Quote :

"Shouldn't we be taking them away anyway? No way a drug addicted parent on welfare is providing a stable, healthy or even marginally capable home."

Easier than it sounds.

Cigarettes are just as addicting as marijuana, but we fail to call smokers bad parents. Just because someone is addicted to a drug, whether nicotine or marijuana, it doesn't completely mean they're failures at life and parenting. The wellness of a child should be looked at on a case to case basis. If a parent got $200 and the child got $30 in food rather than $0, would it be worth it?

8/23/2011 11:17:24 PM

Quote :

"Cigarettes are just as addicting as marijuana, but we fail to call smokers bad parents."

But cigarettes aren't illegal. Incidentally, if you're on welfare and still buying cigarettes, yes you should lose your welfare, and yes they should take your kids away.

8/24/2011 12:34:25 PM

Quote :

"Cigarettes are just as addicting as marijuana"

wrong.

cigarettes are way more addictive.

whereas weed, like television or video games or jerking off, can be seriously habit forming, cigarettes produce an actual physical dependence.

8/24/2011 12:45:32 PM

Quote :

" But cigarettes aren't illegal. Incidentally, if you're on welfare and still buying cigarettes, yes you should lose your welfare, and yes they should take your kids away."

Wait, really? Are you saying the government should monitor every purchase made by anyone receiving welfare, and based on that data snatch their kids away?

[Edited on August 24, 2011 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2011 3:18:20 PM

Quote :

"I want to know why we want stable revenue. "

Quote :

"I know, which is great! It saves the government from having to hand that money right back. "

Kris, I just dont think I can help you.

BTW, my wife came home pissed bc she had a medicaid patient that was getting ready to go on a Hawaiian vacation....must be nice. Im sure we could probably afford to take one too if we didnt have to work, had our insurance paid for us, had our food paid for us, had our housing paid for us, etc etc. Upside down

[Edited on August 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2011 6:46:15 PM

Quote :

"Wait, really? Are you saying the government should monitor every purchase made by anyone receiving welfare, and based on that data snatch their kids away?"

If you can afford to buy cigarettes, then that's money that you could be using to feed your kids. If buying cigarettes is more of a priority than providing for your kids, what does that say about your qualifications as a parent?

8/24/2011 6:51:29 PM

Quote :

"Are you saying the government should monitor every purchase made by anyone receiving welfare"

Absolutely. If you're getting government money to live, then you should only be spending that money on living. If you have money to spend on cigarettes, you obviously don't need the welfare money.

As for taking the kids away, don't you think that it's child abuse for someone who is so destitute that they are receiving money from the government to help them and their children survive to instead spend that money on a wasteful habit which will subsequently cause health problems for both you and your child rather than spending that money on, oh say food for their child??

[Edited on August 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/24/2011 6:53:33 PM

I would like for people who receive welfare to pay it back.. but of course, that's too much to ask.

8/24/2011 8:23:08 PM

So basically you want poor people to live in a little microcosmic 1984 dystopia, with Big Brother literally monitoring every dollar they spend, until they're off welfare. This is to curb the behavior of people who buy cigarettes while they're short on cash. And this strikes you as a reasonable position that is not at all an overreaction.

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 10:04 AM. Reason : .]

8/25/2011 10:03:36 AM

Quote :

"If you can afford to buy cigarettes, then that's money that you could be using to feed your kids. If buying cigarettes is more of a priority than providing for your kids, what does that say about your qualifications as a parent?"

Respond to this directly and don't weasel your way out of it.

I'm not saying we should monitor these people. I'm saying they obviously don't need welfare if they can afford to buy cigarettes.

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ]

8/25/2011 11:54:22 AM

I'm not going to debate that a parent should prioritize their kids over cigarettes, that's obvious and uncontroversial. It's pretty obvious that you're harping on it to avoid the actual debate of what the fuck are you going to do about it?

You can either go with monitoring their purchases (Wouldn't surprise me, libertarians tend to not actually give a fuck about freedom or liberty when it comes to poor people) or you can cut off your nose to spite your face by scrapping the entire welfare system (Betting on this one being your preference).

edit: Oh, third option. We can have citizens spy on each other and report anyone they see buying "luxury items" to the commissar, who will send their kids to orphanages and the bad parents to work camps!

