# Ethics of getting Free Food from the Government!!!!!



## Kim Chee

This thread is for the discussion of ethics in regards to seeking and obtaining food stamps. If you have thoughts on Government assistance with obtaining food, kindly share.


----------



## ped

does a bear in a zoo deserve his lunch?

How about the ethics of getting free sidewalks, free defense, free libraries, free roads, free parks, free education, free fire fighting while you travel around not giving anything back.

How about the ethics of 47% of the population have zero or net positive taxes from the government to make babies because the corporation, richer than a hundred million lifetimes, fears more jobs than people thus driving wages up? (while also paying net zero taxes)

How about the ethics of zoning laws used to shut down farming collectives by the FBI? How about the use of zoning laws that forbids us to build a small house and provide basic needs for ourselves? How about hundreds of millions of acres that are tied off preventing us from hunting, fishing, and growing? How about charging us $10,000 an acre for decent farming land while forcing us to pay $10k+ for rent without price controls, but only guaranteeing $13,500 net income?


----------



## Kim Chee

This thread is not about ethics 

Nice derail attempt, @ped.



Kim Chee said:


> This thread is for the discussion of ethics in regards to seeking and obtaining food stamps. If you have thoughts on Government assistance with obtaining food, kindly share.


----------



## ped

Kim Chee said:


> This thread is not about ethics
> 
> Nice derail attempt, @ped.





> *This thread is for the discussion of ethics* in regards to seeking and *obtaining food stamps*. *If you have thoughts on Government assistance with obtaining food, kindly share*.



It's the title that threw me




> *Ethics of getting Free Food from the Government!!!!!*





Is it ethical that you hop freight trains costing them millions in security? Is it ethical to squat at all anywhere that isn't your own?

In case you have problems making the connections of relevance to my post, why and how are any of these things I have asked more or less ethical to food stamps....

you cant possibly be on a squatting website telling stories of freight hoping, stealth camping, and begging for change and fuel, but questioning the ethics of food stamps and not be either brain dead or overcome with irony.

you either believe in fully making your own way totally, that includes paying taxes for the roads you drive on, etc, or you don't.


----------



## James Meadowlark

I just received this in my inbox today at work. This is as good a place to put it as any- a flyer for National referral line / info from the USDA for food referrals. Not sure if anyone will find it helpful or not, just thought I'd share, but I'm sure it's been posted somewhere on these forums before but I've not seen it, my apologies if a re-post.


----------



## AAAutin

Back in my John Q. Citizen days, I scoffed at the very notion of accepting any kind of assistance (especially from Uncle Sam). I believed in personal responsibility, pulling myself up by my bootstraps—all that good government bullshit. But that misplaced pride only served to embitter and isolate me.

Fast-forward to my life now, and food stamps have enabled me to eat real food on a regular basis (as opposed to trash and kickdowns every few days). Have I _earned _said food in a capitalistic sense? Absolutely not. Do I feel as though I'm entitled to it? Nope. Is there some shame associated with being an able-bodied individual essentially living on someone else's dime? Oh yeah. Does that make receiving it unethical? I don't know. Am I going to continue to do so? Fuck yes...because I'd rather be a happy hypocrite than a sound martyr.


----------



## ped

AAAutin said:


> Back in my John Q. Citizen days, I scoffed at the very notion of accepting any kind of assistance (especially from Uncle Sam). I believed in personal responsibility, pulling myself up by my bootstraps—all that good government bullshit. But that misplaced pride only served to embitter and isolate me.
> 
> Fast-forward to my life now, and food stamps have enabled me to eat real food on a regular basis (as opposed to trash and kickdowns every few days). Have I _earned _said food in a capitalistic sense? Absolutely not. Do I feel as though I'm entitled to it? Nope. Is there some shame associated with being an able-bodied individual essentially living on someone else's dime? Oh yeah. Does that make receiving it unethical? I don't know. Am I going to continue to do so? Fuck yes...because I'd rather be a happy hypocrite than a sound martyr.



government is a gang, a cabal, a mafia. Its men who out gunned someone else and took over land. That mafia doesn;t let you hunt, fish, build a home, or grow your own food without the currency they have issued. the only way to get that currency is to work for their friends who profit handsomely and pay rations from your work.

I'll ask again does a bear in the zoo deserve his lunch?

did the plantation negro deserve his bread?


----------



## Vanholio

I'm getting SNAP now. It ain't much, about $40 a month. But until my income increases, I'll take it. It doesn't bother me in the least. I've paid shitloads of taxes in my day, and I likely will again. 

What bothers me is my taxes that have gone to bomb innocents with drones in developing countries. What bothers me is taxes going for kickbacks to lobbyists and corps. 

No, sharing food around through SNAP don't bother me in the least.

I was just in a town with a soup kitchen serving breakfast for a requested $1 donation. Several lifestyle vandwellers/RVers at the state park there went for breakfast every morning. (I didn't. But I'd have been happy to. Just didn't work out for me.) Is it right? <shrug> I'd be happy to take advantage of a $1 breakfast and will next time I'm in that town. Hell, I'll pay $1.50 or $2, still get a giant bargain, and help someone who can't even come up with $1.


----------



## ped

Oh yeah where that?


----------



## Kim Chee

ped said:


> ...How about the ethics of getting free sidewalks, free defense, free libraries, free roads, free parks, free education, free fire fighting...



The obvious difference between the things you mention and food is that they are not necessary to survival while food is.

Kindly stay on topic.


----------



## Kim Chee

ped said:


> ...you cant possibly be on a squatting website telling stories of freight hoping, stealth camping, and begging for change and fuel, but questioning the ethics of food stamps and not be either brain dead or overcome with irony...



