posted 12-04-98 11:40 PM ET            

If the answer is yes, then their should be welfare.

if the answer is no, then no there should not be welfare, becuase are government is based loosely on John Locke. Which means our government only legitimate duty is the protection of rights.

posted 12-05-98 04:37 AM ET            

Anyway, lots of people think that in the (near) future there simply won't jobs for a large part of the workforce. Their contribution will not be needed; machines can do the job more efficiently. So, what do we do - let the excess people starve?

posted 12-05-98 07:24 PM ET            

"If you are 20 and you are not a liberal, you have heart, if you are 40 and not a conservative YOU HAVE NO MIND." - Winston Churchill

posted 12-05-98 09:21 PM ET            

"If you are 20 and are not a liberal, you have NO heart, if you are 40 and are not a conservative, you have NO MIND." - Winston Churchill

posted 12-05-98 10:24 PM ET            

The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.

Anyway, Imran, I think Paw's point (about your age) is that, according to Churchill, you'd probably have no heart... Not that I agree with the quote either.

posted 12-06-98 02:09 AM ET            

The moral is Slash Welfare!!

posted 12-06-98 10:08 AM ET            

crack: so what?!

imran: Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.

posted 12-06-98 12:45 PM ET            

On welfare: I think it should only be given to you for a period of 6 months, & during that time you are forced to look for a job every day. If you can't find one, your welfare is cut. We need to weed the lazy ones out. Some people should be able to get it for a long period, like a single mother with twins, she won't have time for work. But we need to just get rid of the lazy bastards who screw the public over, & the illegal immigrants who take advantage of it as well.

posted 12-06-98 10:19 PM ET            

DCA: What I was trying to establish is that according to the liberal philosophy a welfare state is not justified if ALL the people who pay for it do so voluntarily. Of course you can denounce liberty and choose coercion in which case liberalism is indeed irrelevant to you.

posted 12-07-98 02:10 AM ET            

Steel Dragon: I don't think ppl should be given cash on a pearmanent basis, on the other hand I think giving it out for 6 months or so would be a good idea. What if someone loses their job through no fault of their own , say downsizing, should they immitately be forced to give up their house and move into a Shelter and eat at Soup Kitchens? Would you want this to happen to you? Even if you have a job that can't be downsized, just say you did find yourself without a job? I'm not saying give ppl cash forever, just 6 months, after which yes, we should probabaly just give them a place to live, food, etc.

posted 12-07-98 05:53 AM ET            

PawtheUnstuk - why starve w/o welfare? There IS charity. If there was no welfare, there would be more charity (more guilt felt by the rich, less tax (hopefully...)).

The argument 'bout not enough jobs is true, in part. There is excess demand for jobs in some industries and overstaffing in others. Overall, there is a fine balance which, in the long run, distributes jobs efficiently among sectors, ie, now there aren't that few computer programmers as there were in early eighties, and good ones are still in big demand. It is the many choices that people make that cause unemployment most of the times, not all is the system.

posted 12-07-98 10:59 AM ET            

As for John Locke, his theory was that the basic natural rights are those of Life, Liberty and Property (and not the Pursuit of Happiness since this follows from the above).

posted 12-07-98 01:56 PM ET            

I personally, as a taxpayer am disgusted to see functional people take welfare !!! Welfare is a good thing if done right, but unfortunately too many people are abusing it !!!

The world has no room for such selfish individuals who basically steal from others !!! I have no querels contributing for people who are handicaped (even there, there should be limits), or for single mother with a newborn child ... etc etc ... Those are what I consider acceptable reasons for being on welfare !!!

Not being able to find a good job is not what I consider a good reason to be on welfare !!! There is an acceptable time frame that should be permisible between jobs, but being on welfare for 3 months is not acceptable in my point of view !!!

Also, a greater focus on job-placement should be made .. if you employed one person who had the job of finding a job for just one person a month, just think of the total end of year saving for the government (taxes from the 13 people, plus 13 less welfare recipiants ... all for the cost of one person's salary) ... there would also be more people in the workforce, and in turn more capital in circulation, which in turn would create more jobs !!!