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 12:24 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2011 12:21:23 PM

Quote :

"You can either go with monitoring their purchases (Wouldn't surprise me, libertarians tend to not actually give a fuck about freedom or liberty when it comes to poor people)"

You can have all the freedom you want. But if you're going to stick a gun to my head and force me to give you my money, I damn well better get a say in what you do with that money. And one of those things is you don't get to use my money to fund your self destructive habit which will only ensure that you will require more of my money when medicare starts paying for your cancer. I mean fuck we have HSAs (which is funded with your own damn money) that every purchase made gets monitored and vetted, but asking that welfare recipients don't spend someone else's money on giving themselves cancer is a step too far?

8/25/2011 12:36:17 PM

Quote :

"So basically you want poor people to live in a little microcosmic 1984 dystopia, with Big Brother literally monitoring every dollar they spend, until they're off welfare."

Well when you were a dependent living off your parents, Im sure your parents had a say over what you did and how you spend what money they gave you. What is the difference? Dont like the rules? move out

8/25/2011 12:53:21 PM

So, you support monitoring all of their purchases?

8/25/2011 12:54:13 PM

^ they already have lots of restrictions on food stamp usage

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 1:04 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2011 1:04:17 PM

Right, but he's not talking about food stamps, he's said repeatedly "Spending money on cigarettes WHILE ON welfare" which I presume means what little income they have outside of their welfare benefits. To me that sounds like basically monitoring every single purchase a person makes. Maybe I'm mistaking them for libertarians, who typically believe in rights to freedom and liberty and keeping government small, but these guys seem to regard such things as being mere privileges the government can revoke once a person's in need.

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 1:09 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2011 1:06:19 PM

Quote :

"Well when you were a dependent living off your parents, Im sure your parents had a say over what you did and how you spend what money they gave you. What is the difference? Dont like the rules? move out"

The government is not a household. The government is not a household. The government is not a household.

8/25/2011 1:27:50 PM

Quote :

"but these guys seem to regard such things as being mere privileges the government can revoke once a person's in need."

Funny thing about taking money from the government (or indeed anyone) they get to decide how you get to spend that money.

8/25/2011 1:28:29 PM

I think we should issue mandatory drug test for every Welfare or unemployment check.

8/25/2011 1:43:48 PM

Quote :

"Funny thing about taking money from the government (or indeed anyone) they get to decide how you get to spend that money."

So indeed there are no such thing as rights to freedom or liberty, just temporary privileges provided you don't receive help from the government. Does this go for military pensioners and spouses of deceased servicemen? What about people who receive FEMA assistance during natural disasters? Seeing as how rural communities basically get roads as a handout (their local economies could never support them), perhaps they should have their bank accounts monitored as well. Same with police protection. I live in a safe neighborhood and have never made use of police services, so why should people who get police protection from my tax dollars not get their bank accounts monitored as well?

Quote :

"I think we should issue mandatory drug test for every Welfare or unemployment check."

Right, it's more important to catch one or two bad apples than it is to respect the rights of the honest ones. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, right?

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2011 2:23:26 PM

It's not about privacy. I don't support these drug tests for welfare recipients, because I also don't support them getting welfare at all. If you can afford drugs, then you can afford food.

We have the technology to restrict purchases. If someone loads up on brand name ice cream, chips, and soda with their welfare money, how is that going to help them? It's not even nutritious. It's going to make them more of a drag on the system. Do you have any solutions other than to keep giving out welfare?

8/25/2011 2:31:38 PM

For the third time now, the charge has been that people on welfare who spend ANY money (not just EBT cards) on cigarettes (the example, obviously more things would fall into this category) should have it cut off and their kids taken away.

Even so, for the EBT cards (which already have restrictions limiting them to food), who gets to decide what food is nutritious and what food isn't? Hmmmm

8/25/2011 2:58:16 PM

Quote :

"Do you have any solutions other than to keep giving out welfare?"

I don't think those people are enough of a problem that warrant such measures. I'm sure your stereotypes inform you that welfare recipients spend all their money on lobsters and Escalades and crack, but I've yet to be convinced with evidence that the money isn't extremely beneficial for the vast majority of recipients. I'm not in favor of creating massive new bureacracies, or shutting down vastly beneficial programs, because a few bad apples exploit the services.

Likewise, sometimes a bad apple uses a gun to commit a crime. Rather than call for vast new regulatory and registration burden on everyone or outright banning guns, I accept that with certain freedoms you have to accept that sometimes bad apples will exploit otherwise beneficial systems.

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 3:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2011 2:59:55 PM

Listen, you're getting something backwards here. I believe in liberty. I don't believe that you have a right to other people's labor. I'm sorry that you're an authoritarian. It's going to be tough for you to watch as the United States government becomes less and less able to "save" people from reality, but that's exactly what's happening. Roughly 15% of Americans are on food stamps now.

