"Makers vs. Takers" and why it's dangerous

[Warren Dew]

Do you understand how the sorts of actions and beliefs that flow forward from a statement like "fuck the poor!" can be harmful to both the poor and the general stability of society?

And yet, you fail to understand exactly the same thing about statements like "fuck the rich".

[Seth]

Do you understand how the sorts of actions and beliefs that flow forward from a statement like "fuck the poor!" can be harmful to both the poor and the general stability of society?

Do you understand why someone would say "fuck the poor?" Probably not. In my estimation it's a generalized condemnation actually aimed at only a portion of the poor, that being those who choose poverty over hard work and individual effort towards financial success and therefore demand of us that we yield to them the fruits of OUR hard work and individual effort towards financial success as if they have some inherent right to force us to labor on their behalf.

There's "the poor" and then there's "the idle dependent class."

There is no shame in being poor, and no shame in asking others for help. It is the highest form of altrusim and charity for the individual to willingly give to another in need the fruits of his labor and to labor on behalf of someone who is unable, through no fault of their own, to support themselves. But that's not who I mean when I say "fuck the poor." I mean instead those of the dependent class who choose to exploit their poverty as an excuse to take by force from others what they desire in order to meet their needs, and who have no intention of even trying to become productive members of society but instead remain deliberately indolent and non-productive in part so that they can demand largess from the public treasury, which is in point of fact the enslavement of others and the theft of their labor and property WITHOUT their permission.

That's not charity or altruism, that's forcing the productive class into slavery and forcing them to work on someone else's behalf without any opportunity to first determine who that person chooses or wishes to support and whether that person is worthy of his or her labor and property.

And that's exactly what happens when government constructs a welfare state and then "taxes the wealthy" in order to redistribute the fruits of their labor to the undeserving idlers of the dependent class. It's pure, unadulterated theft and nothing else, and it's a crime that's sanctioned and enforced by the power of the government for no better reason than because it has the capacity to get away with being a thief.

Welfare states are also extremely debilitating to those who, for whatever reason, be it circumstance or malicious intent, suck off the public teat and depend upon government for their living. It's a racist system that is designed and intended to make poverty and dependence a permanent state of affairs that the dependent class can never escape. It's very deliberate and calculated on the part of Marxist Progressives and Democrat "social justice" advocates who don't actually give a flying fuck about the poor or anyone but their own power and control who create and sustain an insidious, evil, cruel and morally bankrupt system that keeps the dependent class dependent on Democrat largess and therefore obedient to the will of whichever demagogue or charlatan comes along to assume power. By keeping blacks and hispanics and other minority groups dependent on government largess, the Democrats and Progressives ensure that they will always vote for whomever promises them the most largess, which is always the liberal "social justice" bastards who aren't interested in social justice, but are only interested in keeping the majority of the electorate beholden to government's gravy train because that consolidates their power and control.

The problem with the conservative message is not that it wishes to harm or enslave poor people. Not even a little bit. It's not popular anymore because the message is "if you want to succeed economically and better your lot, then you have to get off your lazy ass and work hard, and to encourage you to do so we're going to, as Ben Franklin put it, "make you uncomfortable in your poverty."

That hard-line tough-love attitude is not dismissive or disrespectful of the poor, it's there because conservatives want people to succeed and improve their economic position in life. The trouble is, that like children offered candy or homework, the dependent class always chooses the candy today while ignoring the fact that the homework will help them to get a better job so they can buy more candy tomorrow and the next day and for their whole lives. This is not a popular message with the dependent class who have been carefully trained by the Democrats not to question their betters and to shut up and take the government largess they are offered under threat (an entirely false threat) that conservatives don't care about them and will throw them into the streets to starve.

This is the typical canard and false characterization that you, among many others, throw up against conservatism because you are bereft of factual and rational arguments and cannot ever actually rebut what I've just said. You evade the debate in fine old Alinsky fashion by, whenever your propaganda is challenged, immediately turning the debate into a personal attack of some kind. It might be quite personal, as you have done to me repeatedly when you realize that your arguments are fallacious and wrong, or it might be an ad hom attack by category or group, as in your repeated mendacious attacks on Libertarianism that deliberately distort and misstate Libertarianism as a fallacious strawman that you can then condemn. But it's always the same pattern of behavior. Evade, distort, change the subject, deny, misstate, lie, cheat, steal, kill and do anything you must do to avoid actually supporting your arguments with actual facts, logic and reason. You do this because you don't have an argument to make, and are incapable of making a rational, logical moral argument for the stealing of one man's property and labor to serve the needs and desires of some other person he doesn't know and has no responsibility to labor on behalf of.