As you said, any civilized government should have welfare, but anyone who abuses welfare for months/years on end, simply isn't civilized in my books !!!

--------------------------------------
Comments on comments !!!

DHE ... I agree 100% ..welfare should be used ... not abused !!! Anyone who is truly (how can we judge this though) looking for employment should be given welfare/unemployment Insurence !!!

Imran .. you are right in saying they a dispicable ... in effect, they are thieves !!! As to your 6 month time limit, I personally think it should be shorter, but that really should be on a case by case basis ... everyone's situation is different, plus available employment varies from area to area !!!

DCA .. that is an excelent point you make .. that is a possibility, but don't forget, people need to make the machines, make the programs ... also, the service industry will never become obsolete (well, not until we get a real working HAL 2000)!!! The fact is, at this point in time, there are more than enough jobs for everyone (at least here in NorAm and Europe) !!!

Anyways, the solution to your problem lies in what I stated before, welfare should be for those truly willing to work, if there truly is no work, then they should get welfare !!! But anyways, if that happens, the global economy would colapse, and there wouldn't be any money for welfare anyways !!!

I hate when people bash Bill Gates ... the fact is, he worked for his money ... he may have had a hundred thousand horseshoes up his @$$, but it is his money that he earned !!! (Sorry for the mental picture there LOL)

The fact is, that most of these extremely rich people will donate more to charities in one hour than any of us will ever donate in our entire life !!! Look at media empire entripeneur Ted Turner ... he'll be donating ONE BILLION dollars to the UN over the next 10 years (100 million per year for 10 years) !!! The fact also is, that he, Bill Gates and the other super rich have created employment for millions of people !!! We are all so quick to accuse these people when they cut jobs, but no one ever truly thanks them for the jobs that are actually there !!!

CrackGenius: "The right to life does not mean someone else has obligation to provide you with that right" ... (more or less) .. anyways, that is what it really comes down to, I agree with you 110% !!! Why should my standards of living be lowered to support someone else's laziness ??? That would not even be tolerated in a purely socialist society !!!

RM .. You are wrong !!! There are more than enough jobs out there for everyone, in fact, I don't see a shortage of jobs coming in the forseable future !!! But you do bring up a point that what if no one wants to hire him/her ... I guess that would fall into the extended period category !!!

Anyways, when people in society finally get over their fear of being a number, we can finally proceed to more effective plans !!!

For instance, if everyone were to be identified by a card with their picture and DNA, to proove 100% who they are, we can then proceed with plans that moght be more costly at first, but much more effective in the long run !!!

EX: Someone who is destitute could be given a start-up sum (say $5000) .. to get an apartment to shower in, some clothes, etc .. they would then be much more likely to be given employment than when they were living on the streets and all dirty and stinky !!! There is no way this system could be used today because of the massive amounts of abuse it would be subject to !!! But if there was a way to confirm 100% that these people are who they say they are, then it would be a worthwile cost !!!! Of course, this type of thing would only be given out to each person once !!! And the whole government system would have to be set up so that we would know where everyone works, so this couldn't be abused !!! The data infrastruture needed for this type of thing is extensive, but once done, it will more than pay for itself !!!!

Steel Dragon .. your idea of supporting people with extra money if they live below the poverty line is great !!! That is pretty much the direction Russia watted to take decades ago !!! If socialism is applied properly on a global level, it wouldn't be long before ASSENDENCE TO TRANSENDENCE !!! (For lack of a better term of virtual perfect harmony)

posted 12-07-98 02:20 PM ET            

Paw .. you're right that some people can't even perform simple jobs, but this should be covered in what I refered to in my post and the start up package .. as well as a lump sum, people should be assessed on their abilities and given job training programs if needed !!!