@ped, if you feel defensive for accepting food stamps, I understand. I hope you don't take it personally when my intention was for people to have a healthy discussion about the ethics of getting free food from the government since it is a very debateable issue.

Again, kindly keep to topic within this thread.

If you wish to discuss other matters, feel free to create your own thread.


----------



## Vanholio

ped said:


> Oh yeah where that?



Columbus, NM


----------



## ped

Kim Chee said:


> @ped, if you feel defensive for accepting food stamps, I understand. I hope you don't take it personally when my intention was for people to have a healthy discussion about the ethics of getting free food from the government since it is a very debateable issue.
> 
> Again, kindly keep to topic within this thread.
> 
> If you wish to discuss other matters, feel free to create your own thread.



Again, wtf are you talking about being off topic? Do you not understand what ethics means?

It's simple fact you're a hypocrite if you oppose food but go ahead and take all the other shit. You're getting something for nothing.

since you've yet to debate ethics in your own thread. Make your case as to why food stamps are bad for us to debate. You called me a fascist for opposing someone who does nothing but pop in these threads and call us "victims" (there's none more hopelessly enslaved....err nevermind)


----------



## rooster831

i had them when i first hit the road, then lost them and didn't have them for over 2 years

i didn't have a problem getting food at all, and people always wondered why i didn't have them, so i explained "i don't care"

but now i can see the benefits of having them again, especially when it comes to contributing to the community pot

as far as ethics goes, i have no qualms getting foodies

that plastic card means my friends, other kids, and i get $195 to eat with every month on the first of every said month

and anyone who has a problem with that can just shut the fuck up imo

food stamp programs are there to benefit us poor folk, and as long as i can get it i will


----------



## AnOldHope

I was on food stamps for about five months years ago. As a taxpayer, I do not object to them. The fact is, hungry people will do increasingly desperate things. We have the resources to provide food to everyone. I do not believe the program is managed well, but even in its present form I support it and don't mind continuing to pay for it. 

My meta-ethic is that philosophical error should not be punished with starvation. Nothing should. By tonnage we throw away a grotesque percentage of the food in this country. We should remedy that waste before we fault the poor who need to eat.


----------



## ped

AnOldHope said:


> I was on food stamps for about five months years ago. As a taxpayer, I do not object to them. The fact is, hungry people will do increasingly desperate things. We have the resources to provide food to everyone. I do not believe the program is managed well, but even in its present form I support it and don't mind continuing to pay for it.
> 
> My meta-ethic is that philosophical error should not be punished with starvation. Nothing should. By tonnage we throw away a grotesque percentage of the food in this country. We should remedy that waste before we fault the poor who need to eat.



yes but the kim chee argument goes people can always work but they don't. Travelers out living it up instead of getting a job.

then further into the right, people are only poor by their own doing, ergo no one should get food stamps.


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> yes but the kim chee argument goes people can always work but they don't. Travelers out living it up instead of getting a job.
> 
> then further into the right, people are only poor by their own doing, ergo no one should get food stamps.



I respect your right to have an interpretation of Kim Chee's position, but it makes more sense for me to respect their right to present their position for themselves.

It's not that I don't understand your frustration, critique of those who receive charity seems like callousness and in an applied sense it often is when manifested as policy.

Studies in primates have shown they get very upset when they observe another primate receiving more reward than they did for the same task. They do not have elaborate abstract constructions of justice or ethics that informs their response, rather evolution has given them an internal countermeasure against gluttony, against one of them taking too much from the group.

Humans, as a "higher" primate (although I believe we're pissing that title away, the Bonobos are effectively now more reasonable than we are), can consider that someone taking food for free is not taking too much, as long as they are only taking what they need to survive.

So long as food stamps are not excessive (and again, I emphasize the program should be managed differently), they are a worthy cause, but understandably some will object for reasons more ancient than we are.


----------



## ped

AnOldHope said:


> I respect your right to have an interpretation of Kim Chee's position, but it makes more sense for me to respect their right to present their position for themselves.



this is a continuation of another thread where positions and cases were stated. It got started right after I posted that I had got approved for food in the other one.

I agree with your psychological point. That wiring in us is something that is very skillfully exploited, too. Hence why I tried to make the case an abstract about systematic inequality from the foundation, not merely a work - reward ethic.


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> this is a continuation of another thread where positions and cases were stated. It got started right after I posted that I had got approved in the other one.
> 
> I agree with your psychological point. That wiring in us is something that is very skillfully exploited, too. Hence why I tried to make the case an abstract about systematic inequality from the foundation, not merely a work - reward ethic.



I think Technology will force the question quite severely in the next century.

When emerging memory metals that shape themselves form artificially controlled muscle fibers solving the motor-miniaturization problem in robotics, the 50th percentile human will have nothing to trade or contribute. 

A global guaranteed income is the only humane solution, but the remnant of the Puritan work ethic will delay its acceptance and deployment until it is too late, ironically collapsing the system and destroying civilization to avoid the ethical issue of a person getting something they didn't work for.


----------



## spectacular

We're in the middle of a giant shitstorm (ie our obsession with material goods has generated vast stores of STUFF) and we're hungry, tons of food gets thrown away every day at grocery stores, why not pick some of it up. Not like the farmers are gonna stop farming. I ain't gonna feel bad.


----------



## Vanholio

AnOldHope said:


> Studies in primates have shown they get very upset when they observe another primate receiving more reward than they did for the same task. They do not have elaborate abstract constructions of justice or ethics that informs their response, rather evolution has given them an internal countermeasure against gluttony, against one of them taking too much from the group.



As in this video:



And if I may add, respectfully: I've had enough fucking "cucumbers" to last me the rest of my fucking life!


