Originally posted by AThousandYoungYour analogy is very interesting. I contend that in a capitalist, competitive society, some are going to fall by the wayside and that's ok -- they have families and churches and civic organizations to take care of them. Unfortunately, with the welfare state we've assembled, it invites more and more people to feed at the government trough...even noncitizens. At some point, we have to say enough! The only solution I can see for weaning people off of the welfare system is to change it from a pay-as-you-go scheme to a self-funding, cross-generational one.
,,,Anyway, the point is, some people can't practically be taught to fish. We can't make them stop breeding, and society keeps feeding them...we're stuck in a bread-and-circuses sort of cycle with respect to those people.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis is the whole point of welfare. We have organizations up in arms about the prevention of cruelty to animals. We have protests by people who make sure we realize that wearing fur is inappropriate. We are horrified that countries like Japan still go whaling.
But what about those who cannot be taught to fish?
Yet if we find a person trapped by circumstance such that they find it almost impossible to be motivated enough to get on with enjoying a productive life, instead of seeing it as abnormal, we ( the greater society~ the popular media) blame the person. Would we expect someone with a broken leg to walk without a crutch? Would we think it okay to expect a diabetic kid to eat the same food as everyone else at their school canteen? Does making an adjustment for a diabetic or a person with a broken leg victimize them?
If the programs geared to intervene and help break the cycle of unequal outcomes for those in trapped in dead end environments are administered badly or with little foresight, is the problem welfare in itself, or is the problem really with the bureaucratic elite who would rather not try and make a difference and are quite content to let all hope wither on the vine?
Originally posted by kmax87We're back to where we started, so perhaps you're missing the point? In one of the verses you quoted, God condemns judges, tax collectors and kings (i.e. the state) for their onerous laws that fleece people and make their condition harsh; I agree with this. The welfare state has stolen too much wealth from the people who earned it and turned it over to the undeserving. In the other verses, God compels men to be charitable; I don't disagree with this as I tithe in my church every week, buy Girl Scout cookies, donate use clothing and household goods to charitable groups, etc. But in no mention, does it say anything about federalizing charity and compelling men at gunpoint to surrender their property so that it may be redistributed to others who choose not to work or claim they have a "moral" right to it. People need to work because it builds character, gives them self-esteem and keeps them from engaging in mischief. Welfare, on the other hand, pays men not to work, keeps them idle and provides a subsistince lifestyle so that they can engage in whatever vice they can think of to wile away their days (i.e. gambling, prostitution, drug use, crime, etc.) Even worse, it instills a resentment in the recipient of the welfare against the rest of society because in their minds, we put them there and made them dependent or we're not giving them enough to get by on and have the same things "rich" people have. This is not a good situation and it's something that could never happen if the charity were conditional. I'm not against a social safety net, but it's just not the government's job to provide one.
If you would not offend the most high either, you may want to consider the many things written by the prophets on his behalf regarding those who could care less of the plight of the poor. You will not get much joy if you think that the bible supports the conscience of the wealthy.
Proverbs 14:31 (New Living Translation)
31 Those who oppress the poor ...[text shortened]... ing up their treasure as a good foundation for the future so that they may experience true life.
Originally posted by kmax87The problem is that government programs are very bad at changing someone's core motivation.
This is the whole point of welfare. We have organizations up in arms about the prevention of cruelty to animals. We have protests by people who make sure we realize that wearing fur is inappropriate. We are horrified that countries like Japan still go whaling.
Yet if we find a person trapped by circumstance such that they find it almost impossible to be mo ...[text shortened]... d rather not try and make a difference and are quite content to let all hope wither on the vine?
Those that are too unmotivated to work are clearly abnormal. Perhaps they need a help and/or the spur of their own hunger to drive them on.
If the goverment guarantees health care, food, shelter, child care, and education then clearly no one will ever feel the spur of hunger to drive them to work.
Government hand outs have a completely different feel than private charity. I know many normal people who would turn down a sub-optimal job offer to lean on lengthened government unemployment benefits. But not many of them would do the samething if someone they know where voluntarily giving money out of their own pocket to help them make it through a time of unemployment. An actual person making a voluntary sacrifice is a lot more likely to motivate someone to stand on their own than a legally mandated institutional welfare handout.
1 edit
Originally posted by techsouthIf this were true, then why in a country like Australia, where most of the conditions you enumerated are part and parcel of the birthright of all its citizens, is the welfare population not on a steady increase?
If the goverment guarantees health care, food, shelter, child care, and education then clearly no one will ever feel the spur of hunger to drive them to work.
