|
| Thread: No Welfare for Drug Users |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 04, 2011 12:33 AM |
|
|
|
and what about occasionnal drug users? for example, on saturday nights to have fun with friends, but the rest of the week, they are "good citizens"?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 04, 2011 05:57 AM |
|
|
@JJ
Meeting a requirement to receive welfare is not work.
1) Filling out the paperwork requesting welfare is not work.
2) Standing in line to get a welfare check is not work.
3) Undergoing drug screening as a requirement for welfare is not work.
4) Requiring a welfare recipient to prove he is looking for work is not work.
Under the new law drug testing is a requirement to receive welfare just like income level is.
People who actually work are often subject to drug testing. There is no reason why free loaders should not be subject to drug testing too.
No one is required to receive welfare. If a person does not want to drug test they don't have to apply for welfare. Pretty simple, really.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2011 10:49 AM |
|
|
Fascist arguing: if you don't want X you can always leave, die - or become a criminal.
Don't you people realize that you are not answering to the POINT? There is NOTHING you are required to do - you can ALWAYS try for something else. Don't like it when you have to sign a paper that robs you of your basic human rights? Hey, no problem, don't sign it - you don't have to work here. You don't have to bother to apply for a social service. do you?
What about voting, by the way? Wouldn't that be a great opportunity to make drug tests? I mean, voting isn't mandatory, right? You can always stay at home and leave voting to the sobre people...
It's strange that the Americans didn't learn from prohibition. Not enough that they foolishly enabled crime syndicats to build empires by outlawing what everyone wanted, and be it only on weekends, no, now your nonsensical, zealous "war against drugs" combined with the fear of "druggies abusing the taxpayer's dollar" is used to justify the next step on the way to revoke basic human rights.
What about the chemical industry? Those "drug tests" - do they involve the chemical branch? Aspirin? Valium? Pain killers? Uppers? Downers? Psychopharmacies? No? Yes, thank you.
So I suppose it's completely okay for a welfare recipient to eat Aspirin the whole day, but smoking a joint on Sunday will cost him the existance - or the job.
That's really one more step to a just and free society in God's own country.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 04, 2011 11:10 AM |
|
|
It is also a fallicy that welfare recipients do not work. While this may be the case for some, I assure you there are those who work more hours for their 'pay', then they would at a regular job. Sometimes to the tune that they 'make' about 33 cents an hour. While the jobs do not tend to be 'physically hard', often it is as janitors..cleaning up roads..and the like. Some cushy, sit on my butt to recieve money, huh?
Don't get me wrong..there are people who abuse and misuse the system..and that should indeed be stopped, but classifing all welfare recipients as lazy (etc) is just your typical elitist attitude some people have. The same type of person who will tell a cashier to 'get a real job'.
Some have learning disabilities that generally prevent them from being hired by most 'private' companies, so they have to work twice as hard for twice as long for the government. Others have diseases that might cause them to miss too many days for most 'private companies' (chronic/incurable illnesses).
So yeah, go ahead and label them useless. I won't judge you. I don't have to.
____________
Message received.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 04, 2011 12:46 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 15:03, 04 Jun 2011.
|
I can't believe you guys. Here you are making arguments so dumb that Elodin is actually winning, instead of making him discuss baby masturbation with me in the mutilation thread, which he ran away from as soon as possible.
Good going JJ and the rest.
If you're gonna play devil's advocate, at least learn how to do it right.
(what Mythy said's alright, though unrelated to making the taxpayers give junkies the means to kill themselves and finance drug dealers)
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 04, 2011 01:12 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:18, 04 Jun 2011.
|
Which I put under the misuse and abuse part  . Reform? It is absolutely needed. Out right gotten rid of? Only if every man, woman and child has to agree to live in abject poverty for a year. Regardless if they are Bill Gates or what..they have to live off of NOTHING for 365 days..then.. I would agree to getting rid of it.
Note : I never have recieved, nor have I ever needed Welfare. Even when not knowing where or when the next meal was coming from. I've been 'poorer then dirt' so to speak. However, I've know people on welfare that have worked longer and harder then just about anybody on the forum..who would gladly work if given half the chance..so telling me that everybody on welfare is lazy just says to me "I am an elitist who has no clue..but I am better then somebody because I am rich."
____________
Message received.
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2011 01:37 PM |
|
|
The idea of both welfare and employment insurance are that they are there to allow you to survive is something disastrous happens and you need to be able to use that time either searching for a job during times when there are none or to learn and increase your skills.
The vast majority of recipients of these social programs are people that genuinely need them. For example, my dad had a stroke when I was very young and could no longer speak english or drive and can barely walk. If he couldn't get welfare at that time we'd have perished, even with my mom working. Plus, because she was working the what crap jobs she could get, welfare payments were vastly reduced. My dad also wasn't in the condition to raise children either. As much as it killed him, he still to this day sees himself as a drain on family resources. He's too hard on himself.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2011 01:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Meeting a requirement to receive welfare is not work.
1) Filling out the paperwork requesting welfare is not work.
2) Standing in line to get a welfare check is not work.
3) Undergoing drug screening as a requirement for welfare is not work.
4) Requiring a welfare recipient to prove he is looking for work is not work.
I've been told by the organism supposed to help you find a job that working was supposed to be constraining and annoying.
what you listed is constraining and annoying 
maybe they should do a test to measure the amount of pleasure inducing chemicals we produce while we work. and if it's over a certain toll, they would say, since you are taking pleasure in your work, there is no reason to pay you anymore. 
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 05, 2011 10:14 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 22:15, 05 Jun 2011.
|
Quote:
How can it be objective? Sure, you can say that some workers are getting paid less than 50% of what the cost of the final product is, but why does that mean that the workers aren't being paid the value of their labor? "Value to whom" is the critical question, because value is not an intrinsic property, but depends entirely on subjective preferences. If an employer thinks, "I'm willing to pay these workers $10", and the employee thinks, "I'm willing to work for $10", that means that both value the labor at $10. The cost of the final product doesn't come into it anywhere.
You really believe in this?  No sane employee who is paid a minimal salary will say that he/she values his labour as much (or actually as little) as he/she's being paid. In some fairy-tale theoretical realm this might be true but in the real world the vast majority of the people work to sustain themselves and will accept to work for much less than they think (and usually not only think) they deserve just so they could have a chance for survival. That's called exploitation. The labour market is no friendly place, especially in areas - economical and geographical - with high unemployment. Damn it man, these are painfully simple things!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2011 10:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No sane employee who is paid a minimal salary will say that he/she values his labour as much (or actually as little) as he/she's being paid.
There's a difference between what people say and what people mean. When someone says "My labor is worth more than this" but still works, what they really mean is "I wish I was paid more." Thats a good sentiment - we all wish we were paid more for doing the same job. But if the employee really believed their labor to be worth more than they're getting paid, then they wouldn't work. You don't sell something (in this case, your labor) if what you get for it is less than what you value what you sell.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2011 10:54 PM |
|
|
|
No, of course not. You rather strave yourself and your family to death.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2011 10:56 PM |
|
|
|
you will do it, if you have no other choice. if you are starving and someone gives you bread, you don't throw away the bread saying that you wanted caviar
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2011 11:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, of course not. You rather strave yourself and your family to death.
There are outside circumstances that may cause you to value money more highly and thus be more willing to trade your labor for it, but that's besides the point.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 12:22 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:55, 06 Jun 2011.
|
How on Earth is that beside the point, lol.
Now, I jumped in the middle of the conversation here, and as I only read the last few posts it might all be purely on a theoretical level, but generally, the catch with you, MVass, is that you keep supporting some kind of anarchocapitalist theoretical system which would be far worse than you think in practice due to real life issues that you always seem to overlook and underestimate, and claim they're beside the point whenever they show up in a discussion.
Yes, they may be beside the purely theoretical point straight out of schoolbooks that you're making, but if you actually want to utilize that point anywhere other than in an OSM topic, especially if you wholeheartedly support it in real life, you've got to add some dirty old realism into the bowl.
You can't support the human society to work in a way you find theoretically wonderful if it wouldn't actually work that way, and if you don't apply every detail to it. That's what Marx did and look where that got people. That's why I pretty much don't support an anarchist society no matter how lovely I might think it sounds in the books. Or, more widely, on t-shirts.
The only way the workers' rights would have any guarantee of securely existing in an anarchocapitalist society would be the existence of very powerful unions, and if I remember correctly, you always found those to be horrible and maleficent for the workers. Truth is, the workers don't really give a flying crap about Pareto optimality or whatever other purely theoretical benefit your preferred form of capitalism may or may not bring, and it doesn't really mean much to them if they end up having to choose between working for a ridiculously low wage or finding themselves on the street. They care about themselves, just like you do, and that's why your system, unless subtly forced, will never have any real support from the majority. Majority of the higher class folks, aye, but not the majority of, well, folks.
