Welfare should be elmiinated

[Michael Hardner]

It seems like right from the OP this thread is about turning back the economic clock 100 years to a system that's fair to those of privilege. This observation isn't meant as an insult - it's right there in the thread.

Calling it ridiculous that somebody makes $20/hour for their labour (versus whatever you yourself make for your very valuable contribution) is a reflection of someone's own values. Of course people will think their labour is worth more than others'.

The market takes care of that on the whole, but everyone also believes that a free market needs 'modifications', so politics comes into it.

Argus says:

So what to do about it? The law of the jungle is a harsh one, but things seem to work quite well there. We have tended to try and put a protective arm around all the weaker members of our "herd" in order to keep that kind of natural law from unduly harming them. This was done with good intentions, of course. But to what end? For every person we help by providing their children with food and shelter do we not hurt another by removing any real purpose to their lives?

Humans don't follow the laws of the jungle anymore and they haven't for millions of years. Economics, I would argue, closely followed the ability to communicate. All of this is politics, so there's no jungle involved. There is talking, convincing, negotiating, sharing and stealing. Animals don't steal, since they have no laws: animals just take.

No jungle.

All of the above completely unskilled labour. The only reason people who do it can demand ludicrously high wages is because most of the completely unskilled people who would otherwise be willing to do it are being supported or subsidized by ME in the form of my taxes, and so aren't much inclined to get off their asses and do some physical labour.

'ludicrously high wages' in your opinion. And how did you earn your living ? The market doesn't assign wages based on who deserves the pay. The community decides the minimum wage based on a community idea of fairness, though.

Citations are not required for obvious information. The law of supply and demand is fairly commonly understood and accepted. The number of people who will hire a cleaning lady at $20hr is far less than the number who will hire one at $10hr. Likewise, the number of people who will be both willing and able to accept a job at $10hr is far lower than it would be if there weren't government programs like welfare and pogey.

These are undeniable facts only a moron would argue against.

Your stated fact is right, but unfortunately you haven't explained what else happens when the minimum wage goes away. In fact, many businesses find it hard to hire people even at the current minimum wage. Can you prove that there are enough able bodied people on welfare that will take those positions if they're cut off ?

And of course there would be other effects to eliminating the minimum wage. If you really want free labour, Argus, you should be advocating for open and free immigration with no strings attached with no guarantee of a minimum wage.

[Michael Hardner]

Wait a second. Argus is in a public union ? That's downright ironic.

[Molly]

It is my opinion that we help all children, regardless of their economic background, in order for them to reach the true potential.

Only a fool believes we can better a childs life by taking away food and shelter.

And its a petty person believes that by feeding, clothing and sheltering a child, that somehow this disadvantages someone else.

What the hey! If we cut off welfare kids so they might have to steal to eat, just think of all the money we'd have saved up to build prisons!

[capricorn]

Around these parts, the day after Welfare Wednesday is called Millionaire Thursday. By Friday, it's back to returning the empties for smoke money.

Since my retirement I took up bingo as a diversion. When welfare is doled out at the end of the month the crowd in the bingo hall doubles. We call them "Queen (or King) for a day". Unless they win they disappear until the next welfare installment. The best time to gamble is mid-month when the Queens and Kings are absent and you get more elbow room.

Welfare should be only for the most extreme cases but it seems what is 'extreme' these days means too lazy to find work. Some neighborhoods I work in are almost entirely on welfare...only seeming to come to life around noonish when the ciggies and beer run out.

No one who is unable to work due to mental or physical disability should be on welfare. There are provincial disability program for those folks. Welfare should be a bridging program to UI benefits or another job. Unfortunately, a portion of welfare recipients are of the generational type, i.e. it's a self-perpetuating way of life. I know from experience but I broke ranks.

[madmax]

What the hey! If we cut off welfare kids so they might have to steal to eat, just think of all the money we'd have saved up to build prisons!

