Basic needs -- right or privilege?

[DarrylParsons]

I'm wondering how you guys stand on the question of how much of a right do you have as an adult citizen of a western country to getting your basic needs provided to you by the state. By basic needs I'm referring to food, clothing, shelter and security at levels which ensure survival but not much more than that.

Which of the following best describes your stance on the issue:

Unconditional right

By having a heartbeat you are entitled to have your basic needs provided to you without expending any effort at all.

Conditional right (weak conditions)

As long as you make a minimal effort like filling out a few forms or going to a certain place or co-operating with social workers, you have these rights. It's enough to say you are trying to find work. Nobody will do a rigorous check and you will get the benefit of the doubt.

Conditional right (strong conditions)

You must show that you have made a genuine effort to find work. The onus is on you to prove that you have needs which are not met through no fault of your own. Your claims will be checked and only approved if determined to be genuine.

Privilege rather than right

You will get benefits from the state only if you give something tangible in exchange like tax payments or real, useful work. Assume the state offers jobs which require no experience and no schooling such as the jobs given to prison inmates for example.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

I have no problem with people collecting unemployment as they have paid into the system. It is a flawed system that I have played like a fiddle in my younger years.

That's why I wish it was optional and I could keep my share of the contributions made to that system. It's nothing more than pimp money. It's disheartening to see people work the minimum and get fired so they can collect unemployment because it's easier. It's a drain on ambition. What finally motivated me out of the system was a forced "you can do it" type seminar. I haven't collected it since then. I understand the cycle of dependence that that cycle creates.

 

[Oceans11]

I view the 'let the weak burn' systems as no better than when we were monkeys in trees.

The amount of benefits you get, is pretty piddly compared to a decent wage and the lifestyle it creates for you and your family, and the independence and options that you have compared to the less fortunate or downright idle.

Theres fraudsters everywhere.
Where there is gain to be had there are cheaters.(Like offshore gambling

)
No one suggested stopping private ownership because of Enron.

I also dislike the attitude of many who say that because capitalism worked for them, its good enuf for everyone else.

Thats as sensible as saying that because your one of the winners in a communist system, then its got to be good enuf for everyone else.

You only have to look at what the 'mixed' system has achieved in 60 odd years.

 

[barman]

