People used to have to actually put their own money where their mouth was to do good. Now it's a game of acquiring false virtue by voting to use other people's money.
Bill Melater , Voting is a secret, so no virtue - false or otherwise - acquired. Also when did voting for the state to be good and just become a bad thing? Those of us who vote for a kind and generous society tend to be kind and generous ourselves, and do dig into our own pockets. You are spruiking a false dichotomy.
@@StevenGreenGuz False. When you vote for State programs, you are voting also to use the money of those that do not want it. You are not digging into your own pocket. Do not conflate your personal desires with that of others. You cannot vote for a "kind and generous" society. Generous people give without being told. The fact that you have to vote to use State force to ensure it, actually subverts your premise.
Bill Melater , But if the majority vote for a generous society, then it is the will of the people. Also state (public) money isn’t necessarily tax money, so the selfish misers don’t have to concern themselves. #LearnMMT
@Another Agent , Charming. Did you kiss your mum with that mouth? PS: Sorry if the words I used were too long to sound out. PPS: How's your cousin going?
@@RodFleming-World americans have always despised the state. A lot of Americans are ignorant to the actions of the oligarchs, especially overseas. Good on you guys for maintaining the family. I pray we learn from Poland, Hungary and the like.
In welfare state there is no correction of behavior. In private charity you need to at least try to be better as condition of that charity. Don't drink, don't gamble, be nice to your children, spouse, family or you don't get a dime. With State run charity this went out of the window. And we are actively supporting bad human behavior. In case of Western Europe they are financing their own demise by supporting high reproductive rates of potentially violent and otherwise unproductive communities. Only in Europe you can have 5 kids, not work, pray 5 times a day, beat your wife and dress in pajamas.
Bruce Ohr’s wife works for Fusion GPS it does but it made individual people desensitized to people’s troubles we now rely on government not our neighbors and communities.
And people are too degenerated to understand that in, even the mid term, the system only serves the benefits of 3rd world migrants, smugglers, dope dealers, freeloaders and islamic terrorists.
In the UK some people don't want to work because it's easier to live on welfare. A girl gets pregnant and she gets financial 'help' as well as an apartment fully furnished and if she accuses the child's father of abuse she gets child support as well as her welfare and these girls/women live like royalty and the fathers are reduced to visiting their children at the mother's whim. Many fathers crumble under the weight of the burden.
There is another factor at play and it’s very much ignored. It’s the leisure economy. The last century has seen an explosion in spending not just money but time on leisure activities. Which has grabbed more and more the attention of people. Do you think a wasted young adult who has partied all weekend really wants to look after a sick relative? This type of behaviour now goes on long into adulthood and I would argue it’s created a much longer adolescence. Which means an abandonment of responsibility.
My note: - 1:33 there are people who need help. But not all people need help deserve to get help. Personal connection can make that judgement. In the case where a person keep using their money for alcohol, knowingly, consciously, they may ask help in form of money to buy more alcohol but what they really need is the help to quit drinking alcohol, so giving them money is not a help dispite what they claim that would help them. Let help be given to them who knows what helps those who need the help. Often times third party made the wrong kind of help due to the absence of understanding the problem, that third party is the government. Gin,
There was a thread on this video discussing why the welfare system as it exists today hurts rather than helps society but the OP deleted rather than leave it up so that others might examine it and possibly gain further insight. As it happens, I still had my response that I posted saved to my 'copy' function(too many time I've responded in the little window in the top right, accidentally clicked outside of it and lost what was written so now I copy as I go in case it should happen). This was the response: "I'm curious, how did you come to the conclusion that the comment section is "toxic"? From what I see here, everyone was respectful in their disagreement. What's more, they then went on to explain why they disagreed rather than simply leave it at 'I disagree' so that greater understanding might be had. The word "toxic" being used highly suggests an emotional reaction to the content and responses which is often not compatible with topics discussed within the confines of philosophy. Philosophy seeks answers and understanding independent of the personal feelings of the examiners(people can recognize and take into account how emotion can influence beliefs and actions but should never allow _their own_ to blind them to how said emotion fits into the topic at hand). Finally, being told that one is wrong is not, in and of itself, a personal attack as some might believe. There are times we are all wrong. When that happens, we are lucky if someone chooses to attempt to help us understand why so that we might grow beyond our own present limitations. Too often people are discounted and left ill-equipped to go through life; such people tend to develop a bitterness toward others who have had greater success than themselves because they can't understand how it came to be. Channels like this seek to help people so that they might lead happier, more productive lives." We can't grow if we run away from the truth.
Well said. Plus, I feel you already told me all I needed to know about the post you responded to. But I'd still like to, just for the sake of the argument. audiatur et altera pars.
