Political Theory

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

bloomj31 — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 05:39:59 GMT

I'm not defending either possibility but perhaps the word they're looking for is 'ungracious' rather than 'hypocritical.'

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

Live_Free_Or_Die — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 05:17:08 GMT

How about some rich pricks who lust for power because they love money and want to own the whole world bankrupted The United States of America trust which was a contract you weren't even a signor to then they told you that you had to come to their public schools where you won't learn a dam thing about anything except to respect authority and not think for yourself and then they shrouded you in a legal matrix where everything is based on ignorance of their contracts is not an excuse which you never receive full or honest disclosures of then they lie to you in order to get you to believe you owe the people who bankrupted your country something when in reality it is the other way around.

Feel bad? Shit... more like mad...

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

TronCat — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 05:03:28 GMT

black people who have benefited from AA will now credit their success to it in part and be against ending it.

"The state has existed for so long, so all of our social development must be owed to it. If you are born into the state, and live in it, you owe your entire life to it!"

It's really just a guilt trip, right?

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

Serpentis-Lucis — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:56:40 GMT

I grew up on the welfare state, yet I am still against it, and it's not because I'm a hypocrite. My mother was and still is dependent on the welfare state, which has been true for most of her life, so why am I against it? When a person is on welfare, they can't make more than a certain amount of money, or else the benefits will be cut, that by itself isn't a problem, take into consideration that a person working only part time (as quite a large number of people currently do) with only minimum wage resulting in the enigmatic position where a person makes more off of welfare than they do doing actual work, you end up with the situation my mother is in where she won't give up the security of welfare benefits for the insecurity of a minimum wage job. If there were no welfare she would have been forced to learn skills which are valuable, instead of being a fast food cook at Taco Bell.

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

gotlucky — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:41:48 GMT

Anenome:

This must be part of the reason the gov has been pushing food stamps lately. Did you know 46 million americans are now on food stamps.

46 million. 46.

Holy fucking hell. I understand the numbers, but my mind just can't process that...

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

Anenome — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:37:37 GMT

The interesting thing to me here is that this is a psychological effect which weakens people's ability to reject state power. You see the same thing in regars to affirmative action, where black people who have benefited from AA will now credit their success to it in part and be against ending it.

This must be part of the reason the gov has been pushing food stamps lately. Did you know 46 million americans are now on food stamps.

46 million. 46.

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

gotlucky — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:25:58 GMT

What they're being told is this: "You're saying the welfare state is wrong and all of us are dependent? Then why were you on it? Who are you to tell us it's wrong when you needed it to get by?"

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Did they really need it? Why did they really need it? Why would private charity not been acceptable? Why can't someone who was on state welfare recognize its destructive aspects and advocate a private alternative?

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

TronCat — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:17:41 GMT

Well, I don't think they have to be forthright; I think that's determined more on a case by case basis. Some people might see it as hypocritical. That means that either they are using a nonstandard definition of hypocrisy or they are mistaken or they are lying. I hope that the fact that other people might consider it hypocritical is not what's holding them back. It's not your friends' fault that people can use different definitions or hold mistaken beliefs or lie.

It actually depends how they argue against the welfare state. They just have to be more clear in why it is wrong and/or ineffective so that no one can continually hold them to the fact they were on it before.

I think welfare is different in how it's viewed because if someone lived off of it as a "safety-net", then it's even more difficult for them to argue against it considering they used it. It is seen as that person's crutch (a crutch they're unwilling to acknowledge).

What they're being told is this: "You're saying the welfare state is wrong and all of us are dependent? Then why were you on it? Who are you to tell us it's wrong when you needed it to get by?"

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

Wibee — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 03:50:34 GMT

The State does not have any resources. It has our resources. Draining the State's reosurces just gives them the demand they use to justify stealing more resources.

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

gotlucky — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 03:47:06 GMT

TronCat:

I see the difference - it's that the "hypocrite" is still currently involved in whatever he's criticizing. The thing is, if these guys criticize the welfare state and anyone who's dependent on it, they have to be forth-right in that they were also once dependent on it. It could be seen as hypocritical if they criticize the "safety-net" (and those dependent on it), yet depended on it themselves at one time.

Well, I don't think they have to be forthright; I think that's determined more on a case by case basis. Some people might see it as hypocritical. That means that either they are using a nonstandard definition of hypocrisy or they are mistaken or they are lying. I hope that the fact that other people might consider it hypocritical is not what's holding them back. It's not your friends' fault that people can use different definitions or hold mistaken beliefs or lie.

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

TronCat — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 03:38:15 GMT

I see the difference - it's that the "hypocrite" is still currently involved in whatever he's criticizing. The thing is, if these guys criticize the welfare state and anyone who's dependent on it, they have to be forth-right in that they were also once dependent on it. It could be seen as hypocritical if they criticize the "safety-net" (and those dependent on it), yet depended on it themselves at one time.

Although, as the other guy pointed out - we'd just be stuck in this neverending cycle of stagnation if no one could develop and/or overcome their past faults.

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

gotlucky — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 03:23:01 GMT

I'm asking you why it would be hypocritical. Consider the following scenarios:

1. Mr. A smoked pot in college. He no longer smokes pot and firmly believes people ought not smoke it. He tells his college student son not to smoke pot.

2. Mr. B smokes pot but tells his son not to.

Do you see a difference between the two scenarios? In the first scenario, Mr. A is not a hypocrite as he holds the belief that people ought not smoke pot. Mr. B is a hypocrite. He claims to hold a certain belief but his actions demonstrate otherwise.

So, why do your friends think they are hypocrites? Do they claim to be against welfare but actually are in favor of it? Or are they actually against welfare but their parents accept it?

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

Wheylous — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 03:16:10 GMT

How about "oh, I now see the light and can criticize it."

Technically, following their line of logic, no people in the Soviet Union could be against it because the government gave them food and educated them.

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

TronCat — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 03:14:08 GMT

"applying criticism to others that one does not apply equally to oneself"

If they were to criticize the welfare state (or those that use it) considering they themselves have used it. That would be hypocritical, would it not?

Re: "I grew up on the welfare state therefore I can't be against it."

Aristophanes — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 03:13:23 GMT

They probably see it as hypocritical because they'd be railing against the same thing they lived off, and they say they wouldn't be where they are now without it.

I see this. You should tell themt hat it is a certain kind of virtue to milk and deplete the resources of the state while in your mind thinking that it is wrong to do so. haha

Tell them that by using all of the resources of the State that it cripples it and may one day fail because of the depletion on unproductive things.