Let's talk about anarchy!

[gwb72tii]

At least we're having a civil discussion about it. The reason is that there is clearly a connection to socialism because decay first mentioned his beliefs as socio-anarchism, not pure anarchism (which I think everyone agrees is impossible in a globalized world). Plus, some of what decay has advocated (like soup kitchens) are microcosms of socialist-style programs, so it seemed to me to be a natural progression to discuss socialism to some degree here also.

For a more simple answer, we're 14 pages in, you guys started bickering so I threw something else out there to refocus the discussion away from "you're an idiot, no you're an idiot" style responses.

Anyway, mediumrarechicken, if you decide not to collect Social Security I applaud you for standing behind your principles by foregoing a socialist program, most people, however, don't have the will-power to practice what they preach.

Marshall, I don't really view Social Security Tax or medicare/medicaid Tax as money that's "stolen" from you by the government. As stated, if you live a long and fruitful life you'll get back more than you put in. I wish and hope that is the case for every decent person that I come into contact with in-person or over the internet on this forum or others I subscribe to. These laws were voted on by representatives of the people, in a democratic process. People agreed and therefore it's law, so the Feds aren't "stealing" anything. You can't accept portions of the democratic process and then deny others, the laws are the laws.

Don't get me wrong, it can be a tough pill to swallow every paycheck, but in later years I think many people are thankful that those programs are in place.

This is a very reasoned response.

Social Security is not socialism. It is a tax you pay for a benefit later in life.

The problem arises in the promises made by the government which cannot be kept at their current levels. The government is promising a higher rate of income that can be supported because of demographics.

[mbonder]

remember how I mentioned crowdfunding for the sick cat?

that sort of situation happened again, since this thread's inception. only this time, someone's husband died unexpectedly.

she's been a friend of mine for about 20 years, and here's the kicker- she's an employee of UC Berkeley. they would not allow her to take paid bereavement leave to handle everything involved in losing a spouse.

you would think that the stronghold of liberalism in America would be the most likely place that a person would receive that kind of support, but nope. the system has fucking thrown us all overboard. don't count on it when the inevitable bad times come, because it won't be there.

we crowdfunded her time off. I threw in $100. all told she got somewhere north of $5K. of course she is still dealing with grief, but our tribe took care of her so she could take time off to handle what she needed to.

I'm still bristling at that being called any kind of socialism.

I understand your example, but the reality is that both examples are on the small scale. How do you handle someone who gets cancer and needs expensive treatment for that cancer? Or a grandparent that needs 24/7 care in a nursing home to the tune of $5-10k per month? You'll need a pretty big crowd to achieve sourcing those funds, so large that you'll have to tie together disparate types of people, which is where the government comes in. That's kind of where I'm going with socialism in a sense.

[marshallnoise]

You are still confused if you think anyone here would call that socialism. We have stated time and again that all you are doing is being a good friend with it being organized by volunteers.

I am betting there is a whole lot more to the story that you aren't telling us either.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[decay]

Decay, to shift a bit back to the original topic, how do people who espouse your anarchist mentality feel about these types of programs? I understand at the most idealistic the anarchists would shun all government interaction, but certainly there has to be some merit in accepting things like Medicare if needed?

remember how I mentioned crowdfunding for the sick cat?

that sort of situation happened again, since this thread's inception. only this time, someone's husband died unexpectedly.

she's been a friend of mine for about 20 years, and here's the kicker- she's an employee of UC Berkeley. they would not allow her to take paid bereavement leave to handle everything involved in losing a spouse.

you would think that the stronghold of liberalism in America would be the most likely place that a person would receive that kind of support, but nope. the system has fucking thrown us all overboard. don't count on it when the inevitable bad times come, because it won't be there.

we crowdfunded her time off. I threw in $100. all told she got somewhere north of $5K. of course she is still dealing with grief, but our tribe took care of her so she could take time off to handle what she needed to.

I'm still bristling at that being called any kind of socialism.