Boy, we're all up pretty fukking early for a Saturday....
~~~~~~~~~~~
UMB: It's disheartening to see people work the minimum and get fired so they can collect unemployment because it's easier. It's a drain on ambition.

BAR: I used to believe that and still do to a modest extent, but very modest.

I believe any 'drain on ambition' is surely shortlived given how rudimentary the $$ levels and general benefits are.

Based on one of my personal axioms, "The other guy is more like me than not", I think most (read -way more than half) folks have plenty of ambition that can only be satisfied by getting up and working...either a job(s) or starting a business enterprise, or some combination of the two.

Thanks to our capitalistic, consumer driven, Madison Ave inspired society, I'm thinking most folks can't do the 'sit at home on the couch and eat the food stamp groceries' for a very long period.

And if they do, well I bless them to get whatever spark they might need to get back up and running.

After all, that's what folks wished for me back when I went thru a period like you (UMBags) described above. In my case it was a recovery period following 2+ years of drug abuse and all the separation from normal society which that entails.

I got straight, used food stamps for six months after getting a job the 2nd week 'back'.

Technically, I defrauded the system, since I underreported my new job and its income during my 90 day review at the food stamp office. This resulted in my getting a three month extension of my big $280(?..it wasn't a whole lot) per month in food stamps.

I am strongly persuaded that most all people will work to improve their lives, if not for themselves, then for their loved ones.

I gotta run now (JOB calls..heh), but I will return later with a direct answer to the Topic question, since it is a subject I have strong ideas on.

Thanks for the Thread, Darryl.

 

[dickman]

It is a right unless there isn’t any other means to find a job. For laziness, then tough luck, get a job and stop blaming the ghetto or just the fact that you belong to a certain minority group.

 

[Phaedrus]

Had to give it a pass -- no choice for the state providing none of these things under any conditions to anyone.

Incidentally, your inclusion of security with food, clothing and shelter is a bit of a stretch. The whole point of forming a nation in the first place almost always revolves around mutual defence (or for that matter mututal offence.)


Phaedrus

 

[DarrylParsons]

Phaedrus,

What if these services were offered by the private sector and the state only indirectly "offered" them by agreeing not to interfere with the private mechanisms? Would you choose D in this case?

 

[Phaedrus]

No. There are many people who are unable to contribute anything of value whatsoever in exchange for the various stuff they need to get by in life, and have no one to take care of those needs. While I personally am not particularly moved by such cases, like all capitalists and no socialists I am a realist, and the reality of the situation is that either a) somebody has to take care of them or b) we live in a world with corpses in the street, ongoing insurgent-level local conflicts over resources, etc. As such, the establishment and maintainance of some sort of general fund that can provide assorted basic goods and services to those who cannot afford them due to circumstances is not a bad idea. What is a bad idea is that Person A should be robbed at the end of a gun in order to provide Person B with those basic goods and services.

Smith said that man's beneficience cannot be relied upon to provide for the basic needs of man, and to an extent he was correct, but the idea that we should all be held responsible for the vagaries of nature or the bad choices of others (elderly who never saved up any money; homeless people who have so thoroughly alienated everyone they know that they can't even find a couch on which to sleep and so forth) is ridiculous. Another way of providing these services should be devised, if such is possible, and if extensive trying proves that such is in fact impossible, then life is just going to have to keep on being hard.

I was at the same risk of basic birth defects as any other person. I was born into a middle-class working family just like most other people. I had to find my path in life and engage in an awful lot of trial and error just like everybody else does. Every day I am at the same risk of being permanently incapacitated, killed, etc. in a car accident as anybody else. I'm in the process of getting old, just like everybody else. I have a kid to feed, just like lots of other people. Where's my subsidy? Oh right, I don't get one because so far I haven't been killed or incapacitated by one of life's little coincidences, and because I have actually managed to acheive and maintain some level of success in life.

To add another twist to the mix: just as any government program can be more efficiently run by the private market, any charity can be efficiently run as a self-sustaining -- if not exactly profitable -- enterprise. Not all charity is a zero-sum game. Groups like Heifer International, Goodwill etc. work to build self-sufficiency among the beneficiaries of their efforts, rather than just create an endless cycle of dependence on the part of a few miscreants. There are homeless shelters all over America that offer rehabilitative services for the drug- and alcohol-addicted, employment counseling, educational opportunities, etc. but do not do so on a puerile "no questions asked" basis to all comers. As in the free market, it is only when government (and sometimes religion) get involved in the process that it becomes corrupted and a perpetual black hole down which scarce resources are tossed. I think this phenomenon has to do with the mentality of anti-market people and groups, the empirically incorrect zero-sum game as which the free market is viewed by such individuals (simply stated, the notion that in order for someone to get rich, someone [or several someones] else has to get poor.)

