Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 12 Apr '11 21:27 / 3 edits
    Which do you suppose is better at helping the poor? Is it the church or the state? - whodey

    This question was posted originally in spirituality, but i would like you guys to think
    whether it would work or not and if so, why has it not been implemented elsewhere
    or has it. I cannot say because i have been self employed my entire working life,
    so i have no experience with what employers offer. here is the jist of it

    In the Uk we had a great tradition of benefactors and philanthropists there is still an
    entire village in lanark, Scotland, where the workers could expect.

    1.Education
    2.Social Inclusion and Early Intervention
    3.Parenting Classes
    4.Working Conditions
    5.Employment Training
    6.Child Care / Workplace Nurseries
    7.Equality for Women
    8.Health, Preventive Medicine & Health Education
    9.Care for the elderly and infirm

    and that Whodey was 200 years ago.

    http://www.newlanark.org/robertowen.shtml

    so is this model applied and does debates think that its would be a successful model
    for businesses to implement?
  2. 12 Apr '11 22:07 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Which do you suppose is better at helping the poor? Is it the church or the state? - whodey

    This question was posted originally in spirituality, but i would like you guys to think
    whether it would work or not and if so, why has it not been implemented elsewhere
    or has it. I cannot say because i have been self employed my entire working life, ...[text shortened]... pplied and does debates think that its would be a successful model
    for businesses to implement?
    I have to say, this guy has an snswer for everything and everyone. It's just too bad he is not king of the universe so he can force them to listen.

    Speaking of Kings of the universe, Jesus had some great ideas as well, only, I don't recall him trying to make it mandantory for everyone to abide by them.

    Really, my comment about religion vs. state help for the poor came because organized religion was being attacked. Although there are obvious problems with organized religion, they have, or should have, a charitable component to benefit society at large. So when organized religion is attacked for its short comings, why do the same people not hesitate to support organized politics which wage wars across the globe and steal from its citizens? Although it may be impossible to do, it would be nice to compare the finances of organized religion to that of the state and see which one does a better job using their dollars to help those in need.

    Does anyone have any ideas on how to compare the finaces of organized religion vs. that of the state? One thing is for sure, there are not religions that come anywhere close to a $15 trillion debt!!
  3. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    13 Apr '11 04:04
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    where the workers could expect.

    1.Education
    2.Social Inclusion and Early Intervention
    3.Parenting Classes
    4.Working Conditions
    5.Employment Training
    6.Child Care / Workplace Nurseries
    7.Equality for Women
    8.Health, Preventive Medicine & Health Education
    9.Care for the elderly and infirm.....
    For a minute there I thought you were talking about Japan.
  4. 13 Apr '11 08:05
    The answer is the state. The main reason is that while the state at least has some incentive to control costs (i.e. the ability to cut taxes or spend the money somewhere else), a charity has none. A charity must spend everything it gets, regardless of whether or not it finds a useful purpose for the money.
  5. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    13 Apr '11 08:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Which do you suppose is better at helping the poor? Is it the church or the state? - whodey

    This question was posted originally in spirituality, but i would like you guys to think
    whether it would work or not and if so, why has it not been implemented elsewhere
    or has it. I cannot say because i have been self employed my entire working life, ...[text shortened]... pplied and does debates think that its would be a successful model
    for businesses to implement?
    There were once numerous 'friendly societies' in the UK, voluntary organisations that took care of many things on your list, they were not necessarily religious. The state welfare system has all but killed the concept.

    This is poison for two reasons,;

    1/ The more the state takes on that role the less people voluntarily care for their fellow man: See someone sick? that's the gummints job eh. See someone poor? that's the gummints job. See someone in need of help? that's the gummints job. A recent example, after the Brisbane floods it was heartening indeed to see the massive outpooring of help financially and physically, and the term 'aussie mateship' was much bandied about, especially by the pollies while making the most of the photo opportunities disasters provide, but a couple of weeks later the pollies are talking about a special tax, a flood levy. What this does is next time an event like this happens people are a little more cautious about their generosity knowing that soon enough the stinkin pollies will be dipping their pockets.

    2/ People become to see it as an entitlement, a right, an oopportunity to put a saddle on the back of the next fellow, it breeds dependency.

    So if you like to measure a civilised society, a benevolent society it needs to be done by measuring the extent to which people are free. If you want to measure an uncaring society, the antithesis of the 'friendly societies' take a look at the size of the welfare state. toxic poison.

    Charity can only ever be voluntary.
  6. 13 Apr '11 09:19
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    There were once numerous 'friendly societies' in the UK, voluntary organisations that took care of many things on your list, they were not necessarily religious. The state welfare system has all but killed the concept.