So glad you saved your post! I have learned to copy before I hat Reply. Too many carefully worded posts of mine have disappeared due to TH-cam "errors."
A lot of bad things have spawned from it in the job market as well. First there was a distinct class consciousness in occupations, it seemed to start with the unions but it's even reached down to the smallest of shops. Used to be it wasn't all that uncommon to see someone stocking shelves one minute and doing the books the next, now there seems to be a huge divide between management/thinking jobs and worker/doing. The most toxic version of this came in the 90s with the whole "corporate culture" thing and the soft skills that was sold with it. Our city paper was a great example of things done right. There were a handful of reporters/columnists that did that exclusively and wrote for many area papers, the rest were part time or mostly, worked other jobs within the paper itself. They worked ad sales, print production, drove truck, janitorial and all that. The owner even delivered papers to the downtown and other businesses, good luck with that though because you'd be getting it late ;) He'd ask about goings on in the business and would relay things going on elsewhere in town, from that he'd turn up stories, help get community wide initiatives, events going and those type things. With so much going corporate and so few mall businesses being started I think that divide is probably going to increase and it won't do anyone any good.
I keep telling people slavery LITERALLY "Never Died", and you're example only further proves it. Why? Simple. The divide is almost ALWAYS the goddamn same......those who have to "Bust their ass" for a buck, and those that "have a buck to give the poor man busting his ass". If you have a class of people collectively STRUGGLING to find some air, meanwhile another DIFFERENT POPULATION appears to be living almost TOO comfortably.... Hate to break it to Americans, but when the wealth gap is THAT large.....there's a damned good chance one, or several populations, are intentionally "taking advantage" of said population. And forget all this minority business too, or population size shit. The size of a population IS important........but........only when we're still allowed to USE OUR GODDAMN GUNS to stop, or perhaps remedy, other populations from taking advantage of yours. If I may say so, I do believe the founders had intended for our American Federal Government to be the "Great Mediator" of this land.........not the "Great Arbitrator". As we've allowed it to become this last century or so. Then again.....maybe I'm only speaking for SOME of the founders.....I keep forgetting we have more than 1 dad XD lol
Live your life on your own terms. Once you take help from your family you lose your autonomy. Then when you’re destitute shame the family for not supporting you on your terms.
Welfare leads to higher tax so you don’t have the money to help others... and then welfare state penalise anyone who try’s to increase wealth by marginal tax rates.. and other penalties..so yes much of it is counterproductive... the problem is balance we never seem to find the right balance..
Just like it would be laughable to say that the govt "leaves no one behind" in 2023 I think it is wishful thinking to claim that the disabled and/or old pre 1950's were all supported by their families or church - it is quite human to abandon those that are a burden and for large organizations to let people in need fall through the cracks.
Orwell wrote about tramping from Poor House (or Work House) to Poor House The spectre memorably. The modern welfare state was brooght into being in Britain after the war with recent memories of exrtreme privation in the long depressions of the 20s and 30s. It was felt that the working man had been let down returning as soldiers after the First War, so 'Homes Fit For Heroes' (council housing) was the spearhead. We as children in the 1970s were frightened with stories of poor children who came to school without shoes, within living memory.
Absolutely, and the great thing about 'homes fit for heroes' in postwar Britain was that it benefitted everyone. I still can't understand how free market supporters can applaud the selling off of council stock by PM Thatcher (at cut-price rates), that was paid for by poor taxpayers during those long, hard postwar years. Every government since has said 'we must build more', but they never do. I also remember poor kids in school even in the 1980s, one in particular who remained poor and dirty despite being 'helped' by a Major in the Salvation Army (aid that didn't come free, I might add). In the past, the role of the Church was greater than is being suggested here, but was also not without costs, or indeed stigma, recipients being commonly referred to as 'on the parish'. I really don't understand why a philosophy channel is advocating for either dependence on the church, or the pretence of belief required to mask it!
I have no family so I know what that is thank you for your clarity , I try seek my old church but my ex fionce and him funding my church where I was baptised , so he goes there I stopped going :(
"That is not the nature of human beings." Maybe not our immediate clan members, even then the nature of humans beings sometimes drives them to such acts. And then we have the nature of human beings towards homeless people or drug addicts.
the problem with providing help to homeless people and drug addicts is both, to varying but significant degrees, will not accept your help or will use it in a fashion that perpetuates the negatives of their situation. Most homeless people are victims of our unwillingness to commit individuals to mental institutions against their will. Asylums were deplorable in condition but this is where many mentally incapable individuals used to go until the mid 20th century. Most homeless people, aside from being hard on the eyes and nose to be frank, are mentally incapable of sustaining life in the modern world, have drug/alcohol addictions, paranoia which precludes them searching for or accepting help or staying indoors for very long. Most intelligent adults realize it is futile to go beyond meeting individual homeless peoples needs beyond a a few cents to a dollar here or there because they know many of them in fact make enough money to get themselves help at a shelter, a number of other community centers, a hospital or police station even, but choose not to. Giving them more help encourages them to remain in their desperate scenario, which they have not found themselves in just because of bad luck. If you're in a first world nation it's very unlikely there are no resources through which someone without a home can't get on their feet to get into one--if one weren't encumbered by these mental issues but was homeless, what could possibly stop them from beginning to earn a living somehow to live or to get in contact with someone who can take care of them?
