Social Justice... Does it really mean the lazy never have to work again?

[Don Corleone]

I purposely picked an inflammatory title (though, in my defense Soly, it's very clear and explanatory), because I'm personally struggling with the whole concept of 'Social Justice' right now. It's actually a hotbutton issue in my church. Many take it at face value to mean that without a doubt, Jesus would have been a socialist.

But is that true? Social Justice has a context beyond Christianity, so I'm going to un-muddy the waters a bit and ask that we leave the religious context of the phrase out. Let's just look at it as it's own stand alone principle....

On it's surface, it seems obvious. Yes, we should make certain nobody is homeless (that doesn't want to be). Yes, we should make certain that people aren't starving to death. I think it's a small minority that would argue we're not responsible for each member of society's basic needs. This is what makes the "Social Justice" argument so compelling.

Yet, when it comes to execution of policy in conjunction with that principle, many feel that "Social Justice" means that everyone is entitled to own their own abode, regardless of whether they earned it or not. They take it to mean that all of their utitilities, including digital cable and broadband internet access are automatically provided. They take it to mean that everyone should have their own vehicle. Most importantly (to me), it they take it to mean that nobody should be compelled to actually labor to earn these things.

This is where I have a big problem with the whole concept of Social Justice. Do we really believe that Gahndi or Martin Luther King Jr. REALLY believed and fought for the right of everyone to smoke grass, play X-box all day and get a government check for it?

Again, I'm purposely being pointed. Attack my view as heartless if you wish. But if you really want more adherents to the principle of social justice, we need to define it in such a way that a majority can support it. It shouldn't be a blank check for every crazy moral relativist desire the Left can come up with. I would happily part with an additional 10% of my paycheck, if I could be convniced every last dime went to feeding hungry children, or training single mothers out on their own. But I am not going to take food and clothes away from my own daughter to give it to some 22 year old punk who's too lazy to get a job. Sorry.

[English assassin]

the meaning of social justice seems to have changed in the UK. In the fifties, the left were for "equality" and the right for "justice" (amongst a lot of other things in each case).

Now I notice, just as spending has become "investment" equality seems to have become "social justice". Yet if you look t what is being touted as social justice it is fairly clearly an equality agenda.

IMHO social justice means equal opportunities. That does mean quite a lot of public (or it may be charitable) spending, since to have equal opportunities you do need to make sure everyone can get a good education, has good health, that no one is denied a job because of their race or disability and so on. I vote for that, yes please.

ocial justice does not nmean equal outcomes. it is no part of justice that you are sheilded from the consequences of your own freely chosen actions. In fact that strikes me as the opposite of justice. I really can't understand why the left thinks taking money (which I work for and which no one has to pay me) from me and giving it to someone else is a good thing (unless the someone else is, say, a teacher doing a good job at the right wage in which case I am all in favour of it, see above.)

So, sorry Don, but I am violently agreeing with you.

[BigTex]

Originally posted by Don Corleone
Yet, when it comes to execution of policy in conjunction with that principle, many feel that "Social Justice" means that everyone is entitled to own their own abode, regardless of whether they earned it or not. They take it to mean that all of their utitilities, including digital cable and broadband internet access are automatically provided. They take it to mean that everyone should have their own vehicle

It is my personal opinion that the government should provide only for their basic needs, food, and housing (electricity/water/heat/ac) and nothing more. People need to be assisted back into productive citizens. Not codelled into lazzy lardarses. We also need to raise minimum wage, and get rid of the massive influx of illegal immigrants. So those looking for a job can get one, and at a liveable salary, 5$'s an hour is not enough to feed a family on.

Originally posted by Don Corleone
This is where I have a big problem with the whole concept of Social Justice. Do we really believe that Gahndi or Martin Luther King Jr. REALLY believed and fought for the right of everyone to smoke grass, play X-box all day and get a government check for it?

The simple answer is, without the struggle of oppression and poverty Gahndi and Martin Luther King Jr. would not have rissen to the greatness they did. Without the desire and the struggle you simply cannot have greatness. They would have grown up codelled and not done much, there wouldnt have been a need to do much. Providing everything to everyone is self destructive to a country.

