| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 squashthebeef |
|||
|
Posts: 23566 (11/20/09 9:41 AM) super badass |
Da Vinci wasn't exactly a ward of the state.
Welfare states rob people of the need to struggle. Overcoming diversity breeds self-relience and dignity. I see no dignity in being the charge of a nanny state. |
||
 merkyl |
|||
|
Posts: 63277 (11/20/09 9:51 AM) Registered loser |
Don't you mean "overcoming adversity"?
|
||
|
squashthebeef |
|||
|
Posts: 23567 (11/20/09 10:02 AM) super badass |
Damn my no-edit policy!
|
||
|
merkyl |
|||
|
Posts: 63279 (11/20/09 10:17 AM) Registered loser |
Although I did overcome diversity. It's good to be white now!
|
||
|
platoshrimp |
|||
|
Posts: 54 (11/20/09 10:17 AM) Registered User |
squashthebeef wrote: Another example of a great thing accomplished by a person of leisure is the work of Lord Byron. No, he was not a ward of the state, either. Perhaps you should state all your stipulations at the beginning of your argument. |
||
|
squashthebeef |
|||
|
Posts: 23569 (11/20/09 10:19 AM) super badass |
perhaps you should suck it. Byron was a hack. Duncan McCloud cut his head off and shit down his neck.
|
||
|
Goosehead |
|||
|
Posts: 2053 (11/20/09 10:23 AM) Registered User |
Squash, your position on this matter is insane.
|
||
|
squashthebeef |
|||
|
Posts: 23570 (11/20/09 10:29 AM) super badass |
Your position, as I see it, can be summed up as 'dependence breeds greatness'. I find that a tad more insane.
|
||
|
platoshrimp |
|||
|
Posts: 55 (11/20/09 10:40 AM) Registered User |
|
||
|
Goosehead |
|||
|
Posts: 2054 (11/20/09 10:40 AM) Registered User |
haha, I was trolling.
But no, my position is security breeds productivity beyond the simple means of survival and allows for greater choice when you enter the marketplace. Dependency? Yes some people develop a dependency on welfare and this can be said to be a drain on the system and a discouragement to work. But let me ask you this, what do people do who simply don't have the ability to compete in the marketplace? or those who fall through the cracks? If they don't have anything to lose, I think it's much more likely they turn to crime than 'pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.' Again, a pragmatic aspect of the welfare state vs. a humanistic one. Here's an analogy: Middle-class kids often have the financial security of their parents to fall back on. Therefore they can go off and travel the world, become educated, and feel like they have choices in the world. Lower-class kids, not so much. I think the welfare state provides something analogous to parental financial security to anyone who doesn't have it. By your logic in it's pure form we should expect the greatest innovations to come out of the slums of Mogadishu or Sao Paolo. |
||
|
merkyl |
|||
|
Posts: 63280 (11/20/09 10:44 AM) Registered loser |
But let me ask you this, what do people do who simply don't have the ability to compete in the marketplace? or those who fall through the cracks? If they don't have anything to lose,Soylent Green |
||
|
squashthebeef |
|||
|
Posts: 23571 (11/20/09 10:46 AM) super badass |
what do people do who simply don't have the ability to compete in the marketplace? Let's consult the Darwinian 8-ball..."outlook uncertain." And those middle class kids live under the tyranny of their parents until they become self-sufficient. Do you trust the government that much? |
||
|
springfeverish |
|||
|
Posts: 3804 (11/20/09 10:46 AM) Registered User |
Are you just referring to economic adversity or emotional and physical as well? By your logic, a child with an abusive parent should stay with them because a
loving foster home would make the child nanny dependent. A child born without an arm should be
denied prostheses and learn to use just one hand. How character-building! Financial adversity can be just as cruelly dehumanizing and can destroy
character as easily as it builds it.
|
||
|
squashthebeef |
|||
|
Posts: 23572 (11/20/09 10:50 AM) super badass |
Are you comparing the government to a loving nanny?
|
||
|
Goosehead |
|||
|
Posts: 2055 (11/20/09 10:59 AM) Registered User |
Trust them to do what?
Maybe the analogy is a bit misleading. Parents both help their kids with money when they need it and they regulate their behaviour. I'm not a fan of government micro-managing its citizens every-day behaviour, in fact I'm a largely a libertarian in this regard. However, I am a fan of the government helping out citizens financially when they're desperate. Therefore, do I trust them to pay me unemployment insurance when I lose my job? Yes. The only behavioural modification when it comes to unemployment insurance (in Canada, at least) is that the government insists that I search for a job while I'm collecting it, and that I don't leave the country. In terms of healthcare, which I think is another very important aspect of keeping your citizens secure, I do trust the government to provide reasonably good service. But it's obviously a lot more complicated than simply collecting cheques from the government because you were laid off. There's more trust involved on the part of the citizen and I can certainly understand why Americans don't trust their government. Regardless, if you can get good healthcare from the government, and there's not a long list of requirements for receiving it (e.g., living a healthy lifestyle, or whatever), I don't see why it should be considered a program that reduces citizens' liberty or motivation to work, etc. In fact, isn't it private insurance that makes you live a certain way - requires you make certain lifestyle choices - if you want to be eligible for reimbursement? I find this much more odious than having a single-payer option with little to no strings attached. |
||
|
Beefcake |
|||
|
Posts: 4770 (11/20/09 11:00 AM) Registered User |
I think of the real American welfare state beginning in the mid-1960s. The New Deal created a social safety net, but nothing like we have today. That's why
comparisons to any recessions nowadays to the Great Depression is non-sensical. There was no welfare system in the 1930s. There were a huge number of men who
made their living through unskilled labor and had zero income if they couldn't find work. That doesn't happen anymore.
There is a huge difference between creating a social safety net and creating a system of dependency, and that in my opinion, is where modern liberalism has failed miserably. Over the last 40 years or so, we've created a permanent welfare class with multiple generations of people who have never had a job. At the same time, because we have an all-or-nothing welfare system, it does not function as a social safety net. People are starting to figure this out now with the economy in a recession. Have you worked hard, paid your bills, saved a little money, and now lost your job and run into hard times? Sorry, no help for you. But if you have no education, never worked a day in your life, and have no desire to contribute anything to society, we'll take care of your from cradle-to-grave. That kind of system is not only morally wrong, it's inefficient and can't lead to anything but problems. In my mind, a good system is one that protects people from bad things that happen through no fault of their own. If you are temporarily out of work, or if you get sick, or if you have an accident, then a good society is one that kicks in and says, "This isn't your fault and you shouldn't lose everything because you had some bad luck." But that is decidedly NOT the system we have. Our welfare state rewards people for making bad decisions or being unmotivated. At the same time, it fails to protect hard-working people who've had a run of bad luck. |
||
|
Pahrump Mania |
|||
|
Posts: 5026 (11/20/09 11:00 AM) Registered user |
Adversity doesn't destroy or build character, it reveals character. The people who lay down and quit when things get hard were losers to begin with, the
people who work harder when things get tough always had that fortitude. There will always be winners and losers, unless we round up all of the losers and kill
them like Stalin and Hitler.
|
||
|
platoshrimp |
|||
|
Posts: 56 (11/20/09 11:06 AM) Registered User |
Pahrump Mania said:I think you might want to edit. |
||
|
springfeverish |
|||
|
Posts: 3805 (11/20/09 11:11 AM) Registered User |
Pahrump Mania wrote: Jews, gays, Roman Catholic priests and Gypsies were losers? How about kids whose fathers pop their cherry (balloons)? If they grow up to be cutters or sluts are they losers as well? God, you're an idiot. |
||
|
Goosehead |
|||
|
Posts: 2056 (11/20/09 11:14 AM) Registered User |
Beefcake and PM, you both make good points and from an individualist ethical (classical liberal) standpoint they're quite valid.
But one thing that I always want to stress about the welfare state is that it's not just based on humanistic principles, it's also pragmatic in relation to social cohesion. The question is this: what do you do with those people who are in a situation of constant dependence? What are the ramifications of not providing them basic levels of security? My answer: you create a permanent under/criminal class which resents the wealth of the higher classes. I often hear conservatives say that Obama's engaging in class-warfare, but from a pragmatic perspective, providing resources to the very poor and chronically unemployed is a strategy to overcome class antagonisms. In a word, the productive members of society pay for the unproductive members via taxes so as to ensure internal social peace and security. Don't forget that orthodox Marxists and Marx himself DETEST(ED) the welfare state because it prevented the necessary conditions for revolution. |
||
