Does it really matter? Is there a certain percentage that you would be acceptable with? I mean, I could go look for one, but I doubt it would convince you either way.
Yes it matters, if you're going to make sweeping generalizations to argue that welfare states don't work then you need some proof.
Does it really matter? Is there a certain percentage that you would be acceptable with? I mean, I could go look for one, but I doubt it would convince you either way.
Yes it matters, if you're going to make sweeping generalizations to argue that welfare states don't work then you need some proof.
I never said it didn't work, I said that people abuse the system. That doesn't mean that those who need the help don't still get it.
Mace1370 on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Does it really matter? Is there a certain percentage that you would be acceptable with? I mean, I could go look for one, but I doubt it would convince you either way.
Yes it matters, if you're going to make sweeping generalizations to argue that welfare states don't work then you need some proof.
I never said it didn't work, I said that people abuse the system. That doesn't mean that those who need the help don't still get it.
So if one person exploits the system, it's a failure? What?
So if one person exploits the system, it's a failure? What?
Apparently my relative who gets welfare for being a fatass negates the down-on-their-luck single mother who works two jobs but still can't make ends meet.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
So if one person exploits the system, it's a failure? What?
Apparently my relative who gets welfare for being a fatass negates the down-on-their-luck single mother who works two jobs but still can't make ends meet.
My point was that abuse is going to be a negative effect of a welfare state. The main point, however, is that a welfare state forces people to take care of others that they shouldn't be responsible for.
Does it really matter? Is there a certain percentage that you would be acceptable with?
Er, yes. If 0.0000000001% abused the system that would be fine. If 99.999999999999% abused the system, that would not be fine. Realistic people expect mistakes or abuse in such systems. You seem to be implying that any abuse at all is unacceptable.
My point was that abuse is going to be a negative effect of a welfare state. The main point, however, is that a welfare state forces people to take care of others that they shouldn't be responsible for.
I just farted. It's a negative effect of eating. Should I therefore starve myself?
My point was that abuse is going to be a negative effect of a welfare state. The main point, however, is that a welfare state forces people to take care of others that they shouldn't be responsible for.
You don't think society has a (really, fundamentally selfish) interest in taking care of those who can't take care of themselves?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
My point was that abuse is going to be a negative effect of a welfare state. The main point, however, is that a welfare state forces people to take care of others that they shouldn't be responsible for.
You don't think society has a (really, fundamentally selfish) interest in taking care of those who can't take care of themselves?
I happen to think that it does, I just think government is a less efficient and less fair way to do it. There is also a distinction between those who cannot and those who will not take care of themselves. Charities usually help those who are willing to also help themselves. Government often makes no such distinction.
My point was that abuse is going to be a negative effect of a welfare state. The main point, however, is that a welfare state forces people to take care of others that they shouldn't be responsible for.
You don't think society has a (really, fundamentally selfish) interest in taking care of those who can't take care of themselves?
I happen to think that it does, I just think government is a less efficient and less fair way to do it. There is also a distinction between those who cannot and those who will not take care of themselves. Charities usually help those who are willing to also help themselves. Government often makes no such distinction.
My point was that abuse is going to be a negative effect of a welfare state. The main point, however, is that a welfare state forces people to take care of others that they shouldn't be responsible for.
You don't think society has a (really, fundamentally selfish) interest in taking care of those who can't take care of themselves?
I happen to think that it does, I just think government is a less efficient and less fair way to do it. There is also a distinction between those who cannot and those who will not take care of themselves. Charities usually help those who are willing to also help themselves. Government often makes no such distinction.
Living in Hoover-ville are we?
That isn't much of a step down from Cabrini Green.
My point was that abuse is going to be a negative effect of a welfare state. The main point, however, is that a welfare state forces people to take care of others that they shouldn't be responsible for.
You don't think society has a (really, fundamentally selfish) interest in taking care of those who can't take care of themselves?
I happen to think that it does, I just think government is a less efficient and less fair way to do it. There is also a distinction between those who cannot and those who will not take care of themselves. Charities usually help those who are willing to also help themselves. Government often makes no such distinction.
Living in Hoover-ville are we?
I hope you're not referring to the President before FDR. The one that rose taxes on the wealthy to the upper 80 percentiles and was a trade protectionist and only served to make the depression far worse? Because if you are, I'd just like to point out that he was about as Libertarian as Hillary Clinton.
