BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Work and Welfare

  
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Lurid Archive
09:40 / 01.05.03
OK, we are doing this to death, but I thought it might be better to have a thread specifically to discuss the question of work and welfare.

Personally, I don't see welfare as a problem. Correction, I do think it is a problem in that it fails to be unconditional. I'm not sure what the end product of an ideal society would be - Parecon is interesting, in my view. It rests on the principle that the only criteria for remuneration is effort and that we should share the burden of unpleasant work as well as have equal oppurtunity to engage in fulfilling work. As a method of realising human potential, it seems promising. The only drawback is that it doesn't allow an individual to gain significantly more wealth than others. But, TBH, this doesn't seem to be a drawback to me. Still, I don't think I entirely support Parecon.

One idea I'd like to see implemented in society, perhaps on the way to some grander vision is a Basic Guaranteed Income. The idea is that individuals are guaranteed a certain income unconditionally. No means testing and no willingness to work test. The idea is that it eliminates the poverty trap which often makes work not pay, and it promotes social justice by reducing the incentive for doing a demeaning job. Also, the universality has some savings in administration compared to standard welfare. FAQs on basic income can be found here.

The justification of any kind of welfare system is another question, which I will tackle with reference to Leaptopia, as I suspect this will arise in any case...
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:43 / 01.05.03
Quotes taken from the EDUCATION thread.

so if you are interested in discussion I suggest you might offer your own approach so we can at least draw up preliminary stance and know where the other is arguing from - leap

While there is some justification for asking for alternatives to commonly identified problems, I think that this demand rests ultimately on a fallacy. One needn't present an alternative to criticise a position. Haus has, for instance, put forward the criticism that Leaptopia requires an intial act of the "removal" of 90 per cent of the UK. The request for an "alternative" is palpably weak.

OK, let me try to meet some of leap's questions head on.

WHY “those who can and do work owe a living to those who can but who refuse to”

First of all - and this won't appeal to someone who deals only in stark dichotomies - I think the question is largely irrelevant. Those who chose not to work are in a pretty small minority whose economic impact on those who do work is vanishingly small. Any attempt to "solve" this "problem" is actually more expensive than just putting up with it - certainly leaptopia requires that we return to subsistence living.
So we can only see this question as an attempt to justify bigotry. Especially when we look at the use of language, "slapper", "dole scrounger" etc. Hatred and contempt are part of the motivations here.

But I think one answer that one might put forward is the idea of a social contract. If one wishes to avoid the creation of an underclass, outside the protection and rules of society, then one had better ensure some method of inclusion. This is why we have welfare - not because of some socialist idealism, but because it is more expensive not to.

HOW it is more sensible to give unconditionally to welfare recipients and in doing so present a principle that in some way such recipients have a ‘right’ to upkeep regardless of their willingness to seek self-support. I ask this because by giving without judgement we are encouraging a “welfare society” to develop amongst those who would otherwise be on the border between self-support and welfare-dependence but in this case would now choose to receive unconditional welfare.

Already answered above. If you want to avoid the creation of an excluded underclass, with all the consequences for crime, then it really does make sense. The "welfare society" is your own prejudice. Actually, I think most western socities have a strong work ethic that shames and excludes those who don't work, even if unemployment is a necessary fact of economics. I think that the idea that someone should accept employment, no matter what the conditions, on threat of death is demeaning. It is undignified and immodest. Human self expression requires some freedom, not the imposition of a subsistence existence in a society that could easily afford to feed everyone.

HOW it is necessary to in the main strip away the reliance upon direct personal judgement and subsequent acts of charity, in favour instead of govt theft (taking without consent and regardless of the taxed persons ability to pay) and an impersonal, largely broadcast (and uncritical) welfare system that teaches that Those who can and do work owe a living to those who can but who refuse to.

Government "theft" is again your own prejudice. If nothing else, economies of scale rather encourage that any services you would like to be in place should be organised by some body. Thus, you are not calling for these services to be "replaced", given the huge increase in cost of doing so individually, rather you are calling for their abolition. This is even before we get into the psychology of an individual parting with money, as opposed to an individual agreeing to give a fair share to a communal fund.

Let us also not forget that "government theft" also enables infrastructure, health care, education, security and legal protection. Hence the removal of government would make everyone a lot poorer and return us to the conditions of the 17th-18th centuries. Lower life expectancy, high infant mortality and the arbitrary vagaries of environment leading to destitution. I find it hard to imagine that the power vacuum would not lead to a mafia - lords and serfs, perhaps - since there is no mechanism to stop one and the benefits of membership of such an organisation are apparent. In the absence of a disinterested legal process, the rule of the strong over the weak is the default in the shamelessly luddite society that is Leaptopia.
 
 
Leap
11:14 / 01.05.03
WHY “those who can and do work owe a living to those who can but who refuse to” [Leap]

First of all - and this won't appeal to someone who deals only in stark dichotomies - I think the question is largely irrelevant.

First of all let me point out that I deal in a fuzzy dichotomy rather than a stark one.

Those who chose not to work are in a pretty small minority whose economic impact on those who do work is vanishingly small. Any attempt to "solve" this "problem" is actually more expensive than just putting up with it - certainly leaptopia requires that we return to subsistence living.

How am I advocating a “ return to subsistence living ” buy saying those who work do not owe a living to those who can work but refuse to , that it is better for charity to be a matter of personal judgement not state injunction and that such giving should be on the basis of the degree to which the recipient is likely to make use of it to become self-supporting rather than live as a parasite ?

So we can only see this question as an attempt to justify bigotry. Especially when we look at the use of language, "slapper", "dole scrounger" etc. Hatred and contempt are part of the motivations here.

Contempt yes. Hatred no. Please do not attempt to put words into my mouth without asking.

But I think one answer that one might put forward is the idea of a social contract. If one wishes to avoid the creation of an underclass, outside the protection and rules of society, then one had better ensure some method of inclusion. This is why we have welfare - not because of some socialist idealism, but because it is more expensive not to.

Please explain how i. it is more expensive to avoid a welfare state than to have one ii. why cheapest is best?

HOW it is more sensible to give unconditionally to welfare recipients and in doing so present a principle that in some way such recipients have a ‘right’ to upkeep regardless of their willingness to seek self-support. I ask this because by giving without judgement we are encouraging a “welfare society” to develop amongst those who would otherwise be on the border between self-support and welfare-dependence but in this case would now choose to receive unconditional welfare. [Leap]

Already answered above. If you want to avoid the creation of an excluded underclass, with all the consequences for crime, then it really does make sense.

Aha, so you are saying it essentially (a pretty naff attempt at) blackmail? BY the “welfare argument” it is better to be stolen from by the state (a massively powerful thief that it is incredibly difficult to fight off) than be stolen from by billy burglar (one man who it is far easier to fight off) who refuse to work and so will try to steal?

