Society’s responsibility to the “less fortunate”

[nemo]

The apparently widespread belief that those with financial means should bear more of society’s fiscal burden has piqued my curiosity. This axiom presents itself in everything from income taxes to late-night telethons. I don’t mind helping someone out when they need assistance, but I find myself wondering where the line that divides generosity and facilitating continuing dependence lies.

There was a point in my life when I honestly didn’t know how I would feed my family. I worked between twelve and sixteen hours a day in a manual labor intensive career field that kept me away from my family for weeks at a time. Many of my coworkers would spend their paychecks on alcohol or any combination of temporary vacations from reality, and then turn to public assistance for housing and groceries. Many long nights teaching myself how to operate, administer and finally, abuse computers have found me in a dramatically different environment; why now, should I (directly or otherwise) be required to help support the people I used to work with?

[infamous]

Originally Posted by nemo

Many long nights teaching myself how to operate, administer and finally, abuse computers have found me in a dramatically different environment; why now, should I (directly or otherwise) be required to help support the people I used to work with?

Excellent point nemo, These are questions that civilization has been asking itself from the outset. I did say "civilization" by the way. Before this concept developed in the minds and behavior of the human species, little thought for the wellfare of others was ever considered. As hunters and gatherers, humans consisting of relatively small groups. Not untill we learned to till the soil and harvest crops for winter storage did the notion of civilization come into play. Once this co-operative effort between humans deveolped enough for some to realize that they could live off of the labors of others did then the wellfare state give birth. I am not necessarily against providing help to those that really need it. I am however disappointed that we make it so easy for the less industrious to take advantage these days. I'm not a communist but, Karl Marx did make an interesting comment about this very thing. "When the masses realize that they have the keys to the treasury, they will empty it". I'm not sure about exact wording that he used but, I think everyone will understand the gist of this quote.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by infamous

Karl Marx did make an interesting comment about this very thing. "When the masses realize that they have the keys to the treasury, they will empty it". ...

I am pretty sure that was not Marx, althought it is attributed to everyone from Bismarck to Ben Franklin. I don't think Bismarck said it, since he is the godfather of the european welfare state. Franklin quote here:

Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic

Or

Originally Posted by Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

Marx was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", so it would not seem to fit him either. But heck, it could be. Marx was a creative guy.

Originally Posted by Karl Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

[C1ay]

Life does not come on a silver platter. Successful, hard working people did not get that way because they are 'fortunate', they took action to get there. I don't mind helping people that ask. I do mind people taking my help for others without asking.

[UncleAl]

There are certain minimal levels of public welfare a reasonably affluent State will maintain for the common good: basic public health, emergency aid for natural catastrophes, limited gratis services for acute personal tragedy. Jackbooted State compassion (the "safety net") is tyrannical abuse, pure and simple. If you do not arrange your life to maintain its persistence; if you are too lazy, stupid, crippled, or perverse to maintain yourself, then you beg for voluntarily contributed succor or you die. The State owes you nothing.

A feminine society sends its best out to suffer and die to maintain the expensive life of the runt of the litter. A masculine society kills the runt up front and gets on with it. A femine society drowns in runts when it runs out of productive peoples' stolen monies - improved means to deteriorated ends. A masculine society continuously improves itself by discarding its weaklings and monsters at minimal cost, and cherishing its best and brightest.

Government cannot award people what it first has not stolen from them. What one man receives without effort is confiscated from another who labors. The money I make belongs to me and my family, not to a government stooge who takes a cut and dumps the rest on slum bunnies for squirting out babies or shooting up drugs.

We keep score (grades, money) because who wins is important - who can win is important. Winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything. Save the drama for yer momma. Get down and PUSH, maggot.

[Turtle]

___In regard to our old friend Ben, he hardly beiieved the quaint admonitions he sold. He really beieved that living off of others if one can, is the best/smartest strategy. He himself sought out rich men to support him in his daily needs as well as in his travels & personal pleasures. Only when he found such support unavailable did he resort to actual work.
___This and many other interesting historical accounts of the founders of the US I found in Gordon S. Wood's, The Radicalism of the American Revolution.

[karlfreak]

ok i belive that for those that honestly can't make enough moey to proved for them selfs should be assisted by the government, the politicians of the world also should have to donate to society (look at there paychecks) i also belive that what we call democracy is not really what it is--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Life does not come on a silver platter. Successful, hard working people did not get that way because they are 'fortunate'

well some of them did and some got lucky. but what really annoyes me is when a hard working person gets rippedof bye the government

power to the people

[UncleAl]

power to the people

Power to the government. Power bills to the people.

Uncle Al says, "There is nothng so stupid that it cannot be sung."

[lindagarrette]

Life is not fair. Some people live very happily without working. Others can't make a living for lack of opportunity or ability. Most of us do what we are expected to do which is pretty much slave labor. We work to make others prosper. People who are employed do not receive wages proportional to the work they do. Why is the CEO paid up to 500 times as much as the office worker? It's all relative. The only fair society is the Starship Enterprise.

[nkt]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

The only fair society is the Starship Enterprise.

Tell that to the Red Shirts who are the first to die every time! Should they not get either no pay, or all the pay?

Life can never be fair. Since everyone is different, it just cannot be.

The 7 foot giant wrestler is going to need more food than the 5' lady who answers the phone and walks nowhere - is that fair? The person with poor eyes needs a bigger TV screen - but the other householders can see it too, so they get something for nothing...

The person who takes a fat profit and uses it to promote remorselessly is likely to get ahead of the honest person who takes only the small amount he needs, as long as people cannot always know who is good and who is not.

However, when bad times occur, the fat profit man will be the one buying power, and squealing loudest, and more likely to get the oil!

Whichever way you look at it, paying people to have babies while sitting on their butts smoking is a bad idea. Always has been, always will be.

I like "Follies" myself. (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/follies/swaytxt.html for example) Give the plebs something to do in order to earn their keep! Since they are unemployed, rather than paying them to sit idle, you pay them to work on something - it doesn't have to be useful, just decorative or fun.

This stops skills from going to waste, keeps people out of trouble, and in the habit of working. They also don't breed as fast! Obviously, this then keeps the population in check.

Kids who leave school at 16 should also only be allowed to do so if they are then working, rather than being idle, and loitering about street corners. Otherwise, a college for trade skills would be the other option, such that plumbers and the like become more common and useful skills are learned. After all, too many MBAs won't get you anywhere except outsourced!

The responsibility has to be with the person, to get themselves educated and moving - if they won't, well, hunger is a good motivation, or so I've learned!