The US justice system.

[zegh8578]

If the video doesn't work for you, I found one that should.

 

And sure, the speech is all inspiring and junk when you apply it to yourself. But the second you start telling other people to "just get past it" – especially if it is poverty, and you have no experience of it – the speech becomes a sophism that lets you pretend to empower others while actually just shrugging off any bit of compassion you would otherwise be expected to HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HHNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG!!

 

i like you allready :]

[Beriallord]

 

And sure, the speech is all inspiring and junk when you apply it to yourself. But the second you start telling other people to "just get past it" – especially if it is poverty, and you have no experience of it – the speech becomes a sophism that lets you pretend to empower others while actually just shrugging off any bit of compassion you would otherwise be expected to HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HHNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG!!

 

 

 

So I guess you disagree with “He who does not work shall not eat” and "to each according to his contribution"? I ask you who contributes more to society, a hard working tradesman, or a criminal that hasn't worked an honest days work in their life? Or the impoverished who are continuously looking for excuses to blame others instead of trying their best to be productive members of society? I have nothing against the poor, I have a bone to pick with the ones who are poor and do nothing but make excuses and blame others without lifting a finger to help themselves or contribute anything productive to society. And someone has to do the menial labor in any society, may as well be the least intelligent and skilled among us.

 

 

From Wikipedia

 

To each according to his contribution was a concept espoused by many members of the labor movement. Examples would be found of this in Ferdinand Lassalle's and Eugen Dühring's statements to Leon Trotsky. However it was Vladimir Lenin, inspired by Marx's writing on the subject in Critique of the Gotha Programme, who claimed the principle to be a fundamental element of socialism within Marxist theory.[1]

 

Libertarian socialist thinkers, such as American anarchist Benjamin Tucker, defined socialism as a system whereby the laborer receives the full product of his labor so to eliminate exploitation and "unearned" income accrued to the capitalist.

 

The term means simply that each worker in a socialist society receives wages and benefits according to the quantity and value of the labor that he or she contributed. This translates into workers of high productivity receiving more wages and benefits than workers of average productivity, and substantially more than workers of low productivity. An extension of this principle could also be made so that the more difficult one's job is—whether this difficulty is derived from greater training requirements, job intensity, safety hazards, etc.—the more one is rewarded for the labor contributed. The purpose of the principle, as Trotsky would later state,[2] is to promote productivity. This is done by creating incentives to work harder, longer, and more productively. The principle is ultimately a stowaway from capitalism that, according to Marx, will vanish as work becomes more automated and enjoyable, and goods become available in abundance.

 

I agree with the above paragraph. Now by question is are you a Socialist, or a Neo-Liberal?

Edited December 7, 2011 by Beriallord

[Marxist ßastard]

I have nothing against the poor... someone has to do the menial labor in any society, may as well be the least intelligent and skilled among us.

So either you think "the poor" are all stupid and unskilled, or you just put that sentence at the end of the paragraph for kicks.

 

Are you more willing to offend against compassion or grammar?

[Beriallord]

I have nothing against the poor... someone has to do the menial labor in any society, may as well be the least intelligent and skilled among us.

So either you think "the poor" are all stupid and unskilled, or you just put that sentence at the end of the paragraph for kicks.

 

Are you more willing to offend against compassion or grammar?

 

The poor are either not intelligent or skilled, or have incredibly low willpower and self-esteem. Just calling it how it is. If someone wants something better, try harder, or at least do the best you can, and if one does that and is still struggling, then they have my compassion. Its possible someone can be both intelligent and skilled, but has very low self-esteem and confidence that they just don't even try, as a result, they are poor because of their own will or lack of.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Beriallord

[marharth]

You seem to assume if you are poor you can just work hard and be fine. Not how the world works. Edited December 7, 2011 by marharth

[Beriallord]

You seem to assume if you are poor you can just work hard and be fine. Not how the world work.

 

Depends on what you define as being fine. Poverty is also dependent on what country or region you are in. Rich in Somalia might mean poor by American standards.

[Marxist ßastard]

So if you're poor here, you could always move to Somalia?

[zegh8578]

wait, what about slaves?

they work their asses off - but remain poor

 

what a paradox :S

*brain-explodes*

[Beriallord]

So if you're poor here, you could always move to Somalia?

 

 

wait, what about slaves?

they work their asses off - but remain poor

 

what a paradox :S

*brain-explodes*

 

I'm loving the sarcasm, keep up the good work :thumbsup:

[SpellAndShield]

The US spends billions of dollars per year trying to stop pot from coming in to the country, even though a significant percentage of it is already grown here. We also spend huge piles of cash housing prisoners that were busted with piddling amounts, and their sole crime was possession. We are targeting the wrong group here.

 

Marijuana is less harmful to the human body than alcohol. However, it has economic repercussions that various industries don't want to see happen. Therefore, there is corporate pressure to keep it illegal. It seems that people didn't learn a damn thing from prohibition back in the 20's, that banning a substance that has a broad user-base, actually has the net affect of INCREASING crime. It has also been noted that legalizing various drugs actually saw a DECLINE in use. (especially among teenagers...... imagine that. )

 

Look at the number of people that are killed by alcohol, that have never in their life taken a drink. A day doesn't go by here in the small town I live in, that I don't see at least THREE drunk driving arrests. I have buried more friends due to alcohol, some were their consumption, most were someone elses..... than ANY other cause. None of them were caused by pot. Not one.

 

Yet alcohol is legal, and pot is not.

 

Weird how these discussions get off the ground. If people don't want an ethical version of the argument then the fact that substance prohibition does not work well should be enough. It's funny how people miss the 20's analogy or don't think it is analogous to begin with. The higher risk created more demand for alchohol and does the same for 'drugs'. There is much more profit to be made if it is dangerous and hard to come by, just the market at work. Also not to be forgotten is the fact that there are lobbyists working hard to keep alchohol readily available, whereas no such phenomenon exists for marijuana or other drugs. Cigarettes are another one. At the end of the day it's more an issue of whoever gives head to the government than anything else. Just arbitrary...