h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Welcome, Solipsist and abbi. I guess this means abbi will have many more opportunities to fail to offend me.

P-c: I was implying that working for a socialist government would already be a compromise of my principles.

"The people should be cared for by the state - to each according to his needs... - but the same applies in reverse - from each according to his means." - This is, in my opinion, the true weakness of socialism. How do you get everyone to contribute to their best means?

It just doesn't work for me. People are going to act according to what they believe are their own best interests. For some, that means popping out kids and selling crack.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal state. We have to make the best of what we have, and what we have is a lot of people avoiding unpleasant work and finding socially destructive ways to support themselves instead. The government cannot motivate these people in any meaningful way. It can only indirectly influence them, by increasing the rewards of a constructive lifestyle, and increasing the consequences of a destructive one. Let them weigh the options and motivate themselves.

If the government gives too little, well-intentioned people suffer needlessly. If it gives too much, people turn into leeches. Likewise, if the government punishes too little, people run wild. If it punishes too much, good people suffer.

It's a question of balance. Government has to be used in moderation. I'm a libertarian because I think it currently gives too much and punishes too little... and the balance is shifting increasingly further in those directions.

I think the government gives too much in the wrong places.
I also believe they punish some too harshly and others not harshly enough.

I do agree the balance is off! But not agreeing as to where.


If the Government here (us) really wanted to help they would be helping the working poor. They should be supported for trying to do the right thing.

The government should help support family through workers benefits that float. Pick the ones you need most and dump the rest. Hardly anyone offers full benefits in anything. Its 50% here 25 % here ....The more progress large employers say here is heealth for one or famil,retirement,child care, family leave,short term disability,learning and special needs care,elder care, entertainment discounts,work clothing paid....
Pick any 3-5 sort of a system can work well.

I do not know if things remain the same. Used to be if you aquired all the government benefits you were financially better off & connected to family time wise ,than 2 people working 3-4 minimum wage jobs to support 1-3 kids. There is little motivation to do that except for survival and the pride of doing it yourself. We'd be in worse shape if millions were not doing that. Lets give the working poor more support.

As far as punishment punish the violent by locking them up. The non violent by restritution and ankle bracelets and strict probation and parole laws. Three strikes laws that we originally wanted were for violent crimes. They have applied that rule to many. You can make people pay for their crimes and not have them be such a drain on society ,breaking up the families and public budgets.

I know.

PC:

BtM:

I don't know. Your solution would appear to be that, because you (the government) never gave the electorate anything, they don't have the problem of collecting the anticipated return. No welfare and the poorest, least capable people die. That isn't acceptable to me. I'd rather pay out some benefits for no return.

I still agree with what you're saying, in general, and I still believe the issues we're discussing are general ones, applicable to most political ideologies when they're put into practice.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

abbi: You make a good point. It does give too much in some places, and punish too harshly in others. It gives too much to corporations and underaged mothers. It punishes too little for the rich, and too harshly for the poor. When I look back at my little scheme, I can see that I've subconsciously agreed with your assessment, and my overall goal is to apply the law uniformly to all.

P-c: The poorest people didn't always die before welfare, and they won't continue to. I'm a firm believer in personal charity, which is something I believe the government discourages.

"Why hold out a hand to somebody anymore? I already pay taxes." - So the reasoning goes. I'd rather see communities working together to provide what the community needs, and individuals working with individuals to help them out.

Only in those areas where personal assistance couldn't possibly do the job would I turn it over to government. For instance, a government program would have to exist to provide basic medical services to those who cannot afford health insurance. There's no getting around that one.

Government assistance programs must be of a temporary nature only. The promote abuse, and therefore it must be limited to temporary abuse. Everyone needs a hand sometime, but for other than the disabled, it should not become a habit.

Maintaining these programs puts undue stress on the working poor. The tax savings from reducing the size of the government would do more for the working poor than any legislation could. Any new program would require them to pay for it.

Um. I might be induced to agree that the government should not be responsible for supporting those without work, sort of thing. One day.

But I can't see what's wrong with providing free health care for everybody, not just those who can't afford medical insurance. Likewise education.

Otherwise you'll just end up with a brutally enforced system for overprivileging the rich.

"I might be induced to agree that the government should not be responsible for supporting those without work, sort of thing. One day." - This is a twisting of my words. I'm saying that those who can work should be helped... temporarily. I simply cannot see the merit in permanently enabling laziness. And when you're not working, there's the questions of self-worth that have to be addressed... and are all too frequently addressed through substance abuse, domestic violence, promiscuity, and criminal behavior.

True story: My girlfriend (who later became my wife) was supporting her mother and little sister, because her mom had just gotten out of jail and moved into the area. She was making her mom's house payment and van payment, on top of her own apartment rent and car payments. She worked three jobs to do it, and still couldn't help enough. This is because her mom refused to get a job... she thought selling Mary Kay products was a job (it's a thing for bored housewives to earn shoe money). I had to stop my girlfriend from making some very disasterous financial moves to meet her mom's needs, and the only way I could do that was to help her myself. So my savings disappeared, and when they did, I had to tell my girlfriend her mom couldn't have any more.

She went to her mom and told her there was no more to give. Four days later her mom had a real job and could support herself again. Of course, that didn't save my girlfriend from having to declare bankruptcy.

Microcosm out to macrocosm... my wife and I were the government, ruining our own finances to enable the selfish behavior of one individual. I can't support that sort of policy.

"I can't see what's wrong with providing free health care for everybody, not just those who can't afford medical insurance." - If the Canadians are any example, full public funding of medical care leads to the sort of medical care we see here when people don't have insurance... the poor kind. The very poor kind. Having seen the difference firsthand between county facilities and private facilities in the US, I'd do whatever it took to protect my family's level of care in the private one.

