Welfare should be elmiinated

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny,

Is that a comment on the value of your science degree?

You know, it is hard not to be nice. We are educated to be courteous, caring and sharing. We aren't educated to ask the tough questions or in any way be confrontational. We must be cognizant of the difference between what we know and what we think we know, between theory and actuality, between truth and what we accept or believe is truth. Global warming is a theory. We can exercise some caution in it's assumptions but should we start reconstructing the global economic structure in some fevered attempt to correct perhaps what is a natural event; and what damage would we do in that attempt?

I have invested in failures because of trusting the source and ignoring my own senses.

At least you own some swamp land - some have nothing to show.

Not at all. My degree is valuable, and my intelligence is sound IMO.

A friend of mine knew a door-to-door scam man who once bragged about fooling Albert Einstein in Princeton NJ out of a few dollars. The story was believable.

[Oleg Bach]

I've got one for you.

Although it is true that if people are oppressed and kept poor they tend to rebel if they get the chance. You don't need a book to see that. Only the rich can start revolutions though and it was Peter Schiff that financed Trotsky in New York and sent him off to start the revolution - the grand socialist experiment. I think the poor wouldhave been content to thorw off the oppression not start an international movement. Especially one that proved to be more oppressive than the Tsar. It made everyone poor.

Having done my research in the field I can say that this so-called safety net is actually a trap or a very large prison that is geared to slowly eliminate and incrimentally genocide the non-compliant. By design our welfare system does not respect or empower those that are not percieved as useful to the cause of maintaining our privledged elite in their entitled postion in society..so in time the system has evolved in a manner that generates wealth to a small few at the top of the food chain at the expense of many. This buisness about communism making everyone equally poor is true..where as socialism is devised to serve the rich and powerful ...someone must finance the movement - socialist and communists by nature have no money - someone has to supply the initial investment...revolution? All that is to me is one powerful family over throwing another and taking their resourses - What was the British royal family doing as their cousins in Russia were being murdered? Not a whole lot.

[Shady]

At the very least, welfare recipients should be tested on a regular basis for alcohol, tobacco and drugs.

[charter.rights]

At the very least, welfare recipients should be tested on a regular basis for alcohol, tobacco and drugs.

Not unless we also test politicians, doctors and lawyers - all of whom take more money from government than the average welfare case....

[Alta4ever]

Not unless we also test politicians, doctors and lawyers - all of whom take more money from government than the average welfare case....

There is an arguement to be made about the work they do for said funds.

[charter.rights]

There is an arguement to be made about the work they do for said funds.

Ya right. They invent new ways to waste money. That's not "work". It is more like monkey play....

[Renegade]

To a certain point - people shouldn't be able to enter into agreements that take advantage of them. You shouldn't be able to sell yourself into slavery, for example. If you're stupid enough to work as the highest scoring forward in the NBA for minimum wage then that's your decision, but you can't agree to do so for nothing.

This is only your opinion, not a fact. To not allow people to make a choice, whether a good choice or a poor one, robs people of their freedom. Besides, who are you go decide what is a "good" choice and what is a "poor" one?

Why do we limit peoples' choices in this way ? Because people will make poor choices, and others will take advantage of it.

So what? If a person makes a poor choice shouldn't they pay the price for that bad decision?

----

Would you also prohibit low-wage people from buying lottery tickets because such a decision is a poor choice?

[Renegade]

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

Actually you don't have to go back a hundred years. Such a system is already in place in much of Asia. Weak income support systems mean people are forced to work in order to survive. Those who would ordinarily turn to welfare need to find whatever work they can. That is why in much of Asia, for a middle-class household having servants is common and even expected. There are a host of work the middle class, if given a low-cost alternative will off-load. Yard-maintainance, domestic chores, driving, child-care, cooking, are but a few.

BTW, such a system works most effectively when you eliminate minimium wage reguirements as well.

[Michael Hardner]

This is only your opinion, not a fact. To not allow people to make a choice, whether a good choice or a poor one, robs people of their freedom. Besides, who are you go decide what is a "good" choice and what is a "poor" one?

So what? If a person makes a poor choice shouldn't they pay the price for that bad decision?

----

Would you also prohibit low-wage people from buying lottery tickets because such a decision is a poor choice?

It is an opinion, true. It's also a value. I feel that a society that recognizes that people aren't supremely intelligent and restricts their freedom to do certain things (even the State of Nevada doesn't allow cocaine use legally) creates better outcomes. Society is about balancing freedoms and I just pick a different point than you. Buying lottery tickets isn't that bad a decision, when it's done in moderation.

