I meant ethically correct as in not forced to worked naked, etc.

Calling that working as a slave is an insult to people who really work as slaves.

Read: Second and Third world.

If that is someones only argument for leeching of others and he is a worthless, egoistic fuck and needs to be send to the wild, where he will have to work his ass of just to get some food in return.

wrong. I do work for a wage and yes ultimately I have to do what my boss tells me. But that doesn't happen very often, usually my proposals are followed.
And there is an enourmous difference in going home after work and having money to spend it and what slavery is really like.

I am talking about that fact that everyone who decides to take welfare is effectively taking money from the people who do work without offering anything in return.

Society as a whole would always be better of without them, as we would in fact need to pay less taxes and therefore get more money for our work.

..(whether it is too low is a different matter).

Someone who takes Welfare just leeches.

It's basically like someone who comes into your home every evening and demands that you let him eat your icecream. And when you tell him to gtfo he declares that buying his own icecream is such a hassle.

..be you own boss..

instead of leeching of my money.

See how you like the hours there...

but why would I want to buy some lazy person food who can get his own?

well, you obviously haven't got a clue about work organisation.

But your brain seems to be seriously influenced by anti-capitalistic propaganda, way beyond you managing to think about the stuff yourself.

I mean you have even failed to grasp what capitalism as a theory actually means.

You seem to have no clue how work mechanics such as specialisation, organisation and (yes I'm gonna say the evil word) management function.

Your contributions so far have painted you as a selfrighteous..

..who would enjoy it if everyone paid for his lifestyle and is unable to feel bad about taking money form others without giving anything in return.

quit making stuff up..

..I am not against helping people and have written so.

Nor do I say everyone who is unemployed is lazy.

I am however opposed to calling people needy who do not want to work and I certainly don't want to reward them (!) for their decision by giving them money.

I am also not opposed to paying taxes, as I am realistic enough to know that they do make sense in many cases (as said: police, schools, etc).

I am however appalled by people who want to steal money and abuse our welfare system that is meant for people who can't work not those who just don't wan't to.

And I am equally appalled of people who advertise such behaviour.

YOU the reason why people who really can't do a thing about their unemployment are often looked down upon and ashamed of themselves. Because they don't want to be seen in the same group of people.

But please if you really want to stop participating in the taxing system, please also refrain from using roads, hospitals, the internet and anything else tax money paid for.

Awesome, so you have no real argument, and instead post other examples where money is wasted.

Do you even realize how utterly retarded you argument is???

"Hey, others leech money, so it's fine if I do it. I am doing this for a better more equal world."

Would you also kill someone for money?

Because others do and they also say it's for a better world.

nope, too many are led to believe so, but it isn't.

actually, it does give me the right to attack you, because you are telling people it's justified to steal other people's money.

If I tell others that it's fine to burn your house down will you also not argue with me?

nope it's not rockets science, but still I am surprised that you know it.

So, when you want to be your own boss, will you give your business, whatever that will be, to the government? The people? Or will you keep it for yourself?

Just like that the average person profits more from capitalism than any other system.

Those are effects, which can be altered.

what you can do if your job sucks is complain, possibly through unions..

..and start looking for another job. Or begin a new education to get another job.

Just going home, letting someone else take up your job and effectively pay your welfare with his taxes is way more ethically incorrect that anything a boss could ever do in terms of work vs. reward.

a) a boss makes 15000$ for 200 hours of work *

c) some guy get 500$ of welfare for 0 hours of work.

a) boss gets 75$ per hour spent to improve life of the society.

b) worker gets 15$ per hour spent to improve life of the society.

c) some guy gets and infinite amount of $ per hour spent to improve life of the society.

30 guys on welfare get the same as one boss and do nothing at all for the society.

95% of the people don't get to be boss without a) being very good at what they do, b) having worked the lower jobs for some time or c)invest their personal money d) usually more than one of those.

Yes, because you yourself said so, and I did so as well.

For clarification (again): this is about the egoists that think quitting a job to start living on welfare without trying to fight a new job right away is somehow a good and valid choice.

you might wanna read up on welfare economics to see how very wrong you are.

But I guess you either won't or will just claim that everything that is said there is wrong and propaganda.

that too is a stupid generalisation and simply wrong. And I think deep down you know that.

not gonna answer all your other stuff both in this and your other post, because it is becoming pretty obvious you are living in a very different world.

You think it's fine to just take money without even trying to give something in return as long as you don't take much.

And I think that that is just as bad as a rich person abusing others.

You assume beyond all reason that bosses are per se doing nothing of worth and only leech of their employees.

But then I must ask, why do all those organisations that are anti-capitalism and anti-globalism and government led companies in communism and socialism always have some sort of leader?

The truth is you simply have no idea what top managers andbosses actually do, you just se how much money they get, then your envy takes over and you start writing the things you did.

