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.

 

‘Basic income’ poll: 64% of Europeans would vote in favor!

page: 15
17
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Davg80

yes people would like to get free money who would not




posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
So it seems like personal responsibility is becoming obsolete. Some people don't want to be responsible for their own actions anymore.

Is Personal Responsibility Obsolete?



Generations ago, both religious people and socialists were agreed on the proposition that "he who does not work, neither shall he eat." Both would come to the aid of those unable to work. But the idea that people who simply choose not to work should be supported by money taken from those who are working was rejected across the ideological spectrum.




Welfare state guarantees of not having to work, however the particular policies are applied, are not a solution. Relieving people of personal responsibility for their own lives, however it is done, is a major part of the problem.

Before there can be a welfare state in a democratic country, there must first be a welfare state vision that becomes sufficiently pervasive to allow a welfare state to be created. That vision, in which people are "entitled" to what others have produced, is at the heart of the social degeneration that can be traced back to the 1960s.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795
So it seems like personal responsibility is becoming obsolete. Some people don't want to be responsible for their own actions anymore.


IText GreenIs Personal Responsibility Obsolete?



Generations ago, both religious people and socialists were agreed on the proposition that "he who does not work, neither shall he eat." Both would come to the aid of those unable to work. But the idea that people who simply choose not to work should be supported by money taken from those who are working was rejected across the ideological spectrum.

Generations ago, yes things have changed this is 64% of those who voted.


Welfare state guarantees of not having to work, however the particular policies are applied, are not a solution. Relieving people of personal responsibility for their own lives, however it is done, is a major part of the problem.

Before there can be a welfare state in a democratic country, there must first be a welfare state vision that becomes sufficiently pervasive to allow a welfare state to be created. That vision, in which people are "entitled" to what others have produced, is at the heart of the social degeneration that can be traced back to the 1960s.

Okay I'm pretty sick of the thieving, and I see it as a trend, or the norm now. Do you agree with the policy of three strikes? Let them starve? Propose creating meaningless jobs better completed by machines? I'm saying the UBI fixes the problems and it is time for change



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795
So it seems like personal responsibility is becoming obsolete. Some people don't want to be responsible for their own actions anymore.



Okay, I have seen this comment posted many times on other thread of similar topics.
First, this article was about countries in Europe.

This commentary you linked to is concerning America.

The quote used in it , "he who does not work neither shall he eat" was first announced by John Smith in Jamestown Virginia. (USA)

It was used after that by Lenin during the Russian Revolution, by the way, so the claim that it is the opposite of Communism is false. ( Lenin didn't think investors and shareholders should get food unless they helped grow it.)

There is an American author who lives here in France and does lectures for french people, to help explain the american mentality, to help people in business, for example, comprehend better their American associates.
He begins with this quote, and explaining it.
You see, it is not a principle that most Europeans are familiar with. It does not apply in their cultures.

In their culture, lots of people are in positions of not being able to do work and they still think they have the right to live!
(children, elderly, handicapped, sick, injured, pregnant....)

There is also underlying cultural values, such as the Protestant or Catholic ethos.

We are a bit more familiar with the Protestant ethics because it is prominent in the US, and Max Weber brought it to the attention of the masses in his book The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism.
In most of Europe, Catholicism reigned for so long, that even when Protestantism came in, it remains an underlying influence, and Protestant ethics never gained as strong a presence as it has in the USA.

The thing with ethics systems such as these, they may have been seeded through religion, but then they remain even when the religion is no longer. You don't have to be religious at all to have been conditioned with these ethics by your environment.

There are a lot of differences then, in the way Americans look at the topics of merit, responsibility, power, and their values upon what is virtuous and what is not.


“Generally the concept of the Protestant ethic refers to a set of beliefs that support work — particularly, hard work — and give it a sort of transcendental and omnibus meaning and purpose. The Protestant ethic supports material and financial acquisition as opposed to sufficiency. In the Protestant ethic tradition, a person can never have too much money. Even people who are doing well should continue to persevere and acquire more…. The Protestant ethic tends to regard money as a symbol of and validation of success and achievement and thus transforms money from a tool to meet material needs into a symbol of fundamental character…. Ipso facto, having money is good.”

The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Community


The Catholic Ethos has a different perspective (as described in the same book as above)

“the Catholic ethic is a community-centered pattern of values. The community of individuals is at least as important as — and perhaps more important than — any one individual. The Catholic ethic emphasizes connectivity, loyalty, and involvement. It will offer you direct assistance, may not push you as much, and, in some cases, may remember if someone or some group has offended your community, even in times past. It is people oriented, so it supports work because people do it, not because of the results it produces. Money is fine, but having it does not make you a good, or better, person….”

