If the statement gave any indication that the support was indeed temporary, I would have disagreed. But the statement reads “Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support”. It seems to me that we are dealing with a very specific group of people: People who are able to work and decide that they would rather not. This has nothing to do with mentally ill folks whose concept of reality renders them unable to integrate with the rest of society.
I think that everyone should be entitled to a certain standard of living that, as meagre as it would be, provides a place to sleep and nutritious meals*. However, I think that this should be given on the condition that one provides a service in exchange. This could be anything from digging ditches to working at the local library to data entry. These benefits would not be given to a member of society but, upon applying and being approved to receive these benefits, the member of society becomes an employee of the government.
*On Preview: John Mace offered more items to be provided.
Very good point. I usually try to make sure I don’t confuse the thread title with the actual proposition and I did this time (as I think most people also did).
I change from **Agree ** to Strongly Agree. I find it repulsive to think that someone could refuse to work and then expect to be supported by society.
I strongly encourage everyone to read the proposition carefully and see if you still disagree with it. I don’t see how anyone could.
I still disagree, John - I try to mirror the propositions in the thread titles as closely as possible but there just isn’t space for every single word.
I feel that a citizen of a wealthy democracy can reasonably expect support when unemployed (especially if that society has somehow contrived to keep unemployment a necessary evil) and that, given that unemployment is non-zero even for the willing, refusing those jobs that others snap up instantly is a valid choice (not that I’d make that choice, frugality-averse as I am).
I’ll vote for allowing a little dolce far niente in preference to ruthless efficiency in the same way that I accept my taxes being spent on other things I feel are undeserving, such as military, protectionist or road-construction spending, to say nothing of my being “forced” to fund the prevention of crimes I might not consider crimes, let alone ever be a victim of.
I am essentially unconvinced by a property-rights-uber alles-approach, which I consider to be a form of tyranny in itself. I find expectation of support from society no more or less distasteful than the expectation that I obey society’s democratically decided law.
If the choice is between a ruthlessly efficient society that (either actively, by conscription, ir passively, by absolute refusal of even the most basic support) forces people to work (and indeed, in this case, defines the meaning of the word ‘work’), or a society that tolerates a little inefficiency and makes a few allowances, I’d prefer the latter.
In reality, of course, the choice is seldom if ever so polarised.
Strongly agree. No adult has the right to live off the effort of others and we should not support such parasites.
Man must make bread by the sweat of his brow. If someone wants to eat, have a place to sleep, and clothing on their back bad enough then they’re willing to work for it. They might not like it but they’re willing.
Would it really solve the homeless problem? I only ask because I was under the impression that most of the permanent homeless in this country suffer from severe mental problems and or drug and alcohol abuse. Are homeless shelters normally filled to capacity? Where would you propose we put these ghettos?
If someone of sound mind and body chooses to starve themselves who are we to stop them?
But at what point WOULD you be willing to draw the line? Should the fellow in question EXPECT to be supported by society if he refuses to work EVER? I’m not asking if society should support this guy, I’m asking if he should expect to be supported.
I believe I addressed that in the OP: Minimal, temporary (say, a year at a time) and conditional support is what I would advocate that he could reasonably expect.
I’m in the middle (I don’t know much about the political compass, can I be in the middle?) 0.00, -0.00 ?
I have no problem with supporting someone who has just lost their job and is desperately seeking work, but only temporary. After that, you mind as well take what you can get, just to get by. People will always be out of work at times. The ones I take issue with are the scumbags who are perfectly healthy and expect welfare. I’m sorry, but you need to get off your ass and get a damn job. Actually, I’m not sorry. I’m not your mother, feed yourself.
I honestly hope that one day machines will be able to take care of all the necesities of life. Let’s face it, work sucks. I’ve been working nearly 12 hour days recently, and I ironically have a certain level of respect for people who refuse to work. Doing mindless bullshit for most of your waking hours, it’s almost a tossup for me whether I’d rather live on the streets. Seriously. Next time I see a homeless guy I’ll toss him a sawbuck.
Who says we have to pay them cash? Give them the bare minimum in food and shelter to survive. Only a tiny minority of people who are willing to live a unabomber style existence would be happy with just that. The vast majority who would take such assistance would voluntarily choose to work to get something better. And if some of them don’t, so what? They are human beings, with inherent value and dignity regardless of whether they work or not.
We already provide 2 million people with free food, shelter, and even medical care in the United States. Who are these 2 million people? Those who are in incarcerated in our criminal justice system. See, we are already intent to feed and house the misfits, proposing to extend this protection to beyond just our criminals shouldn’t be too much of a stretch.
It boggles the mind that anyone could not strongly agree with the statement when it is worded so clearly. They are able to work. They refuse. They expect society’s support.
No they should not if that support is obtained by taxation or other means of coercion.
I find it a good idea to substitute “I” or “you” for the more anonymous “society” in these kinds of questions, since that’s what it boils down to in the end. So “Should I have to be forced to pay for those who can’t be bothered to pay for themselves?” Fuck no! I work so I can support my family not because I think it’s sunshine and happy days. Work is time that I’d rather have spend on other things, like family and hobbies or SDMB. What kind of arrogant bastard think his life and his time is worth more than mine, that I should be forced to spend my time to support his leisure hobbies?
You paint an interesting dichotomy, but the choice is not between mindless work and homelessness. There are plenty of people out there who genuinely love their work. Perhaps you should consider doing something you enjoy rather than giving up.
I’ll happily pay for a safety net to support people who can’t work, for whatever reason, or even people who leave work in order to improve their skills or care for a relative. But that’s it, a safety net for people whose disabilities, obligations, or misfortunes prevent them from working, not a handout for slackers who would just rather have someone else work in their place.
Isn’t basic human dignity the birthright of everyone? Why should “working for it” have to do with anything?
If you seek more than the bare minimum levels. Better food, better housing, finer clothes, you can be required to work for that. But in a world where we have so much, why should merely surviving have to be a day to day struggle?
I think society would be better off if nobody had to work. Working is something you should do for personal fufilment, not to stay alive.
Fortunately for me this is part of a transition phase to go on and do something that I do like.
In a more enlightened society, people would see the wisdom of allowing work to be for those who are fufilled by it and voluntarily contribute towards sustaining the minority of people who are not fufilled by “work.”