He utterly twists the past to fit his beliefs. He ignores the workhouses the Glasgow slums. The New York slums. Read Gangs of New York and get an idea how we used to treat our poor.
@@jackschueth Americans think that the democrats are left wing. Viewed from Europe, it looks like you have 2 right wing parties. Democrats may be to the left of the Republicans but they're way right of centre. One of the big misunderstandings sold to Americans (it's too late to change it) is the idea that the socialism which europeans aspire to has anything to do with Communism. In Europe, we are very clear that Communism is batshit crazy. Once we agree on that (with Americans), I should explain that Capitalism is clearly the only sensible basis for any economy. However, it must be tempered by some things which have to be paid for at the state/national level and it needs to be reigned in so as not to be able to behave in a way that's 'red in tooth and claw'. Americans agree that taxation has to pay for such things as roads and other infrastructure and law enforcement and national defence. These are 'socialist' policies that, on the whole, Americans agree with. Europeans would go further and include healthcare for all in that safety net for its citizens. For most Americans have been fed the idea that socialism is a path to communism. Nowhere in the western world/first world is there any chance of communism getting anywhere, for now anyway. Bernie Saunders has some sensible ideas on this but the corporate powers that be, are dead set against this even though it would be in the interests of all Americans. The insane amounts of money spent on the ironically named 'defence' is out of all proportion to the real needs of the country. Depending on the generosity of the rich is a hiding to nothing. Clement Atlee, a previous British Prime Minister said the following: "Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim."
@@BrianMcGuirkBMG what you dont mention though is medicare for all bankrupting countries that implement it and the lack of medical advancements that come along with it. Not to mention america is the only country that has free speech left. I'm all for schooling, police, roads, and infrastructure. But I am unwilling to pay for people being irresponsible with thier health and safety. Americans are known to eat like shit. Now if they were to ban cigarettes and alcohol while implementing universal healthcare I'd think about it. But we know prohibition does work worth shit so unless the US gets a healthy oriented mindset I'd have to say f no so universal healthcare. Also are democrats this year id actually concider to be left where previously id agree we had the right and the further right
@@BrianMcGuirkBMG also before the welfare state people relied on neighbors and family for support. Charity was kind and warm not this gray unfeeling thing. Gray and unfeeling is how I'd describe the government. Oh and Bernie's ideas are dumb af once you understand the cost associated and get past his lies in how much taxes would have to be raised to support his ideas
@@jackschueth Before the welfare state, what happened to those without neighbours or friends or family? Or those who had those but fell out of favour with them? Atlee was the PM who started the national health service after the war. The UK spends one third per head of population compared to the USA on healthcare. That's insurance and private and publicly funded all added together. The US patient is being taken to the cleaners. By the govt, by the insurance industry and by the health institutions and big pharma. The health service is not near bankruptcy. It is being deliberately underfunded by a right wing govt here and slowly privatised. The idea that an ambulance will send a bill to a patient is preposterous. It is also false to suggest that Europe is in any way behind in medical advancements compared to USA. Your your child mortality is way behind the rest of the western world. The bad eating habits of Americans are not due to the wrong headdedness of individuals. Your corporate sector frees itself from any regulations which Europe would use to protect its people. Food standards are much higher in Europe. Something which has come under a lot of discussion in the brexit debate recently. Nobody in the UK has to sell their house or go bankrupt due to illness. and that would include you if you became a UK resident. All prescriptions in UK are charged at 9 pounds regardless of the actual cost. Some drugs are excluded because they are judged ineffective in proportion to their cost but they are few and you're free to pay for them yourself if you need to. A visit to a GP (general practitioner) is free for everyone. If he/she refers you to a specialist, that is also free. If you have to have an operation that is also free. There are alongside, private facilities available and you can choose to pay for those either personally or using insurance. Note that where I said 'free' I am fully aware that it is paid for by the govt and ultimately by the taxpayer. But it's a darn sight better value than you get in America. Nobody dies here because they cannot afford health care.
