So, I talked to 3rd-generation welfare dependants overnight about their problem

[RDJ]

But the problem they presented with, was not their major problem.

They appear to be completely absent any sense of responsibility for their own dependents, nor for the (aged, needy) parent of one of the couple. The Newly-Classic phrase "the government needs to fix this" was their default answer.

And, this* came to mind. I will quote a major excerpt because It Is Worthy of a full, yet Inherently Woeful, quotation.

Welfarism should be radically rethought not in order to save a few billion quid but in order to reverse the state’s spread into communities and to repair the self-belief and independence of working-class and poorer sections of society.

Both the right and left are failing on welfarism. The right ought to oppose it in the name of shrinking state interventionism. And the left ought to oppose it for the reason that many working-class institutions did oppose it when it was first being developed in the early twentieth century: because it makes people unproductive, and rips them from the society they live in, and because we should have full employment not paternalistic handouts.

The end result of this right/left failure is acquiescence to the rise of a new feudalism: millions of middle-class people employed by the state to look after millions of poor people. It is a scandal. It is domestic imperialism.

I will retire in less than 10 years if I live that long. What worries me, are the problems of the non-productive classes that the next (ever shrinking) productive generation will inherit.

* http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/its-time-to-smash-the-whole-welfare-system/

[Akzle]

vote akzle

[James Deuce]

You'll never have full employment. Unemployment is necessary to control inflation in a capitalist society. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or socialist capitalist.

This is one of the primary reasons why real scientists laugh at Economists who try to characterise Economics as a science.

[oldrider]

But the problem they presented with, was not their major problem.

They appear to be completely absent any sense of responsibility for their own dependents, nor for the (aged, needy) parent of one of the couple. The Newly-Classic phrase "the government needs to fix this" was their default answer.

And, this* came to mind. I will quote a major excerpt because It Is Worthy of a full, yet Inherently Woeful, quotation.

Welfarism should be radically rethought not in order to save a few billion quid but in order to reverse the state’s spread into communities and to repair the self-belief and independence of working-class and poorer sections of society.

Both the right and left are failing on welfarism. The right ought to oppose it in the name of shrinking state interventionism. And the left ought to oppose it for the reason that many working-class institutions did oppose it when it was first being developed in the early twentieth century: because it makes people unproductive, and rips them from the society they live in, and because we should have full employment not paternalistic handouts.

The end result of this right/left failure is acquiescence to the rise of a new feudalism: millions of middle-class people employed by the state to look after millions of poor people. It is a scandal. It is domestic imperialism.

I will retire in less than 10 years if I live that long. What worries me, are the problems of the non-productive classes that the next (ever shrinking) productive generation will inherit.

* http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/its-time-to-smash-the-whole-welfare-system/

True!

Another name for the condition is entitlement!

A good book on the subject of entitlement - this link is to a summary of same: http://www.getabstract.com/en/summary/leadership-and-management/danger-in-the-comfort-zone/1620

Used this book sometimes as reference during the changes from Gov't departments to SOE - quite helpful actually.

[Jin]

You'll never have full employment. Unemployment is necessary to control inflation in a capitalist society. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or socialist capitalist.

This is one of the primary reasons why real scientists laugh at Economists who try to characterise Economics as a science.
Where do people come up with this kind of garbage. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon it has nothing to do with unemployment.

[JimO]

Part of the problem is paying some people either the same or more on a benefit than what they would get working eg: your benefit goes up if you have an extra kid but try asking the boss for a payrise to support the extra kid and you will get laughed out the door. Another part of the problem has been the demise of compulsary unionism and award payrates with the min wage now becoming the award payrate for many. There is the other issue of the demise of many manufacturing industries due to cheap imports from China. Finally not many employers want to train people today irrespective of what qualifications a job seeker has got.
so its employers/chinese/everybody elses fault that these people dont/wont/cant work

[TheDemonLord]

I still believe that beneficiaries should have to do some form of Community service, work etc. to the amount of whatever their payment is, divided by the Minimum wage.

[Drew]

Part of the problem is paying some people either the same or more on a benefit than what they would get working eg: your benefit goes up if you have an extra kid but try asking the boss for a payrise to support the extra kid and you will get laughed out the door. Another part of the problem has been the demise of compulsary unionism and award payrates with the min wage now becoming the award payrate for many. There is the other issue of the demise of many manufacturing industries due to cheap imports from China. Finally not many employers want to train people today irrespective of what qualifications a job seeker has got.

Compulsory union membership ua reckon? Go get fucked. When they had the power in the building industry, people stopped building. What does that tell you?

Power corrupts...

[Drew]

I still believe that beneficiaries should have to do some form of Community service, work etc. to the amount of whatever their payment is, divided by the Minimum wage. Can't make someone do the shit work for the dole, it takes jobs away from people who do it now. It also means the dole then has to match minimum wage. Lose lose right there.

[RDJ]

Compulsory union membership ua reckon? Go get fucked. When they had the power in the building industry, people stopped building. What does that tell you?

Power corrupts...

I appreciate that was a rhetorical question but it tells me two things

1. When you reward bad behaviour, you get more of it
2. When you pay people more for behaving badly, they will demand ever more pay and behave even worse so as to 'earn' it

...and then we see the Labour Party corollary - no, let's call it The Clark-Goff Corollary: when you pay people to do nothing, they will always seek to collect more money and do even less. Otherwise known as the WINZ Finagling Factor.

[TheDemonLord]

Can't make someone do the shit work for the dole, it takes jobs away from people who do it now. It also means the dole then has to match minimum wage. Lose lose right there.

Think of all the things that don't get done because we don't have a big enough workforce to do them. We are already paying them, so the expenditure isn't going to increase dramatically (obviously there would be some administrative and setup costs) and you are assuming that it would be full time - if Minimum wage is $10 (not saying it is, just using it for easy maths) and someone earns $100 a week on the dole, then they have to work an equivalent number of hours in as if they earnt that $100 after tax (so about 12 hours or so a week)

If they don't want to work, clearly they have too much money, or are getting income from other means, so their Dole can be cut, or removed.

The idea isn't perfect, but it would quickly put a stop to the attitude that you can get $$$ for nothing.

[yokel]

The way I see it is that if someone on the benefit gets say $300 PW and you work and get $800 PW, you're working for $500 PW.

At any rate the people stuck on the benefit is a result of redundancy from the the work force due to advances in technology and cheep imported goods(all so linked to advances in technology)

With all the advances in technology we all should only be working 20-30 hours PW.

I also reckon machines or automated processes should be paying income tax for the people thats been displaced in stead of being paid out a redundancy if you're lucky enough to get it that is.

[scumdog]

Can't make someone do the shit work for the dole, it takes jobs away from people who do it now. It also means the dole then has to match minimum wage. Lose lose right there.

Tell me why do we need to get in people from Vanuatu and the Phillipnes etc to do jobs that are available to Kiwis?

But Kiwis won't do them.

[TheDemonLord]

But Kiwis won't do them.

They would if they didn't get a handout from the Govt.....

[Drew]

Sounds lile you were unhappy you had to pay your builders an award payrate and not the minimum wage!! Maybe only tight arses like yourself stopped building?

I'm a builder you fucken idiot.

[Akzle]

They would if they didn't get a handout from the Govt.....

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/63813623.jpg

[caseye]

There would possibly be full employment if everyone only had to work 20-30 hrs a week but sadly the cost of living does not allow it. If people are displaced by automation there needs to be curbs on imigration/birthrate to ensure when they die they are not replaced in the population which does not happen, eg: recent news has suggested with the current rate of immigration unemployment will go up.

Lordy Lordy Einstein is among us!
Get back under your rock and stop calling nice people such bad names!

[Laava]

Sounds lile you were unhappy you had to pay your builders an award payrate and not the minimum wage!! Maybe only tight arses like yourself stopped building?

It is clear that you have absolutely no idea how much damage the carpenters union did to carpenters. When you force a company into liquidation by repeated strike action, knowing that they will fold, then it is surely no surprise that it is the workers themselves that miss out. No pay, no redundancy and no holiday pay. And do the carpenters union help support these out of work people? The only people who don't miss out are the union reps themselves. Bad times! That union will never exist again for that reason.

[jonbuoy]

Part of the problem is paying some people either the same or more on a benefit than what they would get working eg: your benefit goes up if you have an extra kid but try asking the boss for a payrise to support the extra kid and you will get laughed out the door. Another part of the problem has been the demise of compulsary unionism and award payrates with the min wage now becoming the award payrate for many. There is the other issue of the demise of many manufacturing industries due to cheap imports from China. Finally not many employers want to train people today irrespective of what qualifications a job seeker has got.

Unions crippled the UK economy and destroyed the car industry.

[sidecar bob]

Unions crippled the UK economy and destroyed the car industry.

That combined with drinking piss at lunchtime.

[Drew]

Tell me why do we need to get in people from Vanuatu and the Phillipnes etc to do jobs that are available to Kiwis?

But Kiwis won't do them.
I don't understand the question. People moving here and doing a job for less than a kiwi will do it, helps the economy in other ways.

The jobs are out there for people wiling to work. Upskilling in this country is very easy for those willing to do it, there is little excuse for not working.

[jasonu]

I still believe that beneficiaries should have to do some form of Community service, work etc. to the amount of whatever their payment is, divided by the Minimum wage.

Either that or compulsory piss tests before the free money is handed out.

[jasonu]

Im no mind reader you fucken idiot.

But you typed it like you knew it was true you fucking idiot.

[Akzle]

Either that or compulsory piss tests before the free money is handed out.

which achieves what?

[mashman]

According to the great gods of economics we do indeed have full employment.

[TheDemonLord]

which achieves what?

If you are on the Benefit, and have enough money left over for Alcohol - you are being paid too much and can have your benefit reduced.

[mashman]

Think of all the things that don't get done because we don't have a big enough workforce to do them. We are already paying them, so the expenditure isn't going to increase dramatically (obviously there would be some administrative and setup costs) and you are assuming that it would be full time - if Minimum wage is $10 (not saying it is, just using it for easy maths) and someone earns $100 a week on the dole, then they have to work an equivalent number of hours in as if they earnt that $100 after tax (so about 12 hours or so a week)

If they don't want to work, clearly they have too much money, or are getting income from other means, so their Dole can be cut, or removed.

The idea isn't perfect, but it would quickly put a stop to the attitude that you can get $$$ for nothing.

The workforce is plenty big enough. It's how they're "deployed" that's the problem. You're always going to be robbing Peter to pay Paul in a country that has a finite amount of $. It is almost unavoidable.

How are you going to enforce your "Work or be Punished" policy? Jail for non-compliance? ... and you're obviously ok with the social consequences coz you can afford to jail more people? Which in turn will mean more budget going into "security" and being sucked from healthcare or education etc... and you reckon the lesson to be learned will be "you can't get something for what society deems as contributing nothing"? bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Chur bro.

[Jin]

which achieves what?
Being a bit defensive on this issue arnt you. Wonder why.

[mashman]

Lordy Lordy Einstein is among us!
Get back under your rock and stop calling nice people such bad names!

No, John Maynard Keynes:

http://www.theascendantstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/15-hour-work-week-wide-772x230.jpg

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."

[Jin]

If you are on the Benefit, and have enough money left over for Alcohol - you are being paid too much and can have your benefit reduced.
Except that could mean the babies get no nappies/kids no dinner so daddy can have his beer.

[TheDemonLord]

The workforce is plenty big enough. It's how they're "deployed" that's the problem. You're always going to be robbing Peter to pay Paul in a country that has a finite amount of $. It is almost unavoidable.

I'm not so sure - for example - when a major event is being put on in the City, all the people in that area do a bit of Spit and Polish to spruce the place up a bit - but this takes time, Effort and Money - imagine if we did this all the time - how much nicer would our communities be to live in?


How are you going to enforce your "Work or be Punished" policy? Jail for non-compliance? ... and you're obviously ok with the social consequences coz you can afford to jail more people? Which in turn will mean more budget going into "security" and being sucked from healthcare or education etc... and you reckon the lesson to be learned will be "you can't get something for what society deems as contributing nothing"? bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Chur bro.

Simple - they get no Money - if someone refuses to do 10-15 hours of work to earn their benefit then they clearly don't need it.

If they turn to Crime instead of working, they go to prison (again, its not like we are asking them to find a job, tasks will be assigned to them to do, if they refuse to work and turn to Crime, then we will imprison them)

If they keep offending after release, we will have a 3 strikes and they are out - they get shot in the head.

I reckon that would very VERY quickly put a stop to the generation of entitled career Dole Bludgers.

On the plus side however - those that work might learn new skills to make themselves more employable, furthermore the supervisors would be able to provide references.

Another section that would help this would be that all businesses would be required to advertise new positions to WINZ for a minimum period of time before advertising to the private sector - we could also do incentives for businesses to take a punt on hiring people who are currently on the Dole.

Think of it like a 'Carrot and Stick' approach.

[TheDemonLord]

Except that could mean the babies get no nappies/kids no dinner so daddy can have his beer.

Then the Father gets taken out and Shot (for being a useless sack of human waste) and the kids have to go through CYFs (which okay CYFs needs a lot of work too, but maybe with all the money we would save, we can invest more in CYFs)

or The dole is given in such a way that Daddy can only purchase nappies and kids dinner and can't buy Beer (with the advances in Technology, such a system would be easy to implement)

[mashman]

I'm not so sure - for example - when a major event is being put on in the City, all the people in that area do a bit of Spit and Polish to spruce the place up a bit - but this takes time, Effort and Money - imagine if we did this all the time - how much nicer would our communities be to live in?

I agree. Tell you what, remove the money component from your example and you could indeed organise things in such a way that it would be like that all the time.



Simple - they get no Money - if someone refuses to do 10-15 hours of work to earn their benefit then they clearly don't need it.

If they turn to Crime instead of working, they go to prison (again, its not like we are asking them to find a job, tasks will be assigned to them to do, if they refuse to work and turn to Crime, then we will imprison them)

If they keep offending after release, we will have a 3 strikes and they are out - they get shot in the head.

I reckon that would very VERY quickly put a stop to the generation of entitled career Dole Bludgers.

On the plus side however - those that work might learn new skills to make themselves more employable, furthermore the supervisors would be able to provide references.

Another section that would help this would be that all businesses would be required to advertise new positions to WINZ for a minimum period of time before advertising to the private sector - we could also do incentives for businesses to take a punt on hiring people who are currently on the Dole.

Think of it like a 'Carrot and Stick' approach.

But there is no Carrot. You still haven't dealt with the financial ramifications of your policy... which is by far more important as it will let you know what resources you have at hand with which to implement your policy.

[mashman]

Where do people come up with this kind of garbage. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon it has nothing to do with unemployment.

Unemployment isn't an monetary phenomenon?

[sidecar bob]

Unemployment isn't an monetary phenomenon?

No, its a motivation phenomenon.
I don't know any motivated people that are unemployed.

[TheDemonLord]

I agree. Tell you what, remove the money component from your example and you could indeed organise things in such a way that it would be like that all the time.

We both kNOW that you and I have vastly different views on that - I'd even go so far as to do a little cheap shot and point to the Beneficiary problem and say that NOW in an RBE situation, the problem would be exponentially worse.


But there is no Carrot. You still haven't dealt with the financial ramifications of your policy... which is by far more important as it will let you know what resources you have at hand with which to implement your policy.

The Carrot is preferential hiring, work experience, Employee references, contributing to society, sense of self esteem via a job well done etc.

as for the Financial ramifications - I did some lazy maths once (not particulaly air tight, but enough to show how such an idea could work) and basically when you look at just the unemployeed benefit (so excluding super annuits), we are spending about the same that we spend on our Military, that coupled with the number of people on it (about 240,000 I think from memory) we could certainly implement such a system.

[mashman]

No, its a motivation phenomenon.
I don't know any motivated people that are unemployed.

I'm unemployed :yes:

[mashman]

We both kNOW that you and I have vastly different views on that - I'd even go so far as to do a little cheap shot and point to the Beneficiary problem and say that NOW in an RBE situation, the problem would be exponentially worse.

You are correct in regards to RBE. I expect about 50% of the population to become unemployed within 5 years.



The Carrot is preferential hiring, work experience, Employee references, contributing to society, sense of self esteem via a job well done etc.

as for the Financial ramifications - I did some lazy maths once (not particulaly air tight, but enough to show how such an idea could work) and basically when you look at just the unemployeed benefit (so excluding super annuits), we are spending about the same that we spend on our Military, that coupled with the number of people on it (about 240,000 I think from memory) we could certainly implement such a system.

All those things no one can achieve without working huh? :facepalm:

So it'd cost $24 million per year to give an extra $100 to every unemployed person... and in return they swear not to commit a (financially related) crime and that if they do they will happily go to jail for a year. Is that more or less than the defense budget? Sounds like a real Carrot... and without the need for a stick ;)

[TheDemonLord]

You are correct in regards to RBE. I expect about 50% of the population to become unemployed within 5 years.

and you know my thoughts on that....




All those things no one can achieve without working huh? :facepalm:

So it'd cost $24 million per year to give an extra $100 to every unemployed person... and in return they swear not to commit a (financially related) crime and that if they do they will happily go to jail for a year. Is that more or less than the defense budget? Sounds like a real Carrot... and without the need for a stick ;)

That's $24 Million that could be spent on other things (roading, PenLink, Fibre Roll out, New Hospital ward, New Cancer drugs etc. etc.)

I wouldn't mind spending it if it was a short term thing (ie they lost their job, went on to the dole for a short period of time before getting a new job) - I take big issue with Career Beneficiaries - and giving them more money is not going to solve the problem, its not going to motivate them to work, if anything - it is going to re-affirm their sense of entitlement that the Govt and everyone else who pays tax, owes them a living.

[Akzle]

Being a bit defensive on this issue arnt you. Wonder why.

its a simple question.

Im only responsible for what i say, not what you (dont) comprehend.

[sidecar bob]

I'm unemployed :yes:

Maybe we need to compare motivation levels. :msn-wink:

[mashman]

and you know my thoughts on that....

Not really, but I'll go with, you really don't know whether that 50% of the population will work or not. Same as me actually, but it'd be good to kNOW, don't you think (obvious current unthinking jibe aside ;))?



That's $24 Million that could be spent on other things (roading, PenLink, Fibre Roll out, New Hospital ward, New Cancer drugs etc. etc.)

I wouldn't mind spending it if it was a short term thing (ie they lost their job, went on to the dole for a short period of time before getting a new job) - I take big issue with Career Beneficiaries - and giving them more money is not going to solve the problem, its not going to motivate them to work, if anything - it is going to re-affirm their sense of entitlement that the Govt and everyone else who pays tax, owes them a living.

Thing is though, career beneficiaries are a requirement of the economy. Why are you trying to force them into jobs that would better suit someone actually looking for work in a marketplace where there isn't a job for everyone? Then there's the huge wast of resources that goes into devising schemes to punish the unemployed. It's much more than a short term thing... coz unemployment is not just for christmas. Fuck 'em, if it kept people away from others' stuff enough to save the country money and social "pain", then give 'em the extra hundy. In fact, take it out of the education budget coz firstly, ye olde technological advancement is gonna create more unemployed people... and secondly, the education received is barely useful for our present let alone our future... and fourthly, too many of you rely on it to do your thinking for you ;)

[mashman]

Maybe we need to compare motivation levels. :msn-wink:

heh heh heh... I lose.

[TheDemonLord]

Not really, but I'll go with, you really don't know whether that 50% of the population will work or not. Same as me actually, but it'd be good to kNOW, don't you think (obvious current unthinking jibe aside ;))?

Whilst it may be interesting to know, good to know is debatable - what is the cost of finding out? For example it would be good to know the limits of the Human body in order to help Trauma teams - but the cost of finding out.....




Thing is though, career beneficiaries are a requirement of the economy. Why are you trying to force them into jobs that would better suit someone actually looking for work in a marketplace where there isn't a job for everyone? Then there's the huge wast of resources that goes into devising schemes to punish the unemployed. It's much more than a short term thing... coz unemployment is not just for christmas. Fuck 'em, if it kept people away from others' stuff enough to save the country money and social "pain", then give 'em the extra hundy. In fact, take it out of the education budget coz firstly, ye olde technological advancement is gonna create more unemployed people... and secondly, the education received is barely useful for our present let alone our future... and fourthly, too many of you rely on it to do your thinking for you ;)

This is a false dichotomy - If you assume that for a given community service - the current workforce is X, and the current Level of service provided is Y. We will assume also that Y represents the minimum acceptable level of service. With the assistance of the recently 'motivated' workforce - we get X + D (where D is the Dole people) and the level of Service is Y + P (where P is a function of D x productivity)

In order to retain the minimum level of service, we still need our Workforce X.

