A General Question for Opponents and Defenders of Welfare

We call them 'negroes'.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PArF9k2SbQk"]Bone thugs-n-harmony - 1st of tha Month - YouTube[/ame]

 

Anyone have a serious answer to my question?

 

My family was on welfare for years after my dad lost his job when the company he worked for fell under.
He went back to school, became a minister and got a teaching credential to teach severely disabled students.

Basically, I like to think of my family's situation as the ideal for welfare. We were on it when hard times beyond our control came. We used it to build up. Now he's in a much better position and has paid enough taxes to more than make up for our time on government help.

That said, not everyone has my dad's morals and ethics. While he wanted us out of the system others are all too fine staying within it. Ideally the system would be made to work to encourage people to rise on out of it and it DOES need reform.




That said a few things on your list concern me.

The main thing is they'd take a LOT of time if required. My dad worked HARD to dig us out of the hole. During our stay there he had school full time, worked in a library for almost no money full time too. If you're going to add required tasks that add up to a full time job it would actually work against the more legitimate people in the system.

Mandatory drug tests are okay. A job placement in community service like stuff and classes should only be done if you don't have a job or aren't going to school already. Seriously, it would inhibit growth to anyone who's got two full time "jobs" already.


You seem to assume people on welfare don't have jobs which is weird. My dad had a job. It paid garbage for a family of 5. My mom had a job at the time too which also paid garbage. We still didn't make enough to be off of food stamps. ;P




I'm for a lot of those ideas though if the person doesn't have a job, doesn't have school and doesn't have health problems prohibitting those actions.

 

I like the idea that anybody who wants to join the military should be allowed to do so, and the military should be required to find some use for them - even if it's just as a lab rat.

 

That's insane. The military isn't an institution that should be trifled with. It takes serious consideration to know if someone is willing to join and should join. And requiring someone to be a lab rat seems... kind of evil.


The Military should remain respected and left up to personal choice. The requirements of the job should ensure this. That being having to potentially defend the country, often violently. We don't want people in the military who don't want to be there. As such not being willing to join the military should not stop someone from receiving aid.

 

What he ^ said !!!

 

In my experience welfare encourages breeding. No one has the right to breed a child into poverty. Although the liberals dont agree with that.

 

Thumbs mother(*)(*)(*)(*)in' up

 

Proof of treatment for substance abuse? Expectancy to take classes? Proof of an active job search? Sounds like you absolutely want people to behave in a certain way. It's like you want the government to be our parents.

Substance abuse or not, everyone has problems. No one has the right to ask for aid. We do, however, have the right to work for aid, whether we have issues or not.

Establishing government incentives for personal decisions (i.e. decisions that don't directly affect others) is anti-individualistic. The government has to siphon off some of our income as taxes, but it has no right to push individuals to make more income.

 

People wonder what is wrong with the welfare system...

Well, this is one of the things that is wrong:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...ient-lives-million-dollar-home-161252749.html

People abuse the system and there are not enough checks-and-balances to insure things like this are not commonplace.

 

No more so than any other aspect of society. Do you think it should be illegal for employers to ask job candidates to take a drug test? The object of welfare should be looked at as a reformatory measure to assist a person into employment. All such programs should be looked at as investments rather than entitlements, and administered as such.

Welfare is essentially placing yourself in the custody of the state. You are asking the government and society to take care of you.

That essentially agrees with my original points.

It depends on how you define "affecting others" I suppose. It also depends on how you define individualism. The government already modifies human behavior with every type of law you are forced to follow. A code of conduct within certain parameters is hardly a breach of one's personal freedom.

Nor does an individual have to accept an agreement if they don't agree consider the terms worthwhile.

 

No.

What "point" would you be proving, other than sheer barbarism and disregard for our elders? How could this kind of calloused way of looking at society improve anything?

Innovation follows opportunity. The "economically fit" at least in terms of the financial sector, are nothing but a group of swindlers trading debt back and forth. They devalue the economy for everyone else and stifle innovation and opportunity.

Uh huh...

I don't see that happening.

 

That's a good question. Perhaps they could work at free day care centers for their work requirement.

 

That's disgusting! I hope they get charged and have to repay everything!

 

Why would someone who supports capitalism, a socially Darwinistic system, also support compassion?

Unfortunately, the only alternative to capitalism is ineffective collectivist economies that never work.

Lesser of two evils.

Are you referring to government and central banks?

Socialism has fought against capitalism in the past. Also, OWS and future, even bigger organizations, are predictions of my theory here.

 

I don't think most advocates of capitalism expect it to be socially darwinistic. I can't remember the exact quote -- but Adam Smith called the invisible hand something like the sum total of all people making rational economic decisions, and that the result of those decisions would be more beneficial toward society.

Why would anyone support compassion? Because it is an innate human characteristic -- the greatest human characteristic, extended from our most basic innate need to love and be loved. True, some people are born without such feelings, but I would call them more a mental defect to be pitied than anything. I can't imagine what joy anyone would have in life if they felt absolutely no compassion toward others.

As others have said -- I think very few people would willingly advocate a system that they thought would only bring more pain and suffering to mankind. Even people who do evil things need to sugar coat their evil by pretending they are doing it for the betterment of the world.

I would agree with you when discussing a state that advocates forced labor or a despotically controlled planned economy. But I think on a local level, a strong community is more preferable and productive than hierarchy. I also do not think capitalism with a regulated market equals communism, rather a set of protections against exploitative practices by industry.

More the current market situation we are in with regard to the financial industry. It is hard to say how much the government backing had to do with the collapse, and how much of it was caused by people who were operating out of sheer greed with no knowledge or foresight of the impending crash. The economy has grown so complex that the global market is incredibly interconnected that it is difficult to determine what negative consequences will occur with unregulated banking.

You were speaking of utilitarianism, which is entirely different than socialism. Many libertarians are utilitarians, including Ludwig von Mises, who is a very influential thinker within modern libertarianism (to my knowledge).

Socialism is the collection of workers fighting for the greatest good of workers. It is a weapon the people can collectively use against exploitation in the workplace. Of course, it would never come to be if more people acted in an ethical manner with respect to their fellow man.

 

I just said this and the following thing in another thread, in response to these similar questions. But, as for the above here, in the free market, the most materially prosperous would be the most productive. And economic productivity would be hugely related to intelligence, social charisma, and knowledgeability. That IS social Darwinism.

I think the following two statements are incompatible:

1. "I love a system of survival of the fittest"

2. "I want to prolong the unfit by welfare and/or voluntary charity"

What exact regulations? If unions have enough balls and people don't have 16 kids when they can't support any, just those two things, would be enough regulation, and those would both be allowed by the free market. People just suck is all. That's why they don't get what they want without government intrusion.

Socialism is a form of utilitarianism.

 

Yeah, and what about people who only have an urge to live a moderate lifestyle? What about someone who simply wants to support their own dreams -- like someone traveling the world selling jewelry or art because it what they love? Or running a gourmet restaurant that they like to hang out in? Or being a moderately successful musician? The marketplace bears a lot more activity than simply the top producers, and not everyone wants to be the top dog. If I were you, advocating such a system, I would look at things from a more microeconomic standpoint.

Well, others will differ from you. If I was filthy rich I would give most of it to charity. I wouldn't even own a big house, I would own a small house big enough to raise a family. I would still go to concerts and have a beer on Friday nights with my friends and family and travel to other countries when I can manage to. THAT is the good life for me. And I believe people should give back to others and make the world a better place. I don't believe in "survival of the fittest" for human beings, I believe humans have evolved into logical animals and therefore have surpassed the need to replicate a system meant to represent animals in nature.

Regulation against industrial waste and pollution, criminal predatory practices that are institutionalized, manufacturing products that are unsafe for consumption or use, etc...Ponzi schemes, snake oil salesmen, bait and switch, slave labor, sex trafficking etc..

Not really. Karl Marx was pretty critical of the utilitarian movement. Although he agreed that the premise that people want a system that promotes the overall greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people goes without saying.

 

But it puts more pressure on a system where the problem is, sometimes, too much pressure. I think we should more worried about leaving someone behind than we are that everyone isn't doing their all. Some people will never be financially independent -- actually, since the development of specialized tasks, none of us are financially independent, there's just the matter of how many bosses you have.

I know, I sound like some stereotypical bleeding-heart liberal, but this is how I feel. Worst-case scenario, we're paying someone to get some rest? I say that's not so bad, especially when compared to the alternative.

I seriously think everyone looks at the welfare problem backwards. Take a look at the world and the things we're doing to it. Can you honestly tell me that the big problem in the world is that people aren't doing enough? I think we're doing too much. I think we need to scale back to the point that we can foresee the consequences of our actions.

And that's gonna mean that people will have more time on their hands.

Not the end of the world. Might even prevent the end of the world.

 

Hmm, yes, very good points. I for one am supportive of welfare in any form, although I think civil service if properly administered isn't a bad idea. I think it is the last problem we need to worry about as a society. The more pressing problems in my mind are the collapse and degradation of natural resources, political corruption and the military and prison industrial complexes.

 

The point is that certain traits give people an *advantage* at economically prospering in the free market. Specifically, socially desired traits such as intelligence and charisma, but also knowledgeability of specific subjects.

I would also be very charitable, if this were 5-10 years ago and I was still a teenager/child. But I've become too cynical and hateful of people than to want to help them.

Well, I guess I can't argue against that. But only because I'm trying to follow the rule of reciprocity.

Anyone who wants a system that promotes the overall greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people, is a utilitarian. Not a capitalist.

 

I am 30 and have probably become more charitable over the years, after seeing how the world works. I belong to a few charitable organizations and feel it is very rewarding -- although I am very careful about where my time and money goes, as some charities are nothing but scams.

As I said, people who believe in Von Mises libertarianism would disagree.

 

Interesting

Being a capitalist at heart =/= being a libertarian at heart, really. They're motivated by different reasons. One by greed and the other by non-violence.

 

It makes sense for employers to drug-test employees who work with the public - like cashiers. A drug-addled employee base makes the company look bad. But companies that don't work directly with the public (like my own call center, and like nearly every government enterprise) don't really care if their employees are on drugs as long as they do good work. There's no need to legislate this. There's also no need for most public enterprises to drug-test their employees: all that matters is productivity.

The basic objective of government is to ensure freedom. Every argument between the mainstream parties comes down to finding the best method to ensure freedom. If you're trying to reform people, you're not after freedom at all: this is downright authoritarian.

...which is precisely why it shouldn't happen.

A free government attempts to minimize breaches of freedom; to keep its codes of conduct as limited as possible. This does not seem to be your aim.

The line between requiring someone to do something and encouraging them to do something is blurry and in many cases meaningless. Either way, you're establishing an incentive to act in a certain way.