Genuine question here - what is actually wrong with "muh free stuff?"
>>65552128
u need to take it from someone else
>>65552270
And what's wrong with that?
>>65552313
Relinquish your properties and wealth then, give it to the abbos.
>>65552313
>>65552313
they are going to take it from you and you are going to protest
>>65552613
If it helped eliminate the existence of fixable social ills, I'd be more than happy too.
>>65552667
a.k.a. "fuck you, I got mine!"
>>65552763
What if I give it up voluntarily?
>>65552313
>>65552128
Rich are sacrosanct, Compared to making middle class 20% richer, they would rather have rich keep %00.1 of their money.
They try to protect the ruling class wealth-honor,dignitiy. Funny how this is not reciprocal as they have no problem of impoverishing the middle class. (which is shrinking and losing its purchase power since 1970, guess where that money went)
My grandfather is a factory owner, I think that makes me upper middle class, if not filthy rich. I have no sympathy for these idiots. "I should be a good slave, one day they might reward me by making me a master" tier retardation.
>>65552313
What will you say when government comes for what crumbs one may have from the taking of others? When does it end, until no one equally has anything?
Capitalism is based on the fact that humans always are motivated by self-interest, even if it's in an indirect way. There isn't a more ideal system that can function given the pragmatic realities of humanity. That means that there must be the possibility of reward for acting on that self-interest. Without that incentive, the entire profit motive for practicing business is undermined. The right to private property means that if you manage to earn some amount of wealth, it should be treated as a part of your private property and you're the only one that's free to decide how its used.
Why the fuck should dope be legal? I have been in jail like 500 times for sellin dope and now you book dummies are going to legalize it? That won't un arrest me for growin dope. I can't even find a job because of goin to jail for sellin dope. Now you're going to make it legal what are you gonna do? un arrest me?
This is fucking bullshit and you know it.
>>65552128
Nothing is free. The government is putting their hands in one citizen's pockets and giving the money to another citizen.
If you ever join the working class, you'll see how its unfair that wage slaves' taxes is being used to keep NEETS fed and sheltered, while wealthy people who can afford Jew lawyers are finding loop holes to skip out on paying taxes.
>>65552990
Your grandfather probably did JUST that so you could have the job and lifestyle that you have today.
nothing
When I was in the Philippines no stores had toilet paper. you had to carry that shit around everywhere you go. Obviously everything shouldn't be free, but something like health care should be
People won't have any incentive to work or advance themselves. The country has to pay for it somehow and there's a deficit, so the burden falls on the taxpayers and the workers.
In order to give Shaneequa and her 8 little Jamals food stamps and a free ride to uni if they get above a 2.0 GPA we have to steal 10-30% of every hard-working citizen's income. Does that sound right to you?
>>65552128
Some of the hope Bernie had was to shift the burden from the government to the corporations. He made the point that a lot of minimum wage jobs actually cost the government money since they have to provide these people with subsidies. The hope was to then make the corporations actually pay them that difference (basic food, somewhere to live, medicine, etc...) instead of forcing it on the American people as a whole. I think there should be a basic level of government assistance but not enough to ensure able bodied people do nothing but bum around and live off the government.
>>65553294
> for what crumbs one may have from the taking of others?
I don't follow, could you elaborate?
>>65553423
>humans always are motivated by self-interest
1. This is simply not true.
2. Even for the people who are, they're not motivated by self-interest 100% of the time. Humans are complex creatures with overlapping and often contradictory desires, read some philosophy.
>There isn't a more ideal system that can function given the pragmatic realities of humanity.
"Function" is relative. If I was concerned about the short-term (say 5-10 years) economic growth of a country, I would by all means be a capitalist. However, since the world doesn't end in 5-10 years time, then long-term problems of deregulated capitalism are only going to become more and more apparent.
>That means that there must be the possibility of reward for acting on that self-interest
Not only is this completely compatible with a regulated market system, it's actually more grounded in reality when there is one. Social mobility increases as income inequality reduce (to reasonable levels.)