In Catholic culture, work, though obviously important

“does not have sacred personal and transcendental meaning, nor does it become the sine qua non of social acceptance.”
For Catholics, their role in their family, their marriage, or their calling for services such priesthood, ministry, are more important.


“in the Catholic ethic, money never became symbolized as anything but a means to an end — namely, provision for human need. It did not signify anything except the ability to provide daily bread. Money used as a product to produce more money (usury) was frowned upon.”



This is the value and ethic system that the population being spoken of in the OP's article are looking at the question from!

So as you worry about individual responsibility, they tend to worry about the loss of social conscience.
Where we think each man for himself, they think we are each is his brothers keeper.


edit on 13-6-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

I'd say we're far beyond that point.

Privatize profits and socialize losses, it's not a trend. It's the Brave New Way of Life (TM)! Those poor thieves - at the bottom and on top of the ladder - seem to have more in common than one might think...

Too big to jail

Let's remember that as well before we blaim the poor. A salary for the lulz will enable everybody to act responsible, literally. What's so bad about working on your dreams, instead of running through various dayjobs to fulfill the dreams of your bosses?

Anyway. The welfare systems I know barely feed the folks, supply them with a minimal healthcare and keep 'em under a warm roof, that's about it. Argue about the cost of this bare-bones life support in general and you're obviously willing to further risk their health for the sake of another irrelevant budget debate. Really? And that mindset is supposed to lecture about responsibility? How about noblesse oblige, remember that one?

Go ahead and put price tags on the basic human dignity and turn fluffy fascist, we Krauts did far worse than that. But who's going to address the social degeneration involved in this sort of behaviour?

Ok, try this: Arbeit macht frei! You'll catch the drift.


edit on 13-6-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
And that mindset is supposed to lecture about responsibility? How about noblesse oblige, remember that one?


Noblesse oblige is from the french. The American culture has no similar moral. In our culture, people are concerned with personal responsibility and merit. We believe that helping someone makes them more weak, more dependent and actually makes them less capable of taking care of themselves. It's not a nice thing to do, actually.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

From the french? And the Muricans don't have that mindset, Sanders must be a french guy! Errr... whatever.

My Point is, when you empower people to decide freely you'll also embrace their personal responsibility. It's actually a very nice thing to do, think raising kids.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Bluesma

From the french? And the Muricans don't have that mindset, Sanders must be a french guy! Errr... whatever.


No, it is not a traditional american value. We are inculcated early that individual responsibility and merit is of highest importance, and the wealthy do not have a responsibility towards the poorer- they are assumed to have won their wealth on their own merit and deserve to benefit from it as they wish. The idea is that seeing them do so is supposed to inspire those below to try to do the same.

Note that Sanders didn't make it. He attracted some attention because his thinking was so radically different and counter to our traditions, at a time people are in the mood for change- but ultimately, he was TOO MUCH change. It spooked people.
Our cultural conditioning goes deep..

I am only trying to help you understand your audience. It can be easy to get frustrated and think people are just being purposefully obtuse... when in fact you are coming at them from the wrong angle for their understanding.

edit on 15-6-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Remember the New Deal? Roosevelt raised the social spending from the former $9 mil. to $480 mil. He was either following your alleged french traditions or you're simply wrong and said cultural condition is more likely a modern result after years of neoliberal propaganda.

I think you understood my 'raising kids' analogy, care to debate that point then?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

I think you understood my 'raising kids' analogy, care to debate that point then?


Actually no I didn't understand it. And so far I have not been very good at guessing your meanings in this discussion, so I'd rather not try anymore.

"when you empower people to decide freely you'll also embrace their personal responsibility"

If you'd like to explain that in more concrete terms, please do. Maybe I am not the only one who didn't get it?

As for debating, I would have to disagree to engage in a debate on it... I can't say whether I disagree yet.



On the rest, if you think I am wrong about my native culture, then how do YOU interpret the kinds of responses Americans give to this sort of idea, like
"There is no personal responsibility in such a system!"
"Nobody would choose to work then!"
"Money for nothing! How completely ridiculous!"


Read this post again www.abovetopsecret.com...

The famous motto, spoken by James Smith in 1609, is a concept you don't have to explain to any american.
"he that will not work shall not eat" (".....For the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and fifty idle loiterers.")

Why do you think there has been several threads started on this idea, and while Europeans seem to discuss it rather easily, the Americans are acting shocked and confused?


edit on 15-6-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join