NationStates Jolt Archive

The government should reimburse women for tampon purchases. Sanitary napkins too.

These things are necessary for women to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.

Same goes with medication.

The government should reimburse women for tampon purchases. Sanitary napkins too.

These things are necessary for women to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.

Same goes with medication.

I believe that's called socialism. This is a capitalist society.

Let the inevitable debate commence.

I had a thought...

*gasps*

The government should reimburse women for tampon purchases. Sanitary napkins too.

These things are necessary for women to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.

Same goes with medication.

I'll throw my weight behind you, Daki. I fully support your idea.

Sadly, not even socialists goverments do that. I live under a socialist regime and they do not give us that.

I add baby diapers there, too.

I believe that's called socialism. This is a capitalist society.

Let the inevitable debate commence.
I'm in Canada... we're semi-socialist. Capitalism blows, imo anyways.

I'll throw my weight behind you, Daki. I fully support your idea.

Sadly, not even socialists goverments do that. I live under a socialist regime and they do not give us that.

I add baby diapers there, too.
Oh yes, baby diapers are also essentials.

Really some reasonable amount of food should be free of charge too, but that would be rather hard to gauge. Perhaps some staples or something...

The government should reimburse women for tampon purchases. Sanitary napkins too.

These things are necessary for women to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.

Same goes with medication.

Ah....so many different choices....I can't possibly decide.

I'm in Canada... we're semi-socialist. Capitalism blows, imo anyways.

Me too. :D

I was going to make a crack about socialized medicine but no socialized food, then I remember we have a soup kitchen in town.

To quote Ron White "Next time you have a thought, just let it go."

Maybe... but why should be stop at sanitary towels and tampons. Why not include other things are essential to survival in modern society - like food, water and shelter?

Maybe because every needs equal amounts of these things... but it's stated by medical practioners that men generally need a higher calorific intake than women. Should men be reimbursed for this additional need that women do not have? Or should tall people be given subsidies to allow them to buy longer beds?

It's tough to draw lines that are fair. Quite often the fairest way is not have governmental interference.

The government should reimburse women for tampon purchases. Sanitary napkins too.
Makes sense to me.

These things are necessary for women to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.
Not sure I agree with this reasoning, however.

Same goes with medication.
And this is certainly a much wider issue than feminine hygiene, so no, I'm a frayed knot ;)

Maybe... but why should be stop at sanitary towels and tampons. Why not include other things are essential to survival in modern society - like food, water and shelter?
Yeah, there should be government supplied food, water and shelter. Toothbrushes too. At least for the poorest people and the rest of the population should have things covered in their taxes.

Maybe because every needs equal amounts of these things... but it's stated by medical practioners that men generally need a higher calorific intake than women. Should men be reimbursed for this additional need that women do not have? Or should tall people be given subsidies to allow them to buy longer beds?
I think that necessary caloric intake is based more on body type than gender. If we're going to go breaking everything down, then we should have doctors determine how much each individual should consume and they'll be eligible for that amount of food for free.
Also, I'm dating a really tall guy, he doesn't really need an extra long bed, it's called bending your knees...

It's tough to draw lines that are fair. Quite often the fairest way is not have governmental interference.
Yes, it's definitely fair that those who can't afford the necessities of life starve on the streets. :rolleyes:

I'm in Canada... we're semi-socialist. Capitalism blows, imo anyways.
Right, incentives to develop new products are pointless.

Right, incentives to develop new products are pointless.

Socialism would work if only good will were one of those incentives.

Sigh, humanity. Such wasted potential.

Maybe because every needs equal amounts of these things... but it's stated by medical practioners that men generally need a higher calorific intake than women. Should men be reimbursed for this additional need that women do not have? Or should tall people be given subsidies to allow them to buy longer beds?
I remember some years ago bicycle couriers asked the Canadian government to make their food purchases tax deductable because they had to consume so many more calories than ordinary citizens in order to do their jobs.

Socialism would work if only good will were one of those incentives.
No argument there. If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.

Good will is not such an incentive - therefore socialism fails.

No argument there. If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.

Good will is not such an incentive - therefore socialism fails.

I was more making a comment about the self-limiting nature of humanity than any argument for or against either socialism or capitalism. Personally, I don't care.

No argument there. If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.

Good will is not such an incentive - therefore socialism fails.
You don't find it the least bit fucked up that good will isn't an incentive?

good idea :)

and much more besides regarding the necessities of life

Who ever said humanity wasn't fucked up?
Nobody I suppose. That doesn't mean it's something we have to or should live with though. Perhaps we can change.

