[grondilu]

In my humble opinion, the job of the government is absolutely not to give money to the poorest people, not even to maintain a "basic level of livelyhood".

I'm also fairly certain this has nothing to do with the concept of justice.

[dagss]

"Justice" means upholding laws?

Most of the world has signed conventions that makes basic livelihood a right -- and puts it on the state to ensure this.

Perhaps you don't agree with these laws and conventions. But please consider that the very concept of "ownership" and "property" is also something that is only upheld by laws.

Also on a pragmatic level, why should those without property acknowledge and support a state which doesn't look out for their basic livelihood? A state that does not at least try to make sure everyone has a livelihood is a sure path to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well.

You should turn around and ask: Why should people support the notion of property?

Property is part of the social contract in much the same way that human rights (everyone having a livelihood) is part of the social contract.

[grondilu]

> to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well.

Some problems for sure, but it's probably manageable. Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime. Rich people can build as many prisons as necessary.

[sgt101]

This did not work out well in France in 1793.

Or Russia in 1917.

Things were close in the US in 1932 - hence the new deal.

Poverty isn't an excuse for a crime, but people with children to feed can be used as a tool by revolutionaries very easily. One revolution often leads to another (France and Russia also Germany saw this) as the faction in power loses it's grievance and acquires shiny things.

The problem is that this precipitates economic collapse and therefore more poor people.

"Managing" the problems isn't cheap either; thugs, cameras, guns, torture, prisons and PR are not free. There are a variety of costs, including the personal ones when the children of the rich discover that Daddy or Mummy spends half their weeks chainsawing people's arms off.

And Jesus, what's the point? I mean, isn't it just better to have a world where you can go out for a latte or buy a pair of pants in a store without being afraid ?

Technically we can say that equilibrium is that the rich support a welfare state and the poor do not use the rich to decorate lamp posts. Some players have forgotten this, they are irrational, but that doesn't change the game and in future iterations it will return to it's balanced state.

[Mouse47]

>Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime.

If I'm starving to death and you're hogging the bread, I'm taking it from you. The law is not morality. At some point (I don't think we're there yet today, but we're heading in that direction) I think crime - stealing in particular - is more excusable when the rich have stacked the deck.

[kelnos]

How can you possibly believe that a society where a large percent of people are in prison is a healthy society?

[grondilu]

If they committed crime, they should be in prison, regardless of how numerous they are.

[dagss]

You keep defining crime as it suits you.

You want to define one set of laws you agree with "justice" and another you disagree with "charity". That is namecalling and intellectually lazy.

The same state and body of laws that define property also defines taxation.

Without a social contract, there is no property. Property isn't obvious! My viking ancestors considered it good and noble to pillage Englishmen.

The social contract you live in happens to define property, but also define taxes and redistribution to the poor. It gives the poor rights. Not charity.

You seem to consider property more "natural" or God-given or such than taxation and everyones right to eat. Why?

[kelnos]

How is that even remotely the point? If you have a huge prison population, your society is unhealthy. Full stop. Even if those people "deserve" to be in prison. If they do, that's the society's failing in successfully educating and raising people to be productive members of that society. It's rotten to the core.

[dagss]

To be clear, would you morally condemn someone for stealing if they would otherwise starve?

It seems like you think the right to "property" is somehow above the right to life. In most of the world BOTH of those are guaranteed by the same laws and the same social contract.

[eli_gottlieb]

>Some problems for sure, but it's probably manageable. Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime. Rich people can build as many prisons as necessary.

You are one of the people for whom they build gulags.

[chii]

More correctly, he builds the gulag for the rich.

[halfteatree]

That went pretty well in venezuela.

[SubiculumCode]

Ah then you must also believe that the government should not be giving money to corporations, and special breaks to the rich; breaks that make it so the poor have a harder time escaping poverty??

They do, because the laws are bought by the rich.

[andrenth]

The way to fix this is by design: to have a government small enough that buying it wouldn’t bring you advantages comparable to succeeding in the free market.

Most people disagree with that and seem to think it’s possible to have angels from heaven running the government machine. The thing is that even if you manage that, it’s bound to go wrong at some future election.

[SubiculumCode]

The problem will always be that the profit motive is an engine that chews up the weak and the helpless, and as a moral society we want to limit these kind of behaviors, both by local gangs, and by massive corporations. Government is one way to do this. I agree that government should be more limited in some way. I think that the solution will be to empower local government, and the yoke the power of the federal fiat currency to local authority.

[halfteatree]

Not believing in basic human rights isn't exactly what I would call a "humble" opinion. Words have meanings.

[mitchty]

You could argue rights as being in the welfare category. But in all reality this centers on first agreeing to basic definitions of terms. Words do have meanings, but the most frustrating thing about our "post truth" world is everyone wants to define words in a personal level. It makes any sort of debate or discussion next to impossible.

[rco8786]

What's so bad about needing help? And what's so bad about society helping it's neediest maintain a basic level of existence?

[chii]

Overwhelmingly large number of people in society are selfish. They say that social welfare is good, but when time comes to increase taxes to fund it, either they oppose, or build in clever loopholes to work around it (the rich do anyway). What's left is the middle to lower class getting the burden, and that causes them to also reject tax increases.

[andrepd]

Two things: it relieves me to see that you are in the minority with that kind of repellent thought. Second, I'm almost 100% sure that you would sing a very different tune if you had drawn the short stick in the birth lottery.

[ZeroCool2u]

Then what is the role of government, in your opinion?

[andrepd]

Probably anything that is needed to ensure and maintain his status, such as property laws and protection against bodily harm, and not any thing else.