Bernie Sanders and the establishment DNC

[Up In Smoke]

Corporate welfare or social welfare, which is the biggest strain on the economy. I wish a free market economy was just that free. UPS received $ 990 million in tax relief in 2019 but they continue to underwhelm.

 

[BrownFlush]

The party is damaged goods no matter what they do with Bernie.
The implode is happening before our eyes.

 

[watdaflock?]

I wonder if any reporter had ever caught Bernie discussing grabbing women by the puss'...?

 

[watdaflock?]

Corporate welfare or social welfare, which is the biggest strain on the economy. I wish a free market economy was just that free. UPS received $ 990 million in tax relief in 2019 but they continue to underwhelm.

I'm sure the union has nothing to do with that.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

its called rights. we have parks, military, library, 2 to 3 weeks guaranteed vacation, maternity leave, etc by law. actually earned through labour struggles.

Rights are something you have, they are not earned. Military and police protection of those rights are earned through tax payments. If you don't work and don't pay taxes, you are not earning police and military protection, they are a gift, or you are leech on the system, being supported by everyone around you. Someone pays for those things, they are not free, you haven't earned them just by being born.

I said this in a response to @Whither, all types of societies are obligative to one degree or another. It's the social contract theory. A contract exists not only between the government and the governed (the constitution), but a theoretical one exists between/among the people to each other. If you are not doing something to earn what you have, someone else is. You are obligated to participate in a helpful and meaningful way within the society to share in the benefits of being part of that society.

Philosophical communism suggests that people will just do so out of the kindness of their hearts. That's the promised utopia waved around by party communists to get people on board. If it ever comes to fruition, it almost immediately breaks down once real human nature kicks in. People believe they are entitled to whatever is promised regardless of how much they work to earn it. Some stop working, then whole industries. Then the government, who owns the industries due to socialism, forces the people back to work in labor camps. Dissidents are sent to the labor camps, political rivals are executed or sent to the labor camps. The promise is that once they purge the undeserving, and they have the right leadership, the utopia will be realized.

Libertarianism, or classical liberalism if you prefer, takes real human nature into consideration, and realizes that people need an incentive to participate meaningfully in society. Market economies are so efficient, and generate enough wealth, that they can tolerate and subsidize quite a large number of social programs. But those programs aren't free, they were earned by someone. Generally lots of someones. So, go do your part to earn what you get, and if you want more, work harder or smarter.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I wonder if any reporter had ever caught Bernie discussing grabbing women by the puss'...?

You know he is on record talking about women fantasizing about being raped right?

BSanders hasn't even seen the tip of the iceberg with the opposition research that's out there on him.

 

[Up In Smoke]

I'm sure the union has nothing to do with that.

One advantage to having a unionized work force is the negotiated fixed costs. The 5 and 6 year contracts negotiated after the strike of 1997 were company proposals that would give them a clearer financial path. Obviously competition and economic factors will affect the profitability of every company but labor cost remain a constant. Just like SPOHR and a thousand other cost/production matrices, cost of labor per pkg is helped by negotiated fixed costs.

 

[brownmonster]

[

Rights are something you have, they are not earned. Military and police protection of those rights are earned through tax payments. If you don't work and don't pay taxes, you are not earning police and military protection, they are a gift, or you are leech on the system, being supported by everyone around you. Someone pays for those things, they are not free, you haven't earned them just by being born.

I said this in a response to @Whither, all types of societies are obligative to one degree or another. It's the social contract theory. A contract exists not only between the government and the governed (the constitution), but a theoretical one exists between/among the people to each other. If you are not doing something to earn what you have, someone else is. You are obligated to participate in a helpful and meaningful way within the society to share in the benefits of being part of that society.

Philosophical communism suggests that people will just do so out of the kindness of their hearts. That's the promised utopia waved around by party communists to get people on board. If it ever comes to fruition, it almost immediately breaks down once real human nature kicks in. People believe they are entitled to whatever is promised regardless of how much they work to earn it. Some stop working, then whole industries. Then the government, who owns the industries due to socialism, forces the people back to work in labor camps. Dissidents are sent to the labor camps, political rivals are executed or sent to the labor camps. The promise is that once they purge the undeserving, and they have the right leadership, the utopia will be realized.

