NationStates Jolt Archive

I just had a bit of an idea. Say you support a welfare state, or some other means of letting poor people not suffer the consequences of being poor, in our modern world.

There should be two types of welfare supporters then:

Type A: You believe that humans have an inherent right not to suffer poverty's consequences, which can include bad food, bad shelter, bad or no healthcare and a lack of dignity. So simply by virtue of having been born a human being, everyone has a human right to some minimum standard of living. Letting anyone live below that standard would be morally wrong and could even be worthy of punishment itself.

But that also means that someone who is completely lazy, and whose poverty really is by choice, would be eligible for the same level of minimum welfare as anyone else.

Type B: You believe that most of the time poverty is forced upon people through accident, or fate, or some other force outside that person's control. So if we consider poverty a punishment of sorts, the punished is almost always innocent, and therefore doesn't deserve to experience the effects of poverty.

But that also implies that this lazy poor person, who deserves being poor, should not be given welfare payments. A Type B welfare supporter would see that person starve or die of preventable diseases and say "well, just work - you've got all the opportunities to do so".

As far as I can see, this is really an "either, or" sort of thing. Either you would let that lazy person suffer (not talking about whether you'd choose to help, simply about whether or not you have an obligation to do so), or you wouldn't.

So, I'm interested to see how NSG's welfare supporters are distributed. For those libertarian socialists and anarcho-commies - please consider yourself welfare supporters for today: the question is not about a welfare state as such, but about suffering poverty and "using" the rest of society to prevent that suffering.

I'm running the risk of including an "other" option - but please use it only if you really don't fit in either category.

What sort of implications does your choice have? If you're a Type B supporter, then the difference between you and an anti-welfare capitalist on that level is really just technical, not on principle, right? If we could do some sort of grand experiment and figure out the degree to which poverty is likely to be caused by individual choices (say with some regression analysis - all very scientific), and we found that this individual part is large, then Type B supporters should be in favour of massively cutting the welfare state to account for this, right?

I say A because doing nothing is an admirable goal in life and in my opinion one of mans ultimate goals

I'd say I started as more a "well welfare saves me money" but I am now more of a "let them eat cake" lots and lots of cake for everyone :)

I say Other.

A program where if one applies for it, they are then trained in a trade skill and relocated to where the job is and given a voucher/credit to be used to obtain housing and minimal living needs for the first six months.

After that they are on their own.

They can re-enter the program as long as they did not leave their current job under dubious conditions, voluntary (they quit for no good reason), or before the six month period is up. (of course extenuating circumstances are always examined.)

I would rather train them to work and support themselves than to just hand out money.

other

i feel that a country runs better when its children are supported, get nutritious food and the chance for a good education and when its adult citizens dont have to worry about starving or freezing to death.

its best when that is done through full employment but sometimes that just isnt possible. at those times and with those people welfare is needed. otherwise the poor will riot in the streets and take what they need to survive. no one wants that.

I say A because doing nothing is an admirable goal in life and in my opinion one of mans ultimate goals
I suggest that if you ever meet someone who is actually doing nothing, they will be rather bored and unhappy.

I'd say I started as more a "well welfare saves me money" but I am now more of a "let them eat cake" lots and lots of cake for everyone :)
Someone will have to pay for it though. I'm not trying to let this dissolve into a general welfare state discussion too quickly, but it seems that your view on the issue is particularly naive.

After that they are on their own.
And you'd then be happy to have them starve if they then quit the job voluntarily to get back on welfare?

other
So you have a purely pragmatic view of the welfare state? If the poor somehow couldn't riot - say they were zoned off and armed guards watched them all the time, you wouldn't give them welfare help?

So you have a purely pragmatic view of the welfare state? If the poor somehow couldn't riot - say they were zoned off and armed guards watched them all the time, you wouldn't give them welfare help?

that would not be a pragmatic solution.

that would not be a pragmatic solution.
Well, that depends on whether or not the poor could realistically contribute anything positive to the nation. I got the impression that your reasoning for a welfare state is to maximise the potential of the nation, which is a very collectivist approach. So in principle you'd be fine for individuals to be starving to death, if the prevention would cost the nation more than the death.

That is indeed a Type C that I forgot. Oh, well...

Well, that depends on whether or not the poor could realistically contribute anything positive to the nation. I got the impression that your reasoning for a welfare state is to maximise the potential of the nation, which is a very collectivist approach. So in principle you'd be fine for individuals to be starving to death, if the prevention would cost the nation more than the death.

That is indeed a Type C that I forgot. Oh, well...

im not concerned with how untenable situations might play out.

its not practical to let people starve to death. its not practical to lock poor people up in case they should decide to take matters into their own hands. it IS practical to make sure they can get a job if they can work, that they are encouraged to do just that, and if they cant that they not be left homeless and starving.

Type O

im not concerned with how untenable situations might play out.
Untenable?

Ethiopia has a limited supply of resources. There are 75 million people there, and already the agricultural capacity there isn't really large enough to feed everyone properly even in a good year. You've got climate change coming and consistently some of the highest birth rates in the world.

Would you really argue that if you were to represent the society of Ethiopia, ie you were in charge, you'd be better off stretching the hell out of the little you have in order to keep everyone alive right now, when instead you might be able to use the resources to, say, improve the infrastructure or otherwise invest in future living standards?

That Type C person would have to argue that it is better to think about the potential of the nation as a whole rather than individuals, and that this is indeed a case where one individual starving to death doesn't hurt the potential of the nation to any significant extent.

Untenable?

Ethiopia has a limited supply of resources. There are 75 million people there, and already the agricultural capacity there isn't really large enough to feed everyone properly even in a good year. You've got climate change coming and consistently some of the highest birth rates in the world.

Would you really argue that if you were to represent the society of Ethiopia, ie you were in charge, you'd be better off stretching the hell out of the little you have in order to keep everyone alive right now, when instead you might be able to use the resources to, say, improve the infrastructure or otherwise invest in future living standards?

That Type C person would have to argue that it is better to think about the potential of the nation as a whole rather than individuals, and that this is indeed a case where one individual starving to death doesn't hurt the potential of the nation to any significant extent.

i dont live in ethiopia and it is far too poor to offer welfare to anyone.

i dont live in ethiopia and it is far too poor to offer welfare to anyone.
I think you're avoiding the question, but I'll leave it at that.

A little bit of A, a little bit of B. I feel that certain things should indeed be the right of all because without them you literally cannot get that job to move on up. Shelter, nutritious food, and health care, for example (Adjusted for local conditions of course). There is also a moral obligation to not let people starve to death in the streets if a country (Like every first world one) has the excess to avoid it. There's a practical reason as well, namely due to prevention of pandemics, social unrest, and the like.

Having said that, I also feel that while the bare necessities need to be covered, more than that should be earned and those who don't want to actually work (Whomever they are, I've yet to really meet these folks whom conservatives and libertarians tell me exist) shouldn't be getting the same as those that do.

The problem lies in actually proving that.

I don't like welfare because it is too easily exploited by the lazy even though the intent of most (not all) welfare systems is to help those that cannot help themselves. I think the best way to improve the lives of people is through technilogical advancement. Spread the technology needed to survive in comfort to everyone everywhere and then they'll have their needs met but not at tremendous expense to myself. Just tossing money at a problem is a bandaid at the best and only encourages waste and continued poor behavior at the worst. Better to open the door to a better life for someone and if at that point they still choose to remain in poverty and expect a handout you can tell them that they had their chance and to go fuck off.

I don't support welfare because I don't think need justifies the theft of property from another person.

If somebody signs up for welfare-type assistance from a private charity, I'm all for it, I'll even throw in on it. I just don't want the government stealing money from me to give to somebody else.

I think you're avoiding the question, but I'll leave it at that.

maybe i am but its really not practical to leave such issues to the kindness of the public. people who support the idea of welfare for the "deserving poor" are not far from deciding that the majority of the poor are not deserving and thus should not get anything. pretty soon you end up in a country not worth living in.

I don't support welfare because I don't think need justifies the theft of property from another person.

If somebody signs up for welfare-type assistance from a private charity, I'm all for it, I'll even throw in on it. I just don't want the government stealing money from me to give to somebody else.

So you dont feel you have a moral obligation to help out those less fortunate than you ?


I hear a lot of people blabbering on against wellfare, using the argument that people abuse the system. Unfortunatly, whatever system we (humanity) implement, there will always be people abusing the system. They might be from vastly different groups depending on which system gets implemented, but abuse will happen. To me, abuse of the system means that there should be better control of who uses the system, not an indication that the system is wrong.

A lot of conservatives claim poverty should be counteracted through private charity, but this is a system which really doesnt work. For those of you who think it does, we (humanity) tried that from the dawn of time till halfway through the 20th century, it let to people literally dying in the streets, not a situation to which i care to return.

So, I'm interested to see how NSG's welfare supporters are distributed. For those libertarian socialists and anarcho-commies - please consider yourself welfare supporters for today


But I consider "welfare" and especially the "welfare state" to be contradictory to any kind of libertarian/socialist prescription.

I don't mean to be difficult, I just honestly cannot see how "socialism" and "welfare" can be compatible. "Welfare" exists because of class distinctions. The purpose of "welfare" is (supposedly) to equalize or redistribute between that class which has and that class which has not. In the "socialist" ideal, class distinctions do not exist, so there is no reason to equalize or redistribute. In the libertarian socialist ideal, voluntary associations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_%28politics%29) would render whatever equalization/redistribution measures are seen as necessary by their members, according to rules and guidelines set by those members collectively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy).

As far as what to do with the "lazy," well, I see socialism as largely an opposition to the "lazy" politically privileged class. This class uses manipulative coercion (delivered via the state) to act as a parasite on the peaceful and hard working. Libertarian socialism is especially all about telling this "lazy" class to take a hike. But I would hold the "lazy" individual person to exactly the same standard. If one is not willing to contribute honest and peaceful labor, take a hike. TANSTAAFL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_Ain%27t_No_Such_Thing_As_A_Free_Lunch) is a truth that transcends economic "-isms."

On the Political Compass, I always answer the statement "Those who are not willing to work should not expect society's support" with "Strongly Agree." The key word, of course, is willing. The moral/ethical argument for welfare/equalization/redistribution is far more strongly in favor of those who may be willing but still unable due to circumstances beyond their control, like disability, age (infants, children, etc.), or even victimization at the hands of the aforementioned "lazy" political elites.

I don't support welfare because I don't think need justifies the theft of property from another person.

If somebody signs up for welfare-type assistance from a private charity, I'm all for it, I'll even throw in on it. I just don't want the government stealing money from me to give to somebody else.

Why are "theft" and "private charity" the only options?

I don't support welfare because I don't think need justifies the theft of property from another person.I think need justifies pretty much anything; that's why it's called need.
Not, mind you, that welfare is theft; it's a democratically chosen institution. Anyone that doesn't want to live in a state with welfare is free to vote against it and/or emigrate. If you want to overstate things, then if welfare is theft, letting people starve for lack of welfare is negligent homicide. And I think the latter is slightly worse than 'theft'.

I say Other.

A program where if one applies for it, they are then trained in a trade skill and relocated to where the job is and given a voucher/credit to be used to obtain housing and minimal living needs for the first six months.

After that they are on their own.

They can re-enter the program as long as they did not leave their current job under dubious conditions, voluntary (they quit for no good reason), or before the six month period is up. (of course extenuating circumstances are always examined.)

I would rather train them to work and support themselves than to just hand out money.

Sounds more like employment insurance than welfare.

My Buddhist instincts say A, my Western upbringing says B, and reality says there are other choices, but it is too early in the morning for me to think of them.

What is the welfare state for the sake of this poll? If anarcho-communists and libertarian socialists are included then I 'm not sure what the boundaries are. Vennedee/Greill could easily be seen as a welfare statist since he believes in the relief of suffering of others through the family, church, fraternal societies, trade societies, and the like. Many libertarians and anarcho-caps would be welfare-statists. Even you, Neu, could be seen as a welfare statist with your plan to go philathropic on Africa's ass. Type D- those who have a preference for relieving the suffering of others.

Is social insurance a part of the welfare state even though its goal is not so much poverty reduction as to stabilize one's standard of living? Are compulsary savings accounts such as Singapore's Provident fund which are basically self funded forms of social insurance and massive subsidies to the financial sector part of the welfare state? Are various investment schemes that lessen the need for welfare in the future forms of welfare? These include neonatal care and nutrion for poor mothers, which saves saves around $1.77 to $3 for every dollar spent in medical care, early intervention education, which increases the rate of HS graduation, Collge graduation, earnings and decreases the amount of social services spent and the rate of incarceration, and education vouchers.

The welfare state, in the UK many of the people on benefits really need them, however you have to have had no job for 6 months (i think), it can be beneficial to the economy as more people have money to spend on clothes or other needs.

Yes it's true there will be abuses of the system, but overall it does help people who need it, also included in the UK system is in order to give the recipient money they must agree to join a training programme to improve whatever "skill" is needed for a job, e.g. via college or other form of schooling.

However it should be noted information about people on benefits is limited to quantitative studies ie national census (filled out by all people in the country who have a home(i think) by law once every 10 years, failure to complete it would result in imprisonment), so although it gives us lots of figures, those figures could be incorrect, as many people on benefits might not be able to complete the form (don't understand english language for example), or too stressed out, or not on the system and homeless.