----------



## ped

AnOldHope said:


> I think Technology will force the question quite severely in the next century.
> 
> When emerging memory metals that shape themselves form artificially controlled muscle fibers solving the motor-miniaturization problem in robotics, the 50th percentile human will have nothing to trade or contribute.
> 
> A global guaranteed income is the only humane solution, but the remnant of the Puritan work ethic will delay its acceptance and deployment until it is too late, ironically collapsing the system and destroying civilization to avoid the ethical issue of a person getting something they didn't work for.



holy shit that is awesome! And you're right.

we're already at the point where we are just producing just to keep up the charade. It's like we don't know what else to do or where to go but aren't clever enough to realize this internal conflict.


----------



## AnOldHope

Vanholio said:


> As in this video:




I can sympathize. Cucumbers vs grapes? I'd build barricades in the streets of 19th century Paris before I accept that shit right there.


----------



## FrumpyWatkins

dumpster, steal, benefits, beg, handouts, doesn't matter to me, i'm eating, by any means necessary, and i'm eating well. i don't know about anyone else but i really don't need money except for booze and tobacco if i am in the mood to eat whatever comes my way which is basically always. its unfortunate when you find a honey hole and literally have to turn down food you know you wont possibly be able to eat before it spoils. case in point, once at a turnpike rest stop people must have given me over a 150 dollars in popeyes chicken and burger king to the point where i had a plastic bag filled to the top with chicken tendies. i'm generally rolling solo, that was a dark time for my intestines...

if you do get benefits, don't waste them


----------



## freegander

i've been using food stamps for almost 2 years now. a few years ago at a farmer's market the man at the vegetable stand told me to "get a real job or better yet find a man with a job." rude af. this mindset about welfare is awful and makes people feel like shit just for wanting to more than survive. 

but this farmer was probably eating up government farm subsidies, which is why i can't accept arguments against welfare. we're all living off the govt in one way or another, or we all would if in desperate enough situations.


----------



## AnOldHope

freegander said:


> i've been using food stamps for almost 2 years now. a few years ago at a farmer's market the man at the vegetable stand told me to "get a real job or better yet find a man with a job." rude af. this mindset about welfare is awful and makes people feel like shit just for wanting to more than survive.
> 
> but this farmer was probably eating up government farm subsidies, which is why i can't accept arguments against welfare. we're all living off the govt in one way or another, or we all would if in desperate enough situations.



Hmm, so by the farmer's market man' reasoning implying you should be with a man to support you, meaning that you should spread your legs and get penetrated for food.

Now, it is axiomatic that one must be willing to do one's self what one advocates for others (see Golden Rule, Kant's Categorical Imperative, general cultural notions of hypocrisy), that implies that the Farmer's Market man would let himself get fucked in the ass for money.

Tell him you'll do that if he does it first. 

Leadership must always begin from example.


----------



## ped

freegander said:


> i've been using food stamps for almost 2 years now. a few years ago at a farmer's market the man at the vegetable stand told me to "get a real job or better yet find a man with a job." rude af. this mindset about welfare is awful and makes people feel like shit just for wanting to more than survive.
> 
> but this farmer was probably eating up government farm subsidies, which is why i can't accept arguments against welfare. we're all living off the govt in one way or another, or we all would if in desperate enough situations.




Yeah and he's getting way more subsidies than what $1200 a year.

Reminds me of levoy finicum of bend standoff fame. The guy was in a terrorist takeover cause of big government stepping on his throat.

Turns out guy was running adoption scam getting orphane kids to work his ranch, then made 6 figures just on the kids welfare and grazed his cattle free on BLM land....


----------



## A New Name

In this deeply flawed society I'd rather take advantage of the system than to be profited from and contribute to the mass suicide by large scale (un)natural disaster.


----------



## spectacular

re: the discussion about automation. when i go shopping sometimes i see people still going to the cashiers instead of the automated checkout stands even when there's nobody else around. the cashiers are standing there, the automated stands are open, and the customers choose the cashiers. i don't know if it's habit or an attempt to feel less alone or maybe a combo of both. perhaps fear of the machines or annoyance if failure factors in as well. but it really would take nothing more than an overseer or two to ensure that profits were not lost from stealing (since that seems to be of concern) if we set up fully automated lines. then people could do something else, something that didn't require standing all day. we could automate nearly every job in every store. retail associates are not necessary.


----------



## ped

we realized in the past century we dont need chattel slavery. we just need a way to make the populace dependent on working. You need not forbid land ownership, just make it financially out of reach. 

it turned out to be cheaper than having slaves anyway

now que uncle chad to come along to give me a thumbs down rating


----------



## spectacular

oooh how long before people en masse figure that humdinger out if ever


----------



## ped

spectacular said:


> oooh how long before people en masse figure that humdinger out if ever



they're too busy worrying who's getting a bigger slice and better toys.


----------



## spectacular

or houses (or, sadly, apartments) and cars


----------



## spectacular

plus the insidious belief they somehow fucked up to be in the position they're in and owe their time to the people they want to emulate. they're being taught.... lots of teaching and learning goes on in retail, lmao, pathetic dogpile


----------



## ped

they could have new harley-davidson underwear if it werent for those freeloading takers!


----------



## Kim Chee

ped said:


> yes but the kim chee argument goes people can always work but they don't. Travelers out living it up instead of getting a job.
> 
> then further into the right, people are only poor by their own doing, ergo no one should get food stamps.



Now that the official Kim Chee spokesperson has spoken, I guess I can can go home.


----------



## rooster831

Kim Chee said:


> Now that the official Kim Chee spokesperson has spoken, I guess I can can go home.



the kid's lightened up on the situation kim chee give him a break

i was about to chastise him as well but then i read his later posts

there's hope for all


----------



## ped

Kim Chee said:


> Now that the official Kim Chee spokesperson has spoken, I guess I can can go home.