Then you talk about if you just give people more money, they will stop them from stealing - I have to ask, since you have made negative comments about the Corporate world 'Stealing' (ie engaging in unethical business practices to increase their profit at the expense of others) - If having more doesn't stop White Collar crime, why would it stop Blue collar crime (hint the answer is - it won't)

And finally - Taking money out of the Education system to fund the dole....

10/10

I think you just lost all fiscal, Economic, Financial and Logical credibility there....

Sure the Education system has problems (and I would suggest a large part of that is due to funding cuts and having to provide an education for the lowest common denominator) but that statement is just retarded.

[mashman]

Whilst it may be interesting to know, good to know is debatable - what is the cost of finding out? For example it would be good to know the limits of the Human body in order to help Trauma teams - but the cost of finding out.....

All you have to do in order to find out is ask those who arrive at WINZ. You'll already have them at the desk, a simple question is all it would take?



This is a false dichotomy - If you assume that for a given community service - the current workforce is X, and the current Level of service provided is Y. We will assume also that Y represents the minimum acceptable level of service. With the assistance of the recently 'motivated' workforce - we get X + D (where D is the Dole people) and the level of Service is Y + P (where P is a function of D x productivity)

In order to retain the minimum level of service, we still need our Workforce X.

Then you talk about if you just give people more money, they will stop them from stealing - I have to ask, since you have made negative comments about the Corporate world 'Stealing' (ie engaging in unethical business practices to increase their profit at the expense of others) - If having more doesn't stop White Collar crime, why would it stop Blue collar crime (hint the answer is - it won't)

And finally - Taking money out of the Education system to fund the dole....

10/10

I think you just lost all fiscal, Economic, Financial and Logical credibility there....

Sure the Education system has problems (and I would suggest a large part of that is due to funding cuts and having to provide an education for the lowest common denominator) but that statement is just retarded.

Show me how it is a false dichotomy? Coz when you have less Y you don't need so much X and can potentially re-task that X to a place that has more Y than it knows what to do with.

Fucking brilliant... corporate world v's the life of a doley :killingme... one stealing billions and the others between them not even being able to match that. Comparing Monkey Shit and Apples there strawman.

Financial credibility? bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. You'd have been better served by asking where thirdly went. You always have to rob Peter to pay Paul. That you don't recognise that this practice currently goes on today, and with the education budget, renders any outcomes that you have "calculated" moot. A 100% margin for error does not good sense make :bleh:

[jasonu]

which achieves what?

If you have enough time and money to buy and ingest illegal drugs then no benefit for you.
Many employers insist on the same thing with piss tests. Fail the test=no job.

[Banditbandit]

Many employers insist on the same thing with piss tests. Fail the test=no job.


You mean if I can't piss I don't get the job ??? :shit: :confused: :eek5: :cry: :gob::whistle:

[TheDemonLord]

All you have to do in order to find out is ask those who arrive at WINZ. You'll already have them at the desk, a simple question is all it would take?

You are forgetting the rest of the population who would rather not work given the choice (but do because working provides them the means to do the things they want)



Show me how it is a false dichotomy? Coz when you have less Y you don't need so much X and can potentially re-task that X to a place that has more Y than it knows what to do with.

Y is a Constant - it represents the minimum acceptable level of service in a Society.


Fucking brilliant... corporate world v's the life of a doley :killingme... one stealing billions and the others between them not even being able to match that. Comparing Monkey Shit and Apples there strawman.

Stealing is Stealing - whether it is Mr CEO stealing billions or Mr Dole Bludger Stealing Billions in Welfare payments from my hard earned taxes.

As a side note - at least the CEO works and provides others with employment and pays Tax (both personal and Corporate), so they are mildly less of a cretin than those that refuse to work


Financial credibility? bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. You'd have been better served by asking where thirdly went. You always have to rob Peter to pay Paul. That you don't recognise that this practice currently goes on today, and with the education budget, renders any outcomes that you have "calculated" moot. A 100% margin for error does not good sense make :bleh:

Again, we have been through this, the flow of Money does not involve the robbing of anyone, not that you will agree of course.....

[mashman]

You are forgetting the rest of the population who would rather not work given the choice (but do because working provides them the means to do the things they want)

Am I?... coz I seem to remember taking that sort of thing into consideration.



Y is a Constant - it represents the minimum acceptable level of service in a Society.

A society that doesn't change then?



Stealing is Stealing - whether it is Mr CEO stealing billions or Mr Dole Bludger Stealing Billions in Welfare payments from my hard earned taxes.

As a side note - at least the CEO works and provides others with employment and pays Tax (both personal and Corporate), so they are mildly less of a cretin than those that refuse to work

:killingme... One does infinitesimally more damage than the other, and you're happy to let that bit slide because the morality is the same? They did teach you well didn't they.

And you describe the lore of the jungle quite well there. As long as you're earning lots of money, you get to do what you want because you can't be thrown in jail given your positive economic status. Stella argument for allowing environmental rape and war etc...



Again, we have been through this, the flow of Money does not involve the robbing of anyone, not that you will agree of course.....

The flow of money we're talking about does in the context I thought we were talking about it under... at least that was your opening gambit. So, which is it?

Was that you proving the false dichotomy? Or just gonna ignore that bit?

[jasonu]

You mean if I can't piss I don't get the job ??? :shit: :confused: :eek5: :cry: :gob::whistle:

Yep. Refuse the test and risk getting canned or not getting the job at all.

[Madness]

You mean if I can't piss I don't get the job ??? :shit: :confused: :eek5: :cry: :gob::whistle:

Don't worry, it's probably just a piss-take.

[Akzle]

For example it would be good to know the limits of the Human body in order to help Trauma teams - but the cost of finding out.....

well you can thank adolf, who undertook a lot of that for you.

Now.... If only there was a suitable test population we could use nowdays...

If you have enough time and money to buy and ingest illegal drugs then no benefit for you.
so, just to be clear, legal ones are ok?

Many employers insist on the same thing with piss tests. Fail the test=no job.
yes. Well, thats a bit hen and chicken isnt it. Choose to smoke weed (because really, that's all thats tested for) and you become unemployable. :niceone: been working real good for ages.


Stealing is Stealing - whether it is Mr CEO stealing billions or Mr Dole Bludger Stealing Billions in Welfare payments from my hard earned taxes. i think youll find whilst the former certainly is billions, the latter is relative pocket change. Millions or hundreds of.



As a side note - at least the CEO works and provides others with employment and pays Tax (both personal and Corporate), so they are mildly less of a cretin than those that refuse to work.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha pay tax. You nigger. Noone got rich by giving jewgold to the government

[Banditbandit]

Don't worry, it's probably just a piss-take.



http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/demotivation-posters-auto-406476.jpeg

[TheDemonLord]

well you can thank adolf, who undertook a lot of that for you.

GODWIN!

(I'm so glad someone got my veiled reference and broke Godwins law)



i think youll find whilst the former certainly is billions, the latter is relative pocket change. Millions or hundreds of.

Would be interesting to see what (for a financial year) was (in NZ) the cost of Corporate theft/dodginess and compare to the cost of our Welfare system - my gut tells me that the difference may not be as drastic as you think.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha pay tax. You nigger. Noone got rich by giving jewgold to the government

Tax Avoidance is completely fine IMO

[Akzle]

[ e v e r y t h i n g] is completely fine IMO

:niceone:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vx5n21zHPm8


...nigger.

[Akzle]

also

http://www.decalguy.com/prod_images_large/1084.jpg

[RDJ]

You mean if I can't piss I don't get the job ??? :shit: :confused: :eek5: :cry: :gob::whistle:

One has to wonder whether your question was serious, but in effect, yes; there are very many jobs - and this mandatory for offshore work - that require people pass and keep passing drug tests. The drugged/intoxicated can cause enormous damage not just to themselves, but others. Even the appearance of risk due to intoxication or drug-taking can cause major problems for employers, so why would they risk that eventuality by not testing... Think, Exxon Valdez and the captain thereof, immortalised forever in 'Waterworld' as eulogized by Dennis Hopper's character...

[TheDemonLord]

Am I?... coz I seem to remember taking that sort of thing into consideration.

well, you said 50% in your original estimate, then you said that to test your hypothesis you could ask the people at WINZ - which is ignoring the rest of the currently working population (as in, the WINZ clientel are not a representative sample of NZ society)


A society that doesn't change then?

You know my thoughts on this - We are still killing each other over whose imaginary friend is better, we still have tribal warfare (only with bigger tribes and fully automatic weaponary) - I know you think Society changes, but to me - the more things change, the more it stays the same


:killingme... One does infinitesimally more damage than the other, and you're happy to let that bit slide because the morality is the same? They did teach you well didn't they.

One also contributes infinitely more to society, (hint - it isn't the dole Blodgers)


And you describe the lore of the jungle quite well there. As long as you're earning lots of money, you get to do what you want because you can't be thrown in jail given your positive economic status. Stella argument for allowing environmental rape and war etc...

No, I don't think I do - The law of the Jungle is survival of the fittest/strongest - from the Oxford dictionary "usually with reference to the superiority of brute force or self-interest in the struggle for survival"

This is actually a subtly different area (one with much larger grey area) - one where the net benefit to society as a whole is great enough to justify leniency - Note, that I don't always subscribe to this theory - only using it to counterpoint one who steals from society, but provides a great number of beneficial side effects compared to one who steals from society and contributes nothing.


The flow of money we're talking about does in the context I thought we were talking about it under... at least that was your opening gambit. So, which is it?

My Apologies - I mistook what you were referencing. In that case at a rudimentary and overly simplistic level, any form of Taxation or benefits is robbing Paul to pay Peter - however when you factor in Society, it becomes more complex:

I pay my taxes, and with it, the Govt builds a Motorway that I use everyday - Is that robbing Paul to pay Peter? or is it providing something that is beneficial to all of Society?

More Abstract example:

I pay my Taxes and schools get funded, people get Educated, I've already got my education so this is of no use to me right? - I disagree, an educated population is vastly beneficial to all of society (compare the leaps we made in the western world from the 1800s when education became compulsory) - this indirectly provides numerous benefits to me.