To be honest i'm only touching on such a huge topic but i do support welfare state, as it offers a chance to increase spending power of the people on benefits, but can't change the public image of it, which tends to be a negative one.

So you dont feel you have a moral obligation to help out those less fortunate than you ?


Can't speak for MJB, but I don't

And you'd then be happy to have them starve if they then quit the job voluntarily to get back on welfare?if they voluntarily quit (for no good reason) then yes, they chose to put themselves into that situation. if there are extenuating circumstances, then it will be reviewed and possibly let back into the program.

Sounds more like employment insurance than welfare. yes, an expansion of Employment Insurance.

I don't support welfare because I don't think need justifies the theft of property from another person.

If somebody signs up for welfare-type assistance from a private charity, I'm all for it, I'll even throw in on it. I just don't want the government stealing money from me to give to somebody else.

+87

I'll give money to a private charity so they can distribute it to those needing, but I don't like the idea of the government forcefully taking money from me to give to someone else. That, in any other form, is called theft ... and is illegal.

I don't expect anyone to care for me under any circumstances because I am responsible for my well-being in whole, not my neighbor or the guy down the street or the state or the whole country. Thus is the price all pay for having freedom, true freedom.

Other:

First of all, welfare would need to be seperate from disability. People who are unable to work are unable to work and should be taken care of.

For those that fell on hard times, there needs to be a safety net. Welfare to pay their bills and help them find a job or retrain them if needed. I don't think a time limit. I mean, some people would be able to find a comprable job quickly, some people might need to be completely retrained. As long as they are working toward that goal, they deserve help.

People that have a job that doesn't provide a minimum standard of living deserve help. Depending on the circumstances, retraining too. If a person is in the best job they can get for the area they live in or their ability, then permanent help would be needed and justified. If they could do better with proper education or retraining, then they should be given that chance.

If someone has an illness set them back short term (or long term), welfare should cover that and help them find a job if they lose theirs and can return to work.

So that leaves the people who are on welfare that don't want to work. Well, they shouldn't be given that option. If they are able to work, that should be a requirement of them recieving welfare. If they can't get a job because they lack skills, they should be required to get education/training (which would be paid for).

If you don't like people being in poverty then why do you support the system that creates them?
Under welfare capitalism a reserve pool of people is kept undereducated, under-skilled, and unemployed, largely along racial and gender lines, to exert pressure on those who are employed and on organized labor.
The employed pay for this knife that capitalism holds to their throats by being taxed to fund welfare programs to maintain the unemployed class and their children.
In this way the working class is divided against itself; those with jobs and those without are separated by resentment and fear.

Not a welfare supporter.

If you don't like people being in poverty then why do you support the system that creates them?
Under welfare capitalism a reserve pool of people is kept undereducated, under-skilled, and unemployed, largely along racial and gender lines, to exert pressure on those who are employed and on organized labor.
The employed pay for this knife that capitalism holds to their throats by being taxed to fund welfare programs to maintain the unemployed class and their children.
In this way the working class is divided against itself; those with jobs and those without are separated by resentment and fear.

in other words...

The Rich have all the money and pay ‘none’ of the taxes
The Middle Class do all of the work and pay ‘all’ of the taxes
The Poor are there to scare the shit out of the middle class, keep them showing up at those jobs.

~George Carlin

:D

I suggest that if you ever meet someone who is actually doing nothing, they will be rather bored and unhappy.

so when you get home from work you sit around unhappy? of course not

people have hobbies and interests many take time off from there lives to help others*;)

Someone will have to pay for it though. I'm not trying to let this dissolve into a general welfare state discussion too quickly, but it seems that your view on the issue is particularly naive.

feeding the poor pays for itself, the 20th century was proof enough of this


*you see maybe, just maybe we don't actually need to concept of work to function but thats for another thread really

I am personally opposed to monetary assistance from the government (excepting cases where the government is not funded through taxation - such as oil rich nations who make enough off of their natural resources that they do not forcibly take money from an individual to give it to another). If you believe in helping others, donate time and money to a charity. Open your own wallet to give to the poor, do not get a hired goon to steal what I make to give it to the poor. I volunteer my time (and occasionally blood as well) for various charitable organizations, but the pertinent word is volunteer.

That being said, there are 2 kinds of assistance I would support.

The first being more along the lines of the original welfare system in the US, which was a work program. If there are not enough jobs for you, the government will give you a job - there is always work to be done, and far better to pay someone out of work a small wage to help them back into the economy than to have permanent employee who could work in the private sector (excepting various highly skilled jobs which need good experience and may be in short supply). Everyone can do something if they are actually willing. If they are not willing, they do not deserve assistance as they choose their circumstance. Clean graffiti, pick up trash, help out in a daycare, clean out gutters - something. It may not be pleasant, but someone has to do it, and what better way to encourage getting back into the regular economy than give them an unpleasant job?

The second form of assistance I support is developmental assistance that is really more of an investment than a welfare transfer. Various education programs, drug rehab, basic preventative medical care, and such that are a net benefit to society (with rigorous evaluation of effectiveness to keep it working properly).

Much like my opposition to the death penalty (because it costs more in legal fees to kill someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life), I believe in looking at the bottom line and evaluating long run costs.

Helping those who CANNOT help themselves, I am all for.

"Helping" those who CAN help themselves, but CHOOSE NOT to do so, I am 100% AGAINST.

I would rather train them to work and support themselves than to just hand out money.

QFT.

I don't like welfare because it is too easily exploited by the lazy even though the intent of most (not all) welfare systems is to help those that cannot help themselves.

QFT. A truly GOOD welfare system seeks to help ONLY those who CANNOT help themselves, and makes every effort to avoid paying able-bodied, able-minded people not to work.

Better to open the door to a better life for someone and if at that point they still choose to remain in poverty and expect a handout you can tell them that they had their chance and to go fuck off.

QFT.

I don't think need justifies the theft of property from another person.

QFT.

I just don't want the government stealing money from me to give to somebody else.

QFT.

The first being more along the lines of the original welfare system in the US, which was a work program. If there are not enough jobs for you, the government will give you a job - there is always work to be done, and far better to pay someone out of work a small wage to help them back into the economy than to have permanent employee who could work in the private sector (excepting various highly skilled jobs which need good experience and may be in short supply). Everyone can do something if they are actually willing. If they are not willing, they do not deserve assistance as they choose their circumstance. Clean graffiti, pick up trash, help out in a daycare, clean out gutters - something. It may not be pleasant, but someone has to do it, and what better way to encourage getting back into the regular economy than give them an unpleasant job?

How do you support this but not transfer payments if the reason you dont like transfer payments is because it stealing people's money to give to others? This still happens with public works. Clarify your position. Why are you ok with theft in this case?

The second form of assistance I support is developmental assistance that is really more of an investment than a welfare transfer. Various education programs, drug rehab, basic preventative medical care, and such that are a net benefit to society (with rigorous evaluation of effectiveness to keep it working properly).

Same as above.

"Helping" those who CAN help themselves, but CHOOSE NOT to do so, I am 100% AGAINST.

who's that?

do you live in a country with 0% unemployment? or do all your brain surgeons go on welfare?

Other.

We should be focusing less on the welfare of the older generations and more on the welfare of the younger generations: education, scientific research, infrastructure improvements, etc.

Tell me how handing out medical aid to the elderly will benefit a nation in several decades? However, if you focus on a society built around education and technology, in my opinion, that nation will excel in all areas of economic development, thus, eventually, helping everyone (including the elderly. I'm including social security in my "welfare state", but not direct government aid such as MediCare or MedicAde)

And if you manage to understand that, good for you, because now I don't even understand what I just wrote.

I say other.

Basically A, but not alllowing people to just be lazy moochers.

We should be focusing less on the welfare of the older generations and more on the welfare of the younger generations: education, scientific research, infrastructure improvements, etc.

when your elderly get to the point where they travel to Canada for medication it may be time to start focusing?

I'd like to know where this myth comes from really, is there any proof behind it?

I tend to view welfare as a "tool" to be used by those who have fallen into poverty... I use tool in the sense to mean something to be used to give them aid to work their way out of a poverty situation... I support the idea of temporary welfare; but oppose any concept of permanent welfare for a person... IOW; if someone does end up on welfare, they should be able to use it to get off welfare within a definitive time period; and if not, they should be cut from the program... It's harsh, but I do not endorse using tax money to support the dead-weight of society.

I say other.

Basically A, but not alllowing people to just be lazy moochers.
That's B.

I fall into both categories, though mostly the first. However...

I really like Germany's system for dealing with the "lazy people." If one is unemployed, they get unemployment benefits, welfare, if you will, for a year. If the person has not found work in one year, they continue receiving benefits until such time as the government finds a job for them. If they don't take the job that is offered to them, they lose their benefits. Seems more than fair to me.

I fall into the other category, reason being that with my experience with people on welfare I almost always found their reasoning for not going out and getting a job ludicrous. I like Germany's system (which I didn't quote, but it is a couple posts above mine), that sounds like a workable system to me.

I fall into both categories, though mostly the first. However...

I really like Germany's system for dealing with the "lazy people." If one is unemployed, they get unemployment benefits, welfare, if you will, for a year. If the person has not found work in one year, they continue receiving benefits until such time as the government finds a job for them. If they don't take the job that is offered to them, they lose their benefits. Seems more than fair to me.

Und zu mir ebenso.
And to me as well

I really can't apply a general principle to this, but I would be much closer to option B. However, I base this on the situation, different social structures demand different types of welfare I believe, so I'll support whatever is best for the economy.

yes, an expansion of Employment Insurance.

But to my understanding, Welfare and Employment Insurance are meant to serve entirely different purposes. Employment Insurance covers those who have a job and lose it until they find another job. Welfare is to provide a bare minimum for those who, for whatever reason, have not been able to provide for themselves. I'm not sure you can introduce an EI scheme and then call it Welfare.

I'm other. It's been proven bad for the economy for wealth to be concentrated into a minority of people (great depression). Redistribution of wealth to other socio-economic classes is healthy for the economy.

I'd have to go with other. I am of the opinion that the community should provide many free services (education at any level, healthcare, infrastructure etc.), but no benefits for unemployment (unless of course they are related to heath problems etc.), but rather progressive taxation and even subsidizing low paying jobs, and of course if all else fails, government generated jobs. As such, a lazy arse with no intention to work would get no money, but anyone with a will to work would find that work and have it pay sufficiently well to be able to maintain himself.

But to my understanding, Welfare and Employment Insurance are meant to serve entirely different purposes. Employment Insurance covers those who have a job and lose it until they find another job. Welfare is to provide a bare minimum for those who, for whatever reason, have not been able to provide for themselves. I'm not sure you can introduce an EI scheme and then call it Welfare.

which is why I said an expansion.

Welfare isn't just a check handed out to those who cannot work, but also to those unable to find employment. EI only works when one is recently laid off from work. When the EI expires, then the person goes on to Welfare.

Basically my idea is a combination of the two. to provide training and jobs for those who cannot find any employment (They will be recieving a stipend while training as well as a relocation voucher) as well as support to get those able to work back on their feet.

My proposed program is flexable enough to not just provide employment training but also employment oppourtunities as people will have their options opening up for them.

How do you support this but not transfer payments if the reason you dont like transfer payments is because it stealing people's money to give to others? This still happens with public works. Clarify your position. Why are you ok with theft in this case?
I did not go into a more detailed description for the sake of brevity.

I do not believe in forced transfer payments - involuntarily taking from one to give to another is simply theft. It does not matter what that money is spent on (be it direct cash transfers or public works). Ideally, if a public work is truly beneficial, people should voluntarily contribute to the project. If nobody wants to actually contribute to the project, it is nothing more than a political boondoggle or corrupt payoff. However, I do recognize some basic facts of reality - namely that the general populace is not libertarian and will demand such theft regardless. If one cannot stop the theft, one should at least seek to make the best of the situation.

Governments can be funded through other means than income taxes - there are numerous services the government can offer, resources to sell, externalities to collect on, etc., that could generate sufficient revenue to conduct the very limited scope of functions that are the purview of efficient government. If you want to keep testing facilities to compare the viscosities of different brands of ketchup, build monuments to the egos of politicians, and pursue corrupt policies, then you need that 20% of GDP, otherwise there is no need to forcibly appropriate such a large part of the economy.

If you take the continued existence of transfer payments as a given, which it will be so long as the irrational masses continue to see government as akin to a protective parent who will provide for them, then I specified that my preference would be for public work programs and developmental assistance rather than direct transfers.

I picked Type A. Humans (in my opinion) have the right to life. which necessarily includes the right to the necessities of life.
I recognize that Type B might be more pragmatic, but tend to oppose it for various reasons, such as the one I listed.

Type A without a doubt.
I wouldn't deny the basic necessities of life to anyone. Why should I? Mere reasons of the self, reasons arguing that I should not have to pay for someone who will not themselves make an effort?
To which I answer: why should I allow someone's world to be taken just so that I can avoid my money being taken?

Welfare should exist to help people improve thier own lot in life by themselves, either by helping them secure jobs or training them to be more marketable. That way, those who are truly lazy and deserving will continue to suffer the consequences while those who truly are trying to improve themselves will have the chance to prosper. Perhaps a program much like the one created by FDR during the great depression.. where people are put to work improving the nation through civic engineering projects (a wide scope of things fits in that, from picking up garbage to paving roads) and in return are provided with what they need.

