American Politics

[Duke87 1,070]

So for example you don't like that miles inward from the Mexican border, border patrol has checkpoints where they don't actually have any authority but still insist on pulling people over, asking questions, and searching cars, and detaining people?

Or you don't like that police departments have become militarized?

You don't think military intervention is the go to solution for every problem?

You don't like right wing bumper stickers and are skeptical of right leaning symbols like cars and the open road?

All this stuff lands you pretty squarely into the democratic camp. Have you ever actually voted for a republican presidential candidate?

And the point that I'm getting at is that despite this being one of the most politically and culturally polarized periods of american history, and despite you not liking the same stuff that a lot of democrats don't like, you're saying that both parties are the same and that you don't belong to either?

Look not at what they say but at what they do. Sure, a bunch of Democrats may say they don't like things like overpolicing and overmilitarization, but have they actually done anything to put a stop to them? Last I checked the US military still has ongoing involvement in multiple foreign nations, and police departments are only growing more and more heavily armed.

Any politician will say whatever is expedient to keep winning them votes. But the only thing that they can actually be relied on to do is break any of those promises whenever some entrenched interest demands it. I for one have given up on believing a damned word any candidate utters. You want to know where they really stand? Look at who is donating money to their campaign. That is who they will represent if elected.

To this end, both Republicans and Democrats support only whatever their cronies will profit from. Real change will never happen so long as we allow that system to perpetuate itself. Real change requires truly new ideas to shake things up - like a third party that isn't going to put its financiers before its constituents.

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Remember the definition of an honest politician is one who, having been bought, stays bought.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, it's a start.

Glorifying the Confederacy is not healthy.  Why should freedom loving Americans living anywhere in the country feel free to fly the flag of slavery and oppression?  Nobody (I hope) flies the swastika even though it is a native symbol of good luck, having been appropriated by the NAZIs.

It is time to forget the reconstruction and the carpet baggers and get on with being Americans first.  Some things are for forgetting.

______________________________________________________________________________________

AND

Later breaking news:  Lopping of the head does not solve anything, fellas.

Unless Ms. Archuleta actually hired the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of her agency personally and over objections of others, removing her is only part of the necessary action.  The Information Technology group within this department needs some heads to roll downhill, and preferable away from any government employment. 

Perhaps a real audit by the GAO would turn up the reason for all the government vulnerabilities in information processing.  I notice in another article that someone screwed up in granting a firearms acquisition certificate for the church group killer because of some unaudited goof in the crime data base.  Human error is getting worse and worse.  What deserving child was not left behind?

  Edited July 10, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  

[Duke87 1,070]

These data breaches keep getting worse and worse, and I can't help but think that at some point people are going to have to realize that if we're going to connect everything to the internet, we had better get serious about cybersecurity. It ought to be illegal to store or transmit personally identifiable information without using strong encryption, and any company or agency caught doing so ought to face stiff penalties.

Of course, such a policy would also spell the end of the US government's ability to be the one doing the spying... so you'll never see it since there is a vested interest in preserving the lack of security.

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Duke, cynicism gets you my medallion of honour.  There is no question when it comes to lack of security training and practice that governments are the hands down winners of the grunt cups.  Most snivel serpents are not smart enough nor trained enough to realize what danger lurks underneath that keyboard they are playing with.  The new motto for these guys should be Make security a habit.

Accuracy wouldn't be a bad idea as well.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Well, it's a start.

Glorifying the Confederacy is not healthy.  Why should freedom loving Americans living anywhere in the country feel free to fly the flag of slavery and oppression?  Nobody (I hope) flies the swastika even though it is a native symbol of good luck, having been appropriated by the NAZIs.

It is time to forget the reconstruction and the carpet baggers and get on with being Americans first.  Some things are for forgetting.

Possibly the worst aspect behind the whole confederate flag "controversy" isn't the flag itself but the usual ignorance behind the argument itself.  Look at Georgia's flag if you want to see the "stars and bars".  Let's at least call it what it is and get the facts straight, then we can argue over its meaning until the cows come home.  Of course the thing had pretty much disappeared for 80 years before a couple fringe groups resurrected it out of context (which eerily parallels the NSDAP's appropriation of the swastika in time and spirit).