My point was that abuse is going to be a negative effect of a welfare state. The main point, however, is that a welfare state forces people to take care of others that they shouldn't be responsible for.
You don't think society has a (really, fundamentally selfish) interest in taking care of those who can't take care of themselves?
I happen to think that it does, I just think government is a less efficient and less fair way to do it. There is also a distinction between those who cannot and those who will not take care of themselves. Charities usually help those who are willing to also help themselves. Government often makes no such distinction.
Living in Hoover-ville are we?
I hope you're not referring to the President before FDR. The one that rose taxes on the wealthy to the upper 80 percentiles and was a trade protectionist and only served to make the depression far worse? Because if you are, I'd just like to point out that he was about as Libertarian as Hillary Clinton.
No I'm referencing the hoover-villes and hoover flags. Hoover felt that the Depression-ist poor could be saved by charity.
My point was that abuse is going to be a negative effect of a welfare state. The main point, however, is that a welfare state forces people to take care of others that they shouldn't be responsible for.
You don't think society has a (really, fundamentally selfish) interest in taking care of those who can't take care of themselves?
I happen to think that it does, I just think government is a less efficient and less fair way to do it. There is also a distinction between those who cannot and those who will not take care of themselves. Charities usually help those who are willing to also help themselves. Government often makes no such distinction.
Living in Hoover-ville are we?
I hope you're not referring to the President before FDR. The one that rose taxes on the wealthy to the upper 80 percentiles and was a trade protectionist and only served to make the depression far worse? Because if you are, I'd just like to point out that he was about as Libertarian as Hillary Clinton.
No I'm referencing the hoover-villes and hoover flags. Hoover felt that the Depression-ist poor could be saved by charity.
You special, special person.
And you're implying that somehow his economic policies aren't relevant when looking at the whole picture?
I am aware that he thought charity was a better solution than government hand-outs. The problem with his logic is that the country needs to be wealthy to do that and his tax policies were an utter disaster that destroyed wealth and job opportunities. One of the reasons his ideas on charity didn't work was because many people had nothing to give.
You attempted to paint Hoover as some kind of hands off President and I'm pointing out that his economic policies were anything but "invisible hand".
Of course you don't care about that. I have the audacity to say I think that churches or private charities often do a better job of helping the poor than a typical welfare office and I'm branded as someone who thinks we should return our country to the 1930's.
My point was that abuse is going to be a negative effect of a welfare state. The main point, however, is that a welfare state forces people to take care of others that they shouldn't be responsible for.
You don't think society has a (really, fundamentally selfish) interest in taking care of those who can't take care of themselves?
I happen to think that it does, I just think government is a less efficient and less fair way to do it. There is also a distinction between those who cannot and those who will not take care of themselves. Charities usually help those who are willing to also help themselves. Government often makes no such distinction.
Living in Hoover-ville are we?
I hope you're not referring to the President before FDR. The one that rose taxes on the wealthy to the upper 80 percentiles and was a trade protectionist and only served to make the depression far worse? Because if you are, I'd just like to point out that he was about as Libertarian as Hillary Clinton.
No I'm referencing the hoover-villes and hoover flags. Hoover felt that the Depression-ist poor could be saved by charity.
You special, special person.
And you're implying that somehow his economic policies aren't relevant when looking at the whole picture?
I am aware that he thought charity was a better solution than government hand-outs. The problem with his logic is that the country needs to be wealthy to do that and his tax policies were an utter disaster that destroyed wealth and job opportunities. One of the reasons his ideas on charity didn't work was because many people had nothing to give.
You attempted to paint Hoover as some kind of hands off President and I'm pointing out that his economic policies were anything but "invisible hand".
Of course you don't care about that. I have the audacity to say I think that churches or private charities often do a better job of helping the poor than a typical welfare office and I'm branded as someone who thinks we should return our country to the 1930's.
What's that based on? While I certainly wouldn't consider it hard to beat the government in terms of aid provided to the poor that doesn't mean it's the case. Plus, I don't see how foodstamps and section 8 get in the way of soup kitchens, or a modern Hull House from taking form. Private and public programs working in concert would be rather beneficial, no.
