Feds: ‘Poor’ Consume Like The Rich

It could.... Very easily. The world is littered with the ruins of ancient cities that were the most advanced in their day.
Just because we have TV and the internets, that doesn't stop wars from happening all over the world.
It doesn't help when governments are corrupt.

No, I'm not. I'm saying "these things happened back then. They no longer happen now. Therefore now is an improvement over then."

Those wailing about the "need" for an apocalypse seem to think they're worse off now than they would have been at any other time in history. It's laughable.

Really? A simple thing like a large enough electromagnetic pulse can destroy every bit of technology around it in a heartbeat. No need for wars or plagues; just kill all the electronics. Your car, your computer, your phone, your appliances, lighting, heating/cooling systems, even the water treatment plant that keeps you from getting cholera from your drinking water...gone, in an instant. You think you're just going to dust yourself off from that and say "Life goes on?"

Ideas survive where there's infrastructure. Did you know there was a reversion to cannibalism in parts of Europe after 1816? Do you know why?

Which is what I've been saying all along, from which you've somehow decided that I'm living in the past.

It's not an excuse; it's an observation. Cite me an instance where any society has moved inexorably forward without a single hitch that sent it backwards, at least temporarily.

Which is what I'm saying.

How do you figure?

You keep saying things like "when was society better at any point in the past". I'm not saying it ever was.

I'm saying that those who survive some would be apocalypse, will take with them the ideas from today.

Yes, a lot of people will revert back to their basic instincts, but many more are decent human beings and will attempt to rebuild with all the ideas we take for granted now.

I guess what you mean by "apocalypse" is some sort of containable local disaster, because there's a disconnect between your concept and what would actually happen.

Out of curiosity, have you ever been hungry? I don't mean "I skipped lunch" hungry or "I'm trying to lose five pounds" hungry. I mean, hungry because you haven't eaten for days and there's no food available anywhere that you can get to it?

I'm assuming you never saw combat while you were in the service, either, but were you ever anywhere near an active combat zone? Ever seen casualties of any kind of conflict or even a natural disaster?

So the fact that money and wealth are societal constructs has nothing to do with it...

You're insane. I can't believe I read through this entire thread. Honestly, all it taught me is that you are one soulless, pathetic individual, and I hope I never have the displeasure of meeting you. It's not that you don't concede my point, cause that's fine, you can believe that society never did a thing to you or your wealth. It's the rest of the stuff you've said. I've never run into someone so determined to put everyone down so harshly. God forbid I make one bad decision in my life. I could see it now, you'd get up on your pedestal and tell me that fucking up is unforgivable.

No wonder Mrs. A left.

(err, no anger directed at Mrs. A... I'm just trolling)

Have you?

Or are you just basing your assumptions on what you think would happen?

It must be a very sad world you live in, if you believe the worst in humanity.

Have you not read anythign about other parts of the world?

It's pretty common knowledge that there's a connection between less food/resources to go around and higher crime rates. Why do you think that we're not a police tate like much of the African continent?

"The Seige of AR-558" had a great scene with Quark talking to Nog about how humans are nice enough creatures when they're fed and well-rest and (in 2376, anyway) got lots of holosuite time...but once paradise is stripped away, they revert back to their baser instincts for survival.

because in the end, that's what we and every other species on the planet ultimate is geared for.

Human beings are animals. People don't like to hear that but we are animals.

Take away our basic needs and you will see the worst in humanity within a week.

I think in some respects you are right but it depends on the severity of what apocalypse takes place as well.

Anything that could put humanity on the brink of extinction will cause you to be wrong.

Girls, girls!!

...let's see what you can do with this knife!

*Throws butterfly knife into the fray and runs behind sandbags*

That's not fair to Jenee. Garamet has been dating a Romulan. No doubt she knows how to knife fight.

Jenee flirted with a guy who doesn't have a red shirt but does have red hair or rather had red hair and a massive "It's not my problem" chip on his shoulder.