Well, I hope this happens:
You do actually manage to start a business and realize what a manager actually does and how paying taxes so lazy gits can buy beer and watch TV sucks.

Though with you idea of the business world, I'm afraid you will fail :(

Because yes, it definately affects me if someone lives on welfare. Sure one single person doesn't hardly matter in proportion. But if 100.000 people decide to get 500€ a month, then suddenly that's 50 million € which would mean I am basically giving some guy 2€ every month just because he wants me to... So yeah, it does affect me.

You have a correct approach, but since you leave out important factors..

I dare say that all the guys you listed would /facepalm instead of agreeing. Given they live today, and have seen the failed experiments of planned economies.

Because a) you are completely ignoring the enourmous raise in effciency that capitalism offers.

I know you will now try to argue and and all that. But just look at the comparisons between Western and Eastern Germany and North and South Korea...

b) You completely ignore that facts that you always have to have a person in charge, who does a good job.

Yes I know you have the opinion that the top managers do now work. But if you look at the examples of say General Motors and VW you might be able to see who good are bad management decision might just have that slight influence...

In that regard, Marx himself very much acknowledges the benefits in effficiency that organized manufacturing offers in comparison to craftsman (read everyone doing everything on his own). If you have every had a cupboard handmade and compared the prices to a manufactured one you might see my point...

Therefor it is a concensus that working in teams (which is basically what a company does) increases the efficiency or output of a single worker by lets say 100%. So wouldn't it be fair that the worker gets 150% of his out in wage, and the side who manage to achieve the raise in efficiency gets the remaining 50%?

d) Additionally, with your step from 5) to 6) you are ignoring that a company has to make investments to raise that efficiency even more, a cynic like you are is blind to see that for example buying new machniery which uses less ressources than befor eis actually a good thing and helps to raise the workers efficiency to say 220% letting him keep another 15%. That is how our average anual raises are paid.

e) you are mentioning in 1) that a person procures a means of production, but ignore that fact that in the case he founded the company he invested at sitload of his time to start it and often risks most of his own money.

So, if I may take up your way of thinking every worker who comes there to work steals money from him by using those machines!

Obviously noone really thinks like that, but that is the reason why an entrepreneur is entitled to a share of the worker´'s output.

In the end you claimed earlier that the people in the third world are the victims of capitalism. In a way they are yes, but only because most countries have capitalism. In reality they are victims of our greed, and if we were had planned economies, they would be abused just the same. See the of the Sowjet Union, which abused it's satellite states. We have lots of Romanians, Poles, Baltics, etc here. Ask they how they remember it.

On the other hand, the people who are of the worst afe the poor farmers who just ahve a little land and no tools they ofter move to towns to *gasp* work in factories because if offers better payments. You better tell them they are idiots for doing so.
In recent years we also have asystem of microcredits, a truly capitalistic approach. And what do we got? An inprovement in teh living conditions of farmers who take part in the system. (Yes, there are many problems with that approach as well, but the improvement is undeniable).

Conclusively, you should really stay more open minded towards our economic system and look at all aspects.

And don't just lokk at things you don't like and blame it all on capitalism.

Well I guess this pretty much sums you up.

The reality of the world, since the first bacteria evolved was always: You have to make an effort to get food.

And yes the state takes the taxes, and those taxes are needed to for a all the things I listed.
But when the state has to pay an additional 50 Mio. per months, they will need that money either from me or from elsewhere. So either I pay more because of the decision of those people, or a school or people who really need it (and for whom I am willing to spend money!) get less.
Are really unable to see the connection there?

rofl.

That is simply wrong. Because work efficiency for a product is a funtion ofit's worth the produced amount and the prodcution .

And a product's worth is very much connected to it's quality.

Numerous s´companies went bancrupt because their quality sucked and the consumers noted.

Yes, there are from time to time idiotic managers who actually do what you described, but there are idiots in every position.

Believe me, I know very well what I am talking about, when I say that investments both in new machinery and new work organisation (see kan ban or kaizen) can yield an increase in quality, work safety and environment at equal or lower production cost.

Oh, I really find it quite amusing that you used "lmfao" in this topic specifially.

Since I did study this stuff and work as an engineer. So, I might just know a thing or two about it ;)

While that is true, you were the one talking about Marx...

But please, tell me how our economy should work?

you are right, it isn't. However there is even less legitamation for what you are trying to defend: The exploitation of the state and therefore its citizens.

Yes, and that money could finally be used to cut our horrendous debt (even though not nearly as high as yours) and protect us from the high inflation in the future which at the moment I say at inevitable.

It would also give the politicans that much less reasoning for raising the taxes.

btw, do you even know our political landscape and mechanics or are you just going from your impression of the American system?

Yes, in a way it is an ethical discussion, however since you only mention unethical effects of capitalism, I think it is very necessary to bring your attention to the positive effects.

Because continuous inprovements (kaizen) are a direct result of having capitalism (or actually free markets and competiion).

