Naer Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Honestly, how does unconditional money affect your ability to create. I make music and I share it to anyone that wants to listen to it. Even if I'm getting state benefits, it doesn't hinder my creative freedom So?
Alan C. Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 You asked two different questions. Social programs pervert incentives (eg. illegitimacy, fatherless homes, generational welfare parasitism, fraud and abuse, etc.). Whether or not they impede a person's creativity is another matter. 1
Naer Posted October 25, 2014 Author Posted October 25, 2014 You asked two different questions. Social programs pervert incentives (eg. illegitimacy, fatherless homes, generational welfare parasitism, fraud and abuse, etc.). Whether or not they impede a person's creativity is another matter. I think it's kind of derogatory to compare humans to parasites 7
AustinJames Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 I teach music part-time, and people pay me to do so. The price incentive is a useful indicator of the value of the services I provide. If you are being paid regardless of your market value, how do you gauge your market value?
Naer Posted October 25, 2014 Author Posted October 25, 2014 I teach music part-time, and people pay me to do so. The price incentive is a useful indicator of the value of the services I provide. If you are being paid regardless of your market value, how do you gauge your market value? Your students could have gotten the education cost free elseware. Just saying 3
dsayers Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Being threatened with violence for not letting somebody steal from you to fund social programs seems dangerous. 1
andkon Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 it doesn't hinder my creative freedom How do you know this?
MysterionMuffles Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 they're not...it's how they're funded that's dangerous
ParaSait Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 State money is stolen money. The people who this money came from did not want to give it to you. Don't you have any moral problems with that? How would you feel about it if the violence wasn't invisible?
TheRobin Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 they're not...it's how they're funded that's dangerous I wouldn't agree to that. I just recently listened to one of Sidney Roc's shaving philosopher videos, where he makes the arguments, that since, the welfare state doesn't differentiate between poor by habit and poor by accident, they do support he bad habbits of people by unconditionaly paying for them. And it only gets worse if the person in question has kids who then also suffer from their bad habits (like say alcoholism, drug abuse or such), so one can rightly argue that unconditional social programs directly enable child abuse in that manner.
Josh F Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Social programs not unconditional money. Welfare for example comes with a wide list of conditions which are intrusive and destructive, including letting social workers come into your home and potentially take away your children for non-violent offenses like smoking pot in the house. The cliche that nothing is free is practically axiomatic.
Pepin Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 I think it's kind of derogatory to compare humans to parasites According to a definition, a parasite is "a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return", which certainly pertains to most sociopaths. Would you agree in that application of the word?
MysterionMuffles Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 I wouldn't agree to that. I just recently listened to one of Sidney Roc's shaving philosopher videos, where he makes the arguments, that since, the welfare state doesn't differentiate between poor by habit and poor by accident, they do support he bad habbits of people by unconditionaly paying for them. And it only gets worse if the person in question has kids who then also suffer from their bad habits (like say alcoholism, drug abuse or such), so one can rightly argue that unconditional social programs directly enable child abuse in that manner. Ah thank you, I totally missed that idea. I retract my statement. I forgot about the poor by choice vs circumstance reality.
dsayers Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Social programs not unconditional money. Welfare for example comes with a wide list of conditions While I certainly appreciate precision, this is semantics. Money is stored value. In context, the claim of unconditional money simply refers to the lack of value being exchanged for it. It's value given without the requisite of value received, which incentivizes meeting the requirements you reference for free-to-them value. This is in contrast to non-benefactors of such programs having to put forth an effort to provide value to others in order to store value. 1
AustinJames Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 Your students could have gotten the education cost free elseware. Just saying My students don't pay. I teach children from low-income families, and a non-profit organization pays me. Still, I have no idea how this is relevant. My question was and is, how do you gauge your value as a musician in the absence of a price incentive?
