do you have loved ones on the government dole?

[presence]

Collecting Disability Becomes A Career Choice For Men

One reason is that the government seems to have gotten more openhanded with those claiming vague ailments. Eberstadt points out that in 1960, only one-fifth of disability benefits went to those with "mood disorders" and "musculoskeletal" problems. In 2011, nearly half of those on disability voiced such complaints.

It's A Job

"It is exceptionally difficult — for all practical purposes, impossible," writes Eberstadt, "for a medical professional to disprove a patient's claim that he or she is suffering from sad feelings or back pain."

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz2E5nbiOTq

Id rather see us on a citizen's dividend program than a welfare program; welfare creates

an INCENTIVE to feign neediness in our culture

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...n%27s+dividend

[VoluntaryAmerican]

These are not mutually exclusive, I use both in arguing against welfarism:

B) Capitalism would provide ample resources and cheap products.
C) There would be an increase in private charity due to less taxation.

However, I voted B) because I think it is the more important of the two and allows C) to take place.

I believe both of these to be empirically true statements, I also don't kid myself in to believing there would be no starvation. I just don't believe it merits mass-theft and redistribution of resources, which ultimately just causes more human suffering and is an abomination ethically.

[Toureg89]

I'll say this, the vast majority of the people I know on welfare do not have my sympathies.

qftmft. i know TWO people on foodstamps who are simultaneously trying to buy a house. how the hell do you have enough wealth to buy a house but not to feed yourself?

[Louise]

ALL of my siblings are on the dole. Like presence, in the post above, the situations are difficult. Two are "mentally challenged" and two have children with disabilites (adopted) that receive Medicare. I was once very bitter about this and one sibling was very hurt by my words. Now, I tell myself each day that it is through God's grace that we are well employed, healthy, etc.

[heavenlyboy34]

On the other side of the coin, if you're working and paying taxes into a system that you believe does more harm than good to society, how do you reconcile that with libertarianism?

What do you mean by "reconcile"? Libertarianism generally recognizes that these systems are destructive to everyone and proposes avoiding paying into it as much as possible. However, there are some schools of thought that say if you are forced into a situation where taking welfare is inevitable, getting that money out of the hands of the regime is not so bad. That's how RP rationalizes voting for getting cash back to his district in various forms. I'm trying to be open-minded about the situation. The system is obviously unsustainable, but stopping it suddenly would really hurt people with genuine and severe disabilities-unless that sudden transition included creating charities that can handle the poor and disabled in rational ways.

[LibertyEagle]

Your poll stinks. I am a paleoconservative and do NOT believe in welfare. Where did you come up with the idea that Paleocons advocated welfare?

[gerryb1]

On the other side of the coin, if you're working and paying taxes into a system that you believe does more harm than good to society, how do you reconcile that with libertarianism?

cages are not libertarian; thus staying out of them is.

[Steven Douglas]

Wow, I disagree with you on something....
There is a very simple reason why government can't run this style of charity. Not that I'm a Molyneux fan, but he's absolutely right when he says that "government IS force".
If you remove force from the equation, it ceases to be a state entity. All the state can do absent force is make declarations which are completely unbackable.

If congress passed a bill that said "We think competing groups ought to form charitable organizations voluntarily that will attempt to address problem X, but we're not going to allocate money to them, we're not going to hire anyone, we're not going to hold anyone accountable for progress, and we're not going to do anything when the public decides not to support one of those organizations any longer", well, can it be said to be a state entity at all?

The part I put in bold is the part I am not suggesting at all. It wouldn't be a case of "We think others should" for anything at all. Screw what the state thinks anyone "ought" to do.

And Yes, it could be said to be a state entity. And like any privately run entity, it can live or starve based on the support it receives voluntarily. I don't see the state, in the ideal sense, as "force". Not as a matter of principle (i.e., "If it's not a form of force, it's not the state."). That very premise, if universal, nullifies the concept of the consent of the governed.

There are useful functions for which a state is uniquely suited, as a NEVER-for-profit entity that serves the common good. And for me the common good has nothing to do with aggregate-anything at all. The governing assumption for "common good" would be in terms of access and equal benefit to all participating individuals, and ONLY insofar as it is not to the detriment of non-participating individuals.

An example of this would be a US Mint, (as originally designed loosely speaking). That is something that is

a) freely accessible to all
b) of equal benefit or cost to each
c) serves the public interests of all participating individuals, and
d) ONLY those individuals that participate.

No force involved, no guarantees of success or failure, and nothing wrong with that. The only problem with the US Mint, and it's another issue entirely, is that it was not a competing entity. And that's where force was misapplied, despite intentions. The US Mint, even with seigniorage to cover minting costs, was, ostensibly, a not-for-profit state entity.

Additionally, historically the state doesn't even figure out that X is a problem people want to address until the market has already figured that out and started implementing solutions. People work out their own futures, and then the state swoops in and grabs power. This is always the pattern.

I agree, as our coinage acts were a result of just that. But that doesn't constrain the nature of an ideal state in my mind. The coinage acts got it wrong only insofar as they used force to make declarations of market exchange values by fiat (as one metal against another). Otherwise, I don't see the idea that reliable universal standards (AS MARKET OPTIONS ONLY) could be set as being outside the purview of what I would consider an ideal state.

I think even allowing the state to make ex cathedra pronouncements on charity is letting the encyclopedia salesman wedge his foot in the door. Our rulers might be largely stupid but they're also cunning. If we allowed them to call for charities to be formed, it would take them three decades maximum to figure out they're holding a big freakin' gun, and that the lamest of excuses about a charity's performance would allow a populist takeover.

I confess you have me there. I'm still not off that dime, but it would be lame of me not to acknowledge that just about everywhere the state camel gets its nose in the market tent, everyone it was intended to protect ends up suffering as a result.

OK, OK, "Put the gun down, lieutenant, we're just having a conversation!" LOL

[Jordan]

I don't have a problem with most welfare programs. There are much more costly, much more damaging programs that should be cut before the social safety net. That said, no - none of my family members are "on the dole."

[Steven Douglas]

That said, no - none of my family members are "on the dole."

Never once borrowed any Fed-inflated currency that got its value from diluting the value of all other like currency in existence, huh? Bully for you and yours. It's a rare flock of dodo birds that can accomplish that.