Rambling a bit. Bottom line is, no government should bother trying to fill these needs on the part of its citizens. It has been demonstrated over and over again that the only way for a state to provide universal anything is to provide everyone with universal shit at twice the cost. The vanishingly small number of exceptions to this rule only serve to reinforce it. The small-minded cannot see a market solution to a given problem because they lack an understanding of the market process, seeing it only as a dollars-and-cents proposition rather than what it truly is -- the simple process of resource allocation in the most economically advantageous manner, with the determination to increase or maintain said resources. This is easy to do in charitable cases, and has been done again and again by those individuals and groups who try it. The number of situations where such a concept cannot be applied are as vanishingly small as the exceptions to the poor economics of state, and as such it is difficult to believe that in such isolated cases there is not sufficient private capital available to support them voluntarily.


Phaedrus

 

[DarrylParsons]

Wow, I wasn't expecting that big an answer but it helps to see where you're coming from. This is an interesting question as it deals with a core issue from which most of our political views stem IMO.

 

[barman]

In an enlightened society, no one at all would need fear lack of food, adequate housing and adequate health care.

That being said, we certainly need a lot of examination on who and what helps to provide such safety nets for those who for any reason may not be able to 'pay their own way'. Many feel that governments should be the primary driver behind such help, while others express disdain for that and prefer to promote market driven solutions.

Regardless of who and how, our main challenge is evolving sufficiently as humans so that we reach a shared consensus that these primary needs of life should never be a serious question for anyone for any reason.

 

[Oceans11]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
I think this phenomenon has to do with the mentality of anti-market people and groups, the empirically incorrect zero-sum game as which the free market is viewed by such individuals (simply stated, the notion that in order for someone to get rich, someone [or several someones] else has to get poor.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So do you have any real world examples where everyone DOES get rich?

And if everyone is rich...who does the graft?

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So do you have any real world examples where everyone DOES get rich?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No; nor is that what I said. What I said is that the creation of wealth is not a process of redistribution -- that is the process by which socialism functions. Do you have any real-world examples by which the increase of wealth is the result of decreasing the wealth of others, without theft, fraud, or other forms of coercive force being a factor? Bear in mind that the elements of choice and preference are paramount, because if I spend $ 30,000 on a Patek Philippe watch, my wealth has undeniably decreased by several thousand dollars, but it did so because I so chose and received a watch which I valued more than the cash. If a Filipino works in a sweatshop he does so because he needs what that sweatshop has to ofer -- wages -- and the sweatshop needs what he has to offer -- labour.

Choice and preference cannot play into socialist calculations, because of course as Mises demonstrated over fifty years ago the praexeological (human action) considerations of any given agreement -- e.g. what makes a man choose wages over free time, food over Ferraris, etc. -- skew all collectivist forecasts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And if everyone is rich...who does the graft?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what 'graft' means. Do you mean like who cleans the swimming pools, fixes the lawnmower, that sort of thing?


Phaedrus

 

[wilheim]

Another question - Does a democracy owe these basic rights to it's Honorably Discharged combat veterans who fought for that very said democracy? Or should they be treated the same as any citizen one way or another. Curious.

wil.

 

[barman]

This is a flawed premise many people operate under, both from the 'left' and the 'right'.

A good way I've heard it described is 'scarcity mentality'.

Believers in this mentality think that there is a finite amount of human resources.

Therefore, if one person succeeds 'excessively', they automatically cause deprivation for someone else.

Another way this is expressed is from the other side of the financial aisle.

This would be the person who says, "I've worked for mine, so if anyone else wants what I have, they must do the same (level of) work"

They think that if someone gets something without 'working for it', then automatically someone else must be deprived of something they deserve.

Of course, both views are incompatible with spiritual principle, which teaches that there is actually an IN-finite level of human resources.

There's no need to keep score on the other guy. Keeping track of one's own personal inventory is sufficient work for a lifetime.

 

[Oceans11]

Hidden amongst the gobbledygook.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
Do you have any real-world examples by which the increase of wealth is the result of decreasing the wealth of others, without theft, fraud, or other forms of coercive force being a factor? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


There is no such thing, and you know it.

Different forms and styles of coersion are fundamental for both systems to function, capitalism and communism.

---------------------------------

Barman:

While human resources could be construed as infinite and human labour unending.
The resources that humans have available to work with are finite.
Wars are fought over finite resources.
Like with oil..(hint hint

)

Why isn't the air we breathe under private/Government control, like water?

Because no-one has figured out how to bottle it and make it a scarce resource, and allocate it for profit, or party menbership brownie points.