Anarchocapitalism effectively, much like communism, favours one class over the other, and is constantly trying to concoct every possible reason why it would actually be beneficial to everyone. It wouldn't. And just like communism always found an excuse for its failures in claiming the folks it hurts are lazy leeches of society, so would anarchocapitalism.
This was all maybe unrelated to the specific discussion you guys were having, I just thought this was a solid opportunity to preach a word or two since I haven't tried to convert you in a while.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 02:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How on Earth is that beside the point, lol.
Quite simply. There are two possibilities - either you trade your labor for money (if you value the money more highly than your labor) or you don't (if you value your labor/leisure more highly than the money). I don't deny that there are factors may influence how much you value each; for example, if you don't have much money (all other factors held constant), you'll probably value money more highly and thus be more willing to trade your labor for it. However, in no way does that go against my point that people trade whatever they value less for something they value more - not the other way around. You may think this is theoretical, but it's very practical - the answer to the question "Do people benefit from free voluntary exchange?" has wide-ranging implications.
As you know (or should know by now) I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm not even a libertarian. Anarcho-capitalism is highly undesirable because it is unlikely that it would have any rule of law beyond "I have a gun, give me your money." And, as we know, impartial, honest, clean, and effective rule of law is very important. If a private entity initiates force or fraud - whether that entity is a burglar or a bank, an employee or an employer - it is the place of the government to deal with it. Even better if it can be prevented. (Anarcho-capitalism is inefficient in other ways too, but this is the biggest problem with it.)
Quote:
They care about themselves, just like you do, and that's why your system, unless subtly forced, will never have any real support from the majority.
But they would have much to gain from it too. We'd have much higher growth, and that would make them richer. More flexible labor markets and more investments in human capital would enable more people to find jobs. There would be hosts of minor improvements as well - they wouldn't have to wait on organ transplant waiting lists, they'd be able to smoke marijuana and have multiple wives and husbands (if that's what they're into), and transport raw milk across state lines.
If they still don't like it, as a guy I know once said, "With enough brutal force the thieving rabble can be kept in line."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 07:26 AM |
|
|
Except that the question is not whether you think your work is worth the money or not, but whether that "more" you think your work is worth is worth, is worth to starve for (and maybe that of your family as well).
Because, and that's the point, the have-nots have ONLY their work and MUST sell it in oder to survive. While it is a commodity in demand it's also a commodity that MUST be offered, no matter what.
That's even more true when registered unemployed. I don't know how it's in the US, but in Germany, if you ARE unemployed your rights to reject job offers are fairly limited.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 08:15 AM |
|
|
use marked bills.
simply make all the money tracable, so that they can only spend it on the essentials like food, water, clothes, etc. give then a little bit extra for a certain amount of time they spend being clean.
don't know how that will work. it's an idea, nothing more.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 08:32 AM |
|
|
|
Oh, you can do that way better: Build a shanty town for them, somewhere remote, hand them some worthless money that's good only in that town, build a wall around it with only one way in and no way out, and that's that.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 06:06 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 18:10, 06 Jun 2011.
|
Quote:
Beggars can't be choosers. If you have your hand out the government has a right to dictate the terms on which you will receive tax payer money. There is no constitutional right to free money.
there are people like you who say that if you don't like our system, you just leave it and all the advantages you get from it. the problem, from what I understand, is that the system tends to claim everything for itself. everything is a private property, so that if you want to live outside the system, you may as well go live on mars, and seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if the USA would actually claim to own mars as well, so that you have to pay a rent or something to actually have the right to live there.
or you go live in the jungle, and one day, some guy buys the forest and decides to raze it to build a supermarket, and because he bought it, he has the right to destroy your house.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 06:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Fascist arguing: if you don't want X you can always leave, die - or become a criminal.
How is it fascist to require drug screening for welfare recipients when soldiers, law enforcement, and many privately employed people have to undergo drug screenings?
Quote:
Oh, you can do that way better: Build a shanty town for them, somewhere remote, hand them some worthless money that's good only in that town, build a wall around it with only one way in and no way out, and that's that.
Cut it out. Nobody is talking about segregating folks on welfare and putting them in concentration camps like Germany did with the Jews.
I've had to do drug screenings a number of times. What makes people on welfare so special that they don't have to be subjected to drug screenings like other people do?
|
| |
|
|
