Question for the right wingers

[DanaC]

Just a quick question for the right wingers in the cellar.

What kind of social provision do you consider acceptable in your society? Are you against all welfare provisions? Or do you agree with some kind of welfare ...if you want to see some kind of welfare provision who do you think should be covered by it? Do you think there should be schooling provided by the state? How about medicine? Where do you draw the line on governement responsibilty?

Ah, damn it, Dana; that's an open invitation for Radar to post two pages of Libertarian propaganda which will enrage us all.

[Kitsune]

Must...resist posting...sarcastic answer...

Nnnnnngh. *twitch*

[smoothmoniker]

Programs which quickly and effectively return able people to a productive position in society, i.e. workfare programs, job retraining, limited unemployment benefits.

As stated in another thread, capitalism involves risk. When we make minor but effective moves to mitigate some of the consequences of failed ventures for both the small business owners and small business employees, we encourage risk-taking, and thereby encourage a robust capitalism.

When we create programs that enable long-term subsistence on public funds, we foster a sense of entitlement that does not encourage the individual to return to a productive place in society.

There are many, many things that I believe are social obligations, but not government obligations. That’s a critical distinction. Do I have social obligation to the welfare of the homeless in my city? I believe that I do, and so my wife and I are consistent donors to the LA Rescue Mission (www.losangelesmission.org if any of you are so inclined). We give a large portion of our income to non-profit organization because of our perceived social obligation.

Do I think that the government has a moral right to compel me, through tax collection, to fulfill my social obligations? I do not. It violates any logical sense of limited government, and I think is detrimental to the social fabric. There are two critical differences between voluntary social obligation, and government coercion. First, it affects my sense of connection with the needs being met. When I am compelled to support others, I am resentful of their need. When I freely support others, I am empathetic and compassionate. Secondly, it affects the perception of the person receiving aid. When it comes from a government bureaucracy, it quickly leads to a sense of entitlement. When it comes through non-profits, through compassionate aid, it leads to gratitude.

Which social values do you think are more productive, empathy, compassion, and gratitude, or resentment and entitlement?

-sm

edit: URL now works. BTW, sorry for the novel. tough to explain some of these things in sound bites

[depmats]

Wow, pretty much everything Smoothmoniker came up with I am in full agreement with. I do support the safety net that the welfare system provides. I do not support most long term programs.
The system is currently screwed up because some people would lose money by going to work at the jobs they are qualified for, so they stay home on our collective dime.

[wolf]

Smoothmoniker, thanks for speaking so eloquently.

I know it's a cliche, but social programs really should be more based on the notion "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."

[Catwoman]

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
There are two critical differences between voluntary social obligation, and government coercion. First, it affects my sense of connection with the needs being met. When I am compelled to support others, I am resentful of their need. When I freely support others, I am empathetic and compassionate. Secondly, it affects the perception of the person receiving aid. When it comes from a government bureaucracy, it quickly leads to a sense of entitlement. When it comes through non-profits, through compassionate aid, it leads to gratitude.

*Stares at screen with dazed expression.

STOP PRESS! Catwoman agrees with right winger (kind of)

That made a lot of sense. The entitlement/gratitude thing. My only question:

Are they not entitled? Is it not a human right? Sure, it breeds laziness. But I'm lazy. Yes, I work, but I could do a lot more to help society. How many hours of TV does the average worker watch? A lot. Just because they are in full time employment, does not automatically guarantee their social validity. One homeless guy who gives his only blanket to a runaway teenage girl to prevent the onset of pneumonia is worth 10 overworked pretentious butt licking salesmen. (Ok ok not saying all homeless guys are like that... jeez, just making a point).

What I'm saying is, social merit (and thus entitlement) is not necessarily dictated by financial contribution.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally posted by Catwoman


*Stares at screen with dazed expression.

STOP PRESS! Catwoman agrees with right winger (kind of)

Welcome to the club. We have a secret handshake. I'll show you later.

That made a lot of sense. The entitlement/gratitude thing. My only question:

Are they not entitled? Is it not a human right?

There is not a basic human right to be provided with food and shelter. Human rights are all derived from their origin in the “natural person” – they are all rights of freedom, not of benefit. We recognize that living together in society interferes with some of those rights. The stated, enumerated human rights (bill of rights, etc.) are those rights which social interaction and centralized power tend to compromise, but which we agree to protect as a society: speech, freedom to gather, religion, etc.

Shorthand – there is no right to receive anything from anyone. All rights are protections of freedom to , for lack of a better term.

So what are people entitled to? A freely competitive society, in which no one, or no institution, can interdict their freedom to work, and to receive the benefit of that work (food and shelter).

What I'm saying is, social merit (and thus entitlement) is not necessarily dictated by financial contribution.

Let me make your argument for you (man, what a pretension ass of a thing to say – sorry). If you’re going to argue for an entitlement, it can’t be on the basis of social merit, because that’s not what you really believe. You don’t really believe that the guy who gives away his blanket should get food and shelter, and the guy who spends all day sipping Boon Hill should be left to die. What you believe is that all people have inherent value, that there is dignity in the human nature, and that society should recognize that value, and do the minimum necessary (at least) to sustain life.

And with that, I agree.

(more later … I have to get some work done today)

-sm

[jaguar]

I know it's a cliche, but social programs really should be more based on the notion "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."

