@UnderstandMouseMagic: Yes and yes. Bourgeoisie originally referred to the "ruling class," the people with control over the means of production; not the middle class. The modern usage refers to the middle class, which would be in the billions worldwide.
The term has gotten much broader over time. It used to mean factory owners and business tycoons--the rich and powerful. Nowadays it more often means white-collar paper-pushers and cubicle goons--anyone who's not flat-out poor.
@UnderstandMouseMagic: Yes and yes. Bourgeoisie originally referred to the "ruling class," the people with control over the means of production; not the middle class. The modern usage refers to the middle class, which would be in the billions worldwide.
The term has gotten much broader over time. It used to mean factory owners and business tycoons--the rich and powerful. Nowadays it more often means white-collar paper-pushers and cubicle goons--anyone who's not flat-out poor.
So "control over the means of production". That would include farmers would it not?
"Factory owners and business tycoons" so Bill Gates then? What about those who are high up the scale in his business? Elon Musk?
The Ruling class? So politicians
How small are we going here? The shopkeeper who owns his own business and employs people? The small industrialist with 20 staff? The landlord who rents out his property?
I did actually look up " Marx bourgeoise", specifically to move away from the modern meaning. One dictionary has it as those who work at the higher end for the owners as well, the other, the owners only.
As a defence of Marx's politics/ideas I'm afraid it doesn't really convince me that his small numbers and specific classes wouldn't very quickly creep into including anybody who could offer any opposition. Which, somewhat unsurprisingly, is exactly what happened.
@UnderstandMouseMagic: "Control of means of production" in Marxist parlance means you own the factory.
I'm not saying you have to agree with him; I'm just answering your question about the terminology. You seem to be expecting me to define who should and should not be considered the bourgeoisie and therefore who's supposed to get killed during a communist revolution...
Is is this person? Is is that person? Oh, so you think this person is supposed to die? Is that what you're telling me? How can anyone think this? How can anyone defend this?
...but bear in mind that, again, I'm not telling you my beliefs. I'm just telling you what old-school Marxism said about the question.
Marx's idea of the ruling class is a guy who owns the factory, because back when Marx was alive, the richest people owned textile factories (as opposed to working in them).
For the third time, no one here is defending Marx's politics. I am not defending Marx.
Stop acting like I am. It's not respectful to my beliefs or my intelligence.
I haven't asked you to agree with me. I only ask you to accept that when I tell you what my beliefs are, you don't act like I believe the exact opposite.
I must be honest: It is very frustrating to be asked to explain a philosophy, and then immediately be accused of defending it.
@UnderstandMouseMagic: "Control of means of production" in Marxist parlance means you own the factory.
I'm not saying you have to agree with him; I'm just answering your question about the terminology. You seem to be expecting me to define who should and should not be considered the bourgeoisie and therefore who's supposed to get killed during a communist revolution...
Is is this person? Is is that person? Oh, so you think this person is supposed to die? Is that what you're telling me? How can anyone think this? How can anyone defend this?
...but bear in mind that, again, I'm not telling you my beliefs. I'm just telling you what old-school Marxism said about the question.
Marx's idea of the ruling class is a guy who owns the factory, because back when Marx was alive, the richest people owned textile factories (as opposed to working in them).
For the third time, no one here is defending Marx's politics. I am not defending Marx.
Stop acting like I am. It's not respectful to my beliefs or my intelligence.
I haven't asked you to agree with me. I only ask you to accept that when I tell you what my beliefs are, you don't act like I believe the exact opposite.
I must be honest: It is very frustrating to be asked to explain a philosophy, and then immediately be accused of defending it.
Yes you are explaining a philosophy, thank you for doing so.
However I am critiquing a philosophy, that is all. Why from my post you have assumed I'm suggesting you support the philosophy I don't understand.
"As a defence of Marx's politics/ideas" obviously references the information you posted, not you personally.
There's an ongoing series of posts here, a conversation if you will, and you did post this previously,
"communism as defined by Marx does require the killing of a very small and very specific portion of the population, which is the ruling class. Marx was very explicit about killing the bourgeoisie and seizing their stuff (that is, the means of production)."
Is it not alright to argue with that and suggest that "a very small and specific portion of the population" can (and did) end up with millions being killed? And give some examples of how that might happen?
Therefore rendering the statement false which has nothing to do with whether you personally support the statement.
And yes I am aware that you posted the above as a critique of Marx in relation to @BallpointMan suggesting that Marx/communism never set out to kill anybody.
@FinneousPJ: I'd offer a quote, but the point is now moot. I am already satisfied with @UnderstandMouseMagic's friendly response and see no need to keep arguing.
@FinneousPJ: Okay. At first, I didn't think it referred to bob_veng because I was the one complaining about being expected to explain or defend a philosophy.
Well the truth is that things are NOT equal in life. There will always be folks with better charisma, strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom and intelligence. Those higher attributes will lead to higher success and not all of them are gained by practice or training. A fair amount (arguably a lion's share) of them are genetics or anomalies that can't be explained. Without some kind of return on investment, we risk rellocating those people to obscurity (or worse, eradication). Instead of this equality bullshit, what about utilizing people's skills to the best of their abilities and rewarding them accordingly? I don't think the current version of capitalism in the USA is even accomplishing this due to cronyism and nepotism.
Well the truth is that things are NOT equal in life. There will always be folks with better charisma, strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom and intelligence. Those higher attributes will lead to higher success and not all of them are gained by practice or training. A fair amount (arguably a lion's share) of them are genetics or anomalies that can't be explained. Without some kind of return on investment, we risk rellocating those people to obscurity (or worse, eradication). Instead of this equality bullshit, what about utilizing people's skills to the best of their abilities and rewarding them accordingly? I don't think the current version of capitalism in the USA is even accomplishing this due to cronyism and nepotism.
Nepotism doesn't get talked about enough in this society, and it is something that will effect everyone at least once or twice in their life. I believe it is a far more likely culprit in costing you a job or promotion than affirmative action could ever be. If you are on the wrong end of workplace politics or cliques (and you may not even know they exist) you are screwed.
Well the truth is that things are NOT equal in life. There will always be folks with better charisma, strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom and intelligence. Those higher attributes will lead to higher success and not all of them are gained by practice or training. A fair amount (arguably a lion's share) of them are genetics or anomalies that can't be explained. Without some kind of return on investment, we risk rellocating those people to obscurity (or worse, eradication). Instead of this equality bullshit, what about utilizing people's skills to the best of their abilities and rewarding them accordingly? I don't think the current version of capitalism in the USA is even accomplishing this due to cronyism and nepotism.
I'd love to see something like this, but that's only half the story.
Before society can "utilize people's skills to the best of their ability" the individuals have to take responsibility for utilizing their own skills.
So I'm from the UK, we have a welfare state and that's good. But it's beginning to fail because there are too many taking rather than giving.
And I mean with really avoidable issues, for example, huge amounts of money being spent on type 1 (or is it 2?) diabetes because so many are simply eating too much. So now there's talk of a sugar tax. It's not that I object to it in principle, but how lacking in self responsibility have people become that they have to have tax penalties to stop them overeating things that they know are bad for them?
(And of course if it puts the price of food up, the left will immediately start clamouring to have more welfare to cover the addditional cost)
Huge amounts of money being spent on education, and free for everybody. Yet a sizeable minority of parents can't even ensure their children are socialised and disciplined enough to take any kind of advantage from it. And in fact ruin the chances of other children. (I don't think we have the same problems with some schools that I have heard about in the US where the public(?) schools are really failing)
The blame or the focus, is always put from the left, on taking more money from the rich.
But I think less and less people believe that will solve anything because that's simply a way of avoiding the problems. No amount of money will ever solve the issue of too many feeling/believing they own no responsibility for themselves or society.
And as you get older, you do start to compare or notice the burgoning welfare state and the fact that there are even more people seemingly unable to live without so many handouts.