Again, I'm purposely being pointed. Attack my view as heartless if you wish. But if you really want more adherents to the principle of social justice, we need to define it in such a way that a majority can support it. It shouldn't be a blank check for every crazy moral relativist desire the Left can come up with. I would happily part with an additional 10% of my paycheck, if I could be convniced every last dime went to feeding hungry children, or training single mothers out on their own. But I am not going to take food and clothes away from my own daughter to give it to some 22 year old punk who's too lazy to get a job. Sorry.

Bravo, yes completely agree.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My faith teaches me that charity is one of the great virtues, that giving is a duty of faith, and that it is of benefit to my soul and my fellow beings that I give when I can.

I cannot reconcile this teaching with charity forced upon me by a government at the point of a gun -- however well -intentioned.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Many people say that housing, healthcare, broadband, etc., are human rights. I say that nothing is your right if it has to be taken from other people and given to you.

I support private charity, and giving to the poor. I do not support continuingly supporting those who don't work when they can. Nor do I support any government 'charity'.

Crazed Rabbit

[Don Corleone]

IMHO social justice means equal opportunities. That does mean quite a lot of public (or it may be charitable) spending, since to have equal opportunities you do need to make sure everyone can get a good education, has good health, that no one is denied a job because of their race or disability and so on. I vote for that, yes please.

Hear, hear. (Or is it, here here. Or, hear here? ) Couldn't agree more.

So, sorry Don, but I am violently agreeing with you.

That actually strongly implies to me that I must be in a good train of though.


Big Tex... agree 100%. You ever wonder if actually raising the minimum wage would even be necessary if we actually enforced our immigration policy?

Seamus... I agree with you. But, at the end of the day, what is the greater good: your ability to freely give, or that those in need receive aid? I know plenty of Christian people (I would argue they are no such thing) that do not believe in any charity beyond passing money to the collection plate. Apparently, they missed where Jesus mentioned tithing and alms separately. I'm not even certain that they require (or inquire) whether their church is actually meeting the needs of the poor with it. In an ideal world, yes, we'd all give enough to make certain that a woman with 3 kids who just left her abusive husband has a place to stay and food to eat within 12 hours. But the reality? Eh....

[BDC]

People will always play the system. It's inevitable.

You either feed those who really need it and end up sucking up a few lazy idiots, else you let the genuinely poor and vulnerable die.

[Don Corleone]

I actually agree with you on this point BDC. At the end of the day, any human system is going to come complete with human error. On which side do we want to err?

That's not my point. I'm talking about actually designing the system so lazy bums are ENTITLED to these benefits, not sneaking around and picking them up by exploiting loopholes.

In the mid-90's, welfare reform was a huge issue. I was at a public forum where an economics professor and two sociology professors claimed that making able bodied adult men work for welfare benefits was sadism. The woman on the panel started crying, saying we were right back to the days of slavery, because black men on welfare would be forced to work for the plantation owner (she was white, for the record). It was at this point that I got up to leave. It's this mentality... that we must design a system that rewards people for their own pre-chosen laziness and worthlessness that I am railing against.

There's always holes in any policy meant to contain spending... that doesn't mean that you abandon the concept of constraining spending.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

the meaning of social justice seems to have changed in the UK. In the fifties, the left were for "equality" and the right for "justice" (amongst a lot of other things in each case).

Now I notice, just as spending has become "investment" equality seems to have become "social justice". Yet if you look t what is being touted as social justice it is fairly clearly an equality agenda.

IMHO social justice means equal opportunities. That does mean quite a lot of public (or it may be charitable) spending, since to have equal opportunities you do need to make sure everyone can get a good education, has good health, that no one is denied a job because of their race or disability and so on. I vote for that, yes please.

ocial justice does not nmean equal outcomes. it is no part of justice that you are sheilded from the consequences of your own freely chosen actions. In fact that strikes me as the opposite of justice. I really can't understand why the left thinks taking money (which I work for and which no one has to pay me) from me and giving it to someone else is a good thing (unless the someone else is, say, a teacher doing a good job at the right wage in which case I am all in favour of it, see above.)

So, sorry Don, but I am violently agreeing with you.

I mostly agree with you on this issue-acheiving social equality should be paramount, and, if this were acheived, we would not need any kind of the second sort of justice that you mention. However, until this is acheived it must be conceded that some people are disadvantaged through no fault of their own, and an arguement can be made for some limited government handouts on this basis.