As someone who has worked for a government agency giving welfare, I think I am commenting from a position of strength.

The big problem with Part B, is it is too hard to work out who is lazy, and who is just "messed up". A clinically depressed person can look just lazy. The guy who has come from an abusive household, left school at 12, and has fried his brain with solvents... There's now way in hell he'll get a job. Does he deserve to starve?

So obviously Part A for me. "It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one. " Voltaire. Similar sentiment. I'd prefer to risk spending some welfare money on a lazy person, than let a poor unfortunate die. Look at how much money is spent on a war. Welfare is less than that.

Society needs to support it's poor as we are all human beings. Most "anyone can get a job" people have never truly suffered, or seen true suffering. Have never been in a spot where they have no roof, and then fall in to a spiral. If you have no shelter, you can't be presentable to get a job. Next, is no money to get food. When you are malnourished, you can't think well enough to get a job. The spiral starts and doesn't stop.

A country like the US can easily feed all the people in our country. Not with luxurious food products and meat of course. But things like rice, vegetables, bread, beans, and milk products? That's the kind of thing that always have a surplus in the US and is something we can afford giving to the poor (rather than just paying farmers to burn them, per say). So how exactly does this work? Rather than pay farmers to burn their crops, just simply give out more food stamps. The government will spend the same amount of money, the crop will be eaten instead of burn, there will not be a price impact in the surplus since you increase the people buying the food to offset the increase in supply, everyone's happy, except the people who wants the poor people dead.

That being said, food stamps shouldn't be currency. I don't want to see bullshit where people get pay in cash, lie to the government in their tax return to get food stamps, then use it to buy shark fins and call it a food product. It should come in a card form that limits what kind of food, and how much of each food, you are getting.

I believe in Food Stamps and Government Shelter/Projects. I however do not believe in them getting a check every month. I will like to see their welfare limited to actual food and shelter, and clothes off from donation places (which actually a lot of people in the US donates old clothes to be distributed). If you want to buy something? Well then you gotta work for it.

I am not sure what is the definition of "lazy", the crazy bum in the street? The veteran of war who gone through shell shock and can't really function anymore in society? The mother of 10 children who isn't working enough hours? The people who can't seem to keep a job? Again, I say feed them, house them, but nothing more.

I believe that if a family have children, there's a need to pay for the children's food/shelter/education. I don't care if the mother is one of those "welfare queens" with 10 kids and no husband. All I know is that the children are innocent and if we don't pay for their food/shelter/education now, they will grow up to be a problem to the country later on. Invest on them now so they can grow up actually getting a job and pay taxes, rather than becoming another drain to the federal budget when they become criminals, drug addict, and/or prostitutes.

I don't believe welfare should be given to illegal immigrants. Despite human right concerns this is simply a catastrophic move in border control. They have enough reasons to come to the US as is, we don't need to give them more.

Overall, I can't mark clear of what people mean by "lazy people who deserves to die for not work". So I will choose A. In a minimalistic kind of way. That and because choice B tend to cost more than choice A, as proven by the welfare reform.

I understand and accept the worthiness of the "pure" hypothetical.

But considering the question from a practical perspective... isn't there a minimum standard of living below which virtually no one would choose to go?

Who wants to die slowly from (say) starvation? If you want to die, there are better ways to go... and if you won't work to save yourself from that fate, it's probable that there are other issues at play, and "won't" looks a whole lot more like "can't."

I'm not saying that current welfare programs merely (or should merely) give people that bare minimum standard of living. But I am saying that there does seem a good case for limited "Type A"-like policies even if you don't accept the moral argument behind them.

....So obviously Part A for me. "It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one. " Voltaire. Similar sentiment. I'd prefer to risk spending some welfare money on a lazy person, than let a poor unfortunate die.

Don't want to quote Fishutopia's entire post, but it reflects what I think, more or less. Like others who have posted, I get upset when I hear about somebody gaming the welfare system, or when I see people who are apparently choosing not to work. But unless you eliminate welfare entirely, you're always going to have a certain degree of "waste, fraud & abuse," as the politicians like to rave about. Poor people applying for private or government aid where I live (Chicago) have to navigate a pretty byzantine set of bureaucracies to prove their worthiness, and some folks still manage to cheat. I don't think "B" is a realistic option because it assumes that some extraordinarily perceptive system will correctly determine who's undeserving and who's deserving. I don't think such a system can be designed.

The other option is to have no welfare at all, in which case a) it's OK to let people starve and freeze even when there's food and shelter available, or b) we assume that voluntary charity will step in to fill the gap. I don't think a) is acceptable on moral grounds, and I don't think b) is feasible, based merely on my own experience. (In my job, I have some opportunity to see what causes rich people choose to support, and they seem to be just as capricious as non-rich people. Sometimes you get stunningly generous gifts, but the overall pattern of giving doesn't add up to some sort of privately-funded replacement for welfare. I can buy that if you reduced the tax burden, the haves might be more generous, but that's no guarantee they'd be more rational.)

But considering the question from a practical perspective... isn't there a minimum standard of living below which virtually no one would choose to go?
Probably, but then you get another problem. The only way to get people to act and therefore sort the able from the unable is to actually have the threat of, say, starvation. So if I was a Type B person, and we implemented Type A policies, undeserving people would get support and never have to reveal the fact that they are undeserving.

So if I was a Type B person, and we implemented Type A policies, undeserving people would get support and never have to reveal the fact that they are undeserving.

So?

Just as I would rather live in a society where some of the guilty go free than in one where the innocent must fear punishment, I would rather live in a society where some undeserving people are guaranteed a minimum standard of living than in one where some of the deserving must fear falling through the cracks.

So?

Just as I would rather live in a society where some of the guilty go free than in one where the innocent must fear punishment, I would rather live in a society where some undeserving people are guaranteed a minimum standard of living than in one where some of the deserving must fear falling through the cracks.

I'm in agreement here.

And once again, I've been beaten to the punch. Sigh.

Just as I would rather live in a society where some of the guilty go free than in one where the innocent must fear punishment, I would rather live in a society where some undeserving people are guaranteed a minimum standard of living than in one where some of the deserving must fear falling through the cracks.
Hence you're not a Type B person.

Though I don't think the analogy is correct. I'm not paying if a guilty person walks free (unless that person reoffends of course, but that's a slightly different story), but I am paying for welfare - so one can be quite consistent agreeing with your view on the legal system and still being a Type B, or even being against welfare.

Hence you're not a Type B person.

Well, I'm not--I think, even on the level of principle, that a basic standard of living should be unconditional, for a variety of reasons.

But my point is that even someone who rejects that, even someone who is a Type B person on the level of principle, has good reason to advocate an unconditional guarantee of basic welfare on the practical level of public policy, because even if we insist that some people are undeserving, we might reasonably conclude that it is better to help both undeserving and deserving than to help none.

Though I don't think the analogy is correct. I'm not paying if a guilty person walks free (unless that person reoffends of course, but that's a slightly different story), but I am paying for welfare - so one can be quite consistent agreeing with your view on the legal system and still being a Type B, or even being against welfare.

I was explaining my reasoning, not making a rationally decisive argument.

I agree that a moral-political framework that attaches more importance to property rights than mine does might consistently reject that approach.

Probably, but then you get another problem. The only way to get people to act and therefore sort the able from the unable is to actually have the threat of, say, starvation. So if I was a Type B person, and we implemented Type A policies, undeserving people would get support and never have to reveal the fact that they are undeserving.

So you rather spend the money on figuring out who's undeserving (Now tell me who's is undeserving enough to die from starvation in your book?), than just pay for minimum living standard that can help much more people, for less? Remember in the US we help only 1/2 the people we did post welfare reform, while paying more for all the extra layers of regulation. The whole "training programs" and "paying corporation to hire someone" have proven to do nothing more than shuffle people in and out of jobs, while draining federal budget. Regulation to impulse this punishment comes at a high price. And I think that's something type B people got to realize.

Again it is very difficult for me to understand the whole "I don't want to pay" analogy when in reality you are paying more to sort them out and punish them, while at the same time victimizing single parents and innocent children in the process. How do you live with the fact that your zealous desire for justice have lead to you paying more out of you tax money, in order for women and children to starve? For people to die from starvation? For them to disappear?

So you rather spend the money on figuring out who's undeserving (Now tell me who's is undeserving enough to die from starvation in your book?), than just pay for minimum living standard that can help much more people, for less?
I'd rather not spend money at all. But if that really isn't an option, I'd go for the way that's cheapest, which is not just the tax bill, but also the costs of distorting the economy, which in all likelihood causes some form of dead weight loss.

The most efficient way of doing that is to completely decentralise welfare, which would either make paying at all voluntary, or would at least give people the choice who to give to. That way people would stick to what they actually have sufficient information about, which in many cases will be individuals they know. And as far as those recipients are concerned, those givers will be in a vastly better position to judge than any welfare department could ever be.

Basically the tax office would require you to spend some minimum amount on charitable causes of a certain type, and individuals as well as charities can then compete for that amount in a new marketplace, with the added bonus that it would allow both Type A and Type B people to give according to their preferences.

I'd rather not spend money at all. But if that really isn't an option, I'd go for the way that's cheapest, which is not just the tax bill, but also the costs of distorting the economy, which in all likelihood causes some form of dead weight loss.

The most efficient way of doing that is to completely decentralise welfare, which would either make paying at all voluntary, or would at least give people the choice who to give to. That way people would stick to what they actually have sufficient information about, which in many cases will be individuals they know. And as far as those recipients are concerned, those givers will be in a vastly better position to judge than any welfare department could ever be.

Basically the tax office would require you to spend some minimum amount on charitable causes of a certain type, and individuals as well as charities can then compete for that amount in a new marketplace, with the added bonus that it would allow both Type A and Type B people to give according to their preferences.

Right so big companies can write off their Christmas bonus as charity without actually paying real charity at all. People are cheating taxes through charity as is and there's no reason why you want to skip regulating the small minority of welfare receiver and replace that with trying the regulate the entire tax paying population from cheating their charity requirements.

That aside, what should be consider as "charitable causes of a certain type"? Cancer walk? (so 0 people benefits because all money donated is use to host the walk event?) PETA? Green Peace? Saving children in other countries? The church? It will be a sad days for those who's actually in need, especially the single mothers and the homeless, because who wants to support "welfare queens" and "lazy bums"?

People are cheating taxes through charity as is and there's no reason why you want to skip regulating the small minority of welfare receiver and replace that with trying the regulate the entire tax paying population from cheating their charity requirements.
The regulation should already be possible with the current infrastructure. First of all you'd basically abolish the current welfare state, and replace it with another department of the IRS which merely checks that enough was paid and notes the cause. More checking really isn't necessary - as opposed to the current behemoth that administers welfare.

That aside, what should be consider as "charitable causes of a certain type"?
Don't ask me, ask the government. I would suggest that there would be lists that say "clean water in Africa is okay, FARC is not" and "a person with less than $20,000 income is okay, someone with more than $100,000 is not" (even easier could be for people to go on a "poor people" list). And according to those lists, what can and can't be counted as charity would be decided.

It will be a sad days for those who's actually in need, especially the single mothers and the homeless, because who wants to support "welfare queens" and "lazy bums"?
I'm afraid 'need' is not a word I can gather much emotional sympathy for. And besides, the idea is not to give to anonymous welfare queens, but to an actual person you may have been introduced to (I'm sure match & meet services could build a niche for themselves) and with whose plight you sympathise. You judge their cause, you give and if they act badly, you may well withdraw your money, if that is your choice. But you probably wouldn't, since it seems that according to the poll there are more Type A people than any other category. They should be happy to give money to lazy bums by their own admission.

The most efficient way of doing that is to completely decentralise welfare, which would either make paying at all voluntary, or would at least give people the choice who to give to. That way people would stick to what they actually have sufficient information about, which in many cases will be individuals they know. And as far as those recipients are concerned, those givers will be in a vastly better position to judge than any welfare department could ever be.
That is an extraordinarily bad idea, since it would encourage fraud, corruption and nepotism on a massive scale. People wouldn't give money to the poor according to need, they would give money to the poor according to "friendliness" or some other such utterly subjective criteria. They would give money first to any poor friends or family members they might have, second to poor people that share their religion, political views, or musical tastes, and third to poor women - or children, for that matter - who agree to have sex with them. (this is not an exaggeration; I am certain the system would generate a black market in which poor people would be forced to prostitute themselves or perform all sorts of other demeaning services in exchange for donations)

First of all you'd basically abolish the current welfare state, and replace it with another department of the IRS which merely checks that enough was paid and notes the cause. More checking really isn't necessary - as opposed to the current behemoth that administers welfare.
[...]
I would suggest that there would be lists that say "clean water in Africa is okay, FARC is not" and "a person with less than $20,000 income is okay, someone with more than $100,000 is not" (even easier could be for people to go on a "poor people" list). And according to those lists, what can and can't be counted as charity would be decided.
I hope you do realize that there would have to be an enormous bureaucracy involved with checking every single Soup Kitchen and Children's Fund to make sure that they are a legitimate charity as opposed to a tax evasion racket. Making a list of acceptable donation recipients is only the beginning. Then you have to check every charity on that list to make sure it spends an appropriate amount of money for charitable purposes, and you'd have to keep checking them at regular intervals.

I'm afraid 'need' is not a word I can gather much emotional sympathy for.
Because you're a sociopath?