Give a man a fire, he`ll be warm for a day, set a man on fire, he`ll be warm for the rest of his life.

Sorry, I`ll go back to my cave now.

[Clodfobble]

Jag, that made my day.

I'm stealing that line.

[Catwoman]

Catwoman sulks because sm made sense again. Looks forward to part 2.

Jag - set a homeless guy on fire he'll warm the street for passers by. Set a Madison Avenue gimp on fire and all he'll burn is a bigger hole in the whore he's impaling and a handbag full of coke.

[Beestie]

Its difficult for me to imagine that anyone* could actually believe that an entitlement attitude is preferable to an attitude of self-sufficiency.

* Excluding those already posessing an entitlement attitude.

[Happy Monkey]

What's best is an attitude of self-sufficiency, where people aren't left to die on the streets. The difference is whether one thinks the attitude is more important, or the lives.

[Beestie]

The difference is whether one thinks the attitude is more important, or the lives.

No one in America is dying in the street because they were denied help. God forbid that anyone should suggest that people who lack the ability to provide for themselves should be taught how to do so. Much easier to just make yourself look like a hero by giving them what they want with no strings attached and no end in sight. Especially when its not even your money.

Following welfare reform, how many former recipients died in the streets leaving widows and orphans to starve and freeze to death in the open tundra versus the number of people who actually found gainful employment and contribute to society twofold by not drawing down public charity but instead paying into the system?

Sorry but all able bodied folk must pay their share - those who are able to but don't (a group that most if not all socialists pretend do not exist) are freeloaders. And those who allow them to freeload are nothing but enablers who derive a warped sense of justification (or political expedience) from the dependency they create and/or perpetuate.

[Radar]

Just a quick question for the right wingers in the cellar.

I'm not a right-winger or a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but then again, I'm not a liberal socialist either. I'm dead center on the political scale. I'll try to answer anyway.

What kind of social provision do you consider acceptable in your society?

Any that are funded privately without force or coercion.

Are you against all welfare provisions?

Only those that are funded by government through taxes on income (aka theft).

Or do you agree with some kind of welfare

I encourage all people to give generously to the charity of their choice and to help those in need. With only one third of the money stolen by government for social welfare programs, all those in need would get more than double the level of assistance they currently recieve. They could get a hand up instead of a hand out.

I think government should stop trying to be everything for everybody. People should rely on their family, friends, neighbors, churches (assuming they are religious), non-profit charities, etc. who do not rely on force to fund their programs.

if you want to see some kind of welfare provision who do you think should be covered by it?

In the voluntarily funded private assistance programs, I'd love to see all areas of need covered so there are fewer elderly, sick, and poor suffering as they often do while on government assistance. The government has no business in charity, healthcare, retirement, education, vocational training, etc. All of these should be provided privately and government should give a dollar-for-dollar tax reduction for all those who give to charities that provide these services.

Do you think there should be schooling provided by the state? How about medicine?

Absolutely not. America once had the best education system on earth until the government got involved. The same is true of healthcare. It is because of government that healthcare costs have skyrocketed, and our education system is a failure. The problem of government messing up education and healthcare can't be solved by giving government more power to do the same thing. The answer is to get government completely out of these areas.

I respect and care too much about the elderly, sick, and poverty-stricken to allow their needs to be handled by government bureaucrats. I'd much rather see them have MORE assistance (which is what they would have) provided by those who genuinely care about the needy instead of glorified Postal/DMV workers.

Where do you draw the line on governement responsibilty?

The government is here for one purpose; to defend our rights and offer security from domestic and foreign enemies. That means a legislature (to make and enforce laws that do not infringe on our rights, but only defend them), a judiciary (to ensure our rights are defended from an out of control legislature, a military (to defend against impending foreign attacks), and an executive branch to veto unjust legislation and to represent our country.

Other than that, the government has no other responsibilities. We each are responsible for ourselves, and our children (while they are children). We are not responsible for our neighbors, friends, or complete strangers. We should encourage people to take on such social responsibilities, but never force others into it. A responsibility is something we willingly accept.

Are they not entitled? Is it not a human right?

We are not entitled to anything simply based on our need. Your need does not entitle you to rob others. If you're starving and the guy next door cooked 100 steaks and will never be able to eat them, you are not entitled to go next door and take one. You are entitled to ask for some food and if he is a decent person, he will give you some. But need doesn't entitle you to anything.

Healthcare is not a right, nor is having food, or shelter, or clothing, or otherwise having your percieved and/or real needs met.

Government is not here to educate, to provide retirement money, healthcare, childcare, or charity. It is not here to do anything other than what is specifically mentioned and spelled out in the Constitution. There is nothing vague or ambiguous about the Constitution.

Government keeps more than 85 cents of every dollar marked for social welfare programs for overhead costs compared to roughly 12-15 cents of every dollar kept for costs by private non-profit charities. Politicians like to get people hooked on welfare like they're hooked on crack. Then they can get votes by threatening to take it away or by saying the other guy will do it. They only give people just enough to always be needy and never get out of their situation. Private charities would get more help to those in need and train them to help themselves with skills needed in the private sector. The private sector creates wealth, while the government takes wealth away from the economy which costs jobs and opportunities.

I think I've kept this shorter than 2 pages.