Not the first time we've had revisionist history in the US, though, even though "things like that don't happen here."  Another one I really enjoy (which has similar aspects) is how in the 1800s when the world which had been round for well over a thousand years (in the "western" world anyway) suddenly became flat again as of 1491 so that the Knights of Columbus could have a catholic figure to glorify (evidently there was a real dearth of them for them to have chosen the one they did).  Thanks to the public (and probably in most cases, private) education system in this country being all too willing to oblige, the real (and original) truth is basically unknown.

  Edited July 13, 2015 by Sabretooth78  

[Larks2242 251]

Scott Walker is in!

 

An anouncement I had long been waiting for.

 

I don't think he is presidental enough but I think he would make a very strong VP.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, what about Scott Walker?

From the article, he sure won't get the LGBT vote, nor the Hispanic vote, nor several other minority squeaky wheels.  Seems like a centre of the road conservative, and that is maybe what the U.S. needs after all those Democrats.

[CapTon 592]

Well, what about Scott Walker?

From the article, he sure won't get the LGBT vote, nor the Hispanic vote, nor several other minority squeaky wheels.  Seems like a centre of the road conservative, and that is maybe what the U.S. needs after all those Democrats.

I'd prefer to have Trump, Fiorani, or Carson over any of the other conservatives. They aren't politicians and are actually working to form a better country.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The Donald would make a fine dictator.  I have no idea how he would be as POTUS, but he probably wouldn't be very happy.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Seriously.  And he'd probably be a bumbler in the Mussolini/Khrushchev mold.  The only reason we would need Trump is if we wanted somebody to outdo G.W. Obama in terms of expertise in shoving one's foot down one's throat.  If that buffoon won at least we'd know the system is finally being forthright about being completely full of s--t.  They've been mum since LBJ took office, so maybe they're finally ready to come out of the closet?  Nah.  His role is to provide distraction from proper vetting of the chosen weak candidate that they'll decide to ram through the primary system so as to allow Hilary to win easy.

He'd almost (read: almost) force me to find something good to say about Hilary.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If enough Americans were as cynical as that, the Republican party might just break up.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I learned that California agricultural firms would rather have a shortage of workers harvesting their crops than pay market wages, which has become a bigger problem since border control started enforcing better. That problem has been going on for years. It has only become worse thanks to the continuing drought and construction boom.

I also learned that a city council member is running for reelection this year on a platform that will reduce the quantity and quality of apartments (rent control), discourage the wealthy from living within the city (immediate tax hikes), and cause many restaurants and other small businesses to close down (immediate minimum wage hike vs the current gradual one that gives small business even more time). If she is reelected and her plans are implemented, I will be sure to never return to Seattle except for short visits to family. Depending on how bad things get on the west coast, I might just give up on it completely. I know that I will avoid California until it figures things out (which might not happen in my lifetime) and I doubt Oregon has the type of jobs I will soon be qualified for. That means that I will most likely work in Texas and retire in Mexico.

 

I have decided that I will only vote for Bernie Sanders, Garry Johnson, or possibly Rand Paul. If the Democratic ticket is Hillary Clinton and the Republican ticket is Jeb Bush, I will vote for a third party. I really want the best outcome and that either means a good candidate or a 1 term candidate that serves as a wakeup call. I would rather immediate improvements than a rude awakening.

 

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

With the el niño events, shuffling off to Mexico may not be as good a decision as crossing the strait to B.C.

[Nesral Sredna 62]

Black police chief helps KKK protester in Nazi T-shirt with heatstroke:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-police-chief-helps-protester-in-nazi-tshirt-at-kkk-protest-with-heatstroke-10399604.html

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”^e

Paul the Apostle's letter to the Romans 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Haters are a rather despicable minority.  As time goes on, they will hopefully all get their Darwin award.