You don't find it the least bit fucked up that good will isn't an incentive?

Who ever said humanity wasn't fucked up?

The government should reimburse women for tampon purchases. Sanitary napkins too.

These things are necessary for women to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.

Same goes with medication.

*mumbles* waste of money....

You don't find it the least bit fucked up that good will isn't an incentive?

It's a pretty vague good will if all your hard work is doing is just possibly improving the economy very very slightly in the near future...

I had a thought...Happens to the best of us. Nothing to be ashamed of. The important thing is to explore it more fully, (http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm) and act on your conclusions.

It's a pretty vague good will if all your hard work is doing is just possibly improving the economy very very slightly in the near future...
Umm... what if all your hard work is going to benefit everyone else in your society? Improving their standard of living, increasing the collective knowledge of humanity et c.

Happens to the best of us. Nothing to be ashamed of. The important thing is to explore it more fully, (http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm) and act on your conclusions.
Thank you for the link, I've bookmarked it and I will be sure to read it later when I have more time. :)

Umm... what if all your hard work is going to benefit everyone else in your society? Improving their standard of living, increasing the collective knowledge of humanity et c.

yeah but... it wont. If you were to die, not much would change, your work has only a very minimal effect on society considering the size of the population.

Surely it is the individual's responsibility to ensure that they function within society?

Surely it is the individual's responsibility to ensure that they function within society?
Why shouldn't society provide the individual with the necessities? Especially if it is possible to be born into a situation where you do not stand much of a chance of acquiring the necessities on your own?

yeah but... it wont. If you were to die, not much would change, your work has only a very minimal effect on society considering the size of the population.
It depends. If I go on for my PhD and make some important discoveries, get some papers published that are important to future researchers in my field and then die off, then my life will have at the very least left them with a greater understanding of the processes I had been investigating. I would be perfectly happy if all my life went to increasing the collective knowledge of humankind, even if only in a small way.

No argument there. If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.

Good will is not such an incentive - therefore socialism fails.What a strange thing to say.

Socialism isn't an economic system, nor is various bastardizations of capitalism the only economic systems available to us. So your statement isn't just a non sequitur, it's a rather solid argument for dropping this capitalism idea, as it's obviously not benefitting anything but a tiny minority.You don't find it the least bit fucked up that good will isn't an incentive?Remuneration in capitalism is proportional to how hard you can screw your suppliers and buyers. But that's just one way of doing it. There's no divine/universal rule that has to be this way.

You're just being told & telling eachother it's "the only way". And it's rubbish. There's as many ways of handeling it as there's human imagination. I strongly suggest you follow that link I posted, because it offers a completely different way to go about it.

It depends. If I go on for my PhD and make some important discoveries, get some papers published that are important to future researchers in my field and then die off, then my life will have at the very least left them with a greater understanding of the processes I had been investigating. I would be perfectly happy if all my life went to increasing the collective knowledge of humankind.

But thats different. This may sound rude but for a proper socialist nation to survive, getting a phd and increasing the collective knowledge will not help to stop the economy from collapsing or from becoming very primitive.

How about women pay for their OWN hygiene products?

Since they're equal and all.

Or do you think women need special help from Big Daddy government because they're weak and poor and women?

It depends. If I go on for my PhD and make some important discoveries, get some papers published that are important to future researchers in my field and then die off, then my life will have at the very least left them with a greater understanding of the processes I had been investigating. I would be perfectly happy if all my life went to increasing the collective knowledge of humankind, even if only in a small way.

If we could populate a world entirely with (male and female, I suppose) 'you's, then yeah, I suppose you've a point.

How about women pay for their OWN hygiene products?

Since they're equal and all.

Or do you think women need special help from Big Daddy government because they're weak and poor and women?
No, I think that something that women pretty much have to buy should be covered by the government. If there was a similar product that men pretty much had to buy, I'd argue for that being covered by the government as well.

But thats different. This may sound rude but for a proper socialist nation to survive, getting a phd and increasing the collective knowledge will not help to stop the economy from collapsing or from becoming very primitive.
Why woudl the economy collapse?

Why woudl the economy collapse?

Thats a very big question with many different answers. Please note that I am talking about real socialist/communist nations, not half socialist european nations.

No, I think that something that women pretty much have to buy should be covered by the government. If there was a similar product that men pretty much had to buy, I'd argue for that being covered by the government as well.

Who decides what "pretty much have to buy" means?

You know, I pretty much have to buy a fifth of vodka. GIMME MONEY, GOVERNMENT!

