There goes the First Ammendment

[shade]

You mean give even more welfare to fuckin bums in this country so they can keep leeching on the money that hard working people worked for? Fuck that, work hard for something or get the fuck out. Pussy ass liberals..

Originally Posted by murda-c

So i need to unite the planet so we can stop spending all our resources on war and start spending them on healthcare and galactic colonization?

I'll get right on it.

[WanganRunner]

Originally Posted by shade

You mean give even more welfare to fuckin bums in this country so they can keep leeching on the money that hard working people worked for? Fuck that, work hard for something or get the fuck out. Pussy ass liberals..

I'm not any more for welfare as a handout than you probably are, but telling ANY sizable contingent of the population to "GTFO" doesn't work, even if it's what is fair.

A market-based meritocracy economy is indeed very fair, but it does have shortcomings when applied to reality. A meritocracy (i.e. hands-off free-market economy) produces winners and losers, and we'd all like to tell ourselves that the winner should win, the losers should lose, and everyone should fend for themselves.

Unfortunately that won't really work. The American gene-pool produces born winners, born losers, and then people who could go either way (the latter being the vast majority). What do we do with the born losers, the people who are just not equipped to ever "win" in a winner-take-all economy? This is a decent-sized chunk of society, and you can't have a big chunk of society being consistently marginalized and unhappy unless you want to have crime skyrocket, have economic issues (see: current housing crisis), or potentially breed a revolution (violent or political).

So what do you do with these people? You can't very well kill or deport them, and you also can't expect them to somehow leave on their own. No, unfortunately it is the responsibility of the "winners" to take care of the "losers" to a certain extent, if for no reason other than self-preservation via keeping the nation stable. The assistance doesn't necessarily need to be in the form of a straight-up government handout, but there DO need to be safety nets of some kind.

It isn't exactly fair, and it definitely doesn't fit into the ideological purity demanded by today's GOP, but that doesn't make it not true. Consider it a cost of doing business.

Creating permanent underclasses is a nasty business, as numerous societies throughout history have learned.

[Gnnr]

Originally Posted by WanganRunner

I'm not any more for welfare as a handout than you probably are, but telling ANY sizable contingent of the population to "GTFO" doesn't work, even if it's what is fair.

A market-based meritocracy economy is indeed very fair, but it does have shortcomings when applied to reality. A meritocracy (i.e. hands-off free-market economy) produces winners and losers, and we'd all like to tell ourselves that the winner should win, the losers should lose, and everyone should fend for themselves.

Unfortunately that won't really work. The American gene-pool produces born winners, born losers, and then people who could go either way (the latter being the vast majority). What do we do with the born losers, the people who are just not equipped to ever "win" in a winner-take-all economy? This is a decent-sized chunk of society, and you can't have a big chunk of society being consistently marginalized and unhappy unless you want to have crime skyrocket, have economic issues (see: current housing crisis), or potentially breed a revolution (violent or political).

So what do you do with these people? You can't very well kill or deport them, and you also can't expect them to somehow leave on their own. No, unfortunately it is the responsibility of the "winners" to take care of the "losers" to a certain extent, if for no reason other than self-preservation via keeping the nation stable. The assistance doesn't necessarily need to be in the form of a straight-up government handout, but there DO need to be safety nets of some kind.

It isn't exactly fair, and it definitely doesn't fit into the ideological purity demanded by today's GOP, but that doesn't make it not true. Consider it a cost of doing business.

Creating permanent underclasses is a nasty business, as numerous societies throughout history have learned.

Word. Once you get into higher level politics you start to see that social darwinism doesn't work out. This country learned many times, sometimes brutally, that it can't function without those at the bottom of the pyramid.

[RJF]

Another Democrat that wants to stifle free speech.

[WanganRunner]

Originally Posted by Gnnr

Word. Once you get into higher level politics you start to see that social darwinism doesn't work out. This country learned many times, sometimes brutally, that it can't function without those at the bottom of the pyramid.

Yep.

It's comforting to think that we can apply the "rules of the playground" to running the country and decide everything based on what's fair, but unfortunately that doesn't always sync with reality.

It doesn't work at a macro level. Huge groups of people exert certain influence and can exact certain consequences just by virtue of being a huge group, whether it's fair or not. You can either deal with it and secure your own position or ignore it at your own peril.