One Third Of Canadians Favor CULLING The Homeless

[tabibito]

Over here companies often "reward" employees with things like pizza parties. Basically, they discovered it is a LOT cheaper than giving bonuses and raises. So in that case that free lunch effectively came out of your pocket because that's what you got instead of a bonus or raise.

But let's say it didn't. That the boss was feeling especially magnanimous and treated everyone to lunch.

Do you think it was free? Or do you think that he paid for it?

IOW, someone is still paying for what we're told is free.

But wait. Let's pretend that the boss got everything free. Do you think that the restaurant or grocery store that provided it got it for nothing? That it was free?

The point is that it is not free because someone, whether you, your boss or those supplying the food are paying for it.

There is no free lunch.

Yup. That was Heinlein's point. It also was brought up at a Bible study once, when the concept of grace was under consideration. It was quite a leap of understanding; all the more impressive because the young lady concerned was Lutheran.

[Sparko]

Over here companies often "reward" employees with things like pizza parties. Basically, they discovered it is a LOT cheaper than giving bonuses and raises. So in that case that free lunch effectively came out of your pocket because that's what you got instead of a bonus or raise.

But let's say it didn't. That the boss was feeling especially magnanimous and treated everyone to lunch.

Do you think it was free? Or do you think that he paid for it?

IOW, someone is still paying for what we're told is free.

But wait. Let's pretend that the boss got everything free. Do you think that the restaurant or grocery store that provided it got it for nothing? That it was free?

The point is that it is not free because someone, whether you, your boss or those supplying the food are paying for it.

There is no free lunch.

Yeah??? Well what if I was walking through the woods, that nobody owned and I found a wild apple tree and ate an apple for lunch? Then what huh?

[rogue06]

Yup. That was Heinlein's point. It also was brought up at a Bible study once, when the concept of grace was under consideration. It was quite a leap of understanding; all the more impressive because the young lady concerned was Lutheran.

That would have been an interesting discussion.

[rogue06]

Yeah??? Well what if I was walking through the woods, that nobody owned and I found a wild apple tree and ate an apple for lunch? Then what huh?

Is there even a square inch (except maybe in the Alaskan tundra) that isn't owned by someone, including the government?

[Sparko]

Is there even a square inch (except maybe in the Alaskan tundra) that isn't owned by someone, including the government?

Stop dodging and answer my question, mister!!!

[rogue06]

Stop dodging and answer my question, mister!!!

As indicated, the apple is owned by someone.

Besides, that's a snack, not a lunch.

[Sparko]

As indicated, the apple is owned by someone.

Besides, that's a snack, not a lunch.

I already said it was NOT owned by anyone. But even if it was owned by the government, it was growing in the wild, and nobody planted it, and nobody was going to harvest it. If you didn't eat the apple, then it would have just fell to the ground and rotted. And it was a big apple that filled you up! So there!!!! Free Lunch!

[tabibito]

I already said it was NOT owned by anyone. But even if it was owned by the government, it was growing in the wild, and nobody planted it, and nobody was going to harvest it. If you didn't eat the apple, then it would have just fell to the ground and rotted. And it was a big apple that filled you up! So there!!!! Free Lunch!

Not for the tree - it had to put resources into growing the apple. And the work of picking the apple up can be counted a cost.

[tabibito]

That would have been an interesting discussion.

By no means the most interesting.

[Sparko]

Not for the tree - it had to put resources into growing the apple. And the work of picking the apple up can be counted a cost.

That is the whole purpose of the tree. To grow the apple. To be eaten by something so the tree can spread it's seed. It grew it whether someone came along and ate it or not.

[rogue06]

The purpose of the apple was to be eaten by a denizen of that forest, and not some drunken, smelly pirate who forgot where he parked his boat and is now wandering lost in a freakin' forest looking for it. And having taken it, some poor Bambi or Thumper or maybe a wee lil piglet, kin of OBP, could end up starving as a result.

Sounds like that free lunch cost plenty.

[Sparko]

The purpose of the apple was to be eaten by a denizen of that forest, and not some drunken, smelly pirate who forgot where he parked his boat and is now wandering lost in a freakin' forest looking for it. And having taken it, some poor Bambi or Thumper or maybe a wee lil piglet, kin of OBP, could end up starving as a result.

Sounds like that free lunch cost plenty.

I already said the apple would not be eaten and would just rot, feeding only worms and germs. Who will have plenty of other apples to eat so nothing is lost and nothing cost anything! I have provided an example of a FREE LUNCH!!! You are just jealous that I out-thunk you!

[CivilDiscourse]

Go find HA to play with, and you can troll each other.

On the plus side, you do admit H-A is a troll.

[rogue06]

On the plus side, you do admit H-A is a troll.

You noticed that as well

[Gondwanaland]

There are quite a number of studies on the subject. The one you've found seems to be an outlier. Since it's paywalled I can't tell what in its methodology might have led to differences with other studies.

Not particularly interested in dueling studies, let alone dueling against claimed but unpresented studies.

I was reflecting on this discussion and realizing it had gone how many US right-wing discussions of economics go... it started with MM asking about an impossible hypothetical which we can't empirically test, and then him declaring my answer was wrong. The number of times US conservatives seem to base their economic arguments on untestable hypotheticals is quite incredible. Suffice to say it's terrible logic because we should base our economic views on things we can test.

Cool rant bro.

Then you came along with your tangentially relevant false factual claim about lottery winners and money, and declared that because I had failed to center by answer to the unknowable hypothetical around your false factual claim, that therefore I was stupid and knew nothing about economics. Again, it's incredibly common for US right-wingers to argue this way, with strongly held false claims that are not directly relevant.

Actually I declared that you were a moron for claiming, falsely, that giving everyone a million dollars would solve the poverty problem. And indeed, anyone who thinks that is stupid as hell, and doesn't understand basic economics.