Even more Abstract (and to the discussion at hand)

I pay my Taxes and someone's Dole gets Funded. Now assuming that this is a stop gap between them loosing a job and gaining another one - I do not begrudge my taxes going towards this - the Benefit to society to keep someone supported till they can find another job is great. However you may notice the Caveat - till they can find another job. That is the only reason they should get a benefit is so that when they re-enter the workforce they are fed, clothed and healthy (ready to work), if they have no intention of re-joining the workforce then there is no reason for the State to fund them - there is no benefit to society here. Many people say 'oh but it stops them from turning to crime' - if the only thing that stops someone from being a criminal is bribing them/paying protection money - then I have to seriously question why we are allowing them to be a member of society.


Was that you proving the false dichotomy? Or just gonna ignore that bit?

You know I never ignore something I can argue about :msn-wink: The False Dichotomy was that if we force people on the dole to do community service, other people will loose their jobs - I disproved that with my explanation of the minimum level of service is a constant - however we both know each others views on this - you don't accept that as a constant and so won't accept the rest of the premise.

[TheDemonLord]

:niceone:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vx5n21zHPm8


...nigger.

I love that Movie....

[Akzle]

I love that Movie....

it was shit.

A massive disappointment.

Suits you.

[TheDemonLord]

it was shit.

A massive disappointment.

Suits you.

The plot was a bit average - however the bit at the end where it tied the entire movie into it really being the imagination of a child playing with Lego - Brilliant, absolutely brilliant..

I even didn't hate Will Farrell in it (generally I am allergic to Will Farrell in any movies)

[Banditbandit]

One has to wonder whether your question was serious,



Oh lord .. you need to get a life ...

[mashman]

well, you said 50% in your original estimate, then you said that to test your hypothesis you could ask the people at WINZ - which is ignoring the rest of the currently working population (as in, the WINZ clientel are not a representative sample of NZ society)

I said 50% in response to the number of unemployed I expect under Resource Based Economy. The test was to test the $100 theory with the WINZ folk (good demographic?) to see if that works instead of your "measures of financial force", which was in response to your question re: how much would it cost to find out... whether WINZ folk would take a hundy and give us all a break form as much of their negative shite as possible in order to save the country money. That's where I was.



You know my thoughts on this - We are still killing each other over whose imaginary friend is better, we still have tribal warfare (only with bigger tribes and fully automatic weaponary) - I know you think Society changes, but to me - the more things change, the more it stays the same

99.9% of us aren't killing anyone, well, not knowingly yet you choose to state that our predominant behaviour is the opposite? That's just plain old stupid logic.



One also contributes infinitely more to society, (hint - it isn't the dole Blodgers)

That's simply delusional.



No, I don't think I do - The law of the Jungle is survival of the fittest/strongest - from the Oxford dictionary "usually with reference to the superiority of brute force or self-interest in the struggle for survival"

This is actually a subtly different area (one with much larger grey area) - one where the net benefit to society as a whole is great enough to justify leniency - Note, that I don't always subscribe to this theory - only using it to counterpoint one who steals from society, but provides a great number of beneficial side effects compared to one who steals from society and contributes nothing.

That's why I said lore.



My Apologies - I mistook what you were referencing. In that case at a rudimentary and overly simplistic level, any form of Taxation or benefits is robbing Paul to pay Peter - however when you factor in Society, it becomes more complex:

I pay my taxes, and with it, the Govt builds a Motorway that I use everyday - Is that robbing Paul to pay Peter? or is it providing something that is beneficial to all of Society?

The rest of the silly example.

Fundamentally I agree. Hence removing money, no robbing, just consent. Damned simple equation.



You know I never ignore something I can argue about :msn-wink: The False Dichotomy was that if we force people on the dole to do community service, other people will loose their jobs - I disproved that with my explanation of the minimum level of service is a constant - however we both know each others views on this - you don't accept that as a constant and so won't accept the rest of the premise.

I never stated such, you did. As such you disproved yourself... which I find highly amusing and I'm sure you will too when you read it back.

The premise was shite because life is not eternal and money does not maintain a constant value. Whatever premise you're dreaming up, step away from bing bong bing bong.

[mashman]

it was shit.

It was supersweet.

[RDJ]

Oh lord .. you need to get a life ...

I'm reliably informed by the present presence of a pulse, I presently have one. But thanks for your concern...

[TheDemonLord]

I said 50% in response to the number of unemployed I expect under Resource Based Economy. The test was to test the $100 theory with the WINZ folk (good demographic?) to see if that works instead of your "measures of financial force", which was in response to your question re: how much would it cost to find out... whether WINZ folk would take a hundy and give us all a break form as much of their negative shite as possible in order to save the country money. That's where I was.

So tell me this - how well did Protection Rackets work in the Mob Era? Because that is exactly what you are proposing, that we pay them a fee to stop them from being a pain. Such Payments have a funny habit of growing larger over time.....


99.9% of us aren't killing anyone, well, not knowingly yet you choose to state that our predominant behaviour is the opposite? That's just plain old stupid logic.

Last year there were 17 countries with active conflicts where over 1,000 people were killed - there are 195 countries, me thinks your estimates are a little mis-informed (and that 17 countries is just the location, not including all combatants - if we include those, the number rises even higher)

Case in point - the UK army has been involved in Active conflicts almost nonstop in the 20th Century - but by all means, if it isn't predominant behaviour - can you point me to a society in history that never had these issues?


That's simply delusional.

Business owners employ people, The so-called 1%ers typically pay about 80% of a countries tax, they typically are the biggest donators and benefactors of Charities and the Arts (Guilty conscience and Tax right offs maybe?)

What has your Career Dole Blodger done for NZ society?


That's why I said lore.

Can you then Clarify what you are referring to?


Fundamentally I agree. Hence removing money, no robbing, just consent. Damned simple equation.

Well, thats a start - I don't think its robbery (despite the odd gripe) I choose to live in a society and enjoy the benefits of the first world, it is only fair that I pay the tax for the Luxury - that doesn't however mean I can't complain when the Tax is being misapropriated



I never stated such, you did. As such you disproved yourself... which I find highly amusing and I'm sure you will too when you read it back.

The premise was shite because life is not eternal and money does not maintain a constant value. Whatever premise you're dreaming up, step away from bing bong bing bong.

Yah kinda did:


Why are you trying to force them into jobs that would better suit someone actually looking for work in a marketplace where there isn't a job for everyone?

The implication here is that Forcing Beneficiaries to do community service (to earn their Dole) will force as you say "someone actually looking for work in a marketplace" out of a job - the Dichotomy here is that you are saying you can either have people who want to work in a particular job and people who don't want to work bludging, or you can force the bludgers to work (and do a substandard job) at the expense of those who want to work.

I am saying that because funding is already being allocated to the dole there is little financial overhead to force them to work - and it needn't be for employment that would ordinarily be done by people in Paid work - plenty of good causes rely on Volunteer work - I'd accept them doing that too.

The premise doesn't reference life or Money - only that we have a minimum standard that we accept from our Govt for the services they provide - and this minimum standard is a constant. If the service falls below the minimum, we complain/vote/lobby to fairgo until it is brought up to acceptable standards.

[Akzle]

It was supersweet.

no. It was shit. Objectively shit.

[TheDemonLord]

no. It was shit. Objectively shit.

My Blu Ray edition disagrees.

[Akzle]

The plot was a bit average - however the bit at the end where it tied the entire movie into it really being the imagination of a child playing with Lego - Brilliant, absolutely brilliant..

I even didn't hate Will Farrell in it (generally I am allergic to Will Farrell in any movies)

your shit at movies.

[TheDemonLord]

your shit at movies.

Give an example of a Good movie then - we shall see.

[Akzle]

Give an example of a Good movie then - we shall see.

your a few questions behind. Chump.

[scumdog]

your shit at movies.

Why is his shit at the movies???:confused::confused:

[mashman]

no. It was shit. Objectively shit.

Awesome. No backsies. Objectibwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa

[bogan]

No, its a motivation phenomenon.
I don't know any motivated people that are unemployed.

Fucking aye.

[scumdog]

No, its a motivation phenomenon.
I don't know any motivated people that are unemployed.


Yep, a lot of those that can but don't work that I've met seem to have no 'fire in their bellies' - no ambition to get anywhere/do anything/have anything beyond what their lot in life is at present....sadly.

'Groundhog Day' every day for a lot of them.

[Akzle]

Awesome. No backsies. Objectibwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa

awesome.......ly shitty

https://awesomelyshitty.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/the-lego-movie/


(that just happened to work so well when i generic internet searched it)

[Indiana_Jones]

http://www.grantwyeth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2599774-jerbs.jpg

[Akzle]

two more that were too hilarious not to forward

"woeful, forgettable and one of the
great film disappointments of this decade."
http://dialmformovies.net/2014/04/05/the-lego-movie-is-terrible-review/

" If your kids want to watch this,
make them watch it alone. If they ask why, tell them
because you don’t watch ignorant shit "
http://annoyedcritic.com/2014/05/01/the-lego-movie-pissed-me-off-it-sucked-so-bad/

[TheDemonLord]

two more that were too hilarious not to forward

"woeful, forgettable and one of the
great film disappointments of this decade."
http://dialmformovies.net/2014/04/05/the-lego-movie-is-terrible-review/

" If your kids want to watch this,
make them watch it alone. If they ask why, tell them
because you don’t watch ignorant shit "
http://annoyedcritic.com/2014/05/01/the-lego-movie-pissed-me-off-it-sucked-so-bad/

I shall retort with:

I enjoyed it thoroughly, therefore it was good.

[mashman]

So tell me this - how well did Protection Rackets work in the Mob Era? Because that is exactly what you are proposing, that we pay them a fee to stop them from being a pain. Such Payments have a funny habit of growing larger over time.....

Worked very well... and still works to this day. So you don't think the net economic benefit would be worth it? 100k to keep a guy in prison v's 5,200 to keep a guy put of prison. Money well spent I'd say... and I'm sorry, but inflation is a bitch as everything goes up. Credit where credit's due like ;).



Last year there were 17 countries with active conflicts where over 1,000 people were killed - there are 195 countries, me thinks your estimates are a little mis-informed (and that 17 countries is just the location, not including all combatants - if we include those, the number rises even higher)

Case in point - the UK army has been involved in Active conflicts almost nonstop in the 20th Century - but by all means, if it isn't predominant behaviour - can you point me to a society in history that never had these issues?

... how many of these people are being paid to fight? and what's the ratio of fighters as a percentage of the global population?

The army is a tiny percentage of the population.



Business owners employ people, The so-called 1%ers typically pay about 80% of a countries tax, they typically are the biggest donators and benefactors of Charities and the Arts (Guilty conscience and Tax right offs maybe?)

What has your Career Dole Blodger done for NZ society?

And are entitled to what more than "their" employees? You. An entitlement complex. I'd have never picked it.

They offset the inflationary effects of the 1%ers.



Can you then Clarify what you are referring to?

I'll pass on that one.



Well, thats a start - I don't think its robbery (despite the odd gripe) I choose to live in a society and enjoy the benefits of the first world, it is only fair that I pay the tax for the Luxury - that doesn't however mean I can't complain when the Tax is being misapropriated

Hang on. Earlier you said Stealing was Stealing, yet since, you have caveated yourself into a position where it's ok for some, but not for others over numerous posts. It's a sad day when common sense seems to die in one so young... and likely with so much to live for.



Yah kinda did:

The implication here is that Forcing Beneficiaries to do community service (to earn their Dole) will force as you say "someone actually looking for work in a marketplace" out of a job - the Dichotomy here is that you are saying you can either have people who want to work in a particular job and people who don't want to work bludging, or you can force the bludgers to work (and do a substandard job) at the expense of those who want to work.

I am saying that because funding is already being allocated to the dole there is little financial overhead to force them to work - and it needn't be for employment that would ordinarily be done by people in Paid work - plenty of good causes rely on Volunteer work - I'd accept them doing that too.

The premise doesn't reference life or Money - only that we have a minimum standard that we accept from our Govt for the services they provide - and this minimum standard is a constant. If the service falls below the minimum, we complain/vote/lobby to fairgo until it is brought up to acceptable standards.

Actually... I can't be arsed from here. Have fun fighting with yourself and what you think I mean.

[mashman]

awesome.......ly shitty

https://awesomelyshitty.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/the-lego-movie/


(that just happened to work so well when i generic internet searched it)

I said no backsies... may be ya shoulda searchded that first.

[bogan]

Worked very well... and still works to this day. So you don't think the net economic benefit would be worth it? 100k to keep a guy in prison v's 5,200 to keep a guy put of prison.

That'd be 100k to keep a guy in prison and keep another 100 out of prison; double whammy like. Not that you should be so quick to judge, your system relies on the gulag to hold dissenters anyway.

[TheDemonLord]

Worked very well... and still works to this day. So you don't think the net economic benefit would be worth it? 100k to keep a guy in prison v's 5,200 to keep a guy put of prison. Money well spent I'd say... and I'm sorry, but inflation is a bitch as everything goes up. Credit where credit's due like ;).

You forget - it may cost 100K to keep someone in prison and it may cost $5,200 to keep them out of prison, but a .22 rimfire round and a .22 rifle and a Cremation can cost around $2.5k - and best of all, its a one off cost.


... how many of these people are being paid to fight? and what's the ratio of fighters as a percentage of the global population?

The army is a tiny percentage of the population.

Considering most of the conflicts are civil wars, by rival warlords/rebel factions - very few are being paid to fight

Interesting video referencing the subject of Genetic Hardwiring:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M


And are entitled to what more than "their" employees? You. An entitlement complex. I'd have never picked it.

They took the risk, so theirs is also the reward (or theirs and their Investors, not the workers)


Hang on. Earlier you said Stealing was Stealing, yet since, you have caveated yourself into a position where it's ok for some, but not for others over numerous posts. It's a sad day when common sense seems to die in one so young... and likely with so much to live for.

Stealing IS Stealing - however consider this - if a top Cancer researcher had to do a Bank job to get the funding to continue research, Research that ultimately cures all Cancers.

Was Stealing wrong? According the letter of the Law - absolutely, but was it ok for that Researcher? I pose to you that sometimes the net benefit to society is enough for society to turn a blind eye - who decides whether the net benefit is sufficient - thats a much more complex question. Some will take the absolute high road that it was wrong, or argue on the principle of the matter,

Me - I'd say that the net benefit to society outweighs any cost of the theft


Actually... I can't be arsed from here. Have fun fighting with yourself and what you think I mean.

Well, its one way of getting Intelligent discussion around here :msn-wink:

[mashman]

That'd be 100k to keep a guy in prison and keep another 100 out of prison; double whammy like. Not that you should be so quick to judge, your system relies on the gulag to hold dissenters anyway.

"My" system has nothing to do with Hungarian food.

[bogan]

"My" system has nothing to do with Hungarian food.

We know, lack of choice/freedom is common to communistic dictatorships (and those by any other name).

[mashman]

You forget - it may cost 100K to keep someone in prison and it may cost $5,200 to keep them out of prison, but a .22 rimfire round and a .22 rifle and a Cremation can cost around $2.5k - and best of all, its a one off cost.

Great idea. Shoot a few billionaires and we might be able to get some money flowing through the economy. Even at that I can't bring myself to condemn someone to death for just being rich.



Considering most of the conflicts are civil wars, by rival warlords/rebel factions - very few are being paid to fight

Interesting video referencing the subject of Genetic Hardwiring:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M


Sorry, you still haven't backed up your assertion that more than 0.1% of the global population are fighting... and yet you want seem to be pointing me the way of a movie that says that we do because it's genetic?



They took the risk, so theirs is also the reward (or theirs and their Investors, not the workers)

:killingme. You're a caveman.



Stealing IS Stealing - however consider this - if a top Cancer researcher had to do a Bank job to get the funding to continue research, Research that ultimately cures all Cancers.

Was Stealing wrong? According the letter of the Law - absolutely, but was it ok for that Researcher? I pose to you that sometimes the net benefit to society is enough for society to turn a blind eye - who decides whether the net benefit is sufficient - thats a much more complex question. Some will take the absolute high road that it was wrong, or argue on the principle of the matter,

Me - I'd say that the net benefit to society outweighs any cost of the theft

I can see it now: "You're going to jail researcher.". "But my Research can change the world". "Ok then, you can go". Do you have any worse examples?



Well, its one way of getting Intelligent discussion around here :msn-wink:

I see your problem.

[TheDemonLord]

Great idea. Shoot a few billionaires and we might be able to get some money flowing through the economy. Even at that I can't bring myself to condemn someone to death for just being rich.

Maybe there are a few billionaires who could warrant a Bullet, only after all the Dole Bludgers who refuse to work to earn their Dole have been dealt with


Sorry, you still haven't backed up your assertion that more than 0.1% of the global population are fighting... and yet you want seem to be pointing me the way of a movie that says that we do because it's genetic?

I have no more backed up my Assertion than you have backed up yours - however a quick look at the violent crime stats for a selection of countries and then extrapolating those out - yeah, I would say it is much bigger than 0.1 % - as some quick maths for NZ (with our relatively low crime rates when compared to say SA) - it works out to about 4.5% - but that is only for recorded crime (so not including all the supposed unreported crime - which for some violent crimes is estimated as high as 50%)

You got a civilization in history that didn't display these behaviours as proof yet?


:killingme. You're a caveman.

If I risk my house and my livelyhood to start a business and through my leadership the business is succesful, why shouldn't I reap the rewards? Did my Employees mortgage their house to fund the business? Did they take any personal or financial risk to startup the Business?


I can see it now: "You're going to jail researcher.". "But my Research can change the world". "Ok then, you can go". Do you have any worse examples?

Salus populi suprema lex esto
quod est necessarium est licitum


I see your problem.

Perspective is a funny old thing

[Akzle]

I shall retort with:

I enjoyed it thoroughly, therefore it was good.

wouuldnt be the first time your wrong

[TheDemonLord]

wouuldnt be the first time your wrong

Well, tonight I will go home and enjoy the Lego Movie, since I enjoy it - I am right when I say it is good.

And therefore you would be wrong to say I am wrong.

[jasonu]

It was supersweet.

Poofter....

[Akzle]

Well, tonight I will go home and enjoy the Lego Movie, since I enjoy it - I am right when I say it is good.

And therefore you would be wrong to say I am wrong.

except you saying it's good is a subjective opinion.
It's objectively crap.

[TheDemonLord]

except you saying it's good is a subjective opinion.
It's objectively crap.

Depends on the criteria you use for determining objectivity:

It's light comedy with a dash of social commentary, in the format of the Monomyth (probably the most well established and succesful format of all time) and ties in the experience of playing with Lego and the imaginative scenario that one creates as a child with the film (the bit I find most clever and enjoyable) Sprinkled with a little bit of the Toy Story idea of Toys moving by themselves when we aren't looking.

And yes - plenty of Marketing opportunities thrown in too - but its a film about a Company/product so that is to be expected....

[R650R]

Modern Welfarism is a control tool of the govt and Elite to mould society to its liking. And while were talking welfare lets not forget the handouts for the working via working for families. You know where you pay less tax than the single person next to you doing the same job just because there was nothing good on tv last winter... And its such a good handout that one guy I was working with didn't want a payrise or to do too much overtime as he would end up earning less. I wonder how many people have declined their WFF welfare handouts?????? prob zero....
Yes its good that you are raising the next generation but its classic example of how people who prob often don't NEED that money get it and allow that to influence their voting choice etc....

The job I have now, about 73 people applied for it, guess they were not as 'motivated' as me???????

There is a finite amount of decent paid jobs out there. Having an artificially smaller pool of available labour helps keep those jobs decently paid. You know what happens when people have no choice but to work at whatever job is available???? Go have a look at china or mexico. Modern welfare has effectively become the modern day union, its stopping the low skilled labour from working for below minimum wage or liveable levels.
From the days of the depression we know what happens when many people cant find work to feed their families, they will steal to survive.
I see modern welfare as like anti theft and robbery insurance for society. If we pay some unmotivated person $200 a week to do nothing, that's a lot cheaper than the insurance bill for break ins or the cost of police and justice dept chasing them for thieving.
I'm not saying all unemployed people steal or are dishonest but if you push people too far they will break and do stuff like that. Just look at the surge in shoplifting and petrol driveoffs in recent years as cost of living has gone up.
Now just imagine all the unemployed people suddenly having no money, only 'motivation'......

Really the problem starts with our education system and then our massive restrictions on free enterprise by local and central govt on people who could possible do their own thing business wise.
And then we all vote for politicians and parties who continue this system, so we are all complicit as much as the 'unmotivated' who accept a benefit.

[mashman]

except you saying it's good is a subjective opinion.
It's objectively crap.

Who subjective view are we taking as being objectivity today?

