TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Some political differences
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew no life is not fair, but i can't see why you shouldn't try to do it more fair.. the big difference with sweden and US is that in sweden everyone can go to the best schools, have good health care etc no matter how rich, how beautiful or whoever they are. it doesn't make all people fuck ups in high school, it just make life a bit easier for the people who wheren't born lucky (smart, rich etc). A welfare state do not make the poor rich, it just make their life a bit better...

beyond this, its just a matter of proof-based welfare. everyone in the US is so damn picky about THEIR money!

'I earned it so I should be able to use it however I want!'

most people take that paycheck and either waste it on luxury items or alcohol, or occasionally use it wisely (when necessary) - most often paying for utilities, rent, services that the government could subsidize with tax money, or at least make more affordable to everyone.

i hate how those against welfare in the States think if ANY social programs were run all 'their' money would go to some black, lesbian, crack addicted mother... its just bullshit.

Sweden may have a social democratic background, but they dont just dole money out. you have to prove employment, or that you are searching for work. its not free money.

the US is addicted to the idea that everyone should fend for themselves and push everyone else over to get where they need to be. why is it such a travesty to help other people once in awhile? you wont always be well off and without concern, and when that time comes help is welcome|

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't buy into the "right to healthcare" that you're talking about. I dont see anyone arguing the "right to equal car insurance". Why is it someone else's responsibility, or moral duty to ensure that some other complete stranger makes the right decisions to take care of themselves. Bad things happen to good people all the time, but why does that make it the moral obligation of society to pick up the tab and make sure that person has health insurance. Since when is my life someone else's responsibility. I think there's a huge difference between same "rights" to basic services vs. same opportunity to access basic services. Again, I just don't buy the argument that the ends justify the means. If you break altruism down to the very core it basically says that it is a person's moral duty to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of someone else, but that it's wrong to ask someone else to sacrifice themselves for your benefit. It simply doesn't make sense. It is a philosohpy that dictates my death for the life of another with it not being my decision to make. I don't have a problem with charity or sharing, per se, however it is wrong for one person to give something to another if the cost is detrimental to the giver. I need to reference my philosophy books for better explanation, but at the core I simply can't allow myself to sell out. My goal while I am on this Earth is to do the best I possibly can and to be the best I can possibly be. The better I do for myself, the more likely the better those around me will be. Being the best I can be will make me the most productive, satisfied person I can possibly be. I alone am ultimately responsible for my own happiness and that is why I must live to be the best that I can be, for me.

The main problem I have with this argument is that its worded in such a way that I feel distorts what social welfare really does, and why it is essential. It makes it sound as if each individual in a society is complete seperate from everyone else, which is clearly not the case. Their are many ways that having a healthy and educated society benefit everyone, not just the people that otherwise couldnt afford such services. When everyone is healthy in a society the amount of diseases that are around dimish and you are less likely to get sick as a result. When everyone is educated in a society there will be more productive members and the society will advance more. Depending on whos theories on causes of crime you look at crime will go down either as a result of stronger social ties or less need. So tell me how are you not benefiting from all these things?

It also seems quite unreasonable to compare killing yourself for someone else to giving a portion of your income for everyone, including yourself.

A philosophy that advocates only personal responcibility and not responcibility to anyone else or society can lead to dangerous places. Envision a world where EVERYONE uncontrollaby only helps themselves. Is that somewhere you would want to live? Somewhere where everyones only concern is being the best they can be, and making the most they can, and fuck everyone else Im doing my own thing. That is a scary thought, and I know I wouldn't want to live there. Would you want to be born into that world blind? or deaf? or poor? or come there as a refugee? or any other group that is disadvantaged?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Laissez-Faire "In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve." - Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia, 1782

but Laissez-Faire is a utopian ideal!

you cant honestly say that LF is the goal of the US govt?! even while our market is *open* it is NOT completely free. the size of our government and the ability of it as a whole to dole out farming subsidies and billions in Iraq (guess which amount is bigger) keeps the market from being truly open, among thousands of other regulations.

has 'welfare' been Communism-ized?|

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio A philosophy that advocates only personal responcibility and not responcibility to anyone else or society can lead to dangerous places. Envision a world where EVERYONE uncontrollaby only helps themselves. Is that somewhere you would want to live? Somewhere where everyones only concern is being the best they can be, and making the most they can, and fuck everyone else Im doing my own thing. That is a scary thought, and I know I wouldn't want to live there. Would you want to be born into that world blind? or deaf? or poor? or come there as a refugee? or any other group that is disadvantaged?