No socialist I've ever encountered, without exception, has ever been willing or able to engage in a rational, logical and on-point defense of socialism. Not one. Not even Karl Marx. Every single Marxist/socialist I've ever encountered is unwilling to discuss the moral implications of socialism and immediately evades the debate by turning to Saul Alinsky tactics and personal attacks as a distraction and evasion. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Without exception.

So when we say "fuck the poor" it's our way of saying "fuck you, you thieving, selfish, self-centered, jealous Marxist cocksuckers who think that you have some natural right to enslave us to your service and steal the fruits of our labor."

That's what it really means.

[Seth]

That's pretty shocking. I don't know how anyone can feel like that towards disadvantaged people. If that's not sociopathic, then it's certainly dangerously anti-social. Disgusting.

While I don't agree with him, I know it's not a decision he made just because he likes being an ass. I think rational people can hold the same beliefs as Drew, and I know for a fact they can be wonderful, caring people, like Drew.

Caring for his own, but nobody else. Anti-social. And dangerously so, if he practices what he preaches.

What makes you think that Drew or anyone else owes anything to anyone other than those they have accepted financial responsibility for? Why do you think that government is better positioned and more able to tell Drew or I how to spend our money than we are? We are all capable of charity and altruism even if we also choose to be like the stern parent who does not coddle or enable a child's bad, lazy, selfish behavior because we know that it will not serve them well in life to believe that they are entitled to steal the fruits of someone else's labor merely because they can and are too lazy, or too dependent, to labor on their own behalf.

The conservative message is very clear: "If you are willing to help yourself up the economic ladder and eschew dependence and the enslavement of others to your needs, then we are willing to be charitable, altruistic and supportive of your attempts to become productive members of society." But the other side of that message is: "If you are unwilling to work hard on your own behalf and make the attempt to better yourself and become a productive member of society, we are far less willing to put up with your selfishness and we are unwilling to labor on your behalf, and choose not to support you unless and until you show us that you are worthy of our charity."

It's not the conservative who offers tough love to the dependent class who is being anti-social, it's the lazy, selfish dependent-class leeches who demand as a right that others labor and sacrifice their hard-earned money on their behalf...and people like you who enable their lazy, selfish dependent lifestyles so that they will reliably vote for your political agenda, which promises them unlimited slop from the public trough in return for their electoral loyalty. That's as fucking anti-social as it gets. It's the ethos of the thief and the power-hungry, arrogant asshole who exploits the poor to obtain power, control and wealth for him or herself, and nothing more, and I certainly am not willing to work on behalf of thieves, charlatans, carpet baggers or corruptocrats.They can starve in the ditch for all I care.

[Seth]

Anti-social eh? That's a new one.

What, are you trying to argue that you aren't anti-social? Perhaps I should have more accurately said anti-society (although, i'd argue they are the same thing).

How about just anti-fucking-asshole-Marxist, which is the truth.

[Seth]

It's tough to defend yourself when somebody who doesn't know you has filled in your life already.

And why should you have to defend yourself at all? This is supposed to be about the OP, not the personalities of the individuals engaged in the debate. Since it is eminently possible to argue a position that may be unpopular merely for the purposes of fully exploring the subject, it's morally and ethically bankrupt for other participants to personalize the debate by accusing a participant of some moral failing when the statements are actually intended to elicit and provoke a vigorous discussion by presenting alternative and often unpopular arguments.

People like Rev, however, being Marxists, cannot defend their ideology and know it full well, so they must turn to Saul Alinsky tactics of ad hominem attack on the participants in the discussion as a diversion away from the obvious and indefensible flaws in their ideology and arguments.

If you do this long enough, and you get to know who's who here, you will detect a clear pattern of behavior on the part of Marxists who support and advocate socialism and "social justice," and it's always the same pattern: when their ideology is attacked and attempts are made to elicit a rational discussion of the merits and demerits of Marxism and have a detailed examination of the moral and ethical implications of socialism, they immediately (in accordance with Saul Alinsky's advice) turn it into a personal attack on the person who has the temerity to call them on their bullshit Marxist arguments and philosophy. It's almost impossible to get them to actually discuss the subject because they know full well their ideology is simply indefensible, so they don't even try, and use diversionary tactics to derail the discussion and avoid having their asses handed to them.

