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

[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 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???

[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.