As for letting who abuse the system die on the streets, even if it will contribute to making society better as a whole, I really don't think that's very humane !!! In theory, there should be a government shelter for anyone who needs it, with food, and other necessities, but nothing else !!!

posted 12-08-98 12:14 PM ET            

On the rest, just keep this thread up until I'm definately back on Sunday or Monday. I'll be discussing the topic tomorrow in the seminar I'm attending, should be fun.

posted 12-08-98 06:17 PM ET            

"No person shall be held to answer for a capita, or otherwise infamous crim, unless presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or in public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shallprivate property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Yeah Roland, so? A person cannot be deprived of life without due process, that doesn't mean the same thing as having a right to life.

posted 12-08-98 07:19 PM ET            

In most western countries economy is considered more important than a decent livingstandard for the citizens of the country. And in order for the government to keep a low inflation rate they have to maintain a unemployment rate of at least 4%. Otherwise people would get more money, the prices would go up so people would need more money etc.

At least this is the case in Sweden (a journalist even got the manager of the national bank to admit this was the policy), the economical rules might be diffrent in America but I doubt it.

posted 12-08-98 07:44 PM ET            

Crack: "you can denounce liberty and choose coercion in which case liberalism is indeed irrelevant to you." Hehehe - very eloquent. Of course, I see your point - the "who cares" thing was more of a drunken joke Still, I don't think the 'voluntary welfare' system really works, though I agree it would be ideal.

I guess growing up in Norway has made me a bad capitalist - I don't care how much people exploit the welfare system, as long as the economy can handle it...

posted 12-08-98 09:26 PM ET            

CrackGenuis: First of all: the whole point of a democracy is its not coercion. The point of government is largely to make the rescources of a country go in the same direction.
Secondly: I am forced to pay for many things which I would not normally choose to pay for. Much of the military, for example. No one is going to say, "let those who want a military pay for it".

posted 12-08-98 09:50 PM ET            

Also, if you absolutely cannot support yourself due to a handicap or the like, then I don't think you should be made to starve, despite the length of time you are unemployed. Also, why is not being able to find a job not a good reason for Welfare? If you can't find a job, should you have to starve? Its not your fault if you can't find a job.

posted 12-09-98 03:07 AM ET            

one month welfare = 1000

one month working = 1200
one month childcare = 400
working net wage = 800

posted 12-09-98 05:58 AM ET            

you do not see a problem. You have created a problem, and it looks like a problem to you. Your example with Bill Gates is flawed at the core of it. What you get is not the payment for the effort, it is for the end result. And in fact Evil Billy has given a lot of people an opportunity to earn much more than they could before - investing in MS stox 10 years ago, working for MS, using Windows and MSOffice at work etc. He created an immense amount of value to the world, and got paid for it through his Microsoft shares and his salary (which is not among top ten executive salaries of the US).

posted 12-10-98 03:31 AM ET            

As for the "Grow up and face reality" pharagraph....nonsense. Living on the streets picking up cans and barely getting enough to eat is no kind of a life. And THERE are ppl dying. I think its a tad silly of you to say "grow up and face reality" when you have no actual facts and fairly little reasnoning. Your basically just pontificating, which is nice but don't tell me to face "reality" but what you actually want me to do is accept whatever you've decided is the truth this morning.

Concerning "There is no problem, you're making the problem, you see the problem. If you don't see a problem with some people living a wretched existecne and barely staying alive while some ppl have more wealth than they could ever possibly spend, then frankly I don't think we have anything to discuss.

posted 12-10-98 09:14 AM ET            

Not that I like Billy or his Win95 full of bugs, but in fact he has not murdered, raped, looted, robbed, raqueteered or fraudulently possessed anybody's money - bingo, he earned it!

The fact that someone does not have anything to eat does not make Billy's wealth undeserved. He deserves it because people bought Windows and MSOffice and paid for it. And upgraded later - they actually liked that crap

"If you don't see a problem with some people living a wretched existecne and barely staying alive while some ppl have more wealth than they could ever possibly spend, then frankly I don't think we have anything to discuss" - I do in fact see a problem with that, but which country are you talking about when speaking about the poor dying on the streets?

I see a problem in the rich becoming more and more selfish and less and less charitable BECAUSE of the forced charity that is called welfare.

