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

[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 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.

[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 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.