Should welfare opponents be denied welfare?

[Novorobo]

Picture someone adamantly opposed to welfare. Not a rich opponent of welfare, but a middle class one. Suppose this individual lost their job, and couldn't find another one in time to avoid ending up poor.

Does this individual still have as much right to welfare as everybody else? If so, why, and if not, why not?

Personally, I'd rather give them the welfare payments anyway, as I figure many of such people are just duped by the media's depiction of the poor, rather than deliberately involved in it, but is there any other reason why they should have just as much right to it as everybody else?

[Scandinavian Nations]

Yes, they could be denied welfare... as long as they're returned everything they've paid in any welfare-related taxes, and freed from paying any in the future.

Personally, I'd rather give them the welfare payments anyway

Interesting choice of words. You're saying it with a cavalier "anyway" as if you had a choice. You don't.

The only time you have a choice is if you're the sole taxpayer of your nation. Otherwise, everyone who has paid taxes has a reciprocal right to the benefits, as it's their money in the first place, and the government's obligation to pay what is due under the social contract it has imposed.

[Kauthar]

They paid taxes that went towards people's welfare so I don't see why they should be denied it. Welfare should be abolished anyway.

[New Granadeseret]

Welfare is a public good, just like the taxes to pay for it are a public obligation. Their personal opinions aside, its not only not just illegal and immoral not to provide them with welfare based on their political opinions (if they meet the impartial, finance-based requirements, of course), but creating a system to effectively weed them out would be an expensive nightmare.

Public goods are, pretty much by definition, available to be used in the way society intends them to be by everybody in society. It'd be no more just or practical then, say, having Black Lives Matter members getting their 991 calls ignored by white police officers, since they are opponents of the established law enforcement culture.

[Ghatawerpya]

From a liberal perspective yes, but welfare opponents should be able to opt out of taxes and any other form of social responsibilities as well.

[GreatestBanks]

If this is allowed, welfare opponents should opt out of paying taxes for welfare and be returned any capital that they paid in taxes for welfare.

[Roski]

Should a pro gun control person lose the right to own a firearm?
Should a pro-socialism person lose the right to start up a business?
Should someone who is Anti-American lose their right to be American?
Should someone who believes in dictatorships lose their right to vote?

find out next time on NSG

[GreatestBanks]

Should a pro gun control person lose the right to own a firearm?
Should a pro-socialism person lose the right to start up a business?
Should someone who is Anti-American lose their right to be American?
Should someone who believes in dictatorships lose their right to vote?

find out next time on NSG

Agreed, and the proponents of things like welfare say it's a public service given without discrimination. This would be discrimination.

[Daffyflippingduck]

Entitlement is just a word.

[GreatestBanks]

Entitlement is just a word.

The is just a word.

Welfare is just a word.

[New confederate ramenia]

No, that would be discriminating against people for their political views.

[Novorobo]

Welfare is a public good, just like the taxes to pay for it are a public obligation. Their personal opinions aside, its not only not just illegal and immoral not to provide them with welfare based on their political opinions (if they meet the impartial, finance-based requirements, of course), but creating a system to effectively weed them out would be an expensive nightmare.

Public goods are, pretty much by definition, available to be used in the way society intends them to be by everybody in society. It'd be no more just or practical then, say, having Black Lives Matter members getting their 991 calls ignored by white police officers, since they are opponents of the established law enforcement culture.

Not remotely similar. They don't want to abolish policing. They want better policing.

If this is allowed, welfare opponents should opt out of paying taxes for welfare and be returned any capital that they paid in taxes for welfare.

And if that doesn't tide them over until they get a job?

[GreatestBanks]

Welfare is a public good, just like the taxes to pay for it are a public obligation. Their personal opinions aside, its not only not just illegal and immoral not to provide them with welfare based on their political opinions (if they meet the impartial, finance-based requirements, of course), but creating a system to effectively weed them out would be an expensive nightmare.

Public goods are, pretty much by definition, available to be used in the way society intends them to be by everybody in society. It'd be no more just or practical then, say, having Black Lives Matter members getting their 991 calls ignored by white police officers, since they are opponents of the established law enforcement culture.

Not remotely similar. They don't want to abolish policing. They want better policing.