Look, the government has trillions of dollars of debt. We don't need to add to spending in any way. We need to cut back. Sanitary napkins might cost no more than a straw in comparison to the total, but it might be the straw that breaks this camel's back.

You don't find it the least bit fucked up that good will isn't an incentive?
Why would I? I have no basis from which to judge the incentives.

No, I think that something that women pretty much have to buy should be covered by the government. If there was a similar product that men pretty much had to buy, I'd argue for that being covered by the government as well.

Then they should pay for all the extra tissues I use moping up... how to put this properly... well you know what I mean.

At any rate, plenty of women don't need such things ever heard of menapause? I suppose we'd just have people include reciepts? I just don't believe in the gov't fixing things for people because they were born differently than someone else, then as other posters have already commented, we'd have to pay for longer beds for tall people and more food for those with high metabolisms (like me). Dealing with your life will give you more character than letting someone else take care of it. Im all for more character.

Why woudl the economy collapse?

See USSR and North Korea.

Communism isn't a good method.

A few points that come to mind.

1. By buying feminine hygiene products for women, the government would be setting an unfair precedent, which would in effect moderately oppress men. I admit that, being male, I have no real conception of how hard it is to carry on my life during a period, however, that isn't the point. Unless the government were to equally subsidize men for things that it can be argued that they may need, such as razors or in some instances condoms, then it would cause the marginalization of men, and would therefore be unfair and unjust.

2. Expanding upon my prior point. If feminine hygiene products were governmentally subsidized, who would pay for it? It would have to be added on to taxes. This means that either women would have to pay for it alone, and some would then complain, or men would have to pay for this subsidization as well, and this would be clearly unjust. Lets say that I'm a single man, and that part of my taxes goes towards the subsidization of these products. I would be paying money for something that has absolutely no effect upon me. In a way, this sets back the entire women's rights movement. When men are asked to provide for women simply because they are women and have a woman's needs, then the women are relying upon the men of society for some of their provisions. They can therefore be viewed as not being self-sufficient enough to survive in this society. It's counter-productive to women's rights.

3. This could the bankruptcy of our government. We are already over eight trillion dollars in debt. Not only would these subsidies cost huge amounts of money, paying every woman in our country once a month, but it would set a precedent that could not be afforded. If the government is required to pay for the "necessities of life" then where do we stop. It was raised before. The argument that it is necessary for them to function in society could extend almost anywhere. It could be argued that it is necessary for a businessperson to have a custom tailored suit in order to function in his segment of society, and that the government should therefore pay for his suit. It's a slippery slope, one that our treasury can't afford.

4. It would be reverse elitist. When you start talking about subsidizing necessities, you must inherently consider where the money would come from. In this case, it would come from tax payers. Now the top money earners in our country would, in effect, be paying for the vast majority of these tampon purchases. This would breed dependency. The poor would begin to depend even more on the rich. The rich would be shelling out large tracts of money for the personal comfort of the poor. While I'm not saying that the poor should be left high and dry, I don't think the answer to poverty is to make the poor more and more dependent for their everyday living on the rich.

I had a thought:

The government should reimburse men for beer purchases. Football tickets too.

These things are necessary for men to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.

Same goes with sex.

I had a thought:

The government should reimburse men for beer purchases. Football tickets too.

These things are necessary for men to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.

Same goes with sex.



exactly!!

Oh yes, baby diapers are also essentials.

Really some reasonable amount of food should be free of charge too, but that would be rather hard to gauge. Perhaps some staples or something...

Yes to the first post.
Yes about any alotment of diapers.
Yes about an alotment of food, say 500 calories per person of food rich in Iron and Folic acid that is low in sodium? That is good supplement to a diet while by no means feeding you it will provide a single good meal.

Yes to the first post.
Yes about any alotment of diapers.
Yes about an alotment of food, say 500 calories per person of food rich in Iron and Folic acid that is low in sodium? That is good supplement to a diet while by no means feeding you it will provide a single good meal.

Why? What possible reason is there to do this impart from to waste money?

You're just being told & telling eachother it's "the only way". And it's rubbish. There's as many ways of handeling it as there's human imagination. I strongly suggest you follow that link I posted, because it offers a completely different way to go about it.
I followed your link.

Those initial objections to globalisation are really just arguments in favour of free trade.

Participatroy Economics appears to be based entirely on subjugating the individual to the will of the majority. How is that a good thing? It completely abandons individual freedom.

Also, it messes with natural selection by not rewarding the talented. Everyone is rewarded based on effort, not contribution.

And the entire thing keeps refering to equity and solidarity, two things that I don't value. I might even question whether solidarity exists.

The entire piece is littered with meaningless statements like "No one thinks this common approach is ethically superior." This leaves open the possibility that all of the approaches are ethically equivalent, but the author really hopes you won't notice that. He's hoping you'll infer that the common approach is ethically inferior, but in doing so one would be incorrectly assuming an excluded middle.

If I were grading this as a University paper, it would get no better than a C for continually appealing to foundationless claims as justification.

At the end he even grossly misidentifies merit. He writes, "Of course, any system that rewards having a deed to property in one’s pocket but doing nothing or that rewards having lots of bargaining power but doing nothing is not a meritocracy." This completely ignores the other aspects of the system which limited the means by which one could come to possess such a deed. From that brief description there is no way to tell if that system is a meritocracy, and yet he insists it is not.

The reasoning throughout is appalling. If I had the time I'd probably quite enjoy dismantling the entire thing piece by piece.

Yeah, there should be government supplied food, water and shelter. Toothbrushes too. At least for the poorest people and the rest of the population should have things covered in their taxes.


I think that necessary caloric intake is based more on body type than gender. If we're going to go breaking everything down, then we should have doctors determine how much each individual should consume and they'll be eligible for that amount of food for free.
Also, I'm dating a really tall guy, he doesn't really need an extra long bed, it's called bending your knees...Why can't I expect you to sit at home for 3 days every month whilst wearing a terry cloth? Anyway, both examples were thought up quickly not to hightlight specific situations, but that different people have different needs and wants.

Yes, it's definitely fair that those who can't afford the necessities of life starve on the streets. :rolleyes:That's different. These people cannot afford food, whilst you can afford sanitary towels - it just means you have less to spend on luxuries. And in that sense there already is social security in many countries. However, social security is home based - if you don't have a home then you can't claim any money. Something I think needs to be changed.

Why? What possible reason is there to do this impart from to waste money?

Stable society.
Dont start on about Economy, kill the space program, or some other pork barrel spending issue, like the Drug War.
All people who blather about the collapse of the economy forget that money is wasted everyday on far less essential items and issues.
Not to mention the money this would free up to spent on luxury items...it would bolster the economy.

Items like this can aid in Social stability.

Finally, soley in my opinion it is the right thing to do, and that my friend is good enough for me.

Stable society.


Giving women free tampons does not create a stable society. Women can buy their own tampons.


Dont start on about Economy, kill the space program, or some other pork barrel spending issue, like the Drug War.


Thats a seperate issue, doesn't justify wasting money further.


All people who blather about the collapse of the economy forget that money is wasted everyday on far less essential items and issues.


Again, doesn't justify wasting money further.


Not to mention the money this would free up to spent on luxury items...it would bolster the economy.


What?


Items like this can aid in Social stability.


In what way?


Finally, soley in my opinion it is the right thing to do, and that my friend is good enough for me.

It would be greate if the government gave us a free car and provided all of our food for free, doesn't make it practical.

I followed your link.I'm glad you did. The more ideas on the table, the more useful the discussion. If you want a link or two that explores the system a bit more thoroughly (that book's basically just a primer), just say the word. Or look around ZMag. (http://www.zmag.org/)Those initial objections to globalisation are really just arguments in favour of free trade.Or ParEcon or some other system. They're really just objections against globalization.Participatroy Economics appears to be based entirely on subjugating the individual to the will of the majority. How is that a good thing? It completely abandons individual freedom.I think you should take a glance. The basic idea is that people influence transactions in accordance to how much they're affected by them. Rather than taking away freedom, it ensures the autonomy of the individuals aren't infringed on. It's not a "majority rules" system. It's a "The affected parties have influence according to how strongly they're affected" system.Also, it messes with natural selection by not rewarding the talented. Everyone is rewarded based on effort, not contribution.You're right. But since natural selection isn't a participant in the economy, why should it have a say? Hell, it's not even a sentient entity.And the entire thing keeps refering to equity and solidarity, two things that I don't value. I might even question whether solidarity exists.Well if you don't value equity and solidarity, and you aren't a masochist, ParEcon will obviously never appeal to you. Nor will, I'd guess, any other sort of method for preserving the autonomy of the individual.

I don't quite know how to respond, as your ethics are too alien to me.The entire piece is littered with meaningless statements like "No one thinks this common approach is ethically superior." This leaves open the possibility that all of the approaches are ethically equivalent, but the author really hopes you won't notice that. He's hoping you'll infer that the common approach is ethically inferior, but in doing so one would be incorrectly assuming an excluded middle.