Well, one of the major points in my philosophical argument which has been pointed out several times in this thread is that no man is entitled to more than he or she produces, and should expect no more of anyone else. That is what was meant by the phrase "eating your cake, and having it too". So there is no "uncontrollable taking" that you're describing, rather everyone lives accoring to their ability, which is the virtue that makes them strive to be better and more productive, which in turn ultimately benefits society. That is liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, too many people today have slipped into the 'entitlement mentality' that they somehow have a right to partake in something that someone else has produced or provided, without an equal exchange of value in return.

The philosophy I refer to most actually assumes that the person is born into the world figuratively blind, deaf, dumb, and oblivious, and therefore must make the choices that best benefit them based on the knowledge they are able to acquire and process by virtue of their own mind and mental capacity. This is the only type of society that I would want to live in.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology but Laissez-Faire is a utopian ideal! you cant honestly say that LF is the goal of the US govt?! even while our market is *open* it is NOT completely free. the size of our government and the ability of it as a whole to dole out farming subsidies and billions in Iraq (guess which amount is bigger) keeps the market from being truly open, among thousands of other regulations. has 'welfare' been Communism-ized?|

No, LF is not the goal of the US gov't. Nobody said it was. It sure would be nice if markets functioned in a more LF fasion. The obvious downside is that less government intervention can ultimately make way for corrupt people to attempt to take advantage of the system. It's a thin line and a tricky balance. If there were no corruption, I believe LF would be an easy system to have as less corruption would require less regulation/gov't control.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology but Laissez-Faire is a utopian ideal!

as is 'liberty and justice for all'

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well, one of the major points in my philosophical argument which has been pointed out several times in this thread is that no man is entitled to more than he or she produces, and should expect no more of anyone else. That is what was meant by the phrase "eating your cake, and having it too". So there is no "uncontrollable taking" that you're describing, rather everyone lives accoring to their ability, which is the virtue that makes them strive to be better and more productive, which in turn ultimately benefits society. That is liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, too many people today have slipped into the 'entitlement mentality' that they somehow have a right to partake in something that someone else has produced or provided, without an equal exchange of value in return. The philosophy I refer to most actually assumes that the person is born into the world figuratively blind, deaf, dumb, and oblivious, and therefore must make the choices that best benefit them based on the knowledge they are able to acquire and process by virtue of their own mind and mental capacity. This is the only type of society that I would want to live in.

I think you missed the point of my argument. Not everyone is in a position to produce the same. You can't simply look at numbers of how much a person produces, because people are doing things that aernt measurable in the same way. And more to the point how much money someone earns absolutelly DOES NOT reflect how much they produce. If you can explain to me how someone who plays professional basketball (one of the highest paying incomes) produces more then someone who works in a factory then please do. The argument your making is so out of context with the reality of how our society actually is it is not applicable.

And what of the argument that giving the people at the bottom more then they have produced will benefit society in the long run? Isn't it worth giving to those for the good of yourself and everyone else in the future?

Are you going to try and tell me that a place like America that subscribes more to your beliefs, is a better place to live then somewhere like Sweden? that people are on average more intellegent there? or better off in any way?

quote:

Originally posted by biznology beyond this, its just a matter of proof-based welfare. everyone in the US is so damn picky about THEIR money! 'I earned it so I should be able to use it however I want!'

Yes ... that's called your individual right to property.

quote:

most people take that paycheck and either waste it on luxury items or alcohol, or occasionally use it wisely (when necessary) - most often paying for utilities, rent, services that the government could subsidize with tax money, or at least make more affordable to everyone.

