and thus increase hunger is a theoretical framework first crystalized by Malthus. It seems your world view isn't so experienced based afterall...

Originally Posted by midwinter

That's a false dilemma. I'm asking you a simple question. Do you care about the conditions in which the clothes you wear were made?

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Until you go to the places you only hear about or get second (or third) hand information, you literally have no clue because you have no frame of reference, and I would also put myself in that category before I saw this for myself.

If you get the chance to spend several weeks in a poverty-stricken area, somewhere really outside your comfort zone, you'll start to gain a whole new appreciation for how good people have it here in the America. Even the homeless have it better here.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

If it makes you feel any better, I seldom worry myself with questions like that. I have a first-hand understanding of how the world works. All else is mental masturbation. If everyone really knew how their "sausage" got made, the world would come to a standstill.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Until you go to the places you only hear about or get second (or third) hand information, you literally have no clue because you have no frame of reference.

Originally Posted by midwinter

And why do you think the world would come to a standstill if people knew how their clothes got made?

Originally Posted by giant

It's very interesting that you assume that people here are not from, nor have been to, nor done business in ... CHINA. W.T.F.

As for the general issue of third world countries, poverty and liberals, it would do you some good to recognize that just about every anti-poverty college-educated American has done their third world tour of duty. It's a fucking rite of passage for them. Hell, living in third world countries is what even mildly motivated high school drop outs have been doing since at least the 60s.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

More importantly, do you know how your "sausage" got made?

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

What's with the righteous indignation?

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

See, you're still not paying attention. I said "sausage".

Originally Posted by giant

"righteous indignation?" Don't worry, I don't find it insulting or unjust (?) that you are claiming some sort of unique expertise from having travelled outside of the US once.