On the whole though, you're bang on.

[Duke Malcolm]

I have never understood the concept of "social justice"...

Occassionally it seems clear, obvious, but then I take a walk through the city centre and see a Scottish Socialist Party stall with "Fighting for Social Justice" emblazoned on a bed-sheet above a foldout garden table -- and they are about giving money to those who do not work and a myriad other bizarre and unworkable policies. And bandying about words such as "fascist", "imperialist", and a variety of others upon anyone who disagrees with the, as is the tendency of such socialists...

But how can simply giving money out be Social Justice? Surely social justice should be the equal treatment of all, not preferential treatment to the poor and penalising the rich? Shouldn't it focus on increasing the mechanisms for social mobility to both encourage people into worthwhile jobs with higher pay rather than reducing the pay gap by giving out money?

[Don Corleone]

I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with British domestic politics, but let me offer an analogy from American politics (sorry for the provinicialism).

FDR with the Tenessee Valley Authority... this is what I have in mind when I think of positive Social Justice. Here, FDR recognized that because so many family breadwinners were out of work, the social fabric of the country was eroding. People were starving, losing generational wealth (such as family homesteads), the works. With the depressed state of the economy, he recognized that he had to infuse cash from the government into the hands of families: for food, for mortgage payements, etc. But he also realized 1) it should be a temporary solution 2) it should be a "hand-up, not a hand-out". So he created the TVA, and basically, if you were the family breadwinner and got laid off, you went to work for the government. You built hiking trails in national parks. You built dams. You built roads. You built all sorts of public works. The government became the USA's biggest employer, and much of our infrastructure hearkens back to those days.

However, what FDR proposed as a temporary solution became enshrined in law. Then the 60's came. LBJ declared war on poverty and launched the Great Society. Cash payments from the government went from being payments to entitlements. By virtue of the fact you were consuming oxygen, you had a right to expect cash from the government, and you got it. This is, in my mind, social justice at its worst.

What's wrong with requiring people receiving public funds to work for the public? If I go on unemployment insurance, or if I'm receiving WIC (food assistance labelled as Women, Infants and Children) or living in Section 8 housing (the government pays the majority of my rent/mortgage), why shouldn't the government have the right to put me to work?

[BDC]

why shouldn't the government have the right to put me to work?

Do you want lazy bums building your roads though? The work would be shoddy and you'd be better just advertising for the jobs anyway as otherwise more people would be out of work. I think it's difficult drawing comparisons from a time when the economy was genuinely destroyed and there was no work, even for those who were desperately looking for it, and now, when almost anyone could make in in America with lots of effort and some luck.

There's also an issue with management here - historically in Britain the parish would put you to work on something and then pay you for it. I think this sort of system is (or was until fairly recently) used in the Channel Islands. This doesn't work particularly well on a larger scale because of the huge amount of paperwork involved nationally in making sure everyone who can work can, and you aren't starving people who genuinely cannot work.

Ideally in Britain I think more money just needs to be put into educating and motivating bits of the country (i.e. if you live in a souless sink estate, it doesn't surprise me much if you have no ambition and don't try), and closing up silly loopholes.

[Ironside]

I'm not 100% clear with the rules to get unemployment payments in Sweden, but I do know that you have to work at least occationally (through work provided by the goverment, if you cannot get a work by yourself) to get payed.

[English assassin]

What's wrong with requiring people receiving public funds to work for the public?

Well (he says nervously looking over his shoulder in case an economist is listening) there might (or might not) be a few things wrong with it.

Basically you are saying the government will guarantee a job to anyone who wants it. That seems to be what the TVA did. We tried to manage our economy at full employment between 1945 and 1979, and in a sense the government did guarantee jobs (by nationalising failing companies), and it was a disaster. Now, I don't know enough economics to know if it HAS to be a disaster, or if it was just badly done (the nationalisation route removed much incentive for companies not to fail which would not have to be the case if the government simply employed the unemployed directly, so I guess you wouldn't repeat that mistake, but the effect on wage inflation of full employment seems fairly unavoidable).

Also you do need a lot of surplus jobs that aren't being done at all. Sounds like the TVA did have a lot of those jobs but today it might be more difficult.