Those people who spend their money unwisely or waste it on luxury items are fools. However, despite that mental defficiency they still possess an inherent right to dispose of their property as they see fit. YOu know, all that jazz about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that's their happiness and that's how they wish to dispose of their property then who are you or I to say no and force them to do differentely? These principles are pretty much the FUNDAMENTAL principles that the founders had in mind. Shall we set up a government commission to control how people spend their money?

quote:

i hate how those against welfare in the States think if ANY social programs were run all 'their' money would go to some black, lesbian, crack addicted mother... its just bullshit. Sweden may have a social democratic background, but they dont just dole money out. you have to prove employment, or that you are searching for work. its not free money.

Bullshit or not, individuals do not have the right to take from others because they are have-nots. Welfare is an institution GRANTED by society, it is not a fundamental right.

quote:

the US is addicted to the idea that everyone should fend for themselves and push everyone else over to get where they need to be. why is it such a travesty to help other people once in awhile? you wont always be well off and without concern, and when that time comes help is welcome|

Well certainly it's not a bad thing to help people once in a while. But making the choice to help others out by giving is not the same as realising you need help and DEMANDING/TAKING.

quote:

We hear so much about "rights" -- a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food and a decent job, and more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it. At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from? If you said "From some other American," go to the head of the class. Your right to decent housing and medical care requires that some other American have less of something else, namely diminished rights to his earnings. Let's apply this bogus concept of rights to free speech and the right to travel freely. If we were to apply it to my right to free speech, my free speech rights would confer financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel freely would require that others provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, "Williams, yes you have rights to free speech and travel rights, but I'm not obligated to pay for them!" As human beings, we all have certain unalienable rights. Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us." By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government. If I did take your earnings for housing and medical services, it would rightfully be described as an act of theft. When government does it, it's still theft -- the only difference is that it's legalized theft sanctioned by a majority vote. Decent housing, good medical care and decent jobs are not rights at all, at least not in a free society -- they're wishes. As such, I'd agree with most Americans because I also wish that everyone had decent housing, a high paying job and good medical care.

That being said, I would not want to live in a state without welfare. I would prefer to live in a compassionate state that opts to provide welfare to its citizens, albeit in a strictly regulated manner. However, it's important to not confuse matters such as welfare as a RIGHT.

quote:

but Laissez-Faire is a utopian ideal! you cant honestly say that LF is the goal of the US govt?! even while our market is *open* it is NOT completely free. the size of our government and the ability of it as a whole to dole out farming subsidies and billions in Iraq (guess which amount is bigger) keeps the market from being truly open, among thousands of other regulations.

The goal of the government should be to attain the closest form of laissez-faire markets as it possibly can, while regulating when recquired to correct for market externalities.

quote:

has 'welfare' been Communism-ized?|

God damn! Amen Occrider.

Demanding that someone provide for the benefit of others by force violates the fundamental right to freedom in every definition of the word.

As Occrider has said, there is nothing wrong with helping someone out if that is your choice. If you want to be a 'selfish-dickhead' that is also your right, and nobody should criticize you for how you choose to distribute the fruits of your work. So someone else has more than you...so what?!? I hate the "keeping up with the Jones' mentality".

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Demanding that someone provide for the benefit of others by force violates the fundamental right to freedom in every definition of the word.

Like in Iraq?

I must disagree with you guys. Your stance would be correct if people were born as adult individuals with set standards and goals. Unfortunately (or fortunately), that is not the case. A young child from a disfunctional or abusive family has a great chance to be depressive or rebellious early in life. By the time such a person reaches mature age, lot of damage has been done. And if the society doesn't act to help such an individual, that person is surely going to turn into an alcoholic bum.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I must disagree with you guys. Your stance would be correct if people were born as adult individuals with set standards and goals. Unfortunately (or fortunately), that is not the case. A young child from a disfunctional or abusive family has a great chance to be depressive or rebellious early in life. By the time such a person reaches mature age, lot of damage has been done. And if the society doesn't act to help such an individual, that person is surely going to turn into an alcoholic bum.

And instances such as those are reasons why I am for some welfare programs in general. Ideally, institutions such as social services is supposed to "rescue" these children so that they are afforded some basic set of opportunities that are available to all. I am not for the elimination of welfare, I am for the reform of welfare ... perhaps later tonight, I will elaborate as to what I perceive to be an idealized form of welfare/social services.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 A young child from a disfunctional or abusive family has a great chance to be depressive or rebellious early in life. By the time such a person reaches mature age, lot of damage has been done. And if the society doesn't act to help such an individual, that person is surely going to turn into an alcoholic bum.

That was basically my story until I hit age 24. However, I seldom drink anymore and when I do it's in moderation. I was sufficiently skilled and resourceful enough to get a good job without even filling out an application... but I lay no claim to being 'normal' in the traditional sense of the word. I've been more than lucky.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka God damn! Amen Occrider. Demanding that someone provide for the benefit of others by force violates the fundamental right to freedom in every definition of the word. ...

but choosing to put your personal freedom ahead of other possible goals may also inhibit the freedom of others, and because of this, you may indirectly violate 'the fundamental right to freedom' whether it be yours or someone elses...you certainly cant go around shooting people just because we should strive for 'freedom'.

oh, and Occrider, I never used the term 'right' in my original posts|

quote:

Originally posted by biznology but choosing to put your personal freedom ahead of other possible goals may also inhibit the freedom of others, and because of this, you may indirectly violate 'the fundamental right to freedom' whether it be yours or someone elses...you certainly cant go around shooting people just because we should strive for 'freedom'.

What's that saying ... "your rights end where mine begin"?

quote:

oh, and Occrider, I never used the term 'right' in my original posts|

That's true . However, you seemed to be advocating a distribution of wealth system or increased management of money by the government over the individual, and I guess i just got caught up in a tangeant argument. Sorry for implying that you were labelling it as a right.

i'm tierd and are going to sleep so i will not post a long answer (probably tomorrow).

the main problem though is that we think different, i (amongst others) think that everyone should have the same right to basic stuff, you on the other hand think that all the rich who have "earned" their money should have a better life and it's a right for them to waste their money the way they want...

I find this discussion of what fundamental freedoms are very interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Demanding that someone provide for the benefit of others by force violates the fundamental right to freedom in every definition of the word.

For the purpose of the point Im going to illustrate Im going to use the U.S. constitution.

I think that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could easily be interpruted to mean that the state has a responcibility to ensure that people have the right to health care (Life), and I would argue that the pursuit of happiness means that the state has a responcibility to provide oppurtunity to you. Which I think means a good education system which is free of charge, including university. I would also argue it means that the state should provide housing for the homeless to get on their feet and pursue happiness, and that it means providing treatment programs for drug abusers, and so on and so forth.

So your argument violates peoples BASIC rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i'm tierd and are going to sleep so i will not post a long answer (probably tomorrow). the main problem though is that we think different, i (amongst others) think that everyone should have the same right to basic stuff, you on the other hand think that all the rich who have "earned" their money should have a better life and it's a right for them to waste their money the way they want...

i agree with st andrew, and i am biased in his same direction. before learning about Sweden - a country that most people from the US know very little about - and living there, i gained a vastly different perspective on this matter. i didnt really benefit much from the welfare as i was just squatting as a student pretty much . but while i paid high taxes for for the food and goods i purchased - overall things were quite a bit cheaper than Ann Arbor (where i live now).

Rent was ~200 bucks a month for my own room.
Garbage collection was free (or included in taxes), and while my tuition here is 30k out of state, Swedes get loans in excess of 800USD per year to subsidize costs of living during school. (and the non personal costs of schooling are covered)

the odd thing is that many Swedes will never repay these loans even tho there is a steady amount taken from their paychecks over a lifetime. these loans just default at the end of their lifetime - hell by that time the original value will have been paid off many times over.

oh and another thing - there is a different idea of private property there...sure everyone has possessions, but no one owns land. Allemansratten - "All Man's Right" anyone can use any land in the country at any time, with a few small specifics applied (no camping for more than a few days, etc).

and thinking of hurting yourself on someone elses property (say getting gored by someones bull) - you cant sue as you were the dumbass that chose to put yourself in that situation.

that would solve SO many problems in the US|

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Their nemesis happens when some guys start breaking the rules of the game to get an unfair advantage. They team up secretly to get on top, easily defeating their rivals who try to go it alone. Then they use their wealth to elect politicians who'll make sure that the elite keeps on top forever.

That's what I'm currently afraid of.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

http://economist.com/books/displayS...tory_id=1875084

http://www.atimes.com/china/DC19Ad02.html

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/wha...tar_july18.html

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/64354.php

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cach...52885294304.htm

http://www.democrats.com/preview.cf...Carlyle%20Group

great thread guys, took me a while to read all those posts...

personally, i tend to side with occrider and shakka on this matter. They have brought up many points i side with and would be just redundant of me to say agian.

however, someone made the good point and said even though a national wide health care and education system might impede on someone's right it does serve for the 'greater good' of everyone living in that country. i am very machiavellian in my views in that as a country's leader my goal is to advance my society (or humanity in general) more supreme then any other. a healthy and educated society means that as a country we can advance and evolve better and more quickly. Sometimes it is worth doing an evil thing for the greater good. I dont agree with re-distribution of wealth but some national programs do have some merit to them because of its effect on the progress of humanity as a whole

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio I find this discussion of what fundamental freedoms are very interesting.

As do I

quote:

For the purpose of the point Im going to illustrate Im going to use the U.S. constitution. I think that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could easily be interpruted to mean that the state has a responcibility to ensure that people have the right to health care (Life), and I would argue that the pursuit of happiness means that the state has a responcibility to provide oppurtunity to you. Which I think means a good education system which is free of charge, including university. I would also argue it means that the state should provide housing for the homeless to get on their feet and pursue happiness, and that it means providing treatment programs for drug abusers, and so on and so forth. So your argument violates peoples BASIC rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Ok, personally I think that that is a bit of a stretch. Especially when you try to apply what the drafters of the constitution had in mind. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that our only inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights such as the right to privacy, free speech, etc., are rights granted under the subtext of liberty or the pursuit of happiness or life. Now, why are our only inalienable rights these three things? Why not make it a right to have to have food ... a house ... beer? Well I think that the commonality that you find between those three granted in the constitution is that they are rights to action, not rights to a reward from other people or the state. The mentality behind the constitution was not for the state to impose whatever obligations is so chooses upon its constituents but rather to enforce negative obligations to leave its citizens alone. Therefore you decide how you want to interact with society and live your life with the expectation that you have no authority to demand something of others and others have no authority to demand something from you.

Therefore, your right to life does not DEMAND others to sustain you in such a manner that they must clothe or feed you. You merely have the right to live your life as best you see fit without the state or others imposing or infringing upon your right to life. If you go by the logic that people everywhere have an absolute right to life such that it is an OBLIGATION to others, than why stop with the country you're in? If the right to life as defined by medical care is an inalienable HUMAN right, then state or nation boundaries should not limit that right. Therefore we all have an obligation to feed, house, and provide benefits to people EVERYWHERE in the world regardless of their motivation to benefit themselves. All those basic amenities you value in your lifestyle can now be reduced to nothing in order to accomadate the basic right to life we are OBLIGATED to provide to people everywhere. I don't think very many people would find this to be an attractive scenario.

Moving on ... now you mention the pursuit of happiness. I agree that we have a right to the pursuit of happines, however the right does not focus on the happiness part ... it focuses on the pursuit part. Therefore we have the right to perform actions that hopefully lead to happiness, however, there are no guarantees that other people are obligated to make you happy. Therefore, there are no obligations placed on others to educate you, there are only rights for you to educate yourself. Similarly, there are no obligations for society to give the homeless homes, they have the right to secure homes for themselves. Your "right" to happiness at the expense of others is an infringement on THEIR rights and their pursuit of happiness. The minute your "right" to anything is at the imposition of another's than that other person essentially becomes rightless and they become slaves to you. Think about it for a second ... if one person in a society works their ass off over the laziness of others and yet is obligated to provide basic necessities to the rest of society, regardless of how much effort he or they put in, who is really a slave to who?

