One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:39 pm

yaaarrrgg;1395352 wrote: On my view, the chickens only belong to themselves. Humans will eat them and fight over them. To diminish the chance that their claims of chicken ownership will be challenged, humans invented the idea of ownership. "I own that chicken" means that the chicken was too weak to defend itself, and became captive to the human. It also means that they will fight anyone that challenges their claim of ownership. Though by the same lofty principles, if the human is too weak to defend his chicken, it likewise becomes the property of the taker.

And does this theory extend to inanimate objects, or has my example distracted you from my point?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:59 pm

Accountable;1395359 wrote: And does this theory extend to inanimate objects, or has my example distracted you from my point?

The fight over the inanimate objects is IMO only an abstraction of humans fighting over resources. Political battles are typically a power-play of one group wanting more of what another has, often a one-sided power play. The introduction of lofty ideals, IMO, is more to encourage the challenger to practice self-restraint, not to prevent the power-play from occurring. Those that hoard too many chickens at the expense of the town end up like the aristocrats in the French revolution.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:13 pm

yaaarrrgg;1395360 wrote: The fight over the inanimate objects is IMO only an abstraction of humans fighting over resources. Political battles are typically a power-play of one group wanting more of what another has, often a one-sided power play. The introduction of lofty ideals, IMO, is more to encourage the challenger to practice self-restraint, not to prevent the power-play from occurring. Those that hoard too many chickens at the expense of the town end up like the aristocrats in the French revolution.
An if it's not at the expense of the town? Then the "hoarding" (your & Ahso's word, certainly not mine) is okay?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:37 pm

Accountable;1395361 wrote: An if it's not at the expense of the town? Then the "hoarding" (your & Ahso's word, certainly not mine) is okay?

Perhaps, but isn't "okay" a cultural judgement? If the town decides to kill the guy anyway and take all his chickens, maybe they are in the wrong. But in this case they pass on their genes, he does not. I would suspect that's how humans have survived for a million years, with tribal warfare.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:48 pm

yaaarrrgg;1395365 wrote: Perhaps, but isn't "okay" a cultural judgement? Isn't "hoarding a cultural judgment? I don't get why you and Ahso insist on dragging my simple question to some kind of extreme. The criteria I clearly set was the taking from one in order to give to another who is not in need.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:09 pm

Accountable;1395366 wrote: Isn't "hoarding a cultural judgment? I don't get why you and Ahso insist on dragging my simple question to some kind of extreme. The criteria I clearly set was the taking from one in order to give to another who is not in need.

That's a fair point, as is "need". A retiree would probably say he needs medicare and SS. A non-retired libertarian may say he does not need it. Though I'm curious how they are going to afford medical bills that are easily 10K/day.

That doesn't mean I think medicare is a good idea. People lapping up the most government benefits often think our capitalist health care system is great. Mostly because they only have a tangential connection to the actual capitalistic system. If we killed off medicare tomorrow along with medicaid and veterans health care, what do you think you'd see watching the poll numbers of people in favor of national health care for everyone? What's aggravating is that these are the same demographics that tend to vote against health care reform for everyone else.

Basically what we have is a group of half-domesticated animals fighting over resources. On the allocation of resources there are two basic routes we can go. Cut the pie evenly, or allow the law of the jungle decide who gets the biggest slice. IMO, a government should offer a service to everyone, or not offer the service. If a government can only help 50% of the population, maybe people should only pay 50% of their tax bill.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:49 am

When I wrote "not in need" I naively thought it would be understood as the individual making the definition himself, as in he doesn't perceive a need and has not asked for anything.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:13 pm

Accountable;1395366 wrote: Isn't "hoarding a cultural judgment? I don't get why you and Ahso insist on dragging my simple question to some kind of extreme. The criteria I clearly set was the taking from one in order to give to another who is not in need.Hoarding is a behavioral condition, IMV. I don't condemn the condition itself because I understand it's merely something some humans do (I believe there are reports of other species doing it as well). The problem is what is being hoarded - money, which is being taken out of circulation due to the fact that our economy has evolved into one that most of the gains are based on monetary assets, which the affluent have more of. That's unfair. It's okay to make money off money, but not to the extent that it's now happening. That's the problem in a nutshell, as I see it.

"Work" has changed from doing labor to venture capitalism. It takes money to be an investor so those able to find "work" are those who have money to work with. This is how the hoarding is occurring.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:08 pm

Define hoarding, IYV.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Accountable;1395422 wrote: Define hoarding, IYV.This one works for me:

hoard/hôrd/

Noun:A store of money or valued objects, typically one that is secret or carefully guarded.

Verb:Amass (money or valued objects) and hide or store away.

Synonyms:noun. store - stock - supply - reserve - treasure - fund

verb. amass - accumulate - garner - lay up - store - pile up

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:21 am

Then how do you square "It takes money to be an investor so those able to find "work" are those who have money to work with."?

And hoarding.

The money is either hoarded/hidden/safe or working, it cannot be both.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:38 am

Ahso!;1395426 wrote: This one works for me:

hoard/hôrd/

Noun:A store of money or valued objects, typically one that is secret or carefully guarded.

Verb:Amass (money or valued objects) and hide or store away.

Synonyms:noun. store - stock - supply - reserve - treasure - fund

verb. amass - accumulate - garner - lay up - store - pile up

A savings account fits that definition. Surely all your rants about hoarding isn't about saving for emergencies & retirement?? Come on, get specific.