It's no contest.

"Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes..."
-Quark

And it's the truth too. Well would be if Klingons existed.

Of the ass?

With otters?

I'll take that as a "no."

I'm reporting on what has happened. Or do you think history is all made up?

Now you're confusing me with Uncle Albert.

Television is great fantasy, isn't it. I'm in the middle of DS9 marathon right now.

But, the truth is, much of life on the African continent would not be much different after an apocalyptic event. - heck, with fewer people, things might even change for the better.

It's the industrial nations of the world that would be most devastatingly affected. It's also the people of the industrialized nations that have the most ... liberal ideology.

We may not have advanced to the point where we could all live in Roddenbury's universe, but then, I'm not expecting an apocalypse any time soon.

But, even if there is, we are in a better position now, than ever before in history, to work to a better future afterwards.

She's done more to serve her country than you have.

It's a shame no one picked up on this, because you have hit on an important point here. I have long advocated something like this.

The debate, not only in this thread but in society in general, seems to be between the "We need to give all kinds of money to the poor because they can't help themselves" crowd and the "Who cares about the poor? If they really wanted to, they could take care of themselves just as well as the rich can" crowd. Both positions are, in my opinion, untenable in the long run.

A trite but perhaps applicable saying is: "God gives every bird its food, but he doesn't throw it into its nest." Without going into a debate on whether or not that pithy little proverb has any litteral theological value, the principle is nevertheless sound: Providing for the poor does not have to mean "throwing it into the nest."

The military has several advantages over normal welfare programs:

1) It isn't just free money handed out. You have to work, and work hard, for a long time. Sure, they'll provide for you, but they won't provide for you so you can lie around in front of your television, eating potato chips and drinking beer.

2) Though I have never been in the military myself, from what I have heard it is not the most comfortable lifestyle. Lots of very capable people get out, even though they could have gone very far in the military, because they don't like the stupid restrictions, the arbitrary bosses, or the limited amount of "wealth" it provided. This is a good thing, from a welfare point of view: Welfare should not be something attractive, but rather a way to survive for those who simply can't find anything better.

3) The military gives training and practical experience in marketable skills. There are incredible numbers of "help the poor by financing training for them" programs out there, but a lot of people who get such training never manage to actually get any serious job as a result of it, because they lack experience and/or it wasn't training that actually coresponds to jobs that need to be done to any great degree in the real world.

There are two big downsides to the military as a welfare program, however:

1) It means being willing to engage in military activity. Not everyone wants to do that. Depending on one's convictions, the notion that you could be required to kill people as part of your job just might not be acceptable.

2) As we have seen all too often, having a big, powerful military leads to the temptation to use it, when keeping a lower profile might sometimes be useful. I don't think the lessons of Iraq are lost on anyone. We probably shouldn't have been in there in the first place, and we certainly shouldn't have used the military to try to change an artificial conglomerate of ethnic groups who hate each other into a single, unified, peaceful country. That could well be an impossible task in any case, but even if it isn't, it is not a job for an army. But you use what you have, and America had this big army sitting around, and already involved over there from having overthrown Saddam...

Without it being a military organisation at all, I would be in favor of a "welfare" program that ressembles the military in just about every way, other than the fact that it is not based on fighting. (No, I am not anti-military, but I think defending the country is best done by those who really want to do that, not people who are simply looking for a way out of dire financial straits.)

1) You wouldn't have to "prove financial need" to be a part of it. Make it unattractive enough (in terms of the work, discipline, hours, pay, etc.), while making sure it provides basic housing, food, clothing and medical care to its members and their dependants, and the question of "moochers" will sort itself out.

2) You never get a free lunch, ever. You will be taken care of, but you will be working for what you get.

3) You obey the rules or you're out. Society owes nothing to those who don't want to play nice with others. There is still a place for natural selection.