The "welfare society" is your own prejudice. Actually, I think most western societies have a strong work ethic that shames and excludes those who don't work, even if unemployment is a necessary fact of economics. I think that the idea that someone should accept employment, no matter what the conditions, on threat of death is demeaning.

Whoa….I’m sorry…” on threat of death “ ? If you cannot work that is one matter, but if you WILL not work that is suicide, not murder.

It is undignified and immodest. Human self expression requires some freedom, not the imposition of a subsistence existence in a society that could easily afford to feed everyone.

And if unable to earn it (note: unable, not unwilling) let their upkeep be a matter of personal judgement and charity.

HOW it is necessary to in the main strip away the reliance upon direct personal judgement and subsequent acts of charity, in favour instead of govt theft (taking without consent and regardless of the taxed persons ability to pay) and an impersonal, largely broadcast (and uncritical) welfare system that teaches that Those who can and do work owe a living to those who can but who refuse to. [Leap]

Government "theft" is again your own prejudice. If nothing else, economies of scale rather encourage that any services you would like to be in place should be organised by some body.

Only if you assume “cheapest” is automatically “best”.

Thus, you are not calling for these services to be "replaced", given the huge increase in cost of doing so individually, rather you are calling for their abolition. This is even before we get into the psychology of an individual parting with money, as opposed to an individual agreeing to give a fair share to a communal fund.

What services would you be referring to?

Let us also not forget that "government theft" also enables infrastructure, health care, education, security and legal protection. Hence the removal of government would make everyone a lot poorer and return us to the conditions of the 17th-18th centuries.

Pray tell how sustainable the economy that provides our post 18th century lifestyle at the cost of the poverty of 70-80% of the world, and that is based upon environmentally destructive practices, and which is sustained in turn by govt interference, is supportable?

Lower life expectancy, high infant mortality and the arbitrary vagaries of environment leading to destitution.

Except for the fact that such was mostly a matter of poor sanitation and hygiene

I find it hard to imagine that the power vacuum would not lead to a mafia - lords and serfs, perhaps - since there is no mechanism to stop one and the benefits of membership of such an organisation are apparent. In the absence of a disinterested legal process, the rule of the strong over the weak is the default in the shamelessly luddite society that is Leaptopia.

What “power-vacuum”? I am proposing power be regained by the person, in their own lives. The is no “power vacuum”.

The only argument you seem to be putting forward is that “services” are “cheaper” under state control institutionalism [presuming also that “cheaper is better”] and that we should support the parasitic by taxation because if we do not they will steal from us directly!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:46 / 01.05.03
I was wondering about low-paid work myself, perhaps a little self-interestedly. Allow me to speak from my own experience of the world, if I may. My last job paid well above the minimum wage. It involved no heavy lifting, no unpleasant bending, little travel and when travelling often to reasonably interesting countries, and so on.

However, I understand that other people have jobs that pay far less well, and involve far more unpleasantness. A lot of them have no real prospects for improvement, no realistic provisions for sick leave or holiday pay, and may be terminated at any point. Sounds pretty stressful, yeah? It makes reasonable sense that, in between these crappy and low-paying jobs, they may try to eke out as much "time off" as possible through the benefit system, tying up Job Centre staff with a ridiculous game of cat and mouse in which both parties must pretend that the titular jobseeker is not going to avoid more shitty, crappy jobs until eventually they are forced to accept one at pain of losing their benefits.

So...assuming that it is impractical either to give everyone in the world good, challenging and lucrative jobs or to force employers to offer their minimum-wage staff holidays and benefits, might it be worthwhile to offer people an officially recognised period where they do not have to pretend to be seekign employment? In a sense our current system seems to do this, but in an underhand and rather silly way involving lots of cloak and dagger manoeuvres and ultimately probably greater costs incurred all round.

I should probably declare my interest here, as I have before; I'm selfsih. Very selfish, in fact. For example, I note that statistics, however untrustworthy they may be, suggest that a very small number of serious drug addicts are responsible for a startlingly large number of thefts and incidences of property crime in the UK. It strikes me, selfishly, that, although those addicts' former character clearly shows them as less worthy of our charity than other people, it might nonetheless make pragmatic sense to give them clean, safe areas in which they can inject drugs provided by the state, cutting the costs of treating them for impure doses, accidental overdose and the massive cost of policing this reasonably small number of people, along with the suppliers who will suddenly no longer be needed, and can thus be identified and apprehended with the help of the addicts they formerly controlled.

That's just selfishness. I don't like these people, I don't respect the decisions they have made, but it serves my petty personal interests to give somebody else the means, through my taxes, to act in a fashion apparently also in their interests. Howeve, I don't have the means personally to procure enough heroin to do this, nor do I suspect if I did that, as a private citizen with no experience of heroin and very little of heroin users, then I would make a terribly good fist of it. Hence the idea of using some of the money from my work to fund other people's work, to deliver knowledge and experience-based (as opposed to "specialised", which as we know is a dangerous word) care to people who a) need it and b) are made more useful and/or less deleterious to society in general and me specifically. So, in that sense Leap is quite correct in his contention above that one good reasopn for a welfare state is that without maintenance people who cannot (or, if you would rather, will not) work and are not sustained by charitable donations based on subjective asssessments of their worth are likely to threaten both the general conduct of society in general and individuals in particular, notwithstanding the armed population. On another level there is also the idea that, ethically, determining who cannot and who will not work (the term used in the poor laws tended to be "sturdy vagabond") is rather more complex than simply who has a broad back and is not currently using it to tote bales.

Now, moderator hat: this is the Head Shop, and the general focus of the topic is in the topic abstract. It does not invite personal attacks, sustained rudeness or threadrot about one's own personal obsessions outside the thread. I will say right now that the method of quoting paragraphs of people's arguments and responding with a single sentence is impolite, disruptive and largely unwelcome - most people's instincts should tell them when they are being unhelpful. I'm afraid that, having seen the mess the Conversation has been left in by these threads, this one may come in for a fair bit of modding. Sorry about that in advance.
 
 
Rev. Orr
12:15 / 01.05.03
Re: the 'it's cheaper' argument. I don't wish to put words into Lurid's mouth, but I suspect that this angle was brought in to try to avoid the fruitless dead-end of comparing moralities. If I think it's 'bad' to let other people starve because I don't approve of them and you think it's 'wicked' to use your money to prevent this without them personally grovelling to you, then discussing the question in those terms doesn't really get us anywhere. If your argument is that one should not remove money from an individual to save another, then why chose a system that requires the 'wealthy' to lose more of their income to achieve less 'good'? Unless, of course, greater suffering amongst the would-be recipients is at least part of the desired results if not the goal. Either we all end up worse off financially to pay for the privilege of voluntary donation, or more people are left in penury, starvation and desperate straits. That's why the efficiency argument is valid - it points out the suffering inherent in your scheme.

