Parasites", "looters", and "moochers"

We all know who they are.............and the more astute understand why nothing is done to stop them ....it is politically incorrect to do so.

How much longer though can this nation tolerate such.......in fact is there any way possible to stop such?

Is there anyone who can save America....there once was such a man..........but is he still alive? Can he do anything? What can this man do(if still here)what would he say if still alive?

'I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing-you who dread knowledge -I am the man who will now tell you.”

“You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man’s sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.
“You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, and I-I am the man who has granted you your wish.
“Your ideal had an implacable enemy, which your code of morality was designed to destroy. I have withdrawn that enemy. I have taken it out of your way and out of your reach. I have removed the source of all those evils you were sacrificing one by one. I have ended your battle. I have stopped your motor. I have deprived your world of man’s mind.
“Men do not live by the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those who do. The mind is impotent, you say? I have withdrawn those whose mind isn’t. There are values higher than the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those for whom there aren’t.
“While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem-I beat you to it, I reached them first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I showed them the way to live by another morality-mine. It is mine that they chose to follow.
“All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don’t. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.
“We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one’s happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.
“There is a difference between our strike and all those you’ve practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality-the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.
“We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.
“Are you now crying: No, this was not what you wanted? A mindless world of ruins was not your goal? You did not want us to leave you? You moral cannibals, I know that you’ve always known what it was that you wanted. But your game is up, because now we know it, too.
“Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code.' John Galt

Who is John Galt?

 

We could end welfare.

 

One promising suggestion I heard is to make public assistance available only to those willing to be rendered infertile.

 

Drug test for welfare.

 

How about leaving public assistance up to the states?

It's not constitutional anyway, so leave it up to the states to decide if they want to provide welfare or whatever. Then watch as the exodus begins. Everybody with an income moves to where they don't have free money for lazy people, and all the lazy start moving to the states that do.

 

Granny still waitin'...

... fer dat 2nd stimulus check.

 

Proof of effective long term contraception would be preferable.

 

Why do people hate the poor? Is it because they represent the failures of capitalism?

Making them suffer, sterilizing them, calling them "parasites," etc. It's all so elitist and hateful.

 

I can understand the reasoning behind sterilizing them. If they need assistance to get by, how is it fair for them to bring another person into the world that other people will have to support, and a person who will have less of a shot because their parent can't even take care of themselves? But sterilization isn't necessary, I think it would be reasonable to require the equivalent of the depo shot while receiving public assistance as Merwen was alluding to. And I'm not trying to pick on women, I'd also be for having a similar requirement for men if there's a safe, effective, and reversible way of reducing their fertility.

 

Sorry...I thought this was about politicians...

 

That depends on what kind of poor.

If it's some chick with kids she can't support because she spread her legs for every guy that managed to get a stiffie, then I could write reams on why I hate her type. Or any of the numerous guys that porked her, and is now in prison for being violent, or homeless because he just didn't study in school...

If it's somebody that is poor because they never had a chance to work their way out of poverty, then there is no hatred, except for those that made it impossible to work out of poverty.

 

Ah yes, John Galt, if Rand herself had demostrated a fraction of his moral sensibility in her actual day to day existence I might be a little more willing to acknowledge the validity of her peculiar objectivist vision. On the other hand it can be said there's a perfect match between the dog eat dog ethic evident in her fiction writing and her own behavior. As it stands her epistemology is the only part of her philosophy I find valuable. If you want to explore that I recommend Ronald E Merrill's "The Ideas of Ayn Rand" . Don't be afraid, he's a card carrying objectivist.

 

"The poor" have always existed. They existed when the pyramids was being built. They existed before the idea of capitalism was ever promoted, they existed in cultures that outright rejected capitalism. They existed if Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and North Korea. The question isn't how do we make people poor, poverty is the natural state of man. It's how do we create wealth? How are people allowed to rise? The answer to that has been capitalism. No other system has worked better, and even what the left and right like to claim are "socialist states" like Switzerland are still capitalist countries.

