Traktion Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 Well, we'll see what is suggested. As for bogeymen, it's just a demonstration of principal. If a kid is born with a condition that requires expensive care, then I think it is correct that the state 'makes' us all put our hands in our pockets to help. I don't think that we can rely upon the milk of human kindness. You may think it is correct that the state 'makes' us put our hands in our pockets. However, if the call for help is compelling enough, people will give to charities to help with the problem voluntarily. People are either willing to be kind OR you are forcing them to be something they are not, against their will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicAl Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 You may think it is correct that the state 'makes' us put our hands in our pockets. However, if the call for help is compelling enough, people will give to charities to help with the problem voluntarily. People are either willing to be kind OR you are forcing them to be something they are not, against their will. Okay, so are we talking about some sort of side by side dual state, where some would choose to contribute to the state and others not. If you choose to pay then should you become ill/unemployed/unable to work the state comes to your aid. If you choose not to, then it is up to you to sort yourself out? And those that opt out would give money to charities etc. if they saw fit? I suppose, practically, you have some difficulty determing what is in and out. Emergency care would need to be in to deal with road accidents and such like, I suppose. It's an interesting concept, and I suppose that new technology would assist in it's provision (making it harder to pretend to be someone else - though not impossible). I can't help thinking that there would end up being people who opt out and then go to the state because their kids are starving. And then, of course, the state would feed the kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wario Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I just had a chat about this thread with my other half. We agreed that we would rather spend our money on looking after our family (including extended) and friends first, while giving some to charities of our choices to help others. I would be much happier to pay for my grandparents, then my parents, in their old age, rather than having to give all my money to the government and leave the aforementioned to wait on handouts. IMO, there needs to be a sea change in the way we think about the benefits system, the family unit and those others who need special help. While someone may take the piss on the benefits claims to get all they can, it is unlikely my family/friends would do the same, with the latter far more grateful for the help too. Let's hope you've got a big family, then. Big enough to see you through hard times, and to see off the families of your ne'er-do-well neighbours. My own "name" would be about 10-12,000, right up to WWI. Say 3,000 able to take the field at any given time, seems to be the historic upper bound of tribal groupings (of any ethnicity) in these islands since at least the early mediæval period, above which fissiparous tendencies ensue. Nobody in their right mind would want us all hanging around together, typically skint, and like as not, drunk By the way. No need for honest taxpayers to shell out for a judiciary under the old system, either. It gets done Albanian/ Sicilian/ Chechen stylee. Sorted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 In your opinion the world would be a better place. Why do you want to force your ideals on me and others? Why not let people choose how much they want to help those in need? If we collectively choose to pay less, that is what people are prepared to pay without coercion. Are you saying the state has the right to force moral values on us all? stupid post to be honest. The state imposes moral values all the time on us. and just in case they remove this imposed morality via the police where do you live? and how big is your television? i could do with a new one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 stupid post to be honest. The state imposes moral values all the time on us. and just in case they remove this imposed morality via the police where do you live? and how big is your television? i could do with a new one. Imposes? And you are happy with being imposed upon? I would rather limit them to the minimum. As I said in the OP, I wanted to keep the focus on benefits, rather than straying into the more murky water of the police, military and other areas. I have an old CRT though, so feel free to break your back trying to steal it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!) Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 By the way. No need for honest taxpayers to shell out for a judiciary under the old system, either. It gets done Albanian/ Sicilian/ Chechen stylee. Sorted. and what do you think we have now the bankers and politicians cause far more pain and deaths than those Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wario Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Without "benefits" (bribes, danegeld, panem & circenses, handouts, call it what you will) for their indigent relatives, your faithful guard-dogs in the military and police will melt away, Helmand Province style. Got fambly to care for. Regiments might very well revert to where they came from, the personal "tail" of the most powerful man of any given "family", simply due to their hapless dependence on the *cough* handouts he distributed, presumably out of the goodness of his charitable heart. Of course, he'd be a fool to give owt for nowt. Always something needs sorting out, eh? Perhaps he can't decide to let bygones be bygones, maybe he's got a bee in his bonnet about, say, a tract of farmland his family used to own which was stolen from them. Could be the one your peasanty shack is squatting on right now? Two birds with one stone. Family honour restored, means