Jophiel wrote:
But I thought everyone could better their lot and become multi-bajillionaires by keeping at it.
You can subscribe to the "anyone can do it" theory, in which case all welfare does is help insure that those who don't bother are kept fed and clothed (as well as their children) or else you can subscribe to the "It's not always possible" theory in which case welfare is keeping these people who aren't at fault fed and clothed.
I wish the issue were so black and white, with only two choices to choose from. If the world were such a place I would concur that social services create no particular evil.
The theory I like is the one that says expansive social services remove any incentive to work by providing safety and security for every man, woman, and child, be they unable
or unwilling to take care of themselves. This is where I see the start of the problem.
Can you imagine growing up as the second-generation in a welfare family? Mom and/or Dad tell you that the check comes once a month and that buys your groceries, keeps you in clothes, and that's all there is to it. Since the basic needs are met, what drive have you to educate yourself? What is it that makes you strive? Why would you
bother? You aren't starving and other people have got it worse, after all. You should be thankful for things you've got!
My theory has social services removing people's motivation for improving, which in turn leads to them losing their ability to compete in the world. We have spent time and money coddling people who can remain functionally illiterate and unskilled. As there has been no consequence for their lack of effort, they opt to wallow in ignorance. Should the government teat ever be taken away they will starve to death, for they will have neither the skills to enter the workforce, nor the ability to obtain same.
We're making ignorant little slave-children. I keep waiting for Mother Government to roll out some welfare work-programs, something where the useless welfare babies can go pick up trash, or mow lawns, or work sugar plantations or whatever the fu[b][/b]ck it is we opt for them to do in the coming century. It will prove a great way to get a return on this endless investment. It will bring our society 'round full circle.
I would prefer that welfare not exist, that people be presented with the option of starving to death should they not find a way to make ends meet. If they starve, they starve - no burden on the taxpayer, and no further obligation to society. If they live, they will thrive, for they've already overcome the biggest hurdle.
