CDZ Produce, mooch, or loot.

[usfan]

I was just hoping for more of a debate on this.. it is a fundamental part of human existence, & it affects not only each individual, but the collective society as a whole.

Of course, i realize that these feeble words are of no threat to the entitlement establishment.. i just wonder how they justify it, philosophically. Do they lay awake at night, riddled with guilt from plundering the working man? Do they feel like they are owed it, somehow? How does one who produces nothing justify taking from those who have worked, & splitting it up with his cronies?

 

[BlackSand]

I was just hoping for more of a debate on this.. it is a fundamental part of human existence, & it affects not only each individual, but the collective society as a whole.

Of course, i realize that these feeble words are of no threat to the entitlement establishment.. i just wonder how they justify it, philosophically. Do they lay awake at night, riddled with guilt from plundering the working man? Do they feel like they are owed it, somehow? How does one who produces nothing justify taking from those who have worked, & splitting it up with his cronies?

The really short answer would be ... "Because they can".
I mean look ... The verbiage you use to describe the situations you prefer and the conditions you wonder about ... Doesn't have to reflect the everyday reality of what people are going to do.

The wealthy don't have to feel like they are "owed" anything to do what is necessary to get it.
Philosophy is a wonderful tool ... Especially if you feel the need to justify something ... But none of that has to occur in order to produce something or get paid for it.
There is no difference in the entitlement mentality (or establishment) ... Regardless the station of the person who feels they are entitled to something.

The poor feel they are entitled to more ... The middle class feel they are entitled to more ... Some rich feel like they are entitled to more.
Then there are the people who go after what they desire and are able to achieve ... And let the sods worry about who they think should be entitled to what.

.

 

[usfan]

The really short answer would be ... "Because they can".
I mean look ... The verbiage you use to describe the situations you prefer and the conditions you wonder about ... Doesn't have to reflect the everyday reality of what people are going to do.

The wealthy don't have to feel like they are "owed" anything to do what is necessary to get it.
Philosophy is a wonderful tool ... Especially if you feel the need to justify something ... But none of that has to occur in order to produce something or get paid for it.
There is no difference in the entitlement mentality (or establishment) ... Regardless the station of the person who feels they are entitled to something.

The poor feel they are entitled to more ... The middle class feel they are entitled to more ... Some rich feel like they are entitled to more.
Then there are the people who go after what they desire and are able to achieve ... And let the sods worry about who they think should be entitled to what.
.

1. I am trying to present an overview.. an analysis of the situation as it is. It is at the simplest root, using colorful terms, but it is accurate nonetheless. There are producers, dependents, & takers. That seems to be common for human interaction & social structure for all of history.
2. If people feel 'entitled', they can use the power of Law to plunder the producers. THAT is the problem, not their feelings. I don't care how they feel, but when they use the force of govt to fulfill their feelings, it becomes a problem.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. ~Frédéric Bastiat

 

[BlackSand]

1. I am trying to present an overview.. an analysis of the situation as it is. It is at the simplest root, using colorful terms, but it is accurate nonetheless. There are producers, dependents, & takers. That seems to be common for human interaction & social structure for all of history.
2. If people feel 'entitled', they can use the power of Law to plunder the producers. THAT is the problem, not their feelings. I don't care how they feel, but when they use the force of govt to fulfill their feelings, it becomes a problem.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. ~Frédéric Bastiat

I am trying to express that your argument is an extension of what you are arguing against.
If you are simply arguing that the entitled should be determined by the maximum number of votes you can get in deciding who is entitled ... Then you are supporting the same system that you are suffering from.

Real men (or women should that be the case) ... Go out and do what is necessary to achieve their goals without waiting for someone else to agree.
Those that are respectable do so with an eye towards responsibility in ensuring that what they provide is the best quality for their products and services ... The best return for the labor provided ... And producing the best environment (or community) for all to excel and achieve.

That doesn't come from government ... Never has and never will.

.

 

[usfan]

I am trying to express that your argument is an extension of what you are arguing against.
If you are simply arguing that the entitled should be determined by the maximum number of votes you can get in deciding who is entitled ... Then you are supporting the same system that you are suffering from.

Real men (or women should that be the case) ... Go out and do what is necessary to achieve their goals without waiting for someone else to agree.
Those that are respectable do so with an eye towards responsibility in ensuring that what they provide is the best quality for their products and services ... The best return for the labor provided ... And producing the best environment (or community) for all to excel and achieve.

That doesn't come from government ... Never has and never will.
.

??
I have not made that argument at all. where is my summary of 'producers, moochers, & looters' off? The only implication of 'votes' is that of the moochers voting for looters to take from the producers.. which makes a good bumper sticker, but was not a central argument in the OP.

Perhaps you are projecting from another discussion.