Me: Which take on libertarianism could we use that would appropriately satisfy at least a majority of self-proclaimed libertarians? Is their even a majority who could agree on a general platform? This is what I mean by lack of coherence in the philosophy itself. If its own adherents can't even agree on what libertarianism actually is to the level that proponents of liberal democracy can, what's the point?
Libertarian: The people are confused, not the theory.
Me: Why don't I see this sort of disparity in other, more proven political philosophies?
Libertarian: My direct answer is simply because libertarians haven't settled on an answer. Without consensus on that, there is never-ending intellectual chaos.
Me: With never-ending intellectual chaos comes a theory that can never make it past the drawing board to the satisfaction of a discernible majority. And while you might place the highest emphasis on the individual, without the support of the many, there can be no practical application.
Libertarian: Which is why I don't bother to actively proselytize. The culture just isn't there and without that, I'm an earnest curiosity speaking into the wind. I've got more important things to do.
There you have it. Their theory makes perfect sense... but the culture "just isn't there" yet. All the while we thought libertarians were off their fucking meds and here they were just ahead of their time.
You know thinking of Shinto's example on page 10 I noticed an aspect you guys missed and since The Cat isn't here to make it I will. As a 50-something woman her inadequate work ability IS our fault! She would have been discouraged by society as a whole from getting the kind of education that could have made her a fully funtional member of the workforce. There has been a very real bias againts both females and minorites to participate in society as equal partners. In fact I would say that only in the last 30 odd years has this bias shifted for the better. Its not gone however, just lessend.
The woman Shinto mention probably grew up being told that a housewife was all she could ever be(or would ever want to be). When she as a result is incapable of functioning are we not as society responsible for her failures? Do we not owe it to her to support her because of it?
We(collectivly) encouraged her to become a housewife, her problems are of our making.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I've never been huge into politics. I know who I am and what I like, however and after considering myself a liberal democrat for the last couple years-I'm only 23-I just began to realize that I'm a complete libertarian after investigating Ron Paul and taking a survey-quiz online.
It's funny, because it's the exaggerated methods in which dems and reps bash each other that made me realize that I did disagree with both parties in most important areas and only agreed with the two respectively in subtler issues. Often felt the way in which they claimed importance of legislation and heavy government in general was going too far, had no place politically to call my own.
Reps claim that low-government is on their agenda but it's a crock compared to what Libertarians believe. I strongly believe that level-headed libertarian politicians are what we need now. Personal freedom is paramount.
Me: Which take on libertarianism could we use that would appropriately satisfy at least a majority of self-proclaimed libertarians? Is their even a majority who could agree on a general platform? This is what I mean by lack of coherence in the philosophy itself. If its own adherents can't even agree on what libertarianism actually is to the level that proponents of liberal democracy can, what's the point?
Libertarian: The people are confused, not the theory.
Me: Why don't I see this sort of disparity in other, more proven political philosophies?
Libertarian: My direct answer is simply because libertarians haven't settled on an answer. Without consensus on that, there is never-ending intellectual chaos.
Me: With never-ending intellectual chaos comes a theory that can never make it past the drawing board to the satisfaction of a discernible majority. And while you might place the highest emphasis on the individual, without the support of the many, there can be no practical application.
Libertarian: Which is why I don't bother to actively proselytize. The culture just isn't there and without that, I'm an earnest curiosity speaking into the wind. I've got more important things to do.
There you have it. Their theory makes perfect sense... but the culture "just isn't there" yet. All the while we thought libertarians were off their fucking meds and here they were just ahead of their time.
I can't imagine the roots of any organized effort, especially political, being organized at the get go. But libertarianism is nothing if it isn't idealistic. Anything that is has a host of automatic resistances. There is something inspirational in claiming a civilized political perspective on the ideal of limited government and personal freedom. Libertarianism is like a shanty town built for the disillusioned political refugees. Old, standby, a classic dream which was never implemented.
I think it's unfair to shoot down an idea, especially one with a heritage as libertarianism does, based on the premise that it is unorganized and has no general platform. That's just silly, this how every idea gets its start. The sudden surge in libertarianism might one day evolve to something more inclusive and applicable. And no, that does not mean I'm admitting a weakness.
I think the problem a Libertarian party would have while trying to wade into our modern day politics is that it's agenda, if could be called that, is one mostly of deconstruction, reform, etc. That may not be such a bad thing, but that's another debate.
