NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe in government welfare? Why or why not?

Do you believe in government welfare? Why or why not?

Yes, because it is the duty of the government to provide for its citizens and ensure everyone has a basic minimum standard of life.

what neo said

plus it makes for a much better country to live in.

what neo said

plus it makes for a much better country to live in.

How? By taking from people who produce and giving their earnings to incompetants who have no right to it. That sounds like a problem not a solution for a much better country.

How is welfare defined here? In the US generally only social programs that are looked on poorly are considered Welfare. TANF and foodstamps are welfare. Social Security, unemployment insurance, and medicare aren't.

This is going to turn into one of those "Zomg poor people are lazy and want to steal from rich people!" debates, so Im saying my peice and leaving.


If the governments job is not to provide for those in society that are not well off, than what is the point of a government?

How? By taking from people who produce and giving their earnings to incompetants who have no right to it. That sounds like a problem not a solution for a much better country.

starving people tend to commit more crimes, get sick far more often, riot in the streets, and are generally unpleasant to be around.

If by welfare, you mean shoot them and bury their bodies in the desert and forget them, then javol, I am in favor of the great social plan you call "welfare."

starving people tend to commit more crimes, get sick far more often, riot in the streets, and are generally unpleasant to be around.

yes, therefore you eliminate them. Kaput!

Do you believe in government welfare? Why or why not?

How? By taking from people who produce and giving their earnings to incompetants who have no right to it. That sounds like a problem not a solution for a much better country.

seriously, why is it that every jackass who posts tripe like this has under 50 posts on this forum? Do you people just wait around for the opportunity to say something dickish?

If by welfare, you mean shoot them and bury their bodies in the desert and forget them, then javol, I am in favor of the great social plan you call "welfare."

Ok, youre on the list* too.



*The list is a mental compelation of people whos opinions are not considered valid to me, either due to bigotry, an inability to defend unfounded claims, or just general douchbaggery

seriously, why is it that every jackass who posts tripe like this has under 50 posts on this forum? Do you people just wait around for the opportunity to say something dickish?

Because people who post this kind of stuff are idiots. And idiots dont last long on here.

Ok, youre on the list* too.



*The list is a mental compelation of people whos opinions are not considered valid to me, either due to bigotry, an inability to defend unfounded claims, or just general douchbaggery

List!? There is no list. I demand to see this list!

seriously, why is it that every jackass who posts tripe like this has under 50 posts on this forum? Do you people just wait around for the opportunity to say something dickish?

This is the first time I've actually seen this guy reply to a post. All of his other 13 posts have been Rand-and-run attacks.

If the governments job is not to provide for those in society that are not well off, than what is the point of a government?

I too am going to say this and then leave, because nothing will come of this discussion. There are two fundamentally opposed theories of government, neither of which can really be "proved" correct over another.

In response to the previous poster, I believe that the point of government is to protect its citizens' life, liberty, and property from foreign envasion and domestic criminals. It has no place in trying to regulate the economy, provide for anyone, prevent mutual contracts or relationships, or anything else.

I give to almost any homeless person on the street on my walk to work in the morning, and I participate and donate to my church when it does community outreach programs, so I am in no way under the impression that poor people are "bad" or don't need help. But I feel like virtually any bureaucratic welfare system does more to waste money and trap poor people in the system than it does to help. It should not be the choice of lobbyists, overpaid/corrupt bureaucrats, or my neighbors to determine who receives the help that I give. My congressman does not know more about the poor in my community than I do, and he certainly doesn't know the best way to help. He's just a human being, same as me, and he doesn't face it everyday. The fact that he works in a larger group of rich people doesn't make that group any more qualified. When I gave ten dollars to a homeless man this morning, he got all of it. If that ten dollars had come out of my taxes and made its way to him, he would have gotten MAYBE two.

Therefore, I am libertarian from both a moral AND utilitarian perspective and disagree with the posts so far in this thread. However, I understand that there are some that feel like it is immoral to not have an instution devoted to helping the poor rather than allowing grass roots movements to handle it. No argument I make is going to change their minds, and it's very unlikely that they will change mine no matter how open-minded I like to think I am, so I almost feel like this discussion is pointless. It will probably devolve into name-calling and troll-baiting. Happy arguing!

EDIT: Looks like it already has devolved beyond reasonable debate...

To be honest, libertarianism and compassion are contradictory statements. Anyone who claims to be both is either dillusional or dishonest.

Despite what ever effort you may do, it is, at best, a bandaid on a bullet wound. It is..idealistic to the point of naivity to still want to help the poor and destitute while claiming the "private sector" will take care of it. To believe that people, left to their own devices, will provide an adequate solution borders on nonsensical. If one is to support an economic and political system one needs to recognize the effect that system will have.

libertarianism will result in the poor getting fucked, royally. If you accept that, be a libertarian. If you want to be compassionate, do not.