And besides, the idea is not to give to anonymous welfare queens, but to an actual person you may have been introduced to (I'm sure match & meet services could build a niche for themselves)
Ah, here we go, that's how the child prostitution business can get a kick start. Just call it a "match and meet service."

You judge their cause, you give and if they act badly, you may well withdraw your money, if that is your choice.
Right, if they don't perform as well as they used to, or if they grow too old for your tastes...

It seems that according to the poll there are more Type A people than any other category.
Unfortunately, since wealth is not distributed in anything resembling an egalitarian fashion, it doesn't matter what most people think, it only matters what the richest people think. And I wager the richest people are not Type A.

The regulation should already be possible with the current infrastructure. First of all you'd basically abolish the current welfare state, and replace it with another department of the IRS which merely checks that enough was paid and notes the cause. More checking really isn't necessary - as opposed to the current behemoth that administers welfare.

Right because it's just as easy figuring out how much you spend on donation as it is them taking out a chunk off your paycheck before you even receive it.

Don't ask me, ask the government. I would suggest that there would be lists that say "clean water in Africa is okay, FARC is not" and "a person with less than $20,000 income is okay, someone with more than $100,000 is not" (even easier could be for people to go on a "poor people" list). And according to those lists, what can and can't be counted as charity would be decided.

The government isn't the one proposing your idea. Actually if you haven't notice, none of those organization I put up really does anything to help anyone in the US. I was simply listing them because they have the most press coverage, and how catastrophic it will be to "let the free market do the advertising for the poor". It's pretty clear that "for profit" organizations is going to win over "non profit" organizations. Naturally meaning most charity money will end up into someone's profit.

I'm afraid 'need' is not a word I can gather much emotional sympathy for. And besides, the idea is not to give to anonymous welfare queens, but to an actual person you may have been introduced to (I'm sure match & meet services could build a niche for themselves) and with whose plight you sympathise. You judge their cause, you give and if they act badly, you may well withdraw your money, if that is your choice. But you probably wouldn't, since it seems that according to the poll there are more Type A people than any other category. They should be happy to give money to lazy bums by their own admission.

So children in poverty can learn how to become a beggar early? How poor parents send out their kids to beg, just like many 3rd world countries, knowing it's the most effective way to bring money into the house? A first person style sympathy plighting system does nothing but training people to become professional beggars. Clearly this is very unhealthy for any society to promote.

Again, I am simply suggesting that your plan does not = type B. Your plan = No welfare. Money is going to be wasted on anything other than actual poor people in the US. And if it does end up in the poor, it promotes "laziness" since the whole begging system become more or less a profession.

Also, NSG population who bother to reply to a "welfare" post shouldn't be use to estimate how an average person will respond in the same situation. Just because there are more type A on this poll doesn't mean that most Americans think the same way.

Unfortunately, since wealth is not distributed in anything resembling an egalitarian fashion, it doesn't matter what most people think, it only matters what the richest people think. And I wager the richest people are not Type A.

I have to disagree with you on that. Most "richest people" would probably be able to dodge the whole charity tax if it's made a requirement anyway. Some still do it when they want to, but most of it will still come crashing down onto the "middle class" to take the responsibility.

But in any case it would have been even worst if it turns into "company A donate x dollars to this" as an advertising campaign for their products.

“I gave bread to the hungry and clothing to the naked. I anointed those who had no cosmetic oil. I gave sandals to the barefooted. I gave a wife to him who had no wife. I took care of the towns of Hefat and Hor-mer in every crisis, when the sky was clouded and the earth parched” – Ankhtifi

Hyperbole, but the general idea sums it up for me in a nutshell. Those in power have an ethical and practical obligation to ensure that the resources of the nation are deployed in such a manner as to ensure that as everyone has at least the basic necessities of life – shelter, food, clothes, healthcare. I would also extend this to include access to education, culture and the arts, since I believe these are a nations strength and ensure that the poor are more likely to feel a bond and loyalty to the nation if they feel included in it’s achievements. For me it is also ethical obligation that everyone should have access to his or her own culture.

However I vote for “Other” on the ground that in practical terms I believe individuals have a responsibility to contribute. For the rich, this is through taxes, for the ruler, by ensuring that these resources are not squandered or abused, and for the jobless by accepting work that is given.

By this I do not mean “offered the opportunity” in the neo-liberal sense of “there is work out there if you want it” because often that is simply not true. It is easy to make such claims when you have a job, and can choose not to see the reality in front of you. I see it more literally. In my idea of a welfare system, resources (accommodation, money to live, etc) would be provided for a certain time (one year) to find work or to pursue full time education, for which he will be fully supported*. If he does neither of these things, a job will be assigned to him, appropiate to his skills. If he refuses to work in this job (which would meet at least a fully liveable minimum wage) then - and only then - all support would be cut.

* The education system in this model is completely free and fully supported. Upon completion of ones education, the student is required to work for the state in his professional capacity for a number of years to return the commitment the nation has made.

I say Other.

A program where if one applies for it, they are then trained in a trade skill and relocated to where the job is and given a voucher/credit to be used to obtain housing and minimal living needs for the first six months.

After that they are on their own.

They can re-enter the program as long as they did not leave their current job under dubious conditions, voluntary (they quit for no good reason), or before the six month period is up. (of course extenuating circumstances are always examined.)

I would rather train them to work and support themselves than to just hand out money.

Smart.

That is an extraordinarily bad idea, since it would encourage fraud, corruption and nepotism on a massive scale. People wouldn't give money to the poor according to need, they would give money to the poor according to "friendliness" or some other such utterly subjective criteria.

To extend your idea, this is basically what goes on right now with beggars. There's a guy who comes around my old neighborhood who has the most heartbreakingly piteous expression I've ever seen. He's really good at it. I imagine he makes more than some of the other panhandlers, except maybe the guy with the festering sore on his leg who stands in the intersection at rush hour. These guys are no more deserving than the average needy person, they're just really, really good at marketing. They've twisted and mangled their bodies, minds, and (presumably) souls into the service of one life-or-death advertising campaign. This isn't the kind of behavior that is amenable to the perpetuation of a free society.

I hope you do realize that there would have to be an enormous bureaucracy involved with checking every single Soup Kitchen and Children's Fund to make sure that they are a legitimate charity as opposed to a tax evasion racket. Making a list of acceptable donation recipients is only the beginning. Then you have to check every charity on that list to make sure it spends an appropriate amount of money for charitable purposes, and you'd have to keep checking them at regular intervals.

At least in the US, there already is, sort of. The IRS spends some of its resources on verifying that charities are actual charities, and the state dept's. of revenue spend some effort on that too. Not nearly enough, and that's with charitable giving being a significant part of tax reduction strategies. There's still a lot of waste, fraud, & abuse, hence the need for sites like charitynavigator.org. Based on the expansion of other large-scale government policies, WF&A would probably increase non-linearly if charitable giving became the major replacement for welfare.

I maintain that, like most moderate positions, there really isn't a "B" solution that's workable. There are solutions (like the current system in the US) that look sort of like "B" solutions, but only if you don't pay very close attention. There are always going to be more or less sophisticated "unworthy freeloaders" in any system, and the flip side of that is that "worthy" people are going to get denied aid because they didn't fill out form 7-G correctly. What most "B" solutions end up being is an expensive salve for the rich man's conscience -- he can sleep peacefully knowing that if a woman out there is starving to death, it's OK because she took drugs when she was a teenager (or whatever criterion of unworthiness you'd like to apply.)

Or one could be less black&white in one's argument (and save time by not reading this post!) and simply apply Maimonides's ladder o' charity (http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/rmbmzdkh.html). Because I still think this is a moral question with economic side-effects rather than the reverse.

People wouldn't give money to the poor according to need, they would give money to the poor according to "friendliness" or some other such utterly subjective criteria.
In many cases, need is an utterly subjective criteria. And besides, there are Type A people to take care of those who aren't very good at providing value to others.

(this is not an exaggeration; I am certain the system would generate a black market in which poor people would be forced to prostitute themselves or perform all sorts of other demeaning services in exchange for donations)
Do you ever stop to think about what it means to implement a system that presumes these sorts of things about people as its basis?

I hope you do realize that there would have to be an enormous bureaucracy involved with checking every single Soup Kitchen and Children's Fund to make sure that they are a legitimate charity as opposed to a tax evasion racket. Making a list of acceptable donation recipients is only the beginning. Then you have to check every charity on that list to make sure it spends an appropriate amount of money for charitable purposes, and you'd have to keep checking them at regular intervals.
I have a feeling the number of charities is smaller than the number of welfare recipients, which ends your argument right there. Especially if you like the idea people are mentioning about welfare that goes beyond cash in the mail.

Because you're a sociopath?
Because the line between need and want is not clear-cut. And because I have never heard a good argument for need creating an obligation on the part of anyone else (don't worry, I'll make a thread to give everyone a shot). And because I still don't think that the state can be a better assessor of need than individuals.

Ah, here we go, that's how the child prostitution business can get a kick start. Just call it a "match and meet service."
So, your argument is that taxpayers are pedophiles?

Unfortunately, since wealth is not distributed in anything resembling an egalitarian fashion, it doesn't matter what most people think, it only matters what the richest people think. And I wager the richest people are not Type A.
I think for a wager to be honest, you'd actually have to bet money or something, and there'd actually have to be a way to prove you right or wrong.

And besides, are you saying that only the richest would give to charity, and everyone else tries to circumvent these rules?

Look, my plan is simple: money will go to causes that are popular, to a certain extent in proportion to their popularity.

You have a problem with it, namely that there are unpopular causes that will not receive money. And my question is: what sort of mystical reason do you have that causes that are obviously not valued by society need to be supported? If no one gives a shit, why is it worth giving a shit about? What do you know that no one else does?

Right because it's just as easy figuring out how much you spend on donation as it is them taking out a chunk off your paycheck before you even receive it.
People have tax returns, it should be listed in there. So basically they can treat it precisely like they're treating income statements at the moment.

So children in poverty can learn how to become a beggar early?
Okay, you don't like the idea of people being beggars. Fine, it carries lots of negative connotations.

The question is whether it is preferrable to the alternative. A beggar might be pretty much useless, but he still provides a value, namely the good feeling you get from giving him money. You sympathise with his cause and wish to support it and, presumably, the more your support furthered the cause, the better you feel about it.

A welfare recipient doesn't even provide that. He only receives money extorted by force of arms. The only value one gets for paying welfare to an anonymous person is to not go to jail - hardly worth celebrating. From a moral standpoint, it's hard for me to see how being a robber is superior to being a beggar.

Again, I am simply suggesting that your plan does not = type B. Your plan = No welfare. Money is going to be wasted on anything other than actual poor people in the US.
Again this utter and complete lack of faith in the goodwill of your fellow man. Funny that.

And if it does end up in the poor, it promotes "laziness" since the whole begging system become more or less a profession.
If someone wants to be a good beggar, they're not gonna do it by being lazy.

Also, NSG population who bother to reply to a "welfare" post shouldn't be use to estimate how an average person will respond in the same situation. Just because there are more type A on this poll doesn't mean that most Americans think the same way.
Certainly not, since many of the posters here aren't from the US. Age groups and so on may also have to do with it.

Of course, the more Type B people there are, the less understandable it becomes that there should be a welfare state that operates according to Type A principles.

But in any case it would have been even worst if it turns into "company A donate x dollars to this" as an advertising campaign for their products.
Surely that would be terrible.

Why, by the way?

Why is democratisation good for everything but money?

This isn't the kind of behavior that is amenable to the perpetuation of a free society.
Well, don't give to them. The really groundbreaking thing is: you don't have to.

Based on the expansion of other large-scale government policies, WF&A would probably increase non-linearly if charitable giving became the major replacement for welfare.
Unfortunately, you can trust government on only one thing: bureaucracy and cushy jobs.

Still, it seems that the alternative, namely to take government out of the loop alltogether, won't be popular, however justified it may be.

What most "B" solutions end up being is an expensive salve for the rich man's conscience -- he can sleep peacefully knowing that if a woman out there is starving to death, it's OK because she took drugs when she was a teenager (or whatever criterion of unworthiness you'd like to apply.)
That only really works if the rich man has been taught all his life that his success means he is now chained to all others. Otherwise he'd just not have to think about her at all.

The question is: if that rich man's marriage falls apart, would you say that the beggar has an obligation to come and help him by being his new buddy?

Because I still think this is a moral question with economic side-effects rather than the reverse.
Well, there is an economic question, and that has an answer (even if we don't necessarily know it). The moral question is whether or not we want to hear it.

You have a problem with it, namely that there are unpopular causes that will not receive money. And my question is: what sort of mystical reason do you have that causes that are obviously not valued by society need to be supported? If no one gives a shit, why is it worth giving a shit about? What do you know that no one else does?


People have tax returns, it should be listed in there. So basically they can treat it precisely like they're treating income statements at the moment.


Okay, you don't like the idea of people being beggars. Fine, it carries lots of negative connotations.

The question is whether it is preferrable to the alternative. A beggar might be pretty much useless, but he still provides a value, namely the good feeling you get from giving him money. You sympathise with his cause and wish to support it and, presumably, the more your support furthered the cause, the better you feel about it.

A welfare recipient doesn't even provide that. He only receives money extorted by force of arms. The only value one gets for paying welfare to an anonymous person is to not go to jail - hardly worth celebrating. From a moral standpoint, it's hard for me to see how being a robber is superior to being a beggar.

