> We should all do whatever the fuck we want, until we die.
Yeah but we’re not allowed to. Most employers will demands you show up for 40 hours a week and then frown at you or, at least, never promote you if you don’t stay for a lot more.
You are allow to do what ever the fuck you want until you die just don't expect me to give you money for doing what ever the fuck you want. As I too am doing what every the fuck I want, which happens to include only giving money to people who do something useful for me.
I think it is a good thing that individuals control their own money, and can choose to give it to whomever they want.
Can we agree that people with no money will starve to death unless they use violence to take food from someone, or the government uses violence to take food from someone on their behalf? The foodstamps of this great depression are equivalent to the soup lines of the old great depression: they prevent people from robbing, looting, and starving in the streets.
I don't know in the US, but here in Europe the gov't does not need to "use violence" for that. It is pretty much general consensus that people with no monies should get money (not "foodstamps") from the gov't, payed by our taxes, so they can live with dignity, independently of what the reason for their unemployment / poverty might be.
When Americans use the "use violence" argument, your argument doesn't work as a response, I'm afraid.
It is a libertarian tactic of assuming that anything the government does they don't like is use of violence, except for government protection of artificial property rights which is somehow usually magically exempt.
Just because naive libertarian polemicists use an argument doesn't make that argument incorrect.
>>>It is a libertarian tactic of assuming that anything the government does they don't like is use of violence, except for government protection of artificial property rights which is somehow usually magically exempt.
In my experience, libertarians universally agree with me when I say "artificial property rights are completely protected and propped up by the government's threat of violence". It is their favorite part of the how governments operate, because they do not recognize the benefits of collectivism (socialism, communism, prisoners dilemma, tragedy of the commons).
Notice how I have not told you anything about my personal political views.
I agree that the governments typically don't need to "use violence". Do you agree that the "threat of violence" is sufficient?
I can't speak to Europe as a whole or the specific country you are from. In the US, you can be put in jail for non-payment of taxes. We have good old debtors' prisons. Also, if you are hungry and take food that does not "belong to you", there are certain criminal laws that can result in imprisonment. How do European governments deal with non-payment of taxes and the taking of food?
By the way, US "foodstamps" are now called "EBT" and you get a normal looking debit card that has certain restrictions on how it can be used (no buying shoes, only food ingredients).
Agree for the current US, which is likely a large part of why they have food stamps, but no "living wage for doing whatever suits your fancy".
An argument could be made that much of the government funded research done at Bell Labs is worthless. An argument could be made that of the worthwhile things that have come out of this government research, transistors, lasers, and CCDs are the most far reaching (since transistors begat miniaturized electronics begat cell phones and computers begat the internet).
These government researchers were largely doing "whatever suited their fancy" and most of it was wasted effort and tax money. An argument could be made that the money and effort wasted was worth the amazing results.
The government and by extension its citizens acknowledge and accept that most government funded research won't pan out. Important details that make this work:
1) Only a very small fraction of the population is doing government funded research. Large population supporting small research operations is sustainable.
2) The research is vetted on some level, and it is in a technical field. Technical research has an established history of paying dividends (even though it finds many dead-ends)
I disagree with your point 1): very many Americans are unemployed or underemployed, and being supported by welfare initiatives such as unemployment, medicare, and food stamps. Some significant fraction could be employed doing basic research instead of sitting at home watching TV and looking for jobs that aren't being offered by corporations that are making more profits than ever through fractional reserve lending and bailouts.
An example of underemployment in our industry: there are very many individuals with government funded computer scientists with BS, MS, and PHD degrees, that are employed in lucrative positions as code monkeys and computer janitors. These people should be inventing the next UNIX and IPV8 and advanced networking algorithms and image recognition and self driving cars. I'm not educated on whether strong AI is a pipe dream or not but weak AI has helped with image recognition and encryption breaking and genetic learning and spam filtering and web searching.
I think your initial point that "citizens acknowledge and accept that most government funded research won't pan out" is highly highly controversial in the US among some democrats, republicans, and most libertarians. Many want to cut non-military blue-sky research completely. These people call themselves neo-conservatives, President George W. Bush was a champion of the ethos. Liberals and normal conservatives are a bit sneakier on their wishes to de-fund research.
