What a Progressive America would actually mean for We the People

Looks to me like a very good argument against your proposal.

I suspect that if the US went with my proposal where only those interested in the idea have to pay for it, the US would divide into two camps.

Camp 1. Like the idea and are willing to accept the unearned wages.

Campt 2. Like the the idea, but do not want to pay higher consumer prices to pay for it.

There might be a third camp who are willing to pay, but it will be a very small camp.

 

Yet another attempt to DERAIL the thread with irrelevant drivel that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.

That the right CANNOT refute anything at all in the OP says VOLUMES!

 

There will only be two camps.

The minority who oppose it because they believe the rightwing DISINFORMATION.

The majority who are sick and tired of being EXPLOITED.

 

Perhaps the greatest strength and greatest weakness of humanity are the same thing- known as imagination. We can imagine anything; it doesn't have to be practical or useful or possible to think it. But when we try to make something we imagine into fact, we run squarely into reality- the tangible facts that have to be considered. One of those facts is the practicality, the questions not only of if you could, but if you should and if you can given the things you have to work with. While your imaginary possibilities sound wonderful, they simply aren't possible considering those questions.

Number one issue is of course, people. We are physically similar- but there are vast differences in our values, our perspectives, our objectives. If you plan deprives some to benefit others- it destroys individual happiness and freedom of some in the process, and thus fails.

If it assumes that all people want to work, want to be independent and responsible- then it fails to accept the reality of differences in motivations. Just as it is today, some people are a hundred, even thousands of times more productive than others, and motivation is a key factor. Long ago, my favorite teacher explained the problems of education in a way that fits here. He said:

"My job is to teach- to present information, and to provide the best environment I can for it. However, the student has a job too, and that is to learn. My job is to facilitate that process, make it easier and more efficient. However I cannot force an unwilling student to learn, and neither can I prevent an eager and hungry student from learning- he will do so one way or another, regardless of my skill.
Those who don't want to learn- won't, and there is nothing anyone can do about it."

We will always have people who are not concerned beyond the moment, and will settle for bare existence. Whenever we tell those so inclined that they are entitled to a good life without their having built it, they are going to agree- because it fits right in to the choices they have already made.

The important question is individual. Do you want to be you? Or would you be happy being something like the sci-fi Borgs, an assimilated element of the singularity?

We are not like the bees, the ants, the termites- all clones from a single breeding queen, who think only as part of the colony. The things we find most valuable- our individuality, our freedom- are lost in that kind of environment, and with that... the things we pursue, such as life, liberty and happiness.

If there is to be some kind of "collective", it must be self-supporting and totally voluntary- not a parasite on those who seek to discover all they can be, all we are capable of. Life will never be painless, because it is a challenge of ourselves- to know who we are, to find ourselves worthy and valuable, we must individually prove ourselves to ourselves. The idea of some kind of collective destroys that, and in the process destroys the fundamental drive that makes us, or at least those who have the courage and motivation- excel, and bring about all the things that make the human race exceptional.

Participation in that - is voluntary. It can't be any other way.

 

If a person could survive without a job, imagine what employers would be like. They'd have to treat their workers fairly, and make themselves attractive to entice workers. They'd have to offer a better option than other employers, and make people want to participate.

This portion jumped right out at me. This one doesn't have to be part of someone's utopian view. It should be the norm. And a smart business owner should know this. The cost of hiring and retraining is high - so even just for financial reasons, business owners should strive to make their business a place that people want to work. Fair pay, a share in the profits and genuine appreciation for their efforts. Afterall, without their workers, a business fails.

 

So you think the majority of the people in the US will volunteer to pay higher prices because some of the population voluntarily choose not to work?

 

Once upon a time that was the norm. People were rewarded for their hard work with pay increases and bonuses.

Then the GREED obsession took over and RUINED our nation.

 

Which part of this needs to be explained?

 

Don't need an explanation. I am not going to go into a store and willingly pay a higher price because someone else chooses not to work. I suspect, that most people will choose the lower price. People tend to act differently when actually given a choice.

 

Except that is not a choice they will be given.

 

There are many stark contrasts between the right and the left. Demonstrated in this thread is the one that casts aspersions on those less fortunate. They are looked down upon - they are regarded as lazy and wanting hand outs. They are resented. And they are the reason that most on the right don't want national healthcare...one group hates the notion of paying for others. They ignore what that could mean for their own lives, and focus only on not wanting to help others.

 

That was not your proposal. I favor helping those who cannot help themselves. I do not favor helping those who voluntarily refuse to help themselves.

 

And how do you determine those who refuse to help themselves?

 

The OP identified that problem on the right with their negative image of the less fortunate.

The wealthy are the ones getting handouts at taxpayer expense while doing less than nothing to improve the economy. If anything their greed and offshoring of their illgotten gains is doing way more harm than good.

 

Require proof that they are unable to work.

 

Name the government taxes that allow you to cherrypick which programs you will fund and which you won't?

 

Why do you need that?

 

The brilliant economist Milton Friedman explains why greed is good.

 

And what would be your criteria for 'unable to work'?

 

For a very good reason. Most people donot want to participate in such a program.

Don't need it as long as you let me decide whether to participate.

Some physical or other condition that prevents you from working.

 

What do we have to fear? the high likely hood that their won't be enogh people working to provide the life stye everyone else wants but doesn't want to work for.

 

Would that include a single mom who cannot afford child care?

 

I know, when faced with actual empirical evidence of just how unsuccessful progressive pipe dreams are, all you folks have left are ad homs.. Simply put, there is nothing to refute in the OP that empirical evidence doesn't already address.

 

Would paying for it include a single mom who has a job, but can't afford to pay for someone else? Or for that matter, me who has a job, but can't afford to pay for someone else? We can "what if it" to death, which is probably the best idea.

 

Yes, we can 'what if' it to death. Lines are drawn and payments are made. I'm asking whether or not you agree with the lines drawn by the government. If not, who should draw those lines?