1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirThe answer lies in the fact that you already have the choice to live in a hunter and gatherer world. But you choose not to. Why?
"A disgrace is the only way to describe the reaction. Look, at the end of the day in a capitalist world, nothing is secure. Gate Gourmet is on the edge of going bust and the restructuring is the only solution to save the company. Yes it's unpleasant to be sacked - and it's happened to me in the past because my City employer thought it could make more he world owes me a living. I certainly don't owe my living to the capitalist pigs who abuse me!
Answer that question (and only you can), and the rest will follow.
2 edits
Originally posted by VargDo you really believe that people can survive and plan for
Depends what you mean by a living.
If you mean surviving, it would be difficult to just survive in today's western world without state benefits, unless you live homeless and hunt (read "beg" ) for your food.
If you mean nice house, wife, car, holiday, etc. then nobody owes anybody anything - you have to go out and get it.
A hippy friend of mine (I used to ...[text shortened]... , but he got kicked out of a commune that he entered for not doing enough work i.e. he was lazy.
a future on state benefits?
Do you really think people without savings can even consider
buying a house?
Do you believe that a persons success is based purely on hard work?
What was the relevence of your hippie friend? It was just a story of
an unhappy fool. Did you mean for some relevence toward
anti-capatalism?
Or was it a little ditty you tell yourself of the lazy urchins you have
to step over on your way to sanitary work?
Why is it that we question those with nothing with such ferocity when
the whole world is already against them but never see the complacency
in ourselves that lets them die as bums on our streets?
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThe masters have provided the servants with the example of the destitute so as to make servitude more palatable.
Why is it that we question those with nothing with such ferocity when
the whole world is already against them but never see the complacency
in ourselves that lets them die as bums on our streets?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI once asked a wise friend of mine why he never played
The masters have provided the servants with the example of the destitute so as to make servitude more palatable.
the lottery and recieved the best answer to date.
He said 'If we believe we are capable of becoming one
of the rich and powerful, we are then less likely to question
them'. (or words to that effect).
you're not competing with the rich and powerful ... you're competing with the people who come to the 1st world with nothing and make something of themselves ... and those who DO pull themselves up from the bottom, regardless of origin ... and who will be paying for the people who can't or won't make it ...
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI don't see the relevance of these questions, but:
Do you really believe that people can survive and plan for
a future on state benefits?
Do you really think people without savings can even consider
buying a house?
Do you believe that a persons success is based purely on hard work?
What was the relevence of your hippie friend? It was just a story of
an unhappy fool. Did you mean for some releven ...[text shortened]... inst them but never see the complacency
in ourselves that lets them die as bums on our streets?
1. People can survive on state benefits but my post said it would be difficult to survive without state benefits i.e. with no income whatsoever. Do you disagree?
As for planning for the future - I didn't mention that at all and it's not relevant to what I said, but since you ask - yes.
2. No. But again why is it relevant? I was talking about surviving i.e. basic food and shelter hence the reason I said survive and not "afford a luxury yacht".
3. Success = purely hard work. No, I don't believe that. Plenty of people who work hard are not successful and vice versa.
4. The relevance of my hippy friend is that it's all very well to detest the modern capitalist system, but that the alternative would be almost as tough - self sufficiency is hard work and many of the people who rally against working so much and long for a pastoral existence would not cut it there either.
The reason I question those with "nothing", is that I can see how easy it is to have a little more than nothing. I have a fairly okay job now, but haven't always and have had some pretty rotten jobs in the past and being very strapped for cash. I've even been on benefits which, in this country, are pretty generous.
Nobody should be a bum on the street unless they have mental illness or drink/drug problems, because it really isn't that difficult to get off them.
Originally posted by VargState benefits in Britain means low quality food, no luxury goods and
I don't see the relevance of these questions, but:
1. People can survive on state benefits but my post said it would be difficult to survive [b]without state benefits i.e. with no income whatsoever. Do you disagree?
As for planning for the future - I didn't mention that at all and it's not relevant to what I said, but since you ask - yes.
2. No. B ...[text shortened]... mental illness or drink/drug problems, because it really isn't that difficult to get off them.[/b]
very little chance of saving anything. It's not so much a living as a
slow death.
The reality is a lot of people on benefits resort to alternative incomes,
theft, prostitution and drugs.
The reason you can see how easy it is to have a little more than
nothing is because you are looking through glass and can only see
a slim reflection of yourself there.
Originally posted by VargState benefits in Britain means low quality food, no luxury goods and
I don't see the relevance of these questions, but:
1. People can survive on state benefits but my post said it would be difficult to survive [b]without state benefits i.e. with no income whatsoever. Do you disagree?
As for planning for the future - I didn't mention that at all and it's not relevant to what I said, but since you ask - yes.
2. No. B ...[text shortened]... mental illness or drink/drug problems, because it really isn't that difficult to get off them.[/b]
very little chance of saving anything. It's not so much a living as a
slow death.
The reality is a lot of people on benefits resort to alternative incomes,
theft, prostitution and drugs.
The reason you can see how easy it is to have a little more than
nothing is because you are looking through glass and can only see
a slim reflection of yourself there.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckPerhaps your standards are higher than mine, but I consider state benefits to be quite sufficient to provide a decent diet, accommodation and the odd luxury.
State benefits in Britain means low quality food, no luxury goods and
very little chance of saving anything. It's not so much a living as a
slow death.
The reality is a lot of people on benefits resort to alternative incomes,
theft, prostitution and drugs.
The reason you can see how easy it is to have a little more than
nothing is because you are looking through glass and can only see
a slim reflection of yourself there.
As far as I know, benefits aren't intended to provide for luxuries or savings but to give people something to live off if they are out of work.
It's rather melodramatic to refer to it as a slow death - many decent, respectable people claim or have claimed benefits, and your generalisation about them turning to drugs/crime/prostitution is ridiculous!
Anyone can become unemployed!
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSecond thing wrong with the world and the way we LET IT be run!
Young strong physical men would farm unless they were rich. Rich folks would have swords and rule. They'd rule because some ancestor took the country over.
in no particular order
Rich peopel seeking power give AK-47's to the poor and despirate people, and encourage them to kill each other. The truth is much more horrifying and not funny at all!
Living in parts of the world like this is like living in HELL
we have no idea!