I Hate Welfare!

[vroom]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Free-will gives people a sense of entitlement that doesn’t exist. Even if you make all the right choices in life you are not guaranteed success. In nature, fairness does not exist yet humans hold onto this concept with every ounce of their being.

Maybe I’m the only one…[/quote]

I know, but past generations, up until the settlement of North America by western civilizations, had the outlet of a pretty lawless region with a lot of land available for the claiming.

If you wanted to you could get your land grant in the middle of nowhere and pretty much consider it your own personal country.

[nephorm]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Where is all this authoritarianism coming from? It’s scary![/quote]

I’m not just interested in “hoops.” Living off of the backs of productive people should not only be difficult, it should be unpleasant. It can be unpleaseant either because men have a sense of honor and shame, and accepting charity wounds that honor and inflames shame, or because one loses so much to attain this status that he feels a sense of urgency to remedy his state.

Society is not merely a collection of individuals. Men are made to live in cities. But each city has its needs, and it cannot survive if laziness or other vices are thought to be virtues or are habituated to be treated as virtues.

As orion has said, if people provide for themselves, then I have no interest in what they do in private.

[orion]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Be that as it may, why does it feel like I work my ass off for my money whereas “we” tend to decide how it is spent?

True, but if it weren’t money being decided by a “we” it would be some other trade commodity–it’s always been that way.

Do you believe you have a right to all money that you “earned”? I consider taxes a “fee” for the privilege of living in society and having many services taken care of, including the printing of money that I get to spend.

Banks make their money the same way by tacking fees onto services–interest, ATM fees, etc.

Trade always incurs some expense other than the value of the goods being traded. You cannot be paid unless the government prints money.[/quote]

This is entirely false.

Just because money happens to be a government monopoly now, does not mean that it has to be or even should be.

This is a situation less than 100 years old, the market could easily deal with competing currencies as it often has in the past.

You are basically arguing that we owe the government something, because it robs us via inflation caused by fiat money.

Hey, I can print you money.

Whowever does the Monopoly game can do that do.

It does not mean shit though, without an economy behind it and since governments do not create wealth…

[orion]

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
This is not true.

If you want them to get off their asses and work, you allready want them to be more like you.

Not necessarily. I want them to contribute financially to society – which doesn’t really mean they have to do so in the same manner I do.

It’s a different nature of intrusion into their lives than ones concerning lawful personal actions.

The only reason this is justified though is, because they get your money just for breathing.

So the first well-meant coercive intevention leads to the next and to the next and before you know it you are wearing a seat-belt and tobacco companies get sued because of the coercive nature of social security systems.

You just cannot stop somewhere, once the corrupt principle is established it grows.

I disagree with the idea that forcing someone to work for their money is a well meaning coercive measure of the same type as your other examples.

While there are certainly consequences related to performing work that a person must accommodate, it is different than getting into their life and telling them “how” to do things when they are already contributing to society.

Part of the underlying issue, and I touched on it in a recent previous post, is that there are (arguably) some duties that are incurred by living in a society.

In the modern age “contributing” generally means making a financial contribution, or paying tax, in order to help keep the institutions of that society operating.
[/quote]

But maybe they do not want to contribute.

Period.

Maybe they want to beg and that is enough for them.

Your “being productive” and “contributing to society” are allready full of moral judgemnents and values you want other people to live by.

It is only a short step to demand more and more.

Why bother?

If they want to waste their life, let them.

[vroom]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I’m not just interested in “hoops.” Living off of the backs of productive people should not only be difficult, it should be unpleasant. It can be unpleaseant either because men have a sense of honor and shame, and accepting charity wounds that honor and inflames shame, or because one loses so much to attain this status that he feels a sense of urgency to remedy his state.

Society is not merely a collection of individuals. Men are made to live in cities. But each city has its needs, and it cannot survive if laziness or other vices are thought to be virtues or are habituated to be treated as virtues.

As orion has said, if people provide for themselves, then I have no interest in what they do in private.[/quote]

If you can avoid steering this unpleasantness into the bedroom, so to speak, I’m all for it. Certainly people should be “encouraged” to contribute to society. I have not suggested otherwise.

However, there are many very questionable issues surrounding what exactly is a vice and what is a virtue.