Please sir can I have some more

[Machjo]

Wait a second. Argus is in a public union ? That's downright ironic.

My mother was unionized most of her working life and she wouldn't know the first thing about socialism.

[Machjo]

And she worked for the government most of her working life.

[Guest TrueMetis]

As for the welfare issue, I once had the pleasure or should I say displeasure of actually having to swallow my pride and self-respect and accept welfare assistance. Believe me, what I received was not enough to cover my rent, basic utilities and food, let alone leave me enough to pay for gas or bus fare to go to job interviews. I would not wish being placed on welfare on my worse enemy.

Yet Argus seems to think that people on welfare live the good life. Welfare is probably one of the most worst things I've ever gone through, it was de-humanizing.

Argus if you really think that all these people do is sit around watch t.v., play video games and get drunk you should realize that one welfare you can't afford ant of that let alone rent. If you could get a T.V. you can't afford cable, if you can get video games and a console you probably can't afford Hydro, you can probably afford alchohol but your in a back alley with no place to live. Try living on what someone get from welfare for a few months you couldn't do it.

[dre]

Welfare isnt about the poor, its about the rich. It was designed BY the rich, implemented BY the rich to SERVE the rich.

Poor people vote in very very low numbers and have almost no say in society... as long as they are kept just above abject poverty and desperation. If you got rid of programs like welfare, then yes... some of them would find employment. Many others however would turn to crime or fall into abject poverty. What happens then? They turn activist and start voting, and this would be very bad for the rich, because they would vote for the first party that campaigned on more pure and aggressive socialism and wealth redistribution.

The way things are now, the poor are kept a step above abject poverty and are essentially disinterested in society. This has left the middle class and upper class to build a society thats entirely centered around the accumulation of wealth, and the protection of private property rights.

A good example of what happens when the poor arent thrown their table-scraps is Venezuela. The underclass grew very large, and fell into abject poverty to the point where they lived in massive tent cities. And what happened? They started voting!!! And they voted for the first guy that campaigned on socialism and wealth redistribution. He won (oops!) and immediately set about nationalizing resources, siezing companies and banks, etc etc. The middle and upper class failed to understand "the arrangement" that is modern democratic society and they paid a heavy heavy price for that.

Limited socialism has been using by every single major industrialized democracy in the last century to provide stability and act as a firewall wall against pure socialism, and to keep the poor out of the voting booths. Its been extremely successful and there isnt a single thriving democracy that doesnt use it.

[madmax]

This isn't the first Conservative that has located a progressive vision. However, in this case, the person is no longer a Conservative.

However, this sums up alot of the "lets go after the poor" and ignore those who steal millions or billions and prosper with government handouts to the tune of millions and billions.

Its simply a matter of whom, do you want to target and the weak are easy targets.

From 1995 until 2004, I was a Conservative. I joined the Ontario Progressive Conservatives shortly after the Harris sweep in 1995. At the time, I was caught up in the fervor surrounding change and in the referendum in Quebec. I spent a summer working for the Ontario PC party, was a summer intern to Finance Minister Ernie Eves, and then became an aide to Health Minister Jim Wilson. It was not a glamorous job. I drove the Minister to events and eventually, when he became more comfortable with me, I worked on issues for his constituency and provided the odd piece of political advice.

As some in the Ontario public grew more vocally opposed to the Harris regime, standing in front of Queen's Park, waving placards, shouting epithets at passing MPPs, we in government started to circle the wagons. When feeling besieged, you end up finding comfort in those with similar ideals and values. You shut out your detractors or demean them. And demeaning opponents was something at which the Harris government was very good.

Divide and conquer. Instill fear. Demoralize. Simple, savvy yet unsavoury political tools. Going after the poor was easy. Canadians, for all of their fanciful notions about a just society, still quite often see the poor as authors of their own predicament. While we're not the rugged individualists like our southern brethren, we still maintain a Victorian attitude toward the poor. Pull yourself up, get a job, never mind all of those things that have worked against you like abuse, addiction, depression, illiteracy, lost opportunities. Suck it up and get to work.