As to hate/contempt, I'm not entirely clear on your distinction. Are you trying to postulate some sort of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' position? Because, if you are, your choice of language, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, is prejudicial, judgemental and emotional. Your insistance on 'theft' to describe taxation, your belief that the majority of welfare recipients refuse to work, your use of the term parasitic are all indications of an active hate, fear and loathing of those you perceive to be beneath you. If that is an accurate reflection of your views then, fine, we'll progress from there. If not, then you might want to consider why your words give that impression.

How am I advocating a “ return to subsistence living ”

By denying the 'right' of the state to centralise some basic and essential services and to pay for these via any form of levy, you are removing the structure to allows our modern, collective way of life. It is possible to exist without the modern state as we know it, this entails the indivual dedicating most if nto all of their time and energy to replacing that which you have removed. We are all now equal in doing everything for ourselves. This is known as subsistance living. I referred to it as crofting in another thread, but this is only possible as a life-style choice within a greater society. What you are proposing has not been seen as a model for society (outside indigenous peoples and isolated communities) since the later Neolithic era. Dark Age Britain had more centralisation than Leaptopia. That is why er refer to subsistance living, agrarian uptopias and other terms in reference to your plan. You simply cannot have your life as you want it without the infrastructure that allows individal specialisation and community of resources.

Lower life expectancy, high infant mortality and the arbitrary vagaries of environment leading to destitution.

Except for the fact that such was mostly a matter of poor sanitation and hygiene

Which, once the technology or scientific understanding has been reached, is a question of financial station. There is already a direct causal link in this country between income and health, particularly in the area of diet, exercise and cardiac health. Without a central health service, without medical training, without a structured sewerage network and with a large population of the starving, destitute and dying, how long would these neat, sanitary conditions exist within the shanty towns of Leaptopia? Is the mortality rate in the third world substantially lower than the UK because 'their just iggerant darkies' or because of the imbalance of resources, opportunity and money that you acknowledged in your post? Why would this not apply, in smaller form, within the new UK you envision?

in favour instead of govt theft (taking without consent and regardless of the taxed persons ability to pay) and an impersonal, largely broadcast (and uncritical) welfare system that teaches that Those who can and do work owe a living to those who can but who refuse to.

Given that most of the money you object to being taken from you is removed in the form of income tax, then I fail to see how this ignores your ability to pay. Should there be a greater correlation between ability and demand? Yes, but you see, those of us in the wooly-liberal camp over here, have a pesky habit of continuing that scale down towards those with no income. If taxation is to be means tested then those of no means should enter your equation somewhere.

As to the welfare state 'teaching' people to be indigent. I honestly don't see that it teaches anything other then 'you shall fall no further than this'. Where, incidentally, 'this' is a piss-poor place to be that nobody would choose over comfort.
 
 
Quantum
12:18 / 01.05.03
There are loads of excellent solutions to the problems of having a welfare state, but which you decide depends on the ethics behind your choice.
For example, I favour a Scandinavian model- high taxes for an excellent standard of living. I believe there you are allowed to live on the equivalent of the dole for up to six months no questions asked, at a decent income (similar in Australia) but not many people do. They have a tiny proportion of unemployed people and people are pretty happy about the way things are run.
In contrast to this the US system is extremely harsh (I believe you can only claim if you are a single parent, for a maximum of six months, up to a maximum of three times ever etc.) and they have massive unemployment problems and nobody is happy about it.

Here in the UK we (of course) have something in between. In theory, only those who are "Available and actively seeking employment" can sign on, so really the system is Leap's ideal. If someone is not actively seeking work, their benefit is stopped for a fortnight. If they don't get the message it is stopped for six months (this includes housing benefit) so effectively they starve or turn to crime. Sound familiar?
But of course this is not the case in practice, and everybody knows it. Our benefits system is failing, and needs radical reform (I'm guessing Leap would opt for more enforcement and that's certainly a good idea, but...) so I will put forward a model suggested by a colleauge (sp?) of mine at the jobcentre.
Arm the staff (just kidding!)
Halve the staffing, send people their money automatically, have more lenient laws and more money per claimant, have most of the staff work as Fraud officers. Intervene at the long term claimant stage (3 or 6 months) and have staff available for jobsearch advice etc.
That way genuine claimants get help, fraudsters get busted.
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:21 / 01.05.03
I'm also quite interested in human rights. If we accept that there are certain human rights, then it seems unavoidable that we should agree on a disinterested mechanism to guarantee those rights. I wonder how far this should extend to work? Should people have a right to work that is not demeaning? I'd like to think so, which is part of the reason I like the basic income idea.

Also, I think that technology and our current levels of wealth present a perspective on work that wouldn't have been present in the past. Namely, there is a good argument that we don't need to do as much work, and so the idea that we are entitled to rewarding work is sustainable. I think that Bertrand Russell said this well in his essay, In Praise of Idleness. You can read it yourselves, but I'll quote a little

The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich. In England, in the early nineteenth century, fifteen hours was the ordinary day's work for a man; children sometimes did as much, and very commonly did twelve hours a day. When meddlesome busybodies suggested that perhaps these hours were rather long, they were told that work kept adults from drink and children from mischief. When I was a child, shortly after urban working men had acquired the vote, certain public holidays were established by law, to the great indignation of the upper classes. I remember hearing an old Duchess say: 'What do the poor want with holidays? They ought to work.' People nowadays are less frank, but the sentiment persists, and is the source of much of our economic confusion.
 
 
Leap
12:59 / 01.05.03
Haus –

I note that statistics, however untrustworthy they may be, suggest that a very small number of serious drug addicts are responsible for a startlingly large number of thefts and incidences of property crime in the UK. It strikes me, selfishly, that, although those addicts' former character clearly shows them as less worthy of our charity than other people, it might nonetheless make pragmatic sense to give them clean, safe areas in which they can inject drugs provided by the state, cutting the costs of treating them for impure doses, accidental overdose and the massive cost of policing this reasonably small number of people, along with the suppliers who will suddenly no longer be needed, and can thus be identified and apprehended with the help of the addicts they formerly controlled.

Whereas I would say such initiatives should be locally based, on education on the dangers of drugs (not half-assed ones that give mixed messages), and are funded by personal charity (donated according to personal judgement – as this is both in accord with our nature as personal beings AND is the most pragmatic because it avoid the disenfranchising that comes from taxation and the institutionalisation of power; the latter being something that discourages responsibility) and only open to those who make genuine efforts to change (respond to EDUCATION that is - with those who show no such sign being left to their own devices), and with a contingency plan of “if the druggie turns this down and instead breaks into your house or tries to rob you in the street, shoot the fucker and have done with it instead of either wasting your effort / money and opening yourself up to attack from said druggies in your midst”.

