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

[Divinus Arma]

I have to agree primarily with Crazed Rabbit on this issue. We have an obligation to provide for those who are physically unable to provide for themselves due to mental or physical handicap. Having boatloads of children does not qualify. Being addicted to drugs does not qualify. Being an unemployable felon does not qualify.

As for housing, I wold say that reasonable accomadations should be made for those who are incapable of being productive by no fault of their own. Nothing fancy, but something safe and comfortable. Furthermore, they should be given the opportunity to lift themselves to greater potentail should be so able via education, rehabilitation, etc.

As for the rest of the downtrodden, they qualify as leeches. Are your children a burden? Who's fault is that, urban single mother? Are you addicted to narcotics or recovering from drug addiction? Who's fault is that? Are you a felon with a criminal history?

The ONLY accomodations these people should get are a bed in an open shelter facility with shared restrooms and no TV and little creature comforts. They had their opportunity and blew it. They would normally be able to take the "undesirable jobs", but now the illegal immigrants get those, so go figure. No jobs for the leech undercalss.


People should have equal access to education, and for the most part they do, via open enrollments at many private non-profit universities and community colleges.

[Kanamori]

Still, I cannot see why it is always the impoverished leeches of welfare that people always crusade against. Don't you realize the you have to work, especially in a large corporate setting, for an individual or a few who, in the end, don't have to do anything? Sometimes, the problem for some here seems to be that they are supporting the lazy. There are lazy people that don't live in poverty, in fact they live very contrarily to poverty, and these people that don't do anything also make their fortunes off normal peoples' work. Why do you have such a problem supporting one and not the other? Both want to avoid getting jobs and working for people, one just looks a lot more respectable and his ancestors did very well for him.

[Navaros]

What I find interesting about this thread is that most people seem to want to come down really hard on "lazy welfare bums" who cost some money out of the system (but probably not very much at all in the grand scheme of things), yet politicians waste billions upon billions of taxpayers' money for no reason and "that's fine and dandy". Politicans waste way more of taxpayers' money than "lazy welfare bums", but no one screams for the politicians' heads on a platter. There is no outrage about that. Yet "lazy welfare bums" get many people all up in arms. This in my view is a ridiculous double standard because politicians are ripping you off to an incomprehensibly larger degree than "lazy welfare bums" are.

How much do people on welfare get paid anyhow? I bet it's not a lot. I bet they don't go around thinking: "Wow I'm living the life of Riley due to my huge welfare check! Life sure is great for me! In a year or two, I'm gonna be rich! So glad that this welfare check has helped me buy a home and live the good life!" Rather, people in a welfare situation probably have to struggle with day to day expenses and can't afford to treat themselves with the good things in life. Hence contrary to what seems to be popular belief on this board, those "lazy welfare bums" are already suffering as opposed to "living it up". I bet in most cases if people are on welfare there is a reason for it, and unlikely to be simply because they are lazy.

As for the statement of Jesus being a socialist: no way. Socialists believe in murdering babies, and "homosexuality", and no doubt many other things that Jesus is absolutely abhorred by.

[SomeNick]

I believe a natural Social Justice would prevail if people would treat others more fairly without attempting to impose a personally exclusive, and often legaly manipulated, self serving beneficial reality on others, and thereby intentionaly excluding the justice or fairness of the other by denying recognition of his existence in the matter.

The funny thing about it is, they think they are getting away with it and the other is none the wiser. Or worse, the perpetrator is armed with the legal fact the other party can't do anything about it. The truth is, they know, and for whatever reason they are forcibly bound to it and it breeds contempt... And thus social inequality which generates negativity, spirals into crime etc etc and on and on...

When people discover how to work at a social justice that benefits all fairly and appropriately (e.g. their efforts and actions, not station or predisposition), and most importantly proportionately... I think Social 'Injustice' will fade away.

When heaps of people are happy, it's hard to deny that as a very real policy and not one invented on the fly and whims and lets not forget the benefits of the few... by organisations and governments, that really just becomes a piece of legislative paper to flaunt in the faces of those bound legaly to be manipulated and extorted with no recourse or avenue to real justice. Only laws that are fabricated by the few that serve the few.