the neighbours won't be so inclined to disrespect him next time, and it gets some of those infernal spongers of kinsmen off his back. Cut them a slice of it (to rent, of course) or best of all, they're dead in the attempt. Peachy! Of course, as an important and responsible subject of the Crown, he'd be only too delighted to lend his crew to the monarch to help replace the evaporated army, and suppress the unaccountable outbreak of general disorder, crime and tumult in the land. But regrettably his first duty prevents this happy outcome. The small matter of all the paupers he's responsible for on his estate, now that the pestilential welfare state has been abolished and they've all headed to his drum to cadge off him. Perhaps Your Majesty's ministers might be so good as to advance some form of subsidy. Of course, there's no question of it coming out of the Royal Sporran! The very idea. It could come out of general taxation Whaddaya mean, "warlord"? How very dare you! edit: tags, tags, bloody tags! Edited November 14, 2009 by Wario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Without "benefits" (bribes, danegeld, panem & circenses, handouts, call it what you will) for their indigent relatives, your faithful guard-dogs in the military and police will melt away, Helmand Province style. Got fambly to care for. Regiments might very well revert to where they came from, the personal "tail" of the most powerful man of any given "family", simply due to their hapless dependence on the *cough* handouts he distributed, presumably out of the goodness of his charitable heart. Of course, he'd be a fool to give owt for nowt. Always something needs sorting out, eh? Perhaps he can't decide to let bygones be bygones, maybe he's got a bee in his bonnet about, say, a tract of farmland his family used to own which was stolen from them. Could be the one your peasanty shack is squatting on right now? Two birds with one stone. Family honour restored, means the neighbours won't be so inclined to disrespect him next time, and it gets some of those infernal spongers of kinsmen off his back. Cut them a slice of it (to rent, of course) or best of all, they're dead in the attempt. Peachy! Of course, as an important and responsible subject of the Crown, he'd be only too delighted to lend his crew to the monarch to help replace the evaporated army, and suppress the unaccountable outbreak of general disorder, crime and tumult in the land. But regrettably his first duty prevents this happy outcome. The small matter of all the paupers he's responsible for on his estate, now that the pestilential welfare state has been abolished and they've all headed to his drum to cadge off him. Perhaps Your Majesty's ministers might be so good as to advance some form of subsidy. Of course, there's no question of it coming out of the Royal Sporran! The very idea. It could come out of general taxation Whaddaya mean, "warlord"? How very dare you! edit: tags, tags, bloody tags! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sengoku_period You are about to be here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wario Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 and what do you think we have now the bankers and politicians cause far more pain and deaths than those Not saying it's a bad thing. It's just that you end up with an Albanian/ Sicilian/ Chechen level of economic activity. The locals are fearful of leaving their houses to do much, and foreigners are too scared to set foot in the godforsaken place. Makes it dirt-poor and a pushover for any aggressive, centralised, expansionary, external polity, into which the light of libertarian principles has regrettably not yet shone. Bit like mediæval europeans complaining that the Golden Horde acted in an "unchristian" manner. Barbarian is as barbarian does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skullingtonjoe Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Objective requirement for a civilised and complex society? Says who? This is not a fact, just an opinion. For the latter, the government is providing subjective assessment - it has not been removed. Why/how does the government know better than individuals and/or charities? Wait until you need benefit. Thank God you`re only an opinion-pusher, not a policy-maker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skullingtonjoe Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Where did I suggest that? Do you think that people would not help one another without being forced by the government to pay others money? They would not, especially when you`ve got the papers whinging about the `evil benefit scroungers`. Sure, a lot of people abuse the system by claiming to have non-existent illnesses or by cynically having children to get extra money (I live in Portsmouth and I see it all the time). Not everyone who claims is a scrounger - some people have a need. What gets me is how the cheats get through the system so easily! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skullingtonjoe Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Does a jobless teenage oik need to fertilise a jobless teenage girl? Take a look at this: Scenario 1: I spend all my disposable on booze and women. I have nil savings. Employer waves me goodbye. result = benefits Scenario 2: I carefully save a proportion of my disposable, go without things in the process. Employer waves me goodbye. result = I have to live off my savings, For sure, scenario 2 is ******ed up. The `16 grand` rule means that you`re probably better off going for scenario 1 rather than 2!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skullingtonjoe Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 IMO you have the cause and effect back to front Western society no longer dependends on family suppoort structures, as welfare has taken it's place. Western families are no more keen to see their bretheren on the street than Asians; but western families don't need to intervene in crisis because the state does the job for them Take away the welfare, and the family support will come back naturaly What if you have no family? Sigh.