The truth of the matter is that allowing people to stay in touch by giving them a small perch on society at least allows some to break free from the cycle entirely.
Originally posted by kmax87You really must let our NuLabour apology for a government into the secret since the conditions you describe have led in Britain to such an increase in the workshy welfare-dependant population that we have had to import a million workers from Eastern Europe to save us from economic collapse.
If this were true, then why in a country like Australia, where most of the conditions you enumerated are part and parcel of the birthright of all its citizens, is the welfare population not on a steady increase?
The truth of the matter is that allowing people to stay in touch by giving them a small perch on society at least allows some to break free from the cycle entirely.
Originally posted by BogleYes. That would be right, however, you're talking utter bollocks as per usual:
You really must let our NuLabour apology for a government into the secret since the conditions you describe have led in Britain to such an increase in the workshy welfare-dependant population that we have had to import a million workers from Eastern Europe to save us from economic collapse.
"The employment rate for people of working age was 74.7 per cent for the three months to December 2007, up 0.3 from the previous quarter and up 0.2 over the year. The number of people in employment for the three months to December 2007 was 29.40 million. This is the highest figure since comparable records began in 1971 and is up 175,000 over the quarter and up 296,000 over the year."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12
Stop posting crap.
Originally posted by kmax87I don't know a lot about Australian culture or economics so I can't draw much from there.
If this were true, then why in a country like Australia, where most of the conditions you enumerated are part and parcel of the birthright of all its citizens, is the welfare population not on a steady increase?
The truth of the matter is that allowing people to stay in touch by giving them a small perch on society at least allows some to break free from the cycle entirely.
There are 300 million people in America. Do you believe that there are 0 cases of someone taking welfare who would have got a job if welfare didn't exist? If there is at least one case, then the discussion is really no longer about whether the problem exists, but the degree to which the problem exists.
In some cases, welfare seems almost designed to discourage people from breaking out. Let's at least acknowledge that welfare needs to be designed very carefully because in addition to providing assistance, it changes the overall formula in terms of how much of a motivator/demotivator it is.
Personally, I believe private charity (i.e. face to face giving) is a lot more motivating than government-institutional legally mandated welfare. Likewise, I resent having money taken from me to hand over to someone to buy cigarettes, liquor, or illegal drugs.
Have you ever seen a smoker not have enough money to buy a pack of cigarettes? I haven't. And they're at least $3 per pack.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungA little bit more mindless generalization and a drop or two of more simplism, and you could really author Mein Kampf II.
Those who sneak into the US, hide from the police, avoid Americans, cling to ethnic enclaves, don't bother to learn English...
What kind of character does that show? They provide urban camoflauge for racially based violent gangs. They don't work with the police to flush this trash out. They fly Mexican flags above American flags on US soil on occ Street gang is illegal. Those'd be the rodents who hang out near where my parents live.
Sad.
Stop doing drugs, son.
Originally posted by SeitseDon't tell me what the people in my neighborhood are like. Tell me about Norse people or what the people in Mexico used to be like. Don't tell me about the people I see every day.
A little bit more [b]mindless generalization and a drop or two of more simplism, and you could really author Mein Kampf II.
Sad.
Stop doing drugs, son.[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt is foolish to make generalizations based on the people of your block. Even if you base it on the people of your neighborhood! (supposing one can really KNOW them all)
Don't tell me what the people in my neighborhood are like. Tell me about Norse people or what the people in Mexico used to be like. Don't tell me about the people I see every day.
For every Mexican Mafia member you "know"*, there are 50 other Hispanics that make for the prosperity of the U.S. 100 times more than you.
* Read about in the sensationalist media or see in 'Jerry Springer'.
1 edit
Originally posted by techsouthThere are theories of economics that say that it is imperative to have an unemployed underclass in order for a consumer capitalist society to work. Welfare in this model guarantees a permanent supply of people trapped in a no win situation and this aids the overall situation because the layer imediately above it, the unskilled underpaid worker with little or no rights is captive to the whims of capital and is willing to participate in the system without making any demands and being totally docile about any or all of their rights. Because these people would rather die than take a hand out, they provide cheap labor and essentially undermine any efforts to produce sensible labor laws.
In some cases, welfare seems almost designed to discourage people from breaking out. Let's at least acknowledge that welfare needs to be designed very carefully because in addition to providing assistance, it changes the overall formula in terms of how much of a motivator/demotivator it is.