[mbonder]

I appreciate your optimism mbonder, but getting more out of what you put in depends on one thing: how long you live, and that's it. There is no growing of the investment at any rate that even reasonably approaches what you can get in a free market.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Oh I know, which has always been a knock against SS, that when invested properly, the money would grow to be exponentially more than what it currently grows at. The problem is that too many people are too dumb to invest properly. Unfortunately, if you allow people the opportunity to opt out of it in favor of private investment the entire thing crumbles because there aren't enough people in the system to sustain it, so it's all or nothing unfortunately.

mrchicken(hopefully I can abbreviate your username), I'm 32 myself and I certainly don't trust SS either, so I'm doing my best to put aside close to 25% of what I earn into retirement (many people say 15% will do it, but I don't believe that either). As for medical expenses, I wasn't even really talking about immediate end of life that would require a DNR order. Just living and existing with assistance as you know is a pricey undertaking. Although you may not be in immediate danger of death, old age is an expensive proposition. I'm glad that assistance wouldn't run out regardless of whether I can pay or not.

Decay, to shift a bit back to the original topic, how do people who espouse your anarchist mentality feel about these types of programs? I understand at the most idealistic the anarchists would shun all government interaction, but certainly there has to be some merit in accepting things like Medicare if needed?

[Mediumrarechicken]

At least we're having a civil discussion about it. The reason is that there is clearly a connection to socialism because decay first mentioned his beliefs as socio-anarchism, not pure anarchism (which I think everyone agrees is impossible in a globalized world). Plus, some of what decay has advocated (like soup kitchens) are microcosms of socialist-style programs, so it seemed to me to be a natural progression to discuss socialism to some degree here also.

For a more simple answer, we're 14 pages in, you guys started bickering so I threw something else out there to refocus the discussion away from "you're an idiot, no you're an idiot" style responses.

Anyway, mediumrarechicken, if you decide not to collect Social Security I applaud you for standing behind your principles by foregoing a socialist program, most people, however, don't have the will-power to practice what they preach.

Marshall, I don't really view Social Security Tax or medicare/medicaid Tax as money that's "stolen" from you by the government. As stated, if you live a long and fruitful life you'll get back more than you put in. I wish and hope that is the case for every decent person that I come into contact with in-person or over the internet on this forum or others I subscribe to. These laws were voted on by representatives of the people, in a democratic process. People agreed and therefore it's law, so the Feds aren't "stealing" anything. You can't accept portions of the democratic process and then deny others, the laws are the laws.

Don't get me wrong, it can be a tough pill to swallow every paycheck, but in later years I think many people are thankful that those programs are in place.

I'm not sure how old you are but when I was a kid everyone said SS would die out. I'm 34 so that was the early 90's, I didn't know exactly what it was so my dad taught me about it. Right then I learned a huge lesson, dont rely on the world rely on yourself, only you can truly cover your own ass and be where you want to be. SS is still here and I haven't heard of it dyin out yet, I just don't trust it.

I have a do not recesitate order, If my body fucks up it is my time, I don't want to burden my wife or kids with money problems to keep my ass alive only to have the same thing happen down the road. My in laws run an adult family home and I know how much money they take in, I don't want my family to spend 3k+ a month to keep my ass up

[marshallnoise]

I appreciate your optimism mbonder, but getting more out of what you put in depends on one thing: how long you live, and that's it. There is no growing of the investment at any rate that even reasonably approaches what you can get in a free market.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[mbonder]

At least we're having a civil discussion about it. The reason is that there is clearly a connection to socialism because decay first mentioned his beliefs as socio-anarchism, not pure anarchism (which I think everyone agrees is impossible in a globalized world). Plus, some of what decay has advocated (like soup kitchens) are microcosms of socialist-style programs, so it seemed to me to be a natural progression to discuss socialism to some degree here also.

For a more simple answer, we're 14 pages in, you guys started bickering so I threw something else out there to refocus the discussion away from "you're an idiot, no you're an idiot" style responses.

Anyway, mediumrarechicken, if you decide not to collect Social Security I applaud you for standing behind your principles by foregoing a socialist program, most people, however, don't have the will-power to practice what they preach.