On another level there is also the idea that, ethically, determining who cannot and who will not work (the term used in the poor laws tended to be "sturdy vagabond") is rather more complex than simply who has a broad back and is not currently using it to tote bales.

Which is a reason perhaps to change the employment system, rather than the welfare system?

Now, moderator hat: this is the Head Shop, and the general focus of the topic is in the topic abstract. It does not invite personal attacks, sustained rudeness or threadrot about one's own personal obsessions outside the thread. I will say right now that the method of quoting paragraphs of people's arguments and responding with a single sentence is impolite, disruptive and largely unwelcome - most people's instincts should tell them when they are being unhelpful. I'm afraid that, having seen the mess the Conversation has been left in by these threads, this one may come in for a fair bit of modding. Sorry about that in advance.

Something I mentioned above, about education concerning drugs, was the problem of mixed messages (which contains the issue of a level of hypocrisy on the part of the teachers). This would perhaps be seen to apply to subjects beyond drug use

Jonny Orr –

If I think it's 'bad' to let other people starve because I don't approve of them and you think it's 'wicked' to use your money to prevent this without them personally grovelling to you, then discussing the question in those terms doesn't really get us anywhere.

Grovelling? How is grovelling comparable to asking? If you need from another you ASK of them. To take without asking is theft. Simple really.

If your argument is that one should not remove money from an individual to save another, then why chose a system that requires the 'wealthy' to lose more of their income to achieve less 'good'?

My argument is not to DEPERSONALISE it, and in doing so deny the ability of the giver to actually decide how much they give and who they give it to. If people would respond to what I post, rather than to what others are saying that I am posting, we would get a lot further on this.

Either we all end up worse off financially to pay for the privilege of voluntary donation,

Which is something I find acceptable; quality of life is NOT synonymous with level of wealth. I would rather be poorer and freer than richer and bound.

As to hate/contempt, I'm not entirely clear on your distinction. Are you trying to postulate some sort of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' position? Because, if you are, your choice of language, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, is prejudicial, judgemental and emotional.

I am suggesting a scale: love-like-neutral-dislike-contempt-hate.

Your insistence on 'theft' to describe taxation, your belief that the majority of welfare recipients refuse to work,

Whoa neddy! I specifically aim at those who CAN work but refuse, not those who CANNOT work. I make no assumptions as to the figures involved. Please do not try to make out that I do.

your use of the term parasitic are all indications of an active hate, fear and loathing of those you perceive to be beneath you. If that is an accurate reflection of your views then, fine, we'll progress from there. If not, then you might want to consider why your words give that impression.

I would categorise my attitude as a blend of dislike and contempt, but not the level of ‘hatred’ that would have me suggesting that they be made to suffer!

By denying the 'right' of the state to centralise some basic and essential services and to pay for these via any form of levy, you are removing the structure to allows our modern, collective way of life.

Yup

It is possible to exist without the modern state as we know it, this entails the individual dedicating most if not all of their time and energy to replacing that which you have removed.

Or perhaps accepting a more MODEST level of wealth as opposed to the lives of abundant luxury most of us live (again, at the cost of the majority of the world).

We are all now equal in doing everything for ourselves. This is known as subsistence living.

But then I am suggesting a situation where delegation and trade form a minority in society, not be wiped out! As thus, it would not be subsistence living. Just one with dramatically reduced levels of wealth that allow the poorer to thrive under their own steam rather than under the control of others (either state or big-business).

There is already a direct causal link in this country between income and health, particularly in the area of diet, exercise and cardiac health.

Because the poor are kept busy in a high wealth gain economy and when in their leisure time are encouraged to go for TV and Microwave dinners (as they have lst much of the ability to cook – something the previous rural lives still had) rather than exercise and home cooked food.

Without a central health service, without medical training, without a structured sewerage network and with a large population of the starving, destitute and dying, how long would these neat, sanitary conditions exist within the shanty towns of Leaptopia?

What absolute drivel. The health service caters to the economy as stands, and thus is papering over the cracks in an abusive sustem!

Is the mortality rate in the third world substantially lower than the UK because 'their just iggerant darkies' or because of the imbalance of resources, opportunity and money that you acknowledged in your post?

Did you bother reading what I posted or are you just going on your own pre-conceived notions?!!! I consistently point out that OUR luxury comes at their POVERTY, and that this is WRONG! Do PLEASE try to actually bloody well respond to what I post instead of joining the “lets make it up as we go along” crowd!

The mortality rate in the 3rd world is bad primarily because we are shafting them for our luxury. Simple. In destroying their time tested agrarian communities we have left them devoid of roots and education (folk wisdom that actually WORKED!), in order that they slave in sweat shops for our fucking luxury!

Why would this not apply, in smaller form, within the new UK you envision?

Because we would not be subject to a colonialist oppressor – we ARE the colonialist oppressor!

Given that most of the money you object to being taken from you is removed in the form of income tax, then I fail to see how this ignores your ability to pay.

Income tax is set centrally, pays no regard to personal expenses and local environmental situations, and as such takes based on some standard that is woefully unappreciative of what is actually going on in the real world (an appreciation I as a member of a community and payer of my bills CAN appreciate).

Should there be a greater correlation between ability and demand? Yes, but you see, those of us in the wooly-liberal camp over here, have a pesky habit of continuing that scale down towards those with no income. If taxation is to be means tested then those of no means should enter your equation somewhere.

I am not sure what you mean here…..

As to the welfare state 'teaching' people to be indigent. I honestly don't see that it teaches anything other then 'you shall fall no further than this'. Where, incidentally, 'this' is a piss-poor place to be that nobody would choose over comfort.

And I have known more dole scroungers who refuse to work (or worse work AND claim) than I care to think about.

Quantum –

Here in the UK we (of course) have something in between. In theory, only those who are "Available and actively seeking employment" can sign on, so really the system is Leap's ideal.

Although this does not answer the problem of the “lunch-ticket ‘mothers’”….. and is prone to abuse. (to say the least!)

If someone is not actively seeking work, their benefit is stopped for a fortnight. If they don't get the message it is stopped for six months (this includes housing benefit) so effectively they starve or turn to crime. Sound familiar?

Which ‘perhaps’ answers one of my points, if it actually worked, but still leaves the other two waiting

But of course this is not the case in practice, and everybody knows it. Our benefits system is failing, and needs radical reform (I'm guessing Leap would opt for more enforcement and that's certainly a good idea, but...) so I will put forward a model suggested by a colleauge (sp?) of mine at the jobcentre.
Arm the staff (just kidding!)

[Private comment: We should do that here as well quantum! ]

Halve the staffing, send people their money automatically, have more lenient laws and more money per claimant, have most of the staff work as Fraud officers. Intervene at the long term claimant stage (3 or 6 months) and have staff available for jobsearch advice etc.
That way genuine claimants get help, fraudsters get busted.

