Should Government Stay Out of Social Policy Altogether?

[EywaBlessMe]

Originally Posted by Human No More

it'er

????
translate

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by EywaBlessMe

????
translate

It's

[Neytiri.]

I don't necessarily know what government should or shouldn't do, but what I do know is that i try and stay as far away as possible from politics in general

[redpaintednavi]

Perhaps it would be much better if the US abandoned all its colonial wars in foreign countries and invested them in a better social policy instead. With those money health care, evening out economic inequality, adress grave social problems like drugs and similar things could be somewhat more easily obtainable.

The state should be a guarante for peoples welfare, social stability, knowledge and progression, not just an institution that guards rich peoples money or go pirating the world for more resources.

[Woodsprite]

Are you implying that "rich people's money" is always necessarily something that represents corruption?

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Are you implying that "rich people's money" is always necessarily something that represents corruption?

Corruption is personal greed or motives eclipsing the common good in a politician or leader. So yes, corruption is usually fueled by money these days. Not all money causes corruption, but most corruption is caused by it. (or some form of gathering it.)

There are rare circumstances where corruption can be either personality... "issues". Or other pressures, but on a whole, corruption has a pretty simple motive.

[EywaBlessMe]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

eclipsing the common good in a politician

Nowadays (sp?), all politicians in America are gladhanders, spending (at least) half of their time out begging for money. Any election takes millions of dollars, and Obama raised over 100 million, because he had to. Since only rich people have that kind of jack, and would never give it away without some hope of a return, the common good is a long forgotten memory.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Are you implying that "rich people's money" is always necessarily something that represents corruption?

Not always, but to often. Many people have become rich by plundering the world of resources that are not theirs in the first place, and also by using and coercing other people to work for them for a small reward. A system where some people are immensely rich, while some others are immensely poor is in itself corrupt, and the rich people have had the oportunity to use that system to their own benefit.

A good government should strive for more economic and social equality, in the name of justice and also to decrease social instability. Also a government ought to see to that all citizens have the means they need to live a decent life, with their basic needs covered. Social welfare, easy accessible health care and education for everyone (not only for the rich) and similar ought to be mandatory in a state that call itself civilized. The rich people that have taken resources for themselves should be heavily taxed so some of the resources they have taken are returned back to society.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

A good government should strive for more economic and social equality, in the name of justice and also to decrease social instability. Also a government ought to see to that all citizens have the means they need to live a decent life, with their basic needs covered. Social welfare, easy accessible health care and education for everyone (not only for the rich) and similar ought to be mandatory in a state that call itself civilized. The rich people that have taken resources for themselves should be heavily taxed so some of the resources they have taken are returned back to society.

"But...but...that's comminism!!11...fascism...socilism...nazi...maoism ...kenyan."

JK

[Woodsprite]

I didn't mean that. I asked if it was "always necessarily something that represents corruption", because redpaintednavi said that government shouldn't be "an institution that guards rich peoples money".

Now personally, I see absolutely no problem with "guarding rich people's money". But it came off like redpaintednavi implied that this "rich people's money" somehow represents a bad society; that represents corruption. That's what I got out of it, at least. But maybe I read it wrong; I don't know.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I didn't mean that. I asked if it was "always necessarily something that represents corruption", because redpaintednavi said that government shouldn't be "an institution that guards rich peoples money".

Now personally, I see absolutely no problem with "guarding rich people's money". But it came off like redpaintednavi implied that this "rich people's money" somehow represents a bad society; that represents corruption. That's what I got out of it, at least. But maybe I read it wrong; I don't know.

As long as it equally protects the money of every other citizen in every other income level, and doesn't give specialty treatment to the rich.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Not always, but to often. Many people have become rich by plundering the world of resources that are not theirs in the first place, and also by using and coercing other people to work for them for a small reward. A system where some people are immensely rich, while some others are immensely poor is in itself corrupt, and the rich people have had the oportunity to use that system to their own benefit.

A good government should strive for more economic and social equality, in the name of justice and also to decrease social instability. Also a government ought to see to that all citizens have the means they need to live a decent life, with their basic needs covered. Social welfare, easy accessible health care and education for everyone (not only for the rich) and similar ought to be mandatory in a state that call itself civilized. The rich people that have taken resources for themselves should be heavily taxed so some of the resources they have taken are returned back to society.

But the problem is, most of the world's rich people (multi-millionaires and up) made their money either because of technology (being smart), or entertainment (in Hollywood, Bollywood, or television). People who own oil companies and mining companies are in the small minority of the wealthy.

The majority of the world's rich aren't rich because they mooch off the planet's environment. But if anything, Al Gore (who's pretty wealthy himself) should have done to him what you propose, from all the tons of carbon he uses with his private jet, and his lordly mansion with millions of watts of electricity used everyday.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

But the problem is, most of the world's rich people (multi-millionaires and up) made their money either because of technology (being smart), or entertainment (in Hollywood, Bollywood, or television). People who own oil companies and mining companies are in the small minority of the wealthy.

Its not so simple as that. Many of the real rich people own shares and stocks in many companies, whereof some probably deplete the Earths resources in one or another way. Many of the smart inventions also crave different raw materials to be mass produced, and some of those materials are mined or produced in a not always so eco friendly way. On top of that also such resources are many times produced by poor workers in developing countries.

And if one look at the richest people one can see owners of steel companies, oil and mining companies, clothes and fashion (an industry that many times uses workers in developing countries), supermarket owners (also a huge impact because of its connection with agricultural industry) and other resource depleting ventures.

And also if wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, it mostly means that there are people that have little, or no part in that wealth. And if there are a lot of people in a society who get an unreasonable little share of the wealth it will lead to crime and unstable social circumstances, which we can see in many parts of the world.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

And also if wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, it mostly means that there are people that have little, or no part in that wealth. And if there are a lot of people in a society who get an unreasonable little share of the wealth it will lead to crime and unstable social circumstances, which we can see in many parts of the world.

Are you saying that the fact that people don't have money ultimately leads to crime? Thus, should we spread the wealth around using government taxes on the rich to support those poor people who're "led" to crime?

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Are you saying that the fact that people don't have money ultimately leads to crime? Thus, should we spread the wealth around using government taxes on the rich to support those poor people who're "led" to crime?

Powerty is one of several causes of crime, but an important one. A society where resources is more equally distributed is more free from crime and more socially stable.
It is much better spending tax money on a more economically equal society than having to spend them on a gigantic policeforce or a lot of prisons. Also it is better to spend tax money to fight economic inequality than on meaningless wars on the other side of the globe.