But don't claim to be a compassionate libertarian, such thing does not exist.

I too am going to say this and then leave, because nothing will come of this discussion. There are two fundamentally opposed theories of government, neither of which can really be "proved" correct over another.


i consider the amazing prosperity of the past 75(ish) years to be proof that the welfare state is a great idea. in more libertarian times, life was much more likely to suck.

No, I do not support the 'flick a penny to the beggar' system, welfare/charity systems give absolutely no dignity to the people receiving the welfare, instead they are reduced to the state of indentured servants and slaves to the 'generosity' of the rich. It's better to understand the welfare system in the context of bourgeois dictatorship, it's simply another way the capitalists will use when they feel vulnerable to sure up their position.

During the 'New Deal' era the bourgeois were under threat from the workers so they conceded to the welfare state, these days the bourgeois are in a much more comfortable position, thus the deregulation of the welfare state and the rise of neoliberalism. To think of 'libertarianism' and 'welfare capitalism' as two different and abstract positions is absurd, because both have/and will exist when the bourgeois need them to exist, they are but outgrowths for bourgeois relations, they are the intellectual outgrowth for the economic reality of bourgeois control. Their is no 'right' or 'wrong' in terms of these different positions, just a relation to material conditions in different timeframes and situations.

Welfare capitalism also has the effect of creating an underclass of unemployed, undereducated people who must survive off this welfare, in this way they exert pressure on organized pressure. Thus the workers will blame 'welfare lazies', 'drugged up layabouts' etc for all their problems, and not blame the bourgeois for leeching off their labor. In this way welfare capitalism creates illusions of damage in organized labor, and is a weapon of distraction from the real problems the bourgeois create.

:D You're funny AP

No, I do not support the 'flick a penny to the beggar' system, welfare/charity systems give absolutely no dignity to the people receiving the welfare, instead they are reduced to the state of indentured servants and slaves to the 'generosity' of the rich. It's better to understand the welfare system in the context of bourgeois dictatorship, it's simply another way the capitalists will use when they feel vulnerable to sure up their position.

During the 'New Deal' era the bourgeois were under threat from the workers so they conceded to the welfare state, these days the bourgeois are in a much more comfortable position, thus the deregulation of the welfare state and the rise of neoliberalism. To think of 'libertarianism' and 'welfare capitalism' as two different and abstract positions is absurd, because both have/and will exist when the bourgeois need them to exist, they are but outgrowths for bourgeois relations, they are the intellectual outgrowth for the economic reality of bourgeois control. Their is no 'right' or 'wrong' in terms of these different positions, just a relation to material conditions in different timeframes and situations.

Welfare capitalism also has the effect of creating an underclass of unemployed, undereducated people who must survive off this welfare, in this way they exert pressure on organized pressure. Thus the workers will blame 'welfare lazies', 'drugged up layabouts' etc for all their problems, and not blame the bourgeois for leeching off their labor. In this way welfare capitalism creates illusions of damage in organized labor, and is a weapon of distraction from the real problems the bourgeois create.


so what DO you support for the chronically poor?

No, I do not support the 'flick a penny to the beggar' system, welfare/charity systems give absolutely no dignity to the people receiving the welfare, instead they are reduced to the state of indentured servants and slaves to the 'generosity' of the rich. It's better to understand the welfare system in the context of bourgeois dictatorship, it's simply another way the capitalists will use when they feel vulnerable to sure up their position.

During the 'New Deal' era the bourgeois were under threat from the workers so they conceded to the welfare state, these days the bourgeois are in a much more comfortable position, thus the deregulation of the welfare state and the rise of neoliberalism. To think of 'libertarianism' and 'welfare capitalism' as two different and abstract positions is absurd, because both have/and will exist when the bourgeois need them to exist, they are but outgrowths for bourgeois relations, they are the intellectual outgrowth for the economic reality of bourgeois control. Their is no 'right' or 'wrong' in terms of these different positions, just a relation to material conditions in different timeframes and situations.

Welfare capitalism also has the effect of creating an underclass of unemployed, undereducated people who must survive off this welfare, in this way they exert pressure on organized pressure. Thus the workers will blame 'welfare lazies', 'drugged up layabouts' etc for all their problems, and not blame the bourgeois for leeching off their labor. In this way welfare capitalism creates illusions of damage in organized labor, and is a weapon of distraction from the real problems the bourgeois create.

so what DO you support for the chronically poor?
Full employment.

No, I do not support the 'flick a penny to the beggar' system, welfare/charity systems give absolutely no dignity to the people receiving the welfare, instead they are reduced to the state of indentured servants and slaves to the 'generosity' of the rich. It's better to understand the welfare system in the context of bourgeois dictatorship, it's simply another way the capitalists will use when they feel vulnerable to sure up their position.

During the 'New Deal' era the bourgeois were under threat from the workers so they conceded to the welfare state, these days the bourgeois are in a much more comfortable position, thus the deregulation of the welfare state and the rise of neoliberalism. To think of 'libertarianism' and 'welfare capitalism' as two different and abstract positions is absurd, because both have/and will exist when the bourgeois need them to exist, they are but outgrowths for bourgeois relations, they are the intellectual outgrowth for the economic reality of bourgeois control. Their is no 'right' or 'wrong' in terms of these different positions, just a relation to material conditions in different timeframes and situations.

Welfare capitalism also has the effect of creating an underclass of unemployed, undereducated people who must survive off this welfare, in this way they exert pressure on organized pressure. Thus the workers will blame 'welfare lazies', 'drugged up layabouts' etc for all their problems, and not blame the bourgeois for leeching off their labor. In this way welfare capitalism creates illusions of damage in organized labor, and is a weapon of distraction from the real problems the bourgeois create.


I like you, youre silly. Please continue.

Full employment.

And if full employment is not an option?

And if full employment is not an option?
Of course it is, everyone is employed under socialism. People call me on 'human rights' but under the UN Convention the most fundamental right is the 'right to work'.

I like you, youre silly. Please continue.

Nice, you can't answer my statement so you just snipe. Well done.

Of course it is, everyone is employed under socialism. People call me on 'human rights' but under the UN Convention the most fundamental right is the 'right to work'.



Nice, you can't answer my statement so you just snipe. Well done.

... more fundamental than the 'right to life'?

Full employment.

what about those who cant or wont work?

Of course it is, everyone is employed under socialism. People call me on 'human rights' but under the UN Convention the most fundamental right is the 'right to work'.


yes but in that case work IS welfare.

if the government supplies a needless job so that you can be employed, it no more dignified than being handed cash every month for doing nothing.

If by welfare, you mean shoot them and bury their bodies in the desert and forget them, then javol, I am in favor of the great social plan you call "welfare."

I believe in anarchy, social anarchy, were every one works together to help eachother. yes this qoute is completely irrelevant, yet I found it amusing as hell so I put it.
:D

Do you believe in government welfare?

Yes, on principle, for everyone who qualifies on a means-tested basis--even the lazy.

Why or why not?

Because as a society we should not make decisions about the worthiness of people's lives... not to the point of denying them the basic material welfare necessary to a dignified existence, anyway.

Of course it is, everyone is employed under socialism. People call me on 'human rights' but under the UN Convention the most fundamental right is the 'right to work'.

Right, lets see some proof of 0% unemployment rates in socialist countries.

I believe in stealing from rich people in order to keep poor people from perishing. If the government didn't do it and I had the means to do it myself, I would.

This is going to turn into one of those "Zomg poor people are lazy and want to steal from rich people!" debates, so Im saying my peice and leaving.


If the governments job is not to provide for those in society that are not well off, than what is the point of a government?

The government has 3 responsibilities. A military to protect from foreign attacks, police to protect against crime, and a court system to protect property rights. It is not their responsibility to provide by using force for those who are not well off. Help should be given voluntarily not at the point of a gun.

Do you believe in government welfare? Why or why not?

No. I believe that strong education and a well-enforced, fair minimum wage are far better (and cheaper) solutions then welfare. Limited welfare for those who absolutely need it.

yes but in that case work IS welfare.

if the government supplies a needless job so that you can be employed, it no more dignified than being handed cash every month for doing nothing.

No it's not, utilizing the productive forces of human labor means they are 'productive', as in contributing to society. It's the greatest myth the Right have concocted that socialism is a drain on society, that it's a triviality to keep the people happy but it doesn't pay for itself. Thus prisons are a drain on human labor, instead of those inside giving back to the labor-value they took from society, they continue to leech off the system, the same goes for welfare.

I believe in stealing from rich people in order to keep poor people from perishing. If the government didn't do it and I had the means to do it myself, I would.

I appreciate you recognizing the act as theft. As far as poor people are concerned they make the decision to perish by their misconception of morality by thinking that man's mind must be subordinated to the will of society.

No it's not, utilizing the productive forces of human labor means they are 'productive', as in contributing to society. It's the greatest myth the Right have concocted that socialism is a drain on society, that it's a triviality to keep the people happy but it doesn't pay for itself. Thus prisons are a drain on human labor, instead of those inside giving back to the labor-value they took from society, they continue to leech off the system, the same goes for welfare.

The whole point is that they're not being productive, as a job with no purpose has been created for them.

The government has 3 responsibilities. A military to protect from foreign attacks, police to protect against crime, and a court system to protect property rights. It is not their responsibility to provide by using force for those who are not well off. Help should be given voluntarily not at the point of a gun.