The more hazy factors of Social Justice are those that stem from bits of paper pushed through government as legislation to become law and those who then decide a way that was either predifined to exploit it or devise a way to do it after.

Legislation would work better if it wasn't determined by some very selfish people amongst the ranks of other fetid, power hungry minds, those expert at defining your future on bits of paper (often considering themselves before you of course, prior to writing or 'debating' anything...), in some building, but instead was served as a suggestion to the public and they put their thoughts on it and only then the legislation is determined as law.

It would actually work better too being a lot more comprehensive as it would be contributed to by many fields of endeavour and give the governments real power because it would be based on the people's wants and real and natural intention of the country's future direction. Complete agreement. Not enforced, and often criminaly 'legal' agreement. Democracy is a joke. Yeah sure you have personal freedoms that don't exist in other countries maybe, but a little psychotic dictator, or group of even, has their finger on the pulse of those freedoms. And your freedom is assured only as long as it can be exploited to free the freedom abusers more. If you think that's a harsh assessment, I am utterly convinced if a population turned around and said THEY would define the outcome of policies and not small groups of selfish individuals, they would reel in apathy. All their little acquisitions due to station, and having the unique position of imposing reality for many others from that station, would become very worthless indeed. They would really be a figure head for a country then. With no more power than that of refering others to and keeping official public records of policies as they should be.

When was the last time your government provided independantly verified facts (by groups appointed by the population) for public perusal before deciding what to legislate and therefore implicate your social freedoms and possibly lives on some new law or country's actions recently over the years?

I used to tick the box on a ballot paper at election times that was motivated by observing the actions of those seeking appointment. But now I think I'll just leave it blank in the future. That way at least my hands are blood free. And if ill will should befall me, enforced and unavoidable, despite my best 'legaly' and honestly pursued efforts... I will know who to eternaly blame.

So, in closing, I personaly feel it would be of greater benefit to all if all adopted a little more fairness in the dealings with others. No matter what. As, what happens with the many always must be adopted by the few, or it disempowers them.



Anyway interesting discussion. Just some personal thoughts about it all, hope you enjoy the read. And also, (forgot to add it above) it’s ok to be rich as long as you haven’t ruined any lives along the way, and don’t intend to ruin lives whilst being rich.

Wasn't going to reply but couldn't resist and got free time today yay! Also didn't involve a government to give it to me by giving the go ahead for dodgy corporate practices or other reason and me in turn pat some piece of scum on the back and / or line his pockets; I earned it all by myself... : S
But unfortunately they get to steal a few dollars from me tomorrow : (

Freedom and equality hey?

[English assassin]

As for the statement of Jesus being a socialist: no way. Socialists believe in murdering babies, and "homosexuality", and no doubt many other things that Jesus is absolutely abhorred by

There may well be a positive correlation between an individual being a socialist and supporting abortion or equal rights for homosexuals (just as there would be a correlation between being a libertarian and those two positions) but it is not correct to say that these are things that socialists, qua socialists, believe in.

It is, though, pointless to call Jesus a socialist. Jesus the man in history was not a socialist as socialism as an economic system was inconceivable in the light of the primitive economies at the time. If you don't have a modern concept of ownership rights you can hardly be in favour of redistributing or collectively owning those rights.

Also, Jesus's worldview was essentially apocalypic and at a macro level disinterested in the material world. Its hardly likely that he would advocate a paerticular approach to wealth in this life when he clearly wanted his followers to focus only on the next life.

Jesus as god (I'm going with this for the sake of the argument, fellow atheists) may well have a view on present day economics but, as god, I would imagine it is likely to be rather more sophisticated than anything any human economist has yet put forward.

Otherwise, Nav, point well made, though its not either be critical of welfare or be critical of politicans. But I'd join in with a "wasteful politicians and civil servants should be sacked" thread happily.

