It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Remove All Social Safety Nets

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: odaeio




Your "society" will NEVER get another brown penny out of me again - EVER!!


Okay, I'm dying to know...

How does one go about getting an internet connection for free ?

I want to sign up for that too !

Thanks.




posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge
Well if your neighbours WiFi password is 1234 then.....



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: odaeio
I agree that all welfare should be stopped - it is entirely unnecessary. Naturally it would simultaneously be made possible for everone to feed, shelter and warm him/her self. As it is anyway, the Universe gives everyone the absolute right to use just sufficient land to maintain themselves till death, then of course someone else can use it. I have absolutely no problem with this.



Ok let’s say you give everyone 2 acres of land that’s enough to grow food and have some live stock. Then what? Most people would not know what to do or how to farm the land and raise livestock. Do you know the failure and death rate of the pioneer generation of the 1800's?



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: odaeio




Your "society" will NEVER get another brown penny out of me again - EVER!!


Okay, I'm dying to know...

How does one go about getting an internet connection for free ?

I want to sign up for that too !

Thanks.


Heheheh, good one! Seriously though, I only work an hours labour in return for an hours labour. That does most things, but some people still Insist on trying to convert my labour to "money". I cannot, since it's arbitrary - could be 2 an hour or 200 - so I tell them to give me "things" - like Pay As You Go vouchers for my internet or phone, or a tank of diesel. The rest of it is a straight trade - if I need carpentry done, they can either do it themselves, if they are a carpenter, or "pay" a carpenter whatever the carpenter wants per hour, to return the labour I did, hour for hour, fixing thier lights or telly or whatever. I genuinely use very few, if any, "brown pennies" a month.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: guitarplayer

originally posted by: odaeio
I agree that all welfare should be stopped - it is entirely unnecessary. Naturally it would simultaneously be made possible for everone to feed, shelter and warm him/her self. As it is anyway, the Universe gives everyone the absolute right to use just sufficient land to maintain themselves till death, then of course someone else can use it. I have absolutely no problem with this.



Ok let’s say you give everyone 2 acres of land that’s enough to grow food and have some live stock. Then what? Most people would not know what to do or how to farm the land and raise livestock. Do you know the failure and death rate of the pioneer generation of the 1800's?


I didn't say "give" it to everyone - I said make it possible. If I am unable to pay for my flat, transport, food, heating, taxes etc on a burger-flippers wages, then I have the absolute right to take myself onto a few acres and feed myself. That is a choice, I may be perfectly able to "pay" for my flat, limo and everything else on lawyers or surgeons wages, so wouldn't bother with having to grow my own food. The fact is, I am sem-disabled, recieve not a penny from anyone, despite having the fraudsurance stolen directly out of my pay for 35 years, live on my own paid for boat, (after 35 years of 40 hours a week, plus more xmas and New Years missed than I care to remember, and ALL I managed to build with that labour was 150 sq ft living space, which I must f**king levitate because I am not entitled to have it any water or land in existance?), and have not one square mm of land on this planet in order to feed myself! What, do I not have a RIGHT to exist? Of course I do, and I WILL just go find a bit of unused land alongside the river - and let any a***ehole try to tell me it's "conservation area" or "Munciple land" - they will destroy my food and wood supply over my dead body. They can murder me before I will let them starve me to death!



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982

Have you ever known HUNGER? You go give all your possessions to the rich and lay down your life for the economy. I am fighting it a different way. I gave my dream away, my glamper to a couple who were homeless. But we gots lots of money for arabs and jews across an entire ocean.
edit on 18-11-2014 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
No, really, if one wants to pay the street sweeper 10 an hour, then OBVIOUSLY he "pays" 10 an hour foe everything he needs. If one wants to pay him 10 an hour and charge him 25 an hour for everything he needs, it cannot work.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: odaeio

You stated that the universe owed you land and everyone had the right to live on land enough to survive and I pointed out that most would die from inexperience of taking total care of themselves. Everyone cannot and should not stay in the entry level jobs in society. When I was a teenager I worked in a restaurant washing dishes and busing table. Did I end up doing that the rest of my life? No it was just an entry level job.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982




posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: AgentShillington
I don't think he is literally suggesting removing all support just making the point that welfare in its broadest sense is what holds society together.
Or I could be wrong and he is a sociopath..



He said



So I suggest we remove all safety nets in society. All of them.


It might be part two.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: James1982





Unfortunately, people don't revolt passively with picket signs and sit-ins when they're starving and suffering... they bring out the torches and pitchforks... and will leave an entire country in ashes in their wake.

In a militarily strong country like the USA, the tanks would be rolling out and bullets would be flying in every direction.

Collateral damage would be the catchphrase du jour.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982

It is a nice thought but the I got mine mentality and anyone else that does not is doing something wrong would continue.
I have been on other forums where they berate the homeless and poor and consider them worthless eaters that need to die off.

Take a gander at these people taking selfie pics of themselves with homeless people in the background as an example:

www.theatlantic.com...

'Selfies With Homeless People'


The phenomenon is exactly what it claims to be: people snapping photos of themselves posing with homeless people. Sometimes, these photos are proper selfies, captured by the subject of the photos; more often, they're simply portraits shot by some unnamed photographer. Sometimes, they feature subjects posing with a smiling homeless person; more often, the posing occurs without the consent of the individual in question.

These images are common, it's worth noting, only in the sense that there are enough instances of them to populate a Tumblr.

