Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This goes doubly for folks who have no plausible claim to have created any societal value, outside the standard justification for the rentier repeated several times in this thread.
Like another poster says, who decides what is actual societal value?
Last time I checked, she worked until her mid-30s until she got the inheritance. By that "logic" anyone who is out on disability and all retired people are parasites as well since they are no longer actually earning something.
So who gets to decide who creates societal value and who the "parasites" are? YOU? The OP? The arrogance in this thread is astounding!
Now this is getting interesting. You equate beneficiaries of a social insurance scheme with rentiers, but there's a gap in your logic: they're mostly taking from a system they paid into. (Outside of some of the disabled, etc, who ARE parasites in a sense----parasites that society sanctions, under which heading also fall children, etc).
If the OP had an accident after years of work, went on disability, and looked to be collecting more from the system than she'd paid in , we could have a useful debate on the utility of public insurance. Where one stands on that largely comes down to personal moral stance.
The OP's inheritance however is not a result of productive work in society. It's a windfall, which, given the property relations that obtain today, gives her a claim on the efforts of the rest of us. An unmerited claim, since she's certainly no Buffettian "investor".
As to who the parasites are, I've justified my position in clear terms.
Now this is getting interesting. You equate beneficiaries of a social insurance scheme with rentiers, but there's a gap in your logic: they're mostly taking from a system they paid into. (Outside of some of the disabled, etc, who ARE parasites in a sense----parasites that society sanctions, under which heading also fall children, etc).
If the OP had an accident after years of work, went on disability, and looked to be collecting more from the system than she'd paid in , we could have a useful debate on the utility of public insurance. Where one stands on that largely comes down to personal moral stance.
The OP's inheritance however is not a result of productive work in society. It's a windfall, which, given the property relations that obtain today, gives her a claim on the efforts of the rest of us. An unmerited claim, since she's certainly no Buffettian "investor".
As to who the parasites are, I've justified my position in clear terms.
Like I said, the American dream.
So she is a parasite to you. How would her working in a job she doesn't care for give her societal value?
You equate beneficiaries of a social insurance scheme with rentiers, but there's a gap in your logic
I was trying to follow YOUR logic
Parasite was a poor choice of words that others have called you out on as well. You can backtrack and spin it all you like but it doesn't work in the context you've chosen
In addition, this whole notion that you "owe" society a living by punching a clock somewhere with every able bodied person toiling until their old age so that the "great society" can keep chugging along sounds more like Communism to me.
Now this is getting interesting. You equate beneficiaries of a social insurance scheme with rentiers, but there's a gap in your logic: they're mostly taking from a system they paid into. (Outside of some of the disabled, etc, who ARE paras outside of the following society's rules.ites in a sense----parasites that society sanctions, under which heading also fall children, etc).
If the OP had an accident after years of work, went on disability, and looked to be collecting more from the system than she'd paid in , we could have a useful debate on the utility of public insurance. Where one stands on that largely comes down to personal moral stance.
The OP's inheritance however is not a result of productive work in society. It's a windfall, which, given the property relations that obtain today, gives her a claim on the efforts of the rest of us. An unmerited claim, since she's certainly no Buffettian "investor".
As to who the parasites are, I've justified my position in clear terms.
Like I said, the American dream.
Are you one of those people who like the sound of their own voice? Yes, you've justified your stance and opinion. But it doesn't change the fact that she still has the right to live her life how she wants. Regardless of your opinion. She does not answer to you. Whether she is beneficial to society now or not, she still pays her own way. You don't have to support her. You may use $2 words in $10 sentences to describe how you do support her, but I think most of us knows it's bull.
You can justify your stance in any, way, shape, form or fashion you want. It is your opinion and your right. But it doesn't change the fact that its her life to live. You can quote Seinfeld all you want. It doesn't change the fact that, other than following society's rules, she doesn't answer to anyone.
So she is a parasite to you. How would her working in a job she doesn't care for give her societal value?
The entire American Dream of 2013 is parasitic.
In 1800, the dream was ownership of a small prosperous farm.
In 1900 the dream was ownership of a successful business.
By 1950, the dream was to reach high rank in the hierarchy of someone else's successful business.
Today, the dream, as sold to us by such as George's Bush's "ownership society" and the oped pages of every major newspaper, is to retire as soon as possible and live on the proceeds of that bloated, interlocking web of scams and schemes, the Financial/Insurance/Real Estate sector. What was once the province of a small number of rich men is now the goal of all. But the financial sector is subsidiary to the real productive sector.
The entire economy is being dragged down like an anvil headed for Davy Jones Locker by the stranglehold needs of the rentier: low inflation, low capital gains taxes, high stock market numbers (in other words, low wages).
As to caring for your work, that's another thing that was once the privilege of a tiny class of aristocrats and now deemed an entitlement by everyone.
An unmerited claim, since she's certainly no Buffettian "investor".
Ah... so now anyone who invests their money who does not have the knowledge and talents of a Warren Buffet has an unmerited claim on their wealth. The ridiculousness keeps on coming!
In addition, this whole notion that you "owe" society a living by punching a clock somewhere with every able bodied person toiling until their old age so that the "great society" can keep chugging along sounds more like Communism to me.
Anything but that!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