    This is poison for two reasons,;

    1/ The more the state takes on that role the less people voluntarily care for their fellow man: See so ...[text shortened]... at the size of the welfare state. toxic poison.

    Charity can only ever be voluntary.
    Actually, Australians are among the most generous when it comes to giving to charity.
  7. 13 Apr '11 09:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    There were once numerous 'friendly societies' in the UK, voluntary organisations that took care of many things on your list, they were not necessarily religious. The state welfare system has all but killed the concept.

    This is poison for two reasons,;

    1/ The more the state takes on that role the less people voluntarily care for their fellow man: See so at the size of the welfare state. toxic poison.

    Charity can only ever be voluntary.
    whether or not the state welfare system has killed the concept i dont think can be
    stated, for this is not welfare, its a responsible employer taking care of the needs of
    its employees. This as far as I am aware happens to a limited extent, for you see
    many positions advertised with pension schemes, health insurance etc etc welfare is
    for persons who for some reason cannot find or do work as they are able, it is
    something entirely different.

    What struck me when i read of Robert Owens attempts was how thoroughly
    workable and what is more profitable they proved to be. I read some while back,
    that the Japanese also have this kind of model, or used to, although i am no expert,
    however it seems to make sense, for a healthy worker surely is a happy and
    productive worker. Indeed how much productivity is lost to sickness i think must
    truly be staggering.

    What freedom has to do with productivity, or caring for ones workers in all phases of
    their life, i cannot say, in fact, i dont think that you have even grasped what Owen
    achieved or why it cannot be adopted as a sound business model, and instead you
    have used the opportunity to rant about welfare state, which is something unrelated
    and practically irrelevant.
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    13 Apr '11 17:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    Speaking of Kings of the universe, Jesus had some great ideas as well, only, I don't recall him trying to make it mandantory for everyone to abide by them.
    LOL. He gives us the choice to burn in Hell instead.
  9. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    13 Apr '11 20:53
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    whether or not the state welfare system has killed the concept i dont think can be
    stated, for this is not welfare, its a responsible employer taking care of the needs of
    its employees. This as far as I am aware happens to a limited extent, for you see
    many positions advertised with pension schemes, health insurance etc etc welfare is
    for pe ...[text shortened]... ortunity to rant about welfare state, which is something unrelated
    and practically irrelevant.
    Yeah, no worries Robbie, control freaks and busybodies are profuse on this board and if you're intimating that all those things are voluntary then my post was not directed at you.
  10. 14 Apr '11 04:24
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    , and instead you
    have used the opportunity to rant about welfare state, which is something unrelated
    and practically irrelevant.[/b]
    It is unrelated and practically irrelevant? Waj is right, if society was not mandated to address these issues a certain way across the board then more experiments would flourish like the one you provided.

    Now one size fits all robbie. There is no longer any need for inovation and experimentation. Now they just want our submisson.
  11. 14 Apr '11 04:24
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    LOL. He gives us the choice to burn in Hell instead.
    But you don't look at it this way do you? After all, you don't really believe in a hell, so your choice is a strawman.
  12. 14 Apr '11 10:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    It is unrelated and practically irrelevant? Waj is right, if society was not mandated to address these issues a certain way across the board then more experiments would flourish like the one you provided.

    Now one size fits all robbie. There is no longer any need for inovation and experimentation. Now they just want our submisson.
    Is that true? Is there really a link between the extent of the welfare state and the efficiency of civil society? If so, what is the link and can you cite research to back up your claim?
  13. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    14 Apr '11 12:46
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Is that true? Is there really a link between the extent of the welfare state and the efficiency of civil society? If so, what is the link and can you cite research to back up your claim?
    The 'efficiency' of civil society?

    No, the 'measure' of a civil society is the extent to which men deal with each other by consent. I don't need bs state sponsored stats to prove that statement because it stands alone.
  14. 14 Apr '11 12:49
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    The 'efficiency' of civil society?

    No, the 'measure' of a civil society is the extent to which men deal with each other by consent. I don't need bs state sponsored stats to prove that statement because it stands alone.
    Yes, I know you don't like facts, research and science, but I think whodey is at least partially suspectible to them.
  15. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    14 Apr '11 12:52
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Yes, I know you don't like facts, research and science, but I think whodey is at least partially suspectible to them.
    That is a statement of fact, the more rules and regulations, the more force required that is the proof of an uncivil society. You see how that works, when you take choices from people, when you wave the stick at them they are not behaving in a civil manner they are responding to your stick.