That still does not answer my other two points (and they are interconnected).

Lurid –

I'm also quite interested in human rights. If we accept that there are certain human rights, then it seems unavoidable that we should agree on a disinterested mechanism to guarantee those rights.

Excellent; let us have robot overseers then! [that was sarcasm, but not meant nastily ]

I wonder how far this should extend to work? Should people have a right to work that is not demeaning? I'd like to think so, which is part of the reason I like the basic income idea.

Should those who refuse to work, have a right to demand of those who do work, a living.

Also, I think that technology and our current levels of wealth present a perspective on work that wouldn't have been present in the past. Namely, there is a good argument that we don't need to do as much work, and so the idea that we are entitled to rewarding work is sustainable.

Or maybe that we should work less, except less levels of wealth, as a whole, in return for a more personally based (but not utterly personal based – I still agree with trade!!!) lifestyle that allows more space for the poor to thrive by their own actions

As opposed to

Working more, aiming for higher levels of wealth, in return for a more impersonally driven society that keeps the poor either under the patronising wing of the welfare state or preyed on at the mercy of big business.
 
 
The Natural Way
13:21 / 01.05.03
education on the dangers of drugs (not half-assed ones that give mixed messages)

Just this sentence! This sentence alone!

"Drugs are baaaad...mmmkay."

This is the problem - the problem everyone's been trying to get through to you, Leap - what passes for EDUCATION in Leapland equals hypodermic-model style injection of uncomplicated, irrefutable "truths".

You should check out the anti-drug campaign currently running in Marvel's comics. You'd love it.
 
 
Leap
13:24 / 01.05.03
And of course you are pro-drugs and pro tax funded support for drug users? [note: a QUESTION, not a STATEMENT]
 
 
Ganesh
13:26 / 01.05.03
As I've said before, individuals do not start from a 'level playing field', and I have a professional and personal interest in those who, by dint of entering the human race with a significant 'handicap' (through unfavourable genetics, early environment, accident, whatever) are unable to work. In the 'Breeding Exam' thread, I estimated conservatively that, at any given point, around 10% of the UK population might fall within this category.

How should society address this problem?
 
 
Leap
13:39 / 01.05.03
Ganesh –

How should society address [the] problem [of] … unfavourable genetics, early environment, accident, [or] whatever [and] are unable to work ?

Excellent question Ganesh. If such can be shown within a reasonable degree of accuracy (reasonable here being used in the same sense as is used in jury trials) then that is the place for personal acts of charity, in the local community, to enable these people to live as normal a life as they are capable (note CAPABLE, not WILLING), as judged by the giver in conjunction with discussion with the wider community, in so far as the personal acts of charity (with the reduced wealth of a less centralised system) allows without actually placing the giver in an untenable situation.

When the limit of resources have been met, again by the judgement of the giver, then the givers should NOT be sacrificed to the receivers by creating a society that in order to cater to the receivers extra needs forces the givers themselves into an oppressive life.
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
13:44 / 01.05.03
I can't address everything in this thread. I will address Basic Gauranteed Income, though. This is a bad idea. What you do is essentially raise the lowest common denominator. It will have a rippling effect through the rest of the economy, and prices will rise. What is the point of having a higher income if it doesn't buy you any more stuff than your old income? So, you suggest more regulations on companies not to raise prices? Well, then companies will show a loss, and you're whole economy trickles down the tubes. Many of you seem to miss the point that everything affects everything. You focus on getting people some money, yet forget what effects that might have on the rest of the economy. You guys have a serious misunderstadning of basic economics, and it's eating me ALIVE!
 
 
Quantum
13:58 / 01.05.03
Hey Piglet, don't tar everybody with one brush. Take the proposal for welfare reform I posted above. It leads to reduced costs but increased per capita income for claimants, thus less tax but more benefit for those who need it. The loss is taken by the criminal fraudsters, claimants and taxpayers both benefit, it makes sound economic sense. Tell me why I don't understand economics, please. Also explain why your view of the knock on effect of a guaranteed income is NECESSARILY rising prices and a fucked economy- I can see why you're saying it but there are plenty of ways to avoid that.

Leap- what three points?
 
 
Ganesh
14:00 / 01.05.03
Leap:

Putting aside for one moment the issue of determining "reasonable" incapacity to work (whose duty is it to demonstrate it, and to whom, etc.), and noting that, as things currently stand, UK charities couldn't even begin to scratch the surface of that 10%, I'm interested in the following:

When the limit of resources have been met, again by the judgment of the giver, then the giver should NOT be sacrificed... etc., etc.

What, then, should happen when that tiny pool of resource is used up?

Capitalist Piglet:

What are you? Autistic?!
 
 
Quantum
14:03 / 01.05.03
Ganesh- I believe those incapable of working be supported by the state and helped to be active members of society. In discussing the welfare state I tend to focus on the Unemployment issue, because I take it for granted everyone will agree we should look after the sick, weak etc.

(Note I only include the 'active members of society' clause because I think 1) it's curative to do things 2) everybody has something to offer 3) being perceived as useful increases one's sense of self worth (and is thus curative) 4) social inclusion is good. I'm not saying 'make them work' I'm saying 'Help them work')
 
 
Leap
14:08 / 01.05.03
Quantum –

Leap- what three points?

WHY “those who can and do work owe a living to those who can but who refuse to” [Leap]

HOW it is more sensible to give unconditionally to welfare recipients and in doing so present a principle that in some way such recipients have a ‘right’ to upkeep regardless of their willingness to seek self-support. I ask this because by giving without judgement we are encouraging a “welfare society” to develop amongst those who would otherwise be on the border between self-support and welfare-dependence but in this case would now choose to receive unconditional welfare. [Leap]

HOW it is necessary to in the main strip away the reliance upon direct personal judgement and subsequent acts of charity, in favour instead of govt theft (taking without consent and regardless of the taxed persons ability to pay) and an impersonal, largely broadcast (and uncritical) welfare system that teaches that Those who can and do work owe a living to those who can but who refuse to. [Leap]

Ganesh -

What, then, should happen when that tiny pool of resource is used up?

When you run out of resources whatever you are doing stops. There are limits to was is possible after all (or are you somehow suggesting that there are not?!!).
 
 
Bomb The Past
14:09 / 01.05.03
Leap:

...the patronising wing of the welfare state...

As opposed to the individual patrons of Leaptopia — those kind philanthropists who'll be roaming the streets and doling out gruel to the worthiest of the poor who need only gaze imploringly in their direction...

The classist stereotyping running through your arguments is hilarious yet worrying. Your conception of "the poor" as some kind of homogenous block of trash who are all content to sit in front of the TV stuffing themselves with microwave dinners might bear some examination. It seems to be tied up with a rather Victorian work ethic where poor people are demonised for idleness and deserve their fate. Whilst it would perhaps be naïve to suggest that 'dole scroungers' are completely absent from the welfare system, I think you vastly overstate their presence and economic impact. Social security payments are shitty as it stands and I doubt many people would want to live on them for anything like an extended period. Whilst increasing them to a decent level might encourage people to become "parasites", as you put it, getting rid of them completely as you suggest would leave those willing and able to work but unable to find employment rather royally screwed.
 
 
Ganesh
14:11 / 01.05.03
Quantum:

Sure, I'm in total agreement that work, generally speaking, is a Good Thing, and those with at least some ability should be helped to find suitable employment. My 10%, however, has been narrowed down to those who, for one reason or another, are absolutely incapable of employment. If we included those with a little capacity to work - or those only temporarily unable to work - the percentage would be much higher.
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:13 / 01.05.03
You guys have a serious misunderstadning of basic economics, and it's eating me ALIVE! - Capitalist Piglet

I don't think that this is fair. Essentially you are rejecting the possibility of any Keynsian model on neo-classical grounds? I don't see how raising the level of the lowest makes us poorer, quite the opposite. I'm thinking of the failure of the "trickle down effect" and the way that more people able to consume stimulates growth. This may cause price increases, but I don't see that as inevitable. If it were that simple, then no nation would be able to become wealthier on average.

Also, if I've read the FAQs correctly, Basic Income has supporters which include nobel prize winning economists.
 
 
Ganesh
14:17 / 01.05.03
Leap:

When you run out of resources whatever you are doing stops. There are limits to was is possible after all

And when that tiny, tiny pool of resources (as defined, naturally, by the individual giver) stops, what then? Given that, as I've said, the amount of money we currently donate to UK charities is so pitifully small, so absolutely inadequate to begin to address the need, what happens to that 10%? Where do they go?
 
 
Leap
14:32 / 01.05.03
Dead Flower –

As opposed to the individual patrons of Leaptopia — those kind philanthropists who'll be roaming the streets and doling out gruel to the worthiest of the poor who need only gaze imploringly in their direction...

Well, I would probably be more generous than to dole out gruel………and they only need ask, not gaze imploringly .

It has ceased to surprise me that left-wingers primary form of ‘counter argument’ is drama-queen levels of sarcasm. Sad really.

Your conception of "the poor" as some kind of homogenous block of trash who are all content to sit in front of the TV stuffing themselves with microwave dinners might bear some examination. It seems to be tied up with a rather Victorian work ethic where poor people are demonised for idleness and deserve their fate.

Erm, nope, it is based upon govt research that suggest that the poorest in our society have the worst diet.

Obesity is at an all-time high.
Depression is at an all time high (if that is not an oxymoron!)
Microwave dinner use is at an all-time high

Fruit, in season, is not expensive (especially wild fruit like blackberries).
Veg in season is not expensive (and allotments rarely cost more than £10 to £20 a year to rent)
Bread is cheap.
Exercise is free (especially if you take the above opportunity of an allotment!)
Cheaper cuts of meat or cheaper types of fish are freely available.

Strangely enough, the most expensive stuff is the processed crap! You know; the microwave food, the TV dinners.

Whilst it would perhaps be naïve to suggest that 'dole scroungers' are completely absent from the welfare system, I think you vastly overstate their presence and economic impact. Social security payments are shitty as it stands and I doubt many people would want to live on them for anything like an extended period.

I know: I used to claim dole. I was long term unemployed in a midlands industrial town brought up in an environment of dole scrounging that still continues to this day. Then I moved down south, got a degree (whilst working part-time) and now a job that allows me to raise my family whilst giving something back to the community I live in. We are not wealthy, but we manage (touch wood!).

The answer is NOT welfare. The answer is a change in the economic system combined with a re-personalisation of charity and a requirement that you actually do something about your life rather than suck on the tax teat

Whilst increasing them to a decent level might encourage people to become "parasites", as you put it, getting rid of them completely as you suggest would leave those willing and able to work but unable to find employment rather royally screwed.

Which is a problem of the economy, and its drive for ever more levels of wealth, in doing so pricing out the poor. Rather than a problem that needs to be countered by taxation and legislation, it needs to be countered by education that teaches the fundamentally self-destructive nature of capitalism (it destroys the free market rather than promotes it!). Well, that would be a start anyway.

Ganesh –

And when that tiny, tiny pool of resources (as defined, naturally, by the individual giver) stops, what then? Given that, as I've said, the amount of money we currently donate to UK charities is so pitifully small, so absolutely inadequate to begin to address the need, what happens to that 10%? Where do they go?

i. people are discouraged to give to charities because a) the money often leaves their own area, and b) they are already being robbed blind by taxes!

ii. As to where do they go when it runs out, they have nowhere to go, but then that is life and I would like to know how much you would demand from the givers before you deem it too much? Or would you rob peter to pay paul?
 
 
Ganesh
14:47 / 01.05.03
So, essentially, there are two possible scenarios where that 10% is concerned:

A) The population of the UK, freed from taxes and offered the tempting prospect of funding the Local disabled, exponentially increases its rate of charitable donation.

or

B) This exponential increase in charitable donation does not happen, and there remains a shortfall (the costs of providing for 10% of the population are, after all, phenomenal), with resourcing quickly dwindling altogether.

In the second scenario (which seems to me the more likely of the two), the incapacitated 10% have, as you say, nowhere to go. How does society then address the problem of a tenth of the population clogging our streets as they slowly starve or die of exposure? They're gonna have to go somewhere, aren't they? Where? Many of the physically disabled will not be sufficiently mobile to travel; how does society deal with them?

I would like to know much you would demand from the givers before you deem it too much?

I wouldn't have proposed the system in the first place, so I wouldn't be faced with this particular issue.
 
 
Ganesh
14:53 / 01.05.03
Is Scenario B) the "humanly meaningful" "repersonalisation of charity" you had in mind?
 
 
Quantum
14:59 / 01.05.03
WHY “those who can and do work owe a living to those who can but who refuse to” [Leap]

They don't. Nobody has said that they do. BUT those who can and do earn a living SHOULD IN MY OPINION support those who can't. Those who refuse to work because they feel the world owes them a living are not being discussed (and are a small minority anyway)

Point answered- they don't.

"HOW it is more sensible to give unconditionally to welfare recipients and in doing so present a principle that in some way such recipients have a ‘right’ to upkeep regardless of their willingness to seek self-support. I ask this because by giving without judgement we are encouraging a “welfare society” to develop amongst those who would otherwise be on the border between self-support and welfare-dependence but in this case would now choose to receive unconditional welfare." [Leap]

We're not giving without judgement, it's the failure to enforce the criteria for receipt that is the problem.

It isn't. Point answered.