He says it not human nature for people not to care about other people. Okay I’ll buy that. So then capitalism must be the reason people are the way they are now. This guy is probably working for some corporate think tank
But I want independence, not to be a burden on my 'family'. Shouldn't employers also take responsibility? They'll drop sick and infirm to the state for income...
Germany is on the road to bankruptcy. Even faster now with huge influx of 3rd world immigrants. Their welfare spending is astronomical and was unsustainable even before that. Their GDP growth is holding barely above zero for decades. Lots of capital is funneled towards social/state services (50-60%) and not much of that towards production. What makes them look good is, that others do even worse like France, Italy, Spain, infamous Greece etc. Norway has tiny, very homogeneous population compared to US and their are highly dependent on oil and gas industry. It would be bad comparison.
I live in Cambridge and nearby there is an almshouse. Humans have always looked after each other. Just look at animals and how they will look after a fellow sick animal. The welfare state is simply a reasonably good way to pool resources in the form of monetary, scientific and skills in order to look after the weak.
what animals are you saying do this? Maybe elephants or some other intelligent pack animals, but even then i don't think this is anything close to universal, unless you negate the statement.
This comment section is a crazy hodgepodge of personal anecdotes and opinions on why the welfare state is a bad idea. All relating to some sense of pride or self-accomplishment, and that being poor is just a question of will, since being rich is a question of will, too. In Denmark, we have a welfare state. And people who argue against it, have proper arguments instead of this pathetic outburst I see in this comment section. The US will hopefully learn from the rest of the world some day. You are not exceptional. Your country is a young bumbling behemoth, struggling to make sense of the world. Something us older countries still struggle with, but without resorting to shooting eachother, screaming "COMMUNISTS!", becoming victimized snowflakes, and elect an orange clown which half as your leader. The US is more polarized than any country i know.
Many people were stuck in horrible orphanages or in poor houses in the past, while many died because they could not get medical treatment. The voluntary system was inadequate because of the weak economy. Today private charity and families cannot cope because their are too many irresponsible people who get in trouble and then weigh down the system. Certainly welfare as we have it today is a disaster, but the state needs to step in to make sure people work and save, start a business or buy a house so they do not end up with nothing in their old age. Many people blow their money or live idly and then turn to charity and the government for help. Charities and families cannot handle these problems alone, especially when so many are idle or refuse to work. Probably if the irresponsible were forced to take care of themselves, then charities and families could deal with the remaining unfortunate people.
Even in the 21st century there are people in the wealthiest nations of the world, of all political shades, that are homeless and hungry. Extreme socialism and extreme capitalism fail to solve the problems of the huge ever increasing gap between the minority very wealthy elites and the vast very poor populas. The common denominator of the root causes for this incredible state of affairs 12,000 years after the seeds of human civisation were sowen, farming, is due to corruption spurred by human greed.
theoretical drivel. what's been shown to work? Where are people the most prosperous, happy, free? There's an asnwer to those questions if you care to look. Reality on reality's terms.
James Coffey , Not really. Done right state welfare brings people out of poverty, and gives people back their agency. That rarely happens with private charity. Both are required. Each performs a different function.
where is it done right? that's like saying socialism is great when done right, it never is, by its nature it can't. welfare is the same, it takes away agency from both the giver and the receiver
People used to have to actually put their own money where their mouth was to do good. Now it's a game of acquiring false virtue by voting to use other people's money.
Bill Melater ,
Voting is a secret, so no virtue - false or otherwise - acquired. Also when did voting for the state to be good and just become a bad thing? Those of us who vote for a kind and generous society tend to be kind and generous ourselves, and do dig into our own pockets. You are spruiking a false dichotomy.
@@StevenGreenGuz False. When you vote for State programs, you are voting also to use the money of those that do not want it. You are not digging into your own pocket. Do not conflate your personal desires with that of others.
You cannot vote for a "kind and generous" society. Generous people give without being told. The fact that you have to vote to use State force to ensure it, actually subverts your premise.
Bill Melater ,
But if the majority vote for a generous society, then it is the will of the people. Also state (public) money isn’t necessarily tax money, so the selfish misers don’t have to concern themselves.
#LearnMMT
@Another Agent ,
Charming. Did you kiss your mum with that mouth?
PS: Sorry if the words I used were too long to sound out.
PPS: How's your cousin going?
@Another Agent ,
PPPS: I'm not a US American. So you can shove your constitution where the sun don't shine.
This is bang on. I live in a country where, effectively, there is no welfare state. As a result families are strong.
What country is that?
@@Gumardee_coins_and_banknotes Philippines
@@RodFleming-World Oh a third world country.
@@Gumardee_coins_and_banknotes as yet not totally ruined by disgusting USican ideas. And long may that last. The world has had enough of you.
@@RodFleming-World americans have always despised the state. A lot of Americans are ignorant to the actions of the oligarchs, especially overseas. Good on you guys for maintaining the family. I pray we learn from Poland, Hungary and the like.
"That's not the Nature of Human Beings"
Collectivism seeks to smother human nature.
Perhaps if libertarianism had a more collectivist ideology it would succeed.
@@MattiDwyer If it had, would it still be libertarianism?
In welfare state there is no correction of behavior. In private charity you need to at least try to be better as condition of that charity. Don't drink, don't gamble, be nice to your children, spouse, family or you don't get a dime.
With State run charity this went out of the window. And we are actively supporting bad human behavior.
In case of Western Europe they are financing their own demise by supporting high reproductive rates of potentially violent and otherwise unproductive communities. Only in Europe you can have 5 kids, not work, pray 5 times a day, beat your wife and dress in pajamas.
Biggest myth is that it works.
Bruce Ohr’s wife works for Fusion GPS it does but it made individual people desensitized to people’s troubles we now rely on government not our neighbors and communities.
And people are too degenerated to understand that in, even the mid term, the system only serves the benefits of 3rd world migrants, smugglers, dope dealers, freeloaders and islamic terrorists.
It does work. It gives children, disabled and elderly food, housing, clothes and their bills paid.
In the UK some people don't want to work because it's easier to live on welfare. A girl gets pregnant and she gets financial 'help' as well as an apartment fully furnished and if she accuses the child's father of abuse she gets child support as well as her welfare and these girls/women live like royalty and the fathers are reduced to visiting their children at the mother's whim. Many fathers crumble under the weight of the burden.
This is a great channel! Just posting lectures and things like that instead of someone talking about it is gold!
There is another factor at play and it’s very much ignored.
It’s the leisure economy. The last century has seen an explosion in spending not just money but time on leisure activities.
Which has grabbed more and more the attention of people.
Do you think a wasted young adult who has partied all weekend really wants to look after a sick relative? This type of behaviour now goes on long into adulthood and I would argue it’s created a much longer adolescence. Which means an abandonment of responsibility.
My note:
- 1:33 there are people who need help. But not all people need help deserve to get help. Personal connection can make that judgement. In the case where a person keep using their money for alcohol, knowingly, consciously, they may ask help in form of money to buy more alcohol but what they really need is the help to quit drinking alcohol, so giving them money is not a help dispite what they claim that would help them. Let help be given to them who knows what helps those who need the help. Often times third party made the wrong kind of help due to the absence of understanding the problem, that third party is the government.
Gin,
vote bitcoin (and vodka)
Ultimately the only solution is to help yourself.
Robert Higgs is a remarkable scholar, a person of immense integrity atop his academic accomplishments.
There was a thread on this video discussing why the welfare system as it exists today hurts rather than helps society but the OP deleted rather than leave it up so that others might examine it and possibly gain further insight. As it happens, I still had my response that I posted saved to my 'copy' function(too many time I've responded in the little window in the top right, accidentally clicked outside of it and lost what was written so now I copy as I go in case it should happen). This was the response:
"I'm curious, how did you come to the conclusion that the comment section is "toxic"? From what I see here, everyone was respectful in their disagreement. What's more, they then went on to explain why they disagreed rather than simply leave it at 'I disagree' so that greater understanding might be had.
The word "toxic" being used highly suggests an emotional reaction to the content and responses which is often not compatible with topics discussed within the confines of philosophy. Philosophy seeks answers and understanding independent of the personal feelings of the examiners(people can recognize and take into account how emotion can influence beliefs and actions but should never allow _their own_ to blind them to how said emotion fits into the topic at hand).
Finally, being told that one is wrong is not, in and of itself, a personal attack as some might believe. There are times we are all wrong. When that happens, we are lucky if someone chooses to attempt to help us understand why so that we might grow beyond our own present limitations. Too often people are discounted and left ill-equipped to go through life; such people tend to develop a bitterness toward others who have had greater success than themselves because they can't understand how it came to be. Channels like this seek to help people so that they might lead happier, more productive lives."
We can't grow if we run away from the truth.
Well said.
Plus, I feel you already told me all I needed to know about the post you responded to. But I'd still like to, just for the sake of the argument.
audiatur et altera pars.
So glad you saved your post! I have learned to copy before I hat Reply. Too many carefully worded posts of mine have disappeared due to TH-cam "errors."
@8:00, need to add "some unwilling to work" to the, "some unable to work; some unable to find work..." 😂🤣
“We’re all informing on ourselves, if we have a phone in our pockets.”
A lot of bad things have spawned from it in the job market as well. First there was a distinct class consciousness in occupations, it seemed to start with the unions but it's even reached down to the smallest of shops. Used to be it wasn't all that uncommon to see someone stocking shelves one minute and doing the books the next, now there seems to be a huge divide between management/thinking jobs and worker/doing. The most toxic version of this came in the 90s with the whole "corporate culture" thing and the soft skills that was sold with it.
