Gonna kill kill kill kill Kill the poor tonight

[Willem]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


If there is an inability to fend for oneself, then what on earth is wrong with giving them an opportunity to make money and save themselves from death?

By denying the validity of these people's choices you invalidate them as human beings. You may disagree with their choices, but you must respect them. They are not hopeless pawns of manipulating evildoers, they are individuals in a tough situation who had to make a tough decision.

If I had a choice between eating bugs and dying I would do it. If I had a choice between fighting with someone or dying, i would do it.

Even if these individuals weren't to the point of starving, they had their reasons for deciding to do this. I believe they made an appropriate, logical choice based on their own criteria, and it is inappropriate for us to think of them as lacking the ability to make decisions for themselves. They are human beings too, and they deserve our respect.

Invalidating their mind and decision making ability is nearly as bad as the individuals seeking to invalidate their morals and sense of decency that you rail against.

You obviously don't know who these people are at all. At one point in their lives they had dignity, they had people who cared for them and wished them well. But somewhere along the way they lost themselves, they lost their pride. They got sucked into this black hole that they didn't know how to get out of. By having some bozo coming along and trying to make them act like idiots, these people are getting their noses rubbed into the **** of the mistakes they've made in their lives.

And yes I know these people. I've lived on the street, I've made friends with winos, I've gotten to know them as people, not some abstraction. And they don't need some preppie ******* coming down and reminding them that they screwed up their lives. They do a very good job of that all on their own.

[Az]

Erm, I would just like to point out that I believe that self-sufficiency is an important quality, and I don't believe that the government should "take care" of everyone, like they were a child ( Unless, that is, they ARE a child ). And remember I am a communist.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
If there is an inability to fend for oneself, then what on earth is wrong with giving them an opportunity to make money and save themselves from death?

By denying the validity of these people's choices you invalidate them as human beings. You may disagree with their choices, but you must respect them. They are not hopeless pawns of manipulating evildoers, they are individuals in a tough situation who had to make a tough decision.

I love this. Now you are saying that the threat of death is not a form of coecion. They weren't forced to do anything. So is there any real difference between a person pointing a gun to your head and starvation?

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Invalidating their mind and decision making ability is nearly as bad as the individuals seeking to invalidate their morals and sense of decency that you rail against.

So, was there any coercion or not? Stop going at a tangent and answer the real question.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
Erm, I would just like to point out that I believe that self-sufficiency is an important quality, and I don't believe that the government should "take care" of everyone, like they were a child ( Unless, that is, they ARE a child ). And remember I am a communist.

I agree with you that self-sufficiency is important, but the fact is, not everybody who is capable of doing a particular job gets one. Take che for example. He's a website designer, but could he get a website designing job when he looks for one? There are many factors contributing to a person becoming unemployed, and there's only a small fraction that he can control.

There's another thing. Not everything people do can translate into $$$ in a capitalistic society. Lets say you are very good at writing classical music. Can you make a living on that? No, You probably have to be content to be a street sweeper while trying to make it big.

[Az]

That is true. But I don't think that che, for example, should get an unemployment cheque, if he's physically capable of doing another job. Now I don't think that che is immoral, or lazy, he's just seizing an opportunity that the government gave gim, ala "free beer". Why should a person get money for doing nothing when he CAN do something. This, of course, demands proper worker regulations, no cheap slave labour from abroad etc. but essentially is true. Even today, che can go and work. But he doesn't.

[Spiffor]

Che works. e has got his work about 2 months ago, and it will end in less than one month IIRC.

[Az]

[OzzyKP]

Of course there is no coercion. He has choices. They may suck, there may not be many, but there are choices. And there are also the choices that led up to that point.

And if we want to take this out of the abstraction and into the real world, there are always places to go for help. There are homeless shelters, there are churches, there are charities, there are even government programs to help people get out of the holes they've become stuck in. There are many alternatives to sleeping in an alley and begging for change. They are not coerced in any way to remain there.

One of my best friends was homeless, but he didn't sleep in the alley and beg. He had ups and downs, but he made choices and lived with the consequences of those choices.

An individual presented with the option to do something humiliating for 10 bucks has many other choices he can make. I agree with you though, that in a situation where there truly are no choices a libertarian has a huge dilemma, and i'm leaning left in those situations personally, but in the situation we are discussing here there are choices, and the individual has free will and options. There is no coercion.