Quote :

"For the third time now, the charge has been that people on welfare who spend ANY money (not just EBT cards) on cigarettes (the example, obviously more things would fall into this category) should have it cut off and their kids taken away. "

I don't think their kids should be taken away. I think the welfare should be taken away, and the former recipient will need to make some hard decisions that they previously were not being forced to make. If it turns out that the person is buying cigarettes rather than feeding their child, then the kid probably should be raised by someone else, but I think most parents will do what's necessary when there are no other options available.

8/25/2011 3:11:23 PM

Quote :

"Listen, you're getting something backwards here. I believe in liberty."

Except for people who receive welfare. So you believe in liberty being a privilege, not a right.

Quote :

"I don't believe that you have a right to other people's labor."

This is cute coming from a libertarian, seeing as the core value of Capitalism is that ownership of property entitles you to take the product of other peoples labor and divy back to them a fraction of it in the form of a wage that's connected to the boss's subjective evaluation of your productivity.

Quote :

" It's going to be tough for you to watch as the United States government becomes less and less able to "save" people from reality, but that's exactly what's happening. Roughly 15% of Americans are on food stamps now."

Probably because we just came out of a recession and are on the verge of entering another, and unemployment's at 9%. What are those people supposed to do after losing their jobs for no fault of their own? Starve? I can understand wanting to be strict about "those who do not work, do not eat" but is that really reasonable when there is such a thing as involuntary unemployment?

Quote :

" I think the welfare should be taken away, and the former recipient will need to make some hard decisions that they previously were not being forced to make. If it turns out that the person is buying cigarettes rather than feeding their child, then the kid probably should be raised by someone else, but I think most parents will do what's necessary when there are no other options available."

So how do you accomplish this? Aside from having the government directly monitor bank accounts of welfare recipients, or setting up snitch networks among citizens?

8/25/2011 3:23:33 PM

Quote :

"Listen, you're getting something backwards here. I believe in liberty. I don't believe that you have a right to other people's labor. I'm sorry that you're an authoritarian. It's going to be tough for you to watch as the United States government becomes less and less able to "save" people from reality, but that's exactly what's happening. Roughly 15% of Americans are on food stamps now."

He's a much better and more consistent libertarian than you who would allow private organizations to run roughshod over any and everybody, any and every ideal.

8/25/2011 3:25:01 PM

Quote :

"I don't support these drug tests for welfare recipients, because I also don't support them getting welfare at all. If you can afford drugs, then you can afford food."

Wait, either the last sentence here was extraneous because you don't support welfare in general, or you are arguing against yourself since you'd have to test to know whether or not someone was buying drugs in order to determine if they should instead be able to afford food.

8/25/2011 3:28:06 PM

Quote :

"Except for people who receive welfare. So you believe in liberty being a privilege, not a right."

Liberty doesn't mean you're entitled to other people's stuff. Where are you getting this shit? Liberty means you get to act however you see fit as long as don't infringe upon the rights of another. You don't have a right "to" anything, you only have a right "from" force.

Quote :

"This is cute coming from a libertarian, seeing as the core value of Capitalism is that ownership of property entitles you to take the product of other peoples labor and divy back to them a fraction of it in the form of a wage that's connected to the boss's subjective evaluation of your productivity."

Ownership of property doesn't entitle you to anything except that property. You don't have a right to employees. If you can find people willing to work for you, then you can hire them for a mutually agreed upon wage. In a real free market (not this fantasy scenario where there's a single mega-corporation that rules the entire world and no one has any employment opportunities outside of that), laborers have options. There's not just one factory in town. You have to assume that there will be only one factory in order for your ideology to seem even remotely coherent.

Quote :

"Probably because we just came out of a recession and are on the verge of entering another, and unemployment's at 9%. What are those people supposed to do after losing their jobs for no fault of their own? Starve? I can understand wanting to be strict about "those who do not work, do not eat" but is that really reasonable when there is such a thing as involuntary unemployment?"

I don't know, what are they supposed to do? Maybe the government shouldn't have fucked up the economy over the last century. Welcome to reality, buddy. It's harsh, and it's going to get harsher. The good ole days are gone, so look fondly upon your youth. I don't think we should cut off welfare and food stamp recipients. There are plenty of other things we could cut first. Ultimately, though, the trajectory is set. The standard of living in this country is going to continue to plummet.

Quote :

"So how do you accomplish this? Aside from having the government directly monitor bank accounts of welfare recipients, or setting up snitch networks among citizens?"

I'm not really sure. It's not possible to enforce, which is another reason I'm against this kind of government activity to begin with. It's like the income tax. The IRS assumes that people will be honest, yet there's every incentive not to be honest. If the system can be gamed, it will be gamed, so why not construct a system that doesn't allow for that?

