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.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider 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 ...

which right is more worth than others, to live a decent life or to have the right to spend money as you want? Imo welfare is more of an right than the spending your money how you want right. you don't really see the less intelligent people as much worth as the well educated don't you?

your system sure would be perfect is the case where that everyone can work and have the same opportunities. That is not the case, some are born smart and work willing, some are born stupid and almost without the ability to work etc. I once used to think like you did, that everyone can work, but i have now realized that that is not the case. some are born stupid and should not be punished to much for that. it's like with criminals it doesn't really matter how tough punishments there is, some people are just stupid and will murder anyway.

quote:

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.

hehe, and that is not a violation of your privacy right?

But i can see your point, this people cannot really handle money in a good way. Probably it is better to have some kind of system where they can be controlled by the government in some way. But i do think that they should be able to allow themself some good food, modern clothes etc, sometimes. They are also humans and this small things really can mean a lot!

quote:

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.

Rich peoples right to spend some of their money vs. unemployed peoples right to have children... hmmm =)

But i agree on that do everything to get off welfare thing... Maybe visit the unemployment office everyday to search for jobs, if they don't they haven't even tried and therefore should not get their funding.

quote:

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.

once upon a time i thought this was a good idea too, but then i thought a bit more. It's like slavery, the state will use this to get cheap labor. If they need to hire a new stuff and they knew they have 100 unemployed to use, they will of course hire one of them instead of one new other (who may have been one of that 100 anyway but now they get it much cheaper, get me?)

Perhaps this may work if they used the unemployment people for something they would never hire someone for anyway, but i am still doubting.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew which right is more worth than others, to live a decent life or to have the right to spend money as you want? Imo welfare is more of an right than the spending your money how you want right. you don't really see the less intelligent people as much worth as the well educated don't you?

I disagree. Where in the constitution does it ever mention the "right to a decent life"? I'm not sure I've ever seen that in any documents which were used to sculpt the U.S. You're saying right to equal outcome vs. right to equal opportunity. Last I checked, right to personal property is one of the tenets of the forming of the U.S.

To me, 'right to a decent life' would imply that you essentially think the role of gov't is to be your babysitter. If you want to give control of your life away to the government to control, don't expect to have any control over your life or property. What would you do if the government definition of "a decent life" was of lower standards than your personal definition for "a decent life". If the government is providing it, who are you to say what is and is not "decent". I keep telling you that it's a bad road to go down, but you don't seem to be willing to accept it. Do you actually prefer Communism?

quote:

your system sure would be perfect is the case where that everyone can work and have the same opportunities. That is not the case, some are born smart and work willing, some are born stupid and almost without the ability to work etc. I once used to think like you did, that everyone can work, but i have now realized that that is not the case. some are born stupid and should not be punished to much for that. it's like with criminals it doesn't really matter how tough punishments there is, some people are just stupid and will murder anyway.

Define "Born smart". Isn't a person born knowing nothing accept what they learn? Is this going to turn into a big nature vs. nurture argument? Certainly some come into this world under better circumstances than others b/c their parents are better off financially, or they just happen to find their niche at an earlier age, but for the most part all babies are born with a clean slate, and no little, if anything at all about the world, IMO.

quote:

Rich peoples right to spend some of their money vs. unemployed peoples right to have children... hmmm =)

Again, if an unemployed person wants to have children, that is certainly their right, but it is also their RESPONSIBILITY. People have to be held accountable for their decisions. At what point does it suddenly become the duty/obligation of a rich person to raise/pay for the upbringing of said child when he had no choice in the decision to have the child in the first place?!

quote:

But i can see your point, this people cannot really handle money in a good way. Probably it is better to have some kind of system where they can be controlled by the government in some way. But i do think that they should be able to allow themself some good food, modern clothes etc, sometimes. They are also humans and this small things really can mean a lot!

Again--don't tell me that the government can spend my money better than I can. It's my choice how to dispose of it and just because it might benefit more people to strong-arm it away from me and buy a meal (On me), it's not their right to take something away from me by force if it's rightfully mine in the first place. You want to start a government agency that starts telling people how they should spend their own money and dispose of their own PERSONAL property? That's crazy. Communism again. Complete state control of private property, rather a complete lack of private property.


It's not that I don't appreciate your desire for everyone in society to be well off, but your proposed methodology is terribly destructive and evil. You want the people to be the sheep of the government and to not think for themselves. If you start doing that, you'll find that the most productive members of society will probably go on strike and abandon such a state to find a better place to live freely--unless you plan to pass a law that then says it's illegal to quit your job!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew which right is more worth than others, to live a decent life or to have the right to spend money as you want? Imo welfare is more of an right than the spending your money how you want right.

It's not about spending money. It's about your right to property. If you've toiled long and hard to accumulate a possession, nobody has the right to take that away from you. If someobody has built a house on their property, nobody has the right to put additional houses on your property or place boarders to room with you in your house. Our right to life is the right to live our own personal lives the way we choose free from intervention. It is not a right or a gauruntee to anything. If so, where's my right to a life of luxury? Where's my right to the best education money can buy? Where's my right to tutors, where's my right to filet mignon? Where's my right to a computer with ethernet connection? Just because I am poor, that does not give me the right to take or steal. Otherwise, I'm sure you wouldn't mind it if the government took all your possessions away from you to help the less fortunate across the globe.

quote:

you don't really see the less intelligent people as much worth as the well educated don't you?

Of course not ... I also don't think black people are worth as much as white people ... and the Chinese are about a 1/4 worth that since there are so many of them. Give me a break . Do not put words in my mouth in an attempt to villianize me, I never assigned a value of worth of one human being over another.

quote:

your system sure would be perfect is the case where that everyone can work and have the same opportunities. That is not the case, some are born smart and work willing, some are born stupid and almost without the ability to work etc. I once used to think like you did, that everyone can work, but i have now realized that that is not the case. some are born stupid and should not be punished to much for that. it's like with criminals it doesn't really matter how tough punishments there is, some people are just stupid and will murder anyway.

And therefore why reward intelligence, committment, hard work, and effort? We we're simply born that way right? Why reward those who are born with that mentality whereas the stupid and lazy have to suffer for simply being born stupid and lazy? Nevermind the fact that the choices they make in life are the reasons why they remain stupid and lazy. Man, and I used to think that unless we were born handicapped, each and every individual has the potential for personal accomplishment. I used to think that it is our innate ability to make CHOICES in life whether it be to take up crime, to study in school, to work hard, etc. What was I thinking?

quote:

hehe, and that is not a violation of your privacy right? But i can see your point, this people cannot really handle money in a good way. Probably it is better to have some kind of system where they can be controlled by the government in some way. But i do think that they should be able to allow themself some good food, modern clothes etc, sometimes. They are also humans and this small things really can mean a lot!

Why would it be a violation of privacy? The government is giving them the goods with which they need to survive. They can refuse these goods if they so choose in order to avoid any compromise of their privacy. If you're unemployed, you should make EVERY effort to get off welfare. This means no movies, no nikes, no olive garden, no nothing. You work your ass off to find a job where you have the luxury to enjoy nice things. Until then, you're a drain on society.

quote:

Rich peoples right to spend some of their money vs. unemployed peoples right to have children... hmmm =) But i agree on that do everything to get off welfare thing... Maybe visit the unemployment office everyday to search for jobs, if they don't they haven't even tried and therefore should not get their funding.

The unemployed still have the right to bear children . Remember, we rights to be free from, we don't have rights to entitlement. Therefore, if the unemployed have more desire to bear kids rather than to find a job and come off of welfare, than they can go ahead and do that. They simply won't be getting welfare .

quote:

once upon a time i thought this was a good idea too, but then i thought a bit more. It's like slavery, the state will use this to get cheap labor. If they need to hire a new stuff and they knew they have 100 unemployed to use, they will of course hire one of them instead of one new other (who may have been one of that 100 anyway but now they get it much cheaper, get me?) Perhaps this may work if they used the unemployment people for something they would never hire someone for anyway, but i am still doubting.

Yea, I kind of had a problem with my last point as well ... I didn't really want it to become a system of slavery which is why I put in two clauses: A) The unemployed will only work according to the amount of money they are paid ... therefore, if they receive $500 in welfare credit, they work no more than that $500 of credit they received. B) The unemployed are still given job seeking opportunities to escape welfare. Also, if they don't want to work, again they can opt to not receive welfare.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I disagree. Where in the constitution does it ever mention the "right to a decent life"? I'm not sure I've ever seen that in any documents which were used to sculpt the U.S. You're saying right to equal outcome vs. right to equal opportunity. Last I checked, right to personal property is one of the tenets of the forming of the U.S.

as far as i know it, it doesn't mention it anywhere, but since when is the US constitution the document that is right about everything!?

quote:

To me, 'right to a decent life' would imply that you essentially think the role of gov't is to be your babysitter. If you want to give control of your life away to the government to control, don't expect to have any control over your life or property. What would you do if the government definition of "a decent life" was of lower standards than your personal definition for "a decent life". If the government is providing it, who are you to say what is and is not "decent".

Then i would disagree with the government, so what? The point is that i want the government to think like me, so if they don't ohh then we got a problem, like we do today....

quote:

I keep telling you that it's a bad road to go down, but you don't seem to be willing to accept it. Do you actually prefer Communism?

No it's not communism, you can combine a socialist system with a liberalism system, without any big problems. And you don't seem to be willing to see that your system may be wrong? As long as you cannot show any proof that your way of society is better than ours, i will rather think of everyone then only on the rich.

quote:

Define "Born smart". Isn't a person born knowing nothing accept what they learn? Is this going to turn into a big nature vs. nurture argument? Certainly some come into this world under better circumstances than others b/c their parents are better off financially, or they just happen to find their niche at an earlier age, but for the most part all babies are born with a clean slate, and no little, if anything at all about the world, IMO.

Some people are born with the skill "easy to learn", some with the skill "work hard and learn" some just don't fix that cause they are born with a lack of all that skills. So this people don't have the same chance (if they don't live in the US with rich parents ). IMO a bit too much is already "settled" (in lack of better word, sorry) when you'r born. and i don't say it is impossible to change this, but almost.

quote:

Again, if an unemployed person wants to have children, that is certainly their right, but it is also their RESPONSIBILITY. People have to be held accountable for their decisions. At what point does it suddenly become the duty/obligation of a rich person to raise/pay for the upbringing of said child when he had no choice in the decision to have the child in the first place?!

When welfare is what i want it to be, honestly it isn't really much money we are speaking about, how greedy can you get?

quote:

Again--don't tell me that the government can spend my money better than I can. It's my choice how to dispose of it and just because it might benefit more people to strong-arm it away from me and buy a meal (On me), it's not their right to take something away from me by force if it's rightfully mine in the first place. You want to start a government agency that starts telling people how they should spend their own money and dispose of their own PERSONAL property? That's crazy. Communism again. Complete state control of private property, rather a complete lack of private property.

This was occriders idea, and it was for the unemployments, not for you. I can't see how your point of view can conflict with that, probably you just misread my post?

quote:

It's not that I don't appreciate your desire for everyone in society to be well off, but your proposed methodology is terribly destructive and evil. You want the people to be the sheep of the government and to not think for themselves. If you start doing that, you'll find that the most productive members of society will probably go on strike and abandon such a state to find a better place to live freely--unless you plan to pass a law that then says it's illegal to quit your job!

This system i'm speaking about is somewhat similar to the one we have in scandinavia/sweden, you should come visit here, and as far as i know, there is not more strikes here than anywhere else...

Btw, something along the lines of the welfare system I described, and I would be willing to provide something like that to all people, even with health care benefits as I believe people should all have access to health care ... even the poor who cannot afford it. However, I'll still argue the issue of "rights" and obligations any day of the week

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It's not about spending money. It's about your right to property. If you've toiled long and hard to accumulate a possession, nobody has the right to take that away from you. If someobody has built a house on their property, nobody has the right to put additional houses on your property or place boarders to room with you in your house. Our right to life is the right to live our own personal lives the way we choose free from intervention. It is not a right or a gauruntee to anything. If so, where's my right to a life of luxury? Where's my right to the best education money can buy? Where's my right to tutors, where's my right to filet mignon? Where's my right to a computer with ethernet connection? Just because I am poor, that does not give me the right to take or steal. Otherwise, I'm sure you wouldn't mind it if the government took all your possessions away from you to help the less fortunate across the globe.

True, if you buy something you should get that, BUT as you do today you pay a fee to the government called tax or VAT (lol you probably knew that ), the only difference is that with a better welfare system you do pay a bit more (as it sounds from you it sounds like the rich will get as poor as the poor ones, and that is NOT the case...). So with your way of thinking the government is already breaking your rights? So your only reason to go to good schools and get a well paid job is to get better healthcare that everyone else, send you kids to better schools than anyone else etc? if everyone could go to that good schools, would you give up your well paid job? Of course you wouldn't! There is sooooo much more in life than just this basic stuffs!

Again i will take sweden as an example (even though it's not perfect it is a good example of a working welfare society). Here EVERYONE gets access to health care, schools etc. And it's not like it's bad either, in all invastigations i have seen the swedish health care/schools are much better than the good american ones (of course not as good as the super duper clinics only bill gates can afford).

quote:

Of course not ... I also don't think black people are worth as much as white people ... and the Chinese are about a 1/4 worth that since there are so many of them. Give me a break . Do not put words in my mouth in an attempt to villianize me, I never assigned a value of worth of one human being over another.