Our city paper was a great example of things done right. There were a handful of reporters/columnists that did that exclusively and wrote for many area papers, the rest were part time or mostly, worked other jobs within the paper itself. They worked ad sales, print production, drove truck, janitorial and all that. The owner even delivered papers to the downtown and other businesses, good luck with that though because you'd be getting it late ;) He'd ask about goings on in the business and would relay things going on elsewhere in town, from that he'd turn up stories, help get community wide initiatives, events going and those type things.
With so much going corporate and so few mall businesses being started I think that divide is probably going to increase and it won't do anyone any good.
I keep telling people slavery LITERALLY "Never Died", and you're example only further proves it.
Why? Simple. The divide is almost ALWAYS the goddamn same......those who have to "Bust their ass" for a buck, and those that "have a buck to give the poor man busting his ass". If you have a class of people collectively STRUGGLING to find some air, meanwhile another DIFFERENT POPULATION appears to be living almost TOO comfortably....
Hate to break it to Americans, but when the wealth gap is THAT large.....there's a damned good chance one, or several populations, are intentionally "taking advantage" of said population. And forget all this minority business too, or population size shit. The size of a population IS important........but........only when we're still allowed to USE OUR GODDAMN GUNS to stop, or perhaps remedy, other populations from taking advantage of yours.
If I may say so, I do believe the founders had intended for our American Federal Government to be the "Great Mediator" of this land.........not the "Great Arbitrator". As we've allowed it to become this last century or so. Then again.....maybe I'm only speaking for SOME of the founders.....I keep forgetting we have more than 1 dad XD lol
Live your life on your own terms. Once you take help from your family you lose your autonomy. Then when you’re destitute shame the family for not supporting you on your terms.
Welfare leads to higher tax so you don’t have the money to help others... and then welfare state penalise anyone who try’s to increase wealth by marginal tax rates.. and other penalties..so yes much of it is counterproductive... the problem is balance we never seem to find the right balance..
Just like it would be laughable to say that the govt "leaves no one behind" in 2023 I think it is wishful thinking to claim that the disabled and/or old pre 1950's were all supported by their families or church - it is quite human to abandon those that are a burden and for large organizations to let people in need fall through the cracks.
Higgs is spot on.
Orwell wrote about tramping from Poor House (or Work House) to Poor House The spectre memorably. The modern welfare state was brooght into being in Britain after the war with recent memories of exrtreme privation in the long depressions of the 20s and 30s. It was felt that the working man had been let down returning as soldiers after the First War, so 'Homes Fit For Heroes' (council housing) was the spearhead. We as children in the 1970s were frightened with stories of poor children who came to school without shoes, within living memory.
Absolutely, and the great thing about 'homes fit for heroes' in postwar Britain was that it benefitted everyone. I still can't understand how free market supporters can applaud the selling off of council stock by PM Thatcher (at cut-price rates), that was paid for by poor taxpayers during those long, hard postwar years. Every government since has said 'we must build more', but they never do.
I also remember poor kids in school even in the 1980s, one in particular who remained poor and dirty despite being 'helped' by a Major in the Salvation Army (aid that didn't come free, I might add). In the past, the role of the Church was greater than is being suggested here, but was also not without costs, or indeed stigma, recipients being commonly referred to as 'on the parish'.
I really don't understand why a philosophy channel is advocating for either dependence on the church, or the pretence of belief required to mask it!
I have no family so I know what that is thank you for your clarity , I try seek my old church but my ex fionce and him funding my church where I was baptised , so he goes there I stopped going :(
"That is not the nature of human beings."
Maybe not our immediate clan members, even then the nature of humans beings sometimes drives them to such acts. And then we have the nature of human beings towards homeless people or drug addicts.
Inner Vigilance i’m confused as to the meaning of your perspective on the quote?
the problem with providing help to homeless people and drug addicts is both, to varying but significant degrees, will not accept your help or will use it in a fashion that perpetuates the negatives of their situation. Most homeless people are victims of our unwillingness to commit individuals to mental institutions against their will. Asylums were deplorable in condition but this is where many mentally incapable individuals used to go until the mid 20th century.
Most homeless people, aside from being hard on the eyes and nose to be frank, are mentally incapable of sustaining life in the modern world, have drug/alcohol addictions, paranoia which precludes them searching for or accepting help or staying indoors for very long.
