to me social welfare is worst thing everr

I get a disability check, because I'm mentally ill, and can't keep consistent employment. Actually, nobody would hire me even if I tried to get a job. I've got gaping holes in my employment history, and a criminal record to boot. I've got a 0.00000% chance of getting hired anywhere decent. So yeah, I'm done. Early retirement, and I'll take the disability check. Call me a lazy fuck if you want, I don't care.

If I didn't have disability, I would resort to criminal activities to make money. And then if I get caught, you're gonna have to pay money to incarcerate me, anyway. And it's honestly cheaper to just give me a disability check.

It's better than the alternative. The fact of the matter is that between H1-B visas allowing corporations to bring over cheap labor, globalization and free trade deals like Nafta, as well as the inevitable advancement in automation rendering more jobs that go beyond just self-checkout machines will winnow the supply of jobs vs demand for employment means that a lot of people are dependent upon safety nets. Yes you can find some people exploiting the system, but that doesn't invalidate the general necessity of the programs.

The fact is that you can look at the French revolution, the Russian revolution, and even Nazi Germany in which there were a few very well to do off, and most of the masses barely able to put food on the table, at some point in time a demagogue will come along and a worse scenario will ensue.

The election of Donald Trump is a symptom of a disenfranchised former blue collar workers of the rust belt telling Hillary to blow off because their employers found a way to make a better profit margin by sending their jobs overseas and those displaced workers needed social programs until they found a new place of employment. If all of the people who have been put out of work were then told that they aren't getting a dime of assistance because 'They aren't our problem. I've got mine and everyone else can bleep off' mentality that your OP seems to suggest would result in a lot of desperate people who wont be able to pay for a roof, won't be able to pay for food, when for every millionaire that was a penny pincher there were 1000 people unable to afford food and housing, it's adorable if you think all of them will decide: 'Well now I have more incentive to make something of myself' and not what happened to Czar Nicholas the 2nd or Louis the 16th when the poor became desperate enough to take matters into their own hands.

I finally put my finger on what bothers me about thread title and OP: AimDeep must be an anarchist, because every program of government is in the name of the common good — that is, nominally a social welfare program. I say "nominally" because there are two types of government programs: those that succeed at improving the health of the society, and those that fail to do so. To be against all such programs means that one considers the first set null.

Anarchism is stupid, because the first set isn't null. For example, "anarchocapitalism" is a contradiction in terms: the requisite legal infrastructure for capitalism does not exist without government. You can believe in natural rights if you want, but certainly the enforcement of natural rights is not natural; if you disagree with this, try convincing a murderer to spare your life by talking with him about the non-aggression principle. God won't strike him down on your behalf. Government is required for the economic specialization necessary to competently and legitimately strip away the rights of those who illegitimately strip away the rights of others.

A good law is one that is profitable in aggregate. Make no mistake, there is no such thing as a free law, as even the most basic requires investigation, sentencing, and punishment of violators... and these tasks require people to perform them in an ever-changing environment of lawbreaking (and lawbending) innovation, necessitating counter-innovation in the form of new, amended, and repealed laws. These costs are real, even in a moneyless system — human time, aka human lives, is the cost. Either the net benefit outweighs this cost, increasing the quantity and/or quality of human time, or it doesn't; either revenue outweighs expenses, or it doesn't.

I do worry sometimes about whether income redistribution laws provide enough benefit to not only outweigh the loss to those wealth is distributed from, but also the horde of bureaucrats spent shuffling such money around, the courts involved in ensuring violations do not go unpunished, etc. But this isn't unique to just this category of legislation; it applies to all categories.

I consider that only old people, cripples , and those with severe health issues should be financially helped by the government.
Otherwise welfare turns into a system which breeds parasites.

There are people who simply refuse to work or compete if their basic needs are fulfilled with someone else's money. Such got to be forced to work, typically the natural selection is good enough at it and no other actions are required.

"

torturo wrote:

I consider that only old people, cripples , and those with severe health issues should be financially helped by the government.
Otherwise welfare turns into a system which breeds parasites.

There are people who simply refuse to work or compete if their basic needs are fulfilled with someone else's money. Such got to be forced to work, typically the natural selection is good enough at it and no other actions are required.

I agree

If everyone was on welfare / social programs, no one would.

In its current form, welfare is a ponzi scheme which will, in collaboration with social liberalism, guarantee the collapse / regression of western society. High-IQ, responsible and hard-working people have few or no kids, while the stupid, irresponsible and the low-IQ have 5 kids per woman? Does not compute mathematically. Stop dreaming about "robots", the current model is already unsustainable (proof = growing debt).

