In some counties it is common for people not to work to simply live off government assistance. Is this okay? Should others have the option to opt out of work and have others support them?
Yes - Underany circumstance
No - It is theft from the taxpayer
Yes - Only for the disabled
No - Support should only be for those who work
In some counties it is common for people not to work to simply live off government assistance. Is this okay? Should others have the option to opt out of work and have others support them?
Please provide specific information about said countries and specific system that allows people to live off government asssistance.
I hate having to work with passion.
Most don't allow you to emigrate there then receive assistance but I don't doubt it exists somewhere.Originally Posted by username
Absolutely not.
The government mandated protectionism that allows the Walton family to be worth 100 billion dollars and themselves not be required to work a day to earn it or increase it has got to be done away with.
And it needs to be fixed at the other end of the spectrum too.
However, as long as you have extremely rich people have their unearned booty protected by governments you will also have poor people, far less successfully, also trying to grab whatever gratis they can get by with.
Just a game of "follow the leader" really.
“Society is like a stew. If you don’t stir it up every once in a while then a layer of scum floats to the top.”
-- Edward Abbey
only if they can spell
Don't remember changing this.
I forgot a space and a N sorry, did not know this was a graded essay.
lol. That isn't all you missed. I'm not some grammar Nazi, but when in the wee hours of the morning you come stumbling in complaining about unsaid "counties" letting people live "permantly" "of" the "goverment" slurring words together... its like I can smell the beer and frustration on your breath from here.
Don't remember changing this.
Ah I just got to work and was inspired by another thread on another forum. I don't think my OP came off as complaining but idk. I'm tired and I can't change it now.
The question is loaded or presupposes an answer or something like that. But the underlying question of social contract is certainly relevant.
People should pull their weight* if possible**, within reason***.
---
*contribute to society. I could say provide for themselves, but nobody provides for themselves that I know of.
Another vagary of pulling one's weight is it implies doing useful things for others, but do the others value what you are doing for them? We have money to act as information for what others find useful. But the money is not distributed evenly, so the 'voting' on what is useful goes proportionally to those who have more money. And it follows that the definition of 'pulling your weight' is skewed by those with most of the money.
--
** if possible has two components: (1) the individual, the nature and nurture she has no choice about, what life hands her out of the gate in terms of DNA and circumstance and to lesser extent, luck thereafter. (2) the society, what holes there are waiting to be filled and how hard it is to get one of those slots.
---
***within reason means not expecting more from others than I expect of myself. Given the varying gap between what the individual starts with and what opportunities the society provides, different amounts of effort are required to obtain for each to obtain the same result. And that presupposes that the exercise is deterministic and doesn't involve any luck, which is clearly wrong. Anyway I do not wish to be enslaved so I do not think it reasonable others should be enslaved. I do not wish to work in subhuman conditions just to scrape by so I don't wish that for others etc.
Should people mooch off others when they are capable of working themselves? No
Should governments provide support to people in difficulty? Yes
Should we be working towards a society where everyone has to work less? Yes
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks