Welfare vs Charity

This issue bothers me more than anything nowadays, so let's have debate.

So why should a person be FORCED to help someone else? If someone needs help, they can always ask for charity.

Society works better together, but I only agree with the positive out comes of shared wealth. Schooling / Parks / Roads / Police / Prisons / job finding systems etc.

These kinds of things make a society much better.

In terms of the negatives like supplying housing / food / money to the poor.

I think only schooling is applicable to their situation. You do not solve a problem with someone able bodied who is incapable of finding or creating a job for him/herself. Systems of free business structures that work and benefit our economy. Of course there will be ones who will not try, find the free lessons too much of a hassle and a long term option and will go back to starve then rob / murder then go to jail. It is the choice they have taken, not that they are stuck.

I have an interesting idea that i haven't even put under any of my own scrutiny. Here it goes.

How about 2 levels of "Country"

One is a self sufficient and the other is a welfare state and I don't mean it in a bad way. The ones working in the welfare country support the ones not working there. The ones not working in the self sufficient country receive no aid at all. People can cross over as they want or as they feel it becomes applicable to them.

>>82
Good luck.  I've been trying to sell that one here for over a year.  The most recent example is here: http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1263818668   starting with post >>11.

It's the only answer that makes sense.

>>82
>>83
It is totally illogical to demonise a mix of private and public economic organisations, if the point of seperating the 2 is to give people more choice you in fact restrict people's choice to have a mixed economy to varying degrees.

It would be much better to have an adaptable spectral mix of nationalisation and privatisation linked to a patchwork of local governments which can have referendums and petitions to merge or split as necessary.

hax my anus

>>85
how did you get in here?

>>84
It would be much better to have an adaptable spectral mix of nationalisation and privatisation linked to a patchwork of local governments which can have referendums and petitions to merge or split as necessary.

The point is, that's what we have now in scores of variations and it's not working.  You talk about choice.  Isn't "choice" the freedom to select one option over another?  Do you believe that you have the choice to be free?  You don't.  You are part of a system that affords you what liberty it deems necessary to satisfy you, while above all other interests it works to maintain its power over you. 
I don't need to "demonize" these systems.  They've done that to themselves.  We've not only gone beyond the point at which our collective wisdom should have moved us into a new era, but we have allowed ourselves to be led to the brink of catastrophe.  What many call choice is more like confusion and distraction.

>>87
You're right, if I want to opt out of Social Security, I cannot. I imagine if I went to my local Social Security office and request to opt out of that altogether, the receptionist at the desk will look upon me as if I had a third eye!

Is this not tyranny? How much liberty I am afforded based upon arbitrary criteria? Troubling.

>>88
And these days you would probably be added to some kind of watch list.  But what if you had a real choice?  What if you could choose between having enough land to sustain yourself, and internet connectivity, or belonging to a self supporting humanitarian organization dedicated to protecting the free, providing them the tools they need to prosper, and expanding/exploring the frontiers of knowledge, the world, and eventually space?  Which would you choose?  And what if you could change your mind?
Two of the major obstacles are hypocrisy("I'm a Conservative, but I need public services", or "I'm a liberal, but I want to do my own thing"), and the public's enormous resistance to any kind of change while their bellies are full. 

Acclinis falsis animus meliora recusat

>>87
>>88
>>89
My system is not the current system so I fail to see why you are arguing against me.

I don't need to "demonize" these systems.  They've done that to themselves
Ok, so you admit you think in absolutes and cannot distinguish petty emotions about from rational thoughts.

So what violent oppressive measures will you undertake to prevent people committing blasphemy and supporting things we have under the current system? If you intend to give them the freedom to have alternatives but deny them the freedom to conform to certain elements in the current system then you will need to use coercion to stop them.

For instance if someone says "we need a speed limit on this motorway", how would you torture them to death to serve as an example to others who dare conform to anyone other than you? Boiling alive? Impalement?

Under my system of course people would be free to have a social security system, they would just not be able to force it on everyone else, so you could opt out of social security if you wish. I'm just saying you should think this through and be logical, that's all.

>>90
(>>88 here), I don't advocate for violence, so I don't know where you're getting that from. I was just stating that nobody has the ability to opt out of certain programs like Social Security. As soon as you're born, you're given a nine digit number that you are obligated to remember for the rest of your natural life, that you cannot opt out of, nor did you consent to be a part of it in the first place. That is tyranny.

Though, hypothetically, if one were given the choice to opt out, then I would support that. I also would keep Social Security for the time being for those it was promised to (elderly already receiving Social Security payments, and baby boomers who are soon to be recipients) and the current young generation the option to opt out, since they're not going to receive all that they put in to it anyway.

>>90
Blasphemy?  What're you, Irish?  The only part of your post that makes any sense is:
...I fail to see...
Ironic, in light of my Cicero quote.

>>91
See what I mean?

>>91
How do you equate having a mixed system with being forced to accept social security among other things? Why so desperate for no society to have both public and private organisations? The only way you're going to stop people from having mixed economies in a system where they can do what they want is by using violence, which is of course logically contradictory, so you might aswell just give up on that point.

That's the issue here. Maybe I'm referring more to the other guy but it seems you are so eager to trash the current system you are willing to raze the good ideas with the bad ideas.
>>92
The moment anyone disagrees you go into "YOU'RE A SHEEPLE, THE SKY IS FALLING, BAWWW". You are a fag.

>>93
No, you're just stupid.