If I were grading this as a University paper, it would get no better than a C for continually appealing to foundationless claims as justification.
<Snip>Hey, it's just the ParEcon equivalent of "Computers for Dummies", haha. Besides, it's ages since I read it. I can't defend random paragraphs out of context. And I hope you don't expect me to. There's more serious material available at ZMag & other places. Browse around if you like, and don't hesitate to ask.

Why? What possible reason is there to do this impart from to waste money?

Well, it's called equality. See, currently, women are paying for something that they will need on a regular basis. It's fairly easy to set a budget for this, since it won't vary massively in any large country.

It's one of those things where you aren't wasting money, because it will be needed.

And, if you insist on calling it wasting it money, why are you forcing half the population to waste money, when we might as well force everone?

Also, to those who are saying we should be giving out free food, it's easier to work within the system and set a minimum standard, aka minimum wage and social security. Both are intended to feed, clothe and shelter you. It's a less complicated manner of doing it.

snip

Let me guess: You're a guy.

I am saying that because you keep mentioning this as if it's money wasted.

(note, I too am a guy)

The government should reimburse women for tampon purchases. Sanitary napkins too.

These things are necessary for women to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.

Same goes with medication.

And since a woman could pass a fertilized embryo that is microscopic, the government should pay for microscopic examination of every used pad and used tampon, and pay for funerals if they find one.

Let me guess: You're a guy.

I am saying that because you keep mentioning this as if it's money wasted.

(note, I too am a guy)

If I was a women, I still think it would be pointless when anyone can get a tampon without any problem. There shouldn't need to be more legislation when all it's really doing is just slightly raising taxes, for principles sake. We all need toilet roll too, should the government deliver this free? What about shampoo? We all need furniture, maybe the government should give us free furniture as we can't live without that? etc... see the slippery slope?

If I was a women, I still think it would be pointless when anyone can get a tampon without any problem. There shouldn't need to be more legislation when all it's really doing is just slightly raising taxes, for principles sake. We all need toilet roll too, should the government deliver this free? What about shampoo? We all need furniture, maybe the government should give us free furniture as we can't live without that? etc... see the slippery slope?

But money is still not being wasted, because it's a very regular and necessary use.

You keep mentioning things that are wants versus needs (except for the toilet roll).

This is a need and a very regular one at that.

But, as I already said, a minimum wage should cover that just fine and for the unemployed, unemployment benefit should also cover such needs. Planned economies don't always function very well and it might be better to not allocate resources to people, when those resources aren't limited. Rather, any allocation of resources should be of the limited kind (i.e. money), because in practice, there is no lack of tampons or sanitary towels etc... Nor any lack of any other necessities.

Who decides what "pretty much have to buy" means?
Something that is a necessity. Vodka isn't a necessity.

Look, the government has trillions of dollars of debt. We don't need to add to spending in any way. We need to cut back. Sanitary napkins might cost no more than a straw in comparison to the total, but it might be the straw that breaks this camel's back.
Your government has trillions of debt. Mine does not. And if your government didn't waste money on useless and unjustified wars while cutting taxes to the bare minimum, perhaps it would have enough money to provide everyone with adequate education and health care at the very least.

But money is still not being wasted, because it's a very regular and necessary use.

You keep mentioning things that are wants versus needs (except for the toilet roll).

This is a need and a very regular one at that.

But, as I already said, a minimum wage should cover that just fine and for the unemployed, unemployment benefit should also cover such needs. Planned economies don't always function very well and it might be better to not allocate resources to people, when those resources aren't limited. Rather, any allocation of resources should be of the limited kind (i.e. money), because in practice, there is no lack of tampons or sanitary towels etc... Nor any lack of any other necessities.

Exactly. So the government allocating tampons to you for free is pointless.

And since a woman could pass a fertilized embryo that is microscopic, the government should pay for microscopic examination of every used pad and used tampon, and pay for funerals if they find one.
Umm... no. Now that would be a waste of money.

Besides, my utopic vision of government would also provide women with good access to abortions, which are also provided free under the universal health care and contraceptives to prevent both the fertilized egg and abortion scenarios to a large degree.

Why can't I expect you to sit at home for 3 days every month whilst wearing a terry cloth?
Three days?! I wish.

That's different. These people cannot afford food, whilst you can afford sanitary towels - it just means you have less to spend on luxuries. And in that sense there already is social security in many countries. However, social security is home based - if you don't have a home then you can't claim any money. Something I think needs to be changed.
I can barely afford the fucking tampons. However, I can afford not having them even less.

I can barely afford the fucking tampons. However, I can afford not having them even less.

Is there any particular reason not to have a reusable one?

The government should reimburse women for tampon purchases. Sanitary napkins too.

These things are necessary for women to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.

Same goes with medication.

The free market will provide these things.

The government should reimburse women for tampon purchases. Sanitary napkins too.

These things are necessary for women to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.

As soon as such things "go green", sure...until then, I'd prefer you pay for the paper, cloth and petro-chemicals that go into product and packaging.

Same goes for diapers...which someone else mentioned.

I do enough to fuck up the planet without subsidizing your needs, thanks.

Same goes with medication.

Ugh...I'd rather go over that in another thread.

No, I think that something that women pretty much have to buy should be covered by the government. If there was a similar product that men pretty much had to buy, I'd argue for that being covered by the government as well.

So....free beer? :eek: :D

*flees* :p

The free market will provide these things.
Free tampons and medications?

Is there any particular reason not to have a reusable one?
...Why does that not sound sanitary at all....?

...Why does that not sound sanitary at all....?


I dunno, you can wash it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cup).

...Why does that not sound sanitary at all....?

Used to be the only option, if I'm not mistaken.

While I understand the idea behind wanting to subsidize necessary products, specifying items is probably wasteful and inneficient.

If the government were required to subsidize every item that is necessary to 'function' in society, that would simply overcomplicate and burden the economy. Every individual would have a different 'price list' essentially, based on their sex, biological needs, what have you.

Rather than worrying about making sure women are compensated for sanitary products, why not ensure that people at least meet a basic income to cover the necessities? This peacemeal product by product method of 'covering the necessities' seems kind of pointless.

Look at it this way; suppose all sanitary products were subsidized, or socialized, or what have you. Do you have any idea what toilet paper was like in the Soviet Union? They basically created the roughest brown paper they could find, and issued it to the masses. It was the cheapest way to do it, and it was 'fair' (if you don't count Party members buying western TP.) Now imagine tampons and other sanitary products being produced in the same way. I'm not sure what the quality of tampons was like in the USSR, but I imagine you had a lot less choice and comfort than you do in our capitalistic society.

The alternative is, you continue to buy tampons in our capitalistic society, and receive a subsidy or tax break from the government. This of course, just means more taxes for everyone, particularly if everyone starts piling on their individual 'necessities' (because other social spending still has to be met).

No, far better just to make sure that a basic quality of life can be maintained by meeting a reasonable level of income.

Stable society.
Dont start on about Economy, kill the space program, or some other pork barrel spending issue, like the Drug War.
The space program could really benefit us if we did it right. But NASA recently lost funding for the search for Near-Earth Asteroids, plus there's been little investigation into space-based energy production.

The drug war, certainly, needs to go.
All people who blather about the collapse of the economy forget that money is wasted everyday on far less essential items and issues.
That money is wasted elsewhere is not a reason we should waste even more of it here.

Used to be the only option, if I'm not mistaken.
It also used to be that people weren't very sanitary.

I dunno, you can wash it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cup).
Holy shit! There's one kind you can have sex while wearing?!

I need to get myself one of these.

edit: damn, those are the expensive, non-thoroughly reusable variety. :(

I'm glad you did. The more ideas on the table, the more useful the discussion. If you want a link or two that explores the system a bit more thoroughly (that book's basically just a primer), just say the word. Or look around ZMag. (http://www.zmag.org/)
Thanks. I might do that so I can better object to them.
I think you should take a glance. The basic idea is that people influence transactions in accordance to how much they're affected by them. Rather than taking away freedom, it ensures the autonomy of the individuals aren't infringed on. It's not a "majority rules" system. It's a "The affected parties have influence according to how strongly they're affected" system.
Who decides who is affected by what?
You're right. But since natural selection isn't a participant in the economy, why should it have a say?
But why shouldn't it? If the system is going to be based on principles like that, it needs to justify them.

Nothing is self-evident.

One could argue that allowing the weak and ineffective to fall out of society improves society overall because more total benefits are created. Or one could argue the opposite. But so far ParEcon hasn't argued either position. It's simply adopted one of them without comment.
Well if you don't value equity and solidarity, and you aren't a masochist, ParEcon will obviously never appeal to you. Nor will, I'd guess, any other sort of method for preserving the autonomy of the individual.
The free market preverves the autonomy of the individual by making all transactions voluntary. Voluntary exchange creates wealth.
I don't quite know how to respond, as your ethics are too alien to me.
You shouldn't be basing the system on ethics at all. Debates about ethics and morality are ubiquitous - there's no way we'll all agree on ethics right out of the gate long enough to design an economic system.

If ethics are relevant to economics at all, you need to demonstrate that. Again, nothing is self-evident.

But let's consider for a moment the possibility that most people do agree, and ParEcon is adopted widely. What about the people who don't agree? Aren't they getting completely bulldozed by the majority?

The great thing about the free market is it allows like-minded individuals to form communities and establish whatever sort of economic system thay want.
Hey, it's just the ParEcon equivalent of "Computers for Dummies", haha. Besides, it's ages since I read it. I can't defend random paragraphs out of context. And I hope you don't expect me to. There's more serious material available at ZMag & other places. Browse around if you like, and don't hesitate to ask.
I'm sure I will. Thanks for the link.

I had a thought...

*gasps*

Lolz.

The government should reimburse women for tampon purchases. Sanitary napkins too.

These things are necessary for women to function in society and should be essentially free of charge for us.

Same goes with medication.

Although I can see your reasoning behind this statement, I disagree on the products in question.By the same logic, toilet paper should be a reimbursable product.

I would rather see certain staple foods and water reimbursable. Of course medical care should be free.
Oh and before anyone starts moaning, I am a capitalist and enjoy making money. I just don't see why the less fortunate need to suffer.

Three days?! I wish.


I can barely afford the fucking tampons. However, I can afford not having them even less.Woah, you can barely afford tampons? Just how bad is your menstrual cycle... I googled 'tampon price' and it came up with a link to a 10pk for £1.19. Let's say you need two of those packs a month... that's still less than £30 a year. People save more than that when they switch utilities provider or insurance providers. I mean... do you bleed the whole month or something?

I had a thought...

*gasps*

Your sarcasm is rather like wine. It genuinely does improve with age. Either that or my having been for so long has attuned my mind to it.....;)

Returning to the topic, I fail to see the point in rendering tampons and the like free. Not only would it be obscenely expensive, but distribution would be equally problematic, both in scale and cost, whilst the system would be open to such abuses so as to preclude its being of any reliability.

Woah, you can barely afford tampons? Just how bad is your menstrual cycle... I googled 'tampon price' and it came up with a link to a 10pk for £1.19. Let's say you need two of those packs a month... that's still less than £30 a year. People save more than that when they switch utilities provider or insurance providers. I mean... do you bleed the whole month or something?
I can barely afford anythign at the moment. My food is going on my credit card along with my latest tampon purchase which was an econo-pack of 88 tampons (it should last a while) for ~$16 + tax. To put this in perspective, my usual grocery bill is ~$20.

I can barely afford anythign at the moment. My food is going on my credit card along with my latest tampon purchase which was an econo-pack of 88 tampons (it should last a while) for ~$16 + tax. To put this in perspective, my usual grocery bill is ~$20.Your groceries are going on your credit card? I can see why you made a thread about socialised tampons... Still, can I get socialised razors? Costs me about £10 for a pack of 8 non-bic razors, which I can normally get me to last a month. My grocery shop normally comes to about £20. Can I be reimbursed for the costs inherent in my finding and keeping a job?

If you want to comment on my use of non-bic razors then I'll comment on your use of tampons instead of bits of cotton wool glued to a toothpick. :p

Hmm... I would get a cutthroat if I didn't think I'd slit my throat by accident. I got a shave from a barber using a cuttroat once. Closest shave ever.

Your groceries are going on your credit card? I can see why you made a thread about socialised tampons... Still, can I get socialised razors? Costs me about £10 for a pack of 8 non-bic razors, which I can normally get me to last a month. My grocery shop normally comes to about £20. Can I be reimbursed for the costs inherent in my finding and keeping a job?

If you want to comment on my use of non-bic razors then I'll comment on your use of tampons instead of bits of cotton wool glued to a toothpick. :p

Hmm... I would get a cutthroat if I didn't think I'd slit my throat by accident. I got a shave from a barber using a cuttroat once. Closest shave ever.Could she comment on you just growing a beard instead?

Could she comment on you just growing a beard instead?I covered that in that I have got turned down for interview in every job application I have ever sent a picture with me unshaven. There are social pressures beyond my control. If I want a job then apparently I need to be shaven. :(

Your sarcasm is rather like wine. It genuinely does improve with age. Either that or my having been for so long has attuned my mind to it.....;)

Returning to the topic, I fail to see the point in rendering tampons and the like free. Not only would it be obscenely expensive, but distribution would be equally problematic, both in scale and cost, whilst the system would be open to such abuses so as to preclude its being of any reliability.No no, it's more like cheese. The can't stand it to begin with, then you get used to it, and finally you start craving even more perverse versions of it, like roquefort.

