Holos
Senior Member
My opinion on that is no more valid than yours.Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?
Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.
Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal
Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal
Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.
Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?
NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.
OP,
Who are the poor and jobless that you have perceived in your own experience? Can you give me examples from your empirical perception?
It does not seem appropriate to me to have a debate on charity and welfare before we have well established in agreement who are the people to receive those possible benefits.
My personal view is that a society should protect the weakest members. The old,the sick and so on. There also needs to be a safety net to protect those who stumble. If we dont do this our communities will implode.
Ridiculous claim. For thousands of years of human history, no such safety nets existed, and their societies didn't implode. Nor did our own before we had social safety nets. In fact most of the social programs we had today, there was no demand for at the time of their creation. They had to be sold to the public by politicians looking for ways to gain a captive voter base, paid for by the people they were creating the programs for.
It's a ridiculous to say society would implode without government stealing money from the poorest people, to give back to them a tiny portion of the money taken, in exchange for votes.
Would you be willing to refer me your sources for human history?