Quote :

"He's a much better and more consistent libertarian than you who would allow private organizations to run roughshod over any and everybody, any and every ideal."

Yes, that's exactly what I would allow. You're getting lazy.

8/25/2011 4:02:28 PM

Survivalism isn't a realistic lifestyle for most people. You'll have to end up depending on some large institution, be it a democratic government or Citibank printing its new, private Citibucks currency in your world.

Quote :

"Liberty doesn't mean you're entitled to other people's stuff. Where are you getting this shit? Liberty means you get to act however you see fit as long as don't infringe upon the rights of another. You don't have a right "to" anything, you only have a right "from" force."

Liberty and classical liberalism has never been monolithic. Even John Locke believed in some limited positive liberty.

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 4:06 PM. Reason : x]

8/25/2011 4:05:35 PM

You're obviously not interested in having a calm and rational conversation, so I won't bother, but I did want to point this out:

Quote :

"Seeing as how rural communities basically get roads as a handout (their local economies could never support them), perhaps they should have their bank accounts monitored as well."

Question: Why is it that despite the fact that there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate the drinking age in the several states, and there is no federal law you break if you drink under age, does every single state have the same age, when up until the 80's it varied from state to state.

Answer: Because the states take federal money for their roads, and lose that money if they don't have a drinking age set at 21. In other words : "Funny thing about taking money from the government (or indeed anyone) they get to decide how you get to spend that money."

8/25/2011 6:49:08 PM

Quote :

"You're obviously not interested in having a calm and rational conversation, so I won't bother, but I did want to point this out:"

Hahaha how the fuck do you even get off

Quote :

"Question: Why is it that despite the fact that there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate the drinking age in the several states, and there is no federal law you break if you drink under age, does every single state have the same age, when up until the 80's it varied from state to state. Answer: Because the states take federal money for their roads, and lose that money if they don't have a drinking age set at 21. In other words : "Funny thing about taking money from the government (or indeed anyone) they get to decide how you get to spend that money.""

Question: Why the fuck have you dodged the basic question with this weak ass shit?

Answer: Because you're still unwilling to stay consistent on how poor, white, christian rural communities need their bank accounts monitored by the government

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 11:55 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2011 11:54:26 PM

Man, there is some ridiculous shit being said in this discussion...mostly from the authoritarian left, but a little bit from the libertarian point of view, too.

I am more or less with d3str0y3r on this, though. I don't believe that we should get rid of welfare, and I don't think that we should take anyone's kids for them buying cigarettes, but I would be perfectly fine with them losing their welfare or food stamps for buying cigarettes or drugs or whatever. Once you get off welfare, I don't give a fuck what you do, but when you're on everyone else's dime, you shouldn't get to squander it on something like cigarettes, which have no useful purpose and will only give you health problems that the public dime will again end up paying for. Fuck you, welfare smokers, and fuck anyone who through some twisted logic thinks that such an action is OK.

now, all of that said, welfare abuse is a drop in the bu

8/26/2011 12:52:15 AM

Man, there is some ridiculous shit being said in this discussion...mostly from the authoritarian left, but a little bit from the libertarian point of view, too.

I am more or less with d3str0y3r on this, though. I don't believe that we should get rid of welfare, and I don't think that we should take anyone's kids for them buying cigarettes, but I would be perfectly fine with them losing their welfare or food stamps for buying cigarettes or drugs or whatever. Once you get off welfare, I don't give a fuck what you do, but when you're on everyone else's dime, you shouldn't get to squander it on something like cigarettes, which have no useful purpose and will only give you health problems that the public dime will again end up paying for. Fuck you, welfare smokers, and fuck anyone who through some twisted logic thinks that such an action is OK.

now, all of that said, welfare abuse is a drop in the bucket in terms of dollars wasted. there's no point in worrying about it until we fix a bunch of other stuff.

Quote :

"(Wouldn't surprise me, libertarians tend to not actually give a fuck about freedom or liberty when it comes to poor people)"

How so?

8/26/2011 12:53:04 AM

Quote :

"How so?"

Because in many cases they're perfectly happy with private sources reducing a person's liberty. Plus, American libertarians (since the 18th century it would seem) have been obsessed with negative liberty (freedom from external constraint) but have essentially ignored positive liberty (freedom from internal constraint).

Imagine being a low-paid wage slave and suddenly getting sick (no health insurance). How much liberty do you have?

Quote :

"Man, there is some ridiculous shit being said in this discussion...mostly from the authoritarian left, but a little bit from the libertarian point of view, too."