"but we would all die without air, thats silly."

We would all die without food, water, shelter and basic healthcare too.

[This message was edited by eek on May 15, 2004 at 10:55 PM.]

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Hidden amongst the gobbledygook.

posted by Phaedrus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Do you have any real-world examples by which the increase of wealth is the result of decreasing the wealth of others, without theft, fraud, or other forms of coercive force being a factor?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no such thing, and you know it.

Different forms and styles of coersion are fundamental for both systems to function, capitalism and communism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This further demonstrates the breathtaking ignorance of both of these particular -isms displayed by the left. Neither capitalism nor communism require coercive force in order to function, especially not the former. Only those truly inherently evil social systems such as fascism, socialism, etc. require coercion by a central authority or an oligarchial power structure in order to survive.

Capitalism by its very definition is a system of voluntary participation and exchange of value. No coercion or force of any kind is required to keep it going, and has been demonstrated innuerable times over the years, the intervention of a central authority or oligarchial (or plutocratic) power only serves to pervert capitalism into something far worse, usually fascism.

Communism does not require coercive force to work on a small scale; however as the scope a given communistic endeavour increases the chances of it either breaking down or needing a central authority to force it on the participants grows exponentially.

Socialism, on the other hand, is the process by which members of society are all held universally accountable for a given need/good/right/service and are forced at the end of a gun to support the state's wisdom -- either via taxation, currency manipulation, or the more traditional socialist modus operandi of nationalised industry (such as Canada's steel industry.) Dissenters are jailed, fined, cast into a bad light viz. their patriotism, morality, sanity, etc. and everyone piddles along as things get slowly worse for both the providers and partakers. The ultimate end of all socialistic endeavour can be seen in The USSR circa 1991 -- banruptcy, massive popular resistance, rampant corruption, economic inefficiencies of a breathtaking scale, substandard quality in state-run enterprises (change is expensive) etc.

Fascism, specifically the corporatism as espoused by Benito Mussolini, can be seen in America on a broad scale in the number of government-corporate "partnerships," payoffs, kickbacks, etc., generally masked in patriotic bromide (e.g."Outsourcing is bad for America" "sanctions against dumping are good for America," etc.) This process, taken to its logical end, will likely result in a plutocracy unlike anything previously seen in the history of the world, complete with "corporate warfare" and other such niceties.

(I should add that corporatism has nothing to do with corporations per se except that they share the same etymological root; however in the modern world the most common form of fascism is corporatism, and the most common form of corporatism does indeed include collusion between the state and business "for the good of the country," which normally means for the good of the business primarily and for political capital for the political class secondarily.)

Only a truly deluded or plainly stupid person -- someone who has simply never bothered to learn the history of the world (especially the late 18th century on) and the basics of economics, or who has learned it but turns away from fact in favour of a self-serving ethos -- could look at such a process and call it "capitalism."


Phaedrus

 

[jointpleasures]

Phaedrus,

Are you attending thinking parties? I just don't have the time to learn the history of the world. Your above post, if that is the summary of it... looks good.

 

[Oceans11]

The usual gobbledygook and insults and meandering for anyone that gets stuck in there and asks straight questions.

The end of both communism, in the 90's and capitalism, in the 30's was a natural progression of two extremes that don't work on their own.
Those are REAL world examples. Not theory and gobbledygook.
With both systems, a majority became losers and they couldn't even feed their respective populations properly.(USSR & USA)

(I suppose the real flaw for both systems, is the human element. Greed. Power. Control. Ignorance. Prejudice)

All these capitalist/communist theories are fine and dandy for "the little house on the prairie" but when you've got 4-5 billion butts packed into planet earth, all shagging away towards the next billion mouths then you're left with two roads. Get organised, or have anarchy/war/extermination.


So, where is 'your organisational system' sustaining itself?
That is: The Phaedrus type of system, where does/did it function in the real world?

Anywhere? Anywhere at all?

(I have a system in my head where all women find me incredibly attractive, but its practical application in the REAL WORLD continues to elude me.
Because it has no real world application, the collective word used for this system that exists solely in my head is the word "fantasy")

The system we live in now is a simple application of what we all have to put up with in our daily lives:- summed up with a single word.

Compromise.

[This message was edited by eek on May 16, 2004 at 07:01 AM.]

 

[Phaedrus]

It is ironic to hear a socialist decry any other system as "unrealistic" but okay.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The usual gobbledygook and insults and meandering for anyone that gets stuck in there and asks straight questions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please feel free to specifically address any specific points I have made, whether to question, counter or agree. Aside from that, the only gobbledygook and insults seem to be coming from you with the evasions which are characteristic to your responses.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The end of both communism, in the 90's and capitalism, in the 30's was a natural progression of two extremes that don't work on their own.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither of these events occured. The USSR was a socialist nation ostensibly on the path to communist perfection. The end of the USSR was the final, irrefutable death of socialism; unforutnately socialists are evil and stupid and unable to take a hint.