[mashman]

Poofter....

Tasteless tart.

[mashman]

We know, lack of choice/freedom is common to communistic dictatorships (and those by any other name).

Can't wait for this current attempt at communism to be over.

[mashman]

Maybe there are a few billionaires who could warrant a Bullet, only after all the Dole Bludgers who refuse to work to earn their Dole have been dealt with

Yeah, but what if billionaire you shoot was going to go on and fund the cure for cancer that would have been found by a returning student that was once a long term doley.



I have no more backed up my Assertion than you have backed up yours - however a quick look at the violent crime stats for a selection of countries and then extrapolating those out - yeah, I would say it is much bigger than 0.1 % - as some quick maths for NZ (with our relatively low crime rates when compared to say SA) - it works out to about 4.5% - but that is only for recorded crime (so not including all the supposed unreported crime - which for some violent crimes is estimated as high as 50%)

You got a civilization in history that didn't display these behaviours as proof yet?

Oh I see, now you're moving on to violent crime (http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2002/international-comparisons-of-recorded-violent-crime-rates-for-2000/new-zealand-compared-to-usa-violent-crime). I must be doing something wrong as I can't get even 1% from the violent crime stats of the u.s. A far cry from the 50% your socially approved shit tinted specs seem to be offering. Also, of that 1%, are they violent more than 99.9% of their day?



If I risk my house and my livelyhood to start a business and through my leadership the business is succesful, why shouldn't I reap the rewards? Did my Employees mortgage their house to fund the business? Did they take any personal or financial risk to startup the Business?

Sounds like the sort of entitlement complex that ruins lives.



quod est necessarium est licitum

Indeed.



Perspective is a funny old thing

Only when you post.

[Akzle]

Who subjective view are we taking as being objectivity today?

noones. Objectivity requires no subjecties.

It had enormous potential, and a half dozen gags that were so close to being funny. but it was so poorly executed that i now shit myself while trying to scrub it from my brain with various types of battery acid, a holesaw and a salad fork.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah, but what if billionaire you shoot was going to go on and fund the cure for cancer that would have been found by a returning student that was once a long term doley.

Can you name a Nobel prize winner in Science who was a long term Doley (as discovery of a Cure for Cancer would surely be nobel prize winning, it is a reasonable comparison) - I had a quick look - the closest I could find was Michael Faraday - but he was simply born into a poor family, not on the Dole (not that social welfare existed in Faradays time), and not actually a Nobel prize winner (although find me a physicist who would argue he wasn't deserving of one....)


Oh I see, now you're moving on to violent crime (http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2002/international-comparisons-of-recorded-violent-crime-rates-for-2000/new-zealand-compared-to-usa-violent-crime). I must be doing something wrong as I can't get even 1% from the violent crime stats of the u.s. A far cry from the 50% your socially approved shit tinted specs seem to be offering. Also, of that 1%, are they violent more than 99.9% of their day?

Violent crime is a good approximation for Violence - I see you haven't cited an example of a society where people don't exhibit these behaviors, so by proxy confirming that they are widespread enough to be considered nearly universal... I did note that it was quick maths - I pulled the data from here: http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7411 Tallied up the totals, and divided by 5 Million (lazy approximation of the NZ population) - However I will concede that re-looking at it, the biggest section (under Theft and related) doesn't differentiate between Theft involving Violence, and those that don't. - However I did predicate it with the caveat that it was quick maths, even without Theft however -it still is around 2% - which is means that your original claim of 99.9% is out by a factor of at least 20....

You will also note when I raised the 50% I did use the word 'supposed', which to the astute would confirm that I treat such a number with suspicion (because invariably it is as you say Socially approved shit tinting based on hear say)


Sounds like the sort of entitlement complex that ruins lives.

Can you provide a reason why someone who has taken a risk shouldn't be rewarded for it and conversely why someone who hasn't taken a risk be rewarded to the same degree as someone who has? Surely if that was the case the motivation for taking the risk in the first place (the reward) would mean that no one would take risks and society would stagnate.

Edit - Which funnily enough has been the downfall of nearly every Communist society... Funny that Human Nature and all....


Indeed.

I had a suspicion you would like that quote more than the other one - if only we had Lawyers that would remember that....


Only when you post.

Are you self aware enough to concede the irony of that retort?

[TheDemonLord]

Who subjective view are we taking as being objectivity today?

The real question is whose subjective view should we be taking as objective.

The answer comes in 2 parts:

1: Not Akzle's
2: Clearly Demon's

:bleh::bleh::bleh::bleh::bleh::bleh::bleh:

[mashman]

Can you name a Nobel prize winner in Science who was a long term Doley (as discovery of a Cure for Cancer would surely be nobel prize winning, it is a reasonable comparison) - I had a quick look - the closest I could find was Michael Faraday - but he was simply born into a poor family, not on the Dole (not that social welfare existed in Faradays time), and not actually a Nobel prize winner (although find me a physicist who would argue he wasn't deserving of one....)

So you write people off that haven't done anything yet, because you believe that they'll never do anything?



Violent crime is a good approximation for Violence - I see you haven't cited an example of a society where people don't exhibit these behaviors, so by proxy confirming that they are widespread enough to be considered nearly universal... I did note that it was quick maths - I pulled the data from here: http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7411 Tallied up the totals, and divided by 5 Million (lazy approximation of the NZ population) - However I will concede that re-looking at it, the biggest section (under Theft and related) doesn't differentiate between Theft involving Violence, and those that don't. - However I did predicate it with the caveat that it was quick maths, even without Theft however -it still is around 2% - which is means that your original claim of 99.9% is out by a factor of at least 20....

You will also note when I raised the 50% I did use the word 'supposed', which to the astute would confirm that I treat such a number with suspicion (because invariably it is as you say Socially approved shit tinting based on hear say)

I don't exhibit these behaviours, neither do my neighbours. That does not mean that they don't want to kill me. That they don't, nor go on to kill anyone else, is a perfect example of everyday human behaviour. Remember, behaviour is situational... and to that end I won't rule out that my neighbour may never kill me as I know that they are capable of it. I'm surprised you feel the need to calculate such an obvious outcome... but as mentioned earlier, some people let their education do their thinking for them.

Big difference between 50% of people being violent and 0.1% being violent. Yet you still claim that decide that our predominant behaviour is violence?



Can you provide a reason why someone who has taken a risk shouldn't be rewarded for it and conversely why someone who hasn't taken a risk be rewarded to the same degree as someone who has? Surely if that was the case the motivation for taking the risk in the first place (the reward) would mean that no one would take risks and society would stagnate.

Edit - Which funnily enough has been the downfall of nearly every Communist society... Funny that Human Nature and all....

I did provide an example. You want rewarded because you have been told that you should be rewarded. I have also been told, repeatedly and always to my amusement, that I should be rewarded because of the effort I've put into some things, yet I don't require reward. Quite simply put, you have an entitlement complex and I don't. It's also a kind of control experiment given that we both have access to the same information. You choose entitlement, I choose to do the next thing for the sheer love of it.



I had a suspicion you would like that quote more than the other one - if only we had Lawyers that would remember that....

They're being paid not to. Remove the money and you'll see a drastic change in that behaviour :yes:.



Are you self aware enough to concede the irony of that retort?

Did you laugh at it?

[mashman]

noones. Objectivity requires no subjecties.

It had enormous potential, and a half dozen gags that were so close to being funny. but it was so poorly executed that i now shit myself while trying to scrub it from my brain with various types of battery acid, a holesaw and a salad fork.

Aha <_<

Superaha <_< Try this:

http://dgc.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pDGC1-10603697enh500.jpg

you've got a hinged noggin top aincha?

[TheDemonLord]

So you write people off that haven't done anything yet, because you believe that they'll never do anything?

Its more a case that the people who are going to do something big, are/where already doing something (Richard Branson, James Dyson, Peter Jones, David Starkey, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs etc.)


I don't exhibit these behaviours, neither do my neighbours. That does not mean that they don't want to kill me. That they don't, nor go on to kill anyone else, is a perfect example of everyday human behaviour. Remember, behaviour is situational... and to that end I won't rule out that my neighbour may never kill me as I know that they are capable of it. I'm surprised you feel the need to calculate such an obvious outcome... but as mentioned earlier, some people let their education do their thinking for them.

Big difference between 50% of people being violent and 0.1% being violent. Yet you still claim that decide that our predominant behaviour is violence?

I didn't say 50% of people, I said the unreported rates of come violent crimes is estimated as high as 50% (supposedly) - would you like a hat for your Strawman? What you have described between yourself and your neighbor is what we would expect in a highly social group, but to simply dismiss behaviour as not part of the human condition is silly.


I did provide an example. You want rewarded because you have been told that you should be rewarded. I have also been told, repeatedly and always to my amusement, that I should be rewarded because of the effort I've put into some things, yet I don't require reward. Quite simply put, you have an entitlement complex and I don't. It's also a kind of control experiment given that we both have access to the same information. You choose entitlement, I choose to do the next thing for the sheer love of it.

And We've been here before - you say entitlement, I say Risk/Reward - Does nature have a concept of Entitlement? It certainly has the concept of Risk/Reward (Evolution ring a bell?) and I say the history of Humanity is proof that it is no more a choice than it is programming in our DNA - we take risks because we are rewarded (both in physical terms and in chemical releases in the brain), it's also why Communism fails repeatedly.

But as I said here - you refuse to accept the overwhelming amount of both Historical and Scientific evidence attesting to some of the baser parts of the Human Psyche, simply on the grounds that you don't do it and neither does your neighbor, therefore it isn't right. We may have come a long way from our Cave dwelling predecessors - but one only has to look at what happens in PnG, or any of the African Civil wars to see how uncomfortably we are one step removed.


They're being paid not to. Remove the money and you'll see a drastic change in that behaviour :yes:.

And so Winning and the feeling of Vanquishing ones intellectual adversary count for nothing? if so - Why do people play Computer games (or argue on the internet)? Money may be part of it, but there are much deeper and much older evolutionary traits at work


Did you laugh at it?

I always laugh at what you post :lol::lol::lol:

(seriously - you walked right into that one)

[mashman]

Its more a case that the people who are going to do something big, are/where already doing something (Richard Branson, James Dyson, Peter Jones, David Starkey, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs etc.)

People do "big" things at different stages of their lives and as circumstances permit, is more where I'm coming from. If Billy boy had been busted for something, thus preventing him from holding Steve Jobs back, the world may well have been a much better place ;).



