You, too, have much to learn, Grasshopper.

__________________

Do you believe that it's ok to allow someone to die if they 'deserved it'? If you could have prevented it? Isn't society's value that it is mutually supportive when members are in need. Clearly there needs to be a balance between allowing folks to sup from another's cup, so to speak, and helping them out in the tough times but I really think it should be a balance, rather than an outright denunciation of the needy.



I really think that it is mutually beneficial for everyone to support each other in times of need. I have loaned -- often given -- my friends money when they needed it, and in return, they have done the same for me. I don't see anything wrong with that and I don't think many people would. Obviously I will set limits, and if someone seems to be relying on me for their income when they're perfectly capable of doing it themselves, I will find a way motivate them. Often this is more a process of building confidence or of aiding them in finding a job that interests them, and which they find personally fulfilling than of 'kicking their ass.' I have found this to be true on a day-to-day basis and I see no reason why I shouldn't believe other people to work by the same rules: cultural differences not withstanding.

So, if you extrapolate that out, governments really need to do is get better at helping the (statistically very few) 'spongers' to motivate themselves, while also putting in place a system whereby it becomes unpleasant (though I would quite definately stop before 'deadly') to be unemployed at the government's expense for extended period. I don't know, by the way, how 'pleasant' living on welfare in the US is. I'd posit not very.

Well, I agree with you on all that you've said except the part.
IMO we can help but we can not force and if someone refuses to help themself then they deserve what happens to them.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

We are all grasshoppers to some extent.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Whether it's out of charity or the self interest of avoiding a situtation like the OP, I purposely left that vague. I mostly put it that way to illustrate that some people will not only look a gift horse in the mouth, but complain it doesn't come with its own street-cleaning team.

I agree. But while stereotypes are sometimes overused, disallowing their use altogether halts all policy discussion, since every comment must be endlessly customized to fit several individual cases, if not millions.

It's not necessarily enlightened in the spiritual/zen sense, but more a realization that with some entreprenurial spirit, there are almost endless opportunities in our capitalist society. Hard work is indeed the basis for self-responsiblity, but if you have enough hard work left over after you address your basic needs, you can apply it towards directing/coordinating/enabling the hard work of others, magnifying your earning potential. I don't think that constitutes making others responsible on your behalf in the negative connotation you give, in that the benefit is mutual rather than just one party being a leech.


Of course it is. That's part of why I ended my comment with "Any other Grasshoppers I'm forgetting? "


It depends on how it's done. If the grasshopper hires one beetle to do work the grasshopper is personally weaseling out of and pays some portion of what the grasshopper takes in, I'd call it exploitation. If the grasshopper lines up more customers than he could possibly service, coordinates that service, the billing, and other administrative functions, then it Is self-reliance in that he is working hard in a sales and admin role rather than just a menial labor role.


I agree, and have done likewise, with the exception that I've had the foresight and/or good fortune to seldom if ever be on the needing end of that equation. But there is a difference between giving of yourself to somebody you deem worthy or needy or whatnot, and having Others give of yourself to people based on arbitrary rules that often mean you're giving to people you'd never consider giving to in private life.

Motivation is a very personal and varied issue, so I'm not sure how well the government would do at it. I agree about the unpleasantness. I've often put forth that welfare not only should not include cost-of-living increases, but should be on some sort of gradually-declining timeline, thus providing increasing incentive towards self-reliance as it becomes more apparent that incentive is needed. I would Not stop before deadly - If somebody cannot be motivated to care about their own well being, including finding private charity if/when/after government assistance is inadequate, then perhaps they are in a better position to determine their worth than we are.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

Then there is the grasshopper who calls in his cousins from the locust mafia. They fly in in screaming hordes and say to the ant "Nice house, it would be too bad if something happened to it." then the ant would have to pay 5 corn kernals a week protection money to the locusts. the grasshopper meanwhile, gets some makework job for the locusts managing a scarab beetle racing bookie joint. He tries to skim off the top, gets whacked, and his body is thrown out, where it gets eaten by ants.

Ah, but I am not talking about force, I am talking about genuine aid of a psychological nature. It is not always the government that is best placed to provide such aid, and government strategies are often marred by a distance of understanding: government officials do not generally live in the world of the people about whom they legislate. However, if things are to change on a country-wide level, the government -- along with a few other, select, uber-powerful organisations -- have to be the catalyst for that change. Furthermore there is no miracle cure, no Perfect Answer. If those who are out of work -- or underemployed -- are to be reintroduced to the workforce, it's going to be a matter of coming to a true understanding of those people and taking baby-steps to correct their problems. I certainly think that more power to small government can be one way of helping achieve that... but I like to take things on a case-by-case basis where I can, and apply these basic principal to particular topics.

Well, that's definately true. I don't see it that much in this country, but from what my girlfriend tells me, that kind of thinking is a little more prevalent in the US. Would you say that's true?



I would say there is a confusion between 'stereotypes' and 'achetypes' here. The latter serve as convenient point of dialogue based on a reasonable reduction, while the former represent: "A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image." In other words, they hinder responsible dialogue, rather than facilitate it.



I think we diverge on the universality of opportunities within capitalist society, particularly what is achievable by hard-work alone, rather by hard-work in combination with, say, natural intellect or visionary talent or lack of ethics or organisational skills or, indeed, disposable venture capital. I do not believe that any society will be able to provide every single member of society with the tools neccesary to achieve success, even assuming sufficient will. Such a vision seems overly utopian.



Obviously you didn't mean it too come off that way, but it ended up sounding slightly sarcastic. I think people may have seen it that way. Also, it assumes that there are more 'types' rather than people who fall into many 'types'.