What if someone decides that partaking in a common legal social vice with those having the ability to offer a suitable job is a good way to help win a job?

My problem is not forcing people off of the government teat, it’s forcing our way into their private issues when it is simply not necessary to do so.

[vroom]

[quote]orion wrote:
But maybe they do not want to contribute.

Period.

Maybe they want to beg and that is enough for them.

Your “being productive” and “contributing to society” are allready full of moral judgemnents and values you want other people to live by.
[/quote]

I don’t know. The concept of society implies that there is a burden that we all must bear… I’m not sure that qualifies as a moral intrusion.

I also don’t know how to let people opt out of society. Society is very territorial and to opt out you have to pack your bags and find somewhere else to go.

These aren’t my preferences, but what I think I see in the world.

And certainly, I do agree, it is very easy for society to continually expand it’s influence in our lives, and that such expansion can be a negative issue leading to its eventual downfall.

However, I don’t concede that the possibility makes it a certainty.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]orion wrote:
It does not mean shit though, without an economy behind it and since governments do not create wealth…
[/quote]
Printing money has nothing to do with creating wealth since that wealth already has to be established for it to be of any value. Still, do you think institutions that print and insure the value of currency would do it for free?

[orion]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
It does not mean shit though, without an economy behind it and since governments do not create wealth…

Printing money has nothing to do with creating wealth since that wealth already has to be established for it to be of any value. Still, do you think institutions that print and insure the value of currency would do it for free?[/quote]

No, but would they take at least an average of 2% of all the money that is existing PER YEAR?

That is what inflation does, you know.

Is it a wise idea to trust the greatest debtor in the world, the US of A, with the printing of money?

What if I paid you back with money I printed myself?

Money should be nothing but a receipt for something that is in a vault.

I think competition should keep costs low.

[orion]

[quote]vroom wrote:

I don’t know. The concept of society implies that there is a burden that we all must bear… I’m not sure that qualifies as a moral intrusion.
[/quote]

See there is the heart of the matter.

The “concept of a society” implies…

If your idea implies that someone else does anything, how is this not an intrusion?

The concept of religion, of umma, implies that, the concept of christendom implies this, the concept of nation implies the draft, the concept of class implies class struggle, the concept of race implies slavery and my concept of freedom implies that they can all blow me.

Maybe we must bear a burden,k because we share the planet with parasites, but I feel no need to search for euphemisms to cover that rather harsh truth.

Parasites they are and every penny out of my pocket is stolen.

Maybe you have to live long enough in a welfare society to understand that amount of hatred for the double speak that is going on in most of Europe.

[vroom]

[quote]orion wrote:
See there is the heart of the matter.

The “concept of a society” implies…

If your idea implies that someone else does anything, how is this not an intrusion?
[/quote]

Ah, yes, but I’m not arguing here about removing intrusion, I’m arguing about removing moral intrusion.

Whether or not anyone currently likes it, governments and societies do exist, and we all have rules, laws and society overhead imposed on us.

Personally, I lean towards libertarian ideas of freedom, but not anarchy. I simply do not trust the unwashed masses of humanity enough to think it would impose less upon me without rule than it does with rule.

The concept of religion, of umma, implies that, the concept of christendom implies this, the concept of nation implies the draft, the concept of class implies class struggle, the concept of race implies slavery and my concept of freedom implies that they can all blow me.

While I believe I know where you are coming from, with your attitudes, the reality of the world does not allow it. I’d like to tell the world to fuck off too, but it is not realistic. Neither do I have the resources to enable me to be self-sufficient without being forced to interact and trade with others.

Generally, we have all become interdependent with each other and the services of our society. Maybe it is a mistake, but that is how things currently are. I don’t mind working towards unlinking that interdependency to some degree.

[quote]
Maybe we must bear a burden,k because we share the planet with parasites, but I feel no need to search for euphemisms to cover that rather harsh truth.

Parasites they are and every penny out of my pocket is stolen.

Maybe you have to live long enough in a welfare society to understand that amount of hatred for the double speak that is going on in most of Europe.[/quote]

I don’t believe that parasites need to be “tolerated”, though perhaps todays systems encourage it, nor am I aware of the particular brands of doublespeak that you are being fed.

