Workfare = totalitarian state

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
philosopher
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Workfare = totalitarian state

Post by philosopher » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:59 pm

In all westernized countries, Welfare has been replaced by Workfare, meaning that you have to work for the benefits you recieve from the government, or earn your own money.

But this system leads to a totalitarian anti-liberty state, because work is not always chosen by the laborers. Some will have to work in tedious jobs, even if they are well-educated and graduated from a university. Also a lot of people will have to focus all their time and energy on work, when they could've chosen to study further or live any other life they would choose, that wouldn't harm anyone.

This workfare society is evil, because it enslaves the people. The people become slaves of either the state or the employers, as few people will have enough money to start their own business or be able to have a bank help them start their own business.

With a Negative Tax or Basic Income, you give people money regardless of whether they work or not. This gives them the liberty to choose to live their lives as they so wish. Some would start their own business, and eventually their Negative Tax or Basic Income will turn 0 and they will contribute more to the society than they cost.

Others will continue studying, and become smart people, while some would do volunteer charity work.

Everything in society would benefit from abolishing Workfare society and replace it with Unconditional Basic Income or Negative Tax.

Your thoughts?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

So askin' folks to work for their money is wrong-headed, but just givin' 'em cash to take up space is A-Okay.

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:53 pm

Seems to me: that's ass-backwards.

philosopher
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: So askin' folks to work for their money is wrong-headed, but just givin' 'em cash to take up space is A-Okay.

Post by philosopher » Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:35 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:53 pm
Seems to me: that's ass-backwards.
People should not be forced to work against their will. True Liberty is to pursue your own goals of life, be it work, education or something else.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"People should not be forced to work against their will.'

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:33 pm

And I, as someone who works and makes money (who takes care of himself), shouldn't be forced to give any of it to someone else who chooses not to work.

Stalemate.

#

"True Liberty is to pursue your own goals of life, be it work, education or something else."

No. True liberty is to pursue your own goals of life, without someone else footing your bill (cuz if I'm payin' your way, you're indebted to me and therefore are not truly free).

Stalemate.

philosopher
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: "People should not be forced to work against their will.'

Post by philosopher » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:49 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:33 pm
And I, as someone who works and makes money (who takes care of himself), shouldn't be forced to give any of it to someone else who chooses not to work.

Stalemate.

#

"True Liberty is to pursue your own goals of life, be it work, education or something else."

No. True liberty is to pursue your own goals of life, without someone else footing your bill (cuz if I'm payin' your way, you're indebted to me and therefore are not truly free).

Stalemate.
The fact of the reciever's dependence on the giver, this is exactly why we need a STATE that takes people's money - by force - and distribute them into a basket with money which everyone can get - unconditionally. Of course we're not talking about all your money - but a portion of it, what you pay in taxes.

This way, no giver can claim any dependence of their recievers. Thus we save liberty, as nobody become dependent on others, at least no giver can claim any reciever to be indebted to anyone.

Checkmate.

The entire system of work in return for benefits, is all about making people in need indebted to someone else.
This is why we need UNCONDITIONAL Basic Income.

Frank N Stein
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:03 am

Re: So askin' folks to work for their money is wrong-headed, but just givin' 'em cash to take up space is A-Okay.

Post by Frank N Stein » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:26 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:53 pm
Seems to me: that's ass-backwards.
Most people don't 'work' anyway. They do nothing productive all day then go home and whine about how hard they work compared to those 'lazy bastards who steal my taxes'. It's just money going round. I couldn't care less if people don't want to be in the workforce. It would make no difference to my taxes if they were left starving on the street-- and the streets would be a lot less tidy and safe.

Impenitent
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Workfare = totalitarian state

Post by Impenitent » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:27 pm

the benevolent state will take your stuff until no one has anything except the state...

utopia

and now we see why the second was written

-Imp

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:31 am

"The fact of the reciever's dependence on the giver, this is exactly why we need a STATE that takes people's money - by force - and distribute them into a basket with money which everyone can get - unconditionally. Of course we're not talking about all your money - but a portion of it, what you pay in taxes."

My taxes are supposed to go to maintaining a minimal local law enforcement, a minimal local court of last resort, a sensible border-defending military and nuthin' else. What my taxes largely go to in reality is the maintenance and expansion of a parasite class. What you suggest is just adding another teat to the udder.

