Long-term jobless 'could face compulsory manual labour'

All the industry is gone. Mass importation of cheap labor. University fees up to 9000 pounds a year. What work is there? Duh.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


Actually it is. The law which forbids refusing to provide urgent medical help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to easily provide it (and outlaws hospitals right to refuse urgent medical help). Unless you claim this law is also unconstitutional and should be abolished, you must agree with at least basic (lifesaving) form of welfare, because it stems from this law, and its essentially the same.

reply to post by Maslo

If society provided you with basic needs that you otherwise would not be able to get, you should repay it at least with some part time easy job. There is nothing preventing you, now that you have the needs.

Even if the "society": that is kind enough to provide you with your basic needs is the same society that stole it from you in the first place. And now demands allegiance, tribute, and labor in exchange? Not saying this is the case but just asking a hypothetical.

It works, with problems, as I said I could envision better systems, but it is better than nothing at all I think.

Or maybe you haven't really thought about it and have just bought into the claims. Does it really make sense that a group of individuals that have worked their lives to accumulate as much wealth as possible through any means possible is going to be a just source of humanitarian efforts?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by harvib

 

You make the assumption that theft is the only way to "help someone whose life is threatened".

It often is. Otherwise there would be no such situations happening.

Your logic doesn't make sense to me. Are you really under the belief that because something occurs that it makes it necessary and the only option?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

Actually it is. The law which forbids refusing to provide urgent medical help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to easily provide it (and outlaws hospitals right to refuse urgent medical help). Unless you claim this law is also unconstitutional and should be abolished, you must agree with at least basic (lifesaving) form of welfare, because it stems from this law, and its essentially the same.

According to your previous arguments the hospital should have legal justification to rob the other patients in order to pay for the emergency services of one. Do you believe this to be the case?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

Actually it is. The law which forbids refusing to provide urgent medical help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to easily provide it (and outlaws hospitals right to refuse urgent medical help). Unless you claim this law is also unconstitutional and should be abolished, you must agree with at least basic (lifesaving) form of welfare, because it stems from this law, and its essentially the same.

Uh, not quite.

Lets deal in fact here, not your wishful opinions.

I cant waite to see these unemployed people litter picking and gardening in the snow.

Originally posted by 10987654321
I cant waite to see these unemployed people litter picking and gardening in the snow.

Throw a shovel at them and tell them to clear the public sidewalks.

There are always menial tasks that can be done.

reply to post by harvib

Even if the "society": that is kind enough to provide you with your basic needs is the same society that stole it from you in the first place. And now demands allegiance, tribute, and labor in exchange? Not saying this is the case but just asking a hypothetical.

How can is stole from and provide for the same individual? It stoles from taxpayers, and provides for welfare recipients, these individuals are seldom the same - either someone is a net provider, or a net receiver from the system. Welfare is REDISTRIBUTION, that means you dont get the same what you payed into, either you get a net more (receiver) or less (provider). If you are a receiver, it can demand labor in exchange after it helped you - to minimize the need for providers and get at least some of value back directly.

Does it really make sense that a group of individuals that have worked their lives to accumulate as much wealth as possible through any means possible is going to be a just source of humanitarian efforts?

I am certain they (politicians) also profit from the system (thats one of the reasons why it is not optimally efficient), so its not only from humanitarian thought. But regardless of this, I still think its better than nothing at all.

Your logic doesn't make sense to me. Are you really under the belief that because something occurs that it makes it necessary and the only option?

You claim that there are other ways to effectivelly help the poor than government welfare and they would be sufficient. If it was true, why we dont see them in action? Why we still need welfare? Why was it even needed to be introduced, if such a help service (charity of that magnitude) can spontaneously arise from the free market, or what alternative do you propose?