Heh, the only leftists I've seen post in this thread are libertarians, myself included.
Not sure what Pinkandblack's views are these days tho.

[Edited on August 26, 2011 at 7:39 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 26, 2011 at 7:40 AM. Reason : .]

8/26/2011 7:39:19 AM

Quote :

"Because in many cases they're perfectly happy with private sources reducing a person's liberty. "

how so?

I'm spring-loaded to think you're full of shit, but while usually full of shit, you are a smart dude. I'm not trying to be argumentative so much as see if there's something I haven't thought about or something I may need to reevaluate my position on.

of course, if you turn out to be full of shit, then I'll be argumentative.

8/26/2011 8:02:24 AM

Quote :

"how so? I'm spring-loaded to think you're full of shit, but while usually full of shit, you are a smart dude. I'm not trying to be argumentative so much as see if there's something I haven't thought about or something I may need to reevaluate my position on. of course, if you turn out to be full of shit, then I'll be argumentative."

Here's a question to start us off: how much liberty do people in ghettos have compared to people in suburbs?

8/26/2011 10:37:06 AM

Quote :

"Here's a question to start us off: how much liberty do people in ghettos have compared to people in suburbs?"

In a libertarian world, as much liberty as their circumstances allow. In today's world, not much, seeing as most such people are trapped in an army of the unemployable by the government. In the name of restricting the liberty of the rich, our society has oppressed the poor, forcing them to live and work in often illegal wastelands.

As for your general point, pointing physical guns at some people is not going to remove the internal restraints of others.

8/26/2011 10:51:46 AM

Can I just talk to Duke instead of spiraling off into version 500 of the same argument you and I always have?

We can play "defeat the 19th century conservative" later

Seriously, I'll just take this to PMs if I have to, but I'm interested in what Duke has to say rather than pushing the clown balloon over again

[Edited on August 26, 2011 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

8/26/2011 10:53:47 AM

I felt like hearing myself type. My feelings would not be hurt if you ignored it.

8/26/2011 10:55:33 AM

(I'm not ignoring you; I'm in the process of moving out of my house today and also prepping and evacuating because a fucking hurricane is about to directly hit my house)

8/26/2011 2:50:13 PM

Don't worry about it man I'll just keep checking back

8/26/2011 3:58:18 PM

Good job d357r0y3r. I dont understand why you are having such a hard time seeing his point foolish. You are greatly misunderstanding Liberty AND Capitalism.

8/26/2011 9:47:13 PM

I'm on my iPhone right now, so I'll be brief,
But they have a VASTLY different definition of liberty than we do.

8/26/2011 11:11:56 PM

I disagree. I suspect we have similar definitions of liberty, merely different solutions to the problem of not enough liberty. Libertarians would seek to raise up those that don't have enough liberty rather than curtail those that do.

8/27/2011 1:19:10 AM

It's interesting seeing that the amount of "liberty" one is entitled to is directly related to ones bank account.

8/27/2011 12:15:01 PM

Quote :

"Mo' money, mo' liberty"

- Puff Daddy

[Edited on August 27, 2011 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ]

8/27/2011 12:20:14 PM

^^ I didn't make it that way. I think every last one of you should volunteer to serve others for free. However, I refuse to force you to do so. As such, those around us without money can rely upon you to do exactly squat for them.

8/27/2011 3:12:31 PM

"fuck you, got mine"

8/27/2011 4:46:26 PM

There is a distinct difference between a legal obligation and a moral obligation. Though if you're looking to legislate morality, there's a Texas governor who I'm sure would love your support for his recent pledge to support a federal gay marriage ban.

8/28/2011 11:58:29 AM

I love how the libertarians completely ducked str8foolish's post:

Quote :

"So indeed there are no such thing as rights to freedom or liberty, just temporary privileges provided you don't receive help from the government. Does this go for military pensioners and spouses of deceased servicemen? What about people who receive FEMA assistance during natural disasters? Seeing as how rural communities basically get roads as a handout (their local economies could never support them), perhaps they should have their bank accounts monitored as well. Same with police protection. I live in a safe neighborhood and have never made use of police services, so why should people who get police protection from my tax dollars not get their bank accounts monitored as well?"

if "liberty" is empowering people through money, and money is often inherited, then how does it not stand to reason that many people inherit more liberty than others. I really think some of the libertarians on this board have a very tenuous ability to link past transgressions with today's inequalities. And watching libertarians promote "big brother" tactics just goes to show that they don't really give a shit about liberty unless it affects their wallets.

8/28/2011 1:00:32 PM