Why do people behave badly? Maybe it's just too easy

Nov 23, 2010

Many people say they wouldn't cheat on a test, lie on a job application or refuse to help a person in need.

But what if the test answers fell into your lap and cheating didn't require any work on your part? If you didn't have to face the person who needed your help and refuse them? Would that change your ?

New research out of the University of Toronto Scarborough shows it might. In two studies that tested participants' willingness to behave immorally, the UTSC team discovered people will behave badly – if it doesn't involve too much work on their part.

"People are more likely to cheat and make immoral decisions when their transgressions don't involve an explicit action," says Rimma Teper, PhD student and lead author on the study, published online now in Social Psychological and Personality Science. "If they can lie by omission, cheat without doing much legwork, or bypass a person's request for help without expressly denying them, they are much more likely to do so."

In one study, participants took a math test on a computer after being warned there were glitches in the system. One group was told if they pressed the space bar, the answer to the question would appear on the screen. The second group was told if they didn't press the enter key within five seconds of seeing a question, the answer would appear.

"People in the second group – those who didn't have to physically press a button to get the answers – were much more likely to cheat," says Associate Psychology Professor Michael Inzlicht, second author on the study.

In another study, the team asked participants whether they would volunteer to help a student with a learning disability complete a component of the test. One group of participants had only the option of checking a 'yes' or 'no' box that popped up on the computer. The second group of people could follow a link at the bottom of the page to volunteer their help or simply press 'continue' to move on to the next page of their test. Participants were five times more likely to volunteer when they had to expressly pick either 'yes' or 'no.'

"It seems to be more difficult for people to explicitly deny their help, by clicking 'no,' than it is for them to simply click 'continue' and elude doing the right thing. We suspect that emotion plays an important role in driving this effect" says Teper.

"When people are confronted with actively doing the right thing or the wrong thing, there are a lot of emotions involved – such as guilt and shame – that guide them to make the moral choice. When the transgression is more passive, however, we saw more people doing the wrong thing, and we believe this is because the moral emotions in such situations are probably less intense," Teper says.

The team's research on moral behaviour is unique in that it looks at how people behave in certain situations versus simply asking them to predict how they might behave, says Inzlicht. It also has critical implications for those in the business of soliciting peoples' good will, money or time.

"Forcing people to make an active, moral decision – a 'yes' or 'no' to donating, for example – is going to be much more effective than allowing them to passively skip over a request," he says.

Explore further: Alcohol makes smiles more 'contagious,' but only for men

Related Stories

Stereotyping has a lasting negative impact

Aug 10, 2010

Aggression. Over-eating. Inability to focus. Difficulty making rational decisions. New research out of the University of Toronto Scarborough shows prejudice has a lasting negative impact on those who experience it.

When charities ask for time, people give more money

Aug 22, 2008

According to new research in the Journal of Consumer Research, simply asking people a question about whether they're willing to volunteer their time leads to increases in donations of both time and money.

Recommended for you

How to predict who will suffer the most from stress

7 hours ago

More than 23 per cent of Canadians report being stressed or very stressed on most days. While chronic stress increases the risk of poor mental and physical health, not everyone is affected the same way. Some cope well, but ...

User comments : 74

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

scohn
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2010
This reminds me of a college philosophy class where many students couldn't imagine people doing the moral thing if they didn't believe in God!

Also, the people that do the fund raising for this publication should read this article.
marjon
3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
Also, the people that do the fund raising for this publication should read this article.

I will be pleased to just say NO.
Fee for service is not immoral.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2010
I will be pleased to just say NO.
Fee for service is not immoral.
Then why do you have such an issue with taxes?
marjon
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2010
I will be pleased to just say NO.
Fee for service is not immoral.
Then why do you have such an issue with taxes?

Wealth redistribution is not a service, it is theft.
trekgeek1
4.9 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2010
Once I saw the answers on another students test by accident while I was just gazing across the room thinking about the problem. I figured out how to solve the problem but I left it blank because I couldn't be 100% sure that seeing the answer didn't give me the hint I needed. I'm also an atheist so I don't answer to any celestial moral compass. So talk about a crime where there is no victim. I still couldn't cheat because it just wasn't right to.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2010
Then why do you have such an issue with taxes?

Wealth redistribution is not a service, it is theft.

Government provides a service, taxes are the fee. As you said
Fee for service is not immoral


So does that mean you think that all taxes are wealth redistribution, theft, or not immoral?
DamienS
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2010
Why do people behave badly? Maybe it's just too easy

Kinda like the usual trolling suspects on this site!
frajo
3 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
Wealth redistribution is not a service, it is theft.
I like this one. It's nearly as good as its generalization, Proudhon's "property is legalized theft".

I'm also an atheist so I don't answer to any celestial moral compass. So talk about a crime where there is no victim. I still couldn't cheat because it just wasn't right to.
Non-believers who act morally show higher developed ethics than believers who act morally only because they feel being under control.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 24, 2010
Why do people behave badly? Maybe it's just too easy

Kinda like the usual trolling suspects on this site!
or psycho nazis-
marjon
3 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
I like this one. It's nearly as good as its generalization, Proudhon's "property is legalized theft".

So you don't want people to own the products of their work?
Objectivist
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 24, 2010
Non-believers who act morally show higher developed ethics than believers who act morally only because they feel being under control.

I love when people are so full of themselves that they honestly believe that "ethics" or "morals" can be measured as if they were something else than subjective delusion. Really? "Higher developed ethics"? Are you kidding me? Are you honestly that self centered? Please, define "higher developed ethics" for me. You speak like a true high society socialist whom honestly thinks the burdens of this world are his cross to bear.

On a side note socialism is legalized theft. It undermines development and discourages effort. I should know, being a citizen in a country with one of the highest tax rates in the world. But hey, you don't need listen to me; listen to Castro ( http://www.reuter...20100908 ).
frajo
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
I like this one. It's nearly as good as its generalization, Proudhon's "property is legalized theft".
So you don't want people to own the products of their work?
A high esteemed aphorism - as every high esteemed piece of art - has more aspects than just its content.
Knowing this one avoids naive conclusions.
Donutz
4 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2010
Wealth redistribution is not a service, it is theft.


So if you just redefine the terms more conveniently, you can pretend your attitude is consistent. Nice!
Objectivist
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2010
A high esteemed aphorism - as every high esteemed piece of art - has more aspects than just its content.
Knowing this one avoids naive conclusions.

Wow... just wow. Never have I heard such a rhetorical load of bullshit. Are you even aware of what kind of pretentious douchebag you sound like? It's very easy. I want something, thus I will try to find my way to get it. If you manipulate my goal, you will also manipulate my means of getting to it. It's called causality. Socialism is a self consuming lie--and all countries who adapt it end up in poverty. You have NOTHING of substance in your argument other than hope. You're hoping that mankind does "the right thing" and doesn't slack or try cheat the system. Please stop trying to "fix" our world. The crusades, the inquisition, the holocaust--these are all events caused by men who thought they knew how to "fix" the world. You fit right in there; you just don't see it yet.
Donutz
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2010

Wealth redistribution is not a service, it is theft.


And BTW, enjoying the benefits of a system which succeeds based on communal effort while attempting to avoid contributing is parasitism. And insisting that you not be required to help anyone else, anytime, anywhere, for any reason, just makes you a lousy human being. But, you're probably ok with that...

Objectivist
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 24, 2010
And insisting that you not be required to help anyone else, anytime, anywhere, for any reason, just makes you a lousy human being.

Yeah that's how you get people motivated. "You better shape up mister, or you're a lousy human being!" That ought to get them right where it tickles. Are you serious? Then you finish it off with "But, you're probably ok with that..." like that's going to sting extra. If he didn't give a shit before, he will most certainly do now! How is this difficult people?! YOUR MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE; WHAT YOU THINK IS "RIGHT" IS NOT DE FACTO! If I got a nickel for every time I tried to explain this FACT to a socialist... I'd be no richer since they seem to shamelessly think they own what's mine anyway.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
YOUR MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE; WHAT YOU THINK IS "RIGHT" IS NOT DE FACTO! If I got a nickel for every time I tried to explain this FACT to a socialist...
Not sure why you're aiming this commentary at socialists. Socialists and charity aren't disparate, nor is socialism a redistribution of wealth. It sounds to me like you're equating communism, which is the forced share of burden, with socialism, which is the requirement of government to provide for the common good of society.
I'd be no richer since they seem to shamelessly think they own what's mine anyway.
How exactly do you determine what is yours in the first place? (just a question, not a barb or insult)
A high esteemed aphorism - as every high esteemed piece of art - has more aspects than just its content.
Are you even aware of what kind of pretentious douchebag you sound like?
You do know that is a paraphrase of Thomas Paine, don't you?
marjon
2 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2010
socialism, which is the requirement of government to provide for the common good of society.

How can govt do this without taking by force the wealth earned by its citizens?
Who decides the common good?
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill "
Misery is the 'common good'?
CSharpner
5 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2010
Government provides a service, taxes are the fee

I can't speak for Marjon, but fees are what you pay for services you request and use (or use without request, in some cases). Some taxes cover that. Other taxes pay for things that the tax payer doesn't use and in many cases doesn't even want and in many other cases, out-right fight against. In those cases, they're not fees for services.

For example, I use the roads and emergency services, so I don't have a problem paying for them either with subscriptions or taxes. I do, however, have a problem with no competition in some of those areas (like garbage pickup in some areas is government run), which results in waste and more of my money being taken from me than should be needed for the service. Other things like taxes funding things like NPR or sorry excuses for "art" that offend or are grotesque are not fees for services.

Taxes cover a large pot of "stuff", only some of them are services and not all services are used by us.
Cheapster
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
Dear God Marjon and C sharpner, you just prove that some people really go out of their way to be bad. (I suppose some parasite are benificial but doubt you are.)
USA is a socialist country, the constitution was based on that of revolutionary France, all men are equal etc. At the time in most of the world we were all serfs, not allowed to own anything. Now we have democracy, it needs paid for and you have to share.
Now be nice.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (21) Nov 24, 2010
Please stop trying to "fix" our world. The crusades, the inquisition, the holocaust--these are all events caused by men who thought they knew how to "fix" the world. You fit right in there; you just don't see it yet.
It's a Work in Progress (more to come)- good thing They know what they're doing-
Skeptic_Heretic
4.9 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2010
USA is a socialist country, the constitution was based on that of revolutionary France, all men are equal etc.
You need a history lesson.

Constitution was written and finalized in 1787.
French Revolution was 1789-1799.
At the time in most of the world we were all serfs, not allowed to own anything.
Habeus Corpus and the Magna Carta were written 1679 and 1215 respectively.

Your sentiment is correct, and I agree with your statements (that conclusion at least), but you're not going to win an argument with incorrect information.
In those cases, they're not fees for services.
The service is the continuation and protection of the country and national identity to which you belogn as well as all rights and priveledges that go with it, regardless of whether you use it or not. There's an easy way to stop paying US taxes. Leave the US. It is a service fee to be a member of the US club.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2010
Dear God Marjon and C sharpner, you just prove that some people really go out of their way to be bad. (I suppose some parasite are benificial but doubt you are.)

Why would you say that? Do you actually believe that someone has to agree 100% with 100% of all tax policy in order to be good? Obviously not, so why then would you say that? You're responding as if I said all taxes are wrong (and if you believe that, you clearly did not read my comment).
Now we have democracy, it needs paid for and you have to share.

Did I say otherwise? No.
CSharpner
4 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2010
In those cases, they're not fees for services.

The service is the continuation and protection of the country and national identity to which you belogn as well as all rights and priveledges that go with it, regardless of whether you use it or not. There's an easy way to stop paying US taxes. Leave the US. It is a service fee to be a member of the US club.

I didn't say I don't want to pay all taxes (as I clearly said I don't have a problem paying for services I use).

I disagree though that the taxes are a fee for being in the US club. A lot of my taxes pay for things that I believe are down right un-American. I do however, pay all my taxes, plus a little extra, just to keep the IRS off my back. As such, I do have a right to complain (though, I've not in this thread). I've never met anyone, not even the people who write the tax law, that agrees 100% with 100% of the tax code. I know that not even you agree 100% with 100% of it.
Objectivist
2.8 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
It sounds to me like you're equating communism... with socialism...

This tired old argument. Let's rephrase it so that everybody understands. Giving incentives for achieving nothing is harmful to a society. You will never vanquish misery and poverty, and socialism/communism/marxism/etc works much like an opiate in this sense. It will numb the pains for a while, but those healthy pains were there for a reason. If you keep ignoring them you'll eventually end up dead. You can't treat unemployment with socialism, and the longer you keep at it, the more you will have to turn to forced labor. People will always cheat, and I'm sorry but at least since Nietzsche declared God dead people don't generally think "they will get what they 'deserve'." The world is that harsh and there is nothing we insignificant humans can do to change it.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2010
Wealth redistribution is not a service, it is theft.
It's a return, as you usually could never get wealth without support of others, the protective support of government in particular.

Of course, it's a matter of measure, because above some level the taxes are becoming unsubstantiated. But wealthy people are usually relatively more dependent to the governmental support, then the others - so I'm rather opened to idea of progressive taxes.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
I've never met anyone, not even the people who write the tax law, that agrees 100% with 100% of the tax code. I know that not even you agree 100% with 100% of it.
Well you'll never see me say that the tax code is appropriate. It's been abused by special interests and corporatist politicians for a long time.

It is however, our responsibility to fix it by participating in the US system, which is the top service, and "membership" to which I refer. If the right to vote simply costs me my taxes, I'm content to pay taxes.
This tired old argument. Let's rephrase it so that everybody understands. Giving incentives for achieving nothing is harmful to a society.
It isn't a tired old argument if you keep bringing it up.

No one is saying that you should provide entitlements. If someone has a need, that they can't take care of, which will endanger their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, then there is a constitutional demand to make redress in the most efficient manner.
panorama
not rated yet Nov 24, 2010
People will always cheat, and I'm sorry but at least since Nietzsche declared God dead people don't generally think "they will get what they 'deserve'."

So you're saying if Nietzche would have not of declared god dead people wouldn't cheat? I'm confused.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
by participating in the US system,

What is the system?
If someone has a need, that they can't take care of, which will endanger their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, then there is a constitutional demand to make redress in the most efficient manner.

Where do you draw the constitutional 'happiness' line?
My 'happiness' meter would be pegged if I could visit the space station. According to SH, the govt should pay for my trip to the ISS.
Objectivist
4 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2010
So you're saying if Nietzche would have not of declared god dead people wouldn't cheat? I'm confused.

No, I'm making fun of religion.
CSharpner
not rated yet Nov 24, 2010
My 'happiness' meter would be pegged if I could visit the space station

LOL! Not commenting on the point one way or the other... just that I love that sentence! :)
panorama
4 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2010
So you're saying if Nietzche would have not of declared god dead people wouldn't cheat? I'm confused.

No, I'm making fun of religion.

Confusion cleared. Laughing followed.
otto1932
1.4 / 5 (22) Nov 24, 2010
People will always cheat, and I'm sorry but at least since Nietzsche declared God dead people don't generally think "they will get what they 'deserve'."
And Sun Tzu said 'All of war is deception.' Skill in deception enabled victory in conflict, which in prehistory was usually the ambush, and so humans were selected for it; because it was conflict and competition which made us human.

It is also integral to politics, as Leaders must be able to convince people they are serving in everyones best interests when that can only ever be partially true. Our current political systems are based on deception.

We are educated by people who must pretend to agree with what they teach us. We are even entertained by people who are experts at pretending to be what they are not. We are taught by them how to emulate emotion instead of actually expressing it and dealing with the response.
Objectivist
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
No one is saying that you should provide entitlements. If someone has a need, that they can't take care of, which will endanger their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, then there is a constitutional demand to make redress in the most efficient manner.
That's easy to say, but where would you actually draw the line? Isn't that the core problem of social democracy? The very structure of social democracy [un]intentionally encourages the growth of the public sector, and as public rights grow uncontrollably so does the demand, which causes the public sector to slowly devour the private sector along with the national resources. It's impossible to control this without dictatorship.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
That's easy to say, but where would you actually draw the line?
At need. Is it that difficult for you to understand, or do you confuse need with want, as the majority of native born American do?
What is the system?
Sorry, I don't attend to those who are actually a part of the system within which they abuse the electorate.
Where do you draw the constitutional 'happiness' line?
My 'happiness' meter would be pegged if I could visit the space station. According to SH, the govt should pay for my trip to the ISS.
No, and if you're going to make such wild assumptions, might I suggest you resign your seat in the Chelmsford township political system.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
No one is saying that you should provide entitlements.

Why yes you are as you state the Constitution must make people happy. If living off of the wealth of others makes them happy then the law must take the wealth of others to make people happy.
At need. Is it that difficult for you to understand, or do you confuse need with want, as the majority of native born American do?

How do you define need?
Objectivist
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2010
At need.
Oh yeah, that's not at all ambiguous. I mean that definition right there is clear as crystal. I can't possibly imagine how two people could disagree on that. Thank you so much for clearing that out.

Look, I know you think "there surely must be a way", thus you come to peace with the fact that you've completely ignored the details. But there isn't. No matter how much you think you're helping people with socialism, you're not in the long run.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not promoting complete absence of kindness and compassion. I'm not saying we should be assholes to each other. I'm saying it should be up to each and everyone to decide who they wish to help, and I don't want to help people that I dislike--and I expect no help from them neither.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2010
Why yes you are as you state the Constitution must make people happy. If living off of the wealth of others makes them happy then the law must take the wealth of others to make people happy.
No I didn't. You're making shit up again. "The pursuit of happiness" which is roughly freedom from mental, emotional, or physical abuse by definition at the time the Constitution was written.

And if you don't know what a need is at this age, you belong in a special needs school.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2010
And if you don't know what a need is at this age, you belong in a special needs school.

If 'need' is so easy to define, why can't you do it?
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 25, 2010
and I don't want to help people that I dislike--and I expect no help from them neither
That ability is often misused:
The 3rd pillar of Sunnis, zakah:
There are four principles that should be followed when giving the Zakah:
1. The giver must declare to God his intention to give the Zakah.
2. The Zakah must be paid on the day that it is due. If one fails to pay the Zakat, people think he is refusing to fulfill God's wishes.
3. Payment must be in kind. This means if one is wealthy then he needs to pay 2.5% of his income. If he does not have much money, he needs to pay in a different way such as good deeds and good behavior toward others.
4. The Zakah must be distributed in the community from which it was taken.

-Within the community usually means the religious one. Money goes to families grown beyond the point where they can support themselves. Which is the purpose of this pillar.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2010
What I was told about Muslim charity is the donor is to keep his donations confidential. He shouldn't brag about his charity.
otto1932
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 25, 2010
What I was told about Muslim charity is the donor is to keep his donations confidential. He shouldn't brag about his charity.
It appears that people like your imam will know that you have slighted god. It's called coercion, typical of religions.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 25, 2010
"The prophet (pbuh) said: "Any owner of gold and silver who does not deliver from them their right, on the Day of Quiyamah (Day of Judgment), (the gold and silver) will be shaped as foils of fire. Then it will be heated in the fire of Hell; (and) then with it he will be ironed on his side, his forehead, and his back" (narrated by Muslim)."

-But the guvmint gets you first:
http://www.dzit.g...x4.shtml
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2010
And if you don't know what a need is at this age, you belong in a special needs school.

If 'need' is so easy to define, why can't you do it?
It isn't a matter of can't, it is a matter of repetition. Do I have to answer the same ignorant question for you simply because you have the memory of a gnat? Or perhaps because you're intentionally attempting to obfuscate an issue?

Needs are things you require to survive. Wants are everything else. As in you 'need' to be in a school for the mentally disabled because I doubt you'd be capable of surviving alone. I 'want' you to go to one so they prevent you from wasting our time.
What I was told about Muslim charity is the donor is to keep his donations confidential. He shouldn't brag about his charity.
Sadaqah has no such requirement. It is the oath of modesty that precludes one from being a braggart, a tenet shared by Christianity but seldom adhered to.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2010
Needs are things you require to survive.

The govt must provide food and shelter to those in 'need'.
We all need food and shelter so the govt must provide the basics?
Or how do you determine 'need'? An army of bureaucrats are required to demand proof of need. Then the level of need must be established, relative to some standard or relative to everyone else?
But, that is the populist, socialist way.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2010
Why does Congress waste OPM?
"We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks." "
http://www.lewroc...is1.html
This has been a problem for quite some time.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2010
The govt must provide food and shelter to those in 'need'.
Yes.
We all need food and shelter so the govt must provide the basics?
No, not my stance, nor did I even insuate this. Stop your strawman arguments.
Or how do you determine 'need'? An army of bureaucrats are required to demand proof of need. Then the level of need must be established, relative to some standard or relative to everyone else?
But, that is the populist, socialist way.
You're awfully slow aren't you?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2010
No, not my stance, nor did I even insuate this. Stop your strawman arguments.

The devil is in the details. Again, how will you have the govt define need. How will you write that into the regulatory code?
You will need to be prepared for court challenges for those whose need was denied by the govt.
How will you determine need or will you have the govt 'give' everyone vouchers for food and housing? Or do you plan to have govt housing projects with free food, just like they do for the military?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2010
The devil is in the details. Again, how will you have the govt define need. You will need to be prepared for court challenges for those whose need was denied by the govt.
How will you determine need or will you have the govt 'give' everyone vouchers for food and housing? Or do you plan to have govt housing projects with free food, just like they do for the military?


How would you tell a child that you won't feed him when he can't feed himself? That is what you're suggesting we do. You're recommending we tell anyone in a hardship that they're not good enough to survive. How very christian of you.

Must be very easy for you to tell people that they are the problem when you have never faced their hardships. One question though, how do you fit your head that far up your ass without taking the silver spoon out of your mouth first?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2010
You're recommending we tell anyone in a hardship

How do you define hardship?
Do those who have car payments, house payments, cell phones, cable tv, etc, but have no money for food suffering hardship?
How do you plan to verify hardship?
The food stamp program now suffers fraud. If the govt pays for their food, then they can work for beer and cig money. How do you set up a bureaucracy to verify need, hardship, etc?
Again, you have to set up some type of govt agency to do this, with hardship codified (you're a big support of law) and how do you set the cut off? A person makes $1 over the minimum is denied?
With charity, the money was all freely donated for the explicit purpose of helping people. It was not coerced to be used by politicians to feel good about themselves.
Here is one bureaucracy: http://www.massre...pageID=3 &subpages=yes&dynamicID=304
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2010
"Morisy published information on how people spend their food stamp dollars at the store on his website after the Department of Transitional Assistance released the information after a records request.

The US Department of Agriculture has asked for that kind of data to be kept secured.

Western Massachusetts residents disagreed on whether the public has a right to the data.

"I guess we should know because it's state funds and all, we should know where our money is going,” said Nick Isotti of Greenfield."
http://www.wwlp.c...private?
Govt across the country are trying to prevent people from buying certain food they claim to be bad you. Why shouldn't food stamps purchases be public knowledge?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2010
Again, you attempt to insinuate that regulations passed by corporatists that you've voted for are regulations I agree with.

Again, silver spoon economics is what you preach. They're all you know. Your very small minded world view is fueled by the writings of the worst philosophers, Rand et al.
frajo
3 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2010
I'm saying it should be up to each and everyone to decide who they wish to help, and I don't want to help people that I dislike--and I expect no help from them neither.
Sounds like one last speech of an aristocrat before the revolutionary commoners topple the ruling class.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2010
Again, you attempt to insinuate that regulations passed by corporatists that you've voted for are regulations I agree with.

Corporations have no power to pass regulations. Only govt can.
But you still have not fleshed out how you will Constitutionally determine 'need' or 'hardship' and how you plan to keep an accurate accounting of 'the people's' money.
As noted decades ago, when revolutionary commoners discover they can use the power of the state to get others to pay for them, 'democracy' ends. Of course, that is why the US govt was designed around a constitutional republic with limited, defined powers.
Powers which the 'progressives', 'populists' and socialists have usurped.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2010
Corporations have no power to pass regulations.
Corprotation and corporatist are not the same thing, moron.
But you still have not fleshed out how you will Constitutionally determine 'need' or 'hardship' and how you plan to keep an accurate accounting of 'the people's' money.
And you haven't fleshed out how you would do anything in your ideal anarchy.
As noted decades ago, when revolutionary commoners discover they can use the power of the state to get others to pay for them, 'democracy' ends.
No, corporate welfare ends. That's the funniest part about you, you're against welfare for people, but have absolutely no issue with welfare for corporations.

So we're at the point in time when I'm supposed to cite once again that you're a political hack Mr. Swenson. http://wwc.townof...cial.htm
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2010
And you haven't fleshed out how you would do anything in your ideal anarchy.

