Quote from name:Azrael.Wrath
If you disagree with any specific points of my post then address them specifically and provide specifics.
Here we go...
Quote from name:Azrael.Wrath
Exactly, so a strong society is one that would remove its weaker elements from the whole. It doesn't matter if it's their fault or not, especially considering how subjective that is; you could say someone has no work ethic because of the environment they were brought up in, or due to a psychological problem out of their control.
Sounds like you want to let the impoverished fall into ghettos. If it's their own fault, I guess it would be alright, but only if they had an opportunity to redeem themselves. Seems a bit mean, though.
No, the proper way to handle people like this is to cut them off completely, and let them find help from other members of society. If they have spent their life only looking out for themselves, and have no one who would help them, that is their own fault.
I'm torn here. On one hand, you should help thy neighbor. On the other hand, humans are naturally greedy.
You've expressed that this is not compassionate, yet I don't remember anyone asking for a compassionate government. I know I don't want Hallmark in charge of government policies. They are obligated to do what is best for the whole of society, not to screw over the hard-working middle class majority for a couple unskilled, inept, disabled welfare bums. Almost all of these people will never contribute anything to society except more children, which will grow up in a scummy environment with their lazy parents and just suck off welfare themselves as adults. This is a disgusting cycle that needs to be stopped, rather than the current system which rewards them with a bonus check for every kid they pop out even though they can't afford food for themselves in the first place.
Less than 2% of welfare recipients commit fraudThere are two ways to fix this broken aspect of the government and of society itself. The first is to simply stop all welfare programs, allow people to fend for themselves.
Self-interest vs. Civic Virtue
Perhaps if they let a few people starve to death because they had fifteen kids when they couldn't even manage to feed themselves, the rest of the welfare trash might realize their own sheer stupidity and sub-human way of living, and actually change for the better.
Sounds like the Gilded Age.
The other way they can do it is to increase the downsides of receiving government help. By being eligible to receive welfare, you have to agree to certain terms that are not in your favor. One of them could be that you have to undergo surgery to make it impossible for you to have children in the future. Alternatively, this surgery could just be a requirement if you're on the welfare over a certain time period, or you could be simply forced to get an abortion in the event you become pregnant (you'd always have the option of stopping welfare instead of the abortion). If the woman waits past the first trimester to report her pregnancy because she doesn't want to endanger her checks, then she can either receive the abortion and a hysterectomy, or be permanently cut off from all future welfare.
Something tells me that is scientifically right, but morally wrong.
Perhaps other downsides could even be profitable for the government, which would both reduce the number of people on social welfare and have the program partially paying for itself. If they could make welfare profitable, that would be even better. One obvious option is that to qualify for welfare for any period of time, you have to sign your body over to the government in the event of your death. Then when you eventually die, the government would sell your organs to hospitals, which would generate them revenue. Of course the welfare bums would need to have random drug testing and annual checkups to ensure they aren't abusing their bodies, but that's in their best interests anyways.
I'd like to see more organs going to people who need them, this part isn't so bad. Someone is going to have to pay for the random drug testing and doctor's visits, though.
I'd say that would be a very insignificant price to pay for all the free money they receive over their lifetime, and at least they would eventually contribute to society in some small way. It'd also stop the welfare trash from being able to use drugs, which if the reason why many of them need to be on welfare in the first place. A lot of people on welfare sell their food stamps for half value in order to get cash for their addiction. It's really quite disgusting, and this would help alleviate that problem as well.
Maybe food stamps could be like a credit card linked to your name with a picture ID or something.
Now, if you were able to find some evidence of a proper laissez faire Austrian economy working worse than a Keynesian economy, then I'd be happy to consider it, but I have yet to see one work anywhere near as well as the few true laissez faire Austrian economies that have existed.
Does Zimbabwe or any of the other African nations count as a laissez faire economy? Perhaps Somalia (no government = no regulation!). But seriously, less regulation allows for greater accumulation of personal wealth.
Perhaps an Asian nation or Latin American nation with little to no regulations on the economy would be a perfect model of laissez faire. It's interesting that China's economy is growing quickly and they have a mixed economy (rather than complete control or complete freedom).
It seems that extremes (complete control vs complete freedom) both do not create a powerful economy. The Gilded Age (deregulated era) had great economic growth, but so did Singapore in the latter half of the twentieth century (more government control). A lot of the factors are out of the government's control, e.g. natural resources, technology, global supply/demand, etc.
Yeah, only people with jobs that make over a certain amount pay income taxes (so that means children and other dependents don't pay income taxes).
Also, interesting link:
http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html
Win by luck, lose by skill.