jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (43 posts)

What are the negatives to a society that offers no aid?

  1. peeples profile image88
    peeplesposted 5 years ago

    Aside from the impact on people who fail in life and wouldn't have a government to help them out, are their any negatives to a society that offers no social programs (in my thoughts this would be except disability)?

    1. jmicchael1a profile image59
      jmicchael1aposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "All men are created equal...." and "of the people, by the people, for the people...." famous phrasing from two of this nation's most historically important documents. Let's imagine the two authors Jefferson and Lincoln meant what they wrote. Neither was weak or ineffectual. Putting these words to paper and through their utterance they acknowledged the promise of the words they wrote had not been met. The documents in which these two phrases were such important elements wouldn’t have been necessary if this were otherwise.
      The passages speak of all the people and their participation in this democracy. The nature of the phrasing is wholly socialistic. Knowing the intent and perception of our early leaders was inclusive; we have little choice but to accept social programs as part of this nation’s governance.

      I believe you answered your question when you ticked off disability as the exception to your question. All governance is meant to lead, protect, and preserve. Not all governance encompasses the citizenry as ours does.
      The negative for this nation to exclude social programs would be that we would be denying the essence of this country's existence. I will leave to others the debate concerning the level of participation or non participation they think appropriate.
      My answer to your question is No. It is not necessary for social programs to be apart of government responsibility. But for the USA, it is. Some would ask why? The answer for us should be Why not?

    2. grumpiornot profile image74
      grumpiornotposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Darwinian selection possibly...

    3. paradigmsearch profile image87
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      My guess would be rampant crime.

      1. gmwilliams profile image83
        gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        NO, if there was no governmental programs  except for aid for the disabled and the elderly, people will be forced to take actual responsibility for their lives.   They will come to realize if they want something, they have to become educated, plan, strategize, and work smart to achieve their goals.    Yes, some people do fail but they manage to pick themselves up and succeed.   Many people use failure and government assistance as an excuse not to be successful and to take responsibility!

        1. paradigmsearch profile image87
          paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You have a high opinion of humanity. big_smile

          1. innersmiff profile image67
            innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            It's no idealism, that kind of reaction would come from self-interest. When given responsibility with measurable consequences for failure, formally lazy people will become surprisingly active.

            1. profile image0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Innersniff, I think you overestimate the number of people who don't work because they are lazy and underestimate the number of people who don't work because either a) there are no jobs b) the jobs that are available so stresses them that they face having nervous breakdowns through the abuse.

              1. innersmiff profile image67
                innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                They are all contributing factors, which makes it into an endless cycle. Whether you believe the unemployed are lazy or not, the system needs to be re-worked.

                1. profile image0
                  Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh, I totally agree it needs to be reworked.

                  For instance, start educating all people equally. Next, start paying a living wage to people. Next, cut the amount of money a CEO can legally earn. No human being is worth one million times more than the other.

                  The reason we have welfare issues is because the top 1% are robbing everybody else blinds. It's a cycle. It happens throughout history.

                  1. innersmiff profile image67
                    innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    What if businesses cannot afford to hire people at a 'living wage'? There are going to be even less jobs available and put an even heavier burden on the welfare system, and you're going to blame capitalism again.

            2. gmwilliams profile image83
              gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              +1!

        2. rhamson profile image78
          rhamsonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Why not revert to Sparta Greece where they killed the weak children so that the strong would prosper. It puts a whole meaning to Nietzches' "What does not kill me makes me stronger" doesn't it? Your theory equally applied leaves a lot of people falling through the cracks. A lot more people fail than succeed so what would be the point of trying if you knew the odds to be against you all the way. Nobody gets to the top on their own and have received a helping hand somewhere along the journey. While I think it is absolutely imperative that enforcement of lazy or freeloading individuals should be identified and dealt with there is no way to say that there should be no help along the way.

          1. profile image0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            rhamson, well said!

            It's called the law of the jungle. These people enjoy the law of the jungle - not very civilized.

      2. Shadesbreath profile image85
        Shadesbreathposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I agree.

        The trick is finding a way to make the handouts not so good that too many people will call it "good enough" and just live off the system and breed, but generous enough so that if someone really needs help recovering from some back luck, the system can stabilize them and get them going again.

        Easy to say, hard to do.

    4. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      1) Extreme violence. Check out South Africa. There is a murder ever 7 seconds and a rape every three seconds. Everybody knows someone who has been raped, robbed, or murdered.

      2) Corruption would increase to unprecedented levels as people sought to make money in any way they could. Check out all the countries where there are few jobs for people, and where the few jobs that are available pay wages that fall into the wage slavery category.

      3) Civil War or Revolution. More and more disgruntlement as people battled to find food and shelter. Eventually, the numbers would be high enough to go against those people who didn't have full comprehension of what is happening. Another French revolution or another Russian revolution. And neither ended well.

      I can't help noticing that some seem to think that if there are no government programs, then people will be forced to work.

      WHERE EXACTLY ARE THESE JOBS?????

      This morning, I went to a new store, Fresh and Easy, which was akin to all food and grocery stores. but they didn't have any people at the tills. It was completely self-service and it was as big as any Ralphs or Vons. I queried it and was told this was the wave of the future.

      So, within the next 5 years, stores will no longer hire cashiers... People will check their own goods out. No more jobs for cashiers, either.

      Within another two decades, more than half the people in this country will be either unemployed or earning so little that the degree of violence will take this country down to third world status.

      I've now seen this happen in two different countries from close quarters. Believe me, I can see the signs.

      There are no jobs for people to go to. They are not irresponsible, lazy, and whatever because they are using government benefits. They are using government benefits, because if they don't, they will be out on the street. They have no other option. The odd 1 or 2% that might abuse benefits are hardly worth counting.

      1. peeples profile image88
        peeplesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        In the small town I live in the unemployment rate is currently 18%. Why? Not because we don't have jobs to offer but because people won't work them. Just off the top of my head I can think of 3 gas stations and 4 fast food places hiring. People get these jobs, then quit a week later. My husband works for a large manufacturing company. In the last month they have lost 11 temp to hire employees. The company pays well, offers benefits, but people don't want to work 12 hour shifts or don't like the heat in the building on day shift. Our town has over 30% of people collecting welfare. This is my issue. I go to the grocery store and the lady in front of me pays with her food stamp card while talking on a brand new iphone while looking geeked up on some sort of drug, unable to stop moving her jar (this actually happened about an hour ago). Yet we refuse to demand anything from the people asking for assistance. I would love a system where only those who truly needed the help got it, but in my area that is not the case. While these horrible people collect welfare, my neighbor who's knees swell to the size of bowling balls keeps getting denied for disability.

        1. profile image0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Peeples, I am honestly both amused and bemused... Let me quote some of what you said back to you...

          YOUR QUOTE.

          "The company pays well, offers benefits, but people don't want to work 12 hour shifts or don't like the heat in the building on day shift. "

          It doesn't occur to you that working 12 hour shifts are inhumane? Do you know that, historically, until the Industrial revolution, human beings worked about 20 hours per week and that's what their bodies are designed for. Are you unaware of the tremendous sacrifices your forebears made to get a decent work week of not more than 8 hours per day? Did you know that science shows that human beings have an attention span of between two and four hours a day, and after that, they shut down.  I have no problem whatsoever with people refusing to work 12 hour shifts in the heat. It is completely inhumane and management and owners who demand this should be arrested and jailed.

          YOUR QUOTE:

          "Just off the top of my head I can think of 3 gas stations and 4 fast food places hiring." And they pay minimum wage, right????

          You do know, don't you, that it is absolutely and utterly impossible to pay rent, food, medical, transport, education, and all the other basics on minimum wage, don't you? Do you know that the international term for this is Wage Slavery?

          http://capitalismandyou.blogspot.com/20 … -pays.html

          YOUR QUOTE:

          "Our town has over 30% of people collecting welfare."