We don't need to force everyone to start from the same place. What I think we do need though, is to invest in a bottom floor, so to speak. A safety net so that the bottom rung of society resources wise (the disabled, extreme poverty) have the tools to be able to improve their situation. Access to much needed education and healthcare regardless of financial situation. Programs to train you how to find a job and apply successfully, how to manage finances, etc. You don't have to pull other people down to do that.
We don't need to force everyone to start from the same place. What I think we do need though, is to invest in a bottom floor, so to speak. A safety net so that the bottom rung of society resources wise (the disabled, extreme poverty) have the tools to be able to improve their situation. Access to much needed education and healthcare regardless of financial situation. Programs to train you how to find a job and apply successfully, how to manage finances, etc. You don't have to pull other people down to do that.
And what if they're not interested in improving themselves? I hate to say it but there are always going to be some people who just don't give a fuck. What do you do in that case? I'm seriously interested in what folks on the left think of those people who just want to skate by and take...
At the homeless shelter, we were very big on the idea that people didn't need to be "saved." People save themselves. Your role at the homeless shelter is just to provide the resources they need to get back on their feet. As a mural at the shelter said, "I don't need a handout; I need a hand up." The official position was that you should not give money to the homeless because it gives them an unproductive alternative to seeking real help.
At Haven for Hope, the solution to homelessness involved a suite of services: job training programs, therapy, psychiatric treatment, counseling, housing, free meals and showers, dental care, a kennel for their pets, day care for their kids, and access to computers to build resumes, send out applications, do research, and solve general problems, and special grants based on specific circumstances (sometimes you'd pay to buy someone a bicycle to get to work, or provide a down payment for an apartment).
Spending money is indeed part of the solution to homelessness. You can't make bricks without clay. And while most of that involves spending money on providing services, some of it does involve direct grants when somebody's only remaining problem is lack of liquid money. Lecturing the homeless on responsibility and ordering them to solve their own problems without any support was not part of the solution. If telling people to be responsible was enough to solve the problem, the problem would already be solved.
Granted, poverty in general is a different problem from homelessness, so not all the same rules necessarily apply. But as for homelessness, the solution is spending money to address specific parts of the problem. You can't do everything for someone in need, but you do need to do something if you want to actually solve the problem.
As far as the "people who just want to skate by and take" thing: that's not a solvable problem. If people don't want to work, they won't work. They're beyond our help. So, we ignore them and focus on the people who can be helped.
@Balrog99 semiticgod beat me to it, and with a better answer than I could have given. I'm not "on the left" per se, but that response is pretty perfect. The existence of people who don't want to improve themselves doesn't mean we can't (or shouldn't) help those who do, but can't.
We don't need to force everyone to start from the same place. What I think we do need though, is to invest in a bottom floor, so to speak. A safety net so that the bottom rung of society resources wise (the disabled, extreme poverty) have the tools to be able to improve their situation. Access to much needed education and healthcare regardless of financial situation. Programs to train you how to find a job and apply successfully, how to manage finances, etc. You don't have to pull other people down to do that.
Isn't there already a safety net though? Welfare is a thing and I watched it's effects first hand. Those very safety nets didn't promote improvement in majority of the people using them, it created compliancy on their position in life and dependency. The current wave of PC culture makes things much worse because now we have what I like to call, "the victim Olympics." Where people are running around playing tossing out victim cards like candy from a pez dispenser.
If we really want to help the lowest class, there are countless trade skills that they could go for if we actually offered actual job skill training up to those who actually showed that they wanted to improve. Also, we could help many people if we undid this whole glorification that was force fed to us throughout the 90s that college is the only way to make a decent living in life.
At the homeless shelter, we were very big on the idea that people didn't need to be "saved." People save themselves. Your role at the homeless shelter is just to provide the resources they need to get back on their feet. As a mural at the shelter said, "I don't need a handout; I need a hand up." The official position was that you should not give money to the homeless because it gives them an unproductive alternative to seeking real help.
At Haven for Hope, the solution to homelessness involved a suite of services: job training programs, therapy, psychiatric treatment, counseling, housing, free meals and showers, dental care, a kennel for their pets, day care for their kids, and access to computers to build resumes, send out applications, do research, and solve general problems, and special grants based on specific circumstances (sometimes you'd pay to buy someone a bicycle to get to work, or provide a down payment for an apartment).
