With what incentives? People do not go on Welfare to make money, welfare is basically for children, those "precious lives" some to be so concerned about. There ARE charities and they cannot do it all. They don't always get enough donations or aren't accessible to all who need them. Last winter food shelves were begging for people to donate, they didn't have enough for their needs. The government's JOB is to take care of it's citizens.
The risk with welfare is that the recievers enter a comfort zone where they see it as unnecessary to get a job that pays as much as- or even less than welfare does. Thus, the whole structure of incentives has to be reconstructed to one that encourages work and self-sufficiency - Lower tax rates and a minimum wage of 0 would encourage entrepreneurship and create tons of "unqualified jobs". If high school was also made voluntary, the diploma would no longer be an inflated currency and the teenagers not made for school (not everyone is) could find ways to find meaning in life and enter adulthood earlier. In a community without a Welfare State, citizens would be more dependent on each other and we would see higher trust and combine this with strong norms of family making and you have the ultimate source of Welfare - Family and friends. I know why people go on welfare and what it does to people more than anyone. Because people already lose much of their salary to taxation, money that is supposed "to help the poor", so there are no real incentives to engage in charity. One of the primary reasons I support strong marital norms is because they create families and family is the best source of charity one can have. Nonetheless people are willing to help and in the contemporary digital age, charity is easier than ever; how many crowd-founded surgeries have we seen the only the last two years? People who do not even know each other, who live on different ends of the planet, engage in monetary exchange for no other reason than helping out. And it sucks at it. A shelter that fails to provide efficient services to the poor will have to shut down, but the government always find people to steal money from and therefore keeps surviving no matter how inefficient it is.
But, eventually you decided to settle down and have a family, right? And that is exactly what I am advocating - serious, long-term relationships, commitment and love. I could not care less about what people do during their youth as long as they are responsible and - sooner or later - grow up and settle down. How anyone can find this "controversial", "misogynistic" or whatever is beyond me. Even more so when the accusations come from someone who has done exactly what I am advocating for.
All of the above is proposing that we roll back the clock to the Dickensian era of unfettered worker exploitation, including the abuse of child labor, and throwing those who can no longer work out into the cold to starve to death.
I got an idea...start a commune, that sounds like what you're advocating, and see how long that ""dependent on each other and we would see higher trust" crap works... (Hint: it doesn't) Unless you have been on Welfare with children you don't . ….and you certainly don't know more than anyone. LOL! THANK YOU for ADMITTING your whole goofy "charity will do the job of government" was a no go from the start You never did say what a "marital norm" was.... MAKE up your mind ! Does the government take all you r money so you can't be charitable or is charity easier than ever? And just because charity is easier doesn't mean one can depend on it... WTF... how many crowd-founded surgeries have we seen the only the last two years? People who do not even know each other, who live on different ends of the planet, engage in monetary exchange for no other reason than helping out. Whether you consider what the government does as efficient or not it's job is to take care of it's citizens....that is it's job....if you don't like how it's doing it then step up and GIVE your time and money to the charity of your choice and , OF COURSE, do check out the executives of that charity to see just where that money is going since charities are notorious for making money for their executives...just because they are not politicians doesn't mean they're honest and not greedy...
Not at all. The industrial revolution is long gone and there is no longer any demand for heavy factory work or poor children in the coal mines. My proposals would actually roll the clocks forward to create a scenario more suitable for the era in which we live.
Why would you even care what OTHER PEOPLE ( people who aren't you) do in their youth...and youth by it's nature doesn't always act responsibly so you go ahead and wish for miracles....see where it gets ya... WHY in the F does it matter to you that OTHER people "settle down" ?? I honestly do NOT get why what other people do means so much to you....
If kids don't go to high school what do you propose they do? Engineering? Architecture? The law? Brain surgery? No, what you're proposing is keeping a good supply of unskilled cheap labor to use and abuse by the rich...
If secession was legally possible, we would have already seen countless communes and all of them would have been more functioning than any of the nationalised bs-projects we have today. In some neighbourhoods, people are already working with private initiatives such as private policing and in these neighbourhoods, criminality is significantly lower than in those that are under the control of the State. My father was a simple working-class man and my divorced mother was welfare-dependent for large parts of my childhood. I grew up in neighbourhoods where many children came from similar conditions. I know very well what it is like and what it does to a person. I have been unemployed myself too. I never did. A "marital norm" is one that encourages long term-relationships and commitment over one night stands, selfishness, hedonism and high time-preferences. Both. But, the two are somewhat connected in that a Welfare State takes away the incentives to engage in charity; i.e. without it, we would see more of it than we do (and we already see a lot of it). No one wants to depend on it and that is not the goal with charity. It is meant to be temporary, something that helps a person survive tough times and help them become stronger to ensure they don't end up there again. Many. And you are saying government is not notorious for making money for their executives? The good thing here is that we can choose not to fund the dishonest charity whereas we are forced to fund the government no matter if the money goes to pay for drone-strikes that kill children in Syria or to hand the single mother in Detroit food stamps. Unlike you, I believe in humanity.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Why would you even care what OTHER PEOPLE ( people who aren't you) do in their youth...and youth by it's nature doesn't always act responsibly so you go ahead and wish for miracles....see where it gets ya... WHY in the F does it matter to you that OTHER people "settle down" ?? I honestly do NOT get why what other people do means so much to you.... What an irrational, illogical, and hysterical response. Here's a saner one: Let's just live our own lives and keep our nose out of other people's business..let's judge our own mistakes and shortcomings and quit dwelling on how "bad" other people are...
You may believe in humanity but you don't understand it. NO one should have to go to a private organization, give details of their lives, just to maybe get a handout from some haughty do-gooder. At least their lives can stay private when the government does it's JOB and takes care of them. YES, we fund OUR government, it's OURS so we should.....Yes, I help fund war...and so do Anti-Choicers who don't think that life is so precious. Communes do NOT work.
Why should they if they don't want to? Afterall they have a President who did none of the above....he sure doesn't support your "marital norms"...
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/violenc...sks-scholars-passages-koran/story?id=11760637 thats it ...extremism,,,all or nothing
Nobody has to do anything. This is where we differ; I can be for something without necessarily regarding it as moral. Whereas you want everyone to share the same set of morals. I am not American and I don't support Trump, so I don't see what you are aiming at here.
. There sure were a lot of "should" in your posts to indicate otherwise. No, I never indicated nor supported everyone having the same morals, quite the opposite, I usually have to preach to Anti-Choicers that their morals are not everyone's. This is exactly what I was aiming at: ""Afterall they (not you) have a President who did none of the above....he sure doesn't support your "marital norms"...""" I didn't mention you supporting him or not.... So no defense for your outrageous : """"Ritter said: ↑ Let's all just kill each other then."""""" ?
The "shoulds" were subjective ones implying values and morals I myself believe would foster the best possible social outcome. I thought this was what this forum was for, to discussion personal opinions, yes? I have no idea why we are talking abortion again... That was written as a response to me - You quoted my post and in your reply used the words "your marital norms", so it is no wonder I took it as being directed to me. I appreciate your clarification. If you look at the context in which it was written, you would see that it is a fully sarcastic remark (duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh).
Sarcastic? Well, after reading a lot of your posts I didn't really pick up on sarcasm....it was just an irrational response...
You know what? I am so done with you for all eternity and I am putting you on ignore. Have a good life.