Marshall, I don't really view Social Security Tax or medicare/medicaid Tax as money that's "stolen" from you by the government. As stated, if you live a long and fruitful life you'll get back more than you put in. I wish and hope that is the case for every decent person that I come into contact with in-person or over the internet on this forum or others I subscribe to. These laws were voted on by representatives of the people, in a democratic process. People agreed and therefore it's law, so the Feds aren't "stealing" anything. You can't accept portions of the democratic process and then deny others, the laws are the laws.

Don't get me wrong, it can be a tough pill to swallow every paycheck, but in later years I think many people are thankful that those programs are in place.

[marshallnoise]

why has this become about socialism?

shouldn't that be a separate thread?

Blame mbonder.

[decay]

Why would I collect something I don't need?
I really don't care about getting what I paid into social security, i mean it would be cool to get an extra 1,200 bucks or whatever, but I'm not going to collect it.

why has this become about socialism?

shouldn't that be a separate thread?

[Mediumrarechicken]

But you'll still collect Social Security won't you? Which is the irony that I was getting at, most people who scream bloody murder about socialist programs are also the ones that scream bloody murder if those programs are taken away. And don't fall back into the argument that you paid into it so you should collect it. The reality is that if you retire at 65 and live to 90 (which is becoming more the norm these days, especially for people that are at least in the middle class as you seem to be), you'll collect way more in Social Security than you ever paid into it.

Social Security is only one part of several socialist style programs that the US has in place. More importantly to many people, especially in the final 5 years of life is Medicare. Unless you manage to save millions (maybe even 10's of millions the way medical costs keep rising) in your 401k, you'll never be able to pay your medical expenses at the end of your life. This is pure reality, there's no way around it. My grandfather was the most frugal man I've ever met, saving his entire life, never traveling, never buying anything that wasn't necessary, making all of his own meals, but when my grandmother and then he ended up in a nursing home because of health issues that couldn't be taken care of by family and they needed 24/7 care, his life savings of 40 years disappeared in 3 years. Without Medicare they would have been out in the cold.

My point is that not all socialism is bad, and in fact, the rise of capitalism has made some measure of socialism necessary (example above) as the costs associated with necessities far outstrip anyone's ability to pay for them (except for the superrich).

As for the other topic-connection between downtrodden areas and crime, I'll comment on that one as well.

Let's start out with the basic premise that every person has needs of some sort. There are basic necessities such as food, water, shelter. In our society, because of the way the economy is set up (capitalism) there are opportunities to provide oneself with these necessities by working. Companies set up shop in areas where they find two things: the necessary materials for production and the means of production (the workers). If an area doesn't provide both of these then the company seeks out other locations for their base of operations. Throw into this mix as well the attempt by most corporations to create production at the lowest possible cost and some areas of the country (or the country as a whole) become undesirable locations for business.

Some areas, deemed undesirable for business then don't provide people with the means of providing the necessities of life for themselves. This still leaves them with a need that is unfulfilled. Alternate avenues for fulfillment are followed (usually criminal-drug dealing, theft, etc), because people still need certain things in their lives. Right or wrong, many people in this situation (having an unfulfilled need) seek out the easiest remedy, which is often criminal, because you can make $500 selling cocaine a hell of a lot quicker than you can flipping burgers.

So eliminate the "need" and you'll eliminate a lot of the crime. How you do that is a topic that is hotly contested and I'm not getting into my views in that regard.

I think that's my longest post here yet!

Why would I collect something I don't need?
I really don't care about getting what I paid into social security, i mean it would be cool to get an extra 1,200 bucks or whatever, but I'm not going to collect it.

[marshallnoise]

Social security is a socialist program. But it's money taken away as savings for future use. It was not supposed to be a general fund item. So demanding money back that was promised back to you as savings only makes sense. It's not support for socialism, it's getting stolen cash back.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[mbonder]

when I'm old enough to retire I won't need social security, unless the stock market fails complelety. As it sits right now I'm putting around 15 to 20% of my income into 401k and other investments, that's on top of the $6 an hour that my company puts into a 401k.