Spending money is indeed part of the solution to homelessness. You can't make bricks without clay. And while most of that involves spending money on providing services, some of it does involve direct grants when somebody's only remaining problem is lack of liquid money. Lecturing the homeless on responsibility and ordering them to solve their own problems without any support was not part of the solution. If telling people to be responsible was enough to solve the problem, the problem would already be solved.
Granted, poverty in general is a different problem from homelessness, so not all the same rules necessarily apply. But as for homelessness, the solution is spending money to address specific parts of the problem. You can't do everything for someone in need, but you do need to do something if you want to actually solve the problem.
As far as the "people who just want to skate by and take" thing: that's not a solvable problem. If people don't want to work, they won't work. They're beyond our help. So, we ignore them and focus on the people who can be helped.
We have the same in the UK. But unforunately we don't ignore those who will do nothing for themselves.
I think everybody here will agree that compared to the US, the UK has an extensive welfare state. But we have the same problems, perhaps not as extreme, but they are getting there.
So with the example of the UK, and other European countries, why does anybody still believe the mantra that more money and more services works?
It's an experiment that has been going on for a long time, and what are the results?
I don't disagree that with really focused and extensive help, some can be helped. But is consideration taken of the reaction that that provokes that encourages evenmore to throw up their hands and not do even the basic things for themselves?
As an example, What does a country with an extensive welfare state do about the large number of disabled children who will need expensive care for the whole of their lives who are being born because of cultural practices of inbreeding caused by succesive generations of first cousin marriage. That's a prime example where people have to take responsibility surely? Don't have children with your cousin, it's hardly an onerous thing to expect.
@DragonKing And how well does our welfare work? How many millions of homeless are in the US? How many people are dying from easily treatable diseases because they have no access to healthcare? (I mean, people are dying from the FLU in this day and age). How many people cannot find employment because they cannot accesss education to learn the skills they need as a worker? What do we do for disabled people are unable to work? Would you suggest that we just let all these people go because some want to abuse the system?
@DragonKing And how well does our welfare work? How many millions of homeless are in the US? How many people are dying from easily treatable diseases because they have no access to healthcare? (I mean, people are dying from the FLU in this day and age). How many people cannot find employment because they cannot accesss education to learn the skills they need as a worker? What do we do for disabled people are unable to work? Would you suggest that we just let all these people go because some want to abuse the system?
The welfare system in the US is a.) very bare bones, to the point of sustenance only in most cases, and b.) it is nearly impossible to scam. None of these programs are handed out like candy at parade. All of them require fairly strict verification, and none of them are just things you go in and ask for and are handed to you. Years of demonizing the poor has created this myth of people being handed checks every month for doing nothing. There is no perpetual welfare in any state I have ever lived in. There isn't a SINGLE state in which unemployment benefits last more than 26 weeks. Not one.
I have no idea the number of people who are not interested in moving on from being destitue and homeless.
I'm sure to a percentage of those people being homeless is preferable to working 80 hours a week at a slave labor type minimum wage job or what have you. I would like to think a much larger percentage would act on steps to take a way out and get off the streets.
What about the mentally ill and drug friends and what not? They are a more difficult problem and require more time, effort , and money to help and ultimately they may be unwilling or unable to be raised up from their situation.
@DragonKing And how well does our welfare work? How many millions of homeless are in the US? How many people are dying from easily treatable diseases because they have no access to healthcare? (I mean, people are dying from the FLU in this day and age). How many people cannot find employment because they cannot accesss education to learn the skills they need as a worker? What do we do for disabled people are unable to work? Would you suggest that we just let all these people go because some want to abuse the system?
I don't know the numbers of the top and I'm not really going to google it because this seems to be more begging the question than asking a genuine question. I would suggest we FIX AND IMPROVE the system! If things aren't improving with the system than you change it! The system the way it is creates DEPENDENCY not INNOVATION. I don't want a system that treats a disease, I want a system that cures it! But there is more money in treating than there is in curing and treating creates yet again another dependency.