I see a problem with people dying on the streets (though I have never heard of this happening here, and believe me, since the Lithuanian press is the freest in the world, this WOULD be in the papers), but where I see a biggest problem is when somehow people start thinking that the poor have TITLE on everyone else's property just because they are poor, and by majority voting the minority rich are robbed and the loot in Robin Hood style is distributed to the poor.

posted 12-14-98 08:22 AM ET            

What else ? The right to life is not unlimited; if that right were unlimited in the declaration, the US - according to the declaration, whether legally binding or not - couldn't have the death penalty. It couldn't go to war. It couldn't suppress violent uprisings. That was not the thing meant in the declaration; it was about the same as later "constitutionalised" in the 5th amendment. Therefore, the 5th amendment is about (among other things) the right to life.

Saras: "...but where I see a biggest problem is when somehow people start thinking that the poor have TITLE on everyone else's property just because they are poor, and by majority voting the minority rich are robbed..."

posted 12-14-98 12:09 PM ET            

A little correction - wealth cannot exist if there is no buyer for it, i.e., if MS would go bust, Billy would become not-as-rich-as-he-is-now. And one more correction - you don't need a society for wealth - you need laws, that is, government.

Society has a right ... to some redistribution - who gave it the right? Right to individual property is inalienable, and the laws just protect it, not CREATE it. IMO, society has no rights. Individuals do.

posted 12-14-98 03:23 PM ET            

Is there a right to property without a social context ? If there is no society, and I take your stone axe away, am I violating your right ?

From a different angle: is every sort of redistribution of wealth a violation of the right to property ? Or every other (ie not direct for redistribution) tax ?

posted 12-15-98 04:23 AM ET            

Other redistribution and tax - this is a flawed example. Roads, policing and army cannot be provided by an individual. Charity can.

posted 12-15-98 07:23 AM ET            

1. Are there prepositive rights, ie a sort of natural law
2. Almost no right is unlimited, it finds its limit in the right of others

"If you take away my axe (I like the example) you ARE violating my rights." - So you imply the answer to 1. is yes. Now let's say I have two axes, you have none. I only need one. You need one for hunting, to survive. I don't give you one of my two, you just take it. Are you violating my right ?

"Another example is also off-track - if I want to smash your head with my axe... it would be a violation of your rights to a non-smashed head, not my rights to my axe." - So, property is not just the right to have it and sit on it, but also to use it. But this particular use violates the right of others. When we are on the basis of natural law (see 1.), why is there only a natural right to property but no right for the satisfaction of the essential material needs ?

posted 12-15-98 09:46 AM ET            

"I don't give you one of my two [axes], you just take it. Are you violating my right ?" - yes sir.

"So, property is not just the right to have it and sit on it, but also to use it" - ???

You DO have a right to your basic needs (you can go and get some beer , for example), but it might clash with other peoples property rights (GET YOUR PHUCKING HANDS OFF MY BEER!!!), similar to me smashing your head with a stone axe (ooka-chaka ooka-chaka ooka ooka ooka chaka). Or is it vice versa - like your head clashes with my axe? ummm...???

"...Charity can." - Can it ?" - dunno, never been tried. IMO, the rich, seeing the poor, like someone on this thread said "dying on the streets" (I still dunno in which country), will donate MUCH more (less tax, mo money !!!). But that might take time to adjust, I have to admit, since the rich probably lost most of their compassion looking at their tax statements .

posted 12-15-98 12:25 PM ET            

In the circumstances I described, I have to say: No, Sir!

"And I dunno myself why we speak of the rich here? The middle class pays most of the taxes in all countries that have one."

Well, it's about the same problem. Owning two axes should be pretty middle class...

posted 12-15-98 01:21 PM ET            

Right to life and property, that are sorta protected by the police (dunno 'bout your countries, guys, but here... let's just say the cops are not doing their job very well) have to be protected for all citizens. Governments are created to protect it, therefore the taxation. Welfare sorta protects the right to "food and shelter". IMO, there is no such right, period.