They are also, it's needless to say, profoundly sad.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel
I think if you read the whole post it becomes clearer the point he is making. I agree it is not 100% clear. If starting a thread probably best to be very literal and specific as this thread shows people can easily interpret things differently.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I must apologise, was not in a good mood yesterday, shouldn't really have been posting at the time.

The way I see it is that the only possible thing of value is human labour. Without human labour, the tractor will not drive itself, the oil/gas etc will not come out of the ground and so on. Now everybody has a "job" to do, whether they are a solicitor, scientist or surgeon, or whether all they are capable of is a burger-flipper, road-sweeper or plumber. All labour is of the same value, and should be treated as such. "Money" should simply be tied to labour - not gold or anything else - just human labour, so if someone does an hours "work", everyone knows exactly what that hour is worth. All pricing would reflect this. The argument usually is that the surgeon spent 6 or 8 years learning his craft, where-as the street-sweeper went straight out and could provide his labour from day 1, therefore the surgeons labour is "worth" more. I don't really see this, sure, for 6 to 8 years the surgeon was un-able to "grow his own food", and therefore had to "borrow" someone elses labour to do it for him. He now obviously "owes" that labour. Surely a system could be worked out where the surgeon charges double rates for 6 to 8 years after begining to practise, so that he recovers the "lost" years, then reverts to the "normal" labour rate? Very bright people have worked out this incredibly complex "financial" system which is based on total fallacy - infinite "growth" for one, and theft and slavery - surely those same "brains" can work out a fair and balanced method whereby ALL people get near as dammit return on thier labour?

There would still be "poor" people, but that would be a choice - if one does'nt go water the potatoes, he won't have any potatoes - but someone who breaks his back "working" will not only have a decent crop of potatoes, but a nicer house to boot. Provided "land" can never be "owned", therefore never be bought or sold, only sufficient "used" to keep oneself until they either die or choose to move on, there would be no need for "welfare" to provide for the lazy. The genuinely heavily dis-abled is something else of course. Studies of Hunter Gatherer and Subsistance Farming has shown that people only have to work 15 to 20 hours per week to provide all thier basic needs comfortably, so working 40 hours per week for 30 years, should enable one to "pay" someone else to do the labour to bring the food and neccessities for another 30 years without them needing to "work". Therefore, there should be no need to "look after the elderly" via state pensions etc.

That's why I agree that "welfare", other than for severly handicapped, is totally un-neccessary - it is only neccessary today due to the system which promotes theft of labour, remove that from the system, and welfare as such can virtually be done away with. The "work-shy" can choose whether to work or starve - it would be entirely up to them. It is not currently so, no matter how much one is willing to work, if there is no job, they will starve, there is no option, work-shy or not.

I often hear that this would then NOT be Capitalism. My view, and perhaps it's wrong, is that "Capitalism" simply means that one has the option to accrue "capital". Well, that would remain. Someone willing to work 60 hours a week, yet live uncomfortably on 10 hours per week, would be able to accrue "capital" at 50 hours per week. The work-shy who could only be bothered to work 10 hours a week, would live just the same as the "hard-worker", but would accrue no capital, so I feel that it would still be capitalism, just without the theft aspect of "usury", or profit, interest etc.

I am a two-way radio electronics engineer, and have never been work-shy, so no, I am not speaking from the point of view of a street-sweeper, but I do speak on be-half of him/her.
edit on 19/11/2014 by odaeio because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I believe that we should be compassionate and help our fellow man, so we need safety nets.

However, let's look at it logically. Unless we change the core of our country and government it won't work.

We'll be arresting more people and paying to house and feed them, and who do you think pays the emergency room for everyone that can't afford it? The government one way or another. And what happens when you get fired, through no fault of your own. It happens. Should you just lose your house and car and everything else. And take it a step further. If I had no income and my family was starving and there were no safety nets, what would I do to protect, feed, shelter and clothe them? I would break the law and take from someone with more. Wouldn't you, to save your family? You have to think these things all the way through.

So, safety nets reduce crime and overall cost. Without them anarchy! martial law and a further class division. yes?
edit on 19-11-2014 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
The biggest issue I see with all of these programs is that they foster dependence, stagnation, and complacency. Throwing money at a problem is very, very rarely a good solution to any problem, yet that is exactly what we do across the board.

I feel this is done intentionally, but either way I think it is a topic that we could handle completely differently. I don't see it as an all or nothing problem.

We could instead design it so that basic needs could be met by the individual, through education and a transfer of hard goods and tools rather than fiat money. Those who truly need help would seize the opportunity while those wishing to exploit could be quickly identified. There would be more to it, but I think it would be good to try to approach many of these problems with fresh perspectives.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Shame there is no way to take everything the poster owns away from him, for a week, to see how he manages to survive, no shelter, food, water, heat. just three meals....



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I don't quite get this post. You are saying the system is broken. And if we take it all away from folks, and they start dying and revolt and crime increases as a result, it will prove it.

But.. rather, doesn't that just prove that the system is NOT broken? If the system only really breaks down once it is taken away.. obviously, it is doing something successfully while it is in place.

It's not perfect, but obviously, it IS assisting and helping.. and many of those folks actually do need the help. Some don't.. some just want handouts. But the solution isn't to take it away from everyone.. forcing those who actually do need it to suffer needlessly.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982

This idea is sort of like cutting someones head off to cure a brain tumor. We dont have to go to that extreme to engineer society in the right direction. Just educate people. Thats right, FREE college for everyone. An educated populace is the hardest to exploit. And then tax the you know what out of the one percent to pay for it.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: openminded2011
You are absolutely right, further/tertiary education should be free with access based on ability to learn not ability to pay. Sadly too many people don't see the value in education only the cost.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join