Because these workers at the bottom know that they can easily be replaced and because they know that for their education level this is as good as it gets, it allows the rest of society to ride above their misery and it also ensures that those caught in the welfare trap below them have little or no chance to rise above their predicament.
On the other hand in countries where the rights of labor to organize and lobby on behalf of their members are actually respected and have not been corrupted by the almighty dollar, you will find less of an extreme and you will find less of a stigma attached to the receiving of welfare.
There are many reasons why Americans hate welfare so much, and part of it has been the steady assault on the American peoples psyche by successive generations of establishment policies that have demonised any form of socialism and has put a red under every bed and has made a pinko fink out of anyone crazy enough to articulate an attitude that would argue that workers should retain rights for their labors' beyond its commodity value that has been arbitrarily struck by those who control the flow of capital.
A true libertarian would acknowledge that in substituting the barter of services for a more efficient exchange mechanism like money, an honest exchange would see the work as a component of the profitability of any item produced and would reward that labor commensurately, in proportion to the degree to which that labor helped create the end profit.
Unfortunately as our recent history has shown, large scale capital has subverted that paradigm and made it possible to deny labor any real share in any profit of goods it produces by having made it acceptable in the broader society, that only money itself should be rewarded for any venture in which it is involved.
In a democracy where we generally think of one man equals one vote, we would think it strange if Bill Gates were allowed to vote for 1.25 million people. (this assumes he has 50 billion dollars and one person earns 40K)
Yet if a business were made up of 100 people and it turned over 100 million a year, 12 million of which was profit, capitalism would have it that only those who have accumulated their monies together to form this venture are entitled to profit from its success. We have been absolutely hoodwinked into accepting that workers should have little or no rights to enjoying the ongoing profitability of a company other that the prospect of long term employment.
Without money the company wont form or run, but by the same token without good labor, that company will not be a very profitable venture. Why is it then that only one commodity gets rewarded in this equation? Only money in the form of capital investment can expect a share of profit, yet generally speaking, the human resource of that company, the labor capital, is meant to be happy with its input costed as a pure expense.
Before Waj chimes in and says its their choice to be exploited, let me say this, its also their choice to form unions to have representation and ensure that some quid pro quo is put back into the system.
If you ever make it to Australia you will find a country that is not scared of the thought that those who provide labor have also a right to fair entitlement. For us welfare being a basic right is not an end in itself but for most is a welcome relief when transitioning between fields of employment or when circumstances have conspired to upset your well laid plans. As most people in Australia receive welfare in some form or another, it therefore does not condemn anyone on it to see it as a dead end. Rather most who receive it accept it for the stop gap measure it was designed to be.
Ultimately access to education and training means that most Australians would rather work and earn real money, than the very small percentage that for a myriad of reasons sees fit to not want to participate at all.
Originally posted by kmax87At least you've dropped the 'charity' pretense and your true authoritarian colors are showing through, and if you really want to know why Americans hate welfare it is because many still have an inclination of what freedom means.
There are theories of economics that say that it is imperative to have an unemployed underclass in order for a consumer capitalist society to work. Welfare in this model guarantees a permanent supply of people trapped in a no win situation and this aids the overall situation because the layer imediately above it, the unskilled underpaid worker with little or ...[text shortened]... very small percentage that for a myriad of reasons sees fit to not want to participate at all.
Again you show your ignorance in reference to libertarianism or 'true' libertarianism as you woefully put it. Nowhere in any definition does it say barter should be replaced by money. Nowhere in any definition is there any mention of rewarding labor "commensurately, in proportion...etc etc waffle".
kmax: "...that only money itself should be rewarded for any venture in which it is involved."
Perhaps you have some examples here of 'free' rewards i.e. rewards that don't cost anything.
There also seems to be a misunderstanding on your part regarding unions. In a free society, i.e. a libertarian society, i.e. a capitalist society, you are free to form and join as many unions as you like, some companies prefer to deal with unions rather than individual contracts good for them. Personally having spent about a third of my working life in a union environment I would never go back to it. For a start 3 weeks vacation is nowhere near enough for me, and lose the sick leave I'll take a rate increase instead etc.
Thanks for the tip on Aus though, I was considering it as an option when my visa runs out here, I now know to look elsewhere, cheers.
Originally posted by kmax87Could you please name one of these theories you refer to?
[b]There are theories of economics that say that it is imperative to have an unemployed underclass in order for a consumer capitalist society to work. Welfare in this model guarantees a permanent supply of people trapped in a no win situation and this aids the overall situation because the layer imediately above it,