[CapTon 592]

Black police chief helps KKK protester in Nazi T-shirt with heatstroke:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-police-chief-helps-protester-in-nazi-tshirt-at-kkk-protest-with-heatstroke-10399604.html

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”^e

Paul the Apostle's letter to the Romans 

Police chief did the right thing. Protester was allowed to speak his mind, and no matter what he believes in, he was entitled to help just like any other protesters had they suffered heat strokes.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I have been reading text books, peer reviewed articles, and other credible sources lately in order to perform best in my economics class. The more I learn about Utilitarianism, Liberalism, and Libertarianism truly are, the more I find myself agreeing with Utilitarianism and disagreeing with Liberalism. I think that Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill had good ideas and knew best. In contrast, I greatly dislike the philosophy of John Rawls. I also dislike single-issue voting and identity politics. I now feel a great duty to educate the misinformed people (especially voters) around me.

 

Raising the minimum wage above market equilibrium prevents many people from gaining skills to climb the economic ladder. Giving everyone a high school diploma regardless of skill and ability has made public education a joke that no longer signals to employers anything useful. If the USA were to improve the quality of education and allowed all moderate-to-high performing American students to pursue higher education without needing to pay tuition (without lowering standards) more Americans would be able to take advantage of the rising wages caused by computer technology. In case you did not know, computers reduce the demand for rules-based jobs (which most low skilled workers perform) and increase demand for workers capable of "expert thinking" and "complex communications." The small minority of people who are truly incapable of higher level thinking will become unemployable. Two solutions for them is to give them a bare minimum of support or withdraw all support. The first solution guarantees that even the most disabled citizens have access to a social safety net. The second solution decreases costs, which lowers the tax burden on hard-working Americans, which I favor.

 

Removing the system of health insurance entirely in the USA would also do wonders. No one would need to waste money on premiums, the middle-man would be cut off (which will allow all the money that currently goes to HMO's to either remain in the pockets of the healthy or support the medical professionals who take care of the sick), demand for unnecessary procedures and medications will plummet, and the overall health of the populace will skyrocket, especially if combined with a guaranteed transfer-in-kind to all citizens and refugees that pays for nutritional value (not dollar value) of food, a tax on junk food, taxes on pollution, and government funded low-income housing that provides free spartan dorms for everyone who follows the rules (such as not using drugs) and reduced-priced apartments for families.

Another problem is that certain welfare programs discourage working, which lowers efficiency and utility. All American citizens over the age of 65 (regardless of wealth) get access to quite a bit of money from the government and free health insurance. This money mostly comes from payroll taxes, which hurts low-skilled workers the most. Some other programs increase the effective marginal tax rate above 100%, which means that no rational person would want to even try to earn more money from working. The solution for this is to eliminate payroll taxes (the burden for payroll taxes fall mostly on workers because of the elasticity of the supply and demand of labor), cut social security to wealthy elders, change the welfare to low-income families by gradually phasing out the payments with increased income (which reduces the marginal tax rate while making more families eligible), and enact pollution taxes (with different tax rates on different pollutants) on ALL economic activity involving the USA or its citizens (including trade and speculation). The biological truth is that health diminishes with age, exposure to harmful chemicals (such as pollution, junk food, and unneeded medication), and lack of self maintenance (exercise, sleep, proper nutrition, and hygiene). The economic truth is that healthier workers are more productive and less healthy persons are less productive, sometimes to the point of incapability of employment (thus requiring support from others in order to survive, which is one definition of a parasite).

 

Thank you for reading,

 

--Ocram

[SUPERMESSI 294]

Well Ocram, although i do agree with you in some points, and although i am no expert neither at Philosophy of Politics, Economics or American Politics, i do think that things are not simple in life, and they certainly are not simpler in places that have associated with them an elevated degree of responsability...

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The difficulty comes mostly from politics, PR, and propaganda that have poisoned the minds of many into believing false ideologies. It is an uphill battle to improve the situation when some people think there is no problem while most others mix up the causes of the problems with the solutions. I admit that I used to be one of the misinformed masses before I learned more about economics. Now that I know that most of the opinions I held were based off lies, I am upset at the sources that fed me those lies.

 

--Ocram

  Edited July 21, 2015 by OcramSeattle  
update/disclosure

[SUPERMESSI 294]

Well you have a point and i agree, but you also have to admit that although the opinion-makers (let's call them this name) may not be experts on the subjects they are adressing, they do have some valid points sometimes (like anybody), and academia  papers, textbooks, authors, etc. may also be: a) biased. b) inconsistent in their thesis, positions, etc.