Last time I checked, when I payed taxes, including the part that went to welfare, a guy wasnt pointing a gun at me.

It is probably a good idea to drain the financial wealth from those able to produce it in order to keep the poor and downtrodden comfortably impoverished.

Help should be given voluntarily not at the point of a gun.
Funny, I don’t remember being threatened with a pistol last time I went to my NHS doctors...

No. I believe that strong education and a well-enforced, fair minimum wage are far better (and cheaper) solutions then welfare. Limited welfare for those who absolutely need it.

thank you for being sensible about this unlike these other butt sexers.
:cool:
:)

Funny, I don’t remember being threatened with a pistol last time I went to my NHS doctors...

As the doctors are giving you free healthcare, shouldn't it be them who end up being threatened?

thank you for being sensible about this unlike these other butt sexers.
:cool:
:)

This had better be sarcasm.

Last time I checked, when I payed taxes, including the part that went to welfare, a guy wasnt pointing a gun at me.

If I decide to not pay taxes I will be arrested. The police have guns.

Last time I checked, when I payed taxes, including the part that went to welfare, a guy wasnt pointing a gun at me.

Pssh, it was an invisible gun, man.

No it's not, utilizing the productive forces of human labor means they are 'productive', as in contributing to society. It's the greatest myth the Right have concocted that socialism is a drain on society, that it's a triviality to keep the people happy but it doesn't pay for itself. Thus prisons are a drain on human labor, instead of those inside giving back to the labor-value they took from society, they continue to leech off the system, the same goes for welfare.

makework jobs are not productive. they are destructive because they downgrade the value of the real jobs.

Pooh. A government has the duty to protect the citizens that form it from force and fraud. Anything more is vote buying by the elected representatives.

How is protecting citizens from force and fraud not vote vote buying?

Yes, because it is the duty of the government to provide for its citizens and ensure everyone has a basic minimum standard of life.
Pooh. A government has the duty to protect the citizens that form it from force and fraud. Anything more is vote buying by the elected representatives.

makework jobs are not productive. they are destructive because they downgrade the value of the real jobs.

Well hard labor maybe uncomfortable for some people, but if you committed a crime, you have to give back what you took from society, not just leech off the labor of others and make the situation worst by draining resources, the bourgeois systems of prison and welfare both serve this purpose I previously mentioned (read that post) regarding exerting damage on organized labor, thus dividing the people against each other.

I believe in anarchy, social anarchy, were every one works together to help eachother. yes this qoute is completely irrelevant, yet I found it amusing as hell so I put it.
:D

An Amusing Anarchist! Awesome!

thank you for being sensible about this unlike these other butt sexers.
:cool:
:)

Well, I like my idea as a sort of halfway point between libertarianism and the social welfare state. By spending money on education and making sure wages are fair, we throw the onerus of improving one's lot in life on the poor man. With fair wages we ensure that he is neither in a great deal of suffering or that he is without financial means to improve his lot in life, and with education, we ensure that he has the means to better himself. We give all the tools for prosperity to the poor man, and, if he fails to make it, then it's his fault. That way, if I see a poor man, I can be sure he actually is a lazy bastard.

It works in theory, at least...

Well hard labor maybe uncomfortable for some people, but if you committed a crime, you have to give back what you took from society, not just leech off the labor of others and make the situation worst by draining resources, the bourgeois systems of prison and welfare both serve this purpose I previously mentioned (read that post) regarding exerting damage on organized labor, thus dividing the people against each other.

what are you talking about?

i mean JOBS not forced labor.

the only way a country has no unemployment is by creating needless jobs for people to do. it was common in the USSR and communist china before the reforms to have 2 people doing the job that should be done by ONE person.

its a form of welfare.

How? By taking from people who produce and giving their earnings to incompetants who have no right to it. That sounds like a problem not a solution for a much better country.

Well, yes, that's true. But you were asking about welfare, not that imaginary scenario.

There is an interesting Paul Krugman article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html) that talks about how some of poverty is neurological. Quick, read it before the Times takes it off the Web!

I appreciate you recognizing the act as theft. As far as poor people are concerned they make the decision to perish by their misconception of morality by thinking that man's mind must be subordinated to the will of society.Yes, because as we all know, EVERYBODY WHO'S POOR DECIDES TO BE POOR. Every child, every single mom, every person with a disability, every person without an education, every senior citizen. They all decided to go into poverty of their own volition, and we should make damn well sure they reap its consequences, even if it means paying for the external costs to society (crime, dwindling consumer middle class, insufficiently educated labor force).

If I decide to not pay taxes I will be arrested. The police have guns.

That's also true of taxes that go toward police and military though. What if I don't want a police force or a military?

No, it is the duty of the citizen to earn his own keep, and to provide for his family.