[Pliny]

It is an opinion, true. It's also a value. I feel that a society that recognizes that people aren't supremely intelligent and restricts their freedom to do certain things (even the State of Nevada doesn't allow cocaine use legally) creates better outcomes. Society is about balancing freedoms and I just pick a different point than you. Buying lottery tickets isn't that bad a decision, when it's done in moderation.

Why do you feel government can perform this task efficiently and effectively when there has been no demonstration that it can?

[Pliny]

Pliny,

Not at all. My degree is valuable, and my intelligence is sound IMO.

A friend of mine knew a door-to-door scam man who once bragged about fooling Albert Einstein in Princeton NJ out of a few dollars. The story was believable.

I remember a story of Einstein once chopping up some worms and mixing them in water. He gave it to his teacher to drink to see if he would be able to fly. His teacher was not happy and Einstein was expelled for several weeks. Perhaps the Teacher's certificate should have been revoked?

[Pliny]

Having done my research in the field I can say that this so-called safety net is actually a trap or a very large prison that is geared to slowly eliminate and incrimentally genocide the non-compliant. By design our welfare system does not respect or empower those that are not percieved as useful to the cause of maintaining our privledged elite in their entitled postion in society..so in time the system has evolved in a manner that generates wealth to a small few at the top of the food chain at the expense of many. This buisness about communism making everyone equally poor is true..where as socialism is devised to serve the rich and powerful ...someone must finance the movement - socialist and communists by nature have no money - someone has to supply the initial investment...revolution? All that is to me is one powerful family over throwing another and taking their resourses - What was the British royal family doing as their cousins in Russia were being murdered? Not a whole lot.

The welfare class are far more useful as a tool to extract wealth form the productive and will not be eliminated. The productive are dangerous and are the ones that need regulating.

The poor and criminal class are trumpeted as victims of society.

King George and his cousin the Tsar did not get along. The Tsar wouldn't go along with the economic plan, instead preferring to keep his wealth out of European central banks. Naughty fellow. His fate is a testimony to what lengths the powers that be will go to achieve their ends but the world was willing to embrace the experiment of the totalitarian socialist state at the time. Woodrow Wilson did his best to get America involved.

On your personal dilemma with the CRA I think you will agree with me that income tax is the most abhorrent form of taxation. Your story illustrates it quite well.

If a person suffers financial disaster he has no recourse from the CRA demanding their pound of flesh. It is better to declare bankruptcy and collect welfare than dig oneself out of his pit. They provide you a shovel to keep on digging.

[ToadBrother]

"Before the existence of government run social safety nets people had to look after themselves and the community was very important to each individuals welfare. They all helped each other."

So then if we had this form of Community Utopia, why did the government step in and provide that safety net? Any idea how we ended up with a government run social safety net?

The French Revolution, where the aristocratic classes of Europe saw what happened when a government didn't take care of its subjects. After that, no European government had the least desire to end up under Madame Guillotine and we started to see the advent of Poor Laws, political liberalization and so forth. What's always interesting about the anti-Welfare types is how they're so ignorant of history that they fail to see that it wasn't just how the poor were treated that was reformed in the 19th century and beyond, but how it went hand in hand with other reforms like universal emancipation.

[Renegade]

It is an opinion, true. It's also a value. I feel that a society that recognizes that people aren't supremely intelligent and restricts their freedom to do certain things (even the State of Nevada doesn't allow cocaine use legally) creates better outcomes.

"better" implies a value judgement. The person who's freedom you restrict may not agree that it is "better".

Society is about balancing freedoms and I just pick a different point than you.

It shouldn't be about balancing freedoms, it should be aobut maximizing freedoms. IOW, freedoms should be allowed so long as it doesn't intrude on another's freedoms.

Buying lottery tickets isn't that bad a decision, when it's done in moderation.

Again this requires a value judgement. IMV, the govenrment should stay out of value judgements.

[Michael Hardner]

Why do you feel government can perform this task efficiently and effectively when there has been no demonstration that it can?

The task of restricting freedoms ? I don't trust private firms to restrict freedoms, I guess.

[Michael Hardner]

"better" implies a value judgement. The person who's freedom you restrict may not agree that it is "better".

It shouldn't be about balancing freedoms, it should be aobut maximizing freedoms. IOW, freedoms should be allowed so long as it doesn't intrude on another's freedoms.

Again this requires a value judgement. IMV, the govenrment should stay out of value judgements.

I know the person whose freedom is restricted doesn't agree. There is likely a disagreement there, and freedoms need to be balanced.

The government reflects popular morals for better or worse, and keeping them out of value judgments is impossible. You can't scientifically prove things like the viability of trade. A philosophy that espouses maximizing absolute freedom in all things is great for discussion, but it isn't workable.

