<<I think when you have the responsibility to support someone - especially someone whose bad habits are the cause of that responsibility - you have the right to expect that person to at least try to improve their behavior.
Simply put, the sooner the Welfare Bum stops doing the bad things that cost me bucks, the sooner I get to keep my bucks. >>
True enough. But only true in the sense that "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" is true. You gotta deal with the world as it is, Pooch, not as you'd like it to be.
<<I think it is reasonable to presume that when someone takes my money against my will, it is
a willful surrender of freedom on their part. >>
Pooch, you oughtta spend more time among the low-lifes. In the real world. Hang out in a government welfare office for an hour once a week. Take a number. These guys are coming in to pick up a cheque. THEIR cheque. That the government OWES them. They aren't thinking in Hobbesian terms of freedom and its surrender. If you told them, they must live their lives as YOU dictate in order for them to continue to receive this miserable pittance, they'd probably choose to get what they need by other means that are even less socially productive than welfare.
<< If I must support you, I ought to be able to have some say in getting you self-sufficient again. My right to interfere in your life comes from the effect those affairs are having on me. I have a right to get upset about someone who takes my money and intends to continue doing so. >>
You are reminding me of the old admonition about not trying to teach a pig to sing. It'll never happen, and you will annoy the pig. These guys are what they are, Pooch. It's almost never their fault, they're the bottom three or four percent of the population, and every population is always gonna have a bottom three or four per cent. By definition. They're just the members of the human family who happen to have had the worst luck and the least advantages in life in the whole damn family. The system DOES provide retraining, DOES provide counselling, DOES provide drug rehab - - these are the ones who are so fucked up that they can't or won't benefit from what help the system provides. The MOST vulnerable, the MOST incapacitated, the MOST incapable of changing for the better. The bottom ten percent of the bottom three per cent. But still members of your family. What are you going to do, turn your back on 'em?
<<Alfred P. Doolittle is an endearing character, but only on stage.>>
OK, great, NOW we're getting somewhere. Think of Alfred P. Why do you like him? What is so endearing about him? And try to transfer those feelings into the real world. To real people. Shouldn't be all that hard. The basic emotional component is already there.
<<Your point about not picking and choosing vices to complain about is also valid, but I would point out that drug use has two differences over many other vices. First, drug use is not only financially debilitating but also physically and emotionally as well. The physical effects of substance abuse exacerbate the tendency to "screw up" and decrease the likelihood (slim though it may be) of the abuser progressing towards responsible behavior. >>
Well, you realize the problem yourself. That "slim though it may be" is really an acknowledgment that the drug abuse is really just a symptom, that the real problem lies beneath that. WHY is the guy abusing drugs? And from welfare's POV, what's the difference? The guy's disabled by whatever problem leads to the drug abuse, someone else is disabled by the gambling bug, someone else by borderline mental illness, etc., etc. Welfare is not their therapy. Welfare is just their support mechanism, to support them with the necessities of life. They all get that basic support. Hopefully, the welfare offices can steer them to whatever curative agencies are available to treat the drug addiction and its cause, to treat the unskilled by upgrading his skills, to treat the gambler, the psychotic, etc. But welfare is to keep them alive UNTIL.
<<Secondly, unlike such vices as gambling, compulsive shopping or sheer laziness, we can actually detect drug abuse. It's rational, since it's possible, to try to monitor and discourage self-destructive behaviors. Granted, that is a bit of a double standard, but I think it is a practical one.>>
Again back in the real world you can detect most of the other problems too. Most of these guys will freely admit to them. They have no pride and they don't give a shit. In other cases, you just have to ask their wives, girlfriends, children or mothers. The problems of the welfare recipient are not closely-guarded military secrets. A lot of the time you can't get them to shut up about them. And you're right, it is a bit of a double standard. Charity is charity, it's based on need, not virtue.
