You continue to avoid the issue put to you.
We're not talking about being a bum - we're talking about the consequences of chosing to not work - that is, death.
In your society, you would force such people to work at gunpoint.
Demonstrate this is better than allowing them to make their choices and suffer the consequences.
Yes.. because you force them to have them, at gunpoint.
Demonstrate this is better than allowing them to make their choices and suffer the consequences.
M14 shooter writes:
You continue to avoid the issue put to you.
Response:
You need to improve your reading comprehension skills or maybe just start actually reading what I write and stop ignoring it.
M14 shooter writes:
We're not talking about being a bum - we're talking about the consequences of chosing to not work - that is, death.
Response:
You may not consider people, below the age of 60, who are physically and mentally able to work (doing something productive that positively contributes to their communities) and yet refuse to, as bums, but I do. I consider such people lazy worthless vagabonds and derelicts, especially if they live in a socialist society.
M14 shooter writes:
In your society, you would force such people to work at gunpoint.
Response:
It's not necessarily at "gunpoint", because there is no set or established way of dealing with that situation (it's up to each socialist society to determine how it deals with lazy bums). Perhaps the socialist state will choose not to "force" that person to do anything with threats of violence and will simply strip that citizen of the perks and rights that come with being a law-abiding, working, contributing, productive member of society. They will still be housed, and have access to food, clothing, and healthcare, but they won't have access to other benefits that are exclusive to people who work and contribute. It could be as simple as that.
I prefer "tough love", by punishing bums with "work camp" and/or job training, forcing them to join a worker cooperative and return home as a responsible and productive member of society (completely rehabilitated). The socialist state should be fair but at the same time, rule with a "rod of iron", with zero tolerance for criminality or vagrant-like attitudes. There are no beggars or panhandlers in communism, everyone works. More, there shouldn't be "iron curtains" in communism, hence such bums can always leave. Just go somewhere else, like
M14 Shooter's community, where you can be an unemployed bum, sleeping on the sidewalk and urinating, defecating in public.
M14 shooter writes:
Demonstrate this is better than allowing them to make their choices and suffer the consequences.
Response:
Why can't the consequences be "gunpoint" discipline? Answer that question. Why does society have to allow such a person to be homeless, sleeping, urinating, and defecating on its sidewalks, parks, subway stations, public transit? Why? Do people have the right to do that to their communities? You're all for the police enforcing public ordinances to punish these unemployed homeless people who refuse to get a job, but you gripe about socialists disciplining members of their society that refuse to work? Seems a bit hypocritical.
M14 shooter writes:
Yes.. because you force them to have them, at gunpoint. Demonstrate this is better than allowing them to make their choices and suffer the consequences.
Response:
America does the same thing. It punishes vagrancy and unemployment as well, so you're not making much sense. The consequences of being a person who refuses to work might very well be jail or being committed to an insane asylum. Those are often the consequences of being a lazy bum in America. Jailtime, loony bin, living under a bridge, and getting arrested by police for trespassing or breaking some other city ordinance.
redstate.com