[orion]

[quote]vroom wrote:

I don’t believe that parasites need to be “tolerated”, though perhaps todays systems encourage it, nor am I aware of the particular brands of doublespeak that you are being fed.[/quote]

Everything that includes the word “social”…

“Social security”, “social responsibility”, “social justice”, etc…

You know why Hajek called “social” a weasel word? Because weasels suck eggs dry and let the empty shells lie there as if nothing had happened.

Social comes from society and if you add it to another word those tend to lose their meaning as does the word “social”.

“Solidarity” means now, that I fork my money over at gunpoint.

Never mind that solidarity is voluntary or not solidarity at all, but armed robbery…

[vroom]

[quote]orion wrote:
Everything that includes the word “social”…

“Social security”, “social responsibility”, “social justice”, etc…

You know why Hajek called “social” a weasel word? Because weasels suck eggs dry and let the empty shells lie there as if nothing had happened.

Social comes from society and if you add it to another word those tend to lose their meaning as does the word “social”.

“Solidarity” means now, that I fork my money over at gunpoint.

Never mind that solidarity is voluntary or not solidarity at all, but armed robbery…
[/quote]

There are aspects of society or socialization that have nothing to do with government.

Simply growing up with other people around will result in what is known as socialization. This is learning the rules of the group and it exists with or without government.

The part that I think you are missing, in my argument, is that there is no way to escape interactionion with people and the resulting social constraints that must thereby be incurred.

In social groups there is an ability to ostracize or exclude people that don’t contribute or conform to the rules, but a larger society handles these things in a different more generalized way.

However, I do trust a governed society to allow me to live a life I enjoy more than I trust a lawless tribe of random people to allow me to live my life the way I want to. Society will expend resources to ensure I have the freedoms and opportunities it purports to provide.

As well as robbing me of some things, society also offers me protection from some things. In particular, people who might want to steal my land, kill my friends and family and so forth are somewhat constrained by society.

I think a purely theoretical analysis allows one to be against society much more so than the reality of having to live without the things we now take for granted.

To get back to reality, I think your systems are more draining than mine, in terms of taxation and so forth. I hope, both here and where you live, that systems are put in place that allow people to realistically limit how much parasitism can be allowed to exist.

Of course, one of those systems is people like you and me, who consider these things and complain when they get out of hand.

While zero parasitism would be ideal, there is a lot of fat on the beast, and like it or not, life is rarely perfectly clean and healthy, whether in ideology or reality.

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Yup, but the reason welfare exists is because it creates a loyal voting base.
[/quote]

There’s actually a reason that goes even deeper than that. That would be the fractional reserve system of banking.

Throughout all of recorded history, governments have devalued their currencies in order to finance large expenditures, spent at home and abroad. Taxation has ALWAYS been the least attractive way of raising revenue for as long as governments have existed. Currency devaluation through inflation is the far more attractive option to politicians wishing to stay in power as well as their wealthy financiers.

Everyone who considers himself informed about worldly affairs, or who endeavors to be, ought to be fully aware of the fact that the taxation systems of modern welfare states (“social democracies”) do not even come close to financing the actual expenditures of these nations. Put simply, the entire system is built on debt, from the ground up - this is not an exaggeration. The currency is not tied to any real-world measure of value and has not been since 1971. The entire world has been running entirely on debt since that date. That is not to say that there was no debt before then, but at least it’s creation was superficially restricted by being tied to a finite, real world measure of value (gold). This is no longer the case. The world is now running on fiat. As of 2001, the US dollar had lost 96% of it’s purchasing power since creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

No person or multitude of people in a million years could put a dent in the welfare system without first tearing down the central banking structure and the fractional reserve system upon which it is wholly dependant.

[Headhunter]

Agreed. Looting by inflation…

I’m concerned by the long-term effects of running up massive debts for financing welfare programs. There has to come a ‘flashpoint’ where investors deem a currency as not worth holding. What happens then? Does EVERYONE then live in destitution?

[vroom]

Try looking a little deeper than your pet ideologies…

[Heliotrope]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:

Interesting. A nonstop dance between individual and collective rights.
Makes sense to me.

A collective has no rights. Only individual humans can have rights.