You know thinking of Shinto's example on page 10 I noticed an aspect you guys missed and since The Cat isn't here to make it I will. As a 50-something woman her inadequate work ability IS our fault! She would have been discouraged by society as a whole from getting the kind of education that could have made her a fully funtional member of the workforce. There has been a very real bias againts both females and minorites to participate in society as equal partners. In fact I would say that only in the last 30 odd years has this bias shifted for the better. Its not gone however, just lessend.
Christ, the ease with which you skip from 'bias' and 'disincentive' to 'fault' is disturbing.
I'm sure you're right, nobody has any will of their own, the slightest pebble on the path means it is the road's fault you didn't get where you are going, and natural factors have nothing to do with it. Natural factors like, oh I don't know, when Shinto specifically said she tried hard but was just plain dumb. Some people reach a ceiling in education beyond which they can go no further. Pretending that everyone can be turned into "fully functional members of society" with the correct level of education, skills & whatever Stepford blueprint you favour is utopian bullshit. People differ, get over it.
Serial killers tend to be white and male. Is it our fault that they kill people, because they are in an easily identifiable category with a bias towards serial killing? A category trend does not always equal causation, for fucks sake.
Gender's a red herring in this discussion, anyway. If Shinto's coworker were male and dumb as a doorknob, would that mean that he was more or less deserving of a basic standard of living than the anecdotal female? Would bad genes or having a mother who drank a little too much wine a little too early in pregnancy or being exposed to a little too much lead as a child make him more or less deserving of some human dignity than being a victim of a lifetime of discrimination?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I personally am inclined to think that Lynne's problems were a cocktail of not being in the workforce for a long time because her husband supported her, still not mentally being over the death of her husband despite the fact that she was regularly seeing another man and god awful lack of intellect. I never probed her too closely on her past because it would sometimes make her cry, so I'm not sure exactly whether she worked before her husband died or not and I was generally too busy trying to clean up her messes. Like one time she tried to fax her worksheet into the temp agency that employed her on our fax/copy/scan machine and ended up making 18,005,473,896 copies of it. I think I caught that one before more than 150 sheets were printed.
But look, I think gender is very much a part of this. The fact is that the welfare state is one of the great forces that has allowed individuals to be who they want to be, instead of having to rely on a patriarch or an extended family or a church when they are at a vulnerable point in their lives.
I'll never forget when the other co-worker in my section, a woman in her late sixties, turned to Lynne and with profoundly cynical world weariness told her to drop her boyfriend the plumber and try to find a man with some money to help support her while she still had some looks left.
That wasn't a gold-digger attitude - that was the experience of a lot of women in Sandy's generation. The grim reality of dependency, of the people placed in a socially weak and desperate position.
Your really good quiz just put my gun owning, deport the illegal immigrant favoring, pro choiceing, the second amendment is what protects the rest believing butt in the exact same position as Ghandi and Nelson Mandela.
Of course you don't care about that. I have the audacity to say I think that churches or private charities often do a better job of helping the poor than a typical welfare office and I'm branded as someone who thinks we should return our country to the 1930's.
If you think that the federal government should abolish safety net programs, you are saying we should return to the '30s, perhaps the 1830s.
Of course, I'm of the idea that having government safety net programs and private charities overlap is a better way of helping the poor than either option on their own.
That negative stigma doesn't prevent people from abusing it. I have a friend who investigates welfare claims, and let me tell you that there is plenty of abuse.
I can't speak for the US, but here in Sweden there is a lot of investigation required in order to receive social welfare. You will also be required to show what the money is used on from time to time, including showing receipts and stuff.
The Swedish social welfare is really only meant to cover food and rent and not much more. It's a security net while getting back on your feet and nothing to make a living on.
That negative stigma doesn't prevent people from abusing it. I have a friend who investigates welfare claims, and let me tell you that there is plenty of abuse.
I can't speak for the US, but here in Sweden there is a lot of investigation required in order to receive social welfare. You will also be required to show what the money is used on from time to time, including showing receipts and stuff.
The Swedish social welfare is really only meant to cover food and rent and not much more. It's a security net while getting back on your feet and nothing to make a living on.
It's the same way here, basically. Mace just thinks every down-on-his-luck Joe is a mastermind of fraud and deceit.
It's funny, really, to think that these people that are likely undereducated are defrauding the system en masse.