But what if you're working as hard as you can, just to put food on your family?

No, it is the duty of the citizen to earn his own keep, and to provide for his family.

But what about the total fuckups who can't do either of those?

But what if you're working as hard as you can, just to put food on your family?

Put food on your family? Like those hats made out of cheese?

Do you believe in government welfare? Why or why not?

No, it is the duty of the citizen to earn his own keep, and to provide for his family.

Put food on your family? Like those hats made out of cheese?

I don't know, ask President Bush. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-foodonfamily.htm)

I believe in total welfare. Never heard of total welfare you say, well all you need to do is give up all your money, and it will go to helping ducklings and underprivileged puppies. Now doesn't that sound nice.

I support Government sponsored welfare btw.

No, it is the duty of the citizen to earn his own keep, and to provide for his family.
In a world of limited resources and interdependence, your view of humanity is fundamentally sectarian.

I don't know, ask President Bush. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-foodonfamily.htm)

Man, I'm so glad I voted for Bush. He is the funniest president we have had since Chester A. Aurthur.

I reject the notion that one can live completely independently of the society of which they are apart. As such I reject the notion that one can hoard all of their resources and not contribute anything back.

A society that works together, lifting everyone up is a healthier overally society. So if people are in it together, infrastructure will better, there will be less crime, people will be better educated and trained and more people will participate in the economy. This system benfits everyone, not just the poor. I'm sorry those of you who feel something along the lines of "I worked real hard for what I has and I ain't giving it to nobody." This wonderfully selfish view is not based in reality, but simply greed.

Man, I'm so glad I voted for Bush. He is the funniest president we have had since Chester A. Aurthur.

I agree. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-poorkillers.htm)(well, except that I didn't vote for him) Definitely funniest.

This is on-topic too.

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill." —President George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 19, 2003

In a world of limited resources and interdependence, your view of humanity is fundamentally sectarian.

Not to mention fundamentally immoral and misanthropic.

I reject the notion that one can live completely independently of the society of which they are apart. As such I reject the notion that one can hoard all of their resources and not contribute anything back.

A society that works together, lifting everyone up is a healthier overally society. So if people are in it together, infrastructure will better, there will be less crime, people will be better educated and trained and more people will participate in the economy. This system benfits everyone, not just the poor. I'm sorry those of you who feel something along the lines of "I worked real hard for what I has and I ain't giving it to nobody." This wonderfully selfish view is not based in reality, but simply greed.

nicely put.

i agree

A society that works together, lifting everyone up is a healthier overally society. So if people are in it together, infrastructure will better, there will be less crime, people will be better educated and trained and more people will participate in the economy. This system benfits everyone, not just the poor. I'm sorry those of you who feel something along the lines of "I worked real hard for what I has and I ain't giving it to nobody." This wonderfully selfish view is not based in reality, but simply greed.
I think decades of economic theory have been marred by the belief that because "greed is good" is not at first apparent, it is true. Actually, this is just one of those instances where what is apparent and what is true are one and the same.

I'm with Andaras on this one. Welfare and most other forms of state-controlled social assistance is not only degrading to the poor, it has proven to be ineffective at lifting them out of poverty. The only thing it manages to succeed at is creating perpetual dependence on the government teat. Education must be raised, but minimum wage must be abolished. It amounts to legal recognition of wage-labour (theft), which plays a role in the perpetuation of poverty today; it's the people who have to choose between paying rent, buying groceries, or filling their gas tanks to get to work who are at risk of slipping into poverty and endless reliance on welfare.

We need a fundamental restructuring of the way workers are compensated for their labour - and those that don't labour, are not "compensated" for nothing. If they are paid the full product of their labour, which is theirs by natural right, either the workers will earn more, essential products will become cheaper, or both, as passive earners (owners, shareholders) will no longer siphon mass amounts of wealth from them.

We need to get rid of rents, mortgages and land ownership. They are passive sources of income, earned through zero work. If these are eliminated, more people would have access to homes, or the ability to build homes.

For the people already in poverty who are willing and able to work, mutual banking and/or micro-credit loans (minus the ridiculous interest rates used today) give them the resources they need to get back on their feet. Affordable education couldn't hurt either. As for the unwilling and unable, the general reduction of the impoverished population would make charity an actually viable solution.

I agree. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-poorkillers.htm)(well, except that I didn't vote for him) Definitely funniest.

This is on-topic too.

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill." —President George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 19, 2003

Such insight, such beauty. Its like he understands the reality of the world that we live in. It seems few other politicians posses his subtle grace and intellectualism.

BTW I actually didn't vote for him either. I was 17 years old in the last election.

Actually selfishness and parasitism lies at the heart of the 'libertarian' arguments, you want to drive on public roads yet not pay your part for them etc etc...