The poor have no power and little by way of a voice. Sure, there are coalitions and action groups and concerned citizens and the New Democrats. But look what they’re up against. Values and mores and people who simply do not identify with those living in poverty.

And when you portray those living in poverty as impediments to an efficient economy, who hoover up tax dollars that should go to stuff the rest of us need like health care and education (create divisions between social programs! Brilliant), who can find jobs if they really try, even if they're minimum wage, working-poor McJobs, then you mobilize people. Just to get those who are a little leery of your 22 per cent cut to welfare, who have a suspicion that this may be a bit mean-spirited, you start a few rumours. You know, that one about that person on welfare who had a big-screen TV and a nice car. Or you find one or two cases of welfare abuse and then hold these up as normal examples of a system gone bloated and rotten.

Sound Familiar?

[BubberMiley]

Welfare isnt about the poor, its about the rich. It was designed BY the rich, implemented BY the rich to SERVE the rich.

THat's absolutely true. Ridding our streets of legless two-year-olds like you'll find in Tijuana and not having to bar every window in one's home is a quality-of-life improvement that comes cheap for the pennies we spend on welfare.

[lictor616]

And by my logic, if wages were high enough to make working more profitable than collecting welfare, people would be out working. So rather than whining about welfare, makes more sense to be calling for higher wages. Yet Argus seems to be upset that no one is willing to work for "peanuts." One has to laugh at the absurdity of it all.

welfare and government taxed schemes are what run up the cost of doing business... which is largely why our wages are smaller.

Its almost as if pro-welfare people don,t understand that the money COMES FROM THE PEOPLE... not the government... the government doesn't have a money tree for welfare!

I remember reading that in Canada and the US the minimum wage has stagnated to roughly its 1983 levels... yet the cost of life has increased by a factor of 3.8 since.

and taxes and welfare programs have done nothing but increase in parallel to this.

all it boils down to is: if we really were better off giving money to our government so that it could spend it for us... we would have lost the cold war....

Edited November 1, 2009 by lictor616

[dre]

all it boils down to is: if we really were better off giving money to our government so that it could spend it for us... we would have lost the cold war....

Youre trying to make this an either or thing but in reality its not like that. All the countries on our side of the cold war enjoy unprecidented economic success in part because we give up part of our money to spend on things that keep society stable, promote commerce, and facilitate transactions. In not a question of public spending vs private spending its a matter of striking a balance between the two. The rich and everyone else make MORE money in societies that use limited socialism to promote stability.

Youre wages are much much much HIGHER than they would be if we ended welfare, healthcare, and other types of social security. Social stability is one of the core attributes of a healthy transactional framework. More business happens as a result of these things, not less.

[lictor616]

Youre trying to make this an either or thing but in reality its not like that. All the countries on our side of the cold war enjoy unprecidented economic success in part because we give up part of our money to spend on things that keep society stable, promote commerce, and facilitate transactions. In not a question of public spending vs private spending its a matter of striking a balance between the two. The rich and everyone else make MORE money in societies that use limited socialism to promote stability.

Youre wages are much much much HIGHER than they would be if we ended welfare, healthcare, and other types of social security. Social stability is one of the core attributes of a healthy transactional framework. More business happens as a result of these things, not less.

I agree that some governmental intrusion is necessary and sometimes useful... but certainly not the scandalously high extent it is today.

I refer you to a particularly good article on this very subject:

http://mises.org/story/3634

[BubberMiley]

Youre wages are much much much HIGHER than they would be if we ended welfare, healthcare, and other types of social security. Social stability is one of the core attributes of a healthy transactional framework. More business happens as a result of these things, not less.