Alan C. Posted October 25, 2014 Posted October 25, 2014 I think it's kind of derogatory to compare humans to parasites I don't think it is. Why do you? parasite - a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
Naer Posted October 27, 2014 Author Posted October 27, 2014 According to a definition, a parasite is "a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return", which certainly pertains to most sociopaths. Would you agree in that application of the word? nothing in return? You're under the assumption that because one get's state benefits, they are idle for the most part. Which in my view is absurd Let's hear your music then. https://soundcloud.com/neits/sean-arce-for-run https://soundcloud.com/neits/thor-dm https://soundcloud.com/neits/plastic-1
dsayers Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 You're under the assumption that because one get's state benefits, they are idle for the most part. Which in my view is absurd When you initiate the use of force, you are saying that you cannot meet your goals through voluntary means. This is not an assumption, it's an observation of their own confession. 1
lifegoesonbrah Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 It's inefficient to just give people money with no regard to their contributions, this is the very basis as to why socialism doesn't work.
Naer Posted October 27, 2014 Author Posted October 27, 2014 When you initiate the use of force, you are saying that you cannot meet your goals through voluntary means. This is not an assumption, it's an observation of their own confession. A person getting state benefits is not innitiating force, they are merely recipients. A state is here whether we like or not. And when you talk about voluntarism. Only the 1 percent could be said to deal with voluntThearism . where money is not an issue. Jobs don't grow on trees and with technological unemployment on the rise, something like a universal basic income is something that needs to be implemented It's inefficient to just give people money with no regard to their contributions, this is the very basis as to why socialism doesn't work. Ineffecient in what way. Automation is taking jobs left and right. Times are changing 3
TheRobin Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 So, jobs don't grow on trees, therefore we can and should use murderthreats against anyone who has a job to force them to give everyone else money? (btw, if you've never came across the argument (and I'd encourage you to google it): Automation is on the rise mostly, because of all the regulation and minimum wage laws and stuff. The moment you make it more expensive to hire a person people will try to find alternatives. Nothing to do with technology (although ofc that can happen as well, that technology becomes that much cheaper and easier or mroe practical to implement)
David Ottinger Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Honestly, how does unconditional money affect your ability to create. I make music and I share it to anyone that wants to listen to it. Even if I'm getting state benefits, it doesn't hinder my creative freedom So? The whole point of the pricing mechanism is to allocate resources, especially finite resources, to those willing to assume the risk of using such resources for their creativity. This serves to optimize efficieny of resources. Thus, to grant people money without conditions would be to undermine the metric we have for evaluating supply and demand.
Mister Mister Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Sorry there was a lot you said in there, can we try to unpack that. Really broad statements without explicating the reasoning behind them are not going to fly on this forum, so let's try to delve a little deeper. Only the 1 percent could be said to deal with voluntThearism . where money is not an issue. I'm not sure what you mean. Voluntarism as we understand it means human relations in the absence of coercion. Are you saying that 99% of people rely on force and coercion in their daily affairs? Not only that, but that they MUST rely on . I can't help but think this is just a justification for your own situation as a recipient of government money. How do you know that you cannot rely on voluntary exchange? Can you not sell your music? Can you not make money as a music teacher? How do you know if you aren't trying? If people aren't willing to pay money for your music, are you comfortable with the State using violence to force them? Would you be willing to use force to this ends in the absence of a State? Jobs don't grow on trees and with technological unemployment on the rise, something like a universal basic income is something that needs to be implemented Yes jobs don't grow on trees...it's hard to even respond to something like that. This common language of treating "jobs" like they are products that people consume is really sad and misleading, I wonder if it comes from Public School where the student is always receiving assignments rather than going out in the world to see what value they can provide. Can I ask as an aside, what is your history with schooling, and with work in general? A "job" is an agreement between two people, where they agree to some exchange of value for value, typically time/energy/labor for money. Unfortunately money is another dysfunctional government program, but I don't believe it needs to be. What does it mean a universal basic income NEEDS to be implemented? It's a really obscure use of words. Think about what you are actually saying. If I understand, you are saying that basic resources necessary to sustain life NEED to be provided to EVERYONE. By whom? If human beings are required to provide those things THEN IT IS NOT UNIVERSAL. You have to divide people into those who need to implement it, and those who receive it. Unless you are proposing that robots do all the providing like the Zeitgeist people. Which is fine I guess as long as you don't use force. But that will still require an incredible amount of human energy at least to implement, if it is possible. Just put down the guns please. But let's say you are right. How will you take action in your life toward this moral cause you believe in? 1