Now just for purposes of clarification, I believe in everything I've said above. However, I choose not to live literally according to what my idealistic beliefs are. If I chose to do so, than I would regard all income taxes as being unfair and an infringement on my inalienable rights. And if I believed that strongly about it than they WOULD be an infringement upon my inalienable rights. At that point, if I truly felt that strongly about the issue, I could excercise my freedom to travel and escape such a system of governance. However, I choose to accept the concept of income taxes and the concept of welfare as a necessity/benefit of society that I'm willing to subsidize. As such, I willingly contribute and partake in society. However, it is not a demand that I do so. It is somethng that a society chooses to do, after which it is the decision of the individual to partake in.

Well, I've blabbed enough ... and I'm getting drunk. Dammit I keep putting off my opinion on what would be a good/fair welfare system. Blah ... if anyone's actually interested let me know, otherwise I dont' want to waste my breath and good server space.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider if anyone's actually interested let me know, otherwise I dont' want to waste my breath and good server space.

i'm intersted of how to solve that without violate your "right to spend money however you want"

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i'm intersted of how to solve that without violate your "right to spend money however you want"

Well as I've said, I personally have no objections against welfare. I object to the classification of welfare as a right however, and I object to the idea that somebody owes something to anybody else. If society so chooses to instill a system of welfare/taxation for the betterment of society then it is not a violation of that individual's rights so long as that indivdual possesses the right to travel and escape such a system of governance should they so choose. That's why you don't see me screaming bloody murder about the government not having the right to tax my income . If I strongly object to it, than I can always exercise my right to leave. Now, here's what I envision to be a good welfare system that's fair to those on welfare and it's fair to those who have to pay for it, bear in mind it's a work in progress and it's not something I've really spent a lot of time thinking about :

First and foremost, welfare is not a right, it is a privelidge ... it is a privelidge granted to those who wish to engage in a contractual bargain of sorts with the government. The terms of the contract are as such ...

A)Once on welfare, there will be no excess in anything. I can't tell you how many times I go to the grocery store and see people who are on welfare get the fattiest foods and load up on shit like twinkies, ho-hos, cookies, cakes, etc., and they're the fattest slobs you've ever seen. I hate how americans are so goddamned weak-willed and fat. All those goods are luxury items and therefore not the basic necessities that one would expect someone on welfare to be purchasing. Secondly, people use welfare money to buy extraneous goods like tv's, fashionable clothing, basically stuff they don't NEED. It's not their money they're spending so they ONLY buy BASIC necessities. In order to manage such a system, perhaps a welfare credit card of sorts can be used to track all purchases ... nothing will be cash based. Therefore, if a welfare reciepient is alloted a certain amount of money to purchase school supplies and clothes for their kids they actually BUY school supplies and clothes for their kids. All their personal data can be entered into databases where queries will constantly track purchases and red flag any inappropriate items. Violators will receive one warning. Additional violations and they face expulsion from the welfare system.

B) The participant will do EVERYTHING possible to get off of welfare. The participant will do NOTHING that will increase their welfare. This means NO MORE KIDS. I cannot emphasize that point enough ... you do not have the right to gouge other people out of their money even more because you screwed up and accidentally had another kid. Also there are cases where welfare participants purposefully have more kids so they can get more welfare. As such, welfare participants have a mandatory obligation to take depo-provera treatment that temporarily sterilizes them for a 6-month period. As long as that individual is on welfare, they are sterilized. If they think it's an infringement upon their rights, they can always refuse to partake in the welfare system. That being said, in order to care for children, violators of the welfare system will automatically be red-flagged by social services. If they are unable to provide for their children, the children will be placed in temporary foster care until the parent is able to care for their children.

Hmmmm what else what else what else .... ah ok.

C) You are given a grace period to escape welfare. Same jazz that goes on now, you work with job counselors to secure a job. After that grace period has expired, however, you will be considered an employee of the state, and therefore you are obligated to work for the state should the situation arise. Your amount of time work, shall not exceed your welfare benefit recieved at minimum wage. However, refusal to do said work can and will result in expulsion from the welfare system. A certain amount of time can be still be allocated to job searching functions uch as interviews, follow-ups, etc., as requested by the welfare recipient.

As I said there are a lot of details that could be worked out ... for example if you HAVE a job yet you cannot support your already large family on that job alone, some concessions can be made to allow that family to purchase luxury items but each circumstance should have a different set of standards. Well anyway, that's my basic idea ... far from perfect but a good reform over the current system I believe. Yes you may think of it as overly harsh, but let's face it, welfare should be something that individuals should WANT to get off of. If you don't like the spartan lifestyle, then take it upon yourself to better yourself. There are a lot of opportunities out there ... there's a REASON why so many immigrants are flocking across the border ... they're taking the low-level jobs that nobody else wants to take. So let teh welfare people have a peice of that pie.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well as I've said, I personally have no objections against welfare. I object to the classification of welfare as a right however, and I object to the idea that somebody owes something to anybody else. If society so chooses to instill a system of welfare/taxation for the betterment of society then it is not a violation of that individual's rights so long as that indivdual possesses the right to travel and escape such a system of governance should they so choose. That's why you don't see me screaming bloody murder about the government not having the right to tax my income . If I strongly object to it, than I can always exercise my right to leave. Now, here's what I envision to be a good welfare system that's fair to those on welfare and it's fair to those who have to pay for it, bear in mind it's a work in progress and it's not something I've really spent a lot of time thinking about : First and foremost, welfare is not a right, it is a privelidge ... it is a privelidge granted to those who wish to engage in a contractual bargain of sorts with the government. The terms of the contract are as such ... A)Once on welfare, there will be no excess in anything. I can't tell you how many times I go to the grocery store and see people who are on welfare get the fattiest foods and load up on shit like twinkies, ho-hos, cookies, cakes, etc., and they're the fattest slobs you've ever seen. I hate how americans are so goddamned weak-willed and fat. All those goods are luxury items and therefore not the basic necessities that one would expect someone on welfare to be purchasing. Secondly, people use welfare money to buy extraneous goods like tv's, fashionable clothing, basically stuff they don't NEED. It's not their money they're spending so they ONLY buy BASIC necessities. In order to manage such a system, perhaps a welfare credit card of sorts can be used to track all purchases ... nothing will be cash based. Therefore, if a welfare reciepient is alloted a certain amount of money to purchase school supplies and clothes for their kids they actually BUY school supplies and clothes for their kids. All their personal data can be entered into databases where queries will constantly track purchases and red flag any inappropriate items. Violators will receive one warning. Additional violations and they face expulsion from the welfare system. B) The participant will do EVERYTHING possible to get off of welfare. The participant will do NOTHING that will increase their welfare. This means NO MORE KIDS. I cannot emphasize that point enough ... you do not have the right to gouge other people out of their money even more because you screwed up and accidentally had another kid. Also there are cases where welfare participants purposefully have more kids so they can get more welfare. As such, welfare participants have a mandatory obligation to take depo-provera treatment that temporarily sterilizes them for a 6-month period. As long as that individual is on welfare, they are sterilized. If they think it's an infringement upon their rights, they can always refuse to partake in the welfare system. That being said, in order to care for children, violators of the welfare system will automatically be red-flagged by social services. If they are unable to provide for their children, the children will be placed in temporary foster care until the parent is able to care for their children. Hmmmm what else what else what else .... ah ok. C) You are given a grace period to escape welfare. Same jazz that goes on now, you work with job counselors to secure a job. After that grace period has expired, however, you will be considered an employee of the state, and therefore you are obligated to work for the state should the situation arise. Your amount of time work, shall not exceed your welfare benefit recieved at minimum wage. However, refusal to do said work can and will result in expulsion from the welfare system. A certain amount of time can be still be allocated to job searching functions uch as interviews, follow-ups, etc., as requested by the welfare recipient. As I said there are a lot of details that could be worked out ... for example if you HAVE a job yet you cannot support your already large family on that job alone, some concessions can be made to allow that family to purchase luxury items but each circumstance should have a different set of standards. Well anyway, that's my basic idea ... far from perfect but a good reform over the current system I believe. Yes you may think of it as overly harsh, but let's face it, welfare should be something that individuals should WANT to get off of. If you don't like the spartan lifestyle, then take it upon yourself to better yourself. There are a lot of opportunities out there ... there's a REASON why so many immigrants are flocking across the border ... they're taking the low-level jobs that nobody else wants to take. So let teh welfare people have a peice of that pie.

I already see a flaw... Steralisation. What if you end up getting steralised for the 6-months straight and you end up getting back "up on your feet", financially in much LESS than 6 months. I'll give an example of 45 days. Say, if someone gets on Welfare and ends up getting steralised for 6 months and there is NO WAY to reverse the process should they find them selves doing unusually well financially where they don't need welfare anymore? In this particular scenario, I envision many people attempting to sue the gov't or whoever because they can't have kids (I believe it is a right to have children whenever you wish in the US, is it?) for ~135 more days. I'm just the type of person who would take full advantage of irreversible situations like this just because I like to point out immperfections that should be sorted out and to put someone to blame. It pretty much goes like this blurb of words:

Person A: "You came here very sick, had no idea of where to go as you know no-one here and don't know where anything is, and don't even know a SINGLE WORD of our language. How could you go from 100% lost to 100% in control and financially independent, tip-top health, and know where just about every single place in a 5000 km radius is, as well as speaking our language like someone who has lived here all their life and has a very good education and has been alive for decades IN LESS THAN 45 DAYS?"

Me: "I just did what I wanted to do & believe that it's my right to have children now."

(further questions asked, no responses at all followed)


Is this situation a reality? I'm not actually speaking of any specific country or place so, don't make assumptions. It may not seem like a reality but, what if this person learned and did what zie* "wanted to do" 24-7 during those 45 days? I tried going without sleep for long periods of time but, I just fell asleep after 3 days or so. Is it possible to keep yourself awake and performing well for that length of time straight without any sleep? I heard that the Guinness World Record for longest time someone was awake was over 2 weeks but, how did this person fare after they went to sleep at that time? Is it possibel to die if you don't let yourself sleep? I heard Michael Jackson collapsed on stage during a performance due to overworking himself. Who was the person who did that 72-hour DJ set in February 2002? How did zie* fare after the set was done?

*Zie - Non-Gender person or gender unknown person. German word. Can someone else provide a more clear definition of this word?

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 I already see a flaw... Steralisation. What if you end up getting steralised for the 6-months straight and you end up getting back "up on your feet", financially in much LESS than 6 months. I'll give an example of 45 days. Say, if someone gets on Welfare and ends up getting steralised for 6 months and there is NO WAY to reverse the process should they find them selves doing unusually well financially where they don't need welfare anymore? In this particular scenario, I envision many people attempting to sue the gov't or whoever because they can't have kids (I believe it is a right to have children whenever you wish in the US, is it?) for ~135 more days. I'm just the type of person who would take full advantage of irreversible situations like this just because I like to point out immperfections that should be sorted out and to put someone to blame. It pretty much goes like this blurb of words: (further questions asked, no responses at all followed)

I see no problems with it because sterilization would not be forced on an individual. The individual voluntarily sterilizes themself because that is what they need to do to receive welfare payments. Much like how your privacy in your car is far different from your privacy in your home ... the same could probably apply to this situation. Much like how refusing to take a breathalizer can result in your liscence being suspended, refusing to resort to 6 month sterilizations can result in welfare being suspended. Know how people say driving is a privelidge, not a right? Well that's what I would apply to welfare.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.