Funny how the most libertarian countries are basket cases and the western world's prosperity skyrocketed after the implementation of the social safety net in the latter half of the 20th century. And yet these remedial ideologues can't see reality for their own fantasies of having poor people to do their bidding for next to nothing.

[Argus]

And you think that, why?

Okay, I'm also smarter and more creative. Happy?

Ohhh. "Contempt." I guess the question hit even more of a nerve than I originally thought.

Uhm, no, I just thought it was a stupid question.

The difference, as I see it, is that you're whining about the wages they charge. Why would they want to work hard all day for peanuts and then go home and do all the work there themselves that you don't want to go home and do yourself? -- because there's no way in hell they can afford someone to help out making "peanuts" all day, is there? I would imagine they may be a little tired, too, after doing physical labor all day.

You're probably right, but that's the difference between being poor and being middle class. Being poor means not being able to afford certain luxuries.

But here's the thing. They can, and evidently are, "commanding" higher wages too. Higher than you think they should be getting,

Higher than any reasonable people thinks they ought to be getting for completely unskilled labour.

higher than you want to pay. That comes under the category of 'too bad for you.'

Yes, and too bad for all those seniors and disabled people who can't afford to have home care.

I'm not the one expecting higher wages for a tedious job. I'm the one pointing out to you that those doing tedious jobs can demand more because so many people don't want to do it.

You forgot the important fact that those who don't want to do it have the option of sitting at home and not working while I - and others like me - pay for their food, their clothing, their shelter, their entertainment, their health care and their alcohol. Remove that little fact and we'll see how eager many of them are for work.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out, if people aren't paid enough, they can't live on their salary. So they quit and go on welfare

They can live on it. They just can't live as well on it.

What a joke. This latest scenario of yours was never brought up.

Uhm, yes it was. I pointed out the couple I know several pages back who work long hours and can't afford a housekeeper to help watch the kids and do chores. Remember?

The claim you were making is that people on welfare were spending all their time watching tv, playing video games, and getting drunk. I see you've now gone from that to 'having more time to do their chores than you do.'

They have more time to do everything than I or any other working person has. I would have thought that would have been self-evident, but you insisted on continually whining that they wouldn't have time to do their chores and also do a little work for someone else.

[Argus]

THat's absolutely true. Ridding our streets of legless two-year-olds like you'll find in Tijuana and not having to bar every window in one's home is a quality-of-life improvement that comes cheap for the pennies we spend on welfare.

If that was the bargain it seems to have failed as our streets are now filled with homeless bums and psychiatric cases, and many of us (including me) have bars on our windows (basement) and alarms, as well.

[Argus]

This isn't the first Conservative that has located a progressive vision. However, in this case, the person is no longer a Conservative.

However, this sums up alot of the "lets go after the poor" and ignore those who steal millions or billions and prosper with government handouts to the tune of millions and billions.

I've been calling to an end to most subsidies for business for a long time, probably longer than I've been on this site. I was against the money to the auto makers, too. And I've caleld for much stricter laws on white collar criminals and other fraud artists.

[Pliny]

I beg to differ. A person with a low level of education is legally prohibited from offering his services at below minimum wage. So unless the government is prepared to pay to further his education, it forfeits the moral right to impose a minimum wage on him.

Likewise, if a person lacking experience should offer to volunteer at a company, or work at low wage to start, as a means of getting his foot in the door, again, that is not allowed. The employer is responsible for his safety unless he's on a co-op programme with a school, in which case the school pays for the insurance during the time of the co-op. Even if he is of legal age and puts in writing that he takes all responsibilities for his own safety at that place of work, that doesn't count in law, and so the employer would not even allow that.

There are various other labour laws too designed not to help the unemployed find work, but rather to help the employed keep their jobs. Certainly you're not going to deny that these laws do make it more difficult for a person to find work, obstacles that did not exist years ago.

So certainly, if you want to remove welfare, you have to remove these other obstacles too to be fair.