Stay on topic


----------



## Kim Chee

ped said:


> this is a continuation of another thread where positions and cases were stated. It got started right after I posted that I had got approved for food in the other one.



Wrong.

Actually, this thread was started because @Matt Derrick recommended discussing this very subject in another thread as it was off topic to the topic being discussed at the time.

The fact that you have received food stamps is incidental to this thread and unimportant to me. (I'm not one of the primates who gets angry because another primate gets those free foodies. 

If Trump gets his hands on this program you really won't give two shits about what I have to say about food stamps.


----------



## Kim Chee

rooster831 said:


> the kid's lightened up on the situation kim chee give him a break
> 
> i was about to chastise him as well but then i read his later posts
> 
> there's hope for all



I'll agree that everybody has hope.

If somebody were putting words into your mouth I bet you'd take exception.


----------



## angerisagift

Welcome to the Shitshow

Sent from my Alcatel_4060O using the Squat the Planet mobile app!


----------



## ped

Kim Chee said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Actually, this thread was started because @Matt Derrick recommended discussing this very subject in another thread as it was off topic to the topic being discussed at the time.
> 
> The fact that you have received food stamps is incidental to this thread and unimportant to me. (I'm not one of the primates who gets angry because another primate gets those free foodies.
> 
> If Trump gets his hands on this program you really won't give two shits about what I have to say about food stamps.



That's why I did it. I paid full taxes for 20 fucking years...


----------



## A New Name

The discussion should not be about wether it's ethical to receive free food while others pay for it but instead wether it's ethical to perpetuate a system of competiton en masse, and to profit from it, when, was it not for said competing, our current technology could automate the production of food and provide it free for everyone.


----------



## AnOldHope

Bruno said:


> The discussion should not be about wether it's ethical to receive free food while others pay for it but instead wether it's ethical to perpetuate a system of competiton en masse, and to profit from it, when, was it not for said competing, our current technology could automate the production of food and provide it free for everyone.



I believe this is more or less correct. Our global food production (even with the coming issues about to take place over the next decades due to climate change and unsustainable agricultural policies) is sufficient to feed everyone, much is thrown away due to distribution problems that essentially emerge from the competition effect described.

I'm going to raise goats and chickens starting in Spring and try to move towards food independence, I don't know if it will make any difference, but each meal it provides me is one less to buy.


----------



## rooster831

Kim Chee said:


> If somebody were putting words into your mouth I bet you'd take exception.



oh i would

fuckin hate that shit


----------



## ped

whole lotta off topic banter


----------



## Kim Chee

ped said:


> whole lotta off topic banter



Plenty of that for sure.

I'm not sure why it hasn't been locked yet since it seems likely that a healthy discussion isn't going to be possible.

Big thanks to everybody who decided to offer their feelings on the ethics of accepting free food from the government.


----------



## ped

it was going pretty good...


----------



## etpyh

Kim Chee said:


> Now that the official Kim Chee spokesperson has spoken, I guess I can can go home.


Well what is your opinion on the topic?

I think most people here wouldn't mind taking money from the government, since they mostly have negative feelings towards the government, politicians, "the system". So you might aswell exploit it as much as you can and "fuck the system". The problem is that the government gets the money to pay the foodstamps from the tax paying citizens. I guess this is the obvious part. Now it would have been nice to get an argument from you for one or the other side to get the discussion started and have something to work with, but as we see the discussion also started without it. I guess the argument of people who oppose the usage of food stamps goes along the lines of "you shouldn't live of other peoples money/work (or not more than necessary)". This obviously raises the question "why" and has to be elaborated by opposers of food stamps. Depending on the elaborated argument I can see several ways to attack it. Things to consider are the question wether the tax paying citizens would actually have more money if people stopped (or even if only you stopped) using food stamps, the question wether the government would do more good with your saved food stamp money then you would if you used it to feed yourself, who is actually paying taxes, the voters paradox, the different valuation of money (Saint Petersburg paradox), the fact that the money at least partially returns to the tax paying citizens (and you can to a certain amount influence to which),... 
As always when morals are discussed things also depend on what ethical and metaethical theories you consider to be true. If you are a classic utilitarian you only have to show that the utility of you taking food stamps is >= than you not taking food stamps, which shouldn't be too hard.


----------



## zipty6425

Maybe it's me, but everyone seems to be missing the point... Like someone said earlier, "they will eat no matter what, and eat well". Without these programs, people without jobs would be raising hell and rioting in the streets to find food... A decent honest man would beat, rob and steal if he were dying of hunger... These programs keep the peace and order on the streets... It becomes a matter of ethics when someone who is working and making money, supliments their income with food stamps, in order to spend their cash on other things... Now that's an entirely different, yet still debatable discussion to be had. If a guy did this to free up funds to be applied toward a necessity, video games, electronics, theme parks, fashion clothes, bike parts, ECT.... If your on food stamps, so you can afford extra curricular activities on your days off, you need a kick in the shin. 

Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!


----------



## zipty6425

The real question at hand here is... Let's say a guy really wanted to save up for a vehicle, a down payment for his/her own place, a work trailer to grow or start a landscape business, ECT... Any big ticket item... And mentally constructed a financial plan to achieve this goal... Okay now let's say at this rate, considering bills, living cost, income, let's say we could only afford an extra $75-125 a month toward this goal. That means it will take anywhere from 4-6 years if everything goes perfect, and he can stay dedicated to this cause for that long... Well for the sake of debate, let's say he decides that for 2 years if he can get by on food stamps, which saves him $150-195 a month in food cost... We'll add that to what he planned to save before, and he could dedicate nearly $300 a month to this other cause... Which means that now his 4-6 year goal is a 2-3 year goal. It's starting to sound more manageable... It might even start to feel realistic... Okay so the question is this... Is it ethical to utilize the food stamp program, for this purpose?

Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!


----------



## ped

doesnt matter because he cant. You can't make over about $1300 a month gross.

The average $10 hr job @ 40hrs a week gets you about $300 net pay. It disqualifies you for any kind of assistance unless you have a dependent to claim. Now you have to pay insurance out of pocket on that income too. And full utilities and full rent or mortgage interest rates.

If you only work say 24hrs a week on the hand you can get all kinds of assistance including medicaid. Utility subsidies, rent control/subsidies, food stamps, etc to the point you're better off or at least about the same working 3 days a week instead of 5.

I can make more money traveling and working seasonal jobs than I can working a 40hr week for general labor level pay. Working seasonally, especially when an full hook-up site is included, I qualify for unemployment, food stamps, medicaid, etc.


----------



## zipty6425

Let's say he makes 1200. Just for laughs, let's say he makes $900 or $1000 a month, and all other conditions still apply...

Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!


----------



## ped

well that'd be the whole point of the program.

let me ask you this, is it ethical that multi-billion dollar companies are paying so little that their employees make ends meet by utilizing food stamps, wic, etc?


----------



## zipty6425

Since we're on the topic of ethics... I'm simply trying to highlight the ethics portion of this question... Let's say he lives with relatives, and doesn't pay rent... He makes more than enough money to buy food, but really has his eye on a flatbed trailer because a trailer is tool he can use to make money in New ways... Is it still ethical???

Let's say this guy works 4 days a week and qualifies, but lives in a van... His overhead is low, he maintains a vehicle and insurance, and still has $600 to play with... Is it ethical for him to stash away $600 a month, and receive food stamps, or buy his own food, and only have $400 to work with...

Everything is a matter of perspective... Don't be quick to judge someone else's situation, because there's always something you don't understand about it... Even the most harmless of situations can be presented as imenant threats... And those who don't understand will believe.

Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!


----------



## zipty6425

To answer your question... No. I agree with you. 

Sent from my Z716BL using the Squat the Planet mobile app!


----------



## ped

a millionaire can buy a yacht and use it as a second home tax deduction because it has a galley. So a guy who still has money leftover because he was clever enough to find a way to spend less by living in a van is not crossing an ethical barrier.

I still firmly stand by my original point that a country without a means for every citizen to provide for themselves by specifically producing their own food and shelter, and not by participation in a market economy or wage employment (because that is force), has an ethical obligation to provide basic essentials because it took it away from the individual in the first place.


----------



## Chris Watson

I'm a taxpayer. Consider it my gift to you.


----------



## iamnoone

I wonder if anyone's ever done a study on how bonobos would react to a situation in which they would get a regular supply of food regardless, but would get treats such as grapes (which I'm to understand that they really enjoy) in exchange for completing tasks? More specifically, would the bonobos who do the tasks and get the grapes care if some bonobos chose to not do the tasks and not get grapes?

Ultimately, that's the situation that we face today with programs such as SNAP; some people do tasks in exchange for a medium that they can use to treat themselves, and those who choose to not complete tasks are given only basic food. But obviously with humans, there are those that feel that being rewarded for their behavior isn't enough, but rather they feel that those who don't complete tasks should be punished by means of starvation.

If I had to speculate, I'd bet that bonobos would act with more 'humanity' than humans do.


----------



## ped

Chris Watson said:


> I'm a taxpayer. Consider it my gift to you.



Which part, the food or the keeping us from providing for ourselves?


----------



## ped

iamnoone said:


> I wonder if anyone's ever done a study on how bonobos would react to a situation in which they would get a regular supply of food regardless, but would get treats such as grapes (which I'm to understand that they really enjoy) in exchange for completing tasks? More specifically, would the bonobos who do the tasks and get the grapes care if some bonobos chose to not do the tasks and not get grapes?
> 
> Ultimately, that's the situation that we face today with programs such as SNAP; some people do tasks in exchange for a medium that they can use to treat themselves, and those who choose to not complete tasks are given only basic food. But obviously with humans, there are those that feel that being rewarded for their behavior isn't enough, but rather they feel that those who don't complete tasks should be punished by means of starvation.
> 
> If I had to speculate, I'd bet that bonobos would act with more 'humanity' than humans do.



They don't need to do a task, they don't have to pay to pick fruit from a plant like we do.

Control their access to the plants on the other hand...


----------



## Chris Watson

The food. If it keeps my money from bombing Syrian children, eat up!


----------



## ped

It doesn't. It's a small fraction of revenue.


----------



## codycodnyk

I don't have any ethical qualms about food stamps, or any other government assistance. Everybody's gotta eat. It's a grain of sand in the beach that is our governments budget. And feeding hungry people seems like a more ethical way of spending money than bailing out billion dollar companies so executives can keep making more money than they'll ever spend.


----------



## Desperado Deluxe

Ok i didnt read most of the thread but i really wanted to say that the ethics of receiving food assistance really depends on the consumer. Its probably better to get food stamps and use them to support your local economies such as your farmers markets, food co op, local health food store, or hell buy local produce at a chain grocery store than it is to not recieve them at all. All about where its going.


----------



## Vanholio

iamnoone said:


> I wonder if anyone's ever done a study on how bonobos would react to a situation in which they would get a regular supply of food regardless, but would get treats such as grapes (which I'm to understand that they really enjoy) in exchange for completing tasks? More specifically, would the bonobos who do the tasks and get the grapes care if some bonobos chose to not do the tasks and not get grapes?
> 
> Ultimately, that's the situation that we face today with programs such as SNAP; some people do tasks in exchange for a medium that they can use to treat themselves, and those who choose to not complete tasks are given only basic food. But obviously with humans, there are those that feel that being rewarded for their behavior isn't enough, but rather they feel that those who don't complete tasks should be punished by means of starvation.
> 
> If I had to speculate, I'd bet that bonobos would act with more 'humanity' than humans do.