4) You (and your dependents) will go to school, regardless of age, until you (and they) have reached an acceptable level of proficiency in all the basic skills schools should provide: Reading, writing, math, general science, general history and geography, and so on. The only exceptions will be for those who have some particular deficiency that makes that kind of education impossible for them.

5) All those benefitting from the program will learn and engage in a useful job, adapted to their capacity. Since meaningful work, useful to society, would be part of the program, you have to be doing something. Once you have learned such a trade and know how to do it, if you want to leave and go use your skills on the free market where you can be better paid for it, you are free to do so and you don't owe the program for the training. Since you were working the whole time you were getting the training, you've already covered what you owe. You won't be a brain surgeon or a nuclear engineer, but you will be able to provide for yourself.

6) If you want to make it a lifestyle, that's fine. The program would be used for accomplishing useful but unattractive jobs that are beneficial to society, so it's existence would not be a particular drain on society. If you don't want anything more for yourself and/or don't think you could ever succeed on your own, you can stay on it till you die of old age. Since you will be doing something useful in return for what you get, society isn't being cheated.

I think this approach would be incomparably better for society than the "Let them starve" approach of the uber-libertarians, and also incomparably better than the current "let's give free lunches forever to everyone who doesn't have much, without them having to do anything in return to get it" system.

As you say, copy military structure in many ways, without the same mission. Let the real military take care of military matters, but let the "poor corps" (I'm sure a better term could be found...) also serve the country, in other ways, while at the same time providing a way out for those who are finding themselves at a dead end, through no fault of their own.

^ While there are a lot of things that I disagree with FDR about, one of the things I think he got right was essentially workfare: the CCC, WPA, and the TVA. Those programs built infrastructure and taught the participants skills and a good work ethic. The men who came out of those programs knew how to work and expected to work.

"!"

Truth is, unless one is in the sandbox or forward-deployed in Japan, there's not money to be had before one makes E-5 and can get the housing allowance--and even then, most single people get a roommate to split the cost and pocket the rest.

I get a lot of [-]brainwashed[/-] folks telling me that it's such a great deal that the military pays for your house and medical, but like Ansyc pointed out, the BS one has to put up with just isn't worth it to a lot of folks--especially not to folks like myself who spent considerable time in the civilian world beforehand. Some things are worth more than money.

I also volunteered to go through the Michigan CCC program. Despite taking classes nearly every semester for 25+ years, traditional classrooms bore the hell out of me. I'd much rather have on-the-job training.

The CCC I'm talking about was a Federal program during the Great Depression. Does Michigan have a state program?

It is a fact that the infrastructure of society, the "concept" of wealth and the mechanism of currency make it possible for me to acquire wealth. It is not a fact that every member of society has anything to do with developing and maintaining those "constructs", and that would be an absolute prerequisite of any claim that I owe something to each individual member of society.

Save it. Not impressed. I'm not saying the existence of "society" never benefitted me personally. I'm saying "society" is not interchangeable with "each individual person" the way you're invoking it here, and no amount of silly emotional appeals will change that fact.

And yeah, I am saying "society" shouldn't be in the business of redeeming peoples' mistakes. Consequence is the price of freedom, as far as I'm concerned. I hold myself to the same standard.

Yeah...


.... for POGs.

The vast majority of my training is completely useless for anything except being a [-]Mercenary[/-] Contractor.

Because the only way to serve your country is in the military? By that parameter, you've done nothing for your country, either.

And I'm not questioning her service. I'm questioning her reasoning. Or is it your argument that prior military service exempts one from clear thinking?

My reasoning is simple. The human race has evolved emotionally and mentally and ideally since the last major reset - the plague that ravaged Europe.

While technology will falter and there will be a period of unrest, overall, we as a race will come out the other side more advanced than we did the last time because we were more advanced before the reset.

I say we're ripe for another reset.

I can't say that I've ever seen any evidence that this is true.

That's too bad. I see it all the time.