New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

As we live in a world where many people do have to rely on personal compassion then personal charity is a compassionate act. But to me it is more compassionate to agree as a society to set up a fund for those in need without them having to accept the charity of their fellows.

We also live in a world where people will do anything to get by on nothing. A world where many people don't want to help themselves and many who just don't want help. We could start by reforming our Mental Health system and start pumping money back into it in a a big way. That would most likely take a whole bunch of homeless people off the street. But running around throwing money at these problems via "Government" controlled and run organizations is not the answer.

[DanaC]

Again that would be something for consultation and political campaigning. The politicians and parties put forward what they consider the most workable compromise and through the democratic process the country would come to its decision on what level is considered manageable and how that would be organised.

Your country has come to its current accepted levels of tax and protection by this process, as has mine. In my own country I would argue for greater protections and less social stigma for those who have need of it.

[DanaC]

We also live in a world where people will do anything to get by on nothing.

Yeah.....ya know though I think most people actually do want to work (bear with me)..

When society sends large numbers of people a message that they are worthless and allows the market to create large pockets of unemployment coupled with low social mobility, that's a recipe for creating a subculture that feels it is *thinks how to phrase this* at war, or under attack from the wider culture. If that sub culture continues for long enough and a new generation is born to that sub culture, then you have a recipe for a sub culture that sees itself as separate and distinct from the wider community. That's when people begin to see the protections that are still left as something to take without putting back.

The answer is to exert enough controls over your economy so as to not produce ghettos of poverty and social exclusion. In the event that a country has already produced such ghettos you are faced with (the way I see it) two distinct paths of action. You can either a) become ever more strict in how that help is regulated and debarr as many people as you can, reducing the levels of protection as a way of making it even more unappealing in order to drive people to find work; thereby increasing the sense of social exclusion and 'attack'. Or, b) you increase social protections whilst simultaneously trying to apply pressure and incentives to business to employ at home rather than sending jobs to Mexico and the Far East; alongside that you try to actively engage those communities in dialogue and make the justice system less brutal in the way it deals wth non-violent criminals (thereby removing some of the sense of being literally under attack by the economically active classes).

The problem with b) is that this solution would require more than a generation to reintegrate the sub-culture into the mainstream culture. The problem with a) is that it further alienates the two cultures from each other, creating an ever wider gulf and a siege mentality within the sub-culture; and resulting in the phenomenon of wealthy, gated communities existing within a short drive from housing complexes where simply walking down the street is a dangerous thing to do.

I believe that b) has the potential to reintegrate the cultures of the middle class and the cultures of the long-term, unemployed over a couple of generations resulting in a culture where, as in the mainstream, people want to be a part of the employed world.

[xoxoxoBruce]

When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend. A tremendous disservice to those people.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend.

Did they really?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Did they really?

Yes. By giving them just enough to get by, but not enough to get out, they perpetuated the ghettos.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend. A tremendous disservice to those people.

And they are still doing it.

[DanaC]

You act like everyone that needs help asks for it! Who is presumptuous now? I don't care if my stomach fell out of my body with hunger.....I would never ask for anything and neither do a lot of people........People need to ask for help? No letting people keep any dignity- make them beg.

This is why I favour a system of benefits by right. You are not 'asking for help' in a good benefits system imo, you are accessing something to which you have a right. Much less humiliating.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by DanaC

This is why I favour a system of benefits by right. You are not 'asking for help' in a good benefits system imo, you are accessing something to which you have a right. Much less humiliating.

that is bullshit. i have a right to go look for a job to get money, i don't have a right to be given money just because i don't have a job. the major disconnect here is that my view of life is that we were all created equal. meaning we all come in screaming and naked. the commonality ends there. what we do with our gifts and abilities should determine what we achieve/receive in life. yes, some people are born into money. too damn bad. quit worrying about what they have and focus on what you have. you have a level of intelligence and a work ethic. use them. get as far as you can in life, but don't bitch and moan because someone gets farther.

there are plenty of examples of people stepping out of poverty and achieving success - whatever that means to them. they achieved something because they thought something was a worthy goal and they did what it takes to achieve it.

if you want something bad enough to work for it, you can achieve it. if you can't it is because you didn't want it bad enough. end of story.

[Flint]

Or someone that hides in a damned cubicle their whole life.

Ouch!

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Flint

Ouch!

Yea......hmmm.....that was ungrateful of me....it's the same people that make sure I can come to places like these to be ungrateful. Better watch it.......

Temper check.........

But hey- someone else out there is using a drastic amount of emoticons...'spose I'm not the only one.
I've also been in my fair share of cubicles. Having an office with a door to shut..like right now...just probably makes me worse.

Attitude checked.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by mercy

Great, define that.

From each according to his ability.
To each according to his need.

Are you taking notes?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

From each according to his ability.
To each according to his need.

Are you taking notes?

Certainly you are not trying to lecture to me about how I should "give" to worthy causes?

[Undertoad]

We knew that "a manageable portion of their wealth/income" was code for full-blown fucking Marxism, but we were surprised that the code fell away so quickly.

[DanaC]

We knew that "a manageable portion of their wealth/income" was code for full-blown fucking Marxism, but we were surprised that the code fell away so quickly.

I don't think I've ever hidden the fact that I take a marxist analysis.