Finally it might be better for them to be in training rather than working. and some might not be able to work due to disability or caring responsibilities, though I would guess you didn't mean to include those.

All in all I'm not sure about workfare. I think its better to pitch benefits at a level where the moral hazard of chosing a life on benefits is low (which to be fair, it is in the UK, really no one is living the life of Riley on handouts whatever the Daily Mail may think) coupled with good training and education opportunities and more childcare places.

[Ja'chyra]

As someone who has had to do it, I think having to work for your social money isn't a bad idea.

I was unemployed for almost a year due to the fact that the company I worked for went bust and I was made redundant. During this time I signed on for my weekly pittance, the money was barely enough to live on and definately didn't cover things like phones, broadband or X-boxes. The problem was that the longer you are unemployed the lazier you get, and I say this as someone who was actively looking for work and had always been employed apart from this one time.

So, what we have are people, some of them straight from school signing on for social security. Now some people only sign on as a last resort, like myself, and have paid their taxes all of there life and are due a helping hand, but others only want the easy money and to hang about with their mates. I disagree that we should be spending a fortune trying to coax them into wanting to work and doing things for themselves, after all you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped, training though is always good so long as it is something that will actually be of some use. I definately do not agree with sending them on holiday and things like that. Now, if these people are quite happy to lie in bed till 1 then go receive money from the rest of us why should they not be forced to expend a little effort to get it? Hell, I spent weeks cutting down bracken on hillsides and planting trees, but what about building tracks, cleaning canals even doing some gardening for pensioners all of these are worthwhile endeavours and so long as their task is in relation to the amount of money they receive I do not see how they can complain.

I am not saying that we should offer anyone a job who wants one, after all I think we should get our moneys worth out of them even if the only reason is that they look for a job that pays more for the same amount of effort.

In the end, as Don says, why should the rest of us be forced to support those who have no intention of contributing? Now I'm sure JAG will be along at some point to talk about the re-distribution of wealth, but, quite frankly, to hell with that. I, along with millions of others, manage to get out of my bed in the morning and go earn the money to pay for my bills so why can't everyone? While it's true that there are areas with low levels of employment, people have been moving home just to find work for, well, ever, I moved 400 miles. What's needed is not more coddling but a sharp lesson in reality.

Heh, and you thought you were harsh Don.

[Radier]

My faith teaches me that charity is one of the great virtues, that giving is a duty of faith, and that it is of benefit to my soul and my fellow beings that I give when I can.

I cannot reconcile this teaching with charity forced upon me by a government at the point of a gun -- however well -intentioned.

This is exactly how my viewpoint is. Forced solidarity is NOT the same as private solidarity.

[Fragony]

This is exactly how my viewpoint is. Forced solidarity is NOT the same as private solidarity.

Sounds like you live in the wrong country then, if there is one nanny-state gone completily bonkers it's Blondistan

[Vladimir]

Well clearly it has become an emotion driven, vote buying scheme. The problem with concepts like social justice is that it turns into social equality which degrades even further so socialism. Arguably this is the trend in modern, advanced societies and it does have its positive aspects but generates many negative ones as well.

For example: Try taking the money away.

In less there is a large public outcry because the problem has grown into an abomination there will be no change. As more of the public benefits from “hand outs” fewer of them will want to relinquish them. These programs have a life of their own and are hard to control. It should be left to private organizations with public oversight and limited assistance in the poorest regions (i.e. the West Virginia example) or during times of extreme hardship (the Great Depression). The concept of “charity at gunpoint” is one that doesn’t sit well with me.

[Don Corleone]

I agree. One of the biggest myths propagated about American politics is that FDR was a socialist. He wasn't. He proposed Social Security (in it's current form) and other proto-entitlement programs as an immediate and temporary solution to a disaster of epic proportions. I think he's rolling in his grave that 24 year old men, perfectly healthy, sit at home taking hits off a bong playing video games and cashing government checks. It wasn't what he intended at all.

I'm all about equal access and equal opportunity. I would argue (and I'm really going to lose my conservative club membership for this one) that in today's society, a university level education is a requirement to be a functioning member of society, and we as a society owe it to individuals to make certain that anybody that wants one, gets one. We actually have a lot of government backed student loan programs to achieve this goal, and when I say university level, I do mean technical colleges. Not everyone needs to be attending Princeton to get a PhD in Economics. I also believe in a strong meritocracy for public payement of university education.

