I have a nazi-like idea in regard to mooches

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

When you force them to stay against their will, that's when you run into problems. As you lack the authority to strip people of fundamental rights without say, the commission of a crime and a conviction. And you have none. Nor even a charge of such a crime.

People can't relinquish their freedom to walk away. Making the enforcement of such a 'social compact' unconstitutional. As the moment someone wants to leave, their right to freedom of movement trumps any compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

You run into more problems.The folks who get public assistance aren't getting a penny of your money. They're getting money from the government coffers. The moment you pay your taxes, you lose ownership of the funds in question. So you're not paying for anyone. The government is.

You are paying the government. And that degree of separation is ethically and practically profound. As the government funds all sorts of programs, some of which you agree with, others you don't. Alas, your personal agreement isn't the threshold government action. That would be the majority.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

Oh, forced incarceration backed with violence for the commission of no crime is quite extreme. And quite criminal. Its a pretty awful 'solution'.

In my opinion, it should be a new crime and written into law. Living off of Taxpayer money while able, and choosing not to, seek your own sustainability.

To me it is already criminal morally, and should be civilly.

Now you're making being poor a crime.

'

I'd rather see us make stupid a crime.

 

[ricechickie]

I know it's not the most logically sound argument, but do you really want to implement something that is a "Nazi-like idea"???

 

[G.T.]

In reality, you are wrong on one point. It's already established law that a person can commit themselves to a mental institution for a predetermined amount of time.

But , the OP's idea is stupid.

Granted.....with an enormous caveat: If they are an immediate danger to themselves or others. There's no such requirement in the OP's system. As the basis of release is compliance with the conditions of release......none of which have a thing to do with directly endangering the public or one's self.

how not?

they are unable to support themselves and will either starve or steal - - - - - cuz if they were looking for work they wouldn't need to stay in the first place

 

[Ravi]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

I don't disagree, and I'm not sure who would run the camps. I also think they'd need their own constitutions so that the intention is never side-stepped as a power grab.

The only way you're kept - is this:

you showed up to the camp for gov't assistance with eating and housing
you are able to work or go to school in order to work towards supporting yourself
you do not

you can always leave once you do that, as well. no time limit on standing up

So you can just check in and live out your entire life there being fed, clothed, and housed?

 

[G.T.]

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

When you force them to stay against their will, that's when you run into problems. As you lack the authority to strip people of fundamental rights without say, the commission of a crime and a conviction. And you have none. Nor even a charge of such a crime.

People can't relinquish their freedom to walk away. Making the enforcement of such a 'social compact' unconstitutional. As the moment someone wants to leave, their right to freedom of movement trumps any compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

You run into more problems.The folks who get public assistance aren't getting a penny of your money. They're getting money from the government coffers. The moment you pay your taxes, you lose ownership of the funds in question. So you're not paying for anyone. The government is.

You are paying the government. And that degree of separation is ethically and practically profound. As the government funds all sorts of programs, some of which you agree with, others you don't. Alas, your personal agreement isn't the threshold government action. That would be the majority.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

Oh, forced incarceration backed with violence for the commission of no crime is quite extreme. And quite criminal. Its a pretty awful 'solution'.

In my opinion, it should be a new crime and written into law. Living off of Taxpayer money while able, and choosing not to, seek your own sustainability.

To me it is already criminal morally, and should be civilly.

Now you're making being poor a crime.

'

I'd rather see us make stupid a crime.

Her comment was a red herring.

I didn't say make poor a crime.

I said make it a crime to abuse taxpayer assistance.

 

[g5000]

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Whether he is collecting a mortgage interest deduction or an Obamaphone from the government.

No exceptions!

 

[Ravi]

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

When you force them to stay against their will, that's when you run into problems. As you lack the authority to strip people of fundamental rights without say, the commission of a crime and a conviction. And you have none. Nor even a charge of such a crime.

People can't relinquish their freedom to walk away. Making the enforcement of such a 'social compact' unconstitutional. As the moment someone wants to leave, their right to freedom of movement trumps any compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

You run into more problems.The folks who get public assistance aren't getting a penny of your money. They're getting money from the government coffers. The moment you pay your taxes, you lose ownership of the funds in question. So you're not paying for anyone. The government is.

You are paying the government. And that degree of separation is ethically and practically profound. As the government funds all sorts of programs, some of which you agree with, others you don't. Alas, your personal agreement isn't the threshold government action. That would be the majority.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

Oh, forced incarceration backed with violence for the commission of no crime is quite extreme. And quite criminal. Its a pretty awful 'solution'.

In my opinion, it should be a new crime and written into law. Living off of Taxpayer money while able, and choosing not to, seek your own sustainability.

To me it is already criminal morally, and should be civilly.

Now you're making being poor a crime.