>The right to private property means that if you manage to earn some amount of wealth, it should be treated as a part of your private property and you're the only one that's free to decide how its used.
The problem is is that it's literally impossible to live in a vacuum. The wealth you created didn't materialise magically from your hard work and perseverance, it's the result of living in an economic context that allows hard work to result in economic gain with reasonable certainty. THe problem is is that too many people fail to realise just how much their success was dependent on external conditions, such as living in a society that criminalises exploitation, provides access to low-cost education programs to increase your skillset and hence wealth-making potential, the subconscious assumption that if you do the work, you will get paid, etc. etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch
You will now be required to pay into it, same as everyone else, except their is no longer a quality service since it has to be the same for everyone. It fuels into the "gibs me dat" mentality, discourages others from providing better service or standing out.
Socialism is good at only one thing: keeping everyone equally poor, miserable and dependent on the state.
>>65553998
>People won't have any incentive to work or advance themselves.
But this is by and large demonstrably false. Welfare dependency as it is - especially in America - is still a brutal reality for most people, and having a more supportive safety net would actually allow and MOTIVATE them to achieve their aspirations, not kill their drive.
And finally, this is where it gets philosophical, but I'm going to completely argue that even IF some people abuse the system, this is still preferable failing to support those in poverty. I actually accept that there are actually slackers who just want government monies to smoke dope and fuck high school chicks all day, but they are an *extreme minority*, and their existence should be a tolerated negative side effect in the quest to provide for all citizens.
Let's say there's 1000 people on welfare, of which 100 (that's a generous number) are just lazy bludgers. So, to combat this, the government cuts welfare funding in order to "punish" the bludgers. What happens then is that ALL these welfare recipients are punished, regardless of their motivation to work or not. And then, it doesn't take a genius to deduce that with reduced financial support, those 900 otherwise productive people are forced to turn to either punishingly low-wage jobs or illegal activities in order to supplement their income. This is a net loss for society.
http://theweek.com/articles/449215/does-welfare-make-people-lazy
>>65552128
tanstaafl
>>65552128
Somebody has to pay for it.
That somebody ends up being the hardworking people who have jobs and make money.
Those hardworking people get tired of having all their hard-earned money taken and given to other people, so they start quitting their jobs and living off of "free stuff" instead.
Eventually there's nobody left to pay for all the "free stuff" and the government build up a massive debt mountain that comes crashing down on top of it years later.
See Greece as a perfect example of this.
>>65552128
Because instead of realizing the banks stole 43 trillion USD from the world, you take money from anyone who is remotely financially intelligent.
Although, stupid people need to be punished for choosing to be stupid.
>>65554081
I agree that the system isn't a meritocracy, and if something more meritocratic could arise it'd be just fine. I think the cynical assumption that humans are always motivated in some way by petty self-interest dressed up in delusion tends to be more realistic, even if it isn't appealing or provide for much of a satisfying founding principle for basing a motivation for life on.
The free market system is based on the idea that the higher the amount of regulation of the markets the greater the amount of resources are allocated to the regulating mechanism and is wasted. I remember reading somewhere that the Soviets had ideas about having a centrally planned society that operated under the guidance of a powerful central computer in a network that extended to all reaches of the empire, with the idea that it would negate the human element in the situation, and make that regulated system function. Maybe that would work, more likely it would just sublimate the human factor.
It's true that external circumstances which have nothing to do with the individual's internal will contribute to their wealth. All humans are born into a set of circumstances that is beyond their control.
Why should one have something, and not another?
>>65552917
>If it helped eliminate the existence of fixable social ills
The key word there is "if".
Giving people free stuff doesn't fix anything. Just look at how all the international food donations to Africa have done nothing to stop the famine. If anything, it creates more problems by making them dependent on said "free stuff".
The only way to actually fix something like this is to change the people involved, and that's not something the government can realistically do.
>>65555767
>Although, stupid people need to be punished for choosing to be stupid.
... because education quality is completely 100% consistent across the board, right?
>>65555113
>>65554081
You seem polite enough.
