Take Back Our Kids - Page 2

[Blue Dragonfly]

Wow, this thread really got me thinking.

Sorry for the bit of derailing . . .

Is it possible to be a libertarian and a socialist?

I think I would fall into the libertarian camp - I don't think people should be told what to do, but I also feel that there should be a safety net/support system for people who cannot or choose not to participate in the (capitalist) economy. (And I think I am right in stating that libertariansim is a political theory and capitalism/socialism an economic theory).

There are a lot of things that don't contribute to the capitalist economy (like SAHP, far-out art) that I believe are vitally important to our society's well being. And I think those should be supported. But at the same time, I don't think those people who participate in society that way should be told how to do what they do.

Does this make any sense?

[Lady Lilya]

Before socialistic programs, there WAS a safety net: family, community, church, charities.

What I mean is, if you had a misfortune, such as becoming widowed or orphaned, there was someone out there to help. Those misfortunes are generally rare and occur sparsely (except in case of war or natural disaster) and local communities often had sufficient resources to handle it.

But, to be able to receive help from those sources, you have to be somewhat pleasant. Nowadays, around here, I see my sister's friends who all live on public assistance. They didn't get into their mess by misfortune, but rather by an active choice to be lazy and negligent in their lives. They don't have any incentive to be pleasant people, because the government gives them their handout even if they are nasty and alienate everyone in their lives.

I think the problem occurs when you have a GUARANTEED payout for "failure to thrive" (I can't think of another nice expression that would fit what most people would call simply "loserness" ) This means that there is almost no incentive to try to succeed. A huge percentage of young people around here just choose to have fun and not worry about things.

In the mean time, there is a great disincentive to the rest of us to work hard, because we lose huge amounts of what we earn to support those who, for the most part, hadn't tried.

I am all in favor of those of us who are doing well donating/sharing to help others who have had a misfortune, but I can't approve of the state choosing to redistribute income from those who work hard to those who are not trying.

Disclaimer: I know there are plenty of people who are legitimately struggling, and HAVE been working hard. I do not consider those people undeserving. I just think we need to find another way to help them that doesn't involve such an easy out for lazy people to take advantage of. Americans accepted these re-distribution programs to help those who are legitimately struggling, not to make working Americans carry the lazy.

I just wonder how much of the current NEED for public assistance came from the existence of these public assistance programs. If my sister's friends hadn't been assured of a monthly check from the government, might some of them have tried to pass a class or two in school? Might they have tried to get a job, or learn some job skills?

I am sure they are capable of thriving, for the most part. I know bad luck happens, but en masse? When more than half (of young people in my area) are failing to thrive, it can't be that they are all just victims of unfortunate circumstances. Something here has to be investigated.