Most intelligent adults realize it is futile to go beyond meeting individual homeless peoples needs beyond a a few cents to a dollar here or there because they know many of them in fact make enough money to get themselves help at a shelter, a number of other community centers, a hospital or police station even, but choose not to. Giving them more help encourages them to remain in their desperate scenario, which they have not found themselves in just because of bad luck. If you're in a first world nation it's very unlikely there are no resources through which someone without a home can't get on their feet to get into one--if one weren't encumbered by these mental issues but was homeless, what could possibly stop them from beginning to earn a living somehow to live or to get in contact with someone who can take care of them?
Great stuff. SUBBED
He utterly twists the past to fit his beliefs. He ignores the workhouses the Glasgow slums. The New York slums. Read Gangs of New York and get an idea how we used to treat our poor.
Oh so the democrat areas were shit? What a suprise
@@jackschueth Americans think that the democrats are left wing. Viewed from Europe, it looks like you have 2 right wing parties. Democrats may be to the left of the Republicans but they're way right of centre. One of the big misunderstandings sold to Americans (it's too late to change it) is the idea that the socialism which europeans aspire to has anything to do with Communism. In Europe, we are very clear that Communism is batshit crazy. Once we agree on that (with Americans), I should explain that Capitalism is clearly the only sensible basis for any economy. However, it must be tempered by some things which have to be paid for at the state/national level and it needs to be reigned in so as not to be able to behave in a way that's 'red in tooth and claw'. Americans agree that taxation has to pay for such things as roads and other infrastructure and law enforcement and national defence. These are 'socialist' policies that, on the whole, Americans agree with. Europeans would go further and include healthcare for all in that safety net for its citizens. For most Americans have been fed the idea that socialism is a path to communism. Nowhere in the western world/first world is there any chance of communism getting anywhere, for now anyway. Bernie Saunders has some sensible ideas on this but the corporate powers that be, are dead set against this even though it would be in the interests of all Americans. The insane amounts of money spent on the ironically named 'defence' is out of all proportion to the real needs of the country.
Depending on the generosity of the rich is a hiding to nothing.
Clement Atlee, a previous British Prime Minister said the following:
"Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly,
not dole out money at a whim."
@@BrianMcGuirkBMG what you dont mention though is medicare for all bankrupting countries that implement it and the lack of medical advancements that come along with it. Not to mention america is the only country that has free speech left.
I'm all for schooling, police, roads, and infrastructure. But I am unwilling to pay for people being irresponsible with thier health and safety. Americans are known to eat like shit. Now if they were to ban cigarettes and alcohol while implementing universal healthcare I'd think about it. But we know prohibition does work worth shit so unless the US gets a healthy oriented mindset I'd have to say f no so universal healthcare.
Also are democrats this year id actually concider to be left where previously id agree we had the right and the further right
@@BrianMcGuirkBMG also before the welfare state people relied on neighbors and family for support. Charity was kind and warm not this gray unfeeling thing. Gray and unfeeling is how I'd describe the government. Oh and Bernie's ideas are dumb af once you understand the cost associated and get past his lies in how much taxes would have to be raised to support his ideas
@@jackschueth
Before the welfare state, what happened to those without neighbours or friends or family? Or those who had those but fell out of favour with them?
Atlee was the PM who started the national health service after the war. The UK spends one third per head of population compared to the USA on healthcare. That's insurance and private and publicly funded all added together. The US patient is being taken to the cleaners. By the govt, by the insurance industry and by the health institutions and big pharma.
The health service is not near bankruptcy. It is being deliberately underfunded by a right wing govt here and slowly privatised. The idea that an ambulance will send a bill to a patient is preposterous. It is also false to suggest that Europe is in any way behind in medical advancements compared to USA. Your your child mortality is way behind the rest of the western world. The bad eating habits of Americans are not due to the wrong headdedness of individuals. Your corporate sector frees itself from any regulations which Europe would use to protect its people. Food standards are much higher in Europe. Something which has come under a lot of discussion in the brexit debate recently. Nobody in the UK has to sell their house or go bankrupt due to illness. and that would include you if you became a UK resident.
All prescriptions in UK are charged at 9 pounds regardless of the actual cost. Some drugs are excluded because they are judged ineffective in proportion to their cost but they are few and you're free to pay for them yourself if you need to.
A visit to a GP (general practitioner) is free for everyone. If he/she refers you to a specialist, that is also free. If you have to have an operation that is also free. There are alongside, private facilities available and you can choose to pay for those either personally or using insurance.
Note that where I said 'free' I am fully aware that it is paid for by the govt and ultimately by the taxpayer. But it's a darn sight better value than you get in America. Nobody dies here because they cannot afford health care.
True today aa it ever was
He says it not human nature for people not to care about other people. Okay I’ll buy that. So then capitalism must be the reason people are the way they are now. This guy is probably working for some corporate think tank
wrong, charity thrived, and still does, in capitalism. capitalism made people wealthy enough to donate as much as they do.