Additionaly, there are approaches that are based on the fact that the most efficient workers are happy workers, this goes back al the way to Taylor and his coal shovels.

Additionaly, there are approaches that are based on the fact that the most efficient chattle slaves are happy chattle slaves...SEE GUYS I'VE JUST PROVED FEUDALISM IS JUST!

Yes, there are tools the are negative for the people, but it has been shown several times that something like short-term lay-offs has bad long-term effects on a company, which outway the short-term savings.

But ultimately I see that as an unsufficient reasoning, because for example you can't blame the fact that drunk drivers kill people on the existence of cars.
It's how responsible you use them.

exactly, and I think you will very much agree that that use value is very dependent on quality.

actually, no it can't.

But your company name suffers (if you use the same again) or consumers become more wary of new names (if you use a different company every time).

On the other hand a company that continuously produces high quality gets recognized for it.

Imo, both are effects we see everyday: "Don't ever buy that no-name psu, get something like enermax or seasonic!" "Are you really sure you want to buy that ASRock piece of shit mainboard?", etc.

I loled.
I remember that discussion and I loled back then, and I was one of those highly sceptical of your mutal aid approach.

That is not a solution, that is an unrealistic utopia, which would only work if humans were better than they really are.

Oh and you and me are examples of those bad humans, because your lifestyle just as mine is partly paid for by the suffering in the third world.

You maybe a little bit more than me, cause you think that a person who does nothing deserves more money in a month than the average African worker could ever hope for.

stealing from a thief is still stealing.

If I give my money to a bank and you steal from that bank so I will never get it back, you steal money from me.

Are you able to understand that?

Because if I willingly pay my taxes you may NOT simply take them away because YOU think I shouldn't pay the taxes. It is not your fucking decision to make, be cause I paid it.

another example: If I pay too much for a car, that does not give you any right to go to the seller and demand money from him.

So if by ridiculous strawmen you mean logic, then yeah I agree it will never work on you...

As seen here as well:


things really aren't that different, when it comes to party competition and the policies that parties implement. state capitalism works the same way on both continents, as well.

Read: No I don't know what you have in your countries, but I'm just gonna assume it's the same.
WE don't fucking have your two-party system and that in itself makes a big difference!.. Yet you proclaimit's all the same.

I bet you can't even name the 5 most important parties in Germany atm.

And then the term "state capitalism" don't make me fucking laugh, state companies are being privatized by the politicians right and left and the public is complaining about it!

The fact of the matter is that lobbies tend to influence the government, not vice versa.

It think you will have to try hard to make a more ignorant statement.

and your allgergy to logic show again here:

..

I mean it's easy to not see anything justifiable in any matter, if you simply choose not to look at it.

Here, het me show you how your way are "arguing" looks:
"Me, I don't see anything justifible in Libertarian Socialism at all, because I don't want to, now argue with that through your ridicuous strawmen, cause they won't work on me."
i.e. pretty much the same approach the conspricary theorists, creationists and other mental people use.

You had some acceptable arguments in the progression of our discussion, but since that is the basis of your belief I don't see any worth in continuing this charade.

lmfao, when I read your statements about German politics.

You don't know much and even partly admit it, only to turn around to declare that my arguments are worthless.

If you can't see the contradiction in that, I don't think anyone can help you.

But how serious would take a Russian criticizing your system without knowing what the democrats and the rupublicans are?

You called collecting taxes stealing. So unless you think stealing is ok, you condemned it.

Similarily, youcall the state demanding money from people stealing, regardless whether the people want it or not and whether it is legal or not.

And then you try to argue I may not call deliberately receiving, welfare even though one could work (which is some for is actually illegal) stealing.

This continuous measuring with two measures is what makes the discussion worthless. Even though you will undoubtely deny this and blame it on me.

1. you questioned my knowledge not vice versa. go figure.

2. and how many books of those have you actually read?

3. no, but it's certainly is not for you alone to decide.

4. i tried explaining, but you blocked that of with a simple "I'm not here to discuss that". Why the fuck should I talk to you about it now?

I'll bet you everything you own that I have been in more debates than you.

However, I have learned quite some years ago that there are types of people with whom you can't discuss things, because the only time they will ever change their opinion is when nobody notices.

It's little kids like you who think they have all figured out and therefore think everyone who thinks differently must be somehow dumb or unfamiliar with the topic (oh wait, you alright tried that "argument").

Come to think of that, if i had said something like that or like "you are unfamiliar with dabates and ethics" you would have spammed "Red Herring" and "ad hominem" a million times.

haha, so everything I write is supposed to be an argument..

..which in the next step you declare to be a bad argument.

Everything you say however may or may not be an argument, depending on how it turns out.

Ok, now I really don't see the point in writing any more text to you, since your highly subjective approach makes it impossible to get any sort of discussion going.

So how about this:
I stop writing but you simply keep writing some of your "revelations" once a day, sort of like a jonesy. Deal?