People can't work, set up systems that train them in various trade skills; construction, engineering, plumbing, landscaping and *insert job-specific training. Create and maintain a nation wide network of both government and private job openings for said jobs and help said individual relocate to whichever said state has the job they are being assigned to with temporary housing and food stamps. To get and maintain the benefits you have to go through train, accept the job or something similar (possibly relocate if there is nothing in your city or state funded by the system)and then work. After you start the job, you'll only remain on the welfare for a limited time which means individual should already be saving up and looking for a new place to stay while now having a job. Quitting, getting fired will result in losing those benefits because it should be treated as a privilege not a entitlement. It will also cut dependency on the government.
The closest we have to this is...job corp I guess. But they have an age limit Now specific thongs like medicine and treatments is a whole different story all together . @ThacoBell
I have no idea the number of people who are not interested in moving on from being destitue and homeless.
I'm sure to a percentage of those people being homeless is preferable to working 80 hours a week at a slave labor type minimum wage job or what have you. I would like to think a much larger percentage would act on steps to take a way out and get off the streets.
What about the mentally ill and drug friends and what not? They are a more difficult problem and require more time, effort , and money to help and ultimately they may be unwilling or unable to be raised up from their situation.
BIB.
And how much money do you want to take from those who are working 80hr/week and who still carry on working eventhough they know it would be preferable to be living on the streets and receiving handouts?
I'm not sure why you have ignored and continue to ignore what happens in Europe. Where we have reasonably generous welfare states, extensive help for those who are destitute and free healthcare. Yet we still have homeless. We still have thousands who won't lift a damn finger to help themselves, won't lift a finger to help their dependants, still make selfish decisions and still want and expect more.
In the UK, we have what you are advocating for, and it doesn't solve the problems.
In fact it adds more and more being trapped because the cost of all this welfare ends up pushing the cost of living up through direct and indirect taxation. There are not enough of the " rich", even if they are taxed to the last penny, to pay for a comprehensive welfare state that allows it's citizens to behave with no responsibility for themselves.
@DragonKing I'm not sure how this is a debate. I said we need better than we have, and you said we need to improve what we have. Kinda the same argument in different words.
"People can't work, set up systems that train them in various trade skills; construction, engineering, plumbing, landscaping and *insert job-specific training." And how do you train someone in skills to work when disability prevents them from being able to work at all?
A certain number of folks claim disability for the benefits even though they're fully capable of working in at least some jobs. But if you remove disability benefits, decrease them too much, or impose a shorter time limit on them, the people who really can't work normal jobs full-time will suddenly be out of luck.
@DragonKing I'm not sure how this is a debate. I said we need better than we have, and you said we need to improve what we have. Kinda the same argument in different words.
"People can't work, set up systems that train them in various trade skills; construction, engineering, plumbing, landscaping and *insert job-specific training." And how do you train someone in skills to work when disability prevents them from being able to work at all?
"Now specific things like medicine and treatments is a whole different story all together"
Ignoring that not every disability makes you ineligible to work. Ignoring the fact that is moving the goal post seeing how I have always been talking about people who choose to depend on welfare instead of actually trying to move past it.
It became a debate because you quoted me replying as if you were disagreeing with everything I said. @ThacoBell
Comments
The term has gotten much broader over time. It used to mean factory owners and business tycoons--the rich and powerful. Nowadays it more often means white-collar paper-pushers and cubicle goons--anyone who's not flat-out poor.
That would include farmers would it not?
"Factory owners and business tycoons" so Bill Gates then? What about those who are high up the scale in his business?
Elon Musk?
The Ruling class?
So politicians
How small are we going here?
The shopkeeper who owns his own business and employs people?
The small industrialist with 20 staff?
The landlord who rents out his property?
I did actually look up " Marx bourgeoise", specifically to move away from the modern meaning.
One dictionary has it as those who work at the higher end for the owners as well, the other, the owners only.