So why do you think that greedy rich people who have as much as they need will have their right more worth than the poor's right to live a decent life?

quote:

And therefore why reward intelligence, committment, hard work, and effort? We we're simply born that way right? Why reward those who are born with that mentality whereas the stupid and lazy have to suffer for simply being born stupid and lazy? Nevermind the fact that the choices they make in life are the reasons why they remain stupid and lazy. Man, and I used to think that unless we were born handicapped, each and every individual has the potential for personal accomplishment. I used to think that it is our innate ability to make CHOICES in life whether it be to take up crime, to study in school, to work hard, etc. What was I thinking?

I actually think that you are wrong. Of course most people can work themself up, but not everyone can. More or less some people are born to be criminals etc. It's not a coincidence that the same people over and over again get into prison, there is something wrong with them (not in every case i know but in far too many cases).

quote:

Why would it be a violation of privacy? The government is giving them the goods with which they need to survive. They can refuse these goods if they so choose in order to avoid any compromise of their privacy.

I was kind of not serious with that, what i meant is that all rights should not be applied all the times, and i actually agreed with you on some things in that paragraph =)

quote:

If you're unemployed, you should make EVERY effort to get off welfare. This means no movies, no nikes, no olive garden, no nothing. You work your ass off to find a job where you have the luxury to enjoy nice things. Until then, you're a drain on society.

What if you can't get out of unemployment? should you not be able to live a decent life anyway? but yes i somewhat i agree with you, they should search for jobs to get welfare, but they should still live with some "luxuries".

quote:

The unemployed still have the right to bear children . Remember, we rights to be free from, we don't have rights to entitlement. Therefore, if the unemployed have more desire to bear kids rather than to find a job and come off of welfare, than they can go ahead and do that. They simply won't be getting welfare .

Disagree, they should still have the right to have a children.

Kind of off topic question: If one born children in US, would you still get your job left and how much would you be paid?

quote:

Yea, I kind of had a problem with my last point as well ... I didn't really want it to become a system of slavery which is why I put in two clauses: A) The unemployed will only work according to the amount of money they are paid ... therefore, if they receive $500 in welfare credit, they work no more than that $500 of credit they received. B) The unemployed are still given job seeking opportunities to escape welfare. Also, if they don't want to work, again they can opt to not receive welfare.

Somewhat i also think this idea is good, need to be worked on though

gtg and eat now so i will not post more on that for now...

So you basically want bigger government, despite the fact that government is inherently not trustworthy? It still hinges around the belief that some beaurocrat can make decisions for you, better than you can make on your own. You're basically handing more of your life over to someone else and saying "Here, I can't think for myself, can you think for me?". How can you ever expect success when you are not in control of your destiny? You can only ever expect to be on par with the rest of society, while those power hungry government decision makers have vastly more power and wealth than the sheep that they're pushing around, making decisions for.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So you basically want bigger government, despite the fact that government is inherently not trustworthy? It still hinges around the belief that some beaurocrat can make decisions for you, better than you can make on your own. You're basically handing more of your life over to someone else and saying "Here, I can't think for myself, can you think for me?". How can you ever expect success when you are not in control of your destiny? You can only ever expect to be on par with the rest of society, while those power hungry government decision makers have vastly more power and wealth than the sheep that they're pushing around, making decisions for.

yes i do want a big powerful government in many ways. Though it shouldn't really care about things that is out of their business, but i can't see why welfare would be out of their business, in my opinion welfare is one of their biggest tasks to do for the government...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew yes i do want a big powerful government in many ways. Though it shouldn't really care about things that is out of their business, but i can't see why welfare would be out of their business, in my opinion welfare is one of their biggest tasks to do for the government...

I see. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think too much government is a very, VERY bad thing. With my tax rate already over 35%, I can't imagine government laying an arbitrary claim to more than 1/3 of my own hard work and production, but it's something I live with. I can't imagine them taking more, it's painful enough when I have enough to worry about already. Less government would be better for all of us, IMHO.


Suggested Readings:

Brave New World
1984
Atlas Shrugged
Animal Farm
Fountainhead

ok fuck all this

What do you think is more important, you buying a big screen tv or someone on the street having food to eat? who cares who has what rights, it all comes down to interpretation and we can argue about it to the ends of the world without getting anywhere. The big question is would you rather live somewhere where no one died of starvation, pneumonia or other poverty related diseases and problems. Or somewhere where you can waste your money on whatever the fuck you want?

theres a reason why the U.S. isnt the best place to live in the world. Hell its not even in the top 5.

___________________
If anyone can get me the following records please contact me:

DJ Tiesto - Battleship Grey (Miro remix)
Tilt - Invisible (Tilt's human mix)