Totally valid comment. In my opinion, the economic/political game itself deserves to be questioned from time to time. If the social contract unravels because the game gets corrupt, a new concept of safety net (basic starting conditions) might be needed.
When part of society views another part as a burden, it tries to find ways to eliminate it. This is already the case in Canada where their MAID policies make it easier to get assisted suicide than a wheelchair.
I'd rather have an opt-in charitable system like we currently have....well used to. Unfortunately, though, the US has started to see the poor as "the government's problem" rather than "helping my neighbor" and that's why we're on the path to universal welfare.
Social responsibility is not as simple as it may sound. Issues and concerns I see:
1) Instead of implementing dozens and dozens of inefficient "good ideas", we need a comprehensive plan that is fair and efficient. This is why I support "Universal Income" as the best way to achieve this. No judgements, everyone is eligible (including billionaires). Extremely minimal administration cost.
2) Border policy and immigration - poverty is a worldwide concern. If one nation is wealthy and makes very attractive guarantees, people from around the world will want to move there and get a "free handout". Do you have secure borders and restrictive immigration? (which would encourage dangerous attempts to bypass it)
3) Who makes decisions? What form of housing is provided? A lot of government subsidized housing is low quality - a temporary expense and solution which requires repeating or expensive maintenance. Criminal behavior tends to follow poverty, put all low income people together and you create a "slum". Universal healthcare has a huge problem in who decides what healthcare should be provided. Does someone decide that vaccines are a good idea and thus forced on everyone? Are expensive multimillion dollar procedures that extend someone's life by three months provided to everyone? Or can we agree to just provide trauma centers to patch accident victims up at no cost?
4) Do we take a "state" or a "federal" approach? Do we encourage every state to have a different system so that the best systems can be discovered, adopted and copied? Or do we force a federal solution upon everyone?
5) Is there a way to encourage a culture shift so that families and communities provide this naturally? Is that culture shift desirable?
The state should be the safety net of last resort.
Totally valid comment. In my opinion, the economic/political game itself deserves to be questioned from time to time. If the social contract unravels because the game gets corrupt, a new concept of safety net (basic starting conditions) might be needed.
It might, especially if AI pessimists are right.
I think you missed more negatives:
When part of society views another part as a burden, it tries to find ways to eliminate it. This is already the case in Canada where their MAID policies make it easier to get assisted suicide than a wheelchair.
I'd rather have an opt-in charitable system like we currently have....well used to. Unfortunately, though, the US has started to see the poor as "the government's problem" rather than "helping my neighbor" and that's why we're on the path to universal welfare.
Great comments! Good capitalism (any system really) requires a moral foundation. The charitable impulse is vital to human society.
Also, I think much of the current welfare state suffers from very poor design. We need very different ways of looking at a fair society.
Social responsibility is not as simple as it may sound. Issues and concerns I see:
1) Instead of implementing dozens and dozens of inefficient "good ideas", we need a comprehensive plan that is fair and efficient. This is why I support "Universal Income" as the best way to achieve this. No judgements, everyone is eligible (including billionaires). Extremely minimal administration cost.
2) Border policy and immigration - poverty is a worldwide concern. If one nation is wealthy and makes very attractive guarantees, people from around the world will want to move there and get a "free handout". Do you have secure borders and restrictive immigration? (which would encourage dangerous attempts to bypass it)
3) Who makes decisions? What form of housing is provided? A lot of government subsidized housing is low quality - a temporary expense and solution which requires repeating or expensive maintenance. Criminal behavior tends to follow poverty, put all low income people together and you create a "slum". Universal healthcare has a huge problem in who decides what healthcare should be provided. Does someone decide that vaccines are a good idea and thus forced on everyone? Are expensive multimillion dollar procedures that extend someone's life by three months provided to everyone? Or can we agree to just provide trauma centers to patch accident victims up at no cost?
4) Do we take a "state" or a "federal" approach? Do we encourage every state to have a different system so that the best systems can be discovered, adopted and copied? Or do we force a federal solution upon everyone?
5) Is there a way to encourage a culture shift so that families and communities provide this naturally? Is that culture shift desirable?
I love that you pose key questions! Great insights usually follow! Thanks!