Produce, Mooch, or Loot

These are the basic ways humans survive. We either produce our own necessities of life, by working for them, we leech off of someone else's labors, or we take them from others by force. A healthy society must have a large number of industrious, hard working producers to provide the network of necessities: sustenance & protection. When a society breaks down, & too many moochers or looters run rampant, the producers cannot work hard enough to provide for them, or they become tired of being exploited & rebel against the system (or lack thereof) that has arisen.

1. If you are a responsible producer, you will have a constant battle to fend off moochers & looters. Hopefully, you will live in a time & place where your life & property are protected with sound collective agencies, provided for that purpose by all the producers. But, if moochers & looters gain control of the protection agencies, they will use them against you, & you will be exploited until you & the other producers revolt & cast out the moochers & looters. This is a constant pattern throughout human history, & will no doubt continue in the future.
2. If you are a moocher, you run the risk of wearing out those you mooch from. It is not a dependable method of survival, as you rely on the generosity of the producers, or the benevolence of the looters to share with you from their plunder.
3. If you are a looter, you rely on having superior power or deception to intimidate & fleece the working producers. But if they pool their resources & defeat you, you might be killed in the struggle. It is also an unreliable way to survive.

Producing, with the force of law to protect your labors, has traditionally been the best & most reliable method of human survival. When a culture has a strong base of producers, they tend to be stronger, wealthier, & better suited to survive. Moochers & looters tend to be short lived, as the working producers tire of the excess, useless baggage, & reorganize the system to better serve themselves.

The challenge is for the producers to craft a system of protection, but not let it be controlled by moochers & looters, as they will use the system to plunder the producers. Typically, the producers just stage a revolution from time to time, and the leaders of the revolutions promise to provide peace & justice for the working producers to live & raise their families. They promise to make minimal demands on the property of the producers. But they always degenerate back into a mooching, looting system where law becomes an instrument of plunder, not justice.

The only solution is for the producers to keep a tight rein on the system, provide checks & balances, & a rotating workforce of public servants, so none of them become entrenched & entitled in an elite power structure. This was the attempt of the American experiment, & it worked for a while, until those who got used to power used this power to plunder the producers, as they have been doing increasingly for the last few decades.

So an ideal system for a productive, healthy society is this:
1. Minimal demands for an agency of justice. Minimal taxes so the producers keep more of their labors.
2. Swift, efficient justice to deter looters, foreign or domestic.
3. Maximum freedom for the producers to enjoy the fruits of their labors, which provide the most opportunity, prosperity, & abundance for all.
4. Checks & balances in the justice system, so that moochers or looters do not gain control.
5. Rotating citizen representatives, managing the system so moochers or looters do not gain control.
6. Strict laws to punish corruption in the collective agencies.

These things will cost the producers the least, while maximizing what they have earned & worked for. This is a recipe for a healthy, prosperous culture. But whenever moochers & looters gain control of the collective institutions, they use govt power to plunder the producers, & build a system of dependency & injustice, until it collapses under its own corruption.

Any thoughts or rebuttals? Am i missing anything?

 

Yes, you are missing one small thing. What you said is great if you are living in a society that has the population of a small town with no consitution. With a population of 318.9 million people, that becomes a little harder and more complex especially with this thing we have called the Constitution.

 

Why is it any different? More numbers complicates logistics, but the rule of production still applies.

How does the constitution conflict with my analysis?

 

Here's a quote by Lincoln, regarding this subject:

And inasmuch as most good things are produced by labour, it follows that all such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have labored, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government. ~Abraham Lincoln

Is he right, here? Is this goal a 'most worthy object' of govt?

 

With all the moochers out there, no one wants to defend it? No one wants to present an argument why the producers should continue to support the ever growing horde of moochers & looters?

Any producers see this as true? Aren't you tired of being looted by thieves & scoundrels? Wouldn't you like to keep more of what you earn, rather than see it wasted on corrupt govt programs?