Same here in the Netherlands. There are strict laws for getting the various levels of welfare (which roughly, in income terms are disability>unemployement>state pension>welfare). All of these carry investigations and restrictions, and it's possible to get excluded from all. Of course there is abuse, some people cannot refuse trying to play the system. Is there also not abuse with tax laws, with charities (both with the charity itself, and the people they try to help?). Every system you can think of ever where money changes hands, people will try to cheat it, to get that money. Always. You combat that. It's a very, very flawed argument against government welfare to say "people will try to cheat it, so lets not do it."
Well it seems my post has put a fox amongst the chickens. I still stand by my earlier proclamation, despite Not Sarastros brilliant counterpost(/sarcasm off). I will however clarify it some more, it was just that Shinto's example was just to good to pass up.
If you designate certain classes of people in society as second rate, you can't complain if they act that way. If you do not give them the opertunity to become self-reliant, society has a responseblity to help them when they can't take care of themselves. This branding of people does not just apply to women, but to minorites and the poor in general.
Modern society is built in such a way that poor people have fewer avenues of advancement that the middle class/rich. They are encourage to take menial jobs with few ways of improving their lot. The fact that some, maybe even many manage to do so, does not change the fact that many don't.
This makes them more suseptible to needing help to get them through bad times. It there fore becomes a matter of cause and effect. (CAUSE) Society failed to give them an equal oppertunity, (Effect) they can't handle life without help on an equal basis with others.
Since society is our creation, it is also our responsablity. We failed to give all our people an equal chance, we must therefore take care of them when they fail. If we gave them the same chances as the rest of us, we wouldn't have to take care of them.
Thats why we need public welfare, we can't dodge our responsibilty.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Well it seems my post has put a fox amongst the chickens. I still stand by my earlier proclamation, despite Not Sarastros brilliant counterpost(/sarcasm off). I will however clarify it some more, it was just that Shinto's example was just to good to pass up.
If you designate certain classes of people in society as second rate, you can't complain if they act that way. If you do not give them the opertunity to become self-reliant, society has a responseblity to help them when they can't take care of themselves. This branding of people does not just apply to women, but to minorites and the poor in general.
Modern society is built in such a way that poor people have fewer avenues of advancement that the middle class/rich. They are encourage to take menial jobs with few ways of improving their lot. The fact that some, maybe even many manage to do so, does not change the fact that many don't.
This makes them more suseptible to needing help to get them through bad times. It there fore becomes a matter of cause and effect. (CAUSE) Society failed to give them an equal oppertunity, (Effect) they can't handle life without help on an equal basis with others.
Since society is our creation, it is also our responsablity. We failed to give all our people an equal chance, we must therefore take care of them when they fail. If we gave them the same chances as the rest of us, we wouldn't have to take care of them.
Thats why we need public welfare, we can't dodge our responsibilty.
But does public welfare accomplish its goals? I'm a huge fan of helping the disadvantaged, poor, etc. if it works. I think there is a reasonable libertarian argument that it doesn't.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
But does public welfare accomplish its goals? I'm a huge fan of helping the disadvantaged, poor, etc. if it works. I think there is a reasonable libertarian argument that it doesn't.
But does public welfare accomplish its goals? I'm a huge fan of helping the disadvantaged, poor, etc. if it works. I think there is a reasonable libertarian argument that it doesn't.
The libertarian argument is not that it doesn't, it's that it can't. Simply stating that in its current form public welfare is flawed is reasonable; that statement would imply that maybe we could just reform it and make it better. But, no, the libertarian argument is that public welfare is flawed in essence and private charity is morally or pragmatically superior. This is not a position I'd called "reasonable." I'd call it "batshit insane."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Oh damn I boxed myself in. What I'm saying is that there are utilitarian libertarians whose goals are the same as godless communists and they have a decent argument. I mean there is a coincidence--correlation argument to be made regarding Thatcher and the resurgence of the UK. Frankly I think this is boiling down to a semantic argument over what "libertarian" means.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Posts
Yes it matters, if you're going to make sweeping generalizations to argue that welfare states don't work then you need some proof.
I never said it didn't work, I said that people abuse the system. That doesn't mean that those who need the help don't still get it.
Apparently my relative who gets welfare for being a fatass negates the down-on-their-luck single mother who works two jobs but still can't make ends meet.
ABORT, ABORT!!!