"HOW it is necessary to in the main strip away the reliance upon direct personal judgement and subsequent acts of charity, in favour instead of govt theft (taking without consent and regardless of the taxed persons ability to pay) and an impersonal, largely broadcast (and uncritical) welfare system that teaches that Those who can and do work owe a living to those who can but who refuse to." [Leap]

It isn't necessary. But I'd point out that your perception of the welfare system is coloured by your experience of living in a town with the industry destroyed (presumably by Thatcher) and a high level of welfare claiming and despair.
I studied the psychological effects of unemployment for my psychology degree, and then got a heap of personal anecdotes from three years working with the long term unemployed, plus a dozen courses on the causes, effects and solutions of unemployment etc etc. There is commonly an effect whereby after repeated failure somebody gives up. That's the situation a lot of people are in, and they need help busting out of that rut (my old job). Don't lump them in with the drug dealers and burglars deliberately cheating the state.

It isn't. Point answered.

Ganesh- I'd quibble with your 10% figure unless you are including the elderly and infants. That's way too high. Maybe I'm biased though, I was taught that nobody is unemployable. (Of course that's not true, but almost everyone can do something. I'll prove it if you like...)
 
 
Ganesh
15:08 / 01.05.03
Quantum:

Quibble away. It's a rough estimate based on the severely learning-disabled, those with severe physical injury or brain damage, the very physically disabled (which includes a good proportion of the isolated elderly, with or without dementing illnesses) and those individuals who are sufficiently psychiatrically disordered as to be unable to support themselves through employment.

But yeah, 10% is pretty much a ball-park figure, and I came up with the estimate largely because no-one else was attempting to quantify this particular sector of society. I'm quite prepared to stand corrected - and, depending on one's moral worldview, abandoning a lower percentage of incapacitated people may well be considered more acceptable.
 
 
Bomb The Past
15:23 / 01.05.03
and they only need ask, not gaze imploringly

How is asking individuals for money less demeaning than asking the state? The idea that personal charitable donations to the needy would raise enough money to replace genuine unemployment claims is, as Ganesh points out, implausible and extremely idealistic. Asserting that if this charity plan goes awry leaving a substantial amount of starving, homeless people, is just "life" doesn't appear to be the most pragmatic of plans to alleviate unnecessary suffering. If it's a choice between "robbing peter to give to paul" meaning that people can buy a few less inessential items every month or see potentially many more thousands of starving or homeless then I say rob away.
 
 
Quantum
15:40 / 01.05.03
Shit. Wrote a lengthy response and lost it...
In brief, let's say 2% are unemployable, that way they are definitely deserving of our charity/welfare (severely handicapped etc) but (at 1.2 million) too big a group to ignore.
That 2% take a disproportionate amount of resource to care for (full time carer etc) and contribute virtually nothing tangible to society. I say we have a duty to support them and they have a right to demand a living off us.
Remember rights only correspond to duties. I think we have a duty to care for those 'weaker' than us, so they have a right to that support. Anything less seems cruel to me, including a system of voluntary charitable contributions and familial care, or a vast depersonalised welfare state that institutionalises them.
Apparently you can judge a society by how they treat their elderly and mentally ill. How should we treat them?
 
 
Leap
15:58 / 01.05.03
Ganesh –

In the second scenario (which seems to me the more likely of the two), the incapacitated 10% have, as you say, nowhere to go. How does society then address the problem of a tenth of the population clogging our streets as they slowly starve or die of exposure? They're gonna have to go somewhere, aren't they? Where? Many of the physically disabled will not be sufficiently mobile to travel; how does society deal with them?

How does society deal with those it cannot look after? It lets them die. Harsh? Yes. Cruel? No. Sad? Terribly!. But such is life (unless you wish to abandon realism for idealism, in which case we just wave this magic wand and….!). It is a necessity. That does not mean anyone would enjoy doing it (before cries of “monster” appear). In our comfy lives today, with death and illness safely tucked largely out of sight, we are easily horrified by the necessities of life we are protected against. Right now, in order that many of these ‘incumbents’ live, many are reduced to poverty and a slow painful death in the 3rd world (out of sight and so no impinging on our precious western ‘civilisation’.

I wouldn't have proposed the system in the first place, so I wouldn't be faced with this particular issue.

What would you propose?

Quantum –

those who can and do earn a living SHOULD IN MY OPINION support those who can't. Those who refuse to work because they feel the world owes them a living are not being discussed (and are a small minority anyway)

Actually they are being discussed and are significant in number. As for those who can’t it is up to the individual to do so through personal acts of charity with their own resources, not some impersonal state which does so largely regardless of the taxed persons ability to pay (or indeed their own dignity in having funds forcibly removed from them).

Point answered- they don't.

Exactly.

It isn't. Point answered.

That was, to be fair, the easy one

"HOW it is necessary to in the main strip away the reliance upon direct personal judgement and subsequent acts of charity, in favour instead of govt theft (taking without consent and regardless of the taxed persons ability to pay) and an impersonal, largely broadcast (and uncritical) welfare system that teaches that Those who can and do work owe a living to those who can but who refuse to." [Leap]

It isn't necessary. But I'd point out that your perception of the welfare system is coloured by your experience of living in a town with the industry destroyed (presumably by Thatcher) and a high level of welfare claiming and despair.

Ah, the wonderful Maggie

Actually the industry was fairly stable there, and agriculture was also available.

Sure my perceptions are bound to be coloured by such, but that does not change the simple fact that stripping away the personal from the majority of our lives is leading to increased irresponsibility (something we see in our field with the problems of enforcement vrs soft measures) and is fundamentally demeaning of the vast majority (as many increasingly recognise – how many people are pro high tax?!).

I studied the psychological effects of unemployment for my psychology degree, and then got a heap of personal anecdotes from three years working with the long term unemployed, plus a dozen courses on the causes, effects and solutions of unemployment etc etc. There is commonly an effect whereby after repeated failure somebody gives up. That's the situation a lot of people are in, and they need help busting out of that rut (my old job). Don't lump them in with the drug dealers and burglars deliberately cheating the state.

I am not!

They would fall under my “category” of those who show a great deal of possibility of actually grasping any opportunity offered them to actually be self-supporting.

I have always said let the charity be based upon the past history of the person involved (hence am NOT lumping these folks in with the druggies/slappers/pushers/burglars etc.)

Dead flower –

How is asking individuals for money less demeaning than asking the state?

It is the state taking from the tax-payers that is demeaning, not the receivers gaining it from the state.

The idea that personal charitable donations to the needy would raise enough money to replace genuine unemployment claims is, as Ganesh points out, implausible and extremely idealistic. Asserting that if this charity plan goes awry leaving a substantial amount of starving, homeless people, is just "life" doesn't appear to be the most pragmatic of plans to alleviate unnecessary suffering.

