Still doesn't make sense, Yuyutsu.

>>What I meant was that since the majority disadvantaged minorities, then the least they should do is be decent and compensate them.<<

In what fashion does your majority disadvantage minorities? Whom do you imagine belongs to each category? Whom will you authorize to make that distinction?

This does not make it any clearer:

>>Those who like the advantages of a modern economy outnumber those who do not.<<

How do you determine who falls into the category of "liking"? It would seem to be a somewhat arbitrary judgment call, presuming to tell the difference between people who feel obliged to support their family through earning a wage, and those who who "like" doing so. I would suggest there are more in the former category than the latter, and it is these who would happily stay at home and sponge off their fellow citizens, in your unconditional welfare scenario.

You must also accept that the acceptance of unearned welfare payments can be hugely corrupting to the individuals concerned. They rapidly lose touch with the relationship between effort and reward, and suddenly, fraud becomes the norm.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/government-cracks-down-on-welfare-fraud/story-e6frg6n6-1226619846555

To legitimize the concept of providing free money as a reward for doing precisely nothing is a recipe for decadence, and the total destruction of society.

Kilmouski, one problem with public housing is just that, it's a house.

Just because some drop kick chick and her equally drop kick mate have a baby, then he takes off,then the chick often with two or three drop kick guys, has even more kids, does not give that drop kick chick the right to live in a state provided 3 or 4 bedroom house.

What is needed is public accommodation, not housing.

I know one such chick, one child, partner fed, she got booted out of her 3 bedroom house ($80 per week) because despite the fact that she earned almost a grand a week, couldn't meet the rent of $80 per week.

Correct rehctub there is a difference between housing being a house only or the generic term accommodation. I could have used the word : accommodation, but it did not enter my mind.

Well the state to provide accommodation at a basic level - high rise or medium rise is good - but 3 bed rooms with a cottage garden is going a bit too far. Certainly the arguments that housing people in high rise or low rise accommodation breeds even more misfits and crime ... Well sorry that's a basic problem with society that cannot be fixed by dishing out free standing houses. If their kids don't attend a perfectly good school what does one do? If they want to trash their houses well let them live like that if they like squalor who am I to complain.

Dear Pericles,

I make no presumption to solve the issue of fraud.
But then I make no presumption to find a cure for AIDS either.

Fraud is criminal, it's a matter for the police, but it's been with us ever since. The fraud of the poor, as you pointed, costs 1.8 billion a year, but the fraud of the wealthy costs much more. Regardless, nobody should fraudulently hide their income and those who do should be punished. With unconditional negative-income-tax at least, people who are generally honest in nature will no longer need to resort to fraud because they are truly, physically hungry or cold.

As I explained, this is not "free money", but a just compensation.
It is (unlike the current system!) not a 'reward for doing nothing' because you receive it regardless whether you work or whether you don't. If you choose to work on top of it, then you end up with more money in your pocket (something most people want).

The matter of 'liking' is relative: some like the system more, some less. Generally, those who have more money like the modern economy more than those who don't. Some may indeed not like having to support their family with money, but still like it better than having to support their family without money.

Regardless of liking or otherwise, the existing laws practically prevent people from living money-free, implying that one MUST have money to survive. Thus everyone is being restricted, so for that forceful restriction, everyone needs to be compensated using the only remaining means of survival - money. This is all that negative-income-tax does, nothing less, nothing more. Those who benefit more from the modern money-economy contribute more towards this compensation and those who benefit less, contribute less.

I really like Sockadelic's explanation:

{{
"we are all in this together, whether we like it or not."

Exactly the justification for a universal payment.
}}

Hi Yuyutsu,

Let's go back to first principles:

Why should anyone get anything if they are able-bodied and they don't work ?

Conversely, why should someone who is working pay a cent towards some bludger who isn't ?

Nobody should be forced to work, that's true. But neither does anybody, or any agency, have any obligation to ensure they don't starve.

One way of not starving is to work, either to get money wages to buy the wherewithall or to work at raising one's own food. Out of love. Either way, as Pericles implies, you put the effort in, you get the outcome out.

I used to be a very dedicated Marxist and Aboriginal-self-determinationist, but both those ideologies collapsed at the first obstacle: that not everybody is going pull their weight, as the model absolutely requires.

In places like the USSR, bludgers would quickly learn to get around those social and 'community' obligations by joining the Party and becoming a fervent apparatchik. In Aboriginal communities, people just took what they wanted, and if you wanted to do more 'for the community', they saw that as a clear sign that (a) here was a mug, and (b) they could do correspondingly, less.

Work or starve. Or bugger off. I hope I never lift a finger for a bludger ever again. Send them out past Oodnadatta tree-planting for life, who cares.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Good questions, Joe,

<<Why should anyone get anything if they are able-bodied and they don't work?>>

As a general question, there are many possible reasons, such as "because their parents love them", but the reason relevant to this thread is, because they deserve compensation. If someone broke your window or falsely arrested you, then they would have to pay reparations and it has nothing to do with whether you work or not, able-bodied or not.

Modern society has taken away your freedom to survive out in nature without money. You may not have had as much if you did, but you would likely have had something, for which you need to be compensated.

<<Conversely, why should someone who is working pay a cent towards some bludger who isn't?>>

A person with grievances against you is not a bludger, but a creditor.
In any case, this particular grievance is shared by all of us, not just by those who happen to be bludgers. We all should be equally compensated.

No one is asked to pay a cent because they work - only because they earn money.

People who earn money, to that extent, benefit from modern society, hence they may not enjoy society's assets while avoiding its liabilities.

<<But neither does anybody, or any agency, have any obligation to ensure they don't starve.>>

Unless of course it is the agency which told you "live my way or starve", which would have locked you up if you tried to survive in any other way.

<<I used to be a very dedicated Marxist>>

This resembles Marxism only up to a very basic subsistence level - everything on top of that is free-market, including no bureaucracy, regulations, IR laws or apparatchiks.

People who choose not to work will survive, but not on a comfortable level. Most people will therefore want to work in order to supplement their income.

Now think of all the advantages I listed in my first post. Even if you don't find this sufficiently ideologically-pure to your standards, you must admit that it's much better than what we have now.