You talk of philosophy and relativization of this and that and whatnot.
I don't care about any of that, i don't defend capitalism and free markets because the philosophy pleases me, i do it because empirical evidence shows that they work.
The countries that have social welfare programs and are not having their economies destroyed by them have freer markets than murrica, australia has freer markest than murrica. That doesn't mean these countries are doing fine, they are either stagnated or starting to regress economically and they do complain of welfare dependence on their citizens, do you really deny that free money for single mothers and unemployed people is not an incentive to single motherhood and not looking for a job? Especially when the free markets make things cheaper and the government leftists keep pushing for more money fo dem programs?
Do you know the case of new zealand? Look it up, they where rich, they went leftist with big gov, they got poor, they liberated the economy, they got rich.
Forget theory, the fact is that capitalism works, it generates and distributes wealth, government doesn't generate and can't effectively distribute wealth in the long run.
I don't want to pay higher taxes for a service I will never use.
>>65556131
Education reform is indeed necessary, however, the majority of people who wind up unintelligent do so because "it's boring."
>>65552128
It decreases motivation to do well when you are handed everything. Society suffers as a whole because of it.
Nothing is ever free
To an extent the system can and will be abused easily. Look at Sweden, Germany, America, Canada, etc.. for example. Why bother getting skills, getting a degree, working, and building a business when you just can sponge off people's tax dollars.
Obviously the lower skill sector of the job market has millennials competing with older people & immigrants but that is only a small piece. I fully support universal healthcare and college paid for but how in the fuck are we going to achieve that? We already send billions to our defense, infrastructure, welfare, and so forth. The only way we can get free stuff is if we raise our taxes to insane proportions. Here in California we have the highest taxes in nation. However moonbeam and our legislature in Sacramento thinks it is a better idea to build a high speed rail way! Rather than spend our money on our over-crowded schools, prisons, freeways, and OUR WATER SUPPLY.
TL;DR
With free shit comes higher taxes, costs, and more potential for abuse.
>>65555609
>"Hard-working"
If a bunch of people got free money, it would cause more stimulus for the economy. This would really make them more hard working.
>>65554081
Meaning one that lives on welfare, free this free that...usually has a low standard of life. For the crumbs you would have from being taken from someone else, why would you think the government would not take those crumbs away from you?....it would not end until everyone had nothing.
>>65556585
Why bother serving the interests of mankind and contributing to the greater good when you can buy another gold plated private jet with the returns on your capital?
>>65556099
>Just look at how all the international food donations to Africa have done nothing to stop the famine.
That's not an argument against "free stuff," that's an argument against giving people the WRONG free stuff. I saw a documentary many years ago about relief efforts in some West African countries in the 90s, which focused on providing grains, agricultural training, etc. to the people who couldn't feed themselves. The results were starting to look good, but as soon as the focus shifted to providing just outright food itself, the whole thing collapsed.
>Giving people free stuff doesn't fix anything
This is also wrong.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/welfare-makes-america-more-entrepreneurial/388598/
>>65554374
>Socialism is good at only one thing: keeping everyone equally poor, miserable and dependent on the state.
What a garbage opinion.
I'd rather be middle class in Europe where I can worry about owning a home and starting a family instead of paying off my tuition and avoiding the hospital.
>>65556585
>I fully support universal healthcare and college paid for but how in the fuck are we going to achieve that? We already send billions to our defense, infrastructure, welfare, and so forth
Cut defense spending. Cut down red-tape. Tax the 1% a lot more intensely than they are now (yes I'm completely serious) (and if you still think that will somehow "kill the economy," look up marginal propensity to consume.)
>>65557271
The only thing that serves the interests of mankind is scientific advancement.
"Muh free shit" believes in helping the poor before helping science, therefore, it is an inferior ideology.
>>65552128
The sheer amount of government inefficiency insures that the "free stuff" fund is dipped into by as many hands as possible.
Its simply more efficient to lower taxes to keep more money in the hands of taxpayers than raise it to give them things with the money you take.