I didn't say 50% of people, I said the unreported rates of come violent crimes is estimated as high as 50% (supposedly) - would you like a hat for your Strawman? What you have described between yourself and your neighbor is what we would expect in a highly social group, but to simply dismiss behaviour as not part of the human condition is silly.

So you tainted your results and tell me I'm throwing in a Strawman? If no person is violent for 99.9% of their entire life, then, no wriggling by you, or any other expert for that matter, can state that our predominant behaviour is violence. What does everyone else do, that isn't fighting, during any war? Why, they are 99.9% peaceful for 99.9% of the time. As such, any literature stating that our predominant behaviour is violence should not be allowed to be published, the authors should be shot for, well, being thick, and the literature should be laughed out of print. I'd be interested to know how many would go to war if they weren't being paid to do so and had a well paid job back home?



And We've been here before - you say entitlement, I say Risk/Reward - Does nature have a concept of Entitlement? It certainly has the concept of Risk/Reward (Evolution ring a bell?) and I say the history of Humanity is proof that it is no more a choice than it is programming in our DNA - we take risks because we are rewarded (both in physical terms and in chemical releases in the brain), it's also why Communism fails repeatedly.

But as I said here - you refuse to accept the overwhelming amount of both Historical and Scientific evidence attesting to some of the baser parts of the Human Psyche, simply on the grounds that you don't do it and neither does your neighbor, therefore it isn't right. We may have come a long way from our Cave dwelling predecessors - but one only has to look at what happens in PnG, or any of the African Civil wars to see how uncomfortably we are one step removed.

I've proven it's entitlement. I've not just said it. Nature doesn't use money. All experiments null and void. Get over it. Next. I just gave you proof above. History has noted war, it did not mention what everyone did. Figure it out. Next.



And so Winning and the feeling of Vanquishing ones intellectual adversary count for nothing? if so - Why do people play Computer games (or argue on the internet)? Money may be part of it, but there are much deeper and much older evolutionary traits at work

Only if they wanted to win. blah blah blah, blah blah blah :killingme@another crack at establishing evolution as a driver for learned behaviour. It's smoke and mirrors.



I always laugh at what you post :lol::lol::lol:

(seriously - you walked right into that one)

In which case you have just answered your own question.

(yeah, really wasn't expecting anything like that).

[TheDemonLord]

People do "big" things at different stages of their lives and as circumstances permit, is more where I'm coming from. If Billy boy had been busted for something, thus preventing him from holding Steve Jobs back, the world may well have been a much better place ;).

My point here is that people who do big things are never idle on the dole - sure they may not achieve big success until later in life, but they were always trying/grafting, never sat on their arse expecting handouts from people.


So you tainted your results and tell me I'm throwing in a Strawman? If no person is violent for 99.9% of their entire life, then, no wriggling by you, or any other expert for that matter, can state that our predominant behaviour is violence. What does everyone else do, that isn't fighting, during any war? Why, they are 99.9% peaceful for 99.9% of the time. As such, any literature stating that our predominant behaviour is violence should not be allowed to be published, the authors should be shot for, well, being thick, and the literature should be laughed out of print. I'd be interested to know how many would go to war if they weren't being paid to do so and had a well paid job back home?

- makes argument against Humanities innate Violent tendancies.
- Suggests people who say humans are innately violent should be shot.

Q.E.D

As an aside - most combatants throughout history have not been paid - something about defending the lifestyle that you enjoy or the ones that you care about is worth more than money....


I've proven it's entitlement. I've not just said it. Nature doesn't use money. All experiments null and void. Get over it. Next. I just gave you proof above. History has noted war, it did not mention what everyone did. Figure it out. Next.

The only proving you have done is in your own mind - Nature doesn't use money, but it sure as shit does use reward (Right to feed first, Right to Mate with the Females, Increase Social Standing, the Right to lead the Pack) - so I ask again - Is there Risk and Reward in Nature? and if so why is it not entitlement in Nature? (the Alpha Male lion has the entitlement to feed first from the Kill, because he is the one that Risks his life in a fight to the death to defend his Pride)


Only if they wanted to win. blah blah blah, blah blah blah :killingme@another crack at establishing evolution as a driver for learned behaviour. It's smoke and mirrors.

Okay then - what about Smiling/frowning - even Blind Babies - who have never seen a smile or a frown, don't understand language to understand what a Smile or a Frown is - Frown when they are upset and Smile when they are happy.

What about Deaf Babies laughing and Babbling?

The desire to Win is probably one of the strongest of all Evolutionary traits - we even have phrases in the english language describing pointless competition for the sake only of winning (such as a Pissing contest)

Evolution is the driver for just about ALL behavior - but I have had this argument with you before - you simply refuse to believe the scientific and empirical evidence for this. The only conclusion I can find for this is that it would blow the house of cards that is your belief in a workable RBE to the ground, and so you hold onto an irrational belief, to protect your faith. It is from this point that the accusation of Zealotry is leveled.


In which case you have just answered your own question.

(yeah, really wasn't expecting anything like that).

Oh you can do better than that.

[mashman]

My point here is that people who do big things are never idle on the dole - sure they may not achieve big success until later in life, but they were always trying/grafting, never sat on their arse expecting handouts from people.

So fucking what? That isn't the only way it happens. It may be the predominant way, which is hardly surprising given the circumstances people find themselves in, but belittling people for not following that formulae is pretty pathetic.



- makes argument against Humanities innate Violent tendancies.
- Suggests people who say humans are innately violent should be shot.

Q.E.D

As an aside - most combatants throughout history have not been paid - something about defending the lifestyle that you enjoy or the ones that you care about is worth more than money....

- Violent tendencies are entirely environmental.
- You have a problem with me using your methodology? I didn't think you'd like it. :killingme

Q.E.D bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Aside: If that's true, it's likely because the unpaid are the ones defending themselves.



The only proving you have done is in your own mind - Nature doesn't use money, but it sure as shit does use reward (Right to feed first, Right to Mate with the Females, Increase Social Standing, the Right to lead the Pack) - so I ask again - Is there Risk and Reward in Nature? and if so why is it not entitlement in Nature? (the Alpha Male lion has the entitlement to feed first from the Kill, because he is the one that Risks his life in a fight to the death to defend his Pride)

Alpha male? Have you read what you're posting. I'm first to mate with my wife, I choose to feed first who I choose to feed, I have the right to mate with other females, I can increase my social standing, I have the right to lead any pack that chooses to follow. I'm not an Alpha Male. Are you going to stop being an moron and keep it to humans?



Okay then - what about Smiling/frowning - even Blind Babies - who have never seen a smile or a frown, don't understand language to understand what a Smile or a Frown is - Frown when they are upset and Smile when they are happy.

What about Deaf Babies laughing and Babbling?

The desire to Win is probably one of the strongest of all Evolutionary traits - we even have phrases in the english language describing pointless competition for the sake only of winning (such as a Pissing contest)

Evolution is the driver for just about ALL behavior - but I have had this argument with you before - you simply refuse to believe the scientific and empirical evidence for this. The only conclusion I can find for this is that it would blow the house of cards that is your belief in a workable RBE to the ground, and so you hold onto an irrational belief, to protect your faith. It is from this point that the accusation of Zealotry is leveled.

OMG, we are born with faces that show expression in reaction to stimuli? :killingme They don't all scream when you drop them.

The desire to win is learned behaviour. All language is learned. Next, please Lord Next.

Scientific evidence? bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... you've denied occam every step of the way in your defense of someone else's science. Zealotry by any other name, oh ironing. You have no evidence.

Thing is, my belief in R.B.E. working is underpinned by the fact that the entire population will have been educated as to what was trying to be achieved. Even if there were such a thing as human nature, and it existed in this very second, there's still a rationale thinking human being that goes along side that nature, and that rational human being is already figuring out that R.B.E. is the way to go.

As an aside: did you know that there's a Dark Agenda for Resource Based Economies that is supposed to have started in the 30's (ish) and is modern day Technocracy? Essentially they say it's slavery by science.



Oh you can do better than that.

Then truth never is good enough for you is it.

[sidecar bob]

Remove the money and you'll see a drastic change in that behaviour :yes:.



Did you laugh at it?

Remove the dole & yes, you will see a very drastic change in behaviour.

[RDJ]

Remove the dole & yes, you will see a very drastic change in behaviour.

This.

There is really quite a large percentage of the population who seem to believe that if you reward bad behaviour especially with cash, you don't get more of it.

Quite weird that they should continue to believe this, in defiance of common sense, easily observed human behaviour, and demonstrated outputs of the relevant policies.

But then again, it demonstrates the entire philosophical conviction of what passes for the Labour Party (and the Green Party) these days.

[mashman]

Remove the dole & yes, you will see a very drastic change in behaviour.

Ah yes. Revolution ;).

[RDJ]

Ah yes. Revolution ;).

Not inevitably. Some percentage of the indolent idle may decide to perforce work for a living, instead of having it handed to them by the efforts of the productive who produce a surplus. (For the cheap seats, this excludes those people who are simply unable to work due to genetics or illness, who are a group which everybody I know considers appropriate to assist).

[mashman]

Not inevitably. Some percentage of the indolent idle may decide to perforce work for a living, instead of having it handed to them by the efforts of the productive who produce a surplus. (For the cheap seats, this excludes those people who are simply unable to work due to genetics or illness, who are population which everybody I know considers appropriate to assist).

True, not inevitably.... that would require more than the unemployed :devil2:

[RDJ]

indeed, yes, it would require them to be faced with no other option. Because if they had any self-respect, and they were able to work, they wouldn't be relying to suck on the government (taxpayer) teat.

[BOGAR]

I'm not saying this might be right or wrong but what if we kept the system (as there can sometimes be a need for a short term assistance) but put a limit on it. Say 3, 4 or 5 years, over your lifetime. I.E. 156, 208 or 260 weeks. 5 Years seems like a reasonable time to let someone try and find work, up-skill, or do something to help themselves.

I'm currently studying now, as I was made redundant and would like to get a new job. I want to up-skill and I need the study allowance to help me while I study. As per the agreement for getting this I can only get 200 weeks over my lifetime and also once I turn 40 (which is not too far away) this is reduced to 100 weeks max. I currently still need to borrow some money to live and to pay for my course fees but I know with a good job I can afford to do this.
I feel this is quite fair, as it lets me study and become a better worker (so I will pay some/more tax) but I also know it's not something I will always get, so I need to make the best use of it.

