Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Chutney]

I would've starved to death as a young lad.

You didn't read it? And then you tell me you'd starve under my program? I specifically said that the the only welfare program is one that provides food, and that no one starves.

Spoiler: longer read for the reading impaired and those who want a better explanation (click to show/hide)

 Even adults, if they're willing to work supporting the program while it's supporting them, get guaranteed meals worldwide. No one who refuses to work eats, but that's just in compliance with both natural and moral laws.

It sounds like you have a real axe to grind over welfare; that's definitely the gist of your post. People don't like welfare because it takes from the working and gives to the lazy. Some people are disabled, fine, and can't work. But a significant number (and some say the vast majority) of people on welfare are simply unwilling to work or too ignorant/unmotivated to find a job. Welfare can serve its purpose, and sometimes it does just that.

In my system no one starves, no matter where they live or what their situation, but they're not going to be watching tv and driving a car using tax money. I didn't "kill welfare" if you read the post. Stop grinding your axe. People have a good reason for hating the misuse of welfare. Virtually no one would mind providing it if it weren't misused so much. Just wait until you're actually earning your own keep, and you some person in the grocery store ahead of you in line pay for their beer from a huge roll of cash, then buy their food with food stamps. Statements like yours make you no different from the people who advocate socialism and have never been self-employed or owned any non-consumer assets; they just don't know what actually motivates economics.

I'm not going to jump down everyone's throat who criticizes, but it's just ridiculous to have someone look at a post saying "I'd stop all welfare except free food" and then say "BUT I'D STARVE YOU ASS!" in as many words.

Edit: typo

Well, you said "You don't work, you don't eat", which ignores the whole disabled people aspect, which is why I would've starved. So yes, because nobody in my household was able to get a job, under your rule, we would have starved.
And providing food and only food doesn't really do anything for the quality of life. Welfare provides all sorts of other things, like heating, medical care, water, electricity, all sorts of things that make not dying easier.
Sure, you could have millions of people well-fed but if they're freezing to death in the streets with all sorts of infectious diseases, does it really matter that they enjoyed a +nutritious meal+ recently?

fake edit: reading your longer explanation makes me think you'd be giving the children food, but not the non-working adults? So you'd expect me, a 4 year old kid to sit there and eat food while my mother starves to death? Well, I'd rather be a malnourished kid than let that happen, bub.
and taking those kids away from their families to put them in special homes would be a system of welfare, so that's not an option.

how about "All people who can work, are given jobs. All people who cannot work, are provided to". Assuming there is job competition, the jobs could be social projects. Building schools, cleaning up highways. Basically the government would generate jobs, even where not needed, to provide people with a living + improve the quality of life for everyone.

[Pillow_Killer]

Why would someone who is hard-working, feeding his family, should feed people who dont want to work, much less try to get a job?

[Zifnab]

Well, you said "You don't work, you don't eat", which ignores the whole disabled people aspect, which is why I would've starved. So yes, because nobody in my household was able to get a job, under your rule, we would have starved.
And providing food and only food doesn't really do anything for the quality of life. Welfare provides all sorts of other things, like heating, medical care, water, electricity, all sorts of things that make not dying easier.
Sure, you could have millions of people well-fed but if they're freezing to death in the streets with all sorts of infectious diseases, does it really matter that they enjoyed a +nutritious meal+ recently?

fake edit: reading your longer explanation makes me think you'd be giving the children food, but not the non-working adults? So you'd expect me, a 4 year old kid to sit there and eat food while my mother starves to death? Well, I'd rather be a malnourished kid than let that happen, bub.
and taking those kids away from their families to put them in special homes would be a system of welfare, so that's not an option.

how about "All people who can work, are given jobs. All people who cannot work, are provided to". Assuming there is job competition, the jobs could be social projects. Building schools, cleaning up highways. Basically the government would generate jobs, even where not needed, to provide people with a living + improve the quality of life for everyone.

Under my first proposed system, even disabled people that wanted to work could find jobs.  It might be a horriblly boring job, but it would still be a job.  And once the robot suits came online, I'd need plenty of disabled people to run those.  It would only be the people who refused to work that would be given nothing.  And I would make child labor legal.

Many orphanages were historically run by private/religious donations, not the government.

