What are the disadvantages of welfare state model?
Individuality should have been the first answer to this thread. Under the Welfare State your property is coercively taken away from you.
The Welfare State is perfect for people who are talentless and laziness and looking for a handout based on their shortcomings. The elites love Socialism and the Welfare State because it prevents people to get to their status, it punishes any type of success.
It's based on the violent conquering of a territory, and then of continual violence against peaceful persons.
If you leave rich people alone maybe one day you'll be one because of the jobs that can be created and the cheap and novel products that can be offered.
Thanks.
But... what do you mean by "conquering of territory", could you please clarify?
http://books.google.com/books?id=FIOp0ofIwDwC&dq=mutual+aid+welfare+state&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=WvysS8jRGIT68Ab2t4DcCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
It's a service the private sector can handle.
Also, the entitlements never end and eventually bring down society in a hyperinflation.
Google:
"What are the disadvantages of theft".
Private property is theft.
Andrew: Thanks. But... what do you mean by "conquering of territory", could you please clarify?
Do states form by consent or via conquering?
scineram: Private property is theft.
Thank you. I always enjoy your brief statements because of their consistent and constant failure to add anything of value to any thread besides the equivalent of the words "I disagree". I think you should make that your slogan from here on in.... Or possibly start making any actual arguments to support your view instead of a small sentence which doesn't actually convince anyone of anything (except maybe that your ideas have no validity) and never will... Just my advice though
At any rate, the posts made so far in this thread have, in my opinion, missed the point. A monopoly can never provide a service approaching the same quality as a competitive institution can. When we give the state a near monopoly (or a practical monopoly where it simply crowds out all competitors) then suddenly there is no incentive to effectively put an end to poverty, nor to use the money given effectively, whilst a private institution has an incentive to do this, and a direct check mechanism to ensure that it does this, that is to say competition. When you donate to charity you don't want your money to be waisted and you certainly don't want your money to be used to help keep people in a state of poverty, and therefore you will only give money to a charity which you know is actively helping to reduce poverty.
With its monopoly on ideas the state also reduces new and inventive ideas which may reduce poverty. Finally the welfare state requires huge amounts of funds to keep it afloat, money which must come through taxation and therefore which comes from private businesses which means that they can no longer higher as many people as they otherwise would.
You desire that poverty is to be eliminated and that those who are in a state of poverty are supported until they can be taken out of this state, this is a sentiment with which I agree and which I will use my money on to see achieved, what we need to do now is to stop giving an institution with no incentive to use its resources effectively, and to begin competition between charity and to try to ensure that people are taken care of well, to form a new consciousness between men of mutual benefit through voluntary transactions aimed at the betterment of all. This cannot be done through monopoly power and through unlimited funds procured forcibly.
private property is gained by two willing parties, a seller and a buyer
taxes are taken against our will by using the threat of force....which is theft....
these are the same to you?
When the producers and wealth generating citizens lose their incentive to produce the things and products needed to sustain and maintain their lifestyle and/or standard of living for the total population, they stop producing and everybody starves, or goes to work alondside of the producers.
The individual families (also the nations, city-states, islands, and tribes) of the world do not normally share the fruits of their labors with the global community, nor should they. Each family lives a lifestyle and standard of living that is maintained by consuming the wealth that is produced by the working wealth producing members in that family and that wealth is shared by all of the members of that family.
Each family on an island, state, nation, continent, or in the entire world is not obligated to share the fruits of their own labors with any other family, tribe, state or nation.
Governments have always passed laws to force the working wealth producers in that politically defined economic area to contribute a portion of the fruits of their labors to support jobs such as police, teachers, military, finance, social services, welfare, environmental and other bureaucratic jobs generally do not produce any of the food, shelter, and clothing required to sustain life or create any wealth for the nation. Most of these government jobs are needed to support and protect the citizens that do produce the things that the society needs to survive, but a lot of these government jobs could be eliminated. This community of mutual contributing and mutual support should be one part of the definition of civilization.
Governments might and usually do pass laws to force the working wealth producers in that family to provide a portion of fruits of their labors to the citizens that are not as fortunate.
Sometimes those unfortunate citizens wanting to share the resources that others worked to produce have purposely squandered their own resources on new cars, fast food, Big Screen TV's, vacations, booze, cigarettes, concerts, drugs, tattoos, body piercings, etc. instead of expending their resources on educations, businesses, trade schools, tools, equipment, materials.
The leaders of the wealth producing family could quit working and stop creating wealth. They could then export all of the gold, products, services, commodities and wealth created by the previous generations of the wealth producing family as needed to allow the current members of that family to stop working and live a non wealth producing lifestyle and standard of living maintained by selling title to the privately owned businesses, factories, casinos, hotels, farms, land, ports, breweries, refineries, forests, ports, breweries, refineries, and other privately owned assets located in the USA to pay for imported products and our US federal government expenses.
After the previously wealth producing family has sold all of their assets, they could print paper bonds (that required their children and their unborn grandchildren work hard and produce wealth to redeem these debt instruments when they become due) and then sell these freshly printed paper bonds to raise money to pay for imported products for the citizens to consume, rather than the citizens making the products that the (previously wealth producing) family needs for consumption to maintain their lifestyle and standard of living.
In order to pay for our growing US government expenses and our imported consumable products, the USA is now exporting title to our privately owned real estate, factories, casinos, hotels, office buildings, ports, businesses, etc. to pay for government expenses and imported consumer items. This can continue only until we run out of US private assets to sell in order to redeem our freshly printed paper US bonds.