Worldwatcher wrote, "I don't think there would have been anything like the dole back then".

Your friends mother, in the depression era (pre and post), would have been entitled to the following available welfare benefits back then:

(1) Commonwealth Maternity allowance (introduced in 1912)

(2) Widows pension (introduced in 1926

(3) Child Endowment (introduced in 1927 in NSW and Federally in 1941))

(4) If she was in Qld. she would receive support from the Unemployment Insurance Scheme (introduced in 1923)

(5) Funeral Benefits (introduced late 1930s)

(6) Commonwealth Unemployment Benefit (introduced in 1945)

(7) Commonwealth Sickness benefit (introduced in 1945)

(8) Invalid Pension (introduced in 1910)

(9) Old Age Pension for women at 60 years of age ( introduced in 1909)

(10) Pensioner medical Service... free medical and hospital treatment for all age pensioners (introduced in 1951)

As you can see, the population back then did *NOT* have to do it all for themselves. That's a folklore "myth", often perpetuated by far right wingers. Back then, the needy and more vulnerable people in our population were VERY well taken care of.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Such an idyllic lifestyle as you describe may only exist in heaven, for here on Earth everything which one may need, or like, has to be produced by someone.
In your idyllic scenario there would be no need for money, no 'dole', no taxation and no industry - as everyone would be living in a simple, subsistence, agrarian manner.

How many could be content with a simple one or two room abode, a vegetable garden and maybe a couple of goats, or sheep, or a cow, and a few chickens, ducks or geese. And, all would barter for anything else - like clothes and footwear.

You think I exaggerate? Just consider. You propose that a portion of the populace not work at all (unless they 'choose' to do so - ha, ha). So they need money, for they apparently have nothing to barter. Money which would be produced by someone else's labour and 'product'. But, what entitles them to that money, to their existence, if they are only willing to contribute when, and if, they choose?
Monks? Shamans? Spiritual Guides? For no-one else would be tolerated for very long by any society - Western, Eastern, black, white or brindled, industrial, agrarian or hunter-gatherer.

It is industry and the near-insatiable demand for more gadgets, refineries and play-toys (like the internet) which enables those garbage-dump families in India and elsewhere to be able to live.
And it is the demand for gadgets and 'things' which provides the wealth for the oil-producing states, and thereby enabling their populace to buy the food which they cannot produce for themselves.

Those who are capable of work, of producing something, have a responsibility to do so. Those who can, but choose not to, are the 'parasites' (unless they have an officially or generally accepted exception - perhaps because they are considered the new messiah?).
Parasites are usually something to be avoided, or exterminated - for the good of the individual and the society's health.
We cannot 'exterminate' the shirkers, the malingerers, but we do not have to 'love' them as our equal.

Dear Saltpetre,

Heaven and earth are two extremes - it doesn't need to be all black or white.

I am well aware that this dark age of ours is unsuitable for having heaven on earth, but some improvement can be made in the quality of life at the expense of the material standard of living. I am aware that there will still be demand for gadgets, but hopefully it will be curbed down a bit, less invasive than now.

People who do not charge money for what they do are not parasites - they simply do not fit in the Western paradigm and if they happen to be born therein, they suffer greatly as well as being unable to realise their full potential and to help others informally to the full extent.

The majority of people will still want more than the basics, at least most of the time, so they will likely engage in formal paid-employment and there will still be money, trade and taxation, but then they should also be able to alternate and take the time off without the anxiety about essential sustenance.

More importantly, as I mentioned, when one finds themselves in employment where unethical demands are made, or where the products/services they are asked to produce are of no true value, one should not be afraid to quit as their basics will be assured regardless. One who finds themselves in a situation like this, though they can work, has a responsibility to not do so. Everyone should be living up to their own ethical standards, high as they may be, rather than having to convince some tribunal of a lesser morality about their unethical situation.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Sorry, but I grew up with a mother who was exactly in that situation, where as a scientist, employed by a government body, she was ordered by her boss to fake the results of her experiments as well as to simultaneously report to several financing bodies at once as if she did the research exclusively just for them. It was devastating. She was broken. Every day after work she was sobbing for hours, but as a family we couldn't do without her salary. This should never have to happen again.

I am also currently aware of at least one person, working for government, who is being ordered by the whole corrupt echelon to change over from an excellent (and cheap) computer system to such an inferior (and expensive) system that will likely put lives at risk. They cannot do anything about it because they need the money to survive.

I am also aware of another mature-aged lady who was ordered by Centrelink to distribute junk mail for a supermarket, despite finding it as I do, highly unethical and harmful to others.

The most common reason for people not choosing to work, is that they cannot find a paying-job which they 1) can do; 2) can do well; 3) would not adversely affect their health; and 4) produces something which they sincerely believe is good.

Yes, Monks, Shamans and Spiritual Guides are a good place to start: Western society is especially cruel for those, making incompatible demands, hence they don't come here - perhaps they concentrate in the Himalayas instead, and our society is spiritually poorer as a result.

DOES THIS REMIND YOU OF ANYONE?

Michael Palin: Ahh.. Very passable, this, very passable.

Graham Chapman: Nothing like a good glass of Chateau de Chassilier wine, ay Gessiah?

Terry Gilliam: You're right there Obediah.

Eric Idle: Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Chateau de Chassilier wine?

MP: Aye. In them days, we'd a' been glad to have the price of a cup o' tea.

GC: A cup ' COLD tea.

EI: Without milk or sugar.

TG: OR tea!

MP: In a filthy, cracked cup.

EI: We never used to have a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.

GC: The best WE could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.

TG: But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.

MP: Aye. BECAUSE we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness."

EI: 'E was right. I was happier then and I had NOTHIN'. We used to live in this tiiiny old house, with greaaaaat big holes in the roof.

GC: House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture. Half the floor was missing; we were all huddled together in one corner for fear of FALLING!

TG: You were lucky to have a ROOM! *We* used to have to live in a corridor!

MP: Ohhhh we used to DREAM of livin' in a corridor! Woulda' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woken up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House!? Hmph.

EI: Well when I say "house" it was only a hole in the ground covered by a piece of tarpolin, but it was a house to US.

GC: We were evicted from *our* hole in the ground; we had to go and live in a lake!

Cont.

Cont.

TG: You were lucky to have a LAKE! There were a hundred and sixty of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.

MP: Cardboard box?

TG: Aye.

MP: You were lucky. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, out Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt!

GC: Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, go to work at the mill every day for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would beat us around the head and neck with a broken bottle, if we were LUCKY!

TG: Well we had it tough. We used to have to get up out of the shoebox at twelve o'clock at night, and LICK the road clean with our tongues. We had half a handful of freezing cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at the mill for fourpence every six years, and when we got home, our Dad would slice us in two with a bread knife.

EI: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, (pause for laughter), eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."

MP: But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'.

ALL: Nope, nope..