 

Unfortunately we have too damned many of the last two!!!!

 

The moochers have no shame and think they are being smarter than others by taking. The looters are criminals who are consumed with greed and jealousy. They think they have a right to take what they want. The way to stop the former is to stop giving them stuff and then watch them become producers. The way to stop the latter is quick severe punishment. But unfortunately we have become a nation of enablers.

 

What is a Moocher, I was born disabled with a Spartan work record and now am to sickly to work that is not my fault but I need the Community to help me with some help.

 

I've described this same thing in the past as 'dependent's & producers. You are a dependent, & rely on family or the collective to support you, as you are unable to do it yourself. This is reality. I started this thread with more colorful terms, to promote discussion, but the basic principles are the same, regardless of the terms.

We are born moochers. Babies are completely dependent. As we grow, we can become contributing members of society. As we get older, or disabled, we go back to dependency. So much of our lives EVERYONE is a moocher. Some by choice, others by fate.

But this thread is not about fate, but choices by the collective. How do we govern ourselves? Do we let looters run things, or manage our resources ourselves?

 

With all the moochers & looters in this forum NONE of you want to tackle the issues in this thread? Too close to home? Too pointed? Not enough racism? C'mon, people! Let's get to the root of the problems, in human society. This is it! You can face it, or muddy the issues with irrelevant deflections. Face it head on! Don't run in cowardly fear, but deal with the real issues of humanity!

 

The union label Complex crowd here will usually ignore or avoid framings of issues that are stated in the black and white terms of the OP, because then their fallacious LW loosey-goosey correlation graphs/studies and resentment appeals are seen for what they are, faulty, repetitive advertisements, and precluded from gaining much traction.

 

Well, i am disappointed. With all the passion from the leftists in this forum, i though surely some would pipe in on this subject. They will rail on for years about racism, global warming, fairness, & gays, but a simple thread about working & dependency & they stay away in droves. This is a core issue! It affects every other position you have. Your world view is flavored by the way you survive, & the means you employ. Why not talk about it? Why not face it head on?

You want to engage me, & other constitutionalists on a wide range of topics of your own choosing. Why do you avoid 'inconvenient' ones like this? Man up, & post something analytical & thoughtful. Otherwise, you just have an echo chamber, & try to control the narrative. Keep everything on race, pseudo science, & sexual preference & you dodge the real issues, such as human freedom & survival.

 

So how do you categorize those who live off inherited wealth.

 

So are you defined as a producer if your incomes comes from investing in the stock and bond markets.

 

Not IMO.. a producer is one who actually produces, not lives off the production of others. IMO, these are both moochers. Now, please excuse the colorful language, which is just for entertainment purposes, but the goal here is to see the source & the basis for our survival.

What do you think?

 

I am leftist and I'm tired of conservative/rightist arguments that some people shouldn't have to work for their money. You see, the right is full of people who support government-issued privileges, which are basically restrictions on free competition. Here is a list of the tool chest that the right defends as a way to live in luxury without having to work.

1) Land titles: government-issued pieces of paper which allow the holder to pocket the value (income) created by nature, government and community amenities.

2) Patent and copyright: government-issued pieces of paper which allow the holder to stop other people from using information and/or ideas that they have gained from the public domain.

3) Banking charters: government-issued pieces of paper which allow the private holder to create new money from NOTHING.

4) Occupational licenses: government-issued pieces of paper which allow the private holder to perform tasks, prescribe medicines or corrective eye-wear, while removing the rights of every other citizen to do the same.

There are of course other privileges, such as subsidies, taxi-medallions, sugar quotas, no-bid contracts, etc., but the four listed above are the most popular among the right.


