Any welfarecucks around? How do you feel about the redistribution

>pissing away eight hours a day of your life when you don't need to
>intelligent

>>35441591
It's perfectly fine. What's wrong with taking money from people who have more of it than they know what to do with and giving it to someone who needs it? Sure, there are people who abuse the system, but there's also people who rely on it to live.

>>35441652
This,

And to answer your question OP I actually feel pretty shitty about meeting the dumb people who work at the welfare office who don't get paid that much.

But then I remember when I worked in shitty jobs and have zero regrets.

>>35441652
There is a correlation between IQ and wealth.
"Pissing away" your hours is not doing a job that is demanded and rewarded by someone.

>>35441725
>What's wrong with taking money from people who have more of it than they know what to do with and giving it to someone who needs it?

"What is wrong with taking away people's property" is what you're asking.
Why should a portion of my money be taken away from me and given to some random person I don't care about who is too lazy to get a job?

>>35441859
That's because in the game of wagecuckery, the most intelligent rise to the top. That correlation doesn't extend to those who are to intelligent to participate at all.

I think it's hilarious.
Wagies support their own demise.

Wealthy people throw the "neetbux boogeyman" in front of them in the media, which gets the wagies knickers into a spin.
This then in turn gets wagies to support legislation which promotes concentration of wealth (linear taxation, privatisation, etc) at their own expense.

The rich use neets to trick wagecucks into giving them more of their hard earned.

As someone who has inherited their wealth, I have great admiration for welfare cheats. They are living my lifestyle on a budget. All funded by stupid cucks who metaphorically kiss my arse on a daily basis.

>>35441725
why should i be forced to give away my hard earned cash to lazy people?

>>35442009

What is it that makes it "yours"?

>>35442024
The fact that I exchanged my time and skills for it...

>>35442041
A bank robber uses time and skill to acquire money. Does that money become his?

>>35442041

What portion of the wealth you create using your time and skills is legitimately yours, and what portion belongs to other people?

>>35442053
no, because it is not agreed upon between the two people
>>35442069
its all mine
go earn your own money faggot

>>35442101

>its all mine

So you're an anti-capitalist?

Property is like anything else.

You have no inherent right to it and it only exists where you can defend it.
According to conventional views on property, the Americas and all its fruits belongs to the Natives. Does it though? Fuck no. It was stolen with skill.

People saying "x is my property" is only valid as far as they can control it.
If people steal it successfully? It becomes theirs.

>>35442053
The bank robber has no concept of 'property' or he wouldn't be stealing someone else's money.
Imagined if a thief came after him and stole his money.
Not to mention theft is immoral as working is not.

>>35442136
No, because in a capitalist society, my wealth would not be kept under the bed, the capitalist invests his money, it goes where there's demand, if you use your money and open a store and it fails that's one way for the people to express their disapproval of your idea, whereas if it is taken away by the government and fueled into the same store it would be able to stay open forever with the tax money and no interest from the people.

>>35442203

>Not to mention theft is immoral as working is not.

Is morality a real, objective property of the universe?

>>35442159
The Native Americans had no concept of property. They had no borders and laws to regulate those borders, land was moving back and forth each day.

>>35442159
Can I 'steal' your arm or one of your kidney and have them become mine? Would you have any objections?

File: uwd0pvp.jpg (324KB, 948x1200px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 948x1200px

>>35442229

In a capitalist society, workers don't receive all the wealth they create using their time and skills.

You said you were entitled to ALL the wealth you created using your time and skills.

But that's not how things work in a society where the means of production is privately owned. The workers only receive a small fraction of the wealth they create, and the lion's share of the sweat of the worker's brow goes to the bourgeoisie.

>>35442260
A person having objections does not change the situation.
If you can steal a kidney without punishment, then it shall become yours.

>>35442295
>A person having objections does not change the situation.
>If you can steal a kidney without punishment, then it shall become yours.

That is the whole point of having property rights and laws.
You're describing a situation in which if you can get away with a crime, it's perfectly legal to do such an action which is paradoxal.

>>35442285
The workers should not get the full value of the wealth they create because there are other expenses.

Why don't the "exploited workers" make their own company?

Because they would have to buy the terrain, the machines, materials, contracts with other companies, and do a lot of stuff that's harder than be the bottom of the chain, and which requires a salary on its own.

>>35442370

So you're admitting that a person is NOT entitled to ALL the wealth they create using their time and skills, but only a portion of it.

>>35442334
Where do property rights begin and end though?

You would probably find that much of the wealth that exists today is built upon what you would consider crime.
Do we backpay for that crime, or is it only modern crime which we consider?
Are the Australian Aboriginals for example entitled to the profits from the resources from which they had been removed forcibly?
If not, what makes a modern property claim more legitimate than a historical one?

>>35442402
I did not make the "entitled to all the wealth you create" post however the worker who's selling a $100 product shouldn't receive the full $100 if he's working under someone else and using other people's machines and materials. They are trading their time and skill with the wage that their boss has decided for them. They are not the owners of the $100 product they're selling.

>>35442403
Did the Australian Aboriginals have property rights and laws or were they living in a primitive society where the strongest gets whatever they want? If it's the latter there is no "payback" to speak of.

>>35442403
Historically you could only consider your property that which you could defend, including borders. The natives couldn't defend their shit and didn't have laws or anything resembling an advanced society to protect them.

>>35441988
Sometimes I wonder if posts like these are false flags made by leftypol types to incite workers to revolt.

>>35442462
Does it matter how they distributed resources internally?
A hippie commune that fairly distribute property between them would still have as much right to claim property as a collective as a group of private individuals like a company.

>>35442480
So it is a case of "ignore injustice of the past but let us keep what we stole".

>>35442525
There was no justice in the past, Europeans conquered each other a lot and you don't see anyone asking for compensation

>>35441591
I hope they don't cry about not getting that new yacht they were planning on getting. The old one just doesn't cut it anymore.

>>35442517
I was a little leftypol in High School, but I stopped giving a shit about the time Howard got into government the third time.
Since then I've been focusing entirely on comfy.

>>35442538
It delegitimizes the whole "property" concept though, when a huge chunk of property was acquired illegitimately according to the concept of property.

It's like getting voted into government and then banning elections.