I think you do that very real debate a disservice by minimizing the argument in this way. You know that's not the actual argument and it helps no one to propagate falsehoods.
The context of this discussion is this comment by olliesaunders:
> Yeah but we’re not allowed to. Most employers will demands you show up for 40 hours a week and then frown at you or, at least, never promote you if you don’t stay for a lot more.
The whole point here is that we aren't limited to what our employer "allows" us to do. We choose to follow the directions of any particular employer because it typically rewards us with money, which we can use to survive.
You are making the argument that people in the US don't have options. Of course they have options. The costs may be high to exercise those options, but that doesn't mean they don't have them.
And of course, the larger point:
> We should all do whatever the fuck we want, until we die.
Applies equally to employers as it does to everyone else.
>>>The context of this discussion is this comment by olliesaunders:
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, I will try to explain my original comment for you.
I agree with you that starting a business is possible in the legal sense and it is a culturally acceptable thing to do. The US government and the general socio-economic climate of the US makes it morally, legally, and socio-economically possible to start a business. Agreed.
Here is my response to olliesaunders:
>>>Most people in the United States do not have this option [starting a business] because they do not have enough money to do so.
If starting a business takes X amount of time, Y amount of money, and Z amount of skill, my contention is that most Americans do not have sufficient levels of each. To say nothing of the luck involved.
So with that in mind, let me reply to part of your most recent comment:
>>>You are making the argument that people in the US don't have options. Of course they have options.
This I agree with, as stated above.
>>>The costs may be high to exercise those options, but that doesn't mean they don't have them.
This I do not agree with. Starting a business costs Q amount of money. A certain segment of the population will never earn that much money in their entire lives.
To be snarky, I will likely never earn enough money to buy an island. The fact that it is legal to buy an island does not make buying an island an option for me.
Agree for software people, agree for middle class people with no children. Vast swathes of the population are not included. 30% of the population has less than 10k in net wealth. Think someone with a mortgage but no equity(or even underwater) and no assets. For this person, money is a very key issue since they are one non-emergency medical issue(cancer, heart disease, diabetes) away from death assuming they have insurance. If they don't have insurance, they will die if they develop a medical issue due to lack of ability to pay for their treatments or medication.
For those with money, don't forget luck. Also don't forget timing, but I repeat myself.
The money thing comes into play for the lower 30% of the population which has 10k to -infinity in net worth. Here's a tip: price out some business plans, then look up the percentage of the US population has enough net worth[1] to fund or convince a bank to fund their plan.
In any modern economy, you can redefine a business plan that requires capital into one that does not. The problem is rather what will you live off while the business is still taking off? That is where you may need savings. But then again, it is possible for approximately anybody to cut their expenses to less than 25% of what they are today. (1) Move to a cheaper area (2) get rid of everything you can do without. And then you will see what the real problem is: They hang out to things they could get rid off. This is what it truly means: "they do not have enough money to do so".
>>>It is possible for approximately anybody to cut their expenses to less than 25% of what they are today.
I will strongly agree for consumer purchases by people at or above the median household income in America. Strongly disagree for medical purchases, since if you try to save money you may die.
I'd love to see some numbers or studies to prove your claim as it applies to Americans in poverty. Even some anecdotal math would be fine, using craigslist apartments and bus ticket costs and food costs and medical costs and etc. Poverty line is 23,050 for a family of 4.
November 2012: 20% of American children live in poverty
The poverty numbers are cooked to drum up support for the socialist welfare apparatus. For example, if a 17 year old's family moves and they stay behind with a friend's family, they are classified as a "homeless child".
Note: Poverty in my post is intended to mean "low income". I understand that homeless means "without home". How does your post relate to the part of my post that you quoted?
Additionally, do you have any evidence for your assertion?
Yea, if you didn't take that job playing video games for $1M/minute then it's your fault, idiot. Oh wait, that doesn't exist and all and your argument is juvenile.
Yeah but we’re not allowed to. Most employers will demands you show up for 40 hours a week and then frown at you or, at least, never promote you if you don’t stay for a lot more.