>>65556585
Build wall
>>65552128
Nothing is ever free.
>>65552128
Free doesn't mean free
It means "I want other people to pay for it".
>>65556954
>why would you think the government would not take those crumbs away from you?
... Because that's never how it's actually worked? Look into a "progressive tax system", the system that virtually every advanced economy uses. They only start taxing you more (i.e. "taking away more of muh shit!") once you reach certain income brackets.
>it would not end until everyone had nothing.
That's fucking retarded, and will literally never happen.
>>65557272
Of course, provide people with the means to start up their own markets and they can get going, give them food and gibs me dats and you kill their markets.
The reason africa is shit is leftist dictators that like economic control and wars.
>>65552128
not a thing when you're NEET. grab what you can
>>65552128
it isn't free...
>>65557453
>The sheer amount of government inefficiency insures that the "free stuff" fund is dipped into by as many hands as possible.
.. Have you thought about trying to reduce that inefficiency instead? I know in America this is incredibly hard to do, because of State's rights and all that, but to discount it as an option is foolish.
why are you guys happy overpaying the military by a billion %? wouldn't you rather see our country education, progressive, and strong?
>>65557408
The 1% is just a meme.
The banks stole 43 trillion dollars. STOLE. Not earned. It was obtained illegally, and is stored illegally.
If you retards actually want "Muh free shit", why do you never say, "Let's bust the banks."? Why is it always "Let's take from anyone who earns more than nothing."?
>>65557541
>give them food and gibs me dats and you kill their markets.
Did you even read the article in my post?
>>65557662
>why do you never say, "Let's bust the banks."?
I actually DO want to do that. The consolidation of America's banking institutions into a handful of megacorps is not only anti-competitive, it's actually incredibly dangerous for the entire world economy. And, unlike what libertarians would have you believe, the situation we have today was actually the result of CUTTING government regulation, not increasing it.
>>65554081
>>humans always are motivated by self-interest
>1. This is simply not true.
It is often enough to develop reliable models of human behavior. No one actively goes against their own self-interest on a consistent basis.
>>65552128
>muh free stuff
It's the oldest trick in the book, they entice you with a bunch of goodies to vote for them that you pay for through the hidden cost of inflation and then it's bye bye pension.
leech when and where you can. NEETs of the world rejoice!
>>65552128
>Free
Free doesn't exist.
The difference between taking something for "free" and theft is consent.
I'm not going to consent to paying 40% of my income to fucking leeches.
>>65557845
>the situation we have today was actually the result of CUTTING government regulation, not increasing it
Can you elaborate on this?
>>65557853
>No one actively goes against their own self-interest on a consistent basis.
1. I'll posit that working towards your self-interest is not always at the detriment of others self-interest. The two are not mutually exclusive.
2. Tell that to doctors, paramedics, charity workers, firefighters, volunteer firefighters, public lawyers, etc. etc.
>>65552128
Have you never heard of "there is no such thing as a free lunch"?
>>65557845
Do you have any idea how much money 43 trillion is? You could buy Africa and more with that much.
If you bust the banks, including the fed, there is no need to raise taxes for quite a long time. On anyone. Constant financial observance would be necessary after the banks are busted to see as to what the next course of action would be.
>>65557693
Sorry, i didn't. I'll read it tomorrow, too tired today.
Even finding damn trees in the captcha is too much right now.
>>65552128
Nothing when it goes to the rich elite.
Everything when it goes to the masses.
>>65557845
Another thread where thr US gets btfo. God damn it. The norwegians and swiss got their shots in, i guess it's you aussies turn now. I'm reading your posts all the way through.
>>65558001
>Free doesn't exist.
This. Purely because the Jews won't allow it.
>>65552313
>what is wrong with theft
Why am I not surprised someone descended from members of a penal colony would have no morals
>>65552128
It's not actually free.