What you're talking about is Basic Income. Look it up. Some of the real life experiments with people have worked out real well.


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> Which part, the food or the keeping us from providing for ourselves?



Since he didn't make the decision to keep you from providing it for yourself (that was done centuries past), but does continue to support (both financially and philosophically) the part that at least feeds people, I'd say the first one. 

I think when I was on food stamps I did feel some gratitude to people whose taxes paid for it, especially the ones who support it (who are the ones that allow it to continue to be politically and financially viable).

Whatever construct one uses to show why money should be taken from him and given as food to you, I think a reasonable human response to his empathy in agreement to do so would be civil gratitude, which emerges from symmetric empathy.

Ironically, absence of empathy will destroy the program.


----------



## AnOldHope

Lightning Samurai said:


> Ok i didnt read most of the thread but i really wanted to say that the ethics of receiving food assistance really depends on the consumer. Its probably better to get food stamps and use them to support your local economies such as your farmers markets, food co op, local health food store, or hell buy local produce at a chain grocery store than it is to not recieve them at all. All about where its going.



I would like to see discussion on directing food stamp expenditures to local and sustainable food producers, as long as it was properly monitored for fraud (it would be easy to create a small dummy entity to exploit), but its an interesting idea.

I imagine the big industry would crush it before first whisper, they want that money to go back into their corporate products, so people's charity becomes their profit in the end.


----------



## ped

AnOldHope said:


> Whatever construct one uses to show why money should be taken from him and given as food to you, I think a reasonable human response to his empathy in agreement to do so would be civil gratitude, which emerges from symmetric empathy.
> 
> Ironically, absence of empathy will destroy the program.



What's really ironic is I have a cdl-a temp and could easily finish the process and work too


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> wouldn't it be great if corporations dis this!



If they recognized the humans involved in the situation and did not react with needless hostility?

Yes, it would be. Some have begun to, but still too rare.

Their system has failed, and they are not adapting. Global systemic collapse is easily within a generation.

Then many many people will find that the wonderful process of growing your own food without a supporting technological infrastructure is going to be very different than what they may have envisioned, and that's assuming they survive (or necessarily any of us) survive the intervening trans-scalar conflict.


----------



## ped

so it' unethical to pay taxes and NOT get food stamps?


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> so it' unethical to pay taxes and NOT get food stamps?



For such an elastic non-sequitur, you'll need to flesh out how you arrived at that.

There are many who pay taxes, and don't have need for food stamps. I would only find them unempathic (not necessarily unethical depending one's ethical position) if they begrudged those who did receive them. 

How did you arrive at the above?


----------



## ped

you said the demise is inevitable, why continue to prop it up? Sorry, I assumed the latter was implied.

as well, my not working drives wages higher. So you're welcome for that.


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> you said the demise is inevitable, why continue to prop it up? Sorry, I assumed the latter was implied.
> 
> as well, my not working drives wages higher. So you're welcome for that.



I said the system has failed and the one's controlling it are not adapting, because of lack of empathy.

Joining in the behavior causing a system to fail isn't useful, and the effect of that empathy is not to "prop up" the system but because empathy has value in itself to humans, in practice and receipts.

Your assumed implication arose from thinking there could not be other reasons for a behavior aside from propping it up. 

For one who strongly dislikes having others put words in your mouth, it would lead by example to take fewer assumptions and make fewer elaborations on the views of others. 

While not working may drive wages higher, society would benefit from productivity moreso, particularly at least enough to offset what you take. 

I think the only solution would be a global basic income, but the political will for that is very absent from the united states. For moderates and average people to consider it, they would need some basic civility, or at least the absence of passive aggressive hostility, from those would benefit from their labor. The hyper wealthy don't want it, and use the entitled mentality and general combativeness of the few to justify denying the benefit to the many.

As soon as one is hostile, especially in broad and generalized ways, one is defeating even their own cause.


----------



## ped

AnOldHope said:


> While not working may drive wages higher, society would benefit from productivity moreso, particularly at least enough to offset what you take.



we do need more production. you can still see the ocean. the lack of floating plastic islands cause the water to get too hot and its melting the ice caps.


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> we do need more production. you can still see the ocean. the lack of floating plastic islands cause the water to get too hot and its melting the ice caps.



The assumes that all production is the same, a deeply held misconception among both sides of the political spectrum.

There are production methods that are very sustainable, and can support technical infrastructure (including advanced medical care, research, etc), it's a question of how you do it. 

But the preceding question is, what does one want? To understand and cooperate with others to pursue solutions (and our species survival), or to show that you are strong and angry and wronged?

The answers to one question give solutions to others.


----------



## ped

Strong, Angry, and wronged.

Going to have to start somewhere, cant just sit back and expect someone else to do the work.

Did you know...Cattle ranchers get to graze on thousands of acres of public land very cheaply. But they're so beligerant the still steal it and then go take over bird sanctuaries and hold stand offs armed to the teeth.

They also let them mine, log, and drill it.

But God forbid we grow a few half acre gardens.


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> Strong, Angry, and wronged.
> 
> Going to have to start somewhere, cant just sit back and expect someone else to do the work.
> 
> Did you know...Cattle ranchers get to graze on thousands of acres of public land very cheaply. But they're so beligerant the still steal it and then go take over bird sanctuaries and hold stand offs armed to the teeth.
> 
> They also let them mine, log, and drill it.
> 
> But God forbid we grow a few half acre gardens.



There's a difference between productive strength, and the need to project to others that you are strong through hostility. Anger is almost never productive, and notably diminishes the ability to empathize. Focusing on how wronged you feel just means you don't realize that not everyone you talk to is who wronged you.

It's funny you call it "expect someone else to do the work", when this subset of the exchange developed when you took needless umbrage at someone who voices that they were happy to do work that is taxed so that others may have food assistance. So, if the work of earning the money that is taxed to provide food stamps (the thing that actually feeds the people), other people are in fact doing the work, unless we solely mean the work of complaining and blaming. 

Again, your assumptions lead you to non-sequitur. Neither I nor the person you became indignant with have voiced against people being allow to grow small gardens on public land, your anger and feeling of how wronged you've been causes you to not understand who is actually doing that to you and why. It's just easier for you to become low-grade hostile with everyone. That's the difference between strong => solution vs strong=>hurt+angry+needs-everyone-to-know.

Not everyone you interact with created the system that you are so put-upon by, and many of us have worked to change it. In the interim, those who work and gladly pay taxes to support food assistance for others could at least be interacted with reasonably. Your anger and hurt doesn't have to color everything you do.


----------



## ped

tl;dr

Here's another fun fact. I've paid about 10% in state and federal taxes for 20 years straight. that amounts to about $45,000.


...while 42% of the country are getting a net postive to make babies in an overcrowded world


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> They don't need to do a task, they don't have to pay to pick fruit from a plant like we do.
> 
> Control their access to the plants on the other hand...



I think iamnoone's experiment would reveal something about primate behavior that may influence human models at scale.

Some have the concern that a simply providing for general needs will result in people becoming lazy and no longer seeking to accomplish things. iamnoone's study could illustrate that this is not necessarily the case, that people can still be brought into larger scale cooperation with things other than the need to pay rent.

I think some extant data done with humans in small experiments in Europe show there maybe something to it.


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> tl;dr
> 
> Here's another fun fact. I've paid about 10% in state and federal taxes for 20 years straight. that amounts to about $45,000.



So we arrive at a time when four paragraphs is too long for someone to read. 

There are concepts, including ones like economics, politics, and almost anything involving human beings, that are complicated enough that entire books cannot contain a full perspective or examination of the relevant dynamics, much less four paragraphs. 

What a world of knowledge is lost to someone who finds four paragraphs too long to read. In my time, young schoolchildren could so as much in a single exercise. 

Yes, many people pay taxes, it's part of contributing to projects that make modern life possible. The present system is severely corrupt and mismanaged, but taxes themselves are not unreasonable, and usually don't warrant angry martyrdom, especially if the taxes in question go to feed people including children.


----------



## ped

I see, it's ok for half of the country but not us, despite paying significantly more, cause we're not destroying the planet.

got it.


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> I see, it's ok for half of the country but not us, despite paying significantly more, cause we're not destroying the planet.
> 
> got it.



That's not even close to what I said, nor does it follow from anything I've said. I would point out your responses you haven't aptly read what you're responding to, but you've effectively admitted that in some cases you haven't read it at all. 

This contrasts with your earlier reaction when you felt words were being put in your mouth. 

If you read more, you might see it. 

One day, a thing that lives in the superposition between zero and one will read all of this, that these were the records of our thoughts and who we were. What was important to us, and what guided us.

Do you really not think that willful petulant anger isn't also destroying the planet? The refusal to communicate and listen to the other side, because you're angry and they're oh so wrong? Does that thought pattern play no role in what is happening to the world? 

What if that mentality is the same source of the people you're so angry at, what if you're doing exactly what they do? 

I'd ask to look at the source of these conflicts and think about it, but history is larger than four paragraphs.


----------



## ped

Im just simply not in the mood so Im fucking with you


----------



## AnOldHope

ped said:


> Im just simply not in the mood so Im fucking with you



Right, because you are someone who fucks with human beings. That's not new information. 

All the things you complain about? Those are people who are fucking with you, and who also think the treatment they subject others to should be a function of their mood. 

You are a great deal like them, they just do it in a way that profits them enormously because they are clever and often educated (with notable exceptions, especially for their face cards).


----------



## Kim Chee

It would be great if we could return to the original topic and refrain from intentionally antagonizing each other.

Thank you.


----------



## ped

AnOldHope said:


> Right, because you are someone who fucks with human beings. That's not new information.
> 
> All the things you complain about? Those are people who are fucking with you, and who also think the treatment they subject others to should be a function of their mood.
> 
> You are a great deal like them, they just do it in a way that profits them enormously because they are clever and often educated (with notable exceptions, especially for their face cards).



meow


----------



## A New Name

Oh wow.

Sent from my 4009X using the Squat the Planet mobile app!


----------



## ped




----------



## A New Name

Why'd you post that?

Sent from my 4009X using the Squat the Planet mobile app!


----------



## LeeenPocket

AnOldHope said:


> Studies in primates have shown they get very upset when they observe another primate receiving more reward than they did for the same task. They do not have elaborate abstract constructions of justice or ethics that informs their response, rather evolution has given them an internal countermeasure against gluttony, against one of them taking too much from the group.



If you're referring to the same study that I think you are (and I think you are because I failed to locate any studies of similarity) then you misunderstood the real implications of the results. It wasn't simply that the primates were upset that one was being paid better (in grapes rather than cucumbers). The results of the study showed that the primates became upset when the other was paid better FOR THE SAME JOB. At the same time, if the primates were complete strangers the primate receiving a grape instead of a cucumber was upset and would refuse to eat it until the other got a grape. 

