If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The folly of the welfare state
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So through taxation (which is a system based on force and fraud), the state determines that the 'vulnerable' should receive benefits. Why?
Why create dependency? Why steal money from people in order to aid those 'worse off'? Why not form charities to help the poor instead of insisting that people give some of their property to the state?
Why create dependency? Why steal money from people in order to aid those 'worse off'? Why not form charities to help the poor instead of insisting that people give some of their property to the state?
0
Comments
becuase it makes for a better quality of life for all citezens when we are not surrounded by desperation and disease.
Free-riding means charities can never provide enough to support the poor (why the inverted commas over worse-off?)
The redistribution of welath benefits everyone.
Go and study some economics...............
Really? Go learn yourself some politics.
How does a government redistributing wealth 'benefit' people? Why is socialist tendencies of relevance here?
At the end of the day there is a very good argument that everybody should earn the same wages since all the workers play a part in achieving profits for their company, from top to bottom.
Those who are not part of the workforce are often the victims of an unfair capitalist system. The very least the rich can do is to pay taxes and put a tiny bit of their massive fortunes back into the community.
You believe collecting taxes is stealing. Many more people believe millionaire CEOs and directors everywhere steal from the other workers by awarding themselves bigger salaries. I can't think of a single reason why your theory should be the right one.
Stabilises the economy, with completely capitalist wealth distribution booms and slumps would be massive and permanently harmful........
Politics?
if you understood politcs than you would know the answer to y uor question, there is a welathfare state becuase it benefits people and they vote for it.
See how many votes a party that abolished the wealthfare state would get...............
First off there is the moral argument that if you live in a decent society you have to care for your vulnerable members and not leave them to rot. Those who collect benefits are people too and none of us can say when we will need them.
Secondly the whole idea of collective provision benefits us all - the state education system means that the people of this country aren't an illiterate mass who would be able to get few jobs apart from manual labour. The National Health Service provides the basic healthcare needs to stop the spread of diseases thus saving lives. The police and the armed forces ensure the presence of law and order while also defending this country from foreign invaders. The Social Security system ensures that people in this country have a living standard such that they do not need to resort to crime to feed themselves and keep a roof over their heads.
No man is an island, if you had your way you might be able to live in a gated village or something for a while but eventually the disease, the crime, the poverty would get you too.
The charities argument is complete BS - hardly anyone would donate, human beings are fundamentally selfish (as your suggestion shows) and so the amount of money available to help the worse off would plummet and what exactly would the money be spend on? Most people in this country are prosperous enough to be able to afford most modern luxuries - owning their own homes, owning consumer durables, having a holiday or two a year. So if we abolished taxes the money saved would not go on the poor - it would go on foot spas, Ferraris and American size fridges for a sizeable number while other people would die in the streets for not having any money to feed themselves. That is a sick society and thank god we have moved on from the Victorian style society you want us to return to.
Monocrat on one side and communism on the other - I know which I would prefer.
To support some form of safety net for society is not a defence of the Marxist utopia. Such a utopia would in itself, preclude any discussion of a welfare state since the ultimate paradigm envisaged by Marx was the dissolution of a hierarchical state structure of governance and a reversion to individual self governance and as such, self sufficiency.
We all know that human nature itself precludes any credible dissolution of controls, as - in so doing - the effect would be characterised by survival of the fittest in an atmosphere of chaos.
The state does forcibly take money from people in order to finance itself. I don't see how that can be acceptable.
Does it?
When?
Do you see no benefit whatsoever in the activities of the state?
Why?
Other nations don't have a state-owned health system, yet are they less healthy than British people?
How?
I don't want to return to a 'Victorian society'.
I'm not an anarchist, but the only legitimate functions of the state are the maintenance of the armed forces, a judicial system and a police force.
You know full well the moral case for looking after people, you are just being pedantic by asking that question.
I am not sure but I do believe that every single nation has a govt that takes some role in the healthcare system.
As for other nations by comaprison. The US system is mainly private and I do beleiev they are generally less healthy than the Britih, a third of the population doe snot have full helath insurance and that is diabolical..........
Says who?
You never back up these statements, never............
France and Germany don't have entirely state-owned systems yet their populations are relatively healthy. As for 'helping people', there should be no obligation for the state for aid the 'worse off'.
'Says' classical liberal/libertarian political theory.
Can you offer a definitive role of the state?
No France and germany may not have entirely state owned sytems but you have stated that you see no role whatever for the state in the provision of healthcare, a big difference i am sure you will agree.........
The role of the state depends on whom you speak to.
It's role to redistribute wealth? Or uphold morals and values?
Can you do anything but copy off of livertarian.org without thinking?
They weren't challenged because the Thatcher governments had secured mandates which gave them the right to implement their manifestos/policies.
I never copy anything. If you find libertarian views distasteful, that's not my problem.
I dont find libertarian views distasteful, its just annoying when you make all these statements without any reason or backup yet you expect others to justify their arguments, yet you never do yourself
Exactly, they could never get a mandate to challenge the wqelthfare state because very few would want to and we live in a dmeocracy and the welthfare state benefits the majority directly and everyone indirectly..............