The point is to alleviate as much unnecessary suffering as possible, not simply transfer it to the tax payers who are actually doing ok until govt do-gooders come along and i. Over milk them and ii. Discourage personal responsibility through the disenfranchisement that comes with institutionalisation of what was previously a personal responsibility.

If it's a choice between "robbing peter to give to paul" meaning that people can buy a few less inessential items every month or see potentially many more thousands of starving or homeless then I say rob away.

Who are you to decide that?
 
 
Bomb The Past
16:32 / 01.05.03
Who are you to decide that?

I am a person who values the lives and well being of those unable to support themselves through employment. However, you are a person who has just advocated a genocide-by-abandonment of hundreds of thousands of human beings based on a kind of vulgar Darwinism. I regard that as a horendously immoral stance that can't be escaped by simply adding a to the end of your paragraph. Ah, but who I am to judge you...? This line of argument seems to slip into the disavowing of any moral responsibility for any failure to act in any preventable catastrophic situation by anyone, ever.
 
 
Leap
17:14 / 01.05.03
Who are you to decide that? [Leap]

I am a person who values the lives and well being of those unable to support themselves through employment.

You imply I do not value their lives, when I quite clearly do. I simply recognise the limits of resources available as well as limits on how to gain use of those resources.

However, you are a person who has just advocated a genocide-by-abandonment of hundreds of thousands of human beings based on a kind of vulgar Darwinism.

You DO have a rather rose-tinted and lop-sided view of the world don't you! You would feed the masses through you advocacy of a "benevolent" tyranny (or are you assuming a magic wand answer)?

I regard that as a horendously immoral stance that can't be escaped by simply adding a to the end of your paragraph. Ah, but who I am to judge you...? This line of argument seems to slip into the disavowing of any moral responsibility for any failure to act in any preventable catastrophic situation by anyone, ever.

No, it simply recognises that charity is limited by both reason and resources. There is no "tooth fairy" answer, despite the do-gooders and their ill-thought-out demands.

Now go back and read what I have been saying throughout this topic, and cease your accusations of monstrosity. The world is not the fluffy place you would make it out to be.
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
17:20 / 01.05.03
Does anyone have any good statistics on the breakdown of the unemployed? I.E., how many are capable of working, how many are disabled, etc.? I mean, there seems to be a debate as to what the profile of a "poor" person is. Some of us see these beat-down precious people who live humble lives and if given the chance, they would excel to greatness. Others of us see people who refuse to practice birth control, spend their food stamps on ribeyes, and who would rather live off an income of welfare checks and drug money. It's two ends of the spectrum, and the "poor" encompasses all sorts of people. But, I'm wondering which stereotype is the most accurate.
 
 
Ganesh
17:24 / 01.05.03
Leap:

How does society deal with those it cannot look after? It lets them die. Harsh? Yes. Cruel? No. Sad? Terribly! But such is life (unless you wish to abandon realism for idealism, in which case we just wave this magic wand and...!)

Well, no, such is not life. The present UK welfare system, as I've pointed out before, has many flaws, but allowing the utterly vulnerable and incapacitated simply to die is not one of them. Providing a minimal level of existence for this sizeable sector is not idealism; it's the system within which we currently live.

So... depending whether you choose to go by Quantum's or my estimated figures, anywhere between 2 and 10% of the population might reasonably be expected to die unsupported, of starvation, disease or exposure. I repeat my questions: how does society address the problem of these dying individuals clogging up our streets (doubtless contributing to crime and spreading contagion)? Where are they going to go? What about those who are not physically mobile? Do we simply wait for them to die? What's the most "humanly meaningful" way to address the situation?

What would you propose?

Again (I'm getting a sense of deja vu about this now), I propose, as a starting point, the current welfare system. Faceless and impersonal it may be, but it doesn't view society's most vulnerable individuals as "unworthy" and thus dispensible.

It's interesting that you mention the Third World here, because thus far, the LeapTopian system appears to be predicated upon small, hermetically-sealed villages or "parishes" between which, one presumes, there is relatively little movement. Discussing how LeapTopia relates to the rest of the (notional) world is potentially a whole new ballgame...
 
 
cusm
17:45 / 01.05.03
Rather than a problem that needs to be countered by taxation and legislation, it needs to be countered by education that teaches the fundamentally self-destructive nature of capitalism (it destroys the free market rather than promotes it!).

Couldn't agree more with that one. However, what you are trying to educate runs against basic human nature, and is a venture doomed to failure, however noble it may be. And where the people fail on individual morality, the government must enforce that morality for them, being one of the government's basic tasks. You can't trust the people to impose their own socalism when they have an option for profit instead. So all the government is doing in this case is enforcing what you would prefer people choose to do on their own. Sure, I'd prefer if I could choose to support the infirm, but the infirm won't be supported unless this choice is enforced. So this remains a lofty and worthy goal to approach, that sadly is not in reach with our current society. It should also be noted that in a fluid and evolving economy as we have today, should the rich actually effectively support the needy with charity, government would move to remove welfare in response, allowing the situation you prefer to evolve on its own. Basicly, if it could work, it would have implemented itself already. But it doesn't, so we have taxes and welfare.

As for basic income, this is a tidy solution. It eliminates the problem of not working a minimum wage job because benefits are better unemployed. It fixes many of the biggest problems with the current welfare system. I see the argument also for inflation, but believe this will balance itself out in time, with economic growth a likely result. The biggest problem with the plan is that its very expensive, and requires even greater levels of taxation, which stunts growth. So, it would be a tricky balance to do right.

But is it worthwhile to attempt? I think so. One measure of the success fo a society is the standard of living for its poorest people. If that standard is capped at a reasonable minimum, its a remarkable statement to the effectiveness of your society as a whole and how far we've come overall.
 
 
Bomb The Past
17:55 / 01.05.03
I fail to see how you do value the lives of these people when you say...

How does society deal with those it cannot look after? It lets them die. Harsh? Yes. Cruel? No. Sad? Terribly!. But such is life

...and pass this off as the tragic yet unavoidable workings of the world. If, as you seem to be asserting, society does has no collective duty to care for those who cannot care for themselves and if it happens that isolated individuals are unable or unwilling absorb the costs leading to immiseration and a likely death, I can't help but find that situation a tiny bit morally dubious.

If you'll indulge my outrageous lop-sided idealism for just a little longer, let's consider a crazy and unworkable tooth fairy plan to overturn the natural order of starvation and death wrought upon the physically and mentally disabled. Here we go, if all those who can work collect a little bit of their money together to help those who can't, there just might be a considerable reduction in pain and despair. It bears a striking similarity to our current system, which far from perfect, is generally quite good on the preventing people from starving to death front. I know this lack of general disaster might eat a few percentage points out of people's pay packets, but on balance I think the alternative doesn't quite cut it (yeah, the abandonment and death thing again).
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply