Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments of Progressivism

[Oreoracle]

So has this thread become a parody of itself by this point?

I know the post is old, but I felt the need to respond:

Morally, giving to each according to his need sounds like a fine idea. Although we would need a set of rules to determine which people have the greatest economic need (so that employers don’t discriminate based on race/gender/religion/other things that aren’t connected to economic need).

Economically, it would make it exponentially more efficient for companies to hire teenagers (and/or people who need work the least), so the family man will have a tough time finding any work at all. I’m not sure how to get around that hurdle.

Teenagers only need less because they live in families in which another person (usually the father) is the breadwinner. If we acted as you suggest and hired teenagers almost exclusively, most teenagers would become the breadwinners of their families, and so they would need quite a lot of money to survive–about as much as the fathers did.

The problem is resolved once you realize that giving to each person according to their need would result in giving to each family according to their need.

 

[magnet]

The problem is resolved once you realize that giving to each person according to their need would result in giving to each family according to their need.

The incentive here is to increase your needs; then you can get more free money.

 

[Oreoracle]

The incentive here is to increase your needs; then you can get more free money.

I’m not sure that you can increase your needs. That is the very nature of a “need”, no? It is something you don’t have much control over. I need to eat. I need shelter. I need medicine. I need a minimal level of education and training. I suppose I could (for example) increase my need for medicine by intentionally damaging my body, but that really isn’t advantageous.

These are different from whims. I’m sure you can find grey areas, but usually it’s pretty easy to distinguish the two.

 

[magnet]

I’m not sure that you can increase your needs. That is the very nature of a “need”, no? It is something you don’t have much control over. I need to eat. I need shelter. I need medicine. I need a minimal level of education and training. I suppose I could (for example) increase my need for medicine by intentionally damaging my body, but that really isn’t advantageous.

These are different from whims. I’m sure you can find grey areas, but usually it’s pretty easy to distinguish the two.

How about becoming a drug addict or an alcoholic? How about having lots of children? How about having two large dogs? How about choosing to drive an hour to work? How about choosing to have a mobile phone or choosing to live in a high-rent home? How about choosing to put in a large lawn that requires lots of water and needs weekly mowing? How about eating foods with lots of sugar to the detriment of one’s teeth, thus requiring frequent dental work? How about becoming obese and developing diabetes as a result? How about installing air-conditioning thus needing more electricity and more money?

The more you can claim neediness, the more free money you may be entitled to.

 

[Oreoracle]

How about becoming a drug addict or an alcoholic?

The problem with this one is a confusion of what the “need” is. The need is to overcome the habit, not enable it. And I think it is indeed in the government’s interest to fund programs that help rehabilitate addicts. A sober person is a worthwhile investment.

How about having lots of children?

We already have social safety nets available for that in the form of tax breaks/exemptions.

How about having two large dogs?

Well someone has to take care of the dogs. If the government doesn’t pay a person to do it, they’ll pay a shelter to do it. I would be open to requiring the owner to neuter/spay the pet as a condition for receiving money, however.

How about choosing to drive an hour to work?

Most people do not choose a long commute unless they have to. In fact, that is the reason for the increasing popularity of renting rooms in urban areas.

How about choosing to have a mobile phone or choosing to live in a high-rent home?

Mobile phones can actually be very cheap, and many jobs require them now. I think there should be a minimum standard for living conditions, and people should be given enough to pay for a place that meets these conditions in their area. The responsibility for determining the price for this minimal standard of living in a given area would probably fall on local governments.

How about choosing to put in a large lawn that requires lots of water and needs weekly mowing?

This is addressed by my answer above; establish a minimal standard, then see if the size of the property exceeds it.

How about eating foods with lots of sugar to the detriment of one’s teeth, thus requiring frequent dental work?

I doubt the money that would be saved by a policy that polices people’s diets would make up for the money spent to enforce it. The government already bases the money people will receive on a multiple of the price of the “minimally nutritious diet”. Sweet foods are typically more expensive anyway, so they may not be able to afford them.

How about becoming obese and developing diabetes as a result?

See above.

How about installing air-conditioning thus needing more electricity and more money?

A high percentage of those in poverty are the elderly and children (indeed, at least a third are children), and heat deaths aren’t unheard of. I think air-conditioning should fall under the “minimal standard”.

The more you can claim neediness, the more free money you may be entitled to.

You’re going to have a few people who game the system no matter what. The question is whether the proportion of people doing this justifies not helping the multitudes who need it. I’m sorry that I can’t just give a blanket answer that addresses every conceivable question. Morality cannot be reduced to sound bites.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Exactly. And by eliminating the programs, we’ll be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

There is a big difference between those who cannot work and those who will not work. Why should we give money to the able bodied who are able to work but are too lazy to work?

 

[magnet]

There is a big difference between those who cannot work and those who will not work. Why should we give money to the able bodied who are able to work but are too lazy to work?

There are those who give reasons for not working?