So, is it a matter of hard-work, or natural skill? If, for example, the grasshopper is a wizz with people, and takes two months to pull together a team of brilliant business folks to run things for him -- a team which would not naturally have had the networking skills to find each other on their own initiative -- then sits back and rakes in the profits from their labour, is that exploitation or entreprenurial spirit? Are there not points on the spectrum where one blurs into the other?



It is difficult, I think, to understand that kind of situation until you have yourself been in it. Same as everything else, I guess. One can only extrapolate from personal experience. Anything else may as well be vapour.



Yeah, I do see your point here. However, personally I would say that there is a point of degridation beyond which I would step in regardless, and therefore I do not mind a government taking a small proportion of my spare money to that end. To me it is a matter of humanity: I would hope that I would give that cliff-top hand to even my most dire adversary were they genuinely in danger of falling to their doom, and I see no problem having a mechanism in place to ensure that happens, even if I strain my wrist a bit in the process. I do not wish to appear adversarial, because I know you have genuine reasons for believing as you do, but I find the idea of the 'unworthy' to be a little one-dimensional.



That's a lot further than I'd go, I must say!

I wonder, to what end would this plan is directioned towards? Obviously, if the mass unemployed were a terrific burden on the working, there would be a problem that might at least make discussion of such a plan worthwhile. However, in the current climate I'm having problems seeing this in anything other than an idealogical frame... perhaps you could flesh out the practical details were everything to go perfectly according to your plan? What would be the effect on the 'winners' and 'losers' and why do you think those effects would be merited?

That's a comparative observation where I'm not fully versed in either side. My best guess is that it's not too common here either, but yes, more common than there. Again, just a best guess so if anyone knows better, please do tell.

Guilty as charged on the first sentence. The latter, while true, doesn't apply well to this thread. We're discussing variations on a parable that is itself based on archetypes. If we were truly looking for solutions to the 'homeless grasshopper' problem or some such, I'd plead guilty a second time, or hopefully just have made a more constructive post to start with.

We probably diverge less than you think. I'm not one for platitudes like "Anyone can grow up to be President," since significant success usually Does requires one or more of the characteristics you mention above and beyond hard work. But so long as I was citing differing grasshoppers, this was also one possibility.

There certainly are. In the situation you describe, I would lean towards calling it entreprenurial, but it leaves out a lot of factors that could change or support that call.

You're more than welcome to allocate your money in any way you see fit. I take issue with those that think they should be able to allocate My money any way they see fit.

If the term is applied flippantly, then you are indeed correct. But if an individual has shown a cycle of selfishness, abusing others' trust and charity, and disregard for others in general, one must draw the line somewhere. I have a friend who got involved in drugs, had abusive boyfriends, had kids out of wedlock, couldn't hold down a consistent job, etc. After literally years of trying to be supportive, giving constructive advice, etc, my circle of friends finally told her to not bother coming back until she had cleaned up her act, or at a very minimum, ditched the boyfriend. Sometimes the best way to help somebody climb out of their hole is to let them hit bottom, and sometimes they're never going to climb out and it's better for all involved for them to go down as soon as possible. Luckily, she fell into the former group, but there are those who fall into the latter.

Welfare, as I see it, has four considerations. They intertwine, so my discussion of them will flow best if I address them in the order they are best addressed by the declining-benefits plan.

Firstly, once somebody is on welfare, our goal is for them to get off welfare. This occurs when a better opportunity arises. Some find accepting welfare to be an indignity, so almost Anything is better and they will be off the dole in short order. Unfortunately, some are more more than happy to accept anything they can get for free and would stay on the dole 'til the day they die. (Or in some cases, even after!) And of course most people fall along a spectrum between those two extremes. A declining-benefits plan prevents 'lifers,' as eventually the handout isn't even enough for food; it also accellerates the 'pain-point' for those who are in the middle-to-lifers range. At that point they will hopefully take whatever steps are needed to find a job. Barring that, they are always welcome to avail themselves of private charity.

Thus we've met the most obvious consideration - to provide some level of assistance to those in need. I personally thing this should be a private function rather than a governmental one, so this plan encourages that transition above and beyond facilitating minimization of the governmental welfare cost.

Accelerating people's 'pain-point' also addresses the consideration of people going on welfare in the first place. If people see that it cannot be a lifestyle choice, or even a decent plan for any length of time, and especially if they see the circumstances of those whose 'pain-point' is appreciably beyond theirs, they will hopefully become more disposed towards making choices that lead them away from ending up on welfare.

The final consideration is fraud. While not a primary consideration in the declining-benefit plan, there are some fraud-reduction aspects. One can, in theory, make a decent living by collecting a number of fraudulent welfare checks. If those checks are no longer static, but rather continually declining, more applications must be made to maintain a given lifestyle, increasing the liklihood that they'll be noticed and dealt with apppropriately.

From an administrative viewpoint, application for benefits should be fairly simple, with emphasis on identity verification. Benefits reduction would be cumulative, so if you got 3 months of benefits this year, then next year or whenever, you'd resume at the 3-months-in level.

The primary winner is the taxpayer, as this plan encourages people to utilize welfare as little as possible, eliminates 'lifers', and discourages fraud. Secondary winners are those who are encouraged to become useful members of society. The biggest losers are the lazy lifers and the fraudsters. One could also consider any Legitimate lifers to be losers under this plan, as they would need to eventually make private arrangements for charity. With the exception of that last, I think the merit of all those effects is obvious.

(Hmmm... after all that thinking and typing, maybe I should order a Grasshopper with my lunch!)

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

Very good grasshoppa. You are now ready :-)

Yeah, no shit :-)

We're not confusing grasshoppers with locusts are we ?

That can be easy to do.

THAT was a good read Man LOL :-)