Someone wrote:
Instead of believing that a welfaresystem necessarily leads to economic
collapse or something why don't you prove it? And don't just use France
or
some former East-block nations as an example.
I'm not the original poster, and hence I don't feel the need to prove
that a welfare system wouldn't work, but I ask instead that you prove
there are few significant non-economic side effects to such a welfare
state. I'm anti-welfare myself, but I fully admit that there are other
areas where the US could cut back on it's expenditures without
sacrificing welfare. To this end I'm interested in hearing your ideas,
but you'll have to work hard to convince me: I've lived amongst "white
trash" all or most of my life, much of it in my own family, and I've
seen the bullshit behind the "product of society" or government
oppression excuses; many of those I've known would probably have been
driven to acquire marketable skills if they hadn't seen their older
siblings and parents mooching off the government and even each other.
I'm sure a similar "slacker" mentality prevails in many of the countries
you champion, but I'll leave that to you to refute.
The fact that a welfare
system is impossible to implement in the US without all kinds of bad
side-effects only tells us something about US-society.
I guess it does, but is what it tells us such a bad thing?
The _fact_ that
there are countries in this world that have the combination of a very
healty economy and a extensive welfare system shows that it is possible,
given competent leadership, organisation and a sense mutual
responsibility.
Maybe so, but what's the point? I'm all for cutting down on the amount
of wasted resources the US exploits each year, but I think the saved
resources would be better suited toward technological growth, better
education and assisting small businesses- people who actually have
ambitions but lack the means to realize them. I'm afraid I'm just not
convinced that the welfare system encourages people to get back on their
feet again. Socialists/communists are always citing the "demoralizing"
effect having to sell one's labor has on a man, but where do they expect
the resources and labor that feed the unemployed to come from if not
from their more productive fellow citizens? Would you consider yourself
a socialist, and if so how do you fit that economic vision into
extropian ideals? I'm interested in hearing your feedback on this.
Jeremy Ulrey
--------------02F02431E37654C79E4273CC
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Someone wrote:
Instead of believing that a welfaresystem necessarily leads to economic
collapse or something why don't you prove it? And don't just use
France or
some former East-block nations as an example.
I'm not the original poster, and hence I don't feel the need to prove that a welfare system wouldn't work, but I ask instead that you prove there are few significant non-economic side effects to such a welfare state. I'm anti-welfare myself, but I fully admit that there are other areas where the US could cut back on it's expenditures without sacrificing welfare. To this end I'm interested in hearing your ideas, but you'll have to work hard to convince me: I've lived amongst "white trash" all or most of my life, much of it in my own family, and I've seen the bullshit behind the "product of society" or government oppression excuses; many of those I've known would probably have been driven to acquire marketable skills if they hadn't seen their older siblings and parents mooching off the government and even each other. I'm sure a similar "slacker" mentality prevails in many of the countries you champion, but I'll leave that to you to refute.
The fact that a welfare
system is impossible to implement in the US without all kinds of
bad
side-effects only tells us something about US-society.
I guess it does, but is what it tells us such a bad thing?
The _fact_ that
there are countries in this world that have the combination of a
very
healty economy and a extensive welfare system shows that it is possible,
given competent leadership, organisation and a sense mutual responsibility.
Maybe so, but what's the point? I'm all for cutting down on the amount of wasted resources the US exploits each year, but I think the saved resources would be better suited toward technological growth, better education and assisting small businesses- people who actually have ambitions but lack the means to realize them. I'm afraid I'm just not convinced that the welfare system encourages people to get back on their feet again. Socialists/communists are always citing the "demoralizing" effect having to sell one's labor has on a man, but where do they expect the resources and labor that feed the unemployed to come from if not from their more productive fellow citizens? Would you consider yourself a socialist, and if so how do you fit that economic vision into extropian ideals? I'm interested in hearing your feedback on this.
Jeremy Ulrey --------------02F02431E37654C79E4273CC--