No serious individual supports top down economics anymore. The only thing most socialist who need to survive in a democracy defend now a days is the welfare state. They've long since given up on promising to make goods and services cheaper by nationalizing industries, and stopping private ownership of property. They have failed every time it's tried.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” - Benjamin Franklin.

Mr. Franklin was a man who rejected all of the patents he had on his Franklin stove, because he wanted to make it easier for people to use it. He made his money, but also lived his life to help out people. He also understood a simple truth that has always been real. The best way you can help another person in this world, is by showing them that they have to work for their own self improvement. The worst thing you can do to a person is tell them they are a victim that has no chance.

 

The merit of an argument really has nothing to do with how the person making the argument conducts themselves. Arguments stand on their own based upon evidence and reason. A good example is doctors. They know how to keep people healthy to some extent but don't necessarily engage in perfect health practices for themselves. This doesn't invalidate their advice, however. Similarly a total quack could be very disciplined and take the homeopathic remedies he recommends every day, but his recommended treatments would still be placebo regardless of how well he adheres to them.

 

"don't feed the animals" argument coming any second now...

Seriously, the increase of the welfare state is a direct symptom of the supply side economics that have plagued the US for decades. The supply side actually wants unemployement of 10-20%, because it allows them to pick an chose between tons of job seekers, keeping wages nice and low. And, of course, with money essentially being able to buy politicians, they got exactly as they wanted.

Of course, the right continues blaming this effect on the poor, calling them lazy, moochers and all kind of other names, instead of where the blame really belongs: Supply side economics and unfettered offshoring.

Second, the supply side seems to be unable to grasp that they shuffle their own grave with those low wages -- by stifling aggregate demand.

 

The right is more into laissez faire capitalism. Not that ridiculous concept of supply side economics which doesn't have anything to do with the federal reserve.

Sorry, but what you have is keynesian economics, so don't blame that one supply side. You don't have that and you don't have laissez faire. You have keynesian economics.

grrr!!! blaming this nonsense on supply side economics is like blaming santa claus for an earthquake in bolivia. You don't have supply side economics, and never have had supply side economics.

 

"We all know who they are"?

No we don't. Speak clearly Ayn Rand.

Who are they?

 

Should they be sterilized, stigmatized and micromanaged while they're trying to work their way out of poverty?

Your signature: "Treat people as they would have wanted you to treat them looking back years later."

 

Immigrants, the godless, the sexual promiscuous, arty farty writers who have never done a proper days work in their life............................................oh wait!

 

If he actually answered that question, this whole thread would get deleted under Rule #7 and we both know it...

 

You need to learn some economics. Pure capitalism does not and cannot exist for long, it is simply too economically destructive. When you set up a capitalist society there is a mad scramble to appropriate and monopolize all the good land -- because everybody knows that those who get the good land won't have to work, they can simply live a life of luxury and leisure by charging the landless rent to use what nature provided for free. As soon as all the good land is claimed, those who are left out of the appropriation become virtual slaves. The less productive of these virtual slaves are destined for a life of poverty and starvation, because that is the inevitable result of being denied all rights to use what nature freely provided. Poverty and starvation lead to protests, and the transformation from capitalism to socialism begins. My hatred of socialism is the root of my hatred of capitalism, as capitalism sets the groundwork for socialism to take hold.

The only way to create a sustainable free market economy is for government to collect all land rent, then government keeping only the rent that government earns by suppling infrastructure and services, and returning the remaining rent equally back to the citizens of the community (either in the form of a individual land tax exemption or a citizens dividend). This free market form of government is called geoism, and it is the only free market system which is sustainable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

"In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago." — Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in Economics (1976)

 

Parasites, looters, and mooches otherwise known as democrat voters. All they want is free schidt that the democrats always promise them for their vote.

 

Which has been shown to be wildly ineffective unless your plan is to have the government waste money.

 

Who cleans the toilets in Galt's Gultch?

- - - Updated - - -

Yup, not a single Republican is on welfare.

 

Or disability (RSDI), or SSI, or Medicaid, or Gawd forbid - Medicare...