Larssen wrote:
Jay wrote:
Larssen wrote:
I'm not telling you to copy paste our systems to the US, they differ between one another as well. French, Germans, Poles, Italians - they will all hold strong opinions on what the state should and shouldn't do. It's about seeing the sense in devising a state that tries to help the individual succeed in the ways that it can. The cultural & economic context in the US is different so the execution must be as well. Yet I see no logic in stopping people from getting necessary healthcare or to freely pursue knowledge and education, depending on their individual circumstances.
Yes, and we have myriad systems that are designed to help the poor. The poor have housing benefits, and healthcare benefits, and receive transfer payments etc. The problem is, as I said, we have a lot of abuse. A certain political party here in the US set up those benefits, and then also worked to remove all stigma and shame associated with using them. Now we have serial abuse because there is no social pressure on anyone to minimize use to the truly needy.
Well, I'm not sure if the existing benefits comprehensively cover the situations that could leave people destitute, for that I've seen too many cases of absolute poverty which are hard to accept in a rich western society. It is also a fact that there are many toxically violent environments throughout the country that breed malfunctioning people.
I feel your view is inordinately focused on punishment as a solution to the above problems. You should also consider the other possibility: the state overreaching and punishing people who do not deserve it. Additionally, populations are hard to motivate through repression. The state apparatus can instead be mobilised to foster positive change. Long-term programs focused on community investment and violence reduction never really involve debt collectors and armed police.
No, what I see is a political party that has set up a system whereby a section of the population is completely dependent on, and beholden to it. They've created a system where everything is paid for, cradle-to-grave, as long as you remain in poverty. When living in cities, they are segregated into massive tower blocks of apartments where the poverty is concentrated and the surrounding neighborhood becomes a crime-ridden economic wasteland. When living in rural areas, they tend to live in dilapidated homes or in trailer parks. When seeking a job, they generally must leave their neighborhood and commute elsewhere for work. If they have kids, they have to pay for day care. With these additional costs, most find it difficult to justify giving up their benefits and going to work instead. This is called the welfare trap. They're forced to raise their kids as single mothers because if they are married they will lose their benefits, and they spend their days doing drugs, or getting drunk, or having sex, or watching tv, or all of the above at the same time, because they are bored and have no dignity because they lack a job. Born into poverty they will more than likely die in poverty because the incentives are keeping them trapped in place.
This is why I say jobs are more important than government benefits for society as a whole. Do I want to eradicate the safety net? No, I want to prune it back so that only the truly needy use the benefits for a small bit of time before they get back on their feet. With a job, you may start off making minimum wage, but everyone eventually advances. Humans trapped in the benefit cycle have no hope, and a life without hope is a life not worth living.