The Great Depression was not an end to capitalism and was not even symptomatic of a flaw in capitalism. How anyone, even a socialist, could arrive at such a conclusion is beyond me. Learn some history.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Those are REAL world examples. Not theory and gobbledygook.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are real world examples of the failure of socialism, and the failure of massive state interventionism (such as socialism.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
With both systems, a majority became losers and they couldn't even feed their respective populations properly.(USSR & USA)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Demonstrably untrue in the latter case; not sure what the food situation was in the USSR at the time they had their going-out-of-business sale.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
(I suppose the real flaw for both systems, is the human element. Greed. Power. Control Ignorance.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Greed, power, control and ignorance do not factor into a socialist society? Who is espousing theory and gobbledygook again?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
All these capitalist/communist theories are fine and dandy for "the little house on the prairie" but when you've got 4-5 billion butts packed into planet earth, all shagging away towards the next billion mouths then you're left with two roads. Get organised, or have anarchy/war/extermination.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Malthusian theories aside, do you have any supporting evidence that this is in fact the case? How is capitalism disorganised?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So, where is 'your organisational system'?
That is: The Phaedrus type of system, where does/did it function in the real world?

Anywhere? Anywhere at all?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I am correct in assuming that by an "organised system" you refer to some system of social order crammed up the collective asses of society by the state, majority, whomever, there is none, and ironically any attempt to establish such a thing on a universal level would almost certainly lead to the sort of anarchy/war/extermination about which you seem quite worried.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
(I have a system in my head where all women find me incredibly attractive, but its practical application in the REAL WORLD continues to elude me. Because it has no real world application, the collective word used for this system that exists solely in my head is the word "fantasy")
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the real world, capitalism has managed to all but elminate poverty by improving living standards around the world -- except in countries that have fascists, socialists, and other forms of tyrants at the helm. The average poverty level person in the United States enjoys a standard of living that would have astonished the average medeival European monarch. The market has accomplished this not because of statist intervention, but despite it.

In the fantasy world, despite bankruptcy, collective depression in end user quality, repeated examples of socialist governments imploding on themselves, obscene taxation and currency manipulation, and basic math and very basic psychology being against them, socialists still believe they can have another go at it and pull it off this time, and the truly sociopathic ones (like yourself eek) actually are so blind to the basics that they do not yet believe that any error has been made.


Phaedrus

 

[Oceans11]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
So, where is 'your organisational system'?
That is: The Phaedrus type of system, where does/did it function in the real world?

Anywhere? Anywhere at all?

--------------------------
P: If I am correct in assuming that by an "organised system" you refer to some system of social order crammed up the collective asses of society by the state, majority, whomever, there is none, and ironically any attempt to establish such a thing on a universal level would almost certainly lead to the sort of anarchy/war/extermination about which you seem quite worried.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you're an 'independent', 'self-sustaining system' type of dude, and anarchy, war and extermination would be a natural leveller for when the area you live in gets too crowded and some dude (say a 'king' dude.) tries to impose a set of rules on that area beyond the normal mutual status quo that exists within the Phaedrus community.

----------------------------------
The bushmen in the S.African savannah have a 'no bosses' system. It survives because they combined it with a 'no ownership of scarce resources' culture. They only have the few personal bits and pieces that they carry around with them.
Once someone puts up a fence and sez "This is mine. You feck off !" their system breaks down and the tribal-group system begins because it relys on mutual control of border areas, be it for a field or a country.
Thereby begins the thin end of the wedge for mutual defence, power and control, leading to war, conflict, and hierarchical systems.

As in nature, the biggest most organised and specialised pack of dogs, gets the best hunting territory.
But organisation, leads to loss of liberties for the individual within that pack hierarchy.

Places like Egypt etc thrived because they moved up the organisational ladder compared to their surrounding tribes/enemies (food specialisation/military specialisation etc).

[This message was edited by eek on May 16, 2004 at 08:49 AM.]