What is there to flesh out? I don't claim the Constitution requires the govt provide for those in 'need'.
I have, on all occaisions, the Constitution limits the power of the govt to provide welfare for anyone, including business.
The solution is to enforce the limited power of the govt which will require corporations to compete for customers instead of bribing politicians to control their competition for them.
But populists like SH want to increase the power of govt which will increase the opportunities for bribing politicians and regulators.
As for your PI skills, don't quit your day job.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2010
I'm supposed to cite once again that you're a political hack

Why do make this feeble attempt to attack me personally instead of defending your 'populist' socialist position?
This is typical of the 'progressive' thugs that make personal attacks instead of defending principles.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2010
Why do make this feeble attempt to attack me personally instead of defending your 'populist' socialist position?
My position doesn't require defense, however, when you claim to have principles, then do the exact opposite of what you preach, the statement that "Marjon has principles" is falsified. Again, I've shown your commentary to be the words of a liar.

Then again, it couldn't have been too feeble if you're dedicating posts to showing it false. Should I next include the pictures of you stumping for a corporatist democrat? Pat Wojtas it was. I thought you were against "liberals" and "progressives". Truth is, your principles are for sale, aren't they.

And if you wanted to deny that was you, you probably shouldn't have a Digg account named "marjon 90" with the same contact info as that seat holder listing.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2010
My position doesn't require defense,

Socialism does not require a defense even though it continues to fail?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2010
Now I understand 'populism'. It all about their egos:
"The anointed want to eliminate stress, challenge, striving, and competition. They want the necessities of life to be supplied as "rights" -- which is to say, at the taxpayers expense, without anyone's being forced to work for those necessities, except of course the taxpayers. "
"Nothing is to be earned."
"This is a vision of human beings as livestock to be fed by the government and herded and tended by the anointed."
"The free market is a daily assault on the vision of the anointed. Just think of all those millions of people out there buying whatever they want, whenever they want, whether or not the anointed think it is good for them. "
"The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites. "
"the welfare state makes it possible for individuals to think of money or goods as just arbitrary dispensations. "
http://www.jewish...2103.asp
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2010
"the welfare state makes it possible for individuals to think of money or goods as just arbitrary dispensations. "
I would suggest Sowell was a bit off here. The money and goods are not 'just arbitrary dispensations', they are used the the govt for control. Welfare is not arbitrary, it is the 'treat' for the voters to keep voting for more govt power, ostensibly for more Pavlovian 'treats'.
A govt that can give you anything has the power to take everything.
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2010
Non-believers who act morally show higher developed ethics than believers who act morally only because they feel being under control.
not really....
as the point relies on the imagination of a person who is calling themselves superior because they cant conceptualize voluntary submission isnt equivalent to being brainlessly submissive.

ie... this person can understand that to take the one down position voluntarily does not mean that he becomes an automaton when he works for a company. does it? but didnt he voluntarily become submissive for a fee, and so no longer has any self control and can never quit, as he cant quit if they dont tell him to...

by the way, this is why such superior people dont serve the military as much, dont have long lasting marraiges as much, and a whole list of not equal outcomes that they then blame not on their falsely self justified superiority, but on the fact that they were geniuses tricked to being with inferiors...
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2010
USA is a socialist country, the constitution was based on that of revolutionary France, all men are equal etc. At the time in most of the world we were all serfs, not allowed to own anything. Now we have democracy, it needs paid for and you have to share.
Now be nice.

we should listen to a moron who doesnt know the american revolution came before the french, and that it was not a socialist murderous one as the french had? when the fighting was over, the winners didnt run around with a new murderous invention hacking heads off of the losers, which included some of their own...
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2010
but on the fact that they were geniuses tricked to being with inferiors...

How can such geniuses be tricked so easily by 'inferiors'?
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2010
Thats the point, they are only geniuses in their own heads... which is why they dont succeed and make lots of money they then give away to everyone they want to help, but instead, come up with the unique genius idea of getting the biggest baddestass in country (us gov) to steal it...

REAL geiuses would not resort to such a implied argument without seeing it, and they would NOT want to rely on non geniuses in state to fulfill the plans of broke geniuses who cant function well enough to actually self actualize their plans and make them self sufficient without maos force of a gun behind their theories (but never bringing up implementation fully)

they experiment on the public like mengele, but we dont notice it as we call it social engineering... and adjusting outcomes... and redistribution... etc

trying to make the perfect genetic underclass (new socialist man) trapped by the negation of abilities thru out breeding them
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Nov 28, 2010
My position doesn't require defense,

Socialism does not require a defense even though it continues to fail?

Communism fails, socialism and communism are not the same animal.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2010
Socialism and communism are the same animal.
"Socialism...confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."
"Socialists desire to practice legal plunder."
BASTIAT, FREDERIC, The Law

"[S]ocialism can be put into practice only by methods which most socialists disapprove." HAYEK, F.A., The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 10
"Communism is merely the imposition of Socialism all at once by violence, and Bolshevism is the insistence that the Proletariat shall administer such imposition." HOOVER, HERBERT, The Challenge to Liberty, Chapter V, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1934
http://www.langua...nism.htm
If communism is a wolf, socialism is a wolf that has been raised a pet. Wild animals can't be domesticated.
SH wishes socialism and communism were not the same so he can feel better about himself.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2010
This is good:
"Communism is a species of the genus socialism...
"Communism explicitly calls for the violent overthrow of government."
"Democratic socialism, on the other hand, doesn’t advocate the violent overthrow of government but intends to use force peacefully. By definition, by its very nature, socialism must resort to force because it must expropriate people’s money and other property in order to redistribute it. That is the distinguishing characteristic of any and all forms of socialism: government control of property and the means of production (which is one of the reasons so-called corporatism is another variation on socialism). "
"Welfare statism wants all the wealth and advantages that capitalism and private property creates, but at the same time, it wants to undermine the very things that makes all that wealth possible. "
http://rayharvey....statism/
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2010
My position doesn't require defense,

Socialism does not require a defense even though it continues to fail?

Communism fails,
Hitherto there was no communist society on this planet.
socialism and communism are not the same animal.
Yes.

In order to be able to claim that socialism "fails" (which by the way, is present tense only) the definition of "socialism" has to be twisted so much that no confessing socialist would acknowledge it.

Thus we have to differentiate between the "internal" and the "external" definitions of political terms.
Husky
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2010
why did the chicken cross the road?

....because there was no fence.
frajo
2 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2010
Non-believers who act morally show higher developed ethics than believers who act morally only because they feel being under control.
I love when people are so full of themselves that they honestly believe that "ethics" or "morals" can be measured as if they were something else than subjective delusion. Really? "Higher developed ethics"? Are you kidding me? Are you honestly that self centered? Please, define "higher developed ethics" for me.
If you don't like my personal subjective assessment of "lower" and "higher" you could use qualifiers like "internal" and "external".
Anyhow, there's an objective distinction between ethics which are guiding you because they are imposed upon you and ethics which are standards set up by yourself.
Like animals with body temperature regulated by (the external) weather and those which keep their own body temperature on a constant level independent from weather.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2010
Socialists really don' like it when it is shown that fascism is form of socialism.
"Big business and labor eagerly allied with the state to obtain stability against what Murray Rothbard called business fluctuations, the ups and downs of particular markets that result from shifting consumer demands. They naively thought that state power could supplant consumer sovereignty with their own producer sovereignty over their industries while maintaining the greater productivity of the division of labor."
"Only after they became dependent on the state did the leaders of big business and labor realize that they had merely traded consumer sovereignty for state sovereignty. Soon after they learned which one was the more exacting taskmaster."
"To extend their control, the fascists bolstered fiscal expenditures with debt and monetary inflation."
http://mises.org/daily/1935
Replace 'fascists' with The Federal Reserve in the last sentence and here we are today.
Ravenrant
5 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2010
I will be pleased to just say NO.
Fee for service is not immoral.
Then why do you have such an issue with taxes?

Wealth redistribution is not a service, it is theft.


And what is it called when wealth distribution gives everything to a few people? Oh yeah, the free market.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Nov 29, 2010
Socialists really don' like it when it is shown that fascism is form of socialism.
Actually, fascism is a form of mercantilism or corporatism, it is the antithesis of socialism, but some socialist regimes have declined into a form of totalitarianism, which is akin to fascism.
Replace 'fascists' with The Federal Reserve in the last sentence and here we are today.
The Federal Reserve is a private institution. Again, corporatism or mercantilism.