Er, yes. If 0.0000000001% abused the system that would be fine. If 99.999999999999% abused the system, that would not be fine. Realistic people expect mistakes or abuse in such systems. You seem to be implying that any abuse at all is unacceptable.
I just farted. It's a negative effect of eating. Should I therefore starve myself?
You don't think society has a (really, fundamentally selfish) interest in taking care of those who can't take care of themselves?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I happen to think that it does, I just think government is a less efficient and less fair way to do it. There is also a distinction between those who cannot and those who will not take care of themselves. Charities usually help those who are willing to also help themselves. Government often makes no such distinction.
That isn't much of a step down from Cabrini Green.
Which is more of an argument for responsible government programs with transparency, public involvement, and phased deployment of pedagogy rather than swift and immediate implementations than it is the abolition of HUD. Particularly since shortchanging HUD and cutting corners to reduce cost was one of the fundamental problems with them, Pruit Igoe, and other projects. Afterall, le Unité d'Habitation in Marseilles actually increased the property values in its neighborhood.
82
I hope you're not referring to the President before FDR. The one that rose taxes on the wealthy to the upper 80 percentiles and was a trade protectionist and only served to make the depression far worse? Because if you are, I'd just like to point out that he was about as Libertarian as Hillary Clinton.
They just rip those pages out or draw pictures of Ayn Rand all over them.
And you're implying that somehow his economic policies aren't relevant when looking at the whole picture?
I am aware that he thought charity was a better solution than government hand-outs. The problem with his logic is that the country needs to be wealthy to do that and his tax policies were an utter disaster that destroyed wealth and job opportunities. One of the reasons his ideas on charity didn't work was because many people had nothing to give.
You attempted to paint Hoover as some kind of hands off President and I'm pointing out that his economic policies were anything but "invisible hand".
Of course you don't care about that. I have the audacity to say I think that churches or private charities often do a better job of helping the poor than a typical welfare office and I'm branded as someone who thinks we should return our country to the 1930's.
What's that based on? While I certainly wouldn't consider it hard to beat the government in terms of aid provided to the poor that doesn't mean it's the case. Plus, I don't see how foodstamps and section 8 get in the way of soup kitchens, or a modern Hull House from taking form. Private and public programs working in concert would be rather beneficial, no.
Me: Which take on libertarianism could we use that would appropriately satisfy at least a majority of self-proclaimed libertarians? Is their even a majority who could agree on a general platform? This is what I mean by lack of coherence in the philosophy itself. If its own adherents can't even agree on what libertarianism actually is to the level that proponents of liberal democracy can, what's the point?
Libertarian: The people are confused, not the theory.
Me: Why don't I see this sort of disparity in other, more proven political philosophies?
Libertarian: My direct answer is simply because libertarians haven't settled on an answer. Without consensus on that, there is never-ending intellectual chaos.
Me: With never-ending intellectual chaos comes a theory that can never make it past the drawing board to the satisfaction of a discernible majority. And while you might place the highest emphasis on the individual, without the support of the many, there can be no practical application.
Libertarian: Which is why I don't bother to actively proselytize. The culture just isn't there and without that, I'm an earnest curiosity speaking into the wind. I've got more important things to do.
There you have it. Their theory makes perfect sense... but the culture "just isn't there" yet. All the while we thought libertarians were off their fucking meds and here they were just ahead of their time.
The woman Shinto mention probably grew up being told that a housewife was all she could ever be(or would ever want to be). When she as a result is incapable of functioning are we not as society responsible for her failures? Do we not owe it to her to support her because of it?
We(collectivly) encouraged her to become a housewife, her problems are of our making.
It's funny, because it's the exaggerated methods in which dems and reps bash each other that made me realize that I did disagree with both parties in most important areas and only agreed with the two respectively in subtler issues. Often felt the way in which they claimed importance of legislation and heavy government in general was going too far, had no place politically to call my own.
Reps claim that low-government is on their agenda but it's a crock compared to what Libertarians believe. I strongly believe that level-headed libertarian politicians are what we need now. Personal freedom is paramount.
(Really good quiz: http://www.politicalcompass.org/)
I can't imagine the roots of any organized effort, especially political, being organized at the get go. But libertarianism is nothing if it isn't idealistic. Anything that is has a host of automatic resistances. There is something inspirational in claiming a civilized political perspective on the ideal of limited government and personal freedom. Libertarianism is like a shanty town built for the disillusioned political refugees. Old, standby, a classic dream which was never implemented.
