posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 07:24 PM
We cannot create a nanny state where all the streets are padded to protect someone from making the dumb decision of jumping off a building.
Pretty analogy, but in reality, there is a vast difference between padding every street to protect the %0.0001 or whatever that jump/fall off
buildings, and creating a welfare state that allows for the basic survival
of the %5 or whatever that otherwise would be unable to survive in a
The argument that a welfare state inevitably leads to decline is somewhat weakened by the fact that it is a feature of every single successful
economy on the planet
, including the US's
The argument is not that the welfare state should assure everyone a Lexus, a McMansion in the suburbs, and the latest MacBook Pro, but that it can
prevent the worst consequences of extreme poverty - starvation, homelessness, death by untreated simple illness, child prostitution (a frighteningly
common occurrence in places where there is no welfare state), etc...
This can be done, without a general social collapse occurring, and without huge portions of the population abandoning work for a supposedly
irresistible "free lunch" - because most people would rather have something tastier than government cheese for lunch.
Most people would rather work and improve their lives, rather than settle for a an existence that only provides basic subsistence.
People want the Lexus, the McMansion, and the MacBook Air, or just a trip to the beach. They're willing to work for the things they want.
This is the way the industrialized world has done things for the last century or so, and far from "destroying civilization", it has led to the
greatest level of average prosperity in human history.