But you'll still collect Social Security won't you? Which is the irony that I was getting at, most people who scream bloody murder about socialist programs are also the ones that scream bloody murder if those programs are taken away. And don't fall back into the argument that you paid into it so you should collect it. The reality is that if you retire at 65 and live to 90 (which is becoming more the norm these days, especially for people that are at least in the middle class as you seem to be), you'll collect way more in Social Security than you ever paid into it.

Social Security is only one part of several socialist style programs that the US has in place. More importantly to many people, especially in the final 5 years of life is Medicare. Unless you manage to save millions (maybe even 10's of millions the way medical costs keep rising) in your 401k, you'll never be able to pay your medical expenses at the end of your life. This is pure reality, there's no way around it. My grandfather was the most frugal man I've ever met, saving his entire life, never traveling, never buying anything that wasn't necessary, making all of his own meals, but when my grandmother and then he ended up in a nursing home because of health issues that couldn't be taken care of by family and they needed 24/7 care, his life savings of 40 years disappeared in 3 years. Without Medicare they would have been out in the cold.

My point is that not all socialism is bad, and in fact, the rise of capitalism has made some measure of socialism necessary (example above) as the costs associated with necessities far outstrip anyone's ability to pay for them (except for the superrich).

As for the other topic-connection between downtrodden areas and crime, I'll comment on that one as well.

Let's start out with the basic premise that every person has needs of some sort. There are basic necessities such as food, water, shelter. In our society, because of the way the economy is set up (capitalism) there are opportunities to provide oneself with these necessities by working. Companies set up shop in areas where they find two things: the necessary materials for production and the means of production (the workers). If an area doesn't provide both of these then the company seeks out other locations for their base of operations. Throw into this mix as well the attempt by most corporations to create production at the lowest possible cost and some areas of the country (or the country as a whole) become undesirable locations for business.

Some areas, deemed undesirable for business then don't provide people with the means of providing the necessities of life for themselves. This still leaves them with a need that is unfulfilled. Alternate avenues for fulfillment are followed (usually criminal-drug dealing, theft, etc), because people still need certain things in their lives. Right or wrong, many people in this situation (having an unfulfilled need) seek out the easiest remedy, which is often criminal, because you can make $500 selling cocaine a hell of a lot quicker than you can flipping burgers.

So eliminate the "need" and you'll eliminate a lot of the crime. How you do that is a topic that is hotly contested and I'm not getting into my views in that regard.

I think that's my longest post here yet!

[decay]

Dude a soup kitchen isn't going to help keep DaAllen out of prison because he was a drug dealer.

it really couldn't be any clearer that i am not talking about drug dealers. the issue being addressed is the homeless addicts they create.

Sure a soup kitchen could keep some people out of jail, but the number is small.

soup kitchen is one example of community-based action. again, the difference here is that these are local, non-government organizations. that's why it doesn't at all make sense to me when i hear these ideas called "socialism"- you guys are nitpicking my definition when that term clearly refers to government-run efforts.

beyond that, i don't get the objections to such actions. the problem you all have with socialism is that it's compulsory, right? i dislike that for the exact same reason- as you'd fucking expect of an anarchist. you don't want to participate in socio-anarchist community programs? fine, don't, but remember that choice you made when it's your shit that gets stolen.

finally, is "well it doesn't fix the WHOLE problem" a good reason to not do something?

Again you continue to assume about me, dont assume my whole stance on something I wrote 1 or 2 sentences on.

...do you not see that that's what you, marshall, and sleeve have been doing to me throughout the course of this thread?

[Mediumrarechicken]

your continuous refusal to see the connection between hunger/desperation/homelessness and crime/prison-industrial complex doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist- it just means that you are either willfully ignorant of it or sufficiently isolated from it.

Dude a soup kitchen isn't going to help keep DaAllen out of prison because he was a drug dealer. Sure a soup kitchen could keep some people out of jail, but the number is small. Again you continue to assume about me, dont assume my whole stance on something I wrote 1 or 2 sentences on.