Government could give money to the families, instead of individuals.
But I want independence, not to be a burden on my 'family'.
Shouldn't employers also take responsibility? They'll drop sick and infirm to the state for income...
Also, it's standard policy for insurance companies to force the client to apply for all assistance to offset the amount they are liable to pay.
Why does he always use worse case scenarios ( as do all conservatives) and not compare us to say Germany or Norway ?
Germany is on the road to bankruptcy. Even faster now with huge influx of 3rd world immigrants. Their welfare spending is astronomical and was unsustainable even before that. Their GDP growth is holding barely above zero for decades. Lots of capital is funneled towards social/state services (50-60%) and not much of that towards production. What makes them look good is, that others do even worse like France, Italy, Spain, infamous Greece etc.
Norway has tiny, very homogeneous population compared to US and their are highly dependent on oil and gas industry. It would be bad comparison.
Germany is on the road to Islam. The path the people have chosen and this is what they now strive for. Allah snackbar to all of them lolol
@@danielbowman7226 three years on: *cracking and bursting noise intensifies*
I live in Cambridge and nearby there is an almshouse.
Humans have always looked after each other.
Just look at animals and how they will look after a fellow sick animal.
The welfare state is simply a reasonably good way to pool resources in the form of monetary, scientific and skills in order to look after the weak.
what animals are you saying do this? Maybe elephants or some other intelligent pack animals, but even then i don't think this is anything close to universal, unless you negate the statement.
@@venga3 I would be in favour of it being voluntary. The question is - could we raise as much money if it was on a voluntary basis?
Lets bring back Mass Poverty, hell yer.
poverty was in rapid decline until welfare came along
yer ok what ever you say buddy.@@SoloRenegade
This comment section is a crazy hodgepodge of personal anecdotes and opinions on why the welfare state is a bad idea. All relating to some sense of pride or self-accomplishment, and that being poor is just a question of will, since being rich is a question of will, too.
In Denmark, we have a welfare state. And people who argue against it, have proper arguments instead of this pathetic outburst I see in this comment section. The US will hopefully learn from the rest of the world some day. You are not exceptional. Your country is a young bumbling behemoth, struggling to make sense of the world. Something us older countries still struggle with, but without resorting to shooting eachother, screaming "COMMUNISTS!", becoming victimized snowflakes, and elect an orange clown which half as your leader.
The US is more polarized than any country i know.
You said it all.
Not only was it the case in the past, it's still the case today. What an absurd argument!
Like this video
Many people were stuck in horrible orphanages or in poor houses in the past, while many died because they could not get medical treatment. The voluntary system was inadequate because of the weak economy. Today private charity and families cannot cope because their are too many irresponsible people who get in trouble and then weigh down the system. Certainly welfare as we have it today is a disaster, but the state needs to step in to make sure people work and save, start a business or buy a house so they do not end up with nothing in their old age. Many people blow their money or live idly and then turn to charity and the government for help. Charities and families cannot handle these problems alone, especially when so many are idle or refuse to work. Probably if the irresponsible were forced to take care of themselves, then charities and families could deal with the remaining unfortunate people.
I noticed he directly called out Republicans but did not do the same for Democrats lil wierd
Even in the 21st century there are people in the wealthiest nations of the world, of all political shades, that are homeless and hungry.
Extreme socialism and extreme capitalism fail to solve the problems of the huge ever increasing gap between the minority very wealthy elites and the vast very poor populas.
The common denominator of the root causes for this incredible state of affairs 12,000 years after the seeds of human civisation were sowen, farming, is due to corruption spurred by human greed.
theoretical drivel. what's been shown to work? Where are people the most prosperous, happy, free? There's an asnwer to those questions if you care to look. Reality on reality's terms.
People are most prosperous in Qatar, the richest country in earth
Which has zero taxes
@@theadorebagwell7187 quatar is 46th in prosperity. So far far behind western countries.
This man’s first several statements are wholly misguided on nearly every level. Almost to the point of cruelty if it wasn’t born of ignorance.
So welfare is a logical and more efficient version of the family. Got it!
I don't think it's necessarily more logical and it's definetly not more efficient
@@IgnacioAguilarToledo ,
You may be right about efficiency. But it is a logical next step, and it is certainly more effective is managed properly.
it's a terrible effect on the human condition, removes the human element of charity and giving and throws control of that to the bureaucracy
James Coffey ,
Not really. Done right state welfare brings people out of poverty, and gives people back their agency. That rarely happens with private charity.
Both are required. Each performs a different function.
where is it done right? that's like saying socialism is great when done right, it never is, by its nature it can't. welfare is the same, it takes away agency from both the giver and the receiver