As a defence of Marx's politics/ideas I'm afraid it doesn't really convince me that his small numbers and specific classes wouldn't very quickly creep into including anybody who could offer any opposition.
Which, somewhat unsurprisingly, is exactly what happened.
I'm not saying you have to agree with him; I'm just answering your question about the terminology. You seem to be expecting me to define who should and should not be considered the bourgeoisie and therefore who's supposed to get killed during a communist revolution...
Is is this person? Is is that person? Oh, so you think this person is supposed to die? Is that what you're telling me? How can anyone think this? How can anyone defend this?
...but bear in mind that, again, I'm not telling you my beliefs. I'm just telling you what old-school Marxism said about the question.
Marx's idea of the ruling class is a guy who owns the factory, because back when Marx was alive, the richest people owned textile factories (as opposed to working in them). This is my last statement on the matter:
For the third time, no one here is defending Marx's politics. I am not defending Marx.
Stop acting like I am. It's not respectful to my beliefs or my intelligence.
I haven't asked you to agree with me. I only ask you to accept that when I tell you what my beliefs are, you don't act like I believe the exact opposite.
I must be honest: It is very frustrating to be asked to explain a philosophy, and then immediately be accused of defending it.
Yes you are explaining a philosophy, thank you for doing so.
However I am critiquing a philosophy, that is all.
Why from my post you have assumed I'm suggesting you support the philosophy I don't understand.
"As a defence of Marx's politics/ideas" obviously references the information you posted, not you personally.
There's an ongoing series of posts here, a conversation if you will, and you did post this previously,
"communism as defined by Marx does require the killing of a very small and very specific portion of the population, which is the ruling class. Marx was very explicit about killing the bourgeoisie and seizing their stuff (that is, the means of production)."
Is it not alright to argue with that and suggest that "a very small and specific portion of the population" can (and did) end up with millions being killed?
And give some examples of how that might happen?
Therefore rendering the statement false which has nothing to do with whether you personally support the statement.
And yes I am aware that you posted the above as a critique of Marx in relation to @BallpointMan suggesting that Marx/communism never set out to kill anybody.
but ya'll could take the seriousness down from 11 to like, 9
while seriously engaging with ideas at the same time, of course
Before society can "utilize people's skills to the best of their ability" the individuals have to take responsibility for utilizing their own skills.
So I'm from the UK, we have a welfare state and that's good.
But it's beginning to fail because there are too many taking rather than giving.
And I mean with really avoidable issues, for example, huge amounts of money being spent on type 1 (or is it 2?) diabetes because so many are simply eating too much.
So now there's talk of a sugar tax.
It's not that I object to it in principle, but how lacking in self responsibility have people become that they have to have tax penalties to stop them overeating things that they know are bad for them?
(And of course if it puts the price of food up, the left will immediately start clamouring to have more welfare to cover the addditional cost)
Huge amounts of money being spent on education, and free for everybody. Yet a sizeable minority of parents can't even ensure their children are socialised and disciplined enough to take any kind of advantage from it. And in fact ruin the chances of other children.
(I don't think we have the same problems with some schools that I have heard about in the US where the public(?) schools are really failing)
The blame or the focus, is always put from the left, on taking more money from the rich.
But I think less and less people believe that will solve anything because that's simply a way of avoiding the problems. No amount of money will ever solve the issue of too many feeling/believing they own no responsibility for themselves or society.
And as you get older, you do start to compare or notice the burgoning welfare state and the fact that there are even more people seemingly unable to live without so many handouts.
At Haven for Hope, the solution to homelessness involved a suite of services: job training programs, therapy, psychiatric treatment, counseling, housing, free meals and showers, dental care, a kennel for their pets, day care for their kids, and access to computers to build resumes, send out applications, do research, and solve general problems, and special grants based on specific circumstances (sometimes you'd pay to buy someone a bicycle to get to work, or provide a down payment for an apartment).
Spending money is indeed part of the solution to homelessness. You can't make bricks without clay. And while most of that involves spending money on providing services, some of it does involve direct grants when somebody's only remaining problem is lack of liquid money. Lecturing the homeless on responsibility and ordering them to solve their own problems without any support was not part of the solution. If telling people to be responsible was enough to solve the problem, the problem would already be solved.