          I assume you're speaking about SSI. Do you know that people are turned down between 3 to 5 times before they are accepted. Do you have any idea what the requirements are in order to get on it? If 30% of people in your town are on them, I would say that they are either mothers with young children or disabled. It is absolutely and utterly impossible to get benefits otherwise.

          YOUR QUOTE:
          "In the small town I live in the unemployment rate is currently 18%."

          Well, it's about that in most of America. Only the government is not being honest about it. I live in San Diego. One out of four of my friends - regardless of them being graduates actively looking for work - are out of work, and some have been out of work for one or two years. There just isn't work for them.


          YOUR QUOTE:
          "This is my issue. I go to the grocery store and the lady in front of me pays with her food stamp card while talking on a brand new iphone while looking geeked up on some sort of drug, unable to stop moving her jar (this actually happened about an hour ago). "   "I would love a system where only those who truly needed the help got it..."


          So when your neighbor with knees that swell to the size of bowling balls finally gets her disability and goes shopping with her food stamps, someone will see her chatting on her brand new cell phone that her kid gave her for a birthday, and someone will say, "She can buy a brand new cell phone but she can't afford to pay for food. People like her suck our country dry."  And, of course, your neighbors knees will be covered so no one will see the disability...


          QUOTE:

          "People get these jobs, then quit a week later."

          Um, yes, when one is treated like trash, that is generally what happens. The abuse of lower ranking personnel is absolutely disgusting. A friend of mine came over from the UK for two months to work in New York and Boston. She said she was shocked to the core at the way she saw management speak to low level workers...

          1. peeples profile image88
            peeplesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            While I don't have the time right now to go over half of what you said I will hit some of it. I don't see how you can say having a 12 hour shift is worse than being jobless. My husband works it and I have never felt that it was a bother and neither does he. It pays our bills and for that I am thankful. When someone quits they are basiclly saying "I'd rather have nothing".
            While I know you live in an area where cost of living is high I don't. All bills combined on average for a family of 4 are about $1500 a month. That is on the high side and includes everything you just mentioned. So  2 working parents would make about $2000 a month after taxes (that they'd get back later anyway). That is plenty to pay the bills and feed their family. Not everywhere is like where you live just as everywhere is not where I live.

            1. profile image0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Peeples... There are always exceptional people. However, most people do not have the energy to work 12 hours.

              They would be dead exhausted at the end of that and would then start eating incorrectly. One of the major reasons for the extensive obesity in the USA is the stress and lack of time to attend to basics.

              When looking at the people around one, one cannot say, "Oh, I can do this, therefore everybody else can." It doesn't work that way.

              QUOTE:

              "I don't see how you can say having a 12 hour shift is worse than being jobless."

              Well, if it destroys your health, it absolutely can be. So what's the point of working 12 hours a day for five years until one burns out aged 30 (which is what happened to me), and then one has to spend the rest of one's life unable to do more than four or five hours work a day because one's adrenal glands burnt out.

              There's a reason that half of Americans suffer from mental illness, have the highest rate of obesity in the world, and have the greatest number of cancers and heart disease. It's called over work and under pay.

        2. gmwilliams profile image83
          gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          +1!!!!!!

    5. Marisa Wright profile image93
      Marisa Wrightposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I guess it depends on your own situation.

      If you're fit and healthy with a good job, then it would have no impact on you - apart from the fact you might have to live in a gated community with security guards, since the poor would be driven to crime to survive.  You'd also have to live in relative isolation, because if people stopped getting vaccinated for dangerous illnesses, epidemics would be rife - and the poor would be living in squalor, which would make whole neighbourhoods disease-ridden. 

      Of course you'd also have to be utterly selfish with no compassion, so you wouldn't care about the thousands of people living in poverty, suffering with chronic illnesses, dying because they've been turned away from hospitals, and so on.