All that being said, that's not really what I started this thread over. Call them chavs, call them welfare rats, call them whatever you like. There's an entire class of people that are born, live and die on the government check that never work a day in their lives. Are we really doing them any favors? Are we really un-Christian for suggesting they should go get a job?

[yesdachi]

I'm all about equal access and equal opportunity. I would argue (and I'm really going to lose my conservative club membership for this one) that in today's society, a university level education is a requirement to be a functioning member of society, and we as a society owe it to individuals to make certain that anybody that wants one, gets one. We actually have a lot of government backed student loan programs to achieve this goal, and when I say university level, I do mean technical colleges. Not everyone needs to be attending Princeton to get a PhD in Economics. I also believe in a strong meritocracy for public payement of university education.

I understand what you are saying but I would argue that our school system (k-12) should raise the bar so that a high school diploma was the equivalent to at least a modern associate’s degree in “general” subjects, a diploma should be adequate for a decent (entry level) white collar job and additional skills should be gained thru tech schools, apprenticeships and internships. It is crazy to me to require nearly our entire population to have to go into debt just to get an average job. Back in the day a high school education was more than good for most jobs but as jobs have become more difficult (or require more knowledge to do) our school system has only gotten worse. An average education should be sufficient for an average job. An average job shouldn’t require a secondary or tertiary level education that sets a person back 10 years of loan payments (or grants paid with tax dollars) especially when we pay so darn much to have a K-12 school system.

If the goal is a decent job in a white collar job or a more advanced blue collar job then there are always jobs that require less skill to do and should be done by those on there way to a decent job. No one should be living their entire life on a paycheck signed by the government (unless there is a real good reason, like a handicap).

[Don Corleone]

Education, be it kindergarten or at the PhD level is never free. There is a cost. The question is at what point society continues to recognize a benefit from seeing a majority of its citizens educated to that level, regardless of ability to pay.

In the founding days of country, our economy was primarily agrarian, and a rudimentary "3R" education was sufficient. As we moved into industrial age, the 3Rs became a base requirement, with secondary now moving into the category of 'desireable by society', and as a result, public secondary schools were founded to provide a secondary education.

In the early to middle part of the twentieth century, we again shifted the focus of our economy from an industrial one to a more technological one. Again, the educational requirements for the average citizen shifted. It was in society's best interest to see a large portion of it's population educated at the university level (either in true liberal arts universities, or in technical colleges). Yet, this time, the onus was left on the individual to pay for their education. The government acted more as a facilitator, establishing guaranteed loan programs to see to it that a college education was achieable, at the expense of starting life in debt. Still, with the increased earning potential of the individual, it still made educations affordable.

I would argue that we have moved to a place where a college degree is a minimum. The whole illegal immigration trend is an orchetsrated attempt by both parties to ensure low salary pressures on unskilled labor. There's actually been movement to press salaries down at the college educated level as well. Accounting, banking, software design, engineering, medical research... many fields that were traditionally a 'slam dunk' for somebody who had the intelligence and drive to get through four years of college are now being farmed out to 3rd world educated populations, such as China and India, or they are brought here in sufficient numbers to deflate prices. The only way forward for the 'average American' is to continue to drive their own producitivty and knowledge level up... financial security in today's day and age requires a post graduate degree. If we're going to require such an advanced degree of people we have two options: 1) establish programs to help people achieve these goals 2) devolve into a stratified society, where it becomes cheaper for the sufficiently educated to just keep a majority of the population on sustenance living and farm all the labor they could have been doing over to India and China. Personally, I lean towards one.

In a representative democracy, equal access to sufficient education must be a basic right, otherwise you devolve quickly into a Platocracy.

[doc_bean]

I'm all about equal access and equal opportunity. I would argue (and I'm really going to lose my conservative club membership for this one) that in today's society, a university level education is a requirement to be a functioning member of society,

I have to disagree with you here, the best payed jobs here are manual labour. Plumbers, painters, etc make fotunes most engineers and middle managers can only dream off.

and we as a society owe it to individuals to make certain that anybody that wants one, gets one.

that I agree with, if they are capable and willing, they should be able to get the education they want.