Actually selfishness and parasitism lies at the heart of the 'libertarian' arguments, you want to drive on public roads yet not pay your part for them etc etc...

Whats wrong with being selfish? I mean, nobody works just to help the economy.

I reject the notion that one can live completely independently of the society of which they are apart. As such I reject the notion that one can hoard all of their resources and not contribute anything back.

How do you think they got the resources in the first place? The resources were compensation for what they already contributed, and they have every right to hoard them.

How do you think they got the resources in the first place? The resources were compensation for what they already contributed, and they have every right to hoard them.

Indeed, people like Paris Hilton contribute much to society.


We had such a shortage of sex tapes before she made "One Night in Paris".

Indeed, people like Paris Hilton contribute much to society.


We had such a shortage of sex tapes before she made "One Night in Paris".

Oh come on, thats a rare case. People who have a lot of money, in general, deserve it. Take Bill Gates for instance. He started the personal computer revolution. Hes the richest man on earth and he deserves every penny of it. Unless you bought a Mac, you contributed to his wealth willingly. And now you want some of your money back? You want the government to take money away from bill gate and build a road for you? How selfish, you make me sick.

Such insight, such beauty. Its like he understands the reality of the world that we live in. It seems few other politicians posses his subtle grace and intellectualism.

It brings a tear to my eye.
BTW I actually didn't vote for him either. I was 17 years old in the last election.
Old man.:p

Old man.:p

Fine, you wanna make me feel old? then I'm not gonna buy beer for you anymore. :p

No, it is the duty of the citizen to earn his own keep, and to provide for his family.

I agree.

In a world of limited resources and interdependence, your view of humanity is fundamentally sectarian.

So?

So?
So you are incorrect.

Fine, you wanna make me feel old? then I'm not gonna buy beer for you anymore. :p

*shrivels up and dies, but not of liver failure, yay*

If I decide to not pay taxes I will be arrested. The police have guns.

Not so in Oz. Here, a person can be arrested and charged for making money by deception but, otherwise, Australians are not gaoled for tax evasion. On the other hand, the ATO just gets a court order and seizes their assets, be it car, house, shares, bank accounts, whatever. Al Capone would not have gone to gaol in Oz, but he would have been bankrupted.

So you are incorrect.

Haha.

Nope.

There's nothing wrong with only concerning yourself about family, and close friends. There are simply too many people to care about them all, so I narrow my focus down to those who matter most: friends and family. Go fail with your idealism in wanting to bring paradise on earth for everyone. I'll make sure my family has what it needs to be happy.

Pooh. A government has the duty to protect the citizens that form it from force and fraud. Anything more is vote buying by the elected representatives.

So, let me see if I understand you.

A government that matches your beliefs is right and proper.

A government that matches someone else's beliefs is vote buying.

Have I got it?

Haha.

Nope.

There's nothing wrong with only concerning yourself about family, and close friends. There are simply too many people to care about them all, so I narrow my focus down to those who matter most: friends and family. Go fail with your idealism in wanting to bring paradise on earth for everyone. I'll make sure my family has what it needs to be happy.
Actually yours is the impractical idealism, because your 'every house is a fortress' position ultimately fails to grasp the fact that humanity is innately interdependent, both in resources and in the simple way that one person or small group cannot do everything at the same time. In every way you are dependent on the outside world, on society in general, to ensure the subsistence of your group (family or whatever). The idea of the individual man providing for himself, or the independent family, is a myth.

*shrivels up and dies, but not of liver failure, yay*

Sweet zombie Jesus! what have I done!?:(

I reject the notion that one can live completely independently of the society of which they are apart. As such I reject the notion that one can hoard all of their resources and not contribute anything back.

A society that works together, lifting everyone up is a healthier overally society. So if people are in it together, infrastructure will better, there will be less crime, people will be better educated and trained and more people will participate in the economy. This system benfits everyone, not just the poor. I'm sorry those of you who feel something along the lines of "I worked real hard for what I has and I ain't giving it to nobody." This wonderfully selfish view is not based in reality, but simply greed.

Nicely put.

As a child of welfare I can say we have given back for more then we were given. Mom went from a single mother with two children with zero skills to an RN with a career that involved over 40000 births.

I am a WAN engineer for a multinational and my sister designs costumes on Broadway.

Could we have done this on our own? Mom says probably not. Her choice was to leech of society and do night school or work mulitple jobs and hope her children could do more.

Oh and for you who think "IMEMINE" and or welfare makes you lazy and it's a waste.

She eventually paid back what she received.

Actually yours is the impractical idealism, because your 'every house is a fortress' position ultimately fails to grasp the fact that humanity is innately interdependent, both in resources and in the simple way that one person or small group cannot do everything at the same time. In every way you are dependent on the outside world, on society in general, to ensure the subsistence of your group (family or whatever). The idea of the individual man providing for himself, or the independent family, is a myth.

I was thinking small communities of families, but individuals can to, though not as often: ever heard of hermits?

I was thinking small communities of families, but individuals can to, though not as often: ever heard of hermits?

Yes but they are backwards, literally, their basically trying to go back to some form of self-sufficiency in the past. My position is, if your system cannot contemplate the march of modern history, it's irrelevant.

This sentence hurts my head. You should have learned this when you were 5.

Ayn Rand is dangerous to your mental capacity. Do not read.

In short, 'I hate people, I am a libertarian because I can't use social skills!!!111'.

Whats wrong with being selfish?

This sentence hurts my head. You should have learned this when you were 5.

Yes but they are backwards, literally, their basically trying to go back to some form of self-sufficiency in the past. My position is, if your system cannot contemplate the march of modern history, it's irrelevant.

So you admit Marxism-Leninism is irrelevant?

Do you believe in government welfare? Why or why not?

I believe in it for those under age twenty-one. After that, the person should get a job. If they absolutely cannot find one (unlikely), than the government should hire them to do some kind of labor, even if it is just grinding rocks. I do not think that the government should ever hand-out freebies, as it encourages loafing.

I believe in it for those under age twenty-one. After that, the person should get a job.
And other forms of welfare?

Provision of healthcare, education (either at primary, secondary or higher levels), etc.?

And other forms of welfare?

Provision of healthcare, education (either at primary, secondary or higher levels), etc.?

21.

This sentence hurts my head. You should have learned this when you were 5.
I don't see anything wrong with being selfish. There's nothing wrong with keeping what you earn and not giving people what they haven't earned.

21.
What?

What?

Twenty-one years as a limit of age for all the welfare types you named.

Twenty-one years as a limit of age for all the welfare types you named.
Oh, I see.

I don't see anything wrong with being selfish. There's nothing wrong with keeping what you earn and not giving people what they haven't earned.

Aside from not being a good person, youre right, nothing wrong with that.


The notion that people who dont work and are on welfare do so because they are lazy, and that welfare alone provides enough for someone to live even semicomfortablly amusses me so.

Aside from not being a good person, youre right, nothing wrong with that.


The notion that people who dont work and are on welfare do so because they are lazy, and that welfare alone provides enough for someone to live even semicomfortablly amusses me so.

Define "good person".

I don't see anything wrong with being selfish. There's nothing wrong with keeping what you earn and not giving people what they haven't earned.
And then they catch the flu and give it to you, then I laugh.

There's nothing wrong with only concerning yourself about family, and close friends. There are simply too many people to care about them all, so I narrow my focus down to those who matter most: friends and family.
Too many to care about? Let me give you a few figures.

There is a ratio of 7:100,000 of human beings in the world to the number of cells in your body.

If we assume you have 70 family members and close friends then about 1 in 100 million people is important to you.

If we assume the same relative importance to the cells in your body, that leaves you with about 1 million useful body cells. That's about a 23000th of your brain.

Obviously, the logical progression now is to say that you're only going to bother feeding for a hundred millionth of yourself, right? After all, how can you possibly hope to deal with that huge number of cells? Best to focus on that 23000th of the brain you know is worth the effort.

Too many to care about? Let me give you a few figures.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Trollgaard's mistake was in thinking of humans as a number. I was pointing out how silly it is to do that by analogy with the human body.

Do you believe in government welfare? Why or why not?

Yes. Because I'm on it.

Trollgaard's mistake was in thinking of humans as a number. I was pointing out how silly it is to do that by analogy with the human body.

So yes?

Yes. Because I'm on it.

Get to work you slacker! ;)

So yes?
Kinda. It was obtuse, but I was hoping that in its obtuseness, the point was actually quite clear. Maybe I overdid it. Or underdid it. Whatever.

Kinda. It was obtuse, but I was hoping that in its obtuseness, the point was actually quite clear. Maybe I overdid it. Or underdid it. Whatever.

Nah, you made your point, I was just being difficult because I actually agree with Trollgaard's statement.

Was on it, didn't like it, but (in the broad sense) it bought me through university. Two masters later, I'm ready to pay taxes - grudgingly - to get someone else edumacated and paying taxes... and... Well, so it goes in a welfarestate...

Do you believe in government welfare?

No.

I reject the notion that one can live completely independently of the society of which they are apart. As such I reject the notion that one can hoard all of their resources and not contribute anything back.

A society that works together, lifting everyone up is a healthier overally society. So if people are in it together, infrastructure will better, there will be less crime, people will be better educated and trained and more people will participate in the economy. This system benfits everyone, not just the poor. I'm sorry those of you who feel something along the lines of "I worked real hard for what I has and I ain't giving it to nobody." This wonderfully selfish view is not based in reality, but simply greed.

I must say, that was pretty fucking brilliant, in all seriousness. In my mind, the debate would have ended right after this post. That it didn't is a testament to the selfish, deluded people that plague our world.

So you admit Marxism-Leninism is irrelevant?

lol

I like the Welfare system, just because I have idiots for parents and still get to eat.
But, eh.
It might just be easier to not let stupid people procreate.

there should be some sort of welfare system, but it should be better enforced, and reconfigured to streamline the bureaucracy.

I too am going to say this and then leave, because nothing will come of this discussion. There are two fundamentally opposed theories of government, neither of which can really be "proved" correct over another.

In response to the previous poster, I believe that the point of government is to protect its citizens' life, liberty, and property from foreign envasion and domestic criminals. It has no place in trying to regulate the economy, provide for anyone, prevent mutual contracts or relationships, or anything else.

I give to almost any homeless person on the street on my walk to work in the morning, and I participate and donate to my church when it does community outreach programs, so I am in no way under the impression that poor people are "bad" or don't need help. But I feel like virtually any bureaucratic welfare system does more to waste money and trap poor people in the system than it does to help. It should not be the choice of lobbyists, overpaid/corrupt bureaucrats, or my neighbors to determine who receives the help that I give. My congressman does not know more about the poor in my community than I do, and he certainly doesn't know the best way to help. He's just a human being, same as me, and he doesn't face it everyday. The fact that he works in a larger group of rich people doesn't make that group any more qualified. When I gave ten dollars to a homeless man this morning, he got all of it. If that ten dollars had come out of my taxes and made its way to him, he would have gotten MAYBE two.

Therefore, I am libertarian from both a moral AND utilitarian perspective and disagree with the posts so far in this thread. However, I understand that there are some that feel like it is immoral to not have an instution devoted to helping the poor rather than allowing grass roots movements to handle it. No argument I make is going to change their minds, and it's very unlikely that they will change mine no matter how open-minded I like to think I am, so I almost feel like this discussion is pointless. It will probably devolve into name-calling and troll-baiting. Happy arguing!

EDIT: Looks like it already has devolved beyond reasonable debate...

I am Wilgrove and I support what the above Poster has stated, I will also be stealing it as my stance on this issuse.

I like the Welfare system, just because I have idiots for parents and still get to eat.
But, eh.
It might just be easier to not let stupid people procreate.

Ooh, take money out of the Welfare system for an eugenics program? Now there's an interesting idea!

Get to work you slacker! ;)

I'm a student, and I do work. :p

Do you believe in government welfare? Why or why not?

What's to believe, it exists, doesn't it? :confused:

How? By taking from people who produce and giving their earnings to incompetants who have no right to it. That sounds like a problem not a solution for a much better country.

Bwwahahahahhahah. And that's all I've got to say about that.

Ooh, take money out of the Welfare system for an eugenics program? Now there's an interesting idea!

Maybe we should just pass a law that forbids poor people from reproducing. If you want to have children, then first prove that you have the means to take care of them.

Yes, but not on any ideological basis, I don't think that welfare programs are an absolute duty. I think they are a means to the duty of government, to protect and increase the happiness of its people. This doesn't mean there are other means to reaching this goal, I just believe that at this point in time, welfare to an extent including a national health service, is the best way to go about it.

Ideally there would be no (or very little) income inequality, but if there must be severe income inequality then there must be welfare.

Maybe we should just pass a law that forbids poor people from reproducing. If you want to have children, then first prove that you have the means to take care of them.

That's still a eugenics program, just targeted against poor people instead of a certain ethnicity, or inherited trait. It could work, if the morals weren't so screwed up.

I'm a student...

As I said, slacker :D

As I said, slacker :D

Hey, I said I worked too! I study full time...and I get 6s and 7s. So :p on you.

[edit: Aaaaaaaaaaand, this country seriously lacks artistic funding, so effectively being on my student allowence (which isn't very much anyway) is, in essence, one of the larger contributions this country has made to furthering the arts. ;)]

That's still a eugenics program, just targeted against poor people instead of a certain ethnicity, or inherited trait. It could work, if the morals weren't so screwed up.

... Poor people aren't poor because of genitics. They're poor because they're raised by "poor" parents in a "poor" neighbourhood and go to a "poor" school. It's a vicious cycle but it has nothing to do with eugenics. Put a "poor" kid in a "rich" family, where s/he can get the best education and a life full of oppertunities, and you would -generally- see that child thrive.

Therefore, while eugenics is an intersting theory, in this instance I fail to see how it could work (or ever work, outside of theory...).

Don't forget stupid people shouldn't be able to procreate.
You'll also get those rich people who ignore their kids, so the daughter pops out a baby at 14 for someone to love her.