|
Hey, Felix, I'm no sheltered kid, I KNOW that some people are content to wallow in their own filth while they pop their next pill, do their next hit, smoke their next whatever.
But, you know, like I said, I'd rather pay a bit more taxes to keep them out of my hair, than have them shivving me in a dark alley to pay for their next fix. It's a sacrifice, but it keeps down crime.
Additionally, I'd like to point out that Denmark has a FAR more comprehensive and permissive welfare system than the US, yet we have a lower crime rate and less people who are total losses. I'm not trying to act superior, but you can use Scandinavia in general as an example of a powerful welfare system that doesn't seem to create a horde of lazy, wallowing drug-addicts and drop-outs.
Again, no offense intended, but I think you're letting generalizations take over a bit. I know that I'd generally be pissed at all aspects of a dude who shot someone I know, crippling them permanently, but upon examining it with cold logic, whether or not he's on welfare means jack. Plenty of people with good, well-paying jobs are criminals and maniacs. Hell, I'm willing to bet that the fewest drug-users are in the middle class, while the upper classes likely mirror the lower classes in number of addicts and users.
Lots of murderers and maniacs have had well-paying jobs, families and futures. But it's easier to be a nice guy when you do have those things. If you don't have a future, you're not sacrificing anything when you stab that guy or shoot that guy to get enough money to eat. If you don't have a family to come home to, you've got no reproachful stares, no shame, no disappointment to face when you jab that next needle into your vein and slip away from the world for a few more hours, if you don't have a job, you have nothing to lose by being lazy.
The way you get people out of these things isn't with threats, shunning and force. The way you get them out of it is compassion, friendship and support. Give them a family. Give them a feeling there's somewhere to go. Give them a feeling that someone cares. That's what's more likely to get them a job than threatening to take away their money. More likely to get them out a ditch than threatening them with starvation.
Some of them are probably dropped out for the express reason that they feel like the world doesn't care, that the state hates them, people hate them, that there's no purpose to it all. You'd just reinforce what keeps them in the ditch and indifferent to the suffering of whoever they might shoot, stab or step on while trying to survive.
And this is not based in any sort of idealist philosophy. This is based on fact and observation. Look at Scandinavia, where we apply the Compassion approach. Look at the US, where you(From my understanding.) generally apply the "Well if you're gonna screw up, feel free to go rot."-approach. The numbers should show which is more effective at helping society's weakest be contributing members of the greater whole.
|