[ChairmanPoo]

No offense, zifnab, but I am glad you are not dictator of the world, because the system that you are proposing is basically a throwback to Victorian hellholes.

By the way how would you manage that everyone that wanted a job got a job?

[Zifnab]

Megaprojects.  You might have to get relocated, but you would have work.

And not quite back to the victorian hellholes.  There would still be workplace safety regulations, housing regulations, public school systems, environmental regulations, etc.  Kids would be able to work, but they would also be required to go to school, so they would only be able to work part time.

[ChairmanPoo]

right, and what kind of megaprojects? And how would you pay them?

[Zifnab]

right, and what kind of megaprojects? And how would you pay them?

I'd gather the world's greatest minds and most of the world's resources into a megaproject.  We would either bring humanity to the Space-faring Age or burn out the world trying.  Because lets face it.  At the rate we are going, this planet will be mined out long before we make it past Mars with a spacecraft containing people.
A second group made up of scientists, engineers, and buisnesspeople would be tasked with using advanced technologies to improve the world. 
If it looked like we were going to fail, I'd have my third group made up of scientists and hippies release into the environment enough mind altering drugs to keep humanity in a peace and love state of mind for the next 10,000 years.

I'd need plenty of workforce to carry out these and any other megaprojects that would come up.  I would not pay them.  I would give them training for the job, food, a place to live, and access to some recreational areas.  The food production and housing facilities would be the first stage of any megaproject that starts.

From my original post, I'd also be setting up free clinics around the world.  Nothing fancy, but some free basic medical care.

[ChairmanPoo]

Alas, your cunning plan to eliminate unemployment has a flaw: you need a lot of scientists and engineers. Which are likely among the people who do NOT have that many problems with unemployment.

[Zifnab]

Alas, your cunning plan to eliminate unemployment has a flaw: you need a lot of scientists and engineers. Which are likely among the people who do NOT have that many problems with unemployment.

They get paid.  Its the labor force that doesn't get paid.  But they could go to school for free to become a scientist or engineer.

[Sevrun]

If I ruled the world... wow, that's a scary thought.  If I said kill all the humans and let the planet carry on without us, the leftwing greenies would cheer.  Til they realized I literally meant _all_ the humans.  If I said deregulate the financial world, the capitalists would be happy until someone came along more ruthless than they are and took their money...

So all in all, I think I'd just drop the Bomb and be done with the lot of them.  let the people who survive learn to appreciate what's important instead of bickering over BS.  I'd be remembered as the greatest monster in the history of the world if I was remembered at all.  But I'd be ok with that.

[Leafsnail]

Hmm... deregulating the markets and then using the lack of regulations to seize everyone's stuff would be awesomely ironic.

Forced child labour definately isn't a good idea if you need lots of engineers for you "megaprojects".

[Zifnab]

Hmm... deregulating the markets and then using the lack of regulations to seize everyone's stuff would be awesomely ironic.

Forced child labour definately isn't a good idea if you need lots of engineers for you "megaprojects".

Its not forced.  But if the kid wants to work after school, its allowed.  Might even get some good job experience.

[Grakelin]

Allowing small children to work after school is always forced labour, except now it's the parent who gets to decide if they want to force their kid to work or not in order to subsidize the family's income.

Which is negated by the fact that nobody gets enough resources to live comfortably even if they needlessly give their kids jobs. So nobody will send their kids to work unless they're insane, anyway.

People don't need any job experience in a society where everybody is guaranteed a job which will pay out the same amount as every other job. Instead, they're going to stick with the same profession unless it's completely unbearable (or they finish their education and get to be in the elite), because employers don't need to compete for the best employees with benefits and salaries.

You haven't thought this shit out at all, have you?

I'm surprised that everybody is coming forward and either claiming they would destroy the world or be a tyrannical overlord. Nobody has come forward with any good ideas for the world.

[RedWarrior0]

You don't consider an ideal communism with a couple of tweaks to be good?

[Leafsnail]

The best idea... would probably be to leave most things alone and just police the international laws we do have better (and possibly improve it).  Forcing laws on people is always gonna create resentment... and even if you can crush that resentment, crushing people into the dirt isn't gonna make the world a better place.