Your groceries are going on your credit card? I can see why you made a thread about socialised tampons... Still, can I get socialised razors? Costs me about £10 for a pack of 8 non-bic razors, which I can normally get me to last a month. My grocery shop normally comes to about £20. Can I be reimbursed for the costs inherent in my finding and keeping a job?

If you want to comment on my use of non-bic razors then I'll comment on your use of tampons instead of bits of cotton wool glued to a toothpick. :p

Hmm... I would get a cutthroat if I didn't think I'd slit my throat by accident. I got a shave from a barber using a cuttroat once. Closest shave ever.
Do I get reimbursed for my razor blades too? They cost $20 for a pack of 8. If I changed them as frequently as I'm supposed to, they'd last me not very long at all...

If that thought of yours has to be compatible with a pseduo-capitalist system, you can always look at a place like Sweden for practical solutions.

Instead of giving you shit, they give you money for it if you're sufficiently broke.

A guy I know not only got a paycheck for getting an education, and the municipality of Ystad were nice enough to rent a flat & furniture it for him. End result is he's now got a career and takes care of his family. As opposed to being homeless or working at McDeath.

It's so counter-intuitive it's bordering on the absurd, but the system works almost 100% of the time.

hmmm instead of all this buying stuff, saving receipts, sending them in to some (soon to be huge) govt bureaucracy, and getting that money back, mabye we should give money to those citizens who truly cannot afford to pay for their food, clothing, shelter and incidental necessities.

since it provides for the common welfare we could call it.... welfare.

or since it might cover the gap between jobs we could call it...unemployment compensation

or since it might cover a time when we are hurt and unable to work we might call it ....disability income

or since it might cover the time when we are too old to work we could call it...social security.


my point being that its better to have a plan that gives a person in need a certain amount of cash to spend as they feel fits their life best than to, in essence, pay government employees to scrutinize every freaking thing they buy. "ohhh ms daikini, i see you have purchased a second box of 88, i dont think you really needed those. you are going to have to use fewer tampons in the future"

and since we already do that, NO i dont think i want to have to submit my menstruation bills to the government to scrutinize and decide if they were justified.

Do I get reimbursed for my razor blades too? They cost $20 for a pack of 8. If I changed them as frequently as I'm supposed to, they'd last me not very long at all...This is what I mean. Where does it start and where does it stop?

Ashmoria's right. It's simpler and cheaper simply to have a system that calculates roughly the cost of living and if you earn less than that it will supplement your income.

This is what I mean. Where does it start and where does it stop?

Ashmoria's right. It's simpler and cheaper simply to have a system that calculates roughly the cost of living and if you earn less than that it will supplement your income.Move to Scandinavia. They all do it there. Denmark might be a poor choice though, as non-EU/US immigrants only get 25-50% of the normal welfare support, and frequently have to spend 1-5 years living in something not dissimilar to a KZ camp before they're allowed into society.

hmmm instead of all this buying stuff, saving receipts, sending them in to some (soon to be huge) govt bureaucracy, and getting that money back, mabye we should give money to those citizens who truly cannot afford to pay for their food, clothing, shelter and incidental necessities.

since it provides for the common welfare we could call it.... welfare.

or since it might cover the gap between jobs we could call it...unemployment compensation

or since it might cover a time when we are hurt and unable to work we might call it ....disability income

or since it might cover the time when we are too old to work we could call it...social security.


my point being that its better to have a plan that gives a person in need a certain amount of cash to spend as they feel fits their life best than to, in essence, pay government employees to scrutinize every freaking thing they buy. "ohhh ms daikini, i see you have purchased a second box of 88, i dont think you really needed those. you are going to have to use fewer tampons in the future"

and since we already do that, NO i dont think i want to have to submit my menstruation bills to the government to scrutinize and decide if they were justified.

That was more or less my point... except I don't menstruate.

Move to Scandinavia. They all do it there. Denmark might be a poor choice though, as non-EU/US immigrants only get 25-50% of the normal welfare support, and frequently have to spend 1-5 years living in something not dissimilar to a KZ camp before they're allowed into society.But I have EU citizenship! :D

That was more or less my point... except I don't menstruate.I'm sure Dr.Martens & I can fix that for you, if you want ;)But I have EU citizenship!Well then, follow the yellow brick Fass.. Or.. Err.. Something like that.