On the topic of food stamps, I would love to reconduct this study whereas FOR THE SAME JOB one primate gets food and the other gets nothing. Because, essentially, we are all working the same job of meaningless existences (regardless of whether you spend the existence traveling as a bum or working as a wage slave or whatever your cup o tea is) and some of us can farm our own food or purchase our own food with the money the government let's us keep, and some of us can't or don't or won't and use food stamps instead. The ETHICS of food stamps is subjective to each individual and downright irrelevant. If you think you're higher up in the social hierarchy than someone else because you deem their efforts unworthy and therefore they're unworthy of food, whatever. I guess it's a good thing you, personally, ain't the government. But since the government is gonna shove their dick in every single thing I do anyway, the least they can do is buy me some decent fucking food for my belly. Or buy someone a hundred crates of avocados if that's what they want out of it. It sounds to me like some of us are really just pissed that they are working SO HARD to pay their taxes and live a good Babylonian life without qualifying for food stamps while some of us are working so little to not pay taxes and live a good anti-babylonian life with the luxury of free food that someone else's taxes paid for.


----------



## AnOldHope

LeeenPocket said:


> If you're referring to the same study that I think you are (and I think you are because I failed to locate any studies of similarity) then you misunderstood the real implications of the results. It wasn't simply that the primates were upset that one was being paid better (in grapes rather than cucumbers). The results of the study showed that the primates became upset when the other was paid better FOR THE SAME JOB. At the same time, if the primates were complete strangers the primate receiving a grape instead of a cucumber was upset and would refuse to eat it until the other got a grape.
> 
> On the topic of food stamps, I would love to reconduct this study whereas FOR THE SAME JOB one primate gets food and the other gets nothing. Because, essentially, we are all working the same job of meaningless existences (regardless of whether you spend the existence traveling as a bum or working as a wage slave or whatever your cup o tea is) and some of us can farm our own food or purchase our own food with the money the government let's us keep, and some of us can't or don't or won't and use food stamps instead. The ETHICS of food stamps is subjective to each individual and downright irrelevant. If you think you're higher up in the social hierarchy than someone else because you deem their efforts unworthy and therefore they're unworthy of food, whatever. I guess it's a good thing you, personally, ain't the government. But since the government is gonna shove their dick in every single thing I do anyway, the least they can do is buy me some decent fucking food for my belly. Or buy someone a hundred crates of avocados if that's what they want out of it. It sounds to me like some of us are really just pissed that they are working SO HARD to pay their taxes and live a good Babylonian life without qualifying for food stamps while some of us are working so little to not pay taxes and live a good anti-babylonian life with the luxury of free food that someone else's taxes paid for.



Leeen, please review what I wrote:

"Studies in primates have shown they get very upset when they observe another primate receiving more reward than they did *for the same task." (emphasis added).
*
So, I acknowledged and in fact specifically noted it was for the same task, which of course is very central to the point, as it explains pre-existing roots for the resentment and to demonstrate why that resentment may be somewhat primitive, and absent the higher cognitive processes that form a more developed reasoning for the good that food stamps do. 

You are welcome to view existence as meaningless, and view yourself or others that way, but I frequently find meaning in what I do.

Moreover, the hyperbole of "the government shoving their dicking in everything I do" indicates you may have some emotional things going on in your response to this, which is fine, but please read again what you're responding to, I did recognize that it was for the same task.

I don't mind working to pay food stamps, and I have said so. It appears both in detail and in a broader sense you are over generalizing (and in some cases just clearly missing) what is said in what you're responding to.


----------



## LeeenPocket

AnOldHope said:


> Leeen, please review what I wrote:
> 
> "Studies in primates have shown they get very upset when they observe another primate receiving more reward than they did *for the same task." (emphasis added).
> *
> So, I acknowledged and in fact specifically noted it was for the same task, which of course is very central to the point, as it explains pre-existing roots for the resentment and to demonstrate why that resentment may be somewhat primitive, and absent the higher cognitive processes that form a more developed reasoning for the good that food stamps do.
> 
> You are welcome to view existence as meaningless, and view yourself or others that way, but I frequently find meaning in what I do.
> 
> Moreover, the hyperbole of "the government shoving their dicking in everything I do" indicates you may have some emotional things going on in your response to this, which is fine, but please read again what you're responding to, I did recognize that it was for the same task.
> 
> I don't mind working to pay food stamps, and I have said so. It appears both in detail and in a broader sense you are over generalizing (and in some cases just clearly missing) what is said in what you're responding to.


 
Apologies for the miscommunication. Not everything was directed toward you. And although I emphasized "for the same task", I was actually more interested in emphasizing that primates also get very upset when they see another primate receiving LESS than them.


----------



## AnOldHope

LeeenPocket said:


> Apologies for the miscommunication. Not everything was directed toward you. And although I emphasized "for the same task", I was actually more interested in emphasizing that primates also get very upset when they see another primate receiving LESS than them.



I think you make a fair point. Hopefully it illustrates that the survival advantage of equality works both ways in our ancestors; I have to admit that those who criticize and condemn those who use food stamps are much louder than the many who understand what it could be like to need food. 

If our species survives another century, a time will come when we can organize matter more or less at will, and physical objects will retain value only historically, sentimentally, etc. Simple human biological needs will be easily satisfied, and we will have to progress to more difficult problem of what to do with our power.


----------



## todd

omg that's a great music video.. my new favorite song


----------



## Will Wood

The free food I've gotten at various Missions and relief groups was near dated anyway. Nobody was going to profit from it by then. So, I have no qualms about eating it. I've paid taxes when employed, so my use of SNAP/EBT is not unfair.


----------



## Beegod Santana

When the grocery stores stop compacting tons and tons of good food daily to make room for new products no one asked for... then I'll take a hard look at the ethics of food stamps. Till then, fucking blow it all on whipped cream and cooking sherry for all I care. You're literally stressing out about taking money from the institution that backs it to purchase food they subsidized with money they borrowed from themselves.


----------