 

Let me give you two examples that somehow are different and show how complicated some subjects are:

 

- If you want to talk about Operation Neptune Spear, you will probably first learn the actors in that particular op, etc. But, there is now a journalist that publishes a book telling that operation neptune spear was all a lie, etc etc etc. Although his point probably has no empirical support whatsoever, i really believe that, some academic authors will agree with him just for the sake of ideology. And we are talking about real good authors... It wouldn't be the first time. And the only first hand public evidence regarding that op comes from Mark Owen's book.

 

- Now the reverse point: a lot of people talk of soccer tactics, and just a few understand them, because they didn't touch what was being done in academic research regarding that subjects. But if you just go and search all the academic papers etc. that are related to that, you still may not be entitled to an opinion because you don't have any experience.

 

For example, let's suppose someone reads all the tutorials, knows all the bats by name, etc., but doesnt play. How will you regard his opinion on SC4? Well it is not a black//white question...

Life is like that, is not always black and white. In Academia there are loads of authors who publish pure crud in a lot of subjects, and trust me, is very hard to navigate in that field and search what is good and what is bad. But trust me again: for any 100 papers/books you read on any given topic, there will be another 100 that you should've read, and you shouldn't think (i don't want to be harsh, honestly, english is not my main language) that you do know or that "media is just lies etc." because you have read those 100... Sometimes, and it is very hard, we should just understand that our opinion probably is just superfluous in the sense that we are not entitled to one eheh.

 

I, for example, have a lot of opinions, some good some bad, about a lot of subjects, but i've learned that somehow there is always someone with better knowledge of the subjects. Always. 

 

Eheh sorry, and i do agree that my argument (well is not an argument) has some very clear logical flaws.

  Edited July 24, 2015 by NMUSpidey  
Edited to remove swearing

[Duke87 1,070]

The trouble with this sort of utilitarianism is that it creates a society which is economically efficient, but which is not a pleasant one to live in. Consider, for example, the idea that we should withdraw all support from individuals who are incapable of providing for themselves due to disability or age. Would this save money? Absolutely it would! But it would also mean that large numbers of people would be written off simply because they are deemed to not be useful... and this is a dangerous path to go down. It's all well and good to say that if someone becomes disabled we should simply set them adrift and let them suffer or die, until the victim of this policy is a friend, a loved one... or yourself.

People are not farm animals, to be shot and disposed of when they are no longer capable of pulling their plows. People are human, their lives mean something and are not expendable simply because they are not economically productive.

Consider as well that people can contribute to society in a multitude of ways that are not directly economically productive, but that still have value which may be difficult to quantity. Retired senior citizens may not be employed, but they can provide a lot of joy to their grandchildren, and assistance to their children in raising their grandchildren. They can provide wisdom on matters that younger people may not be old enough to remember key things about. Now, yes, we are all mortal and no one's life can be preserved forever. But to suggest that it isn't worth preserving past the age someone actively works is... extremely cold.

Especially since having retirement to look forward to can be a major motivating factor in helping workers be productive. Retirement can be a chance for people to fulfill desires they never could when they were younger because they didn't have the time, like traveling for months at once, or sinking lots of time into a hobby. Tell people they never will have a chance to practice this sort of self-actualization and watch as they become unmotivated and productivity tanks.

[SUPERMESSI 294]

Completely agree with Duke. The question is that old people do have economic value since their actions may be understood as variables that possible affect the productivity of other economic agents. For example, if your 76 dad has Alzheimer, you may be less productive in the beggining because you may have trouble separating professional from familiar spheres. On another example, if a retired grandmother gives a 50$ bill to her grandson in order for him to buy whatever he wants, that affects the economic analysis.