Libertarianism, or classical liberalism if you prefer, takes real human nature into consideration, and realizes that people need an incentive to participate meaningfully in society. Market economies are so efficient, and generate enough wealth, that they can tolerate and subsidize quite a large number of social programs. But those programs aren't free, they were earned by someone. Generally lots of someones. So, go do your part to earn what you get, and if you want more, work harder or smarter.

Do you consider a guy making 40k a year with a wife and 2 kids a freeloader because he pays no federal income tax?

 

[Up In Smoke]

Do you consider the 90 year old couple in assisted living care whose SS and medicare doesn't cover 1/5 of their monthly costs free loaders.

 

[Jones]

Folks who go about pontificating about "leeches" and "takers" are just about the biggest tools around.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

[

Do you consider a guy making 40k a year with a wife and 2 kids a freeloader because he pays no federal income tax?

Nope. He works for someone, and helps them generate a profit. That profit is taxed. But it's not simply a matter of paying taxes. Sure, that is how we pay for things like the military. But, more broadly, it is about everyone participating in a meaningful, productive way.

Do you consider the 90 year old couple in assisted living care whose SS and medicare doesn't cover 1/5 of their monthly costs free loaders.

Nope, unless they've been freeloaders all their lives, both have probably spent quite a bit of time and effort participating in society. It would have been nicer for everyone else if they had planned better for their future, but no one's perfect.

Folks who go about pontificating about "leeches" and "takers" are just about the biggest tools around.

That was just the tiniest portion of what I wrote. What do you have to say about people who focus in on one tiny aspect of something someone writes, and use that as a justification to declare the person a tool? I consider leeches to be people who can participate but both choose not to and enjoy the benefits as though they were.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

It's amazing that they all three only objected or questioned the issue of "leeches", which I only briefly mentioned. They must not have any objections to the rest of what I wrote.

Leeches exist, for some it's the only way they know how to live. But everyone has the potential to be a leech, and will become one under the right circumstances. That fact is why socialism and communism won't ever work. Free market economies provide the incentive necessary for most people to contribute, and not be leeches, and they are effective enough that a society can take care of those who can't contribute, and even some who can but don't.

The moral hazard of social programs is that they incentivize leeching, and politicians are motivated to continue to offer more social programs to secure more votes. A safety net only works when more people are holding it up than are in it. But as the burden becomes heavier, more and more people jump in until there is no safety net for anyone.

How's that for pontificating? Really, this stuff is so basic, it's pretty sad that I even need to explain it, let alone defend it.

 

[newfie]

Corporate welfare or social welfare, which is the biggest strain on the economy. I wish a free market economy was just that free. UPS received $ 990 million in tax relief in 2019 but they continue to underwhelm.

400,000 plus employees is underwhelming ?

 

[newfie]

I wonder if any reporter had ever caught Bernie discussing grabbing women by the puss'...?

he did write articles on masturbation if you're interested?

 

[newfie]

One advantage to having a unionized work force is the negotiated fixed costs. The 5 and 6 year contracts negotiated after the strike of 1997 were company proposals that would give them a clearer financial path. Obviously competition and economic factors will affect the profitability of every company but labor cost remain a constant. Just like SPOHR and a thousand other cost/production matrices, cost of labor per pkg is helped by negotiated fixed costs.

businesses can also choke on fixed costs

 

[newfie]

Do you consider the 90 year old couple in assisted living care whose SS and medicare doesn't cover 1/5 of their monthly costs free loaders.

all the more reason to abort them 90 years prior eh?

 

[newfie]

Nope, unless they've been freeloaders all their lives, .

there are a few that fit that description

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Folks who go about pontificating about "leeches" and "takers" are just about the biggest tools around.

I agree, it's sad that the Democrats' entire platform is that evil businesses are leeches taking from the prolitariat and we need to embrace Marxism to usher in utupia.

 

[Whither]

I said this in a response to @Whither, all types of societies are obligative to one degree or another. It's the social contract theory. A contract exists not only between the government and the governed (the constitution), but a theoretical one exists between/among the people to each other. If you are not doing something to earn what you have, someone else is. You are obligated to participate in a helpful and meaningful way within the society to share in the benefits of being part of that society.

If you're fond of libertarian thinking (I am), I don't follow how any government's 'contract' with its citizens can pass as legitimate. The parties are hardly equals and, in any case, one never has the opportunity to give or refuse consent but is nevertheless bound by the 'contract'. In a word, the citizen's situation smacks of duress.

Philosophical communism suggests that people will just do so out of the kindness of their hearts. That's the promised utopia waved around by party communists to get people on board. If it ever comes to fruition, it almost immediately breaks down once real human nature kicks in. People believe they are entitled to whatever is promised regardless of how much they work to earn it. Some stop working, then whole industries. Then the government, who owns the industries due to socialism, forces the people back to work in labor camps. Dissidents are sent to the labor camps, political rivals are executed or sent to the labor camps. The promise is that once they purge the undeserving, and they have the right leadership, the utopia will be realized.

Not all of us communists are statists. Anarchists also used to call themselves libertarian communists and were not joking re: the libertarian part. (Still aren't, but we're the byproducts of history.) Second, it is bad faith to discuss human nature apart from historical conditions -- even if we can be said to bear a 'nature' (in the ethical sense, since this is what always meant by the expression) there is no way of parsing out the ways history/current conditions has shaped it. For example, it is well-known that communes/intentional communities are mostly failures in modern times, with a few exceptions proving the rule. But it is also the case that humans, our ancestors, have spent the vast majority of their tenure on earth banding together in small -- likely egalitarian -- groups, without the wonders of the state, capitalism, and all our modern solutions for living.

Libertarianism, or classical liberalism if you prefer, takes real human nature into consideration, and realizes that people need an incentive to participate meaningfully in society. Market economies are so efficient, and generate enough wealth... .

To me, this is where libertarianism goes off the rails. A way of thinking that claims to value freedom above all winds up, time and again, yarning about wealth and efficiency, as if these were any replacement for the immeasurable freedom surrendered to get them.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

If you're fond of libertarian thinking (I am), I don't follow how any government's 'contract' with its citizens can pass as legitimate. The parties are hardly equals and, in any case, one never has the opportunity to give or refuse consent but is nevertheless bound by the 'contract'. In a word, the citizen's situation smacks of duress.

I don't really want to write another book tonight, so I'll try to be brief. Lysander Spooner believed that every generation should draw up its own constitution, for that very reason. But the constitition, at least in the US, doesn't directly place any burden on individuals, except for jury duty, even voting isn't mandatory. Rather it constrains government power, affirms natural rights, and establishes the government's responsibility to protect those rights. Not too bad of a contract for us as individuals.

Not all of us communists are statists. Anarchists also used to call themselves libertarian communists and were not joking re: the libertarian part. (Still aren't, but we're the byproducts of history.) Second, it is bad faith to discuss human nature apart from historical conditions -- even if we can be said to bear a 'nature' (in the ethical sense, since this is what always meant by the expression) there is no way of parsing out the ways history/current conditions has shaped it. For example, it is well-known that communes/intentional communities are mostly failures in modern times, with a few exceptions proving the rule. But it is also the case that humans, our ancestors, have spent the vast majority of their tenure on earth banding together in small -- likely egalitarian -- groups, without the wonders of the state, capitalism, and all our modern solutions for living.

Arnarchy is a failure because it immediatey leads to despotism and, in turn, tyranical statism. Even tribes have hierarchical structures. Someone has to have a final say, or you only have violence as a means of settling disputes. In that sense, the only thing that changes as a society grows, is the complexity.

I disagree with your assertion, if I understand it correctly, that human nature is shaped, or dependant on historical conditions. Individual psychology is hopeless as a field of study, but group psychology is understood well enough to be able to say that humans have a nature. The biggest drivers of human behavior are timeless: survival, the drive to reproduce, and impending death. Those things don't change, regardless of conditions.

To me, this is where libertarianism goes off the rails. A way of thinking that claims to value freedom above all winds up, time and again, yarning about wealth and efficiency, as if these were any replacement for the immeasurable freedom surrendered to get them.

Liberty is an ideal, and ideals are, by definition, unachievable. But they give you a direction in which to orient your way of thinking. The practical considerations involved in forming a "more perfect" society requires compromise between the interests of the individual and the interests of society as a whole, while subordinating the society to the individual.

Market economies are as separate an idea from individual liberty as socialism is from communism. Market economies are better at creating the conditions that allow for the greatest amount of individual liberty. At least that's the way I see it.

So much for brevity.