>>65553536
Sorry Rick, you have to go back to Nova Scotia
>>65557845
It's nothing to do with reagan's deregulation, the government picks winners, prints money, feeds bubbles, fiddles with interest rates that where supposed to adjust freely, the result is that the money handlers, especially those close to the gov get their quadrizillion bucks.
ingratitude
>>65552313
how would you like it if every meal you have i took 50% off the plate and gave it to the emus in the yard?
>>65558001
what makes you think government spending = giving money to leeches?
or is that what you want to tell yourself so you don't have to accept that you're just a selfish cunt who is out for himself and couldn't give a fuck about his country?
>>65557845
DIDMCA was one minor deregulation in many decades of increasing government meddling in the banking industry.
You marxists love to point to it to claim it was the cause of all this, but in truth banking is anything but a free market. There are laws and regulations pulling banks in every direction, forcing them to live in a world of great uncertainty. What will the government do to me next?
What do banks do in such an unpredictable regulatory environment? Limit risk, increase influence, ie merge as your picture shows quite clearly.
>>65558037
you didn't respond my previous post.
>1. I'll posit that working towards your self-interest is not always at the detriment of others self-interest. The two are not mutually exclusive.
In free exchanges with no coercion you can only gain by providing people with what they want, unless you're some hustler, but then you have to be on the run or word gets out of your behavior.
Selfishness making life better.
>2. Tell that to doctors, paramedics, charity workers, firefighters, volunteer firefighters, public lawyers, etc. etc.
Half those things pay money, half those things give social status, all those things give some form of gain to the people that do them.
>>65558024
In 1995, Clinton enacted the Community Reinvestment Act, which opened the floodgates for lower-income earners (read: riskier investments) from getting home loans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
This, coupled with the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 (which let financial institutions that provided differentiating services that had been previously barred from consolidating to start merging with each other) created a situation where we not only had superbanks now forming, but those same superbanks could now loan to riskier people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
Finally, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 allowed financial institutions to now begin trading credit defaults, which allowed for wild speculation on millions upon millions of supposedly "safe" investments from riskier people, resulting in a massive bubble of ever-inflating house prices that inevitably burst when people realised that the money they had been making was based essentially off financial lies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
>>65558357
>what is wrong with letting people suffer when we have the literal, actual, physical means to prevent that
Why am I not surprised someone descended from greedy self-interested slave owners would have no morals
>>65558696
Are you literally conflating poor people with animals?
And you wonder why people hate American capitalism.
>>65557522
You can look at a live example in Greece. You end up running out of other people's money. Under wealth redistribution, economies do not grow or flourish, meaning the well dries up eventually.
The government can tell you anything it wants, but it will do another. Look at every first world nation swimming in debt, mainly due to funded public pensions, free college and health coverage and entitlesments, it is unsustainable and it is guaranteed to bust.
Only a retard would be so gullible as to believing politicians
>>65558037
>>65559041
I'm mixing my australians, you're not the same i was talking at before, both of you have ID's that end in 8
>>65558269
Thanks bro, it's always heartening to see some actual level-headed and empathetic Americans. It's too easy to see all of you Burgers as cold, Koch brother-esque libertarians who would let the rest of their country live in squalor if it meant they got to buy their new yacht.
Plus it's so easy to BTFO them because the studies and figures literally prove their arguments false.
>>65552128
I literally get $1,025 every new semester and $340 bucks every fortnight for being a full time student.
I mean sure, I'm gonna be in debt for like 10 years after going to Uni anyway - but they actually think I'm spending all that bullshit on Uni stuff?
Kek, I'm gonna die of alcohol poisoning soon.
>>65559743
I was lurking a thread like 2 days ago where a swiss guy really took the US to task on healthcare. Some norwegians and germans were even chiming in. Some guys are so adverse to constructive criticism. Idk.
>>65552917
>If it helped eliminate the existence of fixable social ills, I'd be more than happy too.
Well thats just retarded idealism if I ever saw it. You can't just give poor people money when they haven't earned it. We give africa billions in aid and they haven't grown as a society at all.
Giving money to abos just to get them to stop committing crime does not address the source of the problem at all. Nothing is earned and therefore, nothing is learnt