That's how it works here, and at RatSkep, and RDF, and in every other Marxist-dominated forum that's infested with collectivists who don't even understand the consequences of their own philosophy in real life, or have the slightest bit of knowledge of history that proves that collectivism NEVER EVER WORKS, not even once, in all of human history. They are simply mindless, unthinking, indoctrinated socialist useful idiots, to a man...or woman.

The only reason I even bother to "debate" with them is because there are people lurking in the shadows, reading these "debates," who if the collectivists are left unchallenged might get the impression that socialism and Marxism actually make some sort of sense, and that's a human tragedy each and every time someone else drinks the collectivist Kool-Aid, because it kills their brain, their reasoning, and it poisons them beyond redemption most often. So I'm forced to continue to confront their propagandistic ideological bullshit when they spout it, lest some credulous lurker be hornswoggled into taking a fatal dose of Marxism by mistake.

[Kristie]

It's tough to defend yourself when somebody who doesn't know you has filled in your life already.

And why should you have to defend yourself at all? This is supposed to be about the OP, not the personalities of the individuals engaged in the debate. Since it is eminently possible to argue a position that may be unpopular merely for the purposes of fully exploring the subject, it's morally and ethically bankrupt for other participants to personalize the debate by accusing a participant of some moral failing when the statements are actually intended to elicit and provoke a vigorous discussion by presenting alternative and often unpopular arguments.

People like Rev, however, being Marxists, cannot defend their ideology and know it full well, so they must turn to Saul Alinsky tactics of ad hominem attack on the participants in the discussion as a diversion away from the obvious and indefensible flaws in their ideology and arguments.

If you do this long enough, and you get to know who's who here, you will detect a clear pattern of behavior on the part of Marxists who support and advocate socialism and "social justice," and it's always the same pattern: when their ideology is attacked and attempts are made to elicit a rational discussion of the merits and demerits of Marxism and have a detailed examination of the moral and ethical implications of socialism, they immediately (in accordance with Saul Alinsky's advice) turn it into a personal attack on the person who has the temerity to call them on their bullshit Marxist arguments and philosophy. It's almost impossible to get them to actually discuss the subject because they know full well their ideology is simply indefensible, so they don't even try, and use diversionary tactics to derail the discussion and avoid having their asses handed to them.

That's how it works here, and at RatSkep, and RDF, and in every other Marxist-dominated forum that's infested with collectivists who don't even understand the consequences of their own philosophy in real life, or have the slightest bit of knowledge of history that proves that collectivism NEVER EVER WORKS, not even once, in all of human history. They are simply mindless, unthinking, indoctrinated socialist useful idiots, to a man...or woman.

The only reason I even bother to "debate" with them is because there are people lurking in the shadows, reading these "debates," who if the collectivists are left unchallenged might get the impression that socialism and Marxism actually make some sort of sense, and that's a human tragedy each and every time someone else drinks the collectivist Kool-Aid, because it kills their brain, their reasoning, and it poisons them beyond redemption most often. So I'm forced to continue to confront their propagandistic ideological bullshit when they spout it, lest some credulous lurker be hornswoggled into taking a fatal dose of Marxism by mistake.

Wow. Who pissed in your coffee?

[Seth]

It's tough to defend yourself when somebody who doesn't know you has filled in your life already.

And why should you have to defend yourself at all? This is supposed to be about the OP, not the personalities of the individuals engaged in the debate. Since it is eminently possible to argue a position that may be unpopular merely for the purposes of fully exploring the subject, it's morally and ethically bankrupt for other participants to personalize the debate by accusing a participant of some moral failing when the statements are actually intended to elicit and provoke a vigorous discussion by presenting alternative and often unpopular arguments.

People like Rev, however, being Marxists, cannot defend their ideology and know it full well, so they must turn to Saul Alinsky tactics of ad hominem attack on the participants in the discussion as a diversion away from the obvious and indefensible flaws in their ideology and arguments.

If you do this long enough, and you get to know who's who here, you will detect a clear pattern of behavior on the part of Marxists who support and advocate socialism and "social justice," and it's always the same pattern: when their ideology is attacked and attempts are made to elicit a rational discussion of the merits and demerits of Marxism and have a detailed examination of the moral and ethical implications of socialism, they immediately (in accordance with Saul Alinsky's advice) turn it into a personal attack on the person who has the temerity to call them on their bullshit Marxist arguments and philosophy. It's almost impossible to get them to actually discuss the subject because they know full well their ideology is simply indefensible, so they don't even try, and use diversionary tactics to derail the discussion and avoid having their asses handed to them.