As for your comment on transportation, if the government stopped spending so much money on road construction, that would automatically not only save the government and taxpayers money on road construction, but would also encourage higher population density in cities, thus making cities geographically smaller and thus more accessible to those without their own means of transportation.

Historically, with fewer people owning cars, more people lived near tram lines, subway stations, and bus routes, or near work. This resulted in a higher population density in our cities, thus making it much easier for the poor to get around. With the advent of the car, the suburb was born, spreading cities out and making transportation for the poor an ever growing problem.

Again, I don't believe the answer is more welfare or more government spending on public transit. I believe rather that the opposite is the solution. Cut spending on welfare, but only after removing all the legal obstacles to employment that did not exist before. Cut spending on public transit, but only after cutting spending on excessive road construction. The higher population density that would follow would naturally benefit public transit through the free market itself owing to people trying to find ways around the increased traffic. Either that, or more people would move closer to work or more companies move closer to residential neighbourhoods.

Very good! Excellent suggestions!

[whowhere]

You know, I have a friend (yes, really) who has an important job. She works long hours, and as she's considered management, she gets no overtime pay. Now her boss has been transferred, and it looks like they want to promote her. But she's got two kids at home, and her husband is working long hours with a new store he's opened. It's a big struggle to look after the kids and get things done at home with the long hours they work.

And I was thinking (yes really) that a hundred years ago, middle class folks like this didn't have to worry so much about things like this because they had servants. There was no welfare then, and poor people lived in crummy little houses and were desperate for anything they could get. So if you were middle class you could hire yourself a housekeeper or two for peanuts, and they'd take care of all the chores and help raise the kids if necessary.

But nowadays poor people just sit around the comfortable homes we pay for, eating the food we pay for, doing NO work, playing video games, getting drunk and fornicating. They're useless, a drain on resources. But if we stopped paying for their houses and stopped paying welfare, they'd be available to do work again at wages the middle class could afford. Plus, our taxes would go down considerably, allowing us to be more generous.

It would make life a lot easier on hard working, middle-class folks, and would increase productivity across the board. I could even hire one. Winter is coming up and I hate shovelling my lane. Well, not that I do. I hire some guy for that. But I wouldn't have to pay as much if I had my own servant guy. He could cut the lawn in the summer and do the weeding, too. The welfare types would get experience in working, and would gain more self respect. I think getting rid of welfare would be an all-around winner for everyone.

I have to wonder how old you are. Your verbal garbage is what is wrong with North America. It's not enough for your types to use immigrants and so called refugees from low GDP countries to drive down wages in Canada and strip jobs away from Canadians you want to ensure they have no other avenue than to hold you at Gun point and sodomize you just for the fun of it. Afterwards they will raid your fridge and cut your fingers off for the gold you have around your fat fingers. However, if you and Canada wants to scrap welfare, the CPP ought to also be scrapped because that to is also welfare. There is no way the retirees who have collected over the last 30 years and lived into their nineties have paid into CPP what they got out of it. Also because you want to make the system fair and get costs down it, nursing homes should be look at no different than welfare. Typically people go into nursing homes they sign over their CPP and get looked after. Why? We should perhaps stuff them into Gas chambers instead and save the country money.

hitler, I see the kind of human being you are. I suggest you look at Canada's immigration policies and see that is the real problem and not people on welfare. Canada's employment stats are a lie, and everything about Canada is designed to feather the nests of Corrupt Goverment workers and politicians at the expense of the populace. You are obviously in the wrong sector, shift to another sector if you aren't making enough to have others do the stuff you think you are to good to do yourself. Perhaps you should try advocating the return of the slave trade abolished by Abe lincoln.

[Guest American Woman]

Okay, I'm also smarter and more creative. Happy?

Sure. I'm happy that someone believes that about you, because I think it would be pretty sad if no one did.

Uhm, no, I just thought it was a stupid question.