 

[BlackSand]

??
I have not made that argument at all. where is my summary of 'producers, moochers, & looters' off? The only implication of 'votes' is that of the moochers voting for looters to take from the producers.. which makes a good bumper sticker, but was not a central argument in the OP.

Perhaps you are projecting from another discussion.

My argument is that the government cannot fix what is an inherent trait of governing.
Whoever you choose to place in whatever category (producer, moocher or looter) is based on your perception of who does what to the governed and through the natural process (or conflict) of governing.

Where I am not necessarily an anarchist ... Governing ... And specifically those who bitch about how we are governed ... Humor me when they ask for improvements on the system that oppresses them.

My point is always that we (as the people and the governed) ... Always have more options than the easiest path.
Those that choose the harder road have traditionally chosen to excel without the consent of the governed or those who govern.
They do what they can to produce the environment that is both responsible and just ... Or they get swallowed up by those who govern or are governed.

Once people accept the desire to escape the conflict involves personal responsibility over government responsibility ... Right or wrong, they will get closer to their goals.
Waiting for someone else to agree ... Or decide what you are entitled to ... Is a tremendous waste of time and supports the idea that entitlement should be governed.

.

 

[usfan]

??
I have not made that argument at all. where is my summary of 'producers, moochers, & looters' off? The only implication of 'votes' is that of the moochers voting for looters to take from the producers.. which makes a good bumper sticker, but was not a central argument in the OP.

Perhaps you are projecting from another discussion.

My argument is that the government cannot fix what is an inherent trait of governing.
Whoever you choose to place in whatever category (producer, moocher or looter) is based on your perception of who does what to the governed and through the natural process (or conflict) of governing.

Where I am not necessarily an anarchist ... Governing ... And specifically those who bitch about how we are governed ... Humor me when they ask for improvements on the system that oppresses them.

My point is always that we (as the people and the governed) ... Always have more options than the easiest path.
Those that choose the harder road have traditionally chosen to excel without the consent of the governed or those who govern.
They do what they can to produce the environment that is both responsible and just ... Or they get swallowed up by those who govern or are governed.

Once people accept the desire to escape the conflict involves personal responsibility over government responsibility ... Right or wrong, they will get closer to their goals.
Waiting for someone else to agree ... Or decide what you are entitled to ... Is a tremendous waste of time and supports the idea that entitlement should be governed.

.

1. Ah, i see. that is not an argument i was making. PEOPLE, specifically the PRODUCERS have to be the ones that 'fix' anything. The moochers & looters will only continue to mooch & loot, because that is the easy road, & that is what they will do, if given the option. The producers have to NOT give them that option.
2. I suppose that resisting the looters & moochers seems like the harder path, but it isn't really. If we let them have free reign, THAT is the more difficult path for everyone, because it leads us down the path of social collapse. Moochers & dependents will increase until the productive segment of society can no longer support them. there just won't be enough wealth to go around.
3. It seems to me the producers are the worst at building a coalition to protect their interests. The moochers & looters are good at joining together to fleece the producers, who have no advocate in most collectivist settings.
4. Waiting is surrender. the producers will never see the moochers & looters willingly give up what they take. Any concessions from those in power have to be done by force. Platitudes are not enough to compel social change. From the magna carta to the declaration of independence, force, or the threat of it, are the only sure means to secure the rights of the people. If their lives, freedoms, & property are not under their own watchful care, in a functional system of self rule, the system will be a magnet for corruptible personalities, who see governance as a means of controlling others, & getting rich. but the longer the producers wait, the more moochers will grow & their looting enablers, until the whole society collapses in a dependency heap.

 

[usfan]

Along the same lines as this thread, Bastiat wrote back in 1850 about the Law.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

The purpose of organizing collective institutions is to provide a protective service.. a method of deterring aggressors, & securing our basic rights to life, property, & liberty. If those institutions provide a fair, reasonable service of these goals, it is successful & good for society. But, if these institutions pervert the Law, & turn it into an instrument of plunder, it fails in its most basic duty.

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Bastiat sees a dichotomy between those who work for their own increase, & those who' wish to prosper at the expense of others'. But in this thread, i have 3 variables.. there is the producer.. the worker who works for his own increase, & there are the looters, who want to live off the labors of others. But i have a 3rd element.. the moochers. These are the enablers of the looters, who tend to be a smaller minority. They need the empowerment from the larger groups of moochers to enable them to fleece the producers.

What do you think? Is it just the 2, as Bastiat, Lincoln, & others have said, or is the 3rd element necessary as an enabler?


“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.” ~Robert A. Heinlein

 

[warf]

Moochers, looters and producers?

This looks like an imaginary world for those who see everything in black and white.

To me this whole discussion seems based on a false and simplistic view of the under class.

 

[usfan]

Moochers, looters and producers?
This looks like an imaginary world for those who see everything in black and white.
To me this whole discussion seems based on a false and simplistic view of the under class.

This is the clean debate zone. Alternate views are welcome, but they need a basis. Mere dismissal, without evidence, arguments, or facts are meaningless distractions from the debate.
Do you dispute that there are those who produce? And are there not those who take from those who produce, either through unjust laws, or illegally? And are there not moochers, who are content to live off the labors of others?

If you are going to dismiss something that is so plainly obvious, you will need better evidence or arguments to the contrary.

 

[warf]

Moochers, looters and producers?
This looks like an imaginary world for those who see everything in black and white.
To me this whole discussion seems based on a false and simplistic view of the under class.

This is the clean debate zone. Alternate views are welcome, but they need a basis. Mere dismissal, without evidence, arguments, or facts are meaningless distractions from the debate.
Do you dispute that there are those who produce? And are there not those who take from those who produce, either through unjust laws, or illegally? And are there not moochers, who are content to live off the labors of others?

If you are going to dismiss something that is so plainly obvious, you will need better evidence or arguments to the contrary.

I agree that there are those who produce. But who is doing the stealing? Who are the moochers?

Are you talking about all those who are unemployable because we have off shored their jobs?

 

[Agit8r]

Of course it is hard to agree upon who is a looter and who is a producer. Take the banking sector for instance...

 

[warf]

Of course it is hard to agree upon who is a looter and who is a producer. Take the banking sector for instance...

Yes, there are those.

There is also the investor class. They don't produce a product or provide a service. Yet they enjoy a lower tax rate than those who batter their bodies actually doing useful work.

 

[usfan]

I agree that there are those who produce. But who is doing the stealing? Who are the moochers?
Are you talking about all those who are unemployable because we have off shored their jobs?

It is simple. If someone is doing productive labor, & creating something useful, wanted, or needed for society, they are a producer. If someone is living off the labors of other, either directly, or from theft, corruption, or deception, they are a moocher/looter.

Of course it is hard to agree upon who is a looter and who is a producer. Take the banking sector for instance...

They are among the worst of the looters. they enable the politicians who favor them with fiscal policy, which dilutes the value of the currency, effectively stealing from the producers. It is a money shuffling scam, with the bankers & politicians clearly in the role of looters.

Yes, there are those.
There is also the investor class. They don't produce a product or provide a service. Yet they enjoy a lower tax rate than those who batter their bodies actually doing useful work.

Under the current monetary policy, investors are not much different than looters. they use fiat currency to bet on various schemes, & if they have govt connections, or are tied to the public sector, they generally hit the jackpot. Some leverage these bets with borrowed money, printed by the fed with no basis of production.

..but that is another topic. This one is about defining the looters & moochers, & is a call for the producers to resist their thieving & make them work for their own stuff.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. ~Frédéric Bastiat

 

[warf]

..but that is another topic. This one is about defining the looters & moochers, & is a call for the producers to resist their thieving & make them work for their own stuff

How are we going to do that? It seems to me that the looters and moochers are the protected class. The ones that fund lawmakers campaigns. They are pretty much untouchable.

 

[usfan]

..but that is another topic. This one is about defining the looters & moochers, & is a call for the producers to resist their thieving & make them work for their own stuff

How are we going to do that? It seems to me that the looters and moochers are the protected class. The ones that fund lawmakers campaigns. They are pretty much untouchable.

We are in a quandary, here in America. It was supposed to be a system of citizen representatives, rotated so that special interests & an elite ruling class was not built. But the slow erosion of the concept of self rule, along with major social changes, academic indoctrination, & destructive fiscal policy have brought us to the brink of collapse.

IMO, there are a few strategies that could help alleviate the situation:
1. Balanced budget. If the citizens demanded fiscal responsibility, the thieves & scoundrels would not be as wasteful with our tax dollars.
2. Term limits. Force a rotation of representatives.. this opposes the growth of a ruling elite.
3. Become more assertive. Citizens are too passive & indifferent to the machinations of govt. The representatives should fear the people, not the other way around.
4. Avoid addictive personalities & elect normal citizens, instead of looking for messiahs.
5. Strict, severe penalties for public corruption.
6. Correct conflict of interest corruption in the system. Those paying for a service or program should have the bigger say in its administration than those benefiting from it.

I'm sure there are more things we could do, as a collective, to improve our governance, & if we want a system of self rule, it will require our participation.. & especially the participation of the producers. Moochers & looters are already drawn like a magnet to easy living off of somebody else. Those are the EXACT kinds of people we should avoid in our elective process.

 

[warf]

..but that is another topic. This one is about defining the looters & moochers, & is a call for the producers to resist their thieving & make them work for their own stuff

How are we going to do that? It seems to me that the looters and moochers are the protected class. The ones that fund lawmakers campaigns. They are pretty much untouchable.