The first Republican president did not support landownership as it exists today because he did not believe that landowners should get rich just because they hold a government-issued piece of paper:

"The land, the earth, God gave to man for his home, sustenance and support, should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society or unfriendly government, any more than the air or water. An individual or company, or enterprise, acquiring land should hold no more than is required for their home and sustenance, and never more than they have in actual use in the prudent management of their legitimate business, and this much should not be permitted when it creates an exclusive monopoly. All that is not so used should be held for the free use of every family to make homesteads and to hold them as long as they are so occupied." — Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)

Lincoln believed that individuals could HOLD -- SOME -- land to the exclusion of others … but the first republican president did not support landownership as it exists today. He believed that individuals should work for what they get, including landowners, and that is probably why they shot him dead.

-------------------


Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. --Thomas Jefferson

Men did not make the earth.... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds. --Tom Paine

 

What do you call someone who takes the production of the working people and returns to them only a fraction of what they produce by their labors while keeping the great majority of the workers' labors for themselves? "Moochers" or "looters"? It think "looters" would be the more apt description.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I have tried to frame this thread in a non political way.. it's not 'right vs left' but producer vs moocher.. or some other less colorful terms. 'Worker/dependent could also cover it, with less hysterical imagery. But hysteria is the new reason, so i just try to roll with it.

I'm quite fond of Lincoln.. but i think you might misunderstand his points. His was a practical, socio economic vision, that was based on the protection of basic rights, which included property. Of course, he railed against the banks, which he saw as enemies of the common man.

Lincoln would have liked the topic of this thread, and he wrote about it often.

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." ~Abraham Lincoln

"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny." ~Abraham Lincoln

"Upon this subject, the habits of our whole species fall into three great classes---useful labour, useless labour and idleness. Of these the first only is meritorious; and to it all the products of labour rightfully belong; but the two latter, while they exist, are heavy pensioners upon the first, robbing it of a large portion of it's just rights. The only remedy for this is to, as far as possible, drive useless labour and idleness out of existence." ~Abraham Lincoln

He was opposed to the feudal system, where wealth & property is concentrated in the hands of a few elite, & that is also a direction we seem to be going today. this last housing crisis was in effect a 'concentrating of wealth' from millions of people back to the banks.. and even the banks that made bad investments were bailed out (with our own money!!), while the common folks took the hit. This is a 'bad' use of govt.. where special interests & the moneyed elite plunder the working man, reducing him to servitude, & the govt support it.. both by policy, currency, & law. It is 'lawful plunder' that bastiat wrote about, & would/could/should be abolished by a nation of self rule.

And inasmuch as most good things are produced by labour, it follows that all such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have labored, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government. ~Abraham Lincoln

 

They are the ones not mooching off of us or looting us.

- - - Updated - - -

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Me too. the moneyed elite, complicit with govt, is fleecing the working man, & stealing his labors. They 'redistribute' it, which means they steal most of it, & dribble out a bit to buy votes. Govt is failing in its basic duty to protect the working man & his right to his own property. They are complicit with those who exploit him. They ARE the looters.

 

LOL. But, don't you see that these "makers" take all the risk and, therefore, should get all the reward? At least that's the narrative. I guess, however, that this is what happens when labor is just treated as a commodity, as it is in our current economic system, without any human aspect involved.

 

So they don't fit into your three categories. Post fails, since they are also clearly not producing. Maybe you will have to find more categories.

 

There are very few true moochers today. Most have it taken by force by proxy.

When they rob Peter to pay Paul, they can always count on Paul's support. The problem is that every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to live off of Paul's support, and they're running out of Peters.

 

We have a Commerce Clause but can't find Good capitalists to make more money, even with an official Mint at our disposal?

 

I am investing in a young man who wants to buy the business he's been employed with for the last three years. His boss wants to move on to something else, and this is a very good opportunity for Tom. I expect to make an income from my investment. I expect that the seed money that came from the fruits of my labor will produce a crop many fold.

The fruit of one's labor, and the seed money that comes from that fruit, can be employed to produce gain in many markets.

Investment has a voluntary nature. Tax money cannot be invested any more that it can be charity.