You have a very negative view of humanity. Do you honestly believe that we would not voluntarily donate a small portion of what we earn to help the aged and children? No? You collectivist all want humanity in one big herd, all to be milked for what YOU consider important.

The history of humanity in the 20th century was one of trying to place some mystical collective — the Aryan race, the Proletariat — above the individual. When will you collectivists give up these Satanic notions? When we’re all dead I guess.

[/quote]

The shallowness of your extremist ideas is painfully monotonous.

A society based on absolute individual rights is as ludicrous as a society based on as you call it a “satanic notion” of collectivism.

Placing me as the opposite of your own extremist position is only a reflection of your own bigotry.

I am not a “collectivist” because I recognize the existence and value of a human society based on hierarchy.

I am also not an individualist because I recognize that the individual is the essential element on which a society rests.

Your idea that a society of pure alphas will bring forth some great existence of freedom is just as far fetched as a dictatorship that masks itself as collectivism will usher in a utopia.

Individual rights will always clash with the rights of other individuals. When a substantial portion of these other individuals form a consensus opinion a collective right is born.

Collective rights only exist as the extension of individual rights.

Yes I clearly understand that individual rights are superior in the sense of being essential.

I will say it again, being obtuse is not adding to your point.

Your question is pointless. Of course I believe that people will donate to people in need.

The real question is what is the best way to do this?That is what the discussion is about.

I am open to the idea that you and others propose that the government should not tax individuals to do this.

I am also open to the idea that trying to reform and improve the current way the government does use its legislative power and tax revenue to administer social programs like welfare.

Your ideas may be better or they may prove worse but in either case I am a realist.

Welfare reform is much more probable, though still unlikely, in the U.S. than some libertarian revolution reducing the size and power of our government.

[Heliotrope]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
vroom wrote:
Work on reducing waste, fraud and entitlement aspects of payment programs and keep your nose out of other peoples affairs.

It should be quid pro quo. Want to live off of the public’s dime? Fine. But we get to tell you how you must live.

If there is an obligation on the part of individuals to provide support for other individuals, then that obligation is reciprocal; I provide for you because either a) you really are so infirm that you can be of no use to society, or b) because you are on the path to usefulness.

If you are on the path to usefulness, then you must either know how to become useful, or you are in need of instruction. If you know how to become useful, you will become so soon. If you do not, you do not know.

If you do not know, we must teach you how; you must give yourself over to instruction, as we nourish and clothe you during this time. If you refuse this instruction, then we should treat you as necrotic tissue that must be excised to preserve the organs that surround it.[/quote]

Exactly. The emphasis should be placed on welfare being an investment as much as possible and the charity aspect of it should be deemphasized whenever possible.

[Sloth]

“My bedroom behavior is none of your business. Oh yeah, I’m pregnant again. Going to need you to send a bigger check!”

[Heliotrope]

[quote]orion wrote:

No, a nonstop dance between tyranny and freedom, as HH pointed out collectives have no rights, they do not really exist.[/quote]

Here you go too far. Society does exist. My response to HH explained that although collective rights only exist as an extension of individual rights they do exist.

Saying an organ doesn’t exist because it depends on cells to comprise it is plain false. Saying the same of individuals and society is false as well.

Tyranny is a basic principle of existence, like it or not. Society being an extrinsic principle is of course based on tyranny. A molecule is a tyrant that imposes it’s will on an atom.

Tyrant may have negative connotations but I suppose an optimist could always use benevolent despot if they wanted or even collectivism I suppose.

As soon as you find a way for your brain to find freedom from the tyranny of your stomach I might consider believing that society doesn’t exist.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:

Interesting. A nonstop dance between individual and collective rights.
Makes sense to me.

A collective has no rights. Only individual humans can have rights.

You have a very negative view of humanity. Do you honestly believe that we would not voluntarily donate a small portion of what we earn to help the aged and children? No? You collectivist all want humanity in one big herd, all to be milked for what YOU consider important.

The history of humanity in the 20th century was one of trying to place some mystical collective — the Aryan race, the Proletariat — above the individual. When will you collectivists give up these Satanic notions? When we’re all dead I guess.

I am not a “collectivist” because I recognize the existence and value of a human society based on hierarchy.

[/quote]

Any suggestions about who should be at the top of your ‘hierarchy’?