All that being said, that's not really what I started this thread over. Call them chavs, call them welfare rats, call them whatever you like. There's an entire class of people that are born, live and die on the government check that never work a day in their lives. Are we really doing them any favors? Are we really un-Christian for suggesting they should go get a job?

You're really asking to questions here.
1. Wouldn't it be better if they had to get a job ?
2. What's the christian thing to do ?

I'd say they both have very different answers. For society's sake, it would of course be best if all people did their absolute best to improve said society. Be productive !
The christian thing is something different though. It isn't (imho) as important who you give your money to as it is that you give. Christianity focusses on what YOU do, not what other people do, their sins are their business and we should leave the judging up to God. So i'd say the christian thing to do would be to give them money, and let God present the bill in His due time (but don't start feeling superior either...)

[Don Corleone]

You're really asking to questions here.
1. Wouldn't it be better if they had to get a job ?
2. What's the christian thing to do ?

I'd say they both have very different answers. For society's sake, it would of course be best if all people did their absolute best to improve said society. Be productive !
The christian thing is something different though. It isn't (imho) as important who you give your money to as it is that you give. Christianity focusses on what YOU do, not what other people do, their sins are their business and we should leave the judging up to God. So i'd say the christian thing to do would be to give them money, and let God present the bill in His due time (but don't start feeling superior either...)

I have to disagree with you here. It's our responsibility as Christians to help those in need. Not those that are too lazy to take care of themselves. Can you find any example in the gospel or the New Testament where Jesus acted or spoke in such a way to support the idea that people have an inherent right to a cushy lifestyle without performing any labor for it at all?

The poor in His day were truly in need... any man that could was out in the fields, either their own or hired out to somebody else. You didn't have people that simply didn't work because they didn't feel like it. The 'poor' were cripples, blind, lepers, etc. They had no other options.

I don't see anything in any of Jesus's teachings that state or imply that it is my duty to provide the lazy, the unemployed by choice, with all the luxeries of life. Your argument that it's not up to us what other people do with the charity we offer them opens a pandoras box of social and moral ills that Christ never hinted at, let alone commanded. By your reasoing, as Christians, we SHOULD provide whiskey to hopeless alcoholics, crack to addicts, etc. It's not our place to inhibit their decision, just to provide them with whatever they think they might want. I totally disagree with that. In fact, I think that while it has become ingrained in public policy, it is an evil that Christ would speak against. I personally believe He would be the first one to tell a 19 year old chav 'Get a job'.

[doc_bean]

I would argue that we have moved to a place where a college degree is a minimum.

If I had seen your reply earlier I would have added it to my previous post. Two things:

1. Highschool has become a waste of time

Really, how many of us were bored all throughout HS ? I surely was, and Belgian HS is supposedly one of the hardest. HS now serves to the slowest students without allowing the better students to advance at THEIR own pace (at least here). Add to that that a lot of HS subjects are pure filler, 70% of the things you learn you forget. Not everyone needs to know about chemical compounds and Rutherford's theory of the atom, not everyone needs to know the kidney works, and nearly no one needs to know what they teach in these new 'social' classes. We're raising a nation of quiz players here !
If given the chance I'm sure a significant percentage of students could have taken and finished a university-like education 2-5 years earlier then they can now.

2. I'm not a big fan of outsourcing

Factories that their production to Asia might consider moving their tech support to Asia, might consider settling their management in Asia, might consider hiring local engineers, etc.
If we (the west) wan't to stay competitive we need a balanced economy, specializing might lead to higher productivity (in the short run) but it's a threat in the long run. Besides, a lot of good innovative ideas have come from the 'production floor' rather than from engineers in their office. Putting both too far apart is not a good plan, and it won't last.

[Don Corleone]

Doc, you seem to be laboring under the incorrect notion that there is something you or I can do to stop the flow of jobs to Asia. I totally agree with you that mid-level management is next, eventually senior management, and the rich guys who thought it was such a great idea are going to find their jobs outsourced next. But it's a fact, and one neither you nor I can do much about. All we can do is find new ways to make the product we have to sell in the marketplace of labor more competitive then alternatives.

[doc_bean]

I have to disagree with you here. It's our responsibility as Christians to help those in need. Not those that are too lazy to take care of themselves. Can you find any example in the gospel or the New Testament where Jesus acted or spoke in such a way to support the idea that people have an inherent right to a cushy lifestyle without performing any labor for it at all?

Those were simpler times of course. Wasn't there a story about giving a thief more than he wanted to take ?
Now, Jesus was of course all about helping those in need, so while there are still people out there in actual need, I think he'd prefer to help them out. But would He just turn down someone who asked but didn't need ? If it happened to Him, He would have just convinced that person he didn't need it, but what would His advice for the average person be ?

The poor in His day were truly in need... any man that could was out in the fields, either their own or hired out to somebody else. You didn't have people that simply didn't work because they didn't feel like it. The 'poor' were cripples, blind, lepers, etc. They had no other options.

Jesus was pretty friendly to all sinners, I don't think He would judge the lazy too harshly.

I don't see anything in any of Jesus's teachings that state or imply that it is my duty to provide the lazy, the unemployed by choice, with all the luxeries of life. Your argument that it's not up to us what other people do with the charity we offer them opens a pandoras box of social and moral ills that Christ never hinted at, let alone commanded.

If He had given a beggar money and that beggar would have just used it to get drunk, would He not give him money the next day ? Infinite forgiveness and all that.

By your reasoing, as Christians, we SHOULD provide whiskey to hopeless alcoholics, crack to addicts, etc. It's not our place to inhibit their decision, just to provide them with whatever they think they might want.

We should give them specific things that (could only) lead to sin. We should try to help them, and if they mess up, we should help them again, ad infinitum.

I totally disagree with that. In fact, I think that while it has become ingrained in public policy, it is an evil that Christ would speak against. I personally believe He would be the first one to tell a 19 year old chav 'Get a job'.

Probably right, but if that chav was hungry he would have given him food. That's the hard part, determining what is really needed.

[doc_bean]

Doc, you seem to be laboring under the incorrect notion that there is something you or I can do to stop the flow of jobs to Asia. I totally agree with you that mid-level management is next, eventually senior management, and the rich guys who thought it was such a great idea are going to find their jobs outsourced next. But it's a fact, and one neither you nor I can do much about. All we can do is find new ways to make the product we have to sell in the marketplace of labor more competitive then alternatives.

We need to make production competitive here again, through all possible government incentives. This knowledge-economy is a bubble, and it will burst. Better to catch it first.

EDIT: and we need protectionism back !

I see little point in having more 'liberal arts' majors, what will they contribute to society ? Better to teach them how to repair cars !

[Haudegen]

I´d like to add a thought that hasn´t been mentioned here:

The productivity in our time has risen so much that not everybodies´ labor force is needed to provide the food, the cars, services and all the other things. Above was stated that in the days of Jesus there were no lazy people, at least none we know about. But back then almost everyone was needed in the economy, and be it only to grow the plants a man consumed for himself.

Therefore I think the axiom that everyone who wants a job will get a job is no longer. Especially those people with low qualification will become redundant more and more. And to force everyone to get a higher qualification doesn´t seem to be an appropriate answer to me. How many lawyers, doctors, managers, entertainers does the society need? Will there be an increased need for those services in the future? I don´t think so. However the competion in these services will increase which may lead to better quality.

[Kanamori]

There is another breed of people whom you support, but it is not through a Democratic government. You support them with your own labor, and everything is owned in their name, they hire others to any and all of the work. They also buy single watches that cost more than most smokers would ever spend on weed in their lifetime.

[Xiahou]

The simple answer is, without the struggle of oppression and poverty Gahndi and Martin Luther King Jr. would not have rissen to the greatness they did. Without the desire and the struggle you simply cannot have greatness. They would have grown up codelled and not done much, there wouldnt have been a need to do much. Providing everything to everyone is self destructive to a country.

Something of a tangent but.... raising minimum wage is a terrible idea. The desire to hire workers at below legal payrates is a large part of what's driving illegal immigration. Yes, it's true someone can't live independantly making $5/hr- but who has to? When I was in highschool it wasnt tough to find jobs that paid better than minimum wage. In college, most of my jobs paid $7-$9/hour. So, should we make minimum wage $10/hr so everyone can live off of it? Why do highschool kids who bag your groceries need a 'living wage' when they're working at home? The vast majority of minimum wage workers arent the family bread-winners.