Uhm, well, you're wrong. In light of your ideas, it wasn't stupid at all. I can see why you wouldn't want to acknowledge that, though.

You're probably right, but that's the difference between being poor and being middle class. Being poor means not being able to afford certain luxuries.

And not having the money to pay the wages of those doing the work means not being able to afford certain luxuries, too. That they should lower their wages, making them even less likely to be able to afford any extras at all, just so you can afford "luxuries," is ludicrous.

Higher than any reasonable people thinks they ought to be getting for completely unskilled labour.

Yet that's their asking price, regardless of what you think; so if you can't afford it, as I said earlier, that comes under the category of "too bad." Again, the fact that you think they should lower their salary for the sake of your luxuries is totally and completely ridiculous.

Yes, and too bad for all those seniors and disabled people who can't afford to have home care.

I already provided a solution for that. You just don't approve of it because you see it as you losing more money. It's fine for those who you perceive to be "unskilled" to have a lower income so you can have luxuries, but far be it for you to have a lower income so seniors can have necessities. Your concern is truly heartwarming.

You forgot the important fact that those who don't want to do it have the option of sitting at home and not working while I - and others like me - pay for their food, their clothing, their shelter, their entertainment, their health care and their alcohol. Remove that little fact and we'll see how eager many of them are for work.

The "others like you" would be the entire work force. From the way you come across, one would think that you believe you are being singled out to pay taxes. But here's the thing. If people on welfare have it so darn good, you can always join their ranks. Try living on a welfare salary and see how much you have for "entertainment" and "alcohol." See if you think you are living the Good Life.

They can live on it. They just can't live as well on it.

Just as you can live on your salary; and if you can't afford the "luxury" of "unskilled labor" to make your life easier, you just can't live as well on it as you'd like. Yet here you are whining about not being able to live as well as you'd like while expecting others to lower their salary for your sake.

Furthermore, if they can live on $9 an hour, then you can afford to live on one salary. That way one of you can work outside the home and come home and "do nothing" while the other stays home all day and does all that needs to be done around the house. That way neither of you is overworked and you can be happy as clams. You don't even have to worry about paying "unskilled labor," because you won't need anyone else to do your work. You'll be doing it all yourselves. You just won't be living "as well," but what's good for the goose ....

Uhm, yes it was. I pointed out the couple I know several pages back who work long hours and can't afford a housekeeper to help watch the kids and do chores. Remember?

Uhm, yeah, I do remember that. I also remember you saying people on welfare did nothing but watch tv, play video games, and get drunk. And THAT'S what my comments were in regards to, in case you really didn't get that.

They have more time to do everything than I or any other working person has. I would have thought that would have been self-evident, but you insisted on continually whining that they wouldn't have time to do their chores and also do a little work for someone else.

Again. I said what I did because of your continual claim that they do nothing but ....

............Forget it. It's not even worth repeating yet again because you either can't get it, or are purposely not getting it. Either way, it's not worth my time.

People charge what they do for the chores you want done, so suck it up. If you can't afford them, too bad so sad. You'll just have to do without the "luxuries" you think it's just fine for them to do without.

I don't know where you get the idea that your life should be so privileged, at the expense of others, no less, but life just doesn't work that way.

[Guest American Woman]

Likewise, if a person lacking experience should offer to volunteer at a company, or work at low wage to start, as a means of getting his foot in the door, again, that is not allowed. The employer is responsible for his safety unless he's on a co-op programme with a school, in which case the school pays for the insurance during the time of the co-op. Even if he is of legal age and puts in writing that he takes all responsibilities for his own safety at that place of work, that doesn't count in law, and so the employer would not even allow that.

That's the problem with putting people on welfare to work in people's homes, too. Watching their children. Helping Seniors. Seems odd to me that the same people who think these people are so lacking in character that they "do nothing but watch soaps on tv, play video games, and get drunk" would be ok with sending them out in the world to other people's houses. Vulnerable people's houses. To do their chores. To watch their kids.