Welfare / social programs are breeding irresponsible people and at a certain point you will run out of responsible people who are paying for all the "free" stuff. Paying people to do nothing but shit out kids is a stupid idea. Giving women governmental help to incentvize them to become single mothers, is a stupid idea. Destroying families, thus destroying your future generations, is a stupid idea. Bringing in low-IQ migrants and hooking them up on an already overloaded welfare system, is a stupid idea. Borrowing non-existent money and putting the future generations into debt, is a stupid, highly-criminal idea....

You can kiss goodbye your "holodecks" and "replicators", if the only people who procreate are low-IQ, irresponsible, lazy people on welfare. There was never before in human history such an anti-evolutionary system in place, it's mind-boggling really. You can rob (=tax) peole only so much. At some point even the more ambiotious will say, fuck it I'm not working for almost free, go on welfare themselves and do some illegal work on the side.

Your labor is taxed to pay for your parent's pensions, but you zave zero guarantees someone else will pay for your pension in 30, 40 years. Your parents worked to 60 yo, you'll have to work to 70 yo or more. Someone will be thrown under the bus by the governemnt, eventually. At the same time the West is exporting technology and jobs to the 3rd world, artificially increasing their competition and making more jobless people at home. = slow suicide.

"If you don't have money, we don't need you." hmmm I'm not sure I would commit such society.

A lot of nice talk, but sadly not much understanding.

"

finisterre wrote:

"If you don't have money, we don't need you." hmmm I'm not sure I would commit such society.

Dependency should not be incentivized. You don't need money, but you need to produce labor (eg: you live on a farm and produce most stuff yourself). A society can sustain only a certain amount of dependent people. We can take care of those who are in real need: the handicapped, elderly, kids... but cant take care of every lazy and irresponsible person out there.

Except of a few anomalies (oil rich monarchies), no country will tolerate or can afford huge amounts of useless citizens. Your wishes and idealism is irrelevant, only the hard cold mathematical reality counts. Don't need to believe me, just study Greece's bankruptcy = the endgame of big governmental welfare and social programs.

A country with no taxes, no government, is no country at all.

Same as a country with 100% taxes no one is gonna do anything.

Both ways the country will cease to exist. When i see thoughts inspired by the american misinformation it's so one sided so blind i can't fathom a whole nation actually thinks like this, in extremes and miss the fucking points.

Also, welfare systems work really well. If i welfare system is made such that it makes sense for a person to do nothing and sit at home getting free things, it is a welfare system made badly. Also it is something countries with strong welfare systems are always fighting to cleanse insofar as it is possible.

Maybe i should mention that where i come from we have always had extensive welfare systems, and we generally have super low unemployment even during crisis periods we always perform well. If you look at countries with well developed welfare systems they also generally rank high on having low unemployment. My own country, others around me or other known to be highly developed have lower unemployment than US as well. Welfare systems are built by hard working nations(or ones that got lucky rich like oil which is something different as it breeds irresponsibility), but coming from the same nation there is also lots of pressure not to be a welfare loser and if you've ever been on it for a small time you'd know it's not good for your self-worth, normal people only go there when they don't have a choice(which is what they are intended for). This pride from the hardworking people is what makes them work. For a person to be okay with getting extreme minimal amounts of money and never getting out of it, extremely bad social status etc, then they must have lost all hope and dreams of the future in the first place, but that is tackled elsewhere and in fact societies like these are good at giving people opportunity, at least for something basic but much much better than welfare, and it's even harder to lose hope in those societies.

All the misinformation and people talking hard but don't know anything is saddening, and it's what plague the media in the US and it's the mental shit that people eat and so it's a big vicious circle and you all are blind.

Even in the title "social welfare", it's like 2 of the worst you can imagine right?(and kinda meaning the same so it's nonsense). You really have been mindfucked for years on end to fear the russians and their communism, haven't you. It's high culture over there to showcase how much you lack civilization and don't know how to build a society right. Everywhere it's peer pressure for you to conform to this standard. If i went over there and pointed it out, i'd look like an alien on some far out shit, like people would look at me as though there was something seriously wrong with me. Would not in any way listen to me. That's your problem, you remain impervious to reason. Eyes closed, screaming: "nanana".

America remains a manchild in this western civilization, immature, ignorant, irresponsible. Still parties a lot though.