Originally posted by harvib

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

Actually it is. The law which forbids refusing to provide urgent medical help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to easily provide it (and outlaws hospitals right to refuse urgent medical help). Unless you claim this law is also unconstitutional and should be abolished, you must agree with at least basic (lifesaving) form of welfare, because it stems from this law, and its essentially the same.

According to your previous arguments the hospital should have legal justification to rob the other patients in order to pay for the emergency services of one. Do you believe this to be the case?

Yes, lets face it, thats how it works - undeniable emergency services of uninsured are payed from taxes (stealing from others, not just the patients), and it is legal. Yes, I believe that it should be that way, because the only alternative is not providing medical emergencies for uninsured, and that is unacceptable to me.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

Actually it is. The law which forbids refusing to provide urgent medical help to someone whose life is threatened, while being able to easily provide it (and outlaws hospitals right to refuse urgent medical help). Unless you claim this law is also unconstitutional and should be abolished, you must agree with at least basic (lifesaving) form of welfare, because it stems from this law, and its essentially the same.

Uh, not quite.

Lets deal in fact here, not your wishful opinions.

Why not? Elaborate.

reply to post by Maslo

How can is stole from and provide for the same individual? It stoles from taxpayers, and provides for welfare recipients, these individuals are seldom the same...

That is not what I asked. I asked if you would still support such a policy if the organization that is "redistributing" to the disenfranchised is responsible for the disenfranchisement?

I am certain they (politicians) also profit from the system (thats one of the reasons why it is not optimally efficient), so its not only from humanitarian thought. But regardless of this, I still think its better than nothing at all.

Or maybe this is the "nothing at all". Profit working for profit's sake.

You claim that there are other ways to effectivelly help the poor than government welfare and they would be sufficient. If it was true, why we dont see them in action? Why we still need welfare? Why was it even needed to be introduced, if such a help service (charity of that magnitude) can spontaneously arise from the free market, or what alternative do you propose?

Is it possible that the whole welfare scheme was never introduced for humanitarian efforts? Could it be a means of control and a scheme to make the people reliant on an oligarch (including those not on welfare)? ]

As far as an alternative. What happened to personal responsibility? What happened to a focus on self sufficiency as opposed to corporate/ government reliance? Maybe thinking for our selves and not buying the BS? Maybe we don't constantly give up our own rights because we are told it is necessary? Or empower an organization for the same reason?

Yes, lets face it, thats how it works - undeniable emergency services of uninsured are payed from taxes (stealing from others, not just the patients), and it is legal. Yes, I believe that it should be that way, because the only alternative is not providing medical emergencies for uninsured, and that is unacceptable to me.

Again that is not what I asked.

I asked if you thought their was legal justification for a hospital to steal or extort money from the other patients in order to pay for emergency services for one.

reply to post by Maslo


Because no such law exists that requires the public to fund anything other than immediate live saving medical care.

That doesnt include subsidizing rent, food, etc etc.

You neglected to address the unconstitutionality of such programs. Why?

reply to post by BigTimeCheater

Because no such law exists that requires the public to fund anything other than immediate live saving medical care. That doesnt include subsidizing rent, food, etc etc.

That does include food and water, since longer-term lack of food and water is life-threatening. In fact thats how minimal welfare (without disabilities) is computed here - the free market cost of minimal nutrition (calories) required to sustain adult individual per day. Its actualised every year. It does not include rent, and I doubt that welfare is so high in USA to pay for rent, since it is not even here, in "socialistic" central Europe.

reply to post by Maslo


I thought you were someone outside of the U.S., given your assumptions about how things work here. Good to see my hunch was correct.

Immediate live saving care does not include dinner and water. That isnt medical care. Even hypothetically if you were correct, subsidizing days, weeks, months, or years of food and water for people isnt considered life saving medical care, and as such should not be paid for with public funds. There are plenty of charitable organizations that provide meals.

Again, since you are outside of the U.S., you may be unfamiliar with the Constitutional issue at hand here, but if its a topic you would like to debate, I would suggest studying up on it.