Taking the King's shilling (welfare and regulation) (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

This issue has been touched on in a couple of recent threads so I thought it rated it's own thread: If you accept Government money must you accept Government regulation?

No:
We are compelled to pay tax (under threat of kidnap at gunpoint ) and it is unrealistic for us to resist this, therefore we should try and get as much money out of the State in welfare as we can while avoiding regulation.

The less the state regulates it's welfare the closer it's expenditure is to the will of the people and the less evil the tax and spend state is.

Richard has argued that libertarians should actively defraud the state in an effort to extract more welfare than we pay in taxes and bring about it's downfall.

Yes:
This is perhaps the position of ideological purity as the implication is that libertarians must reject welfare because to accept it would be to become involved in the state voluntarily (as opposed to involvement through taxation which is compulsory).

On the other hand it seems to make intuitive sense that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch and if you accept Government money then it is entitled to regulate you because that is sound financial management (return on investment, etc).

Thoughts?

 

[JonathanM]

I have voted yes, but this is with the understanding that all regulations would make sense and would not just be red tape.

Welfare must be regulated, but sometimes the regulation just clouds common sense. For instance when I almost had to quit my job where I made a mere $50 a week for pocket money in order to continue getting youth allowance which my family needed. Regulation like that can be incredibly unjust, and it took the common sense of someone in the bureaucracy to turn a 'blind eye' to my job to allow it to prevail.

 

[katie tully]

We are compelled to pay tax (under threat of kidnap at gunpoint ) and it is unrealistic for us to resist this, therefore we should try and get as much money out of the State in welfare as we can while avoiding regulation.

How many people on welfare pay tax

 

[Iron]

I dont think that we should assume that governments get nothing out of the things that they fund. Theyre not automatically entitled to make funding conditional on the performance of whatever political objective they like.

For instance, they provide the unemployed with welfare to ensure that they have some limited means to find employment, dont turn to crime etc. They partially fund some private schools and hospitals because they could never hope to have the funds to afford to run this all on their own, yet the private institutions suffer from rising populations, inceasingly costly facilities like computers and complex cancer treatments etc and unreasonable demand essentially caused by government policy in the first place.

Point is that they often already have their reward in that they avoid a far worse outcome which would be far more problematic and costly for them, should the funding not be made. So no, we shouldnt have to accept regulation as a rule.

Some exceptions imo occur with, say, the NT Intervention (to give an extreme example), where the dole is cut to families who dont send their children to school, throw it away on booze etc

 

[loquasagacious]

How many people on welfare pay tax

Almost all of them. When you consider that welfare is an all encompassing term for Government hand-outs.

Albeit in some cases the welfare received is equal to or greater than the tax paid. For example while unemployed individuals on newstart don't generally pay tax, most other direct welfare recipients do: students on YA who work part time do, families who receive family tax benefit A/B, parenting payment, etc etc etc.

Then of course there is the larger welfare mechanism: education, health, home insulation, etc etc. ITT every time the Government gives someone money it is welfare.

 

[will-anal]

No I was more generally referring to the long term unemployed, but yeh

 

[loquasagacious]

No I was more generally referring to the long term unemployed, but yeh

The unemployed are an excellent example for the affirmative case imo.

To offer them welfare but not regulate them at all (jobsearch requirements) would be lunacy (waste of money). And to regulate them (jobsearch requirements) but not provide welfare would be punitive at best.

 

[Empyrean444]

I have voted yes, but this is with the understanding that all regulations would make sense and would not just be red tape.

Pretty much this. While there certainly ought to be some regulation (obligation for the rendition of aid) it ought to be done 'within reason' (although this is so arbitrary and case-by-case that I admit it becomes extremely problematic).

 

[khorne]

There isn't much point just handing out money without regulation...Most (read*most*) will abuse it, creating only a larger strain on the economy. While it is acceptable for anyone, given the circumstances to be on unemployment welfare for a short period of time between jobs, everyone has the responsibility to sustain themselves as best they can.

 

[John McCain]

Richard has argued that libertarians should actively defraud the state in an effort to extract more welfare than we pay in taxes and bring about it's downfall.

Yes:
This is perhaps the position of ideological purity as the implication is that libertarians must reject welfare because to accept it would be to become involved in the state voluntarily (as opposed to involvement through taxation which is compulsory).

lol. The things I say.

I think it's ideologically pure to act in a selfish manner at all times. I just do what's best for myself, things I like to do. Where the state can benefit me I'll rob them blind, and I have no qualms about doing so.

The same as I would have no issue entering into an extortionate relationship with an individual who freely chose to enter that relationship.

But the door swings both ways, in that when you voluntarily enter into a relationship with the government, and operating without government assistance is a viable alternative, then yeah, you must play by their rules. A relationship with the government is exactly like any relationship with a corporate or private body in that respect.

How many people on welfare pay tax

Goods and services tax.

 

[dieburndie]

Goods and services tax.

Not just that either, many people pay net income tax and also receive direct welfare payments, a situation I have been in myself.

Also, a far greater number of tax payers receive welfare benefits in the form of government funded education and healthcare.
http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm100.pdf

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Let's not forget about the most dishonest tax of all, the inflation tax.

A covert tax levied on everyone in the world who holds Australian dollars.

Also, many welfare recipients are only temporarily on welfare. So over their life time they end up paying far more tax than they receive in welfare benefits.

Since people are being paid welfare with what is effectively their own money (which has been stolen from them) they should not feel any compulsion whatsoever to obey the government's rules, and should use any non-violent means possible to extract as much money from the government as possible, pay as little tax as possible, and to circumvent any regulations they don't like.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

This issue has been touched on in a couple of recent threads so I thought it rated it's own thread: If you accept Government money must you accept Government regulation?

No:
We are compelled to pay tax (under threat of kidnap at gunpoint ) and it is unrealistic for us to resist this, therefore we should try and get as much money out of the State in welfare as we can while avoiding regulation.

The less the state regulates it's welfare the closer it's expenditure is to the will of the people and the less evil the tax and spend state is.

Richard has argued that libertarians should actively defraud the state in an effort to extract more welfare than we pay in taxes and bring about it's downfall.

Yes:
This is perhaps the position of ideological purity as the implication is that libertarians must reject welfare because to accept it would be to become involved in the state voluntarily (as opposed to involvement through taxation which is compulsory).

On the other hand it seems to make intuitive sense that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch and if you accept Government money then it is entitled to regulate you because that is sound financial management (return on investment, etc).

Thoughts?

There is nothing inherently wrong with government regulation any more than there is having salt in one's diet, so to anybody not a big L libertarian, this is a moot point with an obvious answer.