Granted, poverty in general is a different problem from homelessness, so not all the same rules necessarily apply. But as for homelessness, the solution is spending money to address specific parts of the problem. You can't do everything for someone in need, but you do need to do something if you want to actually solve the problem.
As far as the "people who just want to skate by and take" thing: that's not a solvable problem. If people don't want to work, they won't work. They're beyond our help. So, we ignore them and focus on the people who can be helped.
If we really want to help the lowest class, there are countless trade skills that they could go for if we actually offered actual job skill training up to those who actually showed that they wanted to improve. Also, we could help many people if we undid this whole glorification that was force fed to us throughout the 90s that college is the only way to make a decent living in life.
We have the same in the UK.
But unforunately we don't ignore those who will do nothing for themselves.
I think everybody here will agree that compared to the US, the UK has an extensive welfare state.
But we have the same problems, perhaps not as extreme, but they are getting there.
So with the example of the UK, and other European countries, why does anybody still believe the mantra that more money and more services works?
It's an experiment that has been going on for a long time, and what are the results?
I don't disagree that with really focused and extensive help, some can be helped.
But is consideration taken of the reaction that that provokes that encourages evenmore to throw up their hands and not do even the basic things for themselves?
As an example,
What does a country with an extensive welfare state do about the large number of disabled children who will need expensive care for the whole of their lives who are being born because of cultural practices of inbreeding caused by succesive generations of first cousin marriage.
That's a prime example where people have to take responsibility surely?
Don't have children with your cousin, it's hardly an onerous thing to expect.
I'm sure to a percentage of those people being homeless is preferable to working 80 hours a week at a slave labor type minimum wage job or what have you. I would like to think a much larger percentage would act on steps to take a way out and get off the streets.
What about the mentally ill and drug friends and what not? They are a more difficult problem and require more time, effort , and money to help and ultimately they may be unwilling or unable to be raised up from their situation.
People can't work, set up systems that train them in various trade skills; construction, engineering, plumbing, landscaping and *insert job-specific training. Create and maintain a nation wide network of both government and private job openings for said jobs and help said individual relocate to whichever said state has the job they are being assigned to with temporary housing and food stamps. To get and maintain the benefits you have to go through train, accept the job or something similar (possibly relocate if there is nothing in your city or state funded by the system)and then work. After you start the job, you'll only remain on the welfare for a limited time which means individual should already be saving up and looking for a new place to stay while now having a job. Quitting, getting fired will result in losing those benefits because it should be treated as a privilege not a entitlement. It will also cut dependency on the government.
The closest we have to this is...job corp I guess. But they have an age limit
Now specific thongs like medicine and treatments is a whole different story all together .
@ThacoBell
BIB.
And how much money do you want to take from those who are working 80hr/week and who still carry on working eventhough they know it would be preferable to be living on the streets and receiving handouts?
I'm not sure why you have ignored and continue to ignore what happens in Europe. Where we have reasonably generous welfare states, extensive help for those who are destitute and free healthcare.
Yet we still have homeless.
We still have thousands who won't lift a damn finger to help themselves, won't lift a finger to help their dependants, still make selfish decisions and still want and expect more.
In the UK, we have what you are advocating for, and it doesn't solve the problems.
In fact it adds more and more being trapped because the cost of all this welfare ends up pushing the cost of living up through direct and indirect taxation.
There are not enough of the " rich", even if they are taxed to the last penny, to pay for a comprehensive welfare state that allows it's citizens to behave with no responsibility for themselves.
"People can't work, set up systems that train them in various trade skills; construction, engineering, plumbing, landscaping and *insert job-specific training."
And how do you train someone in skills to work when disability prevents them from being able to work at all?
Ignoring that not every disability makes you ineligible to work. Ignoring the fact that is moving the goal post seeing how I have always been talking about people who choose to depend on welfare instead of actually trying to move past it.
It became a debate because you quoted me replying as if you were disagreeing with everything I said. @ThacoBell