If someone wants to be a good beggar, they're not gonna do it by being lazy.


Certainly not, since many of the posters here aren't from the US. Age groups and so on may also have to do with it.

Of course, the more Type B people there are, the less understandable it becomes that there should be a welfare state that operates according to Type A principles.


Surely that would be terrible.

Why, by the way?

Why is democratisation good for everything but money?

Please don't try to assume too much about my moral views on beggars. My suggestion is strictly under economic reasons. Profession beggars doesn't pay taxes, it doesn't contribute the the country's overall productivity. There's no reason to encourage children to go into such a field regardless of how good it makes you feel when paying your mandatory charity tax. You don't want to bring up a new generation of begger/thief/sit home do nothing/etc. You have to invest on the children, even if it's from a welfare queen. You don't want to teach them early in their life that all they need to do is beg, and that charity is mandatory so they will always get something if they beg hard enough.

Now I don't even know what you are advocating anymore. One minute you are talking about the "cheapest way" another minute you tell me that training a whole new generation of beggars are ok for our economy. Really if that doesn't scream out enough to you, how "more beggar + mandatory charity tax = less money in your pocket", I don't know what to say.

As far as robbers vs beggars? You really think robbers are on welfare checks? And how exactly is your system have anything to do with the physical healthy young adult (primary male)? How does making children beggars stop people from being robbers once they outgrow their "sympathy for innocent" scores?

Again, if you can't prove that your way is indeed cheaper, or how it will reduce the amount of people on welfare, then there's no reason for anyone to consider your methods at all.

Oh and while we are at it, let's look at what you said 2 post back vs now.

I'd rather not spend money at all. But if that really isn't an option, I'd go for the way that's cheapest

Again this utter and complete lack of faith in the goodwill of your fellow man. Funny that.

Right because surely you will know best about the "good will of your fellow man".

Profession beggars doesn't pay taxes, it doesn't contribute the the country's overall productivity.
Profession beggars pay taxes as soon as they reach the relevant income levels. Remember, you've got to be on the charity list, which involves an income statement (which in turn can be cross-checked with the tax returns of those who gave to you). And you're off the charity list as soon as that goes above a certain figure.

You have to invest on the children, even if it's from a welfare queen.
If children are what you're after, you should be happy to remove them from the obstacle, namely the poor parent. But, if I can hazard a guess, you're not, so we're not talking about the children, but the welfare recipients.

Really if that doesn't scream out enough to you, how "more beggar + mandatory charity tax = less money in your pocket", I don't know what to say.
The money in my pocket is independent of the number of beggars, just as it is independent of the number of car salesmen. I only give to those I want to give to, and unless I want to I don't give a cent more than the required minimum.

So really the equation is "mandatory charity tax - taxes spent on welfare right now = 0", with the added flexibility and personal choice offered by my model.

As far as robbers vs beggars? You really think robbers are on welfare checks?
No, I think that whether you go and hold a gun to someone's head yourself, or you have the government do it for you, there is a question to be asked.

Again, if you can't prove that your way is indeed cheaper, or how it will reduce the amount of people on welfare, then there's no reason for anyone to consider your methods at all.
Firstly, no one will consider my methods either way. None of you want to consider the merits of it honestly, since this is an internet forum and people who are actually open to stuff are rare.

Secondly, there is no way to prove that it is cheaper, since it hasn't been tried. Indeed, it would be a monumental job to work out the cost to the economy of the current system. Hell, basically there is no cheap way of doing government-mandated welfare, since it is by definition a waste of money - if it wasn't, there was no need to make it compulsory. There are only two ways to decrease costs: reduce the amount spent on welfare (by either cutting the individual receipts or the number of recipients) or by cutting down the bureaucracy. The latter is impossible, since even if it was a realistic thing to expect from a government department, it would involve removing its capacity to allocate money properly. And the former goes against the purpose of the welfare system.

Thirdly, the real question I was putting forward continues to go unanswered. My option involves greater flexibility and the opportunity to judge for yourself whether the recipient deserves the money or not. It takes control of your charity away from a faceless bureaucracy and gives it to you. The only thing approaching a response so far has been the "everybody is evil but me" line.

Right because surely you will know best about the "good will of your fellow man".
You've gotta keep in mind, I was talking about spending money in the context of building a welfare system.

I'm not against giving charity myself, if I have the cash. But even if we accept that giving is a morally good act, then forced giving is not - we're removing the free will from the equation that makes moral choice possible.

My proposal still has a compulsory element in it, hence why I'd prefer no welfare system at all, but at least it offers the choice between different recipients, making some sort of moral choice possible and the gift meaningful.

Profession beggars pay taxes as soon as they reach the relevant income levels. Remember, you've got to be on the charity list, which involves an income statement (which in turn can be cross-checked with the tax returns of those who gave to you). And you're off the charity list as soon as that goes above a certain figure.

So we are taxing beggars now? Or in another world, you pay charity tax so that part of it get taxed for something else? Does that even make sense to you?

If children are what you're after, you should be happy to remove them from the obstacle, namely the poor parent. But, if I can hazard a guess, you're not, so we're not talking about the children, but the welfare recipients.

I am sorry to tell you this, but welfare queens does have children. Why else do you think they are call welfare queens to begin with?

The money in my pocket is independent of the number of beggars, just as it is independent of the number of car salesmen. I only give to those I want to give to, and unless I want to I don't give a cent more than the required minimum.

So really the equation is "mandatory charity tax - taxes spent on welfare right now = 0", with the added flexibility and personal choice offered by my model.

Because somehow the same amount of money is going to be enough to counteract a growing population of beggars. Good point.

No, I think that whether you go and hold a gun to someone's head yourself, or you have the government do it for you, there is a question to be asked.

It still have nothing to do with why we should compare beggars with robbers, or what your system have to do with it in any way.

Firstly, no one will consider my methods either way. None of you want to consider the merits of it honestly, since this is an internet forum and people who are actually open to stuff are rare.

Secondly, there is no way to prove that it is cheaper, since it hasn't been tried. Indeed, it would be a monumental job to work out the cost to the economy of the current system. Hell, basically there is no cheap way of doing government-mandated welfare, since it is by definition a waste of money - if it wasn't, there was no need to make it compulsory. There are only two ways to decrease costs: reduce the amount spent on welfare (by either cutting the individual receipts or the number of recipients) or by cutting down the bureaucracy. The latter is impossible, since even if it was a realistic thing to expect from a government department, it would involve removing its capacity to allocate money properly. And the former goes against the purpose of the welfare system.

Thirdly, the real question I was putting forward continues to go unanswered. My option involves greater flexibility and the opportunity to judge for yourself whether the recipient deserves the money or not. It takes control of your charity away from a faceless bureaucracy and gives it to you. The only thing approaching a response so far has been the "everybody is evil but me" line.

If you feel so strongly that I am throwing moralistic judgments at you, when all I did is ask how an increase in beggar is going to help our economy, there's nothing for me to say.

You've gotta keep in mind, I was talking about spending money in the context of building a welfare system.

I'm not against giving charity myself, if I have the cash. But even if we accept that giving is a morally good act, then forced giving is not - we're removing the free will from the equation that makes moral choice possible.

My proposal still has a compulsory element in it, hence why I'd prefer no welfare system at all, but at least it offers the choice between different recipients, making some sort of moral choice possible and the gift meaningful.

Because when everyone have this "extra money that I can give to people", they will give to charity over buying a new HDTV. And really how often do we call in to one of those "you can save a child for just 10 cents a day". So I am not following your whole idea behind "if I have the cash". Unless you are telling me that you can't afford that.

I don't support welfare because I don't feel anyone should get checks from my government's bank account.

Where's the category for people who think welfare is good for the economy because it gives unemployed people money to spend back into the economy?

EDIT: And no I'm NOT saying I'd fall into this category, but it's just that it's a perspective my economics teacher mentioned once and I figured I'd bring it up.

The terrifying thing about your post, is it is people with your kind of heartless attitude who get in to political places of power.

Privatising Welfare! That will work. :rolleyes: Name me a business, that when given the choice of being cheap and nasty to human beings, chooses the moral choice instead. Let's look at some examples. Outsourcing lots of work to slave labour wage area such as India or China. The continuing legal fight by the company responsible for the Bhopal disaster, to be exempt from all responsibility.

Privitising welfare will be a disaster. Pretty causes, such as sick kids (but not too sick that they may look ugly) that you can put on your advertising brochure and look like a responsible corporate citizen will be fine. Any person with severe mental illness, or other igly causes (unemplyed single mums) wont get helped at all. I can see the TV add now. Here is Jim, We have helped him to get his life on track, as he has Tourette's syndome. [Cut to picture of Jim]
"F&$% you all". Yep. He'll get help. :rolleyes:

I don't know if you actually want to use natural selection to kill all the poor, and are just dressing it up as a nice discussion piece, or you are an ideologue who is niave enough to believe removing all governmental welfare will work.

Privatising Welfare! That will work. :rolleyes: Name me a business, that when given the choice of being cheap and nasty to human beings, chooses the moral choice instead.


http://se-alliance.org/about_members.cfm

http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/Page.aspx?SP=1637

http://www.socialfirms.co.uk/directory/index.php/Section6.html?FilterBy=All

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives


Any person with severe mental illness, or other igly causes (unemplyed single mums) wont get helped at all.


http://www.netherneprint.co.uk/social.html
http://www.pack-it.com/csr.asp
http://travelmattersuk.com/
http://www.thesoapco.co.uk/

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_enterprise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_organization

Social welfare and the business enterprise are not mutually exclusive concepts. The sooner the capitalists and the socialists get this through their exceedingly thick skulls the better.

Social welfare and the business enterprise are not mutually exclusive concepts. The sooner the capitalists and the socialists get this through their exceedingly thick skulls the better.
Capitalists have to return a profit. Otherwise they are not capitalists. Social Welfare, costs money. In the long run it may save money, by things such as reduced crime, reduced medical bills (as epidemics which start with the poor, will get to the rich) and other associated flow on effects. That will not go to the capitalist who is providing the welfare though, unless the government gets involved. As the government needs to get involved anyway, then there is no point bringing in the capitalists, and adding another admin expense.

And because I have never heard a good argument for need creating an obligation on the part of anyone else (don't worry, I'll make a thread to give everyone a shot).Because that's what a right is - an obligation on the part of others. A better question would be if the right to life should be a human right or not.

I lean towards Type A, but this is some serious pigeonhole-ism. Welfare economics can't be easily reduced just to two doctrines. Also, "the consequences of poverty", what the hell?

So we are taxing beggars now? Or in another world, you pay charity tax so that part of it get taxed for something else? Does that even make sense to you?
It does if you read it carefully.

If you're poor, you can get on the charity list, and anything given to you will be deductible from the minimum charity people have to give. Since you're poor, you'd also in all likelihood be exempt from any serious income taxation.

As soon as you're successful enough in attracting donations that your income gets across the poverty threshold, you will be taken off the charity list. Any money that people choose to give you will no longer count towards their compulsory charity, so you can expect to make less money begging.

At the same time your income tax bill will rise.

Basically those two combine to make professional begging a job that will only sustain a low standard of living.

I am sorry to tell you this, but welfare queens does have children. Why else do you think they are call welfare queens to begin with?
And if they don't, they don't deserve welfare?

Look, the children are a red herring. Neither your nor my argument depends to any significant degree on whether or not children are involved.

Because somehow the same amount of money is going to be enough to counteract a growing population of beggars. Good point.
Why would the population grow? Given that there is only some fixed amount to go around, the more beggars there are, the less attractive begging becomes.

It still have nothing to do with why we should compare beggars with robbers, or what your system have to do with it in any way.
I was making a general point. Being on welfare is having someone do a robbery for your benefit, while begging involves two parties trading some form of benefit voluntarily. So I don't see why being on welfare is superior to begging, which was a response to people's apparent indignation at the idea of making the recipients have to prove their worth.

If you feel so strongly that I am throwing moralistic judgments at you, when all I did is ask how an increase in beggar is going to help our economy, there's nothing for me to say.
There is no increase in the number of beggars, remember?

Because when everyone have this "extra money that I can give to people", they will give to charity over buying a new HDTV. And really how often do we call in to one of those "you can save a child for just 10 cents a day". So I am not following your whole idea behind "if I have the cash". Unless you are telling me that you can't afford that.
Well, firstly I'm a uni student and pizza delivery driver, just as a general piece of trivia. So I'm really not the target audience for charity-seekers.

And secondly, I think the degree to which people choose to be charitable depends on whether or not the person sympathises with the recipient's cause. The better I know the person I'd give to, their reasons for needing the money and their plans for using it, the more likely I would be to give. If I see an ad on TV for people in Africa, there simply is no connection. They're anonymous blobs, and for all the talk about "humanity" as one giant collective, we're not telepathic and no one gets as bothered by the death of a thousand Africans as about the death of someone they know.

What my system would require is the establishment of such a personal connection between the giver and the receiver, which can create certain obligations on both parties to do the right thing. It would make giving charity an action one can feel good about, as opposed to the money simply being taken away from me against my will and used for whatever. It would make receiving charity something to live up to, even to be proud of. Every dollar you'd get would come with a message "don't let my trust in you down". You wouldn't get a cheque in the mail, you'd have a sponsor who is financing your way out of your troubles - hell, it's quite possible that once this connection is established, you could even ask for more money than the minimum donation and get it, if you can justify it.