If this is allowed, welfare opponents should opt out of paying taxes for welfare and be returned any capital that they paid in taxes for welfare.

And if that doesn't tide them over until they get a job?

Well m8, I'm just saying you have to be fair and not have them pay taxes and have all their welfare taxes returned to them. And this whole idea is stupid.

It's like saying we should deny public transport to people who prefer cars.

[Chessmistress]

No, mainly because the overwhelmingly majority of people who oppose welfare already actually have no rights to most welfare, because they're richer (and often far richer) than the average.

[New Granadeseret]

Welfare is a public good, just like the taxes to pay for it are a public obligation. Their personal opinions aside, its not only not just illegal and immoral not to provide them with welfare based on their political opinions (if they meet the impartial, finance-based requirements, of course), but creating a system to effectively weed them out would be an expensive nightmare.

Public goods are, pretty much by definition, available to be used in the way society intends them to be by everybody in society. It'd be no more just or practical then, say, having Black Lives Matter members getting their 991 calls ignored by white police officers, since they are opponents of the established law enforcement culture.

Not remotely similar. They don't want to abolish policing. They want better policing.

If this is allowed, welfare opponents should opt out of paying taxes for welfare and be returned any capital that they paid in taxes for welfare.

And if that doesn't tide them over until they get a job?

They want to reform the current structure from the inside out, abolishing the traditions of the officers and institutions already in place. Then why should said institutions support them? Those who are 'welfare opponents' may just want reform too. But if you must, a different analogy. A pacifist not getting his house defended from a bomb.

Look, the entire premise of a public goods is everybody (who meets legal qualifications) pays for it, and everybody (who meets legal qualifications) can make use of it. Abolishing that principal to make it a pick-or-choose approach based solely on opinion causes the structure to break down. Even if its not ideologically pure (whatever that means) we have to accept it the sake of practicality.

[Wallenburg]

Let them be hypocrites.

[Novorobo]

No, mainly because the overwhelmingly majority of people who oppose welfare already actually have no rights to most welfare, because they're richer (and often far richer) than the average.

Tell that to Kentucky.

[Vallermoore]

If it's denied them, they may well either starve, or turn full time robber. Neither is very desirable. The first makes the state look bad, the second is a danger to everybody else.

[Novorobo]

They want to reform the current structure from the inside out, abolishing the traditions of the officers and institutions already in place. Then why should said institutions support them? Those who are 'welfare opponents' may just want reform too.

I'm not referring to those who want it reformed. I'm referring to those who want it abolished

But if you must, a different analogy. A pacifist not getting his house defended from a bomb.

I'll admit this is more so because on an emotional level, I feel more sympathy for pacifists than welfare opponents. Even so, it's not like I haven't admitted that some of each are simply misguided.

Look, the entire premise of a public goods is everybody (who meets legal qualifications) pays for it, and everybody (who meets legal qualifications) can make use of it. Abolishing that principal to make it a pick-or-choose approach based solely on opinion causes the structure to break down. Even if its not ideologically pure (whatever that means) we have to accept it the sake of practicality.

And that, for what it's worth, is a much-better reason for this sort of approach than the ones mentioned earlier.

[USS Monitor]

They still need to eat and they still paid the same taxes as they would if they had been in favor of welfare all along, so yeah, they should be able to collect welfare.

You're allowed to think they're a hypocritical jack-ass if they continue whining about other people on welfare.

[Ashmoria]

of course they should get every benefit they are entitled to under the law.

but I WISH they would have to write an essay on the need for welfare and why they should receive it.

[Skyviolia]

Yes, they should. It's there fault for being arrogant and close minded.

[Nariterrr]

Yes, they should. It's there fault for being arrogant and close minded.

So, should the law not apply to anarchists? Is it ok to kill anarchist because they don't like the law? No, to answer the question, they shouldn't.

[Skyviolia]

They paid taxes that went towards people's welfare so I don't see why they should be denied it. Welfare should be abolished anyway.

Why? Welfare helps lift people out of poverty.

[Skyviolia]

Yes, they should. It's there fault for being arrogant and close minded.

So, should the law not apply to anarchists? Is it ok to kill anarchist because they don't like the law? No, to answer the question, they shouldn't.

I'm not saying that. But if they choose to be arrogant, Let them suffer the consequences.