The same could happen with the welfare system. My understanding was that it was to help people. If here are exceptional reasons you need to live on it, then a case by case basis should be used. Though I could see this getting abused also as some people know how to work the system better than the people running it.
It's just a thought and I know one that some people will disagree with. There is no perfect system but there are some better than others.

[bogan]

The real question is whose subjective view should we be taking as objective.

The answer comes in 2 parts:

1: Not Akzle's
2: Clearly Demon's

:bleh::bleh::bleh::bleh::bleh::bleh::bleh:

I concur, objectively, twice.

[mashman]

indeed, yes, it would require them to be faced with no other option. Because if they had any self-respect, and they were able to work, they wouldn't be relying to suck on the government (taxpayer) teat.

I'd be with them too ya fascist. Anyways, they help keep your money worth what it is worth. Without them you run the very real risk of hyperinflation and economic collapse.

[bogan]

I'd be with them too ya fascist. Anyways, they help keep your money worth what it is worth. Without them you run the very real risk of hyperinflation and economic collapse.

So what you are saying, is getting off your lazy arse and doing some work might be a way to cause the economic collapse you so crave? I shall support you in such an endevour with these encouraging words 'go get em tiger'

[mashman]

So what you are saying, is getting off your lazy arse and doing some work might be a way to cause the economic collapse you so crave? I shall support you in such an endevour with these encouraging words 'go get em tiger'

The idea behind a country going to Resource Based Economy without first having mentioned it and straightened out how things were going to work so that financial collapse did not occur, with the trading partners of NZ is one of the core fundamentals of NOW. I don't want economic collapse, else I'd be rooting for revolution.

Oh and, leave the lazy arses where they are. They are inevitable.

[bogan]

The idea behind a country going to Resource Based Economy without first having mentioned it and straightened out how things were going to work so that financial collapse did not occur, with the trading partners of NZ is one of the core fundamentals of NOW. I don't want economic collapse, else I'd be rooting for revolution.

Oh and, leave the lazy arses where they are. They are inevitable.

Which is a shit idea, cos all you are doing is bringing forward economic collapse, but just taking the 'financial' bit out of it. I realise you honestly beleive it won't fuck itself up; but I also can tell that's just a self delusion; any cursory discussion and shared understanding with you brings that point to the surface very quick.

Case in point.

[mashman]

Which is a shit idea, cos all you are doing is bringing forward economic collapse, but just taking the 'financial' bit out of it. I realise you honestly beleive it won't fuck itself up; but I also can tell that's just a self delusion; any cursory discussion and shared understanding with you brings that point to the surface very quick.

Case in point.

There is no shared understanding, because you have no belief/trust in your fellow NZ'ers. You do have belief/trust in money though. We'll see.

[bogan]

There is no shared understanding, because you have no belief/trust in your fellow NZ'ers. You do have belief/trust in money though. We'll see.

Shared understanding does not equate to a shared conclusion. It just means I know what your scheme entails, and I find it severely lacking; so much so that I've been able to change it just by asking loaded questions :laugh:

[scumdog]

Shared understanding does not equate to a shared conclusion. It just means I know what your scheme entails, and I find it severely lacking; so much so that I've been able to change it just by asking loaded questions :laugh:


Yep, something I too was aware of some time ago!:yes:

[mashman]

Shared understanding does not equate to a shared conclusion. It just means I know what your scheme entails, and I find it severely lacking; so much so that I've been able to change it just by asking loaded questions :laugh:

I never said it did. Yet have repeatedly proven that you don't know what it entails (see previous sentence). You may think of it as you like. It makes no odds to me, coz you're doing your own thinking, not me.... thank fuck :D

[mashman]

Yep, something I too was aware of some time ago!:yes:

How's your belief/trust in NZ these days officer? ;)

[bogan]

I never said it did. Yet have repeatedly proven that you don't know what it entails (see previous sentence). You may think of it as you like. It makes no odds to me, coz you're doing your own thinking, not me.... thank fuck :D

:killingme: back to that old cop out eh mashy, so predictable. You know what else is predicatble, the repeated failure of these NOW and Money Free Parties, let me know when one actually gets on the ballot; I mean for fucks sake, I just got a ballot with all manner of shit options, if you can't even get ahead of those :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[FJRider]

... It makes no odds to me, coz you're doing your own thinking, not me.... thank fuck :D

Who does YOUR thinking for you .. ??? :shifty:

[mashman]

:killingme: back to that old cop out eh mashy, so predictable. You know what else is predicatble, the repeated failure of these NOW and Money Free Parties, let me know when one actually gets on the ballot; I mean for fucks sake, I just got a ballot with all manner of shit options, if you can't even get ahead of those :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Will do.


Who does YOUR thinking for you .. ??? :shifty:

My missus.

[TheDemonLord]

So fucking what? That isn't the only way it happens. It may be the predominant way, which is hardly surprising given the circumstances people find themselves in, but belittling people for not following that formulae is pretty pathetic.

Not the only way - but it is the most common and more importantly, the most effective way - I see you haven't disproved that....


- Violent tendencies are entirely environmental.

Then why are they universal amongst all human cultures regardless of Environment?


- You have a problem with me using your methodology? I didn't think you'd like it. :killingme

Absolutely not - it proved my point entirely.


Aside: If that's true, it's likely because the unpaid are the ones defending themselves.

True - if you ask both sides in any war, Both will say they are defending themselves.


Alpha male? Have you read what you're posting. I'm first to mate with my wife, I choose to feed first who I choose to feed, I have the right to mate with other females, I can increase my social standing, I have the right to lead any pack that chooses to follow. I'm not an Alpha Male. Are you going to stop being an moron and keep it to humans?

The point, you missed it entirely. Let me spell it out - in Nature there is the concept of Risk and Reward, this is demonstrable by watching the interaction of any social Mammal (of which Humans are a part of) - you are saying that this is entitlement - so I ask again - is the Male Lion suffering from Entitlement?


OMG, we are born with faces that show expression in reaction to stimuli? :killingme They don't all scream when you drop them.

You are so close, its not the fact they show A reaction to Stimuli, it is the fact that they all show a UNIVERSAL reaction to specific Stimuli - even the ones that cannot copy or imitate the reaction they are supposed to show. Therefore Smiling is not a Learned behavior but something that is an evolutionary characteristic. This means that there are facets of Human behavior and interaction that are purely evolutionary (the point you are so desperately trying to refute)


The desire to win is learned behaviour. All language is learned. Next, please Lord Next.

Then why is the Desire to win universal to all humans? Afterall - you are still arguing with me - in a desire to Win, even though winning results in little to no benefit to you - except for that wonderful Evolutionary Reward for it.


Scientific evidence? bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... you've denied occam every step of the way in your defense of someone else's science. Zealotry by any other name, oh ironing. You have no evidence.

Anthropological evidence based on work done with Mammals (that part about the Prairie voles and how their mating behavior was determined by where the receptors were located in their brains
History (that thing you always love to ignore)
Social experiments (including experiments about Humans and heirachy - the Milgram experiment)
Universal societal attributes/rituals/facets/rites observed between human cultures that have had no prior contact

All you have is Faith and Belief.

Oh and on that note - all the things you point to as being 'evidence' that humans are good natured is ironically the learned behavior of Society: social consequences for behavior deemed unacceptable by society, use of means other than Violence to solve problems - All Learned behavior. There is a simply experiment you can do to prove this:

Ask any Parent- did they have to teach their child to hit/be violent towards other children or did they have to teach their child not to hit/be violent towards other children.

Let me know your results - I'll bet that no parent ever taught their child to hit another child or be Violent towards another child - but all parents have had to discipline their children for hitting/being violent towards another child.


Thing is, my belief in R.B.E. working is underpinned by the fact that the entire population will have been Indoctrinated as to what was trying to be achieved. Even if there were such a thing as human nature, and it existed in this very second, there's still a rationale thinking human being that goes along side that nature, and that rational human being is already figuring out that R.B.E. is the way to go.

There - I've fixed it for you - and that worked reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal well in Russia, North Korea, etc.


As an aside: did you know that there's a Dark Agenda for Resource Based Economies that is supposed to have started in the 30's (ish) and is modern day Technocracy? Essentially they say it's slavery by science.

Supposed aye? it makes the below retort even more sweeter:


Then truth never is good enough for you is it.

When you got proof that what you are peddling is true, then it will be good enough for me - but as above, all you have is 'Supposed' and a Denial of various facets of Evolutionary Biology.

[Akzle]

Then why is the Desire to win universal to all humans? Afterall - you are still arguing with me - in a desire to Win, even though winning results in little to no benefit to you - except for that wonderful Evolutionary Reward for it.

i gave up "arguing"* with you.

What do i win?



*i say tomato, you say we need a shared definition of mongolian alpine flora.

Do you often find yourself writing things on the wall in your own shit?

[scumdog]

How's your belief/trust in NZ these days officer? ;)

Fuckin' great - if I can go from unemployed (through redundancy) to where I am now there's hope for others in a similar situation.

Unless they're lazy-arse criminal types that have big biceps from holding their hands out that just want to leech off others and have no ambition...

[TheDemonLord]

i gave up "arguing"* with you.

What do i win?

*i say tomato, you say we need a shared definition of mongolian alpine flora.

Do you often find yourself writing things on the wall in your own shit?

You win a joint*







*so long as you pay for it, roll it and light it yourself.

I prefer to write on other people's walls in my Shit - my Shit is rather smelly atm.

[Akzle]

I prefer to write on other people's walls in my Shit - my Shit is rather smelly atm.

you're full of enough to go 'round

[TheDemonLord]

you're full of enough to go 'round

Not really, I just had a good solid bowel movement.

[Madness]

I just had a good solid bowel movement.

So did your mother.

[mashman]

All you have is Faith and Belief.

Fortunately mashman had grabbed his monkey shit proof jacket as he stepped onto the internet that evening. It was chucking it down.

Shamubeel Eaqub, NZ Economist, said something along the lines of "Money runs on nothing more than confidence. It's economics 101.".

All of your argumentz iz moot!

[mashman]

Fuckin' great - if I can go from unemployed (through redundancy) to where I am now there's hope for others in a similar situation.

Unless they're lazy-arse criminal types that have big biceps from holding their hands out that just want to leech off others and have no ambition...

Too true. I went even further than you did.

Awwwwwww bless. Bet you're butch yourself ;).