I don't know if you actually want to use natural selection to kill all the poor, and are just dressing it up as a nice discussion piece, or you are an ideologue who is niave enough to believe removing all governmental welfare will work.
My system would be precisely as bad as the people who live in it, and I don't apologise for that.

What it would not do is impose morality on anyone.

Capitalists have to return a profit.


Reasonable people who want reliable and self-sustainable access to social goods must return a profit.


That will not go to the capitalist who is providing the welfare though, unless the government gets involved.


Or unless those producing the social goods are also those consuming them.


As the government needs to get involved anyway


Government is unnecessary and, therefore, irrelevant. You did read the links I provided, yes?

Seriously, when did "social welfare" become "government?"

Do you ever stop to think about what it means to implement a system that presumes these sorts of things about people as its basis?

Ummm... you presume that welfare recepients are poor soley through there own actions, getting what they deserve, and are parisitic leeches living off the productive.

I have a feeling the number of charities is smaller than the number of welfare recipients, which ends your argument right there. Especially if you like the idea people are mentioning about welfare that goes beyond cash in the mail.

What regulations would your system have and what regulations would likely actually be put into place?

People have tax returns, it should be listed in there. So basically they can treat it precisely like they're treating income statements at the moment.

Wouldn't a negative income tax with a prudently low marginal tax rate on benefits be more effecient at putting money at eligible people's hands if the welfare system is going to be monitored by the IRS or equivalent?

The question is whether it is preferrable to the alternative. A beggar might be pretty much useless, but he still provides a value, namely the good feeling you get from giving him money. You sympathise with his cause and wish to support it and, presumably, the more your support furthered the cause, the better you feel about it.

A beggar also imposes the cost of unhappiness of seeing poor people, possibly disheveled and smelly, with the cost of being annoyed when one doesn't want to be bothered.

A welfare recipient doesn't even provide that. He only receives money extorted by force of arms. The only value one gets for paying welfare to an anonymous person is to not go to jail - hardly worth celebrating. From a moral standpoint, it's hard for me to see how being a robber is superior to being a beggar.

If so, welfare recepients in your system are like rapists who ask which orifice you wish to be penetrated, muderers who ask which method you wish to die from, and thieves who steal items worth a lump sum, your choice.

If children are what you're after, you should be happy to remove them from the obstacle, namely the poor parent. But, if I can hazard a guess, you're not, so we're not talking about the children, but the welfare recipients.

Or one could give the poor parent money, which is cheaper then foster parents and much cheaper than putting them in orphanages.

No, I think that whether you go and hold a gun to someone's head yourself, or you have the government do it for you, there is a question to be asked.

Given that property rights are protected by the guns, often by holding them to the thief's head I will assume that you're against them or at least enforcement of them. ;)

Thirdly, the real question I was putting forward continues to go unanswered. My option involves greater flexibility and the opportunity to judge for yourself whether the recipient deserves the money or not. It takes control of your charity away from a faceless bureaucracy and gives it to you. The only thing approaching a response so far has been the "everybody is evil but me" line.

But will it be an effective way to reduce poverty? I think this is the question that your opponents

And if they don't, they don't deserve welfare?

Look, the children are a red herring. Neither your nor my argument depends to any significant degree on whether or not children are involved.

Actually if neither of your arguments deal with children then both of them are deficient. In the US the most of the major poverty programs are aimed at children. The EITC gives very little to single adults or families without kids. TANF and the defunct AFDC were both only for families with children. Medicaid will often cover children but not their parents. In other countries subsidized or free child care and/or universal family allowances are provided by the state. The welfare state gives a lot of resources to those with children so if one doesn't involve them in one's argument one isn't

I was making a general point. Being on welfare is having someone do a robbery for your benefit,

This is untrue if you aren't a libertarian. Most people believe that the state as the authority and legitimacy to fund social programs, many of which go to the middle-class anyway. They may not agree in the structure all existing programs but I don't think anybody does.

O.K. It seems that the OP is in the school of "All tax is theft". At that point, the debate gets pointless. This is such an ideological position, that ignores modern realities, that it is straight out of the Ayn Rand text book.

Modern Societies need some degree of government to do joint projects such as roads, sewer systems, justice, defence. Private enterprise can't do this. You really want private armies and police forces?

Some small examples. Making every road a toll road is not viable. The admin cost would make driving a car non viable. Making a sewer system user pays makes a big problem, as those who can't pay, will just use the world around them as a giant sewer, with the health problems that entails. I could throw more examples, but I think I have made my point.

Welfare saves money in the long run, as it reduces theft. It helps future tax revenue, as a significant amount of people on welfare find employment later. If they didn't get welfare, they wouldn't have the ability to get the job. If money is given to people who have no money, they will spend it on essential items, stimulating the economy.

O.K. It seems that the OP is in the school of "All tax is theft". At that point, the debate gets pointless.
Hmmm, so none of the things I wrote are worth responding to because of the person who wrote them?

Maybe it's you who's being overly ideological.

Hmmm, so none of the things I wrote are worth responding to because of the person who wrote them?

Maybe it's you who's being overly ideological.
Well as far as I am concerned libertarianism in an intellectual excuse not to use social skills and be selfish and arrogant. The individual is meaningless when taken outside the sphere of the community, he cannot reproduce, he cannot really do anything significant without the centralized coordination of other humans helping him in an interdependent way.

The rights of the community express the real essence of the individual. If liberty is the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then socialism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the community and of the individual within the community.

Human community and society from day one was based upon confiscation for the common good, it's that communitarian attitude which bound us together as a union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, and ostracization of those who only exist for the momentary pleasure of individualism and disregard the continuity of man. You should thank God for human solidarity comrade, without which we wouldn't be having this conversation on a common forum in a common language, individualism has accomplished nothing in history; it was people who built our civilization. But if you want to use the realist line that's fine with me, compulsory confiscation is what society is based upon, it's either the men in black or a mob with sticks who steal you're money, take your pick.

What regulations would your system have and what regulations would likely actually be put into place?
I think I covered them all already, didn't I? I don't think any rules regarding "exploitation" or "unfair dismissal" are necessary.

Wouldn't a negative income tax with a prudently low marginal tax rate on benefits be more effecient at putting money at eligible people's hands if the welfare system is going to be monitored by the IRS or equivalent?
A negative income tax is another option, which appeals through simplicity. But that still is a Type A system that doesn't distinguish between deserving and undeserving recipients.

A beggar also imposes the cost of unhappiness of seeing poor people, possibly disheveled and smelly, with the cost of being annoyed when one doesn't want to be bothered.
True. Still better than being forced to give to them though, and these match & meet services could take the unpleasantness out of it.

If so, welfare recepients in your system are like rapists who ask which orifice you wish to be penetrated, muderers who ask which method you wish to die from, and thieves who steal items worth a lump sum, your choice.
Except that they're individuals. I can choose a person or charity I actually want to give money to, so it's more like me having to have sex, but being able to choose my partner - rather unlike a rape.

Or one could give the poor parent money, which is cheaper then foster parents and much cheaper than putting them in orphanages.
Not if the parents then don't spend it on the kid, or if the home fails to teach ambition and confidence one needs to succeed academically if the talent is found lacking.

But will it be an effective way to reduce poverty?
Welfare isn't an effective way to reduce poverty in the long run. It doesn't combat the cause, it just makes the symptom less obvious. Still, in as much as I would want to see some value for my charity, my system might actually be better at fighting poverty than the current one.

This is untrue if you aren't a libertarian.
Robin Hood was still a robber, even if you agreed with him.

The individual is meaningless when taken outside the sphere of the community, he cannot reproduce, he cannot really do anything significant without the centralized coordination of other humans helping him in an interdependent way.
Why centralised?

The rights of the community express the real essence of the individual. If liberty is the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then socialism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the community and of the individual within the community.
That's a lot of words to say nothing much. Things to define: rights of the community, living men, socialism, liberty of the community.

And once you've done that, you can go about showing your line of argument that allows you to make such a statement.

Why centralised?

I assume you're thinking like a government bureaucracy or something? All 'centralized' means is that every member of the community has an interdependent role yet has a guiding coordination and overall solidarity. For an example of what 'local self-management' does to destroy the unity of a people, see Tito's policies and the breakup of Yugoslavia.

I assume you're thinking like a government bureaucracy or something?
No, I'm wondering why my interaction with the people around me must follow any other criteria than those I and the people around me prefer.

I can imagine your answer, which again ties in with your "liberty of the community" idea - so explain what that means.

No, I'm wondering why my interaction with the people around me must follow any other criteria than those I and the people around me prefer.

I can imagine your answer, which again ties in with your "liberty of the community" idea - so explain what that means.

The liberty of the community if found through the self-expression of it's constituent units, each having a special and unique, yet interdependent role. Socialism is the truest form of liberty because it essentially provides 'freedom from need' and the exploitation of those who holds those needs. Libertarianism imho cannot and will not answer the fundamental fact that humanity got where it is today because of cooperation and coordination until centralized directives, not on the ad hoc actions of random individuals.

In many cases, need is an utterly subjective criteria.
Need = what you require in order to stay alive + what you require in order to participate in human society in whatever way is deemed acceptable by the society in question

Do you ever stop to think about what it means to implement a system that presumes these sorts of things about people as its basis?
Yes. It's called realism. The reality is that most people are evil self-interested pricks. The good news is that each of them doesn't want other people to be evil self-interested pricks, so it is possible to create a system that basically relies on evil self-interested pricks forcing each other to act like nice people. That system is called democratic socialism (read the bottom of my next post for a more detailed explanation).

I have a feeling the number of charities is smaller than the number of welfare recipients, which ends your argument right there. Especially if you like the idea people are mentioning about welfare that goes beyond cash in the mail.
Checking an entire organization, such as a charity, is far more difficult and expensive than checking a single welfare recipient. Besides, as a Type A person, I believe welfare recipients should only be checked for income and nothing else.

And because I still don't think that the state can be a better assessor of need than individuals.
The state has considerably more resources at its disposal to assess needs. Besides, the main problem is that individuals have no incentive to accurately assess others' needs, while the state can be given such incentives through proper mechanisms.

So, your argument is that taxpayers are pedophiles?
No, my argument is that most taxpayers - most people - would gladly exploit, oppress, or humiliate others if given the chance. So they must not be given the chance.

And besides, are you saying that only the richest would give to charity, and everyone else tries to circumvent these rules?
I'm saying that the richest, who control vastly more wealth than everyone else, would be responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of charity. Winning the donation of one rich person would be equivalent to winning the donations of thousands of middle class individuals.

You have a problem with it, namely that there are unpopular causes that will not receive money. And my question is: what sort of mystical reason do you have that causes that are obviously not valued by society need to be supported? If no one gives a shit, why is it worth giving a shit about? What do you know that no one else does?
By "causes," you mean people (poor people, to be specific). So what you're really asking is:

"You have a problem with it, namely that there are unpopular people that will not receive money. And my question is: what sort of mystical reason do you have that people that are obviously not valued by society need to be supported? If no one gives a shit about a person, why is he worth giving a shit about? What do you know that no one else does?"

And my answer to that load of sociopathic drivel is this: All people have inherent value. What society thinks about them is irrelevant. All persons are equally valuable, equally important. The value of human life is not up for debate and not a matter of public opinion.

Okay, you don't like the idea of people being beggars. Fine, it carries lots of negative connotations.

The question is whether it is preferrable to the alternative. A beggar might be pretty much useless, but he still provides a value, namely the good feeling you get from giving him money. You sympathise with his cause and wish to support it and, presumably, the more your support furthered the cause, the better you feel about it.
The purpose of welfare and charity is to provide for the needs of the recipients, not to provide any "value" (if good feelings can be considered "value") to the giver.

A welfare recipient doesn't even provide that. He only receives money extorted by force of arms.
Taxation is not money extorted by force of arms. Taxation is the price of your participation in the social contract. If you don't like it, you are free to persuade others to change it, or to leave the social contract.

Again this utter and complete lack of faith in the goodwill of your fellow man.
Anyone who has faith in the goodwill of his fellow man is a naive fool.

Why is democratisation good for everything but money?
Democracy means "one person, one vote." What you are proposing is "one dollar, one vote," which is very different. I think the technical term for it is "plutocracy."

It does if you read it carefully.

If you're poor, you can get on the charity list, and anything given to you will be deductible from the minimum charity people have to give. Since you're poor, you'd also in all likelihood be exempt from any serious income taxation.

As soon as you're successful enough in attracting donations that your income gets across the poverty threshold, you will be taken off the charity list. Any money that people choose to give you will no longer count towards their compulsory charity, so you can expect to make less money begging.

At the same time your income tax bill will rise.

Basically those two combine to make professional begging a job that will only sustain a low standard of living.


And if they don't, they don't deserve welfare?

Look, the children are a red herring. Neither your nor my argument depends to any significant degree on whether or not children are involved.


Why would the population grow? Given that there is only some fixed amount to go around, the more beggars there are, the less attractive begging becomes.


I was making a general point. Being on welfare is having someone do a robbery for your benefit, while begging involves two parties trading some form of benefit voluntarily. So I don't see why being on welfare is superior to begging, which was a response to people's apparent indignation at the idea of making the recipients have to prove their worth.


There is no increase in the number of beggars, remember?


Well, firstly I'm a uni student and pizza delivery driver, just as a general piece of trivia. So I'm really not the target audience for charity-seekers.

