By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HappySqurriel on 14 August 2009
Edit Thread
jv103 said:
HappySqurriel said:

The "Welfare State" is rarely about improving the welfare of the poor, and is often about making people dependant on the state in order to control them; and the more power the state has the more that achievement in the economy becomes related to political connections than anything else.

Now you may agree with the agenda that the government is trying to push by getting you to drive more fuel efficient cars, get people to cut back on smoking, stop drinking or eating junk food (and you may even support the agenda of the people who had political connections or supported the "Right" causes that the stimulus bill) but eventually the government will use its power against you.

Consider videogames for a moment ... The combination of a media who have heavily misrepresented the content in "Mature" videogames (as they misrepresent all issues) and the widespread misconception that videogames are primarily for school aged children set them up to be used by politicians who need to "Champion a Cause" to introduce taxes or regulations which impact you in a negative way.


I think my original post was a mistake in that I didn't define what I meant by "welfare state." For my purpose, I mean welfare in the sense of a social safety net and not the micro-management of the individual. I don't mean bans on smoking, junk food and all that. I know that stuff can be taken under the title of the welfare state but I really just meant a basic safety net of unemployment insurance. 

Are you completely against the welfare state in all forms, or do you think there is a happy medium, and we need to constantly be aware of it? Historically, I don't know of any modern examples of a slow consolidation of power such as the one you fear (and i fear to some degree). It seems like many totalitarian regimes have come out of the chaos of revolution precipitated, at least from the french revolution forward, from the "social question". I dunno though, what is your opinion. I never said it was for the welfare of the poor, I only said it was an attempt or concept to preserve capitalism and prevent radicalization. Is it still necessary?

The problem is that you can’t separate the two elements of government interference ...

The welfare state is essentially the government stepping in to protect you from the decisions that you made in your life; and involves the government taking whatever action is necessary to "repair the damage" to a level that some bureaucrat thinks is acceptable. The second you let the government get involved in an area of your life you lose control over the decisions you’re allowed to make, the government gets to decide what are acceptable risks, and they get to choose the punishment for what is considered a "Bad Choice".

Now, I am not an anarchist and I do believe that there is a necessary role that the government must play in a person’s life; and I also recognise that there are some areas where the government can be more efficient than the private sector can be. An example of roles that the government must play is that they need to provide security from foreign powers through the use of the military and diplomacy; and often areas that involve a large investment in infrastructure (like electric generation) can allow the government to deliver a service at a dramatically lower cost than the private sector can.

Personally, I feel the only worthwhile efforts of the government to produce a "Welfare" state are when they are making an "investment" in people in a way that ensures that everyone is better off in the long run. The government funding education or paying for addiction treatment facilities is worthwhile if in the long run people are better educated, and fewer addicts are directly or indirectly causing problems in society.