Alan C. Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 A person getting state benefits is not innitiating force, they are merely recipients. A state is here whether we like or not. And when you talk about voluntarism. Only the 1 percent could be said to deal with voluntThearism . where money is not an issue. Jobs don't grow on trees and with technological unemployment on the rise, something like a universal basic income is something that needs to be implemented People receive "benefits" because the State initiates force on their behalf. Unemployment isn't caused by technology; it's caused by regulations. Since you support a universal basic income, I was wondering when I can start expecting checks from you. 3
dsayers Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 something like a universal basic income is something that needs to be implemented Is this a fancy way of saying minimum wage? How do you answer the near unlimited empirical evidence that this doesn't even address the problem it's said to solve? Implemented by whom? How did they get this power that nobody has to be able to implement such a thing? If you receive goods you know to be stolen, you are complicit to the theft. In the context of my claim that not earning such things is confession of not being able to by way of voluntary means, that the recipient wasn't the one directly initiating the use of force is a distinction without a difference.
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 C'mon guys. Trooooooooooollllll.... 4
TheRobin Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 If you receive goods you know to be stolen, you are complicit to the theft. I whole-heartedly disagree with that. If you're using a road that was paid for by taxes, are you an accomplice of the theft? I f there's no other option available then there's no moral consideration. 1
dsayers Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I agree that there is no choice to use theft-funded roads. How does this relate to receiving State benefits in the form of money being handed out?
PatrickC Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I agree that there is no choice to use theft-funded roads. How does this relate to receiving State benefits in the form of money being handed out? I think people that consciously like the OP take advantage of a benefit system, can quite rightly be called a parasite. For those that have no access to a private medical system and make use of the health care the govt provides is entirely fine. The OP has other choices to find an income.
TheRobin Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I agree that there is no choice to use theft-funded roads. How does this relate to receiving State benefits in the form of money being handed out? Because if you're in a slump and can't find a job, where do you go? The state monopolized the welfare for the most part, so there's barely any charities that actually could help you with that (or at least that's my assumption). Given that most of the problems of not getting a job (or there not being enough jobs created) also stem from the government, I'd make the case that there aren't really any other options. Now, simply getting welfare and not doing anything to get off it is certainly a bit scumbaggy, especially, if you actually can work (like, if you're not disabled or so), but it's still not in any way an ethical consideration, since you're neither initiating force, nor actively hiring people to do so on your behalf. But what's your justification for the principle of "profiting from the loot = being an accomplice"?
dsayers Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 For those that have no access to a private medical system and make use of the health care the govt provides is entirely fine. Present day in the US this is likely true since the government has taken over the health care system. However, the topic is about State benefits and its relationship with creativity. While not specified, I interpret this as a National Endowment of the Arts type situation. To be clear, I don't claim to be an authority on this sort of thing. The government I live under today has stolen from me all my life. For me to receive some of that back for any reason, it would be hard to know where the line is between stealing your own stuff back and stealing from others. I've qualified for welfare almost all of my adult life, but I've never chosen to avail myself of it. Even before studying philosophy, it didn't seem right.
Naer Posted October 29, 2014 Author Posted October 29, 2014 Doctors orders that I recieve benefits due to my condition. Please don't make assumptions. I cant really depend on free market charities 1
PatrickC Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Doctors orders that I recieve benefits due to my condition. Please don't make assumptions. I cant really depend on free market charities Rather than give your music away as you earlier said you did, why not try to monetize it? Giving it away to people whilst on the govt cheese is way too easy.
Naer Posted October 29, 2014 Author Posted October 29, 2014 Rather than give your music away as you earlier said you did, why not try to monetize it? Giving it away to people whilst on the govt cheese is way too easy. There's an abundance of shared music on the internet. What makes you think I can monetize it?
Recommended Posts