[Idaho]

What I find interesting about this thread is that most people seem to want to come down really hard on "lazy welfare bums" who cost some money out of the system (but probably not very much at all in the grand scheme of things), yet politicians waste billions upon billions of taxpayers' money for no reason and "that's fine and dandy". Politicans waste way more of taxpayers' money than "lazy welfare bums", but no one screams for the politicians' heads on a platter. There is no outrage about that. Yet "lazy welfare bums" get many people all up in arms. This in my view is a ridiculous double standard because politicians are ripping you off to an incomprehensibly larger degree than "lazy welfare bums" are.

How much do people on welfare get paid anyhow? I bet it's not a lot. I bet they don't go around thinking: "Wow I'm living the life of Riley due to my huge welfare check! Life sure is great for me! In a year or two, I'm gonna be rich! So glad that this welfare check has helped me buy a home and live the good life!" Rather, people in a welfare situation probably have to struggle with day to day expenses and can't afford to treat themselves with the good things in life. Hence contrary to what seems to be popular belief on this board, those "lazy welfare bums" are already suffering as opposed to "living it up". I bet in most cases if people are on welfare there is a reason for it, and unlikely to be simply because they are lazy.

I agree with Navaros!

As for the statement of Jesus being a socialist: no way. Socialists believe in murdering babies, and "homosexuality", and no doubt many other things that Jesus is absolutely abhorred by.

Phew.. thank the lord you stuck that on the end you loon!

Excellent debate all. Top notch. Some very interesting points and cross-bench movement on this one.

We have an obligation to provide for those who are physically unable to provide for themselves due to mental or physical handicap. Having boatloads of children does not qualify. Being addicted to drugs does not qualify. Being an unemployable felon does not qualify

I understand the angle you are coming from, however you are looking at this problem the way a campaigning politician handles it. They claim that by not liking or supporting something it will go away and cease to be a problem.

However if you don't support the family with loads of kids, or the crack addict or the ex-con that won't remove them from society. When dealing with society you have to face these problems and deal with them pragmatically. This means spending money on selfish, self destructive and anti-social people simply because otherwise they get more destructive and anti-social.

On the face of it this seems abhorrant and unjust. Why are we spending millions on people who are 'bad' and less on people who are 'good'? Well there isn't really a quick and easy answer. The nearest you come to it is that you are effectively bribing the bad people to be less bad so that the good people can get on with their lives.

[Kralizec]

...Having boatloads of children does not qualify...

And what happens to the kids then?

[rory_20_uk]

A long term plan would be for people to not have them. Since one's money is not going up with the sprogs you are having, perhaps the parents might decide to not have any more? You speak as though them having kids is an act over which they have no control.

Other options: abort or adopt.

Sure, on wealfare alone isn't great. But why not suppliment your job with welfare? What is the state going to do? Put you in jail? Then true you get less liberties, but everything is provided.

To the undesirables you are referring to Idaho giving them small amounts of money does not pay for the drug habit, and ensures that the next generation of kids is like their waster parents.

Pragmatic would be either legalise drugs or free drugs to druggies and if parents are having masses of kids give warnings followed up by forced adoption and sterilisation.

Bribing the bad should be one half of the equation. The other is punishing those that fall further

Break the cycle? Sure. That means that some need to be broken.

[Idaho]

So basically you are arguing for forced sterlisations/abortions/adoptions and workhouses/prisons/police intimidation to frighten and threaten people with.

Whoa there Ghengis!

[rory_20_uk]

if private individuals are footing the bill I feel that they deserve great personal liberties. Have 1 or 100 children. Have 1 or 50 wives. As the individual pays, the individual decides.

If people are being paid by the state, the state should have a say in the lives of the individuals.

Children who go to a loving household are going to be better off that staying with the single mum bumming off benefits.

If people can not handle their own contraception, then the state should step in.

Workhouses? What, like work to get benefits? What is wrong with that? These people failed to get work themselves. As they wish to be supported they should "pay" for this service.

Police intimidation was never mentioned. But no one's ever accused you of rationality...

Police in theory should not be frightening. They are if you are a benefit cheat, are a squatter or are otherwise breaking the law. That is not the fault of the police, but the individual breaking the law.

Poice in theory should not be threatening. They are if you are breaking the law and they are warning you that next time you will be arrested.

[Divinus Arma]

I understand the angle you are coming from, however you are looking at this problem the way a campaigning politician handles it. They claim that by not liking or supporting something it will go away and cease to be a problem.

I provided an answer. Minimum support: beds in an open homeless shelter type arrangment. One large room with cots. Shared restrooms and showers. As for the cause of the problem, that rests largely in education, our broken public education system. Once we have some competition via vouchers, then the system may just get better. Perfect example: The U.S. Postal Service. I have tons of respect for the federal postal system but they only became efficient after the introduction of successful private delivery firms. An entity improves with competition, fact. That is why the GOP is taking a foundational dookie; cause they don't have any solid competition.

And what happens to the kids then?

Depnds on the parent. Either (a) wards of the state until adoption, (b) send 'em back with their illegal immigrant parents, or (c) let the parents prove they deserve to kepp 'em (provided they are American citizens).

'sall good.

[Strike For The South]

Wow this isnt that hard yall

1. Mandatory drug tests for any govermnent help recipent

2. If you are physically/unable to help yourself you get help

3. Im willing to help the mother with 4 kids working a double shift more than the one who does nothing

Boys it boils down to this if you are honestly trying to be a productive member of socitey you get some help but you need to take the inative not the goverment.

[Franconicus]

Hi Don,

sorry for stepping in so late. Very interesting question. I'd like to add my point of view.

Sorry to say that, but I think you mix a few things:

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.
Giving a home and food has nothing, absolutly nothing to do with social justice. It has something to do with the right to live, with human dignity and with social security.

Social justice means a couple of thinks. There has to be a just distribution of the wealth of the nation. Like every question about justice it is hard to find a common agreement on what is just. It is also about the added value of course. How should it be devided between the companies owners and the people who are doing the work?

Let me quote a German poet:
"Wer baute das siebentorige Theben? // In den Büchern stehen die Namen von Königen. // Haben die Könige die Felsbrocken herbeigeschleppt? // [...] // Der junge Alexander eroberte Indien. // Er allein? // Cäsar schlug die Gallier. // Hatte er nicht wenigstens einen Koch bei sich?"
"Who built the seven gates of Theben? // In the books there are written the names of kings.//Did the kings cart the boulders?//[...]// Young Alexaner conquered India.// He alone?//Cesar defeated the Gauls.// Didn't he have at least a cook with him?"

What about property? What about equal opportunities? As long as a child of the Bush or Kennedy clan has better opportunities than a child of a poor family then you do not have social justice.

By the way, I still remember my first lesson in economy. The teacher made it clear that the purpose of a capitalistic econmy is to creat as many goods as possible. Justice of the distribution is not an issue.

Should everybody be treated equal and get the same? That is more a question of communism than of sj. You can say - and some communists did it - that people are gifted to a different degree. Noone would doubt that. Some are strong others are smart, others are hard working. Those communists say that these are gifts by God. Being talented and strong means for a communist that you have a higher responsibility for the society, that the strong ones have to support the weak ones. For a free marketeer it means that the strong one can take money from the weak.

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?
That is the central problem of communism. What to do if the people are not motivated to work (capitalism does not have this problem, for sure?)
You see that the answer is often that the society uses pressure to make the people work, for example working camps, gullags etc.. Therefore the answer is no, that is not the purpose of communism and has surely nothing to do with SJ.

[Idaho]

if private individuals are footing the bill I feel that they deserve great personal liberties. Have 1 or 100 children. Have 1 or 50 wives. As the individual pays, the individual decides.

If people are being paid by the state, the state should have a say in the lives of the individuals.

Children who go to a loving household are going to be better off that staying with the single mum bumming off benefits.

If people can not handle their own contraception, then the state should step in.

Workhouses? What, like work to get benefits? What is wrong with that? These people failed to get work themselves. As they wish to be supported they should "pay" for this service.

Police intimidation was never mentioned. But no one's ever accused you of rationality...

Police in theory should not be frightening. They are if you are a benefit cheat, are a squatter or are otherwise breaking the law. That is not the fault of the police, but the individual breaking the law.

Poice in theory should not be threatening. They are if you are breaking the law and they are warning you that next time you will be arrested.

(Personal attack removed by Ser Clegane)
You speak from a position of never having had to face any hardship other than tugging your telegraph out of the letter box when it gets jammed.

The idea that it would be better for a child to be taken from it's natural parent and given to some strangers because the mother can't afford to work would be laughable if you weren't serious.

But then what can we expect from someone from a priverlidged background working in a profession which exposes and promotes a patrician uncle-knows-best attitude.

[rory_20_uk]

Bless... typical outrage there.

I imagine I've been a lot closer to the masses you love to talk about that you ever will. I imagine that crusading with words beats the hell out of dirtying your hands and doing something.

I notice no retort, just character assassination.

You say the idea of adoption is terrible. Of course this being your view it requires no further evidence to support - it just is right.

[Ser Clegane]

Most of this discussion has so far been very interesting and civilized

I would appreciate if the discussion could be continued in such a way, instead of resorting to rude personal attacks.

Thanks

[Kagemusha]

One question.In the US when someone is living on a wellfare,cant the government appoint him to an job?In here if you are long term unemployed person without health restrictions you can be put to work on certain conditions.This is mainly used on people that arent seem to able to get a job themselves.The system works the way that the Government pays the employer some amount of money so the employer can hire the person who they wouldnt hire otherwise becouse it wouldnt be profitable. The person works with the unemployment fee.And that way he or she gains work experience and if the employer sees fit that the person is usefull and profitable he may get a real job with a real pay from that in the long run. I think it is a good way for keeping the people in touch with the working life and to prevent them for isolating themselves from society.

[Don Corleone]

No Kagemusha, the US government cannot compel able bodied young men and women to work for their benefits. It's been tried, it's called 'welfare reform' and courts routinely strike it down as cruel and inhumane.

[Kagemusha]

No Kagemusha, the US government cannot compel able bodied young men and women to work for their benefits. It's been tried, it's called 'welfare reform' and courts routinely strike it down as cruel and inhumane.

In that case i can clearly uderstand the frustration around the issue. How i see it,if the government provides for those people in my mind then the Government is their "employer" and no sane employer benefits for keeping its "employees" idle.

[Idaho]

Bless... typical outrage there.

I imagine I've been a lot closer to the masses you love to talk about that you ever will. I imagine that crusading with words beats the hell out of dirtying your hands and doing something.

I notice no retort, just character assassination.

You say the idea of adoption is terrible. Of course this being your view it requires no further evidence to support - it just is right.

I am one of the masses mate.

You see people as specimens. Things to be treated, problems to swiftly solve with your devastating doctor's intellect. A borderline sociopathic stance.

I can't debate with you because we don't share the same values. You don't value the humanity of people who are merely a problem, an inconvienience. You don't think people outside of your rugger and quaffing circle have the same value. How can we even begin a discussion on this basis?

[Tribesman]

You say the idea of adoption is terrible. Of course this being your view it requires no further evidence to support - it just is right.
Ah adoption , I thought that when you said the government taking care of contraception for low class scumsucking leeches you meant sterilisation .
But you just mean taking their kids away from the parents and shoving them in a home , thats so much better .

[Idaho]

I just hope Rory is specialising in surgery. I can only imagine his bedside manner

[Tribesman]

Bedside manner ?..."your child has respitory problems associated with bad living conditions , the remedy is for you to get rid of the child"

[Ser Clegane]

Perhaps my last post hasn't been clear enough - it would be quite a pity if a discussion that started out very interestingly would have to be closed just because some patrons decide that they enjoy it more to make personal snide remarks instead of discussing the issues.

Please either
a) bring forward your on view on the original topic
or
b) discuss the arguments/ideas brought forward by other patrons

Personal attacks or attempts to mock other patrons do not add weight to your own opinion bur rather make you look like a schoolyard bully who yearns for the cheers of the mob.

Thanks

[Don Corleone]

Back on topic....

I understand the economic argument against requiring folks to work. But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one. "WHY" is it wrong to require people to earn their upkeep, Idaho? Let's debate the politics European style and leave the economics out of it for now. In the what and why phase of this question. Let's just stick what should we do... we'll worry about 'how' later.

Sounds to me like Finland has the ideal answer. If you can't find a job, don't worry, they'll take care of you. But don't be surprised to find a pick or a shovel in your hands and being dragged of to join a road crew.

[Tribesman]

Please either
a) bring forward your on view on the original topic
or
b) discuss the arguments/ideas brought forward by other patrons

option b , who in their right mind would advocate sterilisation of welfare recipients ?
Likewise with enforced abortions(definately a dodgy topic)and enforced adoptions based entirely on your social standing .

As a nice alternative why not allow poor people to sell their children , you would be ensured that only those with enough money were able to buy them so it should be OK and the poor would have a good source of income . Though of course some of the liberals might consider human trafficing to be somewhat akin to slavery at least it lessens the burden on the tax payer , plus it gives an incentive for the lazy druggies to stay off drugs as a child from drug free parents would command premium prices .
This policy would also have the advantage that decent people didn't have to miss any worthwhile production time with silly wastes of time and resources like maternity leave or hospital appointments .

[Don Corleone]

Strawman argument, Tribesman. We're talking about whether or not the poor should have to work for their benefits, and you and Idaho have gotten yourselves worked into a tither over forced abortions and the selling of children. How about you come back to where the focus of the topic is? Are people entitled to receive something for nothing?

[Redleg]

Back on topic....

I understand the economic argument against requiring folks to work. But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one. "WHY" is it wrong to require people to earn their upkeep, Idaho? Let's debate the politics European style and leave the economics out of it for now. In the what and why phase of this question. Let's just stick what should we do... we'll worry about 'how' later.

I too would also be interested in the social arguement that supports such a postion.

Sounds to me like Finland has the ideal answer. If you can't find a job, don't worry, they'll take care of you. But don't be surprised to find a pick or a shovel in your hands and being dragged of to join a road crew.

The United States during the great depression also did many similiar types of programs.

It is my belief that people are a greater benefit to society if they feel that they have self-worth. Being a non-contributing member of society does not seem to lead an individual to having a greater self-worth then an individual who is productive.

When one strives only to get a handout from the government - I can not see how they place much value upon themselves. Getting a hand-up by the government to improve your life is a different story, teach an individual to fish and they can feed themselves.

[Kagemusha]

Back on topic....

I understand the economic argument against requiring folks to work. But I've never understood the morality/social conscience one. "WHY" is it wrong to require people to earn their upkeep, Idaho? Let's debate the politics European style and leave the economics out of it for now. In the what and why phase of this question. Let's just stick what should we do... we'll worry about 'how' later.

Sounds to me like Finland has the ideal answer. If you can't find a job, don't worry, they'll take care of you. But don't be surprised to find a pick or a shovel in your hands and being dragged of to join a road crew.

Don to be more accurate the same system as far as i know is pretty similar in Sweden and Norway also. I think its wierd that its wiewed as inhumane to put people in work.I think even people making something that is less profitable is better then nothing.So in my mind providing people education or temporary work when they are unimployed is more like taking care of them,by society.I must also must emphasise that the byrocracy tryes always to get them on their line of work.But when dealing with youngsters that doesnt have any working backround anything is better then to leave them doing nothing.

[Tribesman]

Strawman argument, Tribesman.
Nope , someone bought it up , so ...
b) discuss the arguments/ideas brought forward by other patrons



How about you come back to where the focus of the topic is? Are people entitled to receive something for nothing?
How about a better focus on the topic .
How can the state not provide welfare for those of its citizens that need it ?
Charity ? Far too hit and miss , and no less safe from the abuse , outright theft , mismangement , misdirection and wastefulness than government charity is , and that is what welfare is , government charity .
The difference is that everyone who earns or spends contributes when it is government charity .
So you have a focus on some people who get benefits for doing nothing , yeah its terrible , such a scandal , outrageous , shocking .
How are they any different to the politician who claims expenses for nothing , the executive who does a dodgy deal under the table , the ordinary worker who fiddles his tax return , the businessmen who declares himself bankrupt again and again , the octogenarian who transfers all their assets to avoid death tax ?
All cost far more than welfare cheats , and they are all getting something for nothing .