 

Well, in my opinion the problem is that we should not, at least from a purely personal prespective, analyse such topics in an holistic manner, since it is easier to understand them in purely individualistic terms (i am not taking a position in a longstanding debate in economics, social science, etc., just saying, for the sake of perspective and praticality), and when we do, we will probably gain a better understanding of some questions and apply the same method to other questions. Well, for example, I do not like Obama or his politics, and I think some of them are authentic aberrations that, as a western that relies on USA for a lot of things, are even dangerous. But if I try to analyse his behaviour from his point of view, I may find some justifications for his actions, because, let's face it, life is full of stuff, full of information, full of whatever and emotions are hard to balance, people are evil/good, but I prima facie accept that people are just in a grey zone. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The trouble with this sort of utilitarianism is that it creates a society which is economically efficient, but which is not a pleasant one to live in. Consider, for example, the idea that we should withdraw all support from individuals who are incapable of providing for themselves due to disability or age. Would this save money? Absolutely it would! But it would also mean that large numbers of people would be written off simply because they are deemed to not be useful... and this is a dangerous path to go down. It's all well and good to say that if someone becomes disabled we should simply set them adrift and let them suffer or die, until the victim of this policy is a friend, a loved one... or yourself.

People are not farm animals, to be shot and disposed of when they are no longer capable of pulling their plows. People are human, their lives mean something and are not expendable simply because they are not economically productive.

Consider as well that people can contribute to society in a multitude of ways that are not directly economically productive, but that still have value which may be difficult to quantity. Retired senior citizens may not be employed, but they can provide a lot of joy to their grandchildren, and assistance to their children in raising their grandchildren. They can provide wisdom on matters that younger people may not be old enough to remember key things about. Now, yes, we are all mortal and no one's life can be preserved forever. But to suggest that it isn't worth preserving past the age someone actively works is... extremely cold.

Especially since having retirement to look forward to can be a major motivating factor in helping workers be productive. Retirement can be a chance for people to fulfill desires they never could when they were younger because they didn't have the time, like traveling for months at once, or sinking lots of time into a hobby. Tell people they never will have a chance to practice this sort of self-actualization and watch as they become unmotivated and productivity tanks.

Privatize retirement funds and relatively wealthy adults will have comfortable retirements without bankrupting the government. If this happens, those that do not save for retirement are screwed, which makes logical sense. If you don't ever save for retirement, the money you collect from Social Security retirement comes with heavy deadweight loss and your spending does not help the local economy even close to enough to justify the expense to many workers. The government can give economic incentives to save for retirement through altered taxes and subsidies. However, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot force it to drink.

As made famous by crowd-funding sites, charities are much more effective and efficient than anything the government can do. If one cannot support oneself and does not have anyone who can help, one can ask for donations from others. Those completely incapable of supporting themselves without any loved ones or charities who can lend a hand, should no longer drain society. Sometimes, being cut off from outside help causes people to uplift themselves and thrive when in the past they were completely reliant on others. Other times, they fail to adapt and overcome and pass away quickly. There is a lot of evidence that providing more organisms everything they need reduces their fitness and some die once natural order is restored but after a couple generations, the offspring of the once captive organisms are approximately as good off as the ancestors prior to the captivity. Humans have a greater capacity for thought, compassion, innovation, creativity, productivity, and charity than any other organisms on this planet. Therefore, more people should be able to spring back after being cut off. Historically, children were in this category: children were forced out of the house in adolescence after a childhood completely dependent on their parents but thrived as adults. Children with access to education or training went on to become productive adults if they take advantage of their opportunities and died younger if they squandered their opportunities or were never given any.

Economic value includes opportunity cost and other hard to quantify values that accountants never look at. The best course of action is to give all citizens equal and high opportunity to do well while halting the rewards to those who squander their opportunities. Therefore, the education system MUST be improved so that all Americans can have the opportunity to better themselves. This means free primary and secondary education for all and healthy meals available for all students at affordable prices (even free for some). No one should feel obligated to drop out of public school to work. High quality high school should be free for those who want it and all Americans should be able to put real food on the table. The only students who would drop out of public school would only be those who lack motivation. High school diplomas will be earned instead of just given away willy nilly. This means that low-performing students with plenty of opportunity will get failing grades (which was common for a long time but some school districts banned them recently) and will need to repeat classes to continue (but should still have access to free and quality education if they want it). This can lower motivation and cause them to drop out but society is better off if we can provide quality education for all with grades that are earned fairly instead of given away for the purpose of "equality."

Thank you for your insights. I hope I clarified my position.

 

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

Consider as well that people can contribute to society in a multitude of ways that are not directly economically productive, but that still have value which may be difficult to quantity. Retired senior citizens may not be employed, but they can provide a lot of joy to their grandchildren, and assistance to their children in raising their grandchildren. They can provide wisdom on matters that younger people may not be old enough to remember key things about. Now, yes, we are all mortal and no one's life can be preserved forever. But to suggest that it isn't worth preserving past the age someone actively works is... extremely cold.

Especially since having retirement to look forward to can be a major motivating factor in helping workers be productive. Retirement can be a chance for people to fulfill desires they never could when they were younger because they didn't have the time, like traveling for months at once, or sinking lots of time into a hobby. Tell people they never will have a chance to practice this sort of self-actualization and watch as they become unmotivated and productivity tanks.

Aside from the sheer inhumanity, such a system probably wouldn't last to long without severe state repression. I mean, retirement was set up originally by conservatives to block the advance of socialists. Before that, you were supposed to work until you were dead basically. Which of course did wonders to advance the socialist cause because a lot of people simply won't stand for being treated like that. 

So reintroduce it and it just becomes a matter of time before it is reintroduced in order to placate socialist movements or before the socialists take power and introduce it themselves.  

As made famous by crowd-funding sites, charities are much more effective and efficient than anything the government can do. If one cannot support oneself and does not have anyone who can help, one can ask for donations from others. Those completely incapable of supporting themselves without any loved ones or charities who can lend a hand, should no longer drain society. Sometimes, being cut off from outside help causes people to uplift themselves and thrive when in the past they were completely reliant on others. Other times, they fail to adapt and overcome and pass away quickly. There is a lot of evidence that providing more organisms everything they need reduces their fitness and some die once natural order is restored but after a couple generations, the offspring of the once captive organisms are approximately as good off as the ancestors prior to the captivity. Humans have a greater capacity for thought, compassion, innovation, creativity, productivity, and charity than any other organisms on this planet. 

Yes and compassion seems to be in short supply with your plan which boils down to 'screw the weak and poor'. 

Aside from that, no charity does not work better than what the state does. Far from it. Charities are in fact extremely inefficient given that often the people they provide care for are picked on an emotional basis rather than a rational one. Basically the people with the bigger sob stories are more likely to receive more charity than people who aren't particularly sad but still need some help. On top of that, charities very often make things worse. Sure, they enable people to survive but they don't provide structural solutions to the problems the people they help face. And the patchwork nature of charity often means more insecurity for the people that need help rather than more security. The government on the other hand has a far better oversight of the problems people face, has the power to tackle said problems while simultaneously providing short term relief. Better yet, they can do it in a neutral and impartial manner, meaning that everyone who needs help can get it, rather than only the people with sob stories. 

Finally, the myth that people who are down on their luck can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps is just that, a bloody stupid myth. This myth assumes that people are solely responsible for their own economic success, that its just a matter of positive thoughts and wanting it really hard and that there are no external circumstances that affect it at all. In essence this myth is little more than victim blaming as it suggest that poor people are poor because they didn't want to be rich bad enough. And not because things like structural racism, an underprivileged background, lack of access to opportunities, a lack of marketable skills, lack of available jobs or just the overall state of the economy.

But hey, if they are poor and no one wants to help them then its best if they just lay down and die no? Its evolution baby, the strong thrive and the weak perish and its the duty of the strong to dominate and exploit the weak. Natural selection ftw! 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, I don't necessarily read all these walls of text.  But remember that extreme utilitarianism produces the "Soylent Green" effect.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well, I don't necessarily read all these walls of text.  But remember that extreme utilitarianism produces the "Soylent Green" effect.

Well in general its really silly logic. The problem with it is that it tries to put numerical values on everything so that its logic essentially boils down to what sum of factors has the greater value and then go with that as the 'correct' and ethical solution. The problem of course is that a lot of things it tries to put a numerical value on doesn't really have a numerical value, so people make up their own values, which makes the whole thing rather arbitrary. 

Of course that also means that as you point out, things like Soylent Green become justified. In Utilitarianism there is a thought experiment known as the 'Utility Monster' (at least I think thats what they call it) which deals with a similar problem. It says that one day we encounter an alien species who gains extreme utility from our destruction, much more utility than what we gain from simply living. According to utilitarian logic then it means the monster is justified in killing us all and indeed doing so would be the logical and ethical thing to do. That seems a little silly no? Well, lots of utilitarianists thought so as well so a lot of them have modified utilitarianism to mean to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Of course this solves nothing except that its no longer possible for a minority of people to be able to justify the destruction of a majority of people. Well great, it just means that it only justifies genocide and ethnic cleansing as long as the perpetrators are the majority. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

 

As made famous by crowd-funding sites, charities are much more effective and efficient than anything the government can do.

I know I'm cherry-picking a bit here, but these might be the truest words on this entire site.

One thing (among many ) that I can't stand are self-righteous people who think others who don't enjoy giving their hard-earned lucre to pay for social programs are heartless.  Now who knows, they could be and I'm sure many are.  But that doesn't make you any better - there's nothing in the definition of charity that says anything about doing so with a gun pointed at your head.

Some people seriously have no problem with it though.  I remember this girl shortly after I started working who made some comment about this couple she met who lived near the construction site that had something like 10 children (I forget the exact number; it was a lot).  She had some bone to pick about it but it was something stupid, or stupid enough that I chose to forget it.  What I do remember was her saying something to the effect of "if you want welfare to pay for having 14 kids, I have no problem with that, but...[something unrelated]..."

Most Americans are only too happy to be on the dole, the government is only too willing for that to happen (follow the money; self-perpetuation; no conspiracy required) and there are even taxpayers who choose it to be that way.  And yet our "leaders" are still afraid of communism!

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Consider as well that people can contribute to society in a multitude of ways that are not directly economically productive, but that still have value which may be difficult to quantity. Retired senior citizens may not be employed, but they can provide a lot of joy to their grandchildren, and assistance to their children in raising their grandchildren. They can provide wisdom on matters that younger people may not be old enough to remember key things about. Now, yes, we are all mortal and no one's life can be preserved forever. But to suggest that it isn't worth preserving past the age someone actively works is... extremely cold.

Especially since having retirement to look forward to can be a major motivating factor in helping workers be productive. Retirement can be a chance for people to fulfill desires they never could when they were younger because they didn't have the time, like traveling for months at once, or sinking lots of time into a hobby. Tell people they never will have a chance to practice this sort of self-actualization and watch as they become unmotivated and productivity tanks.

Aside from the sheer inhumanity, such a system probably wouldn't last to long without severe state repression. I mean, retirement was set up originally by conservatives to block the advance of socialists. Before that, you were supposed to work until you were dead basically. Which of course did wonders to advance the socialist cause because a lot of people simply won't stand for being treated like that. 

So reintroduce it and it just becomes a matter of time before it is reintroduced in order to placate socialist movements or before the socialists take power and introduce it themselves.  

As made famous by crowd-funding sites, charities are much more effective and efficient than anything the government can do. If one cannot support oneself and does not have anyone who can help, one can ask for donations from others. Those completely incapable of supporting themselves without any loved ones or charities who can lend a hand, should no longer drain society. Sometimes, being cut off from outside help causes people to uplift themselves and thrive when in the past they were completely reliant on others. Other times, they fail to adapt and overcome and pass away quickly. There is a lot of evidence that providing more organisms everything they need reduces their fitness and some die once natural order is restored but after a couple generations, the offspring of the once captive organisms are approximately as good off as the ancestors prior to the captivity. Humans have a greater capacity for thought, compassion, innovation, creativity, productivity, and charity than any other organisms on this planet. 

Yes and compassion seems to be in short supply with your plan which boils down to 'screw the weak and poor'. 

Aside from that, no charity does not work better than what the state does. Far from it. Charities are in fact extremely inefficient given that often the people they provide care for are picked on an emotional basis rather than a rational one. Basically the people with the bigger sob stories are more likely to receive more charity than people who aren't particularly sad but still need some help. On top of that, charities very often make things worse. Sure, they enable people to survive but they don't provide structural solutions to the problems the people they help face. And the patchwork nature of charity often means more insecurity for the people that need help rather than more security. The government on the other hand has a far better oversight of the problems people face, has the power to tackle said problems while simultaneously providing short term relief. Better yet, they can do it in a neutral and impartial manner, meaning that everyone who needs help can get it, rather than only the people with sob stories. 

Finally, the myth that people who are down on their luck can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps is just that, a bloody stupid myth. This myth assumes that people are solely responsible for their own economic success, that its just a matter of positive thoughts and wanting it really hard and that there are no external circumstances that affect it at all. In essence this myth is little more than victim blaming as it suggest that poor people are poor because they didn't want to be rich bad enough. And not because things like structural racism, an underprivileged background, lack of access to opportunities, a lack of marketable skills, lack of available jobs or just the overall state of the economy.

But hey, if they are poor and no one wants to help them then its best if they just lay down and die no? Its evolution baby, the strong thrive and the weak perish and its the duty of the strong to dominate and exploit the weak. Natural selection ftw! 

1. Private retirement funds are a good thing. I can cite many credible sources that prove this. The current system of social security is quite honestly a pyramid scheme and will run out of money soon as the last of the Baby Boomers start collecting and Generation X and Y don't have enough workers and children to pay into the system.

2. The utility of a dollar is far higher for a poor person than a wealthy person. Utilitarianism aims to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor in a way to increase overall utility. An egalitarian society is impossible because of variation of natural abilities and personalities, thus meaning that some have a greater ability to earn more and some have a better work ethic. By attempting to make everyone equal, the otherwise successful will have no incentive to try to be successful and everyone lives in poverty (except usually the government workers who skim off the top). This has been proven time and again that modest welfare programs are beneficial while socialism and state capitalism hurt all.

3. Your point about charity is completely invalid. Unless the government raises taxes on negative externalities (which I want it to start), donations, and/or taxes without deadweight loss (such as lump-sum taxes, which hurt the poor the most) without any more overhead than a typical charity (while some charities are corrupt, they get outed quickly and go away, government corruption is much harder to solve), the collection of taxes hurts the economy (by lowering incentives to work or shop, which is called deadweight loss) and trying to take too much from the wealthy to give to the poor has been proven to decrease economic output of all parties so much that more people are worse-off after the welfare program than before. The Nordic countries are doing well because they have abundant natural resources, with a low and mostly uniform population. What works for them cannot work for us. When people donate to charity, they do so voluntarily, giving what they can to help a cause they care about. The government knows this, which is why charitable donations are tax deductible. I can cite credible sources and provide graphs and charts to prove my point.

4. If "things like structural racism, an underprivileged background, lack of access to opportunities, a lack of marketable skills, lack of available jobs or just the overall state of the economy" are problems, even libertarians (who believe in equal opportunity WITHOUT wealth redistribution) take issue. Structural racism is being worked on through changes in the legal system, with input from the public. Everyone agrees that everyone should have equal access to good opportunities. The economy would be better off in the utilitarian system so that would not cause poverty, quite the opposite in fact. A lack of marketable skills would only come about in my system when children decide to drop out of quality public school because of lack of motivation. Attending a free, quality school with healthy and tasty meals and a positive environment vs working full time without skills in an economy where all rules-based tasks are done by computers and robots ... hmmm... what would I, or any rational person chose?

6. By helping everyone capable of lifting themselves up and providing them with skills, opportunities, and economic incentives while cutting funding to expensive programs that only drain the economy and make a small group completely reliant on assistance, the world would be better off and the dysgenics arising from pollution, fertility treatment, and the welfare system will be slowly reversed naturally.

 

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Humanity is a stubborn species.  It usually wants what it wants when it wants it, and no plea or excuses are acceptable.  Being a predator species this means that humans are totally ego-centric and generally vicious to each other.  Civilization is a (thin) veneer to keep us from killing each other outright.

All political systems ever devised so far have had the basic objective of keeping us from each other's throats.

BTW, note how neatly religious faiths divide people into groups to facilitate exclusion of some people from others.  Why do we allow this?