More govt ... pleaseFollow

Okay, but don't make me be some lame pillbox. I want to be a hat with a brim.

Oh, fUCk you. I'd be a garden party hat.

Hey, let's have a cultural rebellion against the mandatory wearing of shoes in public...

I wore my hat out on a date several months ago... I could feel the eyes all over me.

The last time I was in a wedding, one of the other groomsman whom I didn't really know, but grew to loathe, wore a fedora and spent most of the day drinking from a hip flask. I'm pretty sure he thought he was awesome.

Nah, I just cussed you.

Joph, now, he's due for a scolding.

THIS IS MY HAT FORM

Because the rewards they offer are proportional to the lack of productivity of the individual instead of the other way around?


Was that a rhetorical question?



Of course they aren't. But government is not the same as what is referred to as "big government". When the government engages in providing benefits based on a lack of success, while business engages in providing benefits based on success, while the two aren't by definition mutually exclusive, they certainly do act in opposition to eachother.


Two parents, one who insists that the child do her chores and clean her room, while the other allows the child to do whatever she wants can absolutely exist in the same household. But their activities are going to be counteractive to eachother, aren't they? Same deal here.

But that majority is fewer than would be productive without its existence.

As I explained, it's not that they are "incompatible", but that one act in a way that is opposed to the other. Capitalism increases total productivity and wealth within a society. Entitlement mechanisms decrease total productivity and wealth within a society. That's not a matter of opinion. It's just how the two systems work.


The question isn't about that, but whether or not you're ok with the productivity cost of said entitlement when compared with the benefit gained. This is not an absolute, either. Some programs may be acceptable to some people, while others are not. Some will be ok with any programs, others will be opposed to all. That's the real subjective piece of this, but it's annoying that so many seek to avoid that evaluation and insist that somehow there's no cost at all to provide said benefits in the first place. Of course there is.


I chose to respond because the idea being presented is a common one. It's designed to avoid evaluating the cost of entitlement by implying that there isn't one or that somehow it doesn't "hurt" capitalism at all to employ entitlement based programs. Well, it's not really about hurting capitalism. It's just an idea. It can't be hurt. But the people can be. And when my taxes are raised, it hurts me. When I have fewer job opportunities, it hurts me. If I get a smaller raise, or don't get a promotion because my boss can't afford it, it hurts me.

It's not the ideas that are harmed, but the people. The question is: How much harm are we willing to accept in order to provide X amount of help. I have never taken an absolute position against entitlement, and it's a strawman argument to insist that I have to. My position has always been that we must assess the relative cost versus the relative gains in each and every case. Just because I agree that paying for public education does not mean that I can't oppose paying for free medical care. One is not the same as the other...

Citation that provides measurement and definition for what "productivity" is, and refers to them as "entitlement mechanisms."

Canadians eat more processed cheese per capita than any other country. They are ready to change the maple leaf to Cheez Whiz's logo.

I only use the Kraft slices for Grilled Cheese sandwhiches. Mmmm.

1. Kirby is Canadian.
2. I like Kraft in my grilled cheese too.

Yummers.

It's like I don't even know who you are anymore