That's how it works here, and at RatSkep, and RDF, and in every other Marxist-dominated forum that's infested with collectivists who don't even understand the consequences of their own philosophy in real life, or have the slightest bit of knowledge of history that proves that collectivism NEVER EVER WORKS, not even once, in all of human history. They are simply mindless, unthinking, indoctrinated socialist useful idiots, to a man...or woman.

The only reason I even bother to "debate" with them is because there are people lurking in the shadows, reading these "debates," who if the collectivists are left unchallenged might get the impression that socialism and Marxism actually make some sort of sense, and that's a human tragedy each and every time someone else drinks the collectivist Kool-Aid, because it kills their brain, their reasoning, and it poisons them beyond redemption most often. So I'm forced to continue to confront their propagandistic ideological bullshit when they spout it, lest some credulous lurker be hornswoggled into taking a fatal dose of Marxism by mistake.

Wow. Who pissed in your coffee?

You did, among a good many others. I'm feeling particularly put-out by the obvious Mod bias today, but I really shouldn't because they are no more rational than the fuckwit Mods at RatSkep when it comes down to it. They have their favorites, and their ideological biases and preferences, and they have no ethics or morals that constrain them to any sort of "fairness" metric. They just make it up as they go, and like all despots, a little power has gone to their heads.

[Kristie]

It's tough to defend yourself when somebody who doesn't know you has filled in your life already.

And why should you have to defend yourself at all? This is supposed to be about the OP, not the personalities of the individuals engaged in the debate. Since it is eminently possible to argue a position that may be unpopular merely for the purposes of fully exploring the subject, it's morally and ethically bankrupt for other participants to personalize the debate by accusing a participant of some moral failing when the statements are actually intended to elicit and provoke a vigorous discussion by presenting alternative and often unpopular arguments.

People like Rev, however, being Marxists, cannot defend their ideology and know it full well, so they must turn to Saul Alinsky tactics of ad hominem attack on the participants in the discussion as a diversion away from the obvious and indefensible flaws in their ideology and arguments.

If you do this long enough, and you get to know who's who here, you will detect a clear pattern of behavior on the part of Marxists who support and advocate socialism and "social justice," and it's always the same pattern: when their ideology is attacked and attempts are made to elicit a rational discussion of the merits and demerits of Marxism and have a detailed examination of the moral and ethical implications of socialism, they immediately (in accordance with Saul Alinsky's advice) turn it into a personal attack on the person who has the temerity to call them on their bullshit Marxist arguments and philosophy. It's almost impossible to get them to actually discuss the subject because they know full well their ideology is simply indefensible, so they don't even try, and use diversionary tactics to derail the discussion and avoid having their asses handed to them.

That's how it works here, and at RatSkep, and RDF, and in every other Marxist-dominated forum that's infested with collectivists who don't even understand the consequences of their own philosophy in real life, or have the slightest bit of knowledge of history that proves that collectivism NEVER EVER WORKS, not even once, in all of human history. They are simply mindless, unthinking, indoctrinated socialist useful idiots, to a man...or woman.

The only reason I even bother to "debate" with them is because there are people lurking in the shadows, reading these "debates," who if the collectivists are left unchallenged might get the impression that socialism and Marxism actually make some sort of sense, and that's a human tragedy each and every time someone else drinks the collectivist Kool-Aid, because it kills their brain, their reasoning, and it poisons them beyond redemption most often. So I'm forced to continue to confront their propagandistic ideological bullshit when they spout it, lest some credulous lurker be hornswoggled into taking a fatal dose of Marxism by mistake.

Wow. Who pissed in your coffee?

You did, among a good many others. I'm feeling particularly put-out by the obvious Mod bias today, but I really shouldn't because they are no more rational than the fuckwit Mods at RatSkep when it comes down to it. They have their favorites, and their ideological biases and preferences, and they have no ethics or morals that constrain them to any sort of "fairness" metric. They just make it up as they go, and like all despots, a little power has gone to their heads.

Do you wear a tinfoil hat?


They're out to get you....they're all out to get out....

[Seth]

Do you wear a tinfoil hat?