I think it's unfair to shoot down an idea, especially one with a heritage as libertarianism does, based on the premise that it is unorganized and has no general platform. That's just silly, this how every idea gets its start. The sudden surge in libertarianism might one day evolve to something more inclusive and applicable. And no, that does not mean I'm admitting a weakness.
I think the problem a Libertarian party would have while trying to wade into our modern day politics is that it's agenda, if could be called that, is one mostly of deconstruction, reform, etc. That may not be such a bad thing, but that's another debate.
Christ, the ease with which you skip from 'bias' and 'disincentive' to 'fault' is disturbing.
I'm sure you're right, nobody has any will of their own, the slightest pebble on the path means it is the road's fault you didn't get where you are going, and natural factors have nothing to do with it. Natural factors like, oh I don't know, when Shinto specifically said she tried hard but was just plain dumb. Some people reach a ceiling in education beyond which they can go no further. Pretending that everyone can be turned into "fully functional members of society" with the correct level of education, skills & whatever Stepford blueprint you favour is utopian bullshit. People differ, get over it.
Serial killers tend to be white and male. Is it our fault that they kill people, because they are in an easily identifiable category with a bias towards serial killing? A category trend does not always equal causation, for fucks sake.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But look, I think gender is very much a part of this. The fact is that the welfare state is one of the great forces that has allowed individuals to be who they want to be, instead of having to rely on a patriarch or an extended family or a church when they are at a vulnerable point in their lives.
I'll never forget when the other co-worker in my section, a woman in her late sixties, turned to Lynne and with profoundly cynical world weariness told her to drop her boyfriend the plumber and try to find a man with some money to help support her while she still had some looks left.
That wasn't a gold-digger attitude - that was the experience of a lot of women in Sandy's generation. The grim reality of dependency, of the people placed in a socially weak and desperate position.
Your really good quiz just put my gun owning, deport the illegal immigrant favoring, pro choiceing, the second amendment is what protects the rest believing butt in the exact same position as Ghandi and Nelson Mandela.
Umm... Thanks?
If you think that the federal government should abolish safety net programs, you are saying we should return to the '30s, perhaps the 1830s.
Of course, I'm of the idea that having government safety net programs and private charities overlap is a better way of helping the poor than either option on their own.
I can't speak for the US, but here in Sweden there is a lot of investigation required in order to receive social welfare. You will also be required to show what the money is used on from time to time, including showing receipts and stuff.
The Swedish social welfare is really only meant to cover food and rent and not much more. It's a security net while getting back on your feet and nothing to make a living on.
It's the same way here, basically. Mace just thinks every down-on-his-luck Joe is a mastermind of fraud and deceit.
It's funny, really, to think that these people that are likely undereducated are defrauding the system en masse.
If you designate certain classes of people in society as second rate, you can't complain if they act that way. If you do not give them the opertunity to become self-reliant, society has a responseblity to help them when they can't take care of themselves. This branding of people does not just apply to women, but to minorites and the poor in general.
Modern society is built in such a way that poor people have fewer avenues of advancement that the middle class/rich. They are encourage to take menial jobs with few ways of improving their lot. The fact that some, maybe even many manage to do so, does not change the fact that many don't.
This makes them more suseptible to needing help to get them through bad times. It there fore becomes a matter of cause and effect. (CAUSE) Society failed to give them an equal oppertunity, (Effect) they can't handle life without help on an equal basis with others.
Since society is our creation, it is also our responsablity. We failed to give all our people an equal chance, we must therefore take care of them when they fail. If we gave them the same chances as the rest of us, we wouldn't have to take care of them.
Thats why we need public welfare, we can't dodge our responsibilty.
But does public welfare accomplish its goals? I'm a huge fan of helping the disadvantaged, poor, etc. if it works. I think there is a reasonable libertarian argument that it doesn't.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Based upon...?
The libertarian argument is not that it doesn't, it's that it can't. Simply stating that in its current form public welfare is flawed is reasonable; that statement would imply that maybe we could just reform it and make it better. But, no, the libertarian argument is that public welfare is flawed in essence and private charity is morally or pragmatically superior. This is not a position I'd called "reasonable." I'd call it "batshit insane."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
97... whee!