1. I have to take my kids to school and pick them up in the afternoon. Who will do that if I am working?
2. My kids need to be in day care if I am working, and I cannot afford that.
3. I am obese and I have trouble walking. My hips hurt, my knees hurt, my feet hurt.
4. I am hooked on cigarettes and my office does not permit smoking.
5. I have no car and no way to get to work.

 

[Prodigirl]

I apologize, Prodigirl.

Allow me to post a more serious answer.

Yes, Prodigirl. You should understand that not only a single individual but all of mankind can do nothing to affect our climate (global warming). Our climate has been changing from hot to cold for ions with or without man’s influence.

Climate change is not a fallacy but the proposal that man is the cause is absurd.

Let’s all lie down and die. We are completely powerless.

 

[magnet]

You should understand that not only a single individual but all of mankind can do nothing to affect our climate (global warming). Our climate has been changing from hot to cold for ions with or without man’s influence.

Climate change is not a fallacy but the proposal that man is the cause is absurd.

Take a look at this paper before you label human caused climate change as absurd:
oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Let’s all lie down and die. We are completely powerless.

Not at all.

Since the planet is suppose to warm…we can produce more and better air conditioning. We can build systems of dykes to protect low lands when the ice caps melt. On the plus side we can expect more food as more land becomes available for agriculture.

No, mankind does not lie down and die. We adapt, we improvise, we overcome. We are man.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Take a look at this paper before you label human caused climate change as absurd:
oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf

I remember that paper.

**PCC, 2007:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt,
M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

A little outdated…10 years now and no appreciable change in climate even though the paper points out the dramatic increase in greenhouse gas during the last 20 years.

Hey, even Al Gore, the father of global warming, recently said that there’s nothing we can do about it now. (As if we could do anything)

 

[Prodigirl]

Not at all.

Since the planet is suppose to warm…we can produce more and better air conditioning. We can build systems of dykes to protect low lands when the ice caps melt. On the plus side we can expect more food as more land becomes available for agriculture.

No, mankind does not lie down and die. We adapt, we improvise, we overcome. We are man.

I guess you’ve never been to Houston or Dallas - do you have any idea how the heat generated by the air conditioners drives up the heat on the street?

I’m thinking you’re trying to be funny. Maybe you don’t have children who will have to deal with it. But I don’t find it funny. I find it short-sighted and self-indulgent.

 

[magnet]

Since the planet is suppose to warm…we can produce more and better air conditioning. We can build systems of dykes to protect low lands when the ice caps melt. On the plus side we can expect more food as more land becomes available for agriculture.
No, mankind does not lie down and die. We adapt, we improvise, we overcome. We are man.

I don’t understand how more land becomes available for agriculture when so much flooding is expected to occur. Much of coastal Florida and Texas will be under water. Also, new deserts are expected, including more of western U.S., northern Africa, and the Middle East.

 

[magnet]

I remember that paper.

**PCC, 2007:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt,
M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

A little outdated…10 years now and no appreciable change in climate even though the paper points out the dramatic increase in greenhouse gas during the last 20 years.

Hey, even Al Gore, the father of global warming, recently said that there’s nothing we can do about it now. (As if we could do anything)

Here is an update for you:
climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WG1AR5_Headlines.pdf

 

[on_the_hill]

We are man.

At least half of us are, anyway.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

At least half of us are, anyway.

OK…manKIND…:banghead: Gezzzz.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I guess you’ve never been to Houston or Dallas - do you have any idea how the heat generated by the air conditioners drives up the heat on the street?

That is why I said BETTER air conditioning.

I’m thinking you’re trying to be funny. Maybe you don’t have children who will have to deal with it. But I don’t find it funny. I find it short-sighted and self-indulgent.

No I am not trying to be funny. But with a subject like this I find myself arguing against absurdities by being absurd myself.

I do not want my children to “deal with it” by reducing their lifestyle to that of a caveman. I do not want my children paying tribute to Third World countries in the form of carbon credits. I do not want my children or any children to be terrified by a phony crisis and come home from school in tears because they learned that baby polar bears would drown.

It is not short-sightedness and self-indulgence, Prodgirl. It is reality and you will face it soon enough.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Here is an update for you:
climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WG1AR5_Headlines.pdf

Here’s one for you…

“There is no scientific support for the UN theory.”

“It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,”

factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-history-of-disastrous-global-warming.html

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I don’t understand how more land becomes available for agriculture when so much flooding is expected to occur. Much of coastal Florida and Texas will be under water. Also, new deserts are expected, including more of western U.S., northern Africa, and the Middle East.

Northern Canada from Alaska to Newfoundland would become the World’s vegetable garden.
Northern Russia could supply more wheat and rice than the world could consume. World hunger would end as long as a supply of cheep efficient fossil fuel was available for transportation.

I’m tired of harsh winters. I am looking forward to a nice tropical beach property along the Idaho coast.

 

[Prodigirl]

Here’s one for you…

“There is no scientific support for the UN theory.”

“It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,”

factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-history-of-disastrous-global-warming.html

Someone’s blog is not a scientific source. Someone’s opinion does not necessarily reflect fact.