Nah. Kevlar. Goes well with my Level 4 ceramic multi-hit AP-stopping vest. Or sometimes carbon fiber if all I need is basic impact protection rather than ballistic protection.

They're out to get you....they're all out to get out....

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. It's always prudent and good tactical planning to be well prepared for those times when they are out to get you, because if you're not, it's too late.

[Kristie]

Do you wear a tinfoil hat?

Nah. Kevlar. Goes well with my Level 4 ceramic multi-hit AP-stopping vest. Or sometimes carbon fiber if all I need is basic impact protection rather than ballistic protection.

They're out to get you....they're all out to get out....

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. It's always prudent and good tactical planning to be well prepared for those times when they are out to get you, because if you're not, it's too late.

[Seth]

Do you wear a tinfoil hat?

Nah. Kevlar. Goes well with my Level 4 ceramic multi-hit AP-stopping vest. Or sometimes carbon fiber if all I need is basic impact protection rather than ballistic protection.

They're out to get you....they're all out to get out....

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. It's always prudent and good tactical planning to be well prepared for those times when they are out to get you, because if you're not, it's too late.

Poor planning promotes piss poor performance. Also, a maxim of emergency response is: "In a crisis you will revert to your training. If you fail to train, you will do nothing." That's an observable fact of life, at least to an emergency services expert like me, who's see people do nothing in a crisis a thousand and one times. Training people to do SOMETHING in a crisis was part of my job for a long time, so take it from an expert it's always better to be overprepared than underprepared.

[pErvinalia]

Do you understand how the sorts of actions and beliefs that flow forward from a statement like "fuck the poor!" can be harmful to both the poor and the general stability of society?

And yet, you fail to understand exactly the same thing about statements like "fuck the rich".

No, you fail to understand the difference between the poor and the rich. The rich can insulate themselves from abuse. They can also take legal action and call in favours. They are also a smaller percentage of the population than the poor and working class.

Try again.

[pErvinalia]

Ignored Seth's rants. I've heard it all before Seth.

[Drewish]

That's pretty shocking. I don't know how anyone can feel like that towards disadvantaged people. If that's not sociopathic, then it's certainly dangerously anti-social. Disgusting.

While I don't agree with him, I know it's not a decision he made just because he likes being an ass. I think rational people can hold the same beliefs as Drew, and I know for a fact they can be wonderful, caring people, like Drew.

Caring for his own, but nobody else. Anti-social. And dangerously so, if he practices what he preaches.

What makes you think that Drew or anyone else owes anything to anyone other than those they have accepted financial responsibility for? Why do you think that government is better positioned and more able to tell Drew or I how to spend our money than we are? We are all capable of charity and altruism even if we also choose to be like the stern parent who does not coddle or enable a child's bad, lazy, selfish behavior because we know that it will not serve them well in life to believe that they are entitled to steal the fruits of someone else's labor merely because they can and are too lazy, or too dependent, to labor on their own behalf.

The conservative message is very clear: "If you are willing to help yourself up the economic ladder and eschew dependence and the enslavement of others to your needs, then we are willing to be charitable, altruistic and supportive of your attempts to become productive members of society." But the other side of that message is: "If you are unwilling to work hard on your own behalf and make the attempt to better yourself and become a productive member of society, we are far less willing to put up with your selfishness and we are unwilling to labor on your behalf, and choose not to support you unless and until you show us that you are worthy of our charity."

It's not the conservative who offers tough love to the dependent class who is being anti-social, it's the lazy, selfish dependent-class leeches who demand as a right that others labor and sacrifice their hard-earned money on their behalf...and people like you who enable their lazy, selfish dependent lifestyles so that they will reliably vote for your political agenda, which promises them unlimited slop from the public trough in return for their electoral loyalty. That's as fucking anti-social as it gets. It's the ethos of the thief and the power-hungry, arrogant asshole who exploits the poor to obtain power, control and wealth for him or herself, and nothing more, and I certainly am not willing to work on behalf of thieves, charlatans, carpet baggers or corruptocrats.They can starve in the ditch for all I care.

[Drewish]

This is the real legacy of government welfare programs:

http://prospect.org/article/public-hous ... egregation

This isn't "The compassionate left" vs "The uncaring right." The people who are the best at cheating you and stealing from the people always have a lie to cover their tracks. On the right it's religious BS. On the left it's the notion that centralizing power in the government helps the people and is done for their own good. Of course now the right has adopted that mantra too (for security) and the left has found God, but the lies remain the same.