Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jat · 04-29-2003, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by orac
Not entirely true. Welfare can be misused, and it can be implemented badly, but this doesn't automatically invalidate the entire concept.

Of course it's completely and utterly unjust for a person to derive their "existance" from the state. (I asusme you mean their source of food, clothing, shelter, etc.)

As a natural conclusion, I propose abolishing all copyright and patent laws and all contract laws. No doubt people like Bill Gates will approve, as they absolutely hate having to be supported by the state.

Hold on, there's something not quite right here. It's almost as if rich and successful people benefit from tax money being used to enforce laws that benefit them.

A better question might be "is it just for poor people to benefit from the state, or is that right restricted to rich people?"

Another interesting question might be "who does the state exist for?" If the purpose of the state is to benefit people, what does a person have to do in order to qualify for a particular benefit?

And of course the biggest source of welfare is Corporate welfare. So, yes they are living more off of the state than anyone else.

Jat · 04-29-2003, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by everlastingtongue
Originally posted by Subi dura a rudibus

No. I grew up in a welfare neighborhood. My mother fed me with food bought by food stamps. I know what it is like there. And yet, surprise, I�m a libertarian. Why? Because government subsidy breeds nothing but complacency. I�ve seen it first-hand.

I lived under welfare as well and I have seen the opposite.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1064/myth.html

Jat · 04-29-2003, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by meritocrat
You're deliberately confusing the issue.

Yeah, you don't want to be confused with the facts, you rather believe in a myth.

BTW, another myth is that the Earth is flat and the centre of the universe.

Jat · 04-29-2003, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cap'n Jack
Welfare is useful, when you have more people than jobs to employ them with. It helps keep people (doesn't always work) from having to find "other" means of income.

Actually, there are more jobs than people to fill them. The problem is that they are jobs which one really couldn't support a family properly on. Even if they have more than one.

meritocrat · 04-29-2003, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cap'n Jack
Welfare is useful, when you have more people than jobs to employ them with.

So you're just subsidising idleness.

Quote:

It helps keep people (doesn't always work) from having to find "other" means of income.

Non sequitur. Find a job.

meritocrat · 04-29-2003, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jat
Why am I not surprised. I'd love to see something disabiling happen to you which would deplete ALL of your savings and force you to go on welfare to make you realize just how ignorant that statement actually is.

Surprised at what? That I'm a more benevolent person than you?!

Charities can easily care for the 'less fortunate'.

seanie · 04-29-2003, 04:07 AM

Unemployment is an intrinsic feature of our economic system. It is one lever by which the economy is regulated. It may have escaped you attention but during the dark days of Thatcher, at a time when wefare benefits were reduced and tightened, unemployment skyrocketed to over 3.5 million.

That wasn't because 3.5 million suddenly fancied a bit of idleness. That was because 3.5 million were suddenly surplus to economic requirements.

Now unemployment fluctuates, but given that it is an inherent and inescapable part of our economic system, it's kinda pointless to chastise people who are unemployed.

And whilst you may prefer to put your faith in charities, the reason our welfare state was set up in the first place was precisely because the needs of those trapped in poverty, unemployment and destitution were not being adequately met.

We set up a welfare state to guarantee a minimum standard of living to our citizens regardless of what befell them, be it illness injury or unemployment.

meritocrat · 04-29-2003, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seanie
Unemployment is an intrinsic feature of our economic system. It is one lever by which the economy is regulated. It may have escaped you attention but during the dark days of Thatcher, at a time when wefare benefits were reduced and tightened, unemployment skyrocketed to over 3.5 million.

Yet the economy grew faster than under your beloved socialists in the 1970's. Hmmm...dark days indeed.

Quote:

Now unemployment fluctuates, but given that it is an inherent and inescapable part of our economic system, it's kinda pointless to chastise people who are unemployed.

Who has 'chastised' anybody here?

Quote:

And whilst you may prefer to put your faith in charities, the reason our welfare state was set up in the first place was precisely because the needs of those trapped in poverty, unemployment and destitution were not being adequately met.

We set up a welfare state to guarantee a minimum standard of living to our citizens regardless of what befell them, be it illness injury or unemployment.

And welfare is not necessary. The welfare state is built on the notion of force. Why can't people voluntarily aid the poor or worse off?

Born Free · 04-29-2003, 05:54 AM

Meritocrat have you ever claimed any benefit of any type???

meritocrat · 04-29-2003, 05:59 AM

I won't fall for this. Why do people make personal attacks when they sense they're losing the argument?

View Poll Results: Should welfare states be scrapped?
Yes	15	27.27%
No	40	72.73%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-29-2003, 04:07 AM	#27
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	Unemployment is an intrinsic feature of our economic system. It is one lever by which the economy is regulated. It may have escaped you attention but during the dark days of Thatcher, at a time when wefare benefits were reduced and tightened, unemployment skyrocketed to over 3.5 million. That wasn't because 3.5 million suddenly fancied a bit of idleness. That was because 3.5 million were suddenly surplus to economic requirements. Now unemployment fluctuates, but given that it is an inherent and inescapable part of our economic system, it's kinda pointless to chastise people who are unemployed. And whilst you may prefer to put your faith in charities, the reason our welfare state was set up in the first place was precisely because the needs of those trapped in poverty, unemployment and destitution were not being adequately met. We set up a welfare state to guarantee a minimum standard of living to our citizens regardless of what befell them, be it illness injury or unemployment.

04-29-2003, 05:54 AM	#29
Born Free Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,177	Meritocrat have you ever claimed any benefit of any type???

04-29-2003, 05:59 AM	#30
meritocrat Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 2,608	I won't fall for this. Why do people make personal attacks when they sense they're losing the argument?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.