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

[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.

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? 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 .



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

[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

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