Not giving benefits as handouts could be a very good idea - as is restitution generally. I favour a countervailing institution of local- international project work - countervailing to "capitalism's" reserve army of labour. I'm so angry about what's going on now I'd drag banksters and Troika bureaucrats to such scenes as kids in Greece rummaging in bins for food and even to the Congo rape war, subject them to a drumhead courtmartial, strap on GPS trackers and tell them to sort things.
On 19 Apr, 15:51, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Lonnie.... I have a bunch of derisive "stuff" to say about Fox and its cast > of characters..... > Do you really want to hear it?.....It gets to be pretty sophomoric, and I > get tired of repeating myself in those terms...."namby -pamby" pales in > comparison to the counter-right-wing material I could post, just from > memory.... HAR...I'll let it slide, for now.... keep to the high-road... > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 9:07:27 PM UTC-4, Lonnie Clay wrote: > > >http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/12/woman-dies-from-drinking-10-... > > > Should we ban coca cola because someone used it to drink herself to death? > > I think not, and every namby-pamby liberal who talks about substance abuse > > victims are just fighting evolution in action. > > >http://envirothink.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/epa-says-saccharin-no-lon... > > > There's a prime example of the nanny state with its head up its A$$ being > > forced to retract a decree. > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:30:27 PM UTC-7, Lonnie Clay wrote: > > >> "In some ways I'm not sure why any of us are still working. " > > >> Well, the alternatives to working are taking charity from family or > >> friends (I do), accepting government assistance (I do), accepting charity > >> from benevolent organizations, living off accumulated wealth, borrowing > >> money, or theft. The white collar crimes outweigh the petty thefts by a > >> significant factor, often being measured in billions rather than millions. > >> I put the increase down to cultural shifting towards dishonesty, caused > >> primarily by childhood indoctrination from entertainment media that crime > >> DOES pay, and pays quite well. Another factor is increased technological > >> capabilities, especially computers, which allow criminals to commit > >> esoteric crimes such as identity theft, derivatives fraud, and money > >> laundering. Most of the increased law enforcement efforts have been > >> ineffective in stemming the tide of crime. Harsher punishments unless well > >> publicized are not effective as a deterrent against budding criminals. The > >> basic problem is that people can now SEE that others reap rewards without > >> hard work, either through crime or free handouts, due to sensationalist > >> journalism and entertainment. > > >> One of the more controversial things which I have proposed in the past is > >> that handouts NOT be free, that they should require community service in > >> exchange. Another is that all criminals should have to pay for their crimes > >> not only with incarceration, but also with restitution to victims, and > >> remedial counseling before their release. Parole oversight needs to be > >> improved as well. > > >> Drug trafficking has become a major worldwide industry due to government > >> efforts to stop substance abuse. It didn't work with alcohol and it won't > >> work for the rest, it just creates yet another class of criminal. Let the > >> drug companies manufacture abused substances just like they do the > >> thousands of prescription drugs which have the population hooked-on drugs. > >> Require package inserts which detail the bad effects of the drugs and leave > >> it up to the individual making the purchase to decide whether to be a user. > >> Increase the penalties for crimes committed while under the influence of > >> drugs, just as DWI is a higher charge than reckless driving. Make drugging > >> someone without their knowledge a 20 year felony. > > >> I don't want to talk any more about crime online, since I suspect that it > >> would just be a tutorial for novices. > > >> Lonnie Courtney Clay > > >> On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:05:01 PM UTC-7, archytas wrote: > > >>> I think you get all that right Lonnie. I've been trying to find out > >>> what financial sector debt in the UK really is for over two years. In > >>> numbers its anything from 230 - 510% of our GDP - a pretty > >>> discouraging lack of accuracy - but I want to know its 'quality'. The > >>> debt may be a good thing - a set of good performing loans - or it may > >>> put the UK in a dire condition because its really Ponzi money relying > >>> on asset valuations that are now mostly fictional. If the latter is > >>> true the questions are about who will take the haircuts and whether > >>> the UK taxpayer/bank account holder/bond holder etc. is on the hook. > >>> Otherwise our government/household/corporate debt is comparable with > >>> the US. > >>> As a scientist I'd want to take a sample of the debt and try to sell > >>> it in an open market. Its all currently valued by people with a > >>> vested interest in making out everything is profitable - techniques we > >>> know are bollox. > >>> Frankly I believe all financial services (beyond utility banking) and > >>> most economics are uselessly parasitic on genuine work and > >>> production. I want to be able to ground this so we can move on to a > >>> different way of living. I can barely describe what a putrid swamp > >>> the mainstream is. Two Harvard arses, Reinhart & Rogoff have just > >>> been exposed cheating as surely as any of my students through > >>> spreadsheet manipulation. Their work had been widely used in support > >>> of austerity programmes, but now we know they fiddled the figures and > >>> the real case on their numbers was against austerity. I can't trust > >>> allegedly peer reviewed papers, let alone stuff in which several > >>> Enrons are considered as viable and even thriving through bent > >>> auditing. > >>> In some ways I'm not sure why any of us are still working. > > >>> On Apr 13, 4:16 pm, Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> > Worldwide economies are foundering upon the rocks of modern > >>> entertainments. > >>> > I'll make the case for that. The rational response of a person to a > >>> > stimulus is to do more of those things which bring pleasure rather > >>> than > >>> > punishment or boredom. With the rise of fiction in all of its forms, a > >>> > person can gain pleasure from imagined world-scapes outside of the > >>> "real" > >>> > world's boundaries of experience. The pleasure of working life > >>> achievement > >>> > is limited to those who are both talented and trained to exercise > >>> their > >>> > talents. So which one do people choose when given the alternatives? > >>> They > >>> > increasingly choose entertainment, escaping from their fruitless > >>> humdrum > >>> > day to day existences into imaginary worlds of achievement. One reason > >>> for > >>> > that is the lack of opportunities in the modern economy resulting from > >>> the > >>> > failure of the educational systems to prepare people for productive > >>> working > >>> > careers. Another is the cultural shift towards self-gratification > >>> rather > >>> > than service to society. A third is the diminished rewards from > >>> working > >>> > resulting from the marginal reduction of income increase resulting > >>> from > >>> > government's taxation of wages economic activity. Why work harder to > >>> gain > >>> > more income when the government takes away more and more as your > >>> income > >>> > rises? Yet another is the diminished cost of life's necessities and > >>> modest > >>> > luxuries due to increased efficiency of production from product mass > >>> > manufacturing. Why work harder when you have everything which you > >>> need? > > >>> > These factors result in diminished work force participation, the rise > >>> of > >>> > the welfare class, fewer employees working hard, market dislocations, > >>> and > >>> > diminished work ethics. > > >>> > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > >>> > On Friday, April 12, 2013 7:48:51 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > >>> > > Because it is so screwed up throughout the world that not fixing it > >>> is > >>> > > bound to lead to great social upheaval?????..... I think so. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