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicAl Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 They would not, especially when you`ve got the papers whinging about the `evil benefit scroungers`. Sure, a lot of people abuse the system by claiming to have non-existent illnesses or by cynically having children to get extra money (I live in Portsmouth and I see it all the time). Not everyone who claims is a scrounger - some people have a need. What gets me is how the cheats get through the system so easily! What winds me up is that people are very eager to moan about cheats, but even when they know of one, they refuse to 'infom the authorities', yet continue to moan about the authorities not doing enough to catch people. Now, IF we had a STASI.....(that last bit was a joke) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skullingtonjoe Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 What winds me up is that people are very eager to moan about cheats, but even when they know of one, they refuse to 'infom the authorities', yet continue to moan about the authorities not doing enough to catch people. Now, IF we had a STASI.....(that last bit was a joke) I grassed up a heroin dealer a few months ago. As he`s related to a serving police officer I made sure it was from a public phone with my face covered. What do you reckon chances of the dealer being arrested are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 Wait until you need benefit. Thank God you`re only an opinion-pusher, not a policy-maker. Either my family/friends would help me out or the charities would. Why do you think otherwise? Do you think people are naturally too selfish/evil to care? You know what they say - be good to people on the way up, because you never know when you're going to meet them on the way back down again. I try to be a good person, so I hope this will put me in good form should things turn bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 What if you have no family? Sigh.... I would hope you have some friends. If not, I'm not sure you are the sort of person I would like to help (personally). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skullingtonjoe Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I would hope you have some friends. If not, I'm not sure you are the sort of person I would like to help (personally). What happens if you are an orphan? If both your parents are dead? If you have no relatives? Are you suggesting Oliver Twist? Jesus! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 They would not, especially when you`ve got the papers whinging about the `evil benefit scroungers`. Sure, a lot of people abuse the system by claiming to have non-existent illnesses or by cynically having children to get extra money (I live in Portsmouth and I see it all the time). Not everyone who claims is a scrounger - some people have a need. What gets me is how the cheats get through the system so easily! If all money is given voluntarily, there isn't much to get upset about. If you think the money is being misspent, you would give it to a different charity or look after your own friends/family. Do you have that choice now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 What happens if you are an orphan? If both your parents are dead? If you have no relatives? Are you suggesting Oliver Twist? Jesus! If you are good to others, you will make friends who will help you out in bad times. Worst case, you would fall back on the charities (instead of the state), but I would hope most people would have made a few good friends in life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skullingtonjoe Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 If you are good to others, you will make friends who will help you out in bad times. Worst case, you would fall back on the charities (instead of the state), but I would hope most people would have made a few good friends in life. OK. Meanwhile back in the real world.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) OK. Meanwhile back in the real world.... ...the state takes taxes from you and gives it to people it chooses, whether you agree or not. If you refuse to pay, they throw you in prison. Edited November 14, 2009 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skullingtonjoe Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 ...the state takes taxes from you and gives it to people it chooses, whether you agree or not. If you refuse to pay, they throw you in prison. Obviously, we`ll have to disagree on this one. I agree the benefits system has been used and abused and is a bloated monster, but it`s there for a reason. A very good one too. Without it, this country would be something like - God forbid - America! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wario Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 OK. Meanwhile back in the real world.... Never mind Joe, you can come on board with my lot. Only condition is you adopt the family surname. Used to happen a lot when folk only had their "kin" to depend on (e.g. the 'Meal-Bow Gordons' etc. , makes genealogical research a bloody nightmare though, they're only beginning to get to grips with it via y-STR/ SNP methods). Now, Joe, here's to ye. And about these damned peasants who've been both insulting and inhospitable those of "our" name? The McTraktions, d'ye say?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Never mind Joe, you can come on board with my lot. Only condition is you adopt the family surname. Used to happen a lot when folk only had their "kin" to depend on (e.g. the 'Meal-Bow Gordons' etc. , makes genealogical research a bloody nightmare though, they're only beginning to get to grips with it via y-STR/ SNP methods). Now, Joe, here's to ye. And about these damned peasants who've been both insulting and inhospitable those of "our" name? The McTraktions, d'ye say?? If only they had DNA profiling of the population to sort the natural alphas from the chaff. If only! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.