      One of the marks of civilisation is a social conscience - the sense that the community has a responsibility to care for the needy.  Seems to me people are becoming less and less civilized.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    The OP said "society" not specifically "government."
    So extrapolating that thought, that not only would there be no government aid programs, there would also be no charity aid programs, the negative would be that people would ignore the plight of those less fortunate than they.
    They would justify their lack of compassion in any number of ways.
    "It's nature's way." "Survival of the fittest." "I deserve what I have because I've earned it." "Everyone has the opportunity to better themselves, those who don't are lazy."
    Kinda like some people do now.
    But if there is still religion in the socieity, there will inevitably be charity work.
    Even without organized religions, there will, I believe, always be individuals who feel compelled to help others. It's in their nature!

  3. innersmiff profile image67
    innersmiffposted 5 years ago

    I'm glad the OP hasn't conflated government with society like so many tend to do on here. In all societies, there will be some who slip through the cracks of the market for various reasons, for example, illness, disability, being the victim of crimes; through no fault of their own, and were otherwise able-bodied. It is in society's interest, and the market's, to cater for these people because that is a whole section of the community that could be put to good use. In a truly free market, associations and individuals would be encouraged to voluntarily contribute to social programs. These programs would in actuality work better than what we have now because, due to the fact that they're putting their own money in it, contributors would constantly be looking to streamline the process to get people back into the work-force as fast as possible.

    But no, the orthodoxy is that we must give the power to a group of privileged people to steal our money and a create bureaucratic mess that creates a permanent under-class of welfare recipients. When it's only worth perhaps 20% more to get back into work, you're not giving people anything, you're charging people not to work. And what a day for big corporations: they get to keep their power as there is no financial mobility, competitive companies stay still because they can't hire anyone and they get to keep wages low because there is so little labour competition. Again, the left ignore fact for what's politically fashionable by supporting programs that only serve to stunt the ability of poor people to get on their feet, and therefore benefit the biggest corporations.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    I can't believe you are debating if paying a "living wage" is something businesses have to do...

    You want people to work for you you have to pay them a living wage or good luck running your business all on your own...

    1. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      +!0000000000000000000000000000 !

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        gmwilliams, I'm just curious. Are you aware that the major difference between a first world country and a third world country is a thriving middle class. And are you aware that internationally, the middle class has shrunk.

        And are you aware that the 2009 census showed that half of Americans were living in poverty?

        In other words, America is approaching third world status.

        This is because companies can't seem to, and/or don't want to pay a living wage.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-573 … ow-income/

    2. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Um, yes, the plantation owners had much the same grip about owning slaves. If they had to pay them, then their profits would be much reduced.

      Read about the difference between slavery and wage slavery here...

      Capitalism and You. Why Slavery Pays...

      http://capitalismandyou.blogspot.com/20 … -pays.html

  5. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    Selfishness will thrive which is not good. The basic tenet of society is interdependence.

  6. My Minds Eye53 profile image60
    My Minds Eye53posted 5 years ago

    There is always the problems of companies moving out of the country, but continuing to sell here and illegals taking jobs. A friend of mine has someone answering his phone who is in the far east.  I have nothing against India but I cannot understand what they are saying.

  7. LeanMan profile image82
    LeanManposted 5 years ago

    If there is no aid then the government should remove all the barriers that they put in place to prevent people from starting their own small businesses to earn themselves money! You can't run a business from your own home, you have to have this certification and that and so on.. It means that for most people it is impossible for them to make money for themselves.
    You go overseas to countries where there is no aid and few jobs and you will see most houses having small store fronts selling everything from small grocery items to repairing tires. They will also grow what they can where they can, keep chickens, pigs and whatever else they can fit onto their plot no matter how small.
    Businesses and governments have encouraged people out from the countryside and packed them into compact cities as a pool of labour for those businesses and the governments that feed off of those businesses. As those businesses need fewer and fewer people to operate what happens to those excess people? Should not the government and businesses support them; after all they dragged them there in the first place!

    1. profile image0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Lean man, you are perfectly correct. One of the ways big business in the USA prevents small business from springing up and challenging them is by buying off regulators with bribes and ensuring that the laws and regulations play to big business and destroy small business.

 
working