We are in a quandary, here in America. It was supposed to be a system of citizen representatives, rotated so that special interests & an elite ruling class was not built. But the slow erosion of the concept of self rule, along with major social changes, academic indoctrination, & destructive fiscal policy have brought us to the brink of collapse.

IMO, there are a few strategies that could help alleviate the situation:
1. Balanced budget. If the citizens demanded fiscal responsibility, the thieves & scoundrels would not be as wasteful with our tax dollars.
2. Term limits. Force a rotation of representatives.. this opposes the growth of a ruling elite.
3. Become more assertive. Citizens are too passive & indifferent to the machinations of govt. The representatives should fear the people, not the other way around.
4. Avoid addictive personalities & elect normal citizens, instead of looking for messiahs.
5. Strict, severe penalties for public corruption.
6. Correct conflict of interest corruption in the system. Those paying for a service or program should have the bigger say in its administration than those benefiting from it.

I'm sure there are more things we could do, as a collective, to improve our governance, & if we want a system of self rule, it will require our participation.. & especially the participation of the producers. Moochers & looters are already drawn like a magnet to easy living off of somebody else. Those are the EXACT kinds of people we should avoid in our elective process.

#1; I guess a balanced budget would be a good thing. As long as there is a way to exceed it when unexpected expenses pop up.

#2; We have term limits in California. It just means that politicians cycle from position to position. And deep pockets use their money to promote their hired guns.

#3 & #4; You'd have to change people. Voters don't vote for the best candidate based on real information. The vote their emotions. The candidate with the best ads wins. As long as voters remain intellectually lazy we will suffer self serving leaders.

#5; I agree with this.

Those are the problems, as I see them. What can be done?

 

[BlackSand]

We are in a quandary, here in America. It was supposed to be a system of citizen representatives, rotated so that special interests & an elite ruling class was not built. But the slow erosion of the concept of self rule, along with major social changes, academic indoctrination, & destructive fiscal policy have brought us to the brink of collapse.

IMO, there are a few strategies that could help alleviate the situation:
1. Balanced budget. If the citizens demanded fiscal responsibility, the thieves & scoundrels would not be as wasteful with our tax dollars.
2. Term limits. Force a rotation of representatives.. this opposes the growth of a ruling elite.
3. Become more assertive. Citizens are too passive & indifferent to the machinations of govt. The representatives should fear the people, not the other way around.
4. Avoid addictive personalities & elect normal citizens, instead of looking for messiahs.
5. Strict, severe penalties for public corruption.
6. Correct conflict of interest corruption in the system. Those paying for a service or program should have the bigger say in its administration than those benefiting from it.

I'm sure there are more things we could do, as a collective, to improve our governance, & if we want a system of self rule, it will require our participation.. & especially the participation of the producers. Moochers & looters are already drawn like a magnet to easy living off of somebody else. Those are the EXACT kinds of people we should avoid in our elective process.

I always wonder why people don't do what they know would be better for them.

You cannot fix what the government cannot manage through the process of governing.
If people are going to get organized enough to attempt a forthright effort to change the government ... They should reduce the power the government has altogether.

That puts the onus back on the people ... And their ability to do what they should be doing to govern themselves.
Altering the government, but requiring it to provide the same services or maintain the same responsibilities across the board ... And simply changing management, gets you nothing but the same shit under a different flag.

.

 

[gipper]

It is often said MONEY is the root of all evil. It does seem to apply to the political class, who gladly do the bidding of the .01% to gain riches. As long as the political class can attain riches by merely winning elections and the elites can buy influence, the looting will continue.

It is likely that massive public demonstrations will be necessary, to change government.

 

[usfan]

#1; I guess a balanced budget would be a good thing. As long as there is a way to exceed it when unexpected expenses pop up.
#2; We have term limits in California. It just means that politicians cycle from position to position. And deep pockets use their money to promote their hired guns.
#3 & #4; You'd have to change people. Voters don't vote for the best candidate based on real information. The vote their emotions. The candidate with the best ads wins. As long as voters remain intellectually lazy we will suffer self serving leaders.
#5; I agree with this.
Those are the problems, as I see them. What can be done?

Those are the solutions. The problem is implementing them, because of resistance from the looters.. those in power.

"Those who steal from private individuals spend their lives in stocks and chains; those who steal from the public treasury go dressed in gold and purple." ~Marcus Porcius Cato

It is nothing new, & the typical 'solution' over the centuries has been very simple: Kill the fuckers.
Revolution has ALWAYS been an effective solution for oppressors. The people take their scythes, pitchforks, & torches, & drag out the guillotines. Only if & when those in power are afraid of the people do they make any concessions. Otherwise, they are content to leech off the people for as long as they let them.