And secondly, I think the degree to which people choose to be charitable depends on whether or not the person sympathises with the recipient's cause. The better I know the person I'd give to, their reasons for needing the money and their plans for using it, the more likely I would be to give. If I see an ad on TV for people in Africa, there simply is no connection. They're anonymous blobs, and for all the talk about "humanity" as one giant collective, we're not telepathic and no one gets as bothered by the death of a thousand Africans as about the death of someone they know.

What my system would require is the establishment of such a personal connection between the giver and the receiver, which can create certain obligations on both parties to do the right thing. It would make giving charity an action one can feel good about, as opposed to the money simply being taken away from me against my will and used for whatever. It would make receiving charity something to live up to, even to be proud of. Every dollar you'd get would come with a message "don't let my trust in you down". You wouldn't get a cheque in the mail, you'd have a sponsor who is financing your way out of your troubles - hell, it's quite possible that once this connection is established, you could even ask for more money than the minimum donation and get it, if you can justify it.


My system would be precisely as bad as the people who live in it, and I don't apologise for that.

What it would not do is impose morality on anyone.

So we are backtracking to rather or not your system will increase beggars again? I thought we establish how your system trains and promotes a new generation of professional beggars like a few post back already.

I think this conversation is getting nowhere when we keep having to backtrack to points we already gone over before.

What my system would require is the establishment of such a personal connection between the giver and the receiver, which can create certain obligations on both parties to do the right thing.
Bull. The only thing it would create is an obligation on the part of the receiver to perform services for the giver. In all likelihood, these would be demeaning and humiliating services, such as the prostitution I described earlier. Even when that is not the case, the giver would very likely expect the receiver to adopt his religion, or his political views, or something else like that.

It would make giving charity an action one can feel good about, as opposed to the money simply being taken away from me against my will and used for whatever.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but, as a Christian, I think the best kind of charity is that which is given and received anonymously. I don't like it when people thank me for gifts. I don't deserve the thanks, God does.

My system would be precisely as bad as the people who live in it, and I don't apologise for that.
Seeing how most people are evil, your system would be evil. That is somewhat of a problem, I would say.

What it would not do is impose morality on anyone.
I believe it is absolutely necessary to impose morality on everyone. Or rather, it is absolutely necessary to give people a mechanism by which they can impose morality on themselves. This is due to the fact that most people will not act morally if left to their own devices, but they will vote for moral legislation. Here is why:

Let us begin with the assumption that "moral behaviour" is basically altruism or something akin to altruism - that is to say, it is a kind of behaviour that benefits other people at a cost to yourself (such as giving money to the poor). Let us also assume that most people are self-interested (which is by definition "immoral").

In the absence of moral legislation, moral behaviour is confronted with a free rider problem. Your choice to act morally (or not) has no influence on everyone else's choice to act morally (or not). If other people act morally, you can act immorally and reap the benefits of their morality without paying any cost. If other people act immorally, you likewise have an incentive to act immorally in order to avoid unnecessary losses. It's a basic Prisoner's Dilemma scenario. Everyone ends up acting immorally, giving little or no money to charity, and so on.

On the other hand, if you allow people to choose rules that are to govern everyone in society, the game changes. Now they have to choose between morality and immorality not just for themselves, but for everyone. If they choose morality, they will get the large benefits of moral behaviour on the part of everyone else at the relatively small cost of having to act morally themselves. On the other hand, if they choose immorality, they will get small benefits (being able to act immorally) and large costs (everyone else also being able to act immorally).

In other words, generally, the benefit you gain by forcing everyone else to act morally is greater than the loss you suffer because the law also requires you to act morally. Therefore, most people will support, and vote for, moral legislation.

So, if allowed to choose their own behaviour, people will usually choose to act immorally. But if allowed to choose rules that are to be enforced on everyone, people will usually choose good and moral rules. This is why I favour democracy but I oppose individual rights.

Hmmm, so none of the things I wrote are worth responding to because of the person who wrote them?

Maybe it's you who's being overly ideological.

That is not what i said. "The all tax is theft" is such an ideological position, that people who have such an extreme point of view, with a lack of perception in to the flaws of their extreme worldview, are very challenging to get to see logic. Thus it is what you said, not the fact that Ayn Rand said it also, that I think it will be challenging to have a meaningful debate.

One thought for you. You believe that private property rights should be protected by force of arms. I believe human rights should be protected by force of arms. Why do you rate property as more important than humans?

That is not what i said. "The all tax is theft" is such an ideological position, that people who have such an extreme point of view, with a lack of perception in to the flaws of their extreme worldview, are very challenging to get to see logic. Thus it is what you said, not the fact that Ayn Rand said it also, that I think it will be challenging to have a meaningful debate.

One thought for you. You believe that private property rights should be protected by force of arms. I believe human rights should be protected by force of arms. Why do you rate property as more important than humans?
Because libertarian elitists like NL purport to have the 'freedom' not to pay taxes over the right of his fellow man to have the basic needs of life, they would rather watch everyone starve to death as long as their share price rose.

And Ayn Rand doesn't count, she is barely a run up the ladder from an B-grade erotica writer.

Also NL, why do you flee?

The liberty of the community if found through the self-expression of it's constituent units, each having a special and unique, yet interdependent role.
So it's not independent of the individuals. The question is how an action can be "interdependent" (which in your speech means something along the lines of "approved by the others") but still be self-expression. What if my self-expression happens to rub others the wrong way? If you suppress it, how can you claim to have a free community, if the self-expression within it is limited?

Socialism is the truest form of liberty because it essentially provides 'freedom from need' and the exploitation of those who holds those needs.
Freedom from need is impossible, and you know it. As long as we have material bodies, there are things we must do to sustain them. All you do is change the thing do in order to do so. You, the most aggressive and uncooperative leftie here, should be the clearest about this.

Libertarianism imho cannot and will not answer the fundamental fact that humanity got where it is today because of cooperation and coordination until centralized directives, not on the ad hoc actions of random individuals.
But where those directives not actions of more or less random individuals? Where they not responses to pressures, usually created by the actions of individuals? Was the wheel really invented by directive?

Need = what you require in order to stay alive + what you require in order to participate in human society in whatever way is deemed acceptable by the society in question
Which is rather subjective, isn't it? I can accept the first part, but it all hangs in the second. One could survive on gruel, but you'd want poor people to have more than just that - today. 200 years ago society would have considered gruel quite acceptable.

But that's without even wondering how society can deem things acceptable, if it isn't by the aggregate of decisions made by individuals within it. If you have the majority decide things, then really you're imposing something, and it's not society that decided stuff. I don't think we're even afforded the luxury of a majority vote on these issues, considering the way people call me names if I dare question what "society" has apparently decided.

Besides, as a Type A person, I believe welfare recipients should only be checked for income and nothing else.
Which gets us to the same point I reached with Soheran two days ago: fine for you. My system imposes no constraint upon you to act imorally, it only limits your ability to use other people's money to act according to the fact that you are a Type A person.

The state has considerably more resources at its disposal to assess needs. Besides, the main problem is that individuals have no incentive to accurately assess others' needs, while the state can be given such incentives through proper mechanisms.
Proper mechanisms? Such as?

If a welfare clerks needs to work off 200 files a week and assess needs, you really think that's more accurate than you visiting one or two people and working out their needs in personal conversation, in planning their future and just basically getting to know them?

No, my argument is that most taxpayers - most people - would gladly exploit, oppress, or humiliate others if given the chance. So they must not be given the chance.
At least you're open about it. People are animals, and you are their keeper by virtue of...well, that's not necessarily important. What's important is that you can't allow them to run free. Who knows what might happen.

I'm saying that the richest, who control vastly more wealth than everyone else, would be responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of charity. Winning the donation of one rich person would be equivalent to winning the donations of thousands of middle class individuals.
That is if you insist that compulsory welfare donations should be proportional to income. I don't think that's justified, given the lack of an argument for why rich people are more in debt to the poor than middle class people.

By "causes," you mean people (poor people, to be specific).
People's lives are causes in and for themselves. That's part of my vision, as Schumpeter called it.

And my answer to that load of sociopathic drivel is this: All people have inherent value. What society thinks about them is irrelevant.
Do you realise that you just violated not only utilitarianism, but also one of the major legs the welfare state stands on?

All persons are equally valuable, equally important. The value of human life is not up for debate and not a matter of public opinion.
And the quality of that human life? Is life merely survival?

The purpose of welfare and charity is to provide for the needs of the recipients, not to provide any "value" (if good feelings can be considered "value") to the giver.
Then the purpose of charity is to hurt to the same degree as it is to help.

Taxation is not money extorted by force of arms. Taxation is the price of your participation in the social contract. If you don't like it, you are free to persuade others to change it, or to leave the social contract.
No one ever signed a social contract. No one ever voluntarily agreed to let King Whoknowswhathisnamewas I. of some Sumerian citystate come over with a bunch of goons and take a share of their grain reserves in return for heavenly guidance or whatever he came up with.

Hobbes was seeking for justification after the fact, by making up something that only exists in people's heads.

There is a reason that the first inscription of the concept of liberty was found on a letter denouncing the high taxes imposed by just such a Sumerian king. There is no choice involved in taxation; liberty and choice are essentially the same thing.

Anyone who has faith in the goodwill of his fellow man is a naive fool.
Hmm, weird. I have met many people in my life, and generally I don't assume they're backstabbing jerks out to get me. Maybe I'm being naive, but so far it worked - especially since the alternative is to be a backstabbing jerk.

Democracy means "one person, one vote." What you are proposing is "one dollar, one vote," which is very different. I think the technical term for it is "plutocracy."
Firstly, that's not the technical term for it. Secondly, that's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing that every person has the same obligation to be charitable, and the same degree of choice when fulfilling it. What comes out will reflect the actual wishes of society, not the wishes of some part of it that is then imposed on the rest.

Even when that is not the case, the giver would very likely expect the receiver to adopt his religion, or his political views, or something else like that.
You must be around a lot of arseholes. I suggest you move somewhere else.

Personally, I wouldn't do any of these things. I don't think you would. I don't think anyone else on this forum would, or any person that you actually have met and gotten to know.

So there's really just those people who you never had the displeasure of meeting, which must all be horrible.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but, as a Christian...
Indeed, you can't.

Let us begin with the assumption that "moral behaviour" is basically altruism or something akin to altruism - that is to say, it is a kind of behaviour that benefits other people at a cost to yourself (such as giving money to the poor).
I'll let it slide, because your argument is interesting. But let it be known that I don't consider altruism to be moral behaviour and I don't consider selfless but voluntary action possible. So you have one particular idea about moral behaviour among many, which you seek to find a mechanism to impose.

So, if allowed to choose their own behaviour, people will usually choose to act immorally. But if allowed to choose rules that are to be enforced on everyone, people will usually choose good and moral rules.
You haven't really shown that people will choose moral rules. You have shown, more or less, that people may use democracy to overcome coordination problems associated with imposing a policy they actually want but simply can't implement by themselves (and that doesn't have to be a moral policy, it could be genocide as well - if they tried it they wouldn't succeed and probably get in trouble for murder).

So is any policy approved by a democratic policy moral? Do they all work? Is this really how people make decisions when they go to the polls? What if the majority voted in favour of abolishing welfare?

That is not what i said. "The all tax is theft" is such an ideological position, that people who have such an extreme point of view, with a lack of perception in to the flaws of their extreme worldview, are very challenging to get to see logic.
You see, I do believe that all compulsory taxes are theft, from a purely mechanical point of view. I have property, I earn something in exchange for my time and effort, or my investment.

I don't agree to the government taking, say, half of that away. They do it anyways.

If I try to resist, I will go to jail.

I find it really hard to argue that this is not theft, unless you take the position that this stuff I earn isn't really my property. I can't take that position, because it conflicts with my views of labour, the mind and property.

I don't think that's extreme, particularly since the coordination issues Constantinopolis touched upon may well make this theft justifiable - to the extent that it is not based on imposing a code of morality on people who don't share it. So theft in order to maintain a road I'm using could be justified - it's still theft, but so would be my failing to pay for it at all.

Theft in order to build a church, or maintain the belief that humans have rights to the property created by others, is a different issue.

One thought for you. You believe that private property rights should be protected by force of arms. I believe human rights should be protected by force of arms. Why do you rate property as more important than humans?
I don't, I just disagree with what constitutes a human right, and perhaps how it comes about.

Also NL, why do you flee?
I've got three people to respond to, each with different (and in one case, multiple) lines of argument. I'm only human, so give me time.

I'm going to make some foolish assumptions in pursuit of the magic option 'C' :

1. No one really wants poverty - we recognise it as common problem, for whatever reason.

2. That the majority of poverty is caused either by unemployment, or by exploitation, by businesses.

3. The public sector is not very good at providing a welfare system which provides a basic standard of living - and by that, I mean people's needs to survive. This is either because it is basically inefficient (like most public institutions) or because it too easily abused by those who don't need it/are lazy, or both.

So, here is in alternative : what if a private business were to provide basic (cheap) food, accommodation and education, and then the 'customers' paid it back as a long term loan - 'very' long term, once they were in employment? It could be started using donations and a one-off state grant, and competition should ensure that it is both more efficient and more effective!

This is a rudimentary idea, amendments are welcome.