As a libertarian I'm proud of the fact that the higher level of care comes from the private sector.

Yes, sorry, that was a flip comment, but I couldn't think of a shorter way to express qualified agreement, without getting into that area too much. Probably shouldn't have said anything at all, then, eh? But to be honest, I'd be surprised if any country which does provide unemployment support/ benefits sees it any other way than you do...

I'm not sure that I'd accept the fact that health services provided by the state are poor as an argument, as they obviously shouldn't be. Can't say I've much quarrell with the Brisish national health service, though, and my mother has had some pretty extreme care on that, though I also appreciate the ability to get care for niggly illnesses rather than full on heart valve replacement ops without paying through the nose. I really am not sure how I like the idea of the richer you are the better health care you get. I mean, there's standing on your own two feet and then there's standing on your own two feet if you see what I mean.

But perhaps I don't understand how medical insurance works in the US.

The thing that worries me most about privatisation of things like health care, though, is that they've rather got you over the barrel. There's only room for a certain number of facilities and you are forced to go to them. In the same way that the bus service in our town went seriously downhill (though you'd think that wasn't possible) after it stopped being run by local government and started being run by private companies, I think that health care is not something which is naturally suited to the whole concept.

I mean, right now, I guess it's in the interest of private health care trusts/ facilities (which we also have) or whatever they are called to be tbetter than that which the state provides, otherwiose people wouldn't bother at all. But if it were the only option? Then everybody'd be screwed. In fact, now I thinki about it, it's probably best _for you_ for the state to be providing as good healthcare as possible, so that the private service will be have to be better, which is good for those who don't have insurance, and absolutely fantastic for those who do.

*grins*

Sorry, by the state providing as good healthcare as possible, I mean as comprehensive as possible, which means for everybody all the time, as well as just high quality. Then your privatised whatsits have to compete on a much bigger scale. I don't just mean some p*** poor service for those with no alternative for whatever reason.

Oh dear, I also wanted to say that it doesn't mean you have to do away with insurance and better private healthcare, but it should be an option rather than a necessity.

>>> I'm saying that those who can work should be helped... temporarily. I simply cannot see the merit in permanently enabling laziness.

I agree that unemployment benefits etc can create a culture of dependency, which has serious implications for self-worth, and that (in principle) people should not expect to be on unemployment benefit for a very long time.

The difficulty that more extreme libertarians (and I don't include BtM in this category) and the political right often don't recognise is that capitalism *requies* that there be unemployment, and *requires* that there be people doing traditionally low-paid and menial work. Society and the economy is structured in such a way that there's no way round this. It's inevitable that there will be people who are unemployed and (under current circumstances) badly paid.

It's true that it's not inevitable who these people will be, but they do turn out with surprising regularity to be the people whose parents were in a similar situation. I think that if anyone really believes in freedom, they ought to believe in making sure that that freedom has value, and that means some sort of equality of opportunity, which requires a decent standard of living and of education for all, regardless of background and fecklessness or otherwise of their parents.

It seems to me, therefore, that a just society must have decent unemployment provision and a reasonable minimum wage. Now exactly how unemployment provision is structured is another question, and I agree that it shouldn't encourage dependency, but there will always be unemployed, there will always be shelf-stackers, and there will always be cleaners. We need all of them....

A reasonable minimum wage is key IMO.
Is it reasonable?
The politicians say not. Why would it not be? Often it is the independant small business man that would suffer. There are surely ways around them paying the penalty.

People do need a hand from time to time, usually once in their lives. The ones that say not, are often helped by their own parents. That is also a social welfare of sorts just someone (private) else paying. ANY shame or pride felt need not be lesser or greater depending on the giver.

I'm sure that the big, rich, conservative stockbroker (I've always loved what is essentially legalised gambling holding this country up), when all his option and choices collapse and he loses all his fortunes, will line up for welfare the same as the next tramp.

I agree with the stock market being legalized gambling. Also connected to it is when buying a house;
Your largest lifetime purchase a gamble too, with how the rate can change before closing, so you have the choice to put money on it that it will to guarantee the same rate.

I know those folks are in line same as others when they need to eat. Many that should be comfy whom are living beyond their means are only a paycheck or a month away from doom and gloom. Standing in the same line can teach a valuable lesson in humility.

Let's not forget about state lotteries, which are legalized gambling, but that's okay, because it benefits the schools (stupidly, at least in California, but that's another rant for another time). And bingo, which is legalized gambling, but it's okay because it benefits the churches and the non-profit organizations.

Makes you wonder what the big deal for putting $5 on a hand of blackjack is all about, doesn't it?

Yep

No no no, see I agree with all of the examples given, but the point I was making was much larger. With everything, the price fluctuates. Housing, food, everything. (These fluctuations can even be predicted accurately). And the Lottery being legalised gambling is just another privatisation licence to give some money to a bewildered and beleaguered government. But with stock pricing, the money actually holds our current capitalist/welfare system up. Without investors gambling on companies, the companies wouldn't have any money or funds, and nothing would get produced. At least on a large scale. "Civilisation as we know it would crumble", but hey, that happens every microsecond anyway. I therefore propose we rename our current capitalist/welfare system to "Uncle Benny's Big Scale Vegas System".

We interrupt this debate for a public service announcement:

The debate piece Ste and I put together on the topic of the legality of the war in Iraq is finished, and it will be published in next week's edition of the Post. We should see a few new members then.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Thanks for the public announce ,I always read

The lottery should be used for the health care - children and eldery care first.
*originally suggested by h2g2 Paganmoon*

It is, obliquely. Grants are given to deserving foundations.