We've debated libertarian ideas here on other threads. The debate, if I remember correctly, ended up in discussions on the costs of building roads, sidewalks and so forth under a libertarian system.

[Pliny]

The French Revolution, where the aristocratic classes of Europe saw what happened when a government didn't take care of its subjects. After that, no European government had the least desire to end up under Madame Guillotine and we started to see the advent of Poor Laws, political liberalization and so forth. What's always interesting about the anti-Welfare types is how they're so ignorant of history that they fail to see that it wasn't just how the poor were treated that was reformed in the 19th century and beyond, but how it went hand in hand with other reforms like universal emancipation.

The advent of poor laws? Poor laws were extant in the 1600's in England.

You seem a bit hung up on the French revolution. I think if you do a little research you will find that the French assignat was introduced as the nation's currency. It quickly lost value as the printer kept the presses running overtime, and it became quite valueless although it was legally claimed to be the currency by fiat. Paper money always returns to it's intrinsic value of zero, according to Voltaire and with a valueless currency what choice did the working class have but to invoke Rousseau and socialist academia, which quickly morphed into a Napoleonic dictatorship to make France great but all the men shorter.

[Pliny]

I know the person whose freedom is restricted doesn't agree. There is likely a disagreement there, and freedoms need to be balanced.

The government reflects popular morals for better or worse, and keeping them out of value judgments is impossible. You can't scientifically prove things like the viability of trade. A philosophy that espouses maximizing absolute freedom in all things is great for discussion, but it isn't workable.

We've debated libertarian ideas here on other threads. The debate, if I remember correctly, ended up in discussions on the costs of building roads, sidewalks and so forth under a libertarian system.

Yes, under Libertarianism, what people didn't want to get built wouldn't get built, especially if the community did not have the resources available to do so- but what community would exist that didn't have resources. It would be up to those people in the community who had the resources to engineer the community, I would think. You can't tell me that the people with the resources wouldn't want to build a legacy for themselves in their community but they wouldn't without the approval and aid of the community; something the government does not ask for.

There must be freedom within boundaries and the boundaries must be set by those who are contained by them. In other words, rules do have to apply but as long as they are agreed upon there is no restriction of freedom. The problem with the governments of today is that noone really knows the rules and lawyers are necessary for their interpretation. The Federal government does not even stand behind it's own tax advices. How can there be freedom where the rules are not even known?

The fact is that governments need not make as many rules as they do about society. Most of them are about adhering to government needs rather than the needs of society, which I might add should mostly be about maintaining justice so society can benefit and production through the division of labour can be realized.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, under Libertarianism, what people didn't want to get built wouldn't get built, especially if the community did not have the resources available to do so- but what community would exist that didn't have resources. It would be up to those people in the community who had the resources to engineer the community, I would think. You can't tell me that the people with the resources wouldn't want to build a legacy for themselves in their community but they wouldn't without the approval and aid of the community; something the government does not ask for.

The costs of building things under a user-pay system such as this would be more prohibitive. That's where the debate on this topic ended up last time.

The US is as close a model to this as you can get in a modern, rich economy: low social infrastructure, with the community infrastructure mostly used for things like roads and military spending.

There must be freedom within boundaries and the boundaries must be set by those who are contained by them. In other words, rules do have to apply but as long as they are agreed upon there is no restriction of freedom. The problem with the governments of today is that noone really knows the rules and lawyers are necessary for their interpretation. The Federal government does not even stand behind it's own tax advices. How can there be freedom where the rules are not even known?

So the problem is not the rules, but that the rules are too complicated ? That seems strange, coming from someone who desires libertarianism. We could simplify our laws, then and leave the existing social balance intact and you'd be happy ?

The fact is that governments need not make as many rules as they do about society. Most of them are about adhering to government needs rather than the needs of society, which I might add should mostly be about maintaining justice so society can benefit and production through the division of labour can be realized.

Take a look at our three main parties. Their policies are so close to each other compared to years gone by. That indicates to me that whatever these rules are you speak of, we've converging on them pretty quickly. At the point where the three parties have identical policies, we can start shedding the extra rules that we don't need.

[Pliny]

The costs of building things under a user-pay system such as this would be more prohibitive. That's where the debate on this topic ended up last time.

More prohibitive? If you mean unnecessary things would not get built, I agree.

The US is as close a model to this as you can get in a modern, rich economy: low social infrastructure, with the community infrastructure mostly used for things like roads and military spending.

The US WASa model for this but is increasingly looking like France.

So the problem is not the rules, but that the rules are too complicated ? That seems strange, coming from someone who desires libertarianism. We could simplify our laws, then and leave the existing social balance intact and you'd be happy ?

The ideal would be that each man be self sufficient and make his own rules. That is neither a desirable goal nor practical - just as,it's opposite, one man deciding what the rules are for everyone is totalitarian and undesirable and impractical.

If the laws were simplified it would definitely help but there are so many laws in so many areas that the federal government should have no concern about. Among them are Indian affairs, Multiculturalism, education, health care, other monopolies and cartels they have created in Banking, money, energy. Many of these areas should be functions of provincial or municipal/community governments if they should be mandates of government at all.

Take a look at our three main parties. Their policies are so close to each other compared to years gone by. That indicates to me that whatever these rules are you speak of, we've converging on them pretty quickly. At the point where the three parties have identical policies, we can start shedding the extra rules that we don't need.

The point where the three parties have identical policies is the point where totalitarianism has added all the rules necessary for it to be totalitarian.

[Michael Hardner]

More prohibitive? If you mean unnecessary things would not get built, I agree.

I don't mean that. How to mobilize a national change in military expenditure on the fly represents a difficult problem, for example. Necessity doesn't make it easier to set up infrastructure, administration shell etc.

The US WASa model for this but is increasingly looking like France.

The ideal would be that each man be self sufficient and make his own rules. That is neither a desirable goal nor practical - just as,it's opposite, one man deciding what the rules are for everyone is totalitarian and undesirable and impractical.

If the laws were simplified it would definitely help but there are so many laws in so many areas that the federal government should have no concern about. Among them are Indian affairs, Multiculturalism, education, health care, other monopolies and cartels they have created in Banking, money, energy. Many of these areas should be functions of provincial or municipal/community governments if they should be mandates of government at all.

But if people decided that they were concerned with these things, then why wouldn't they have laws in those areas ?

The point where the three parties have identical policies is the point where totalitarianism has added all the rules necessary for it to be totalitarian.

It's alarmist to call it totalitarian while acknowledging that "There must be freedom within boundaries and the boundaries must be set by those who are contained by them."

Whatever you're proposing does sound different from what we have now, but not different enough to call what we have now 'totalitarian'.

[Shwa]

Bing! Bing! Bing!

We have a winner! Congratulations to ToadBrother for this:

"that was reformed in the 19th century and beyond, but how it went hand in hand with other reforms like universal emancipation."

I would have also accepted: "Because what was working before was no longer working." Thus invalidating any sentimental valuation to the argument. Thank you ToadBrother, nice job!

So our next question is directed to ToadBrother:

So if the sentimental valuation to the argument is invalidated, what is left to determine the value of the present welfare state and should it be reformed to reflect the current Canadian demographic?

[Shady]

Not unless we also test politicians, doctors and lawyers - all of whom take more money from government than the average welfare case....

They work for their money. The welfare case does not. Don't try and compare a heart surgeon saving the life of his patient, or the lawyer fighting for child custody for a mother as comparible to a welfare recipient.

[Shwa]

"The welfare case does not."

Not true, at least in Ontario. You are allowed to exempt a certain portion of earnings and still collect. So you are allowed to have some employment income. As well, you may be in school and be doing school "work." Also, anyone knows nowadays that looking for full time work is a full time job so technically getting off the dole takes work.

http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/social/ow - check it out for yourself.

I think CR's comment was more about those who collect money from the government period. CR didn't say anything about working or value of that work.

Now, if the person is earning 50% of their income should they only be tested for drugs, alcohol or tobacco only half the time, or do they only count half the test results or what? What if they are earning 33% of their income? Can they exempt themselves from one of the tests - say the drug tests? How does your testing work now that we know welfare recipients can have some employment income?

[charter.rights]

They work for their money. The welfare case does not. Don't try and compare a heart surgeon saving the life of his patient, or the lawyer fighting for child custody for a mother as comparible to a welfare recipient.

I'd be surprised if you had children....they are hardwork and time consuming.

A mother raising a child on her own does 3 times the work that a lawyer or doctor may do. Child-rearing is a 24 hour a day occupation with no vacation time, or sick time. The fact that the "state" provides a safety net for them and only gives them an income well below the poverty line means that single mothers could not work outside the home, as well as afford the day care costs and still feed, house and cloth her children. While some mothers do choose to go on welfare, more often than not it is for a short period of time, while the children are young. Most are ambitious enough to further educate themselves. The few that don't seek out of the welfare rat race are either mentally deficient, or have some problems that make them unemployable for anything but below poverty-level jobs.

Why don't you try working 168 hours a week at your job and see if you can cope. My bet is that you wouldn't make it through the first 3 days...But then again you are all about "do as I say" thinking and no "do as I do", right?