Who's supposed to screen all of these people? And at what expense? And what happens the first time something goes wrong? The government would be held accountable to the tune of millions of dollars, if past law suits are any indication.

[Guest American Woman]

Welfare isnt about the poor, its about the rich. It was designed BY the rich, implemented BY the rich to SERVE the rich.

Poor people vote in very very low numbers and have almost no say in society... as long as they are kept just above abject poverty and desperation. If you got rid of programs like welfare, then yes... some of them would find employment. Many others however would turn to crime or fall into abject poverty. What happens then? They turn activist and start voting, and this would be very bad for the rich, because they would vote for the first party that campaigned on more pure and aggressive socialism and wealth redistribution.

The way things are now, the poor are kept a step above abject poverty and are essentially disinterested in society. This has left the middle class and upper class to build a society thats entirely centered around the accumulation of wealth, and the protection of private property rights.

A good example of what happens when the poor arent thrown their table-scraps is Venezuela. The underclass grew very large, and fell into abject poverty to the point where they lived in massive tent cities. And what happened? They started voting!!! And they voted for the first guy that campaigned on socialism and wealth redistribution. He won (oops!) and immediately set about nationalizing resources, siezing companies and banks, etc etc. The middle and upper class failed to understand "the arrangement" that is modern democratic society and they paid a heavy heavy price for that.

Limited socialism has been using by every single major industrialized democracy in the last century to provide stability and act as a firewall wall against pure socialism, and to keep the poor out of the voting booths. Its been extremely successful and there isnt a single thriving democracy that doesnt use it.

Well said. Sums it all up neatly and concisely.

I don't understand why people think a country with more poor, homeless, sick people out on the streets would improve things. Furthermore, with the economy the way it is -- with more people looking for work than there are jobs -- I don't understand how people can say that all the people on welfare are choosing to be on welfare. I guess that would mean all of those people in the high unemployment figures are choosing to be out of work, too, which is just as ridiculous a notion.

[Pliny]

Funny how the most libertarian countries are basket cases and the western world's prosperity skyrocketed after the implementation of the social safety net in the latter half of the 20th century. And yet these remedial ideologues can't see reality for their own fantasies of having poor people to do their bidding for next to nothing.

Name me a libertarian country?

Bubber, really! Look past your nose.

America in it's first hundred years had no social safety net and became by the time of the first world war one of the richest and most powerful nations on earth. The social safety net has been eating away at the economy for the past half century and America is on the brink of financial collapse.

Although social safety nets provided by the State are a contributive factor to the decay of society the factor that contributes most is the debasing of the currency and the manipulation of the economy by fiscal policy.

Let me guess, from your statement, in the last fifty years, crime has disappeared along with poverty and illiteracy all due to our prosperity. Society for the last half century has achieved greatness. Is this the reality you see? Or is it a fantasy?

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny

Name me a libertarian country?

I don't know... Somalia and Liberia... countries like that seemed to be pretty free of bureaucracy in the recent past...

America in it's first hundred years had no social safety net and became by the time of the first world war one of the richest and most powerful nations on earth. The social safety net has been eating away at the economy for the past half century and America is on the brink of financial collapse.

Tying American prosperity to the social safety net, pro or can, probably requires its own thread.

The US has relatively lower taxes and less regulation than a lot of the G7 did in the last 1/2 of the 20th century, so....

Although social safety nets provided by the State are a contributive factor to the decay of society the factor that contributes most is the debasing of the currency and the manipulation of the economy by fiscal policy.

Let me guess, from your statement, in the last fifty years, crime has disappeared along with poverty and illiteracy all due to our prosperity. Society for the last half century has achieved greatness. Is this the reality you see? Or is it a fantasy?

Crime rates have dropped, general prosperity has increased as has the general well being. Society has done quite well over the past 1/2 century.