Neu Leonstein it seems you are using a purely utilitarian basis for some of your arguments with no moral basis, yet with regard to your 'tax is theft' position you justify yourself by saying basically it's just plain wrong. If the people or common good dictates you surrender your property or wealth for it's interests, and they have the power to enforce this - who are you to stop them? As I said before, society has been based on this collectivist principle for centuries, I mean seriously if everyone were libertarians way back when humanity would have died out. Libertarians are simply a byproduct of the common communications methods and solidarity that us people have built, they are simply parasites who want to suck off the labor of the common people. They have absolutely nothing to offer society, and should be first up against the wall after the revolution.

If the people or common good dictates you surrender your property or wealth for it's interests, and they have the power to enforce this - who are you to stop them?
I am me.

You see, I do believe that all compulsory taxes are theft, from a purely mechanical point of view. I have property, I earn something in exchange for my time and effort, or my investment.

I don't agree to the government taking, say, half of that away. They do it anyways.

If I try to resist, I will go to jail.

I find it really hard to argue that this is not theft, unless you take the position that this stuff I earn isn't really my property.
Or you could simply take the position that you have a debt to society - for whatever reason - and taxes represent a payment of that debt.

If you had a debt to someone and refused to pay it, the police would come knocking at your door in exactly the same way they would if you refused to pay your taxes.

I find it really hard to argue that this is not theft, unless you take the position that this stuff I earn isn't really my property.

or, perhaps, you could adopt the reality of it, which is that there ain't no such thing as property 'cept what the rules of society create and enforce, and that property comes with societally imposed taxes. you want some other sort of property. but without socially created and enforced property, all you have is stuff - and really only the stuff you can watch all the time or can carry while running away.

Need = what you require in order to stay alive + what you require in order to participate in human society in whatever way is deemed acceptable by the society in question
Which is rather subjective, isn't it? I can accept the first part, but it all hangs in the second. One could survive on gruel, but you'd want poor people to have more than just that - today. 200 years ago society would have considered gruel quite acceptable.
It is only "subjective" in the sense that it depends on the prevailing public opinion, but I would like to remind you that most aspects of society - including its constitution and laws - depend to some extent on the prevailing public opinion.

Though I would like to point out that the word "subjective" generally refers to things that are viewed differently by different people - like the beauty of a painting. Public opinion is variable, but really objective - like the price of a painting. It can change, yes, but everyone can see where it stands at any given time.

But that's without even wondering how society can deem things acceptable, if it isn't by the aggregate of decisions made by individuals within it. If you have the majority decide things, then really you're imposing something, and it's not society that decided stuff. I don't think we're even afforded the luxury of a majority vote on these issues, considering the way people call me names if I dare question what "society" has apparently decided.
Where the question of a minimum acceptable standard of living is concerned, there is a really easy way to reach an aggregate social decision without having the majority dictate its terms to the minority:

Ask every person what amount of money they believe the poor should receive, then do a simple average of all those amounts, and give that to the poor.

This way, every individual opinion has an effect on the final decision, since it is counted in the average, I favour this form of decision-making for all policy questions where the choice can be represented on a continuous axis. Strict majority rule is only necessary when the choice is between discreet values, such as in yes/no questions.

Proper mechanisms? Such as?
Such as having to stand for re-election and being subject to media scrutiny.

If a welfare clerks needs to work off 200 files a week and assess needs, you really think that's more accurate than you visiting one or two people and working out their needs in personal conversation, in planning their future and just basically getting to know them?
Sure, as long as that clerk has something to lose if he makes a bad assessment and you don't.

At least you're open about it. People are animals, and you are their keeper by virtue of...well, that's not necessarily important. What's important is that you can't allow them to run free. Who knows what might happen.
Well yes, biologically speaking, people really are animals.

But I presume you meant "animals" as in "evil self-interested pricks," which is what I said most people are. That is correct. But I am not their keeper. They are all each other's keepers. That is what democracy is all about. People are very good at making rules that they want everyone else to follow - they're just not good at following those rules themselves. The role of the state is not to tell people what to do, but to make sure they follow their own rules.

That is if you insist that compulsory welfare donations should be proportional to income. I don't think that's justified, given the lack of an argument for why rich people are more in debt to the poor than middle class people.
So you would have them all pay a lump sum - in effect, a regressive tax?

By the way, rich people derive more benefit from society than middle-class people, since they would have more to lose if society did not protect their property. Therefore, rich people also have a greater debt to society.

And my answer to that load of sociopathic drivel is this: All people have inherent value. What society thinks about them is irrelevant.
Do you realise that you just violated not only utilitarianism, but also one of the major legs the welfare state stands on?
Far from being a violation of utilitarianism, that is a premise of utilitarianism. But please, do explain exactly what you were talking about.

And the quality of that human life? Is life merely survival?
No, of course not. Quality of life is measured by a person's happiness, which is what utilitarianism takes into account.

Then the purpose of charity is to hurt to the same degree as it is to help.
Of course, as long as it helps more than it hurts.

No one ever signed a social contract. No one ever voluntarily agreed to let King Whoknowswhathisnamewas I. of some Sumerian citystate come over with a bunch of goons and take a share of their grain reserves in return for heavenly guidance or whatever he came up with.

Hobbes was seeking for justification after the fact, by making up something that only exists in people's heads.

There is a reason that the first inscription of the concept of liberty was found on a letter denouncing the high taxes imposed by just such a Sumerian king. There is no choice involved in taxation; liberty and choice are essentially the same thing.
Perhaps you live in Sumeria, but I don't. Over here in the 21st century, we live in democratic countries where our governments are at least to some extent subject to the will of the people. In most of our countries there is at least one political party that advocates the elimination of taxes. If enough people really wanted to stop paying taxes, they could just vote for those parties. But they don't.

That's the social contract: Not any Hobbesian abstraction, but the very real fact that the people can determine the laws by which they are governed, including the level of taxation. You sign the social contract every time you vote (or choose not to vote).

Hmm, weird. I have met many people in my life, and generally I don't assume they're backstabbing jerks out to get me. Maybe I'm being naive, but so far it worked - especially since the alternative is to be a backstabbing jerk.
Well, most people don't see themselves as backstabbing jerks, but the fact is they would act that way if given the chance (while justifying their own behaviour to themselves by some mental exercise).

There was a famous experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) performed by the psychologist Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University, which involved taking average students and placing them in a fake prison situation (they all knew it was fake) that gave one group of students - the "guards" - power over another group - the "prisoners." And guess what? The guards behaved like brutal backstabbing jerks, even to their former friends.

What comes out will reflect the actual wishes of society, not the wishes of some part of it that is then imposed on the rest.
You ignore the fact that the wishes of society can be more than a simple summation of separate individual wishes, since individuals can have conditional wishes: "I want to do X1 if other people do Y, and X2 if other people don't do Y." Such an individual would always do X2 if considered alone, which would lead you with your simplistic method to conclude that society wants X2.

You must be around a lot of arseholes. I suggest you move somewhere else.

Personally, I wouldn't do any of these things. I don't think you would. I don't think anyone else on this forum would, or any person that you actually have met and gotten to know.
Hmmm, I think I'll start a thread to see how many people here in NSG would give you charity if you were in need. I'm curious.

Again, I point you to the Stanford prison experiment. If people can be sadistic to their friends under the right conditions, I highly doubt that they'd feel particularly generous to mere acquaintances under normal circumstances.

For example, I will be honest with you and tell you that I would never personally give you any charity if you were in need. This is because you are a libertarian (see? I'm making judgements based on the recipient's political views), and I think libertarians are particularly evil bastards who are likely to cause more harm than good to society. My charity is therefore better spent on someone else. Libertarians should be treated like they want others to be treated: let them starve.

Don't get me wrong, I respect you as an obviously intelligent person, but I still think you are evil.

On the other hand, I would voluntarily give money to a government welfare program, even if I knew you might be among that program's recipients, because of rule utilitarian concerns: Government welfare must be supported and must be provided to all who are in need - even undeserving libertarians - because it is better to give money to you than to risk an innocent person starving.

So you would get my money under a government welfare scheme (even a voluntary one) but not under a voluntary charity scheme. Consider the irony.

You haven't really shown that people will choose moral rules. You have shown, more or less, that people may use democracy to overcome coordination problems associated with imposing a policy they actually want but simply can't implement by themselves (and that doesn't have to be a moral policy, it could be genocide as well - if they tried it they wouldn't succeed and probably get in trouble for murder).
I have also shown that if given a choice of social rules, people will tend to choose rules that require members of society to be kind and generous to each other, since the benefits of such rules to the individual are likely to outweigh the costs. Genocide is not such a rule - in fact genocide isn't really a rule at all, it's a one-time policy, which is different. I was talking about permanent rules of behaviour.

So is any policy approved by a democratic policy moral? Do they all work? Is this really how people make decisions when they go to the polls? What if the majority voted in favour of abolishing welfare?
1. No, but most of them tend to be; crucially, people tend to be more moral in their voting than in their personal choices.
2. No, but if they don't work, they can be improved.
3. If asked to vote on a rule, yes.
4. Rather than having people vote on welfare as a yes/no question, it would be better if they each inputed their preferred sum of money that is to be spent on an individual welfare recipient, and those sums were averaged as I described in the beginning of this post.

I think I covered them all already, didn't I? I don't think any rules regarding "exploitation" or "unfair dismissal" are necessary.

I meant regulations dealing with the various charities and what regulations an actual government would likely put into place.

A negative income tax is another option, which appeals through simplicity. But that still is a Type A system that doesn't distinguish between deserving and undeserving recipients.

If one believes that a system shouldn't give to the undeserving why would one trust the views of various individuals?

True. Still better than being forced to give to them though, and these match & meet services could take the unpleasantness out of it.


Possibly, though I could see beggars going after particular people until they relent and give money to said beggar.


Except that they're individuals. I can choose a person or charity I actually want to give money to, so it's more like me having to have sex, but being able to choose my partner - rather unlike a rape.

So you can choose your rapist. Its compulsory and the number of partners is limited. Its like rape but one can choose a goodlooking clean cut rapist instead of big fat Bubba.

Not if the parents then don't spend it on the kid, or if the home fails to teach ambition and confidence one needs to succeed academically if the talent is found lacking.

So foster parents and orphanages will automatically teach kids ambition, confidence and spend money on the kids?

Welfare isn't an effective way to reduce poverty in the long run. It doesn't combat the cause, it just makes the symptom less obvious. Still, in as much as I would want to see some value for my charity, my system might actually be better at fighting poverty than the current one.

Which is why the vast majority of welfare advocates also support other policies to help the poor including training programs, early intervention education, active labor market policies, ect.

Robin Hood was still a robber, even if you agreed with him.

If one agreed with him then generally one believed that what the rich had was not legitimately their property and rightfully belonged to the poor, thus technically he was not a robber.

You see, I do believe that all compulsory taxes are theft, from a purely mechanical point of view. I have property, I earn something in exchange for my time and effort, or my investment.

I don't agree to the government taking, say, half of that away. They do it anyways.

If I try to resist, I will go to jail.

I find it really hard to argue that this is not theft, unless you take the position that this stuff I earn isn't really my property.

But yet, when I come over to your place, kick your head in and steal your stuff (By one perception, I have done work, violence, to get property), you expect the police to protect you and your property rights. How can they do that without tax? You'll respond with "I choose to pay to buy a police with my buddies." Great! Private armies, and warlords, and private police forces. We see how well they work in Africa.

Also, what do you pay with? Currency is an acceptable exchange because it is backed by the government. If you try to do that privately, there will be a lot of defaulting currencies, and people losing their private property, as private individuals do not have the stability of a government.

I've already put examples of critical services, sewerage, garbage collection, etc, that need to be done, but no-one will choose to pay them until something goes wrong.

Try to explain how you provide essential services without government, without just a trite "If people don't pay, it doesn't happen" response.

which is why I said an expansion.

But what you actually appear to be proposing is an expansion of EI Benefits, but a narrowing of Welfare benefits by making them contingent on participation in some kind of re-employment program.


Welfare isn't just a check handed out to those who cannot work, but also to those unable to find employment.

Well typically EI is for people that are temporarily out of work but looking to get back into the workforce, while Welfare should be for people who are out of work long-term and may not be employable, for a variety of reasons (disability, childcare responsibilities, etc.).


EI only works when one is recently laid off from work. When the EI expires, then the person goes on to Welfare.

Not necessarily, because the requirements for eligibility for Welfare are different than the requirements for eligibility for EI. I'm not saying they should be, but that is the way the system currently works. I assume your proposal would change that.


Basically my idea is a combination of the two. to provide training and jobs for those who cannot find any employment (They will be recieving a stipend while training as well as a relocation voucher) as well as support to get those able to work back on their feet.

My proposed program is flexable enough to not just provide employment training but also employment oppourtunities as people will have their options opening up for them.

I think what your proposal fails to recognize is that Welfare is generally for people who may for valid reasons not be reasonably employable, and no amount of job training is going to change that. I'm not sure we should be forcing people with disabilities or single mothers out of the home and into job training programs that are going to be of no assistance to them anyway.

What you are proposing is a sort of Workfare system, which has actually been tried in several jurisdictions (including Ontario) and by and large has been a failure (http://www.td.com/economics/special/welfare05.jsp). Economists have found that the high marginal tax rates and economic disincentives faced by people returning to the workforce after being on Welfare are greater barriers to re-entry than any skills problems.

That is why I am an advocate of the Negative Income Tax/Guaranteed Minimum Income. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_Income_Tax)