'

I'd rather see us make stupid a crime.

Why?

 

[G.T.]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

I don't disagree, and I'm not sure who would run the camps. I also think they'd need their own constitutions so that the intention is never side-stepped as a power grab.

The only way you're kept - is this:

you showed up to the camp for gov't assistance with eating and housing
you are able to work or go to school in order to work towards supporting yourself
you do not

you can always leave once you do that, as well. no time limit on standing up

So you can just check in and live out your entire life there being fed, clothed, and housed?

the food isn't pleasant.

but yes.

and no.

you cant check out unless youre working towards sustaining yourself. otherwise, you were negligent with other people's money and you don't / shouldn't possess the right to be.

 

[boedicca]

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Whether he is collecting a mortgage interest deduction or an Obamaphone from the government.

No exceptions!

You are either trolling or trapped in a warped moral relativism bubble.

 

[Skylar]

In my opinion, it should be a new crime and written into law. Living off of Taxpayer money while able, and choosing not to, seek your own sustainability.

To me it is already criminal morally, and should be civilly.

So you're officially criminalizing poverty. And being poor isn't a crime morally. Damn, every major religion on earth lauds alms to the poor. Even Jesus took a side on this one.

 

[G.T.]

I know it's not the most logically sound argument, but do you really want to implement something that is a "Nazi-like idea"???

its not really Nazi like, I was being hard on it.

 

[Ravi]

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Whether he is collecting a mortgage interest deduction or an Obamaphone from the government.

No exceptions!

This is very true. Why don't renters get to right off a portion of their rent like owners do? Why do children count as deductions but dogs do not?

 

[Skylar]

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Whether he is collecting a mortgage interest deduction or an Obamaphone from the government.

No exceptions!

You are either trolling or trapped in a warped moral relativism bubble.

Or applying the OP's logic of 'moochers' consistently.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

When you force them to stay against their will, that's when you run into problems. As you lack the authority to strip people of fundamental rights without say, the commission of a crime and a conviction. And you have none. Nor even a charge of such a crime.

People can't relinquish their freedom to walk away. Making the enforcement of such a 'social compact' unconstitutional. As the moment someone wants to leave, their right to freedom of movement trumps any compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

You run into more problems.The folks who get public assistance aren't getting a penny of your money. They're getting money from the government coffers. The moment you pay your taxes, you lose ownership of the funds in question. So you're not paying for anyone. The government is.

You are paying the government. And that degree of separation is ethically and practically profound. As the government funds all sorts of programs, some of which you agree with, others you don't. Alas, your personal agreement isn't the threshold government action. That would be the majority.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

Oh, forced incarceration backed with violence for the commission of no crime is quite extreme. And quite criminal. Its a pretty awful 'solution'.

In my opinion, it should be a new crime and written into law. Living off of Taxpayer money while able, and choosing not to, seek your own sustainability.

To me it is already criminal morally, and should be civilly.

Now you're making being poor a crime.

'

I'd rather see us make stupid a crime.

Why?

I was kidding

of course a person can be a stupid as they like, but when that affects other, well then...

 

[ricechickie]

its not really Nazi like, I was being hard on it.

I beg to differ.

 

[G.T.]

In my opinion, it should be a new crime and written into law. Living off of Taxpayer money while able, and choosing not to, seek your own sustainability.

To me it is already criminal morally, and should be civilly.

So you're officially criminalizing poverty. And being poor isn't a crime morally. Damn, every major religion on earth lauds alms to the poor. Even Jesus took a side on this one.

Nope.

Being poor isn't the crime detailed above.

you missed the VERY RELEVANT underlined and bolded part. Dishonesty? Slip up?

 

[Freemason9]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

I have solution, and it's an easy one. Give every adult American a check for $30,000 every year. If they want to do better in life, they can work and earn more. With all of that new cash being spent in the economy, I guarantee you that there will be plenty of new jobs. ALSO, this well help solve the coming crisis of technological elimination of jobs requiring human labor.

 

[G.T.]

its not really Nazi like, I was being hard on it.

I beg to differ.

hungry doggy beg wanna tweat cmere smooch smooch smooch

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Whether he is collecting a mortgage interest deduction or an Obamaphone from the government.

No exceptions!

This is very true. Why don't renters get to right off a portion of their rent like owners do? Why do children count as deductions but dogs do not?

oh come on.... dogs?

you're smarter than GT, don't get involved in his shenanigans.

As a liberal what did you think of MY suggestion

 

[G.T.]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

I have solution, and it's an easy one. Give every adult American a check for $30,000 every year. If they want to do better in life, they can work and earn more. With all of that new cash being spent in the economy, I guarantee you that there will be plenty of new jobs. ALSO, this well help solve the coming crisis of technological elimination of jobs requiring human labor.

if every American gets it, which americans does it come from