No thanks.

#

"This way, no giver can claim any dependence of their recievers."

If Joe lives on the money (or resources) generated by Stan then Joe is Stan's dependent.

#

"Thus we save liberty, as nobody become dependent on others, at least no giver can claim any reciever to be indebted to anyone. Checkmate."

We -- you and me -- got very different ideas of what it means to be free, self-directing, self-responsible, and self-owed.

I think I'll stick with my notions and continue to reject yours.

#

"The entire system of work in return for benefits, is all about making people in need indebted to someone else."

Speaking only for me: as a self-employed man, I work to provide for myself, so I don't have to jingle-jangle a tin cup on a street corner like a beggar. I work cuz I claim myself as my own and won't have another lay a leash 'round my neck. I work (and hunt and fish and write and garden) precisely so I don't have to be indebted.

#

"This is why we need UNCONDITIONAL Basic Income."

What 'we' need is a refresher in 'self-reliance'. I expect in the next few years a whole whack of folks are gonna be (re)introduced to the topic is a blunt, unambiguous way.

##

"Most people don't 'work' anyway."

Everyone I associate with does: I keep company with a better class, I guess.

#

"the streets would be a lot less tidy and safe"

Like San Francisco's, I guess.

##

"now we see why the second was written"

Yep. At this point (of no return), it's purely a matter of 'when', Imp, not 'if'.

Frank N Stein
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:03 am

Re:

Post by Frank N Stein » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:29 am

henry quirk wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:31 am
"The fact of the reciever's dependence on the giver, this is exactly why we need a STATE that takes people's money - by force - and distribute them into a basket with money which everyone can get - unconditionally. Of course we're not talking about all your money - but a portion of it, what you pay in taxes."

My taxes are supposed to go to maintaining a minimal local law enforcement, a minimal local court of last resort, a sensible border-defending military and nuthin' else. What my taxes largely go to in reality is the maintenance and expansion of a parasite class. What you suggest is just adding another teat to the udder.

No thanks.

#

"This way, no giver can claim any dependence of their recievers."

If Joe lives on the money (or resources) generated by Stan then Joe is Stan's dependent.

#

"Thus we save liberty, as nobody become dependent on others, at least no giver can claim any reciever to be indebted to anyone. Checkmate."

We -- you and me -- got very different ideas of what it means to be free, self-directing, self-responsible, and self-owed.

I think I'll stick with my notions and continue to reject yours.

#

"The entire system of work in return for benefits, is all about making people in need indebted to someone else."

Speaking only for me: as a self-employed man, I work to provide for myself, so I don't have to jingle-jangle a tin cup on a street corner like a beggar. I work cuz I claim myself as my own and won't have another lay a leash 'round my neck. I work (and hunt and fish and write and garden) precisely so I don't have to be indebted.

#

"This is why we need UNCONDITIONAL Basic Income."

What 'we' need is a refresher in 'self-reliance'. I expect in the next few years a whole whack of folks are gonna be (re)introduced to the topic is a blunt, unambiguous way.

##

"Most people don't 'work' anyway."

Everyone I associate with does: I keep company with a better class, I guess.

#

"the streets would be a lot less tidy and safe"

Like San Francisco's, I guess.

##

"now we see why the second was written"

Yep. At this point (of no return), it's purely a matter of 'when', Imp, not 'if'.
Now now, it's not nice to cherry-pick HQ.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

cherry pick

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:49 am

I don't think I did.

I hit all of philo's points in order without leavin' much of his post out of the mix, and while I did only pull two quotes from your post, I don't think my responses were out of context. Besides: our posts are fairly close together, so a reader isn't bein' cheated or mislead....they just gotta open their eyes and move the scroll bar a bit.

Anyway, the bulk of my post is given over to countering philo. I can delete your section without takin' the umph outta my post, if you like (if the site still allows for it).

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11849
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Workfare = totalitarian state

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:22 am

philosopher wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:59 pm
In all westernized countries, Welfare has been replaced by Workfare, meaning that you have to work for the benefits you recieve from the government, or earn your own money. ...
No it hasn't.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest