You can get all the life, liberty and happiness you want. Heck, you can use your own money to help others with it, too. But stealing money from me to help others, is the exact opposite of liberty for me, and lots of the individuals you steal from to fulfill your misguided ideals. My employer pays half of my private medical care, plainly. For them to take a leap and go the full 100% on that would be trivial, and practically guaranteed if they didn't have to pay an entire HR + accounting department to handle taxes and all the government-imposed bureaucracy and PC nonsense that comes with having employees.
Just because you have little faith in humanity, and think that without "governance" it'll dissolve into hateful individuals with very little compassion and willingness to cooperate, doesn't mean the rest of us do. It also doesn't mean you have the right to impose such hateful actions on society such as stealing money in the form of taxes, either.
Seems like your answer to everything is violence. Like the other person told you, you need counselling. Something very wrong went badly in your life, and you need someone to talk to. I know that venting like this on the internet, talking about violence, and stabbing is soothing to you, but it's sadly only a temporary solution. You have deep-seated issues with violence, and you need professional help to help guide you out of such a place.
I hope you get the help that you deserve. Good day.
I'm saving money, and I'm not part of the 1%. How do you mean?
They put their money in Swiss bank accounts.
It's their money, they earned it. If they wish to keep it there, then that's their prerogative.
They are free. The rest of us are wage slaves.
If you don't like it, you're "free" to start you own business. It means you won't be a wage-slave anymore. Either way, why exactly do you have a problem with earning a wage? You are selling your labor. Why use the word slave? Sounds like you have some very deep-seated anger issues towards those that are somehow currently more fortunate than you.
The majority of money you call "hoarded" is actually just re-invested. That's due to everyone wanting to beat inflation, so they save their money as investments.
As for your "getting blow on risky ventures by Trump" comment. Well, if he loses it, it still goes somewhere. It pays for stuff, it hires people, it goes into someone's investment account, whatever. The point is that, either way, that money is getting used and circulated, somehow.
You do realize this system wouldn't even exist on such a grand scale if it wasn't for massive government funding? They literally pool money together from millions of individuals' taxes, and throw it at a problem. Like throwing pasta at a wall, hoping it'll stick.
Another thing you fail to realize while you were ranting about "A PRIVATE COMPANY", is that people that got screwed over by this system's failure now don't have a chance in hell to switch to a competitor. They're stuck with the system that "A PRIVATE COMPANY" built for "THE GOVERNMENT". And you know, government imposes many monopolies, of which this is one. If this system was truly built by "A PRIVATE COMPANY", then you'd be damned sure that the people would be turning to an alternative right now.
On a side note, using caps to make my point about your obvious trolling method is making me a little nauseous.
Of course... it's "public" land. That means it simultaneously belongs to everyone, and no one except the government. It is essentially the government equivalent of Nelson's "Haw Haw" laugh, aimed at the poor and unfortunate.
What is this Tea Party I keep you Americans talking about? From your post, I can see that you're implying that it is somehow majority composed of people that need government assistance. Yet, the first thing mentioned about this "party" on wikipedia is that is it is a "political movement that is primarily known for advocating a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes." Are you telling me that a group that advocates the reduction of taxes and spending is one that is also highly dependent on that spending staying high so that they can get their "welfare" check?
If you're right, then might I suggest you go update/edit that particular Wikipedia article? Seeing as you know something crucial about the Tea Party that the rest of the internet doesn't. Oh, and don't forget to add a dication/link for your edit.
Think about it. The money has to go somewhere. All money eventually ends up in the private sector.
And if the money stayed with the taxpayers from the start, where do you think it will eventually end up? Yup, you guessed it, the private sector, maybe. The big difference between government spending and individuals having less taxes is that less taxes allows people to save, and it allows them to have absolute freedom to choose how that portion of their money gets spent.
BTW, isn't criticizing someone else's negotiation compensation "the politics of envy" and "class warfare", or does that only apply when it's criticism of executives who get obscene bonuses for running their companies into the ground?
Only when taxpayers foot the bill in some way. What was that famous saying... "No taxation without representation." I don't know about you, but that effectively means that people need to have at least some say in where and how their stolen tax-money is used.
No one is envious here, you're projecting words into someone else's mouth, calm down. People are free to negotiate whatever cushy deal they want with whatever company they choose. Some will be jealous, but that's their problem.
What exactly do you use your PC's for that you need "BitDefender" and "malwarebytes" to be installed on them? What kind of users are there on your network?
Government isn't in the business of efficiency. It's in the business of job creation. And to do that, they have to create and reward multiple levels of useless hierarchy, with waste at every level. This is so that everyone get's appeased a little bit, instead of the most efficient getting the benefit.
I am genuinely curious, do you really believe this? That the worker bees are free to just go elsewhere to make more money?
Just look into US history for labor violation. Think company store.
I don't know about the person you're responding to, but I firmly believe it. The "worker bees" are free to do anything they please, including quit to work at another company. Or move. Or emigrate. Or live in the wilderness. That is their choice, and their right. They may not always be in a position to do so due to circumstances or their willingness to endure hardship/inconvenience, but that's a separate issue entirely.
Note how you use the loaded word "worker bees". I'd make a joke here about you being a collectivist, but that wouldn't be very nice.
It is simply a fact of life, many of those with power will take advantage of those without power. It is Human nature.
If you want to have a functioning, peaceful society, then yes, you really need to regulate things like labor laws.
You are most certainly correct. People with power will take advantage of those without it. And they, too, are free to do so, as long as they don't infringe on anyone's property rights and don't commit any fraud. Those two laws alone will fix society immensely and multiple times that of any labor law.
Another thing. We currently have a metric fuck ton of labor laws. And we most certainly do not have a functioning, peaceful society. If we did, then people would be happy and not calling for wealth redistribution, more labor laws and innumerable other regulations. This is because society will never be perfect, never finished, and no one will ever be satisfied with what they currently have.
Remember this. MOST people in the US live pay check to pay check. They CANNOT quit their job. If they lose even a week of pay, that is is the difference between eating or rent.
Well, you need to take a step back and ask yourself why they are living paycheck to paycheck. If they cannot quit their job, then their first priority should be to start saving. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you're already living way beyond your means and you need to remedy that as soon as possible.
I am lucky. I don't really need to worry about these things, but it wasn't always the case. And back then, it was scary. Having lived it, I firmly believe we need regulate these things.
Regulate what? No, really. Tell me one single regulation that will fix it without having negative effects on someone else? See, that's the problem with socialist beliefs. They're all fine and dandy when it's someone else's money being used to fix societal ills. Instead, why don't you join up with a bunch of your friends/family and get a fund going to help each other out in tough times?
People don't live in a bubble. It's unfortunate that people sometimes don't have a family/friend support structure in place to help them if they go through a rough time in life. Perhaps they won't make the same mistake their parents did when they have kids of their own, and will either not have the child or they will start saving early in order to have a support structure in place for the kids when they are down in luck.
Of course, a big part of the problem is inflation. There is no real reason things need to get more and more expensive.
Things don't get more and more expensive. It's just that your money get's less and less valuable. You can blame your loving socialist government for that. You know, the one you so eagerly want to create laws and regulations for all sorts of petty little things.
I'm glad you used the word market when describing the inability of workers to get decent jobs. A "job market" is just that, a market. By being a market, it has certain properties that will astonish most people. For one, you can choose to use a different market. And you can make your own market, if you wish. You can choose to participate in a different market by moving/emigrating. And you can create your own by starting your own town/city/village.
Please don't blame the rest of us for your lack of motivation to deal with inconveniences. Just because another group of people's work/skill/production performs well in a particular market, doesn't mean you deserve the same benefits they enjoy. We're all a commodity/product, or whatever meat term you want to use.
On a side note, there is a bit of irony when it comes to unskilled labor and the poor. The poor and uneducated continue to breed (produce) more supply for the jobs they so badly need, thereby reducing their own value. They're free to do that, just please quit paying them to do it as you're spoiling the world for all of us.
OTOH millions of people will not be able to eat next month because food stamps will run out of money. That's callous, and you don't seem to care.
No, we don't care. We're tired of caring. Sadly, in this brilliantly "free" and "democratic" society we live in, I have no say or choice when it comes to what I can and can not care for using the tax money I have earned, and supposedly "voluntarily" given to the government to use for good on my behalf.
Guilt, and the subsequent charity that follows it are nothing but addictions.
Slavery was codified by the States before there was a Federal government.
Ah huh. So your argument is "they did it first, so we're not responsible for doing it, too." Somehow, I don't think this argument will make slaves feel any better, but anyways. On to the meat.
The flaw in your reasoning is you're using the distinction between "state" and "federal government", whatever the fuck that means. Listen, your country is run by an entity. Just because that entity is part of a hierarchy of other entities where each separate entity controls different parts of your country at differing levels is irrelevant. You, as a person, are governed. The state, and the "federal government" are both part of the same thing. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll quit being a jackass arguing nitpick details.
Here you go
Now kindly follow that link, it's your going away present. Don't come here again, and please leave your geek card at the front desk. That's assuming you ever got one in the first place.
Interesting analogy, calling democracy a game of "Survivors", assuming you're referring to Survivor Island. Pretty apt analogy, if you ask me. Special interest groups (aka minority groups of people) scheming, plotting, and allying with various other groups in order to get favor and benefit. All while the rest of us watch in anticipation/amusement and cast our votes.
[...]denouncing a[sic] action, no matter how popular, that solely exists in order to harm a minority is not denouncing democracy, it's denouncing a perversion of it.
And who gets to decide that it's a perversion of democracy? The minority, or the majority? If you say majority, then you're proving my point and contradicting yourself. If you say minority, then that's not democracy anymore and change will not be the result of democracy but by tyranny of a few over many.
Right now, many minority groups are being harmed by the state, yet no one does/says a damn thing about it. This is precisely because those minority groups are past an invisible and arbitrarily drawn line. When you realize that your "minority/majority" argument is one of arbitrary lines, then you'll realize what a sham the whole thing really is.
You have to think of it in relative terms, because that is how people will perceive the resulting system. Let's say that "basic income" is $1000 a month for every individual out there. Now, let's assume that a local mechanic works as an employee, full-time, and his salary is $1700 a month. The difference between working and not working now becomes $700 a month. That is the benefit the mechanic will get by working full time, as opposed to the individual that does not work at all. The value he gains from working is diluted.
Granted, that $700 difference may be quite significant to the mechanic. But the spectrum of salaries is quite diverse. How long do you think it'll take for all garbage collectors to switch over to not working? Let's assume they get paid a lot less than the mechanic because they possess less technical skill. Perhaps their salary is only $1200. Now, let's try to imagine the cost/benefit scenario playing out in the garbage collector's head. For 160 hours of manual labour, he will get $200 more than the guy next door that doesn't work. I don't know about you, but I will gladly take a 1/5th or 1/6th pay cut so that I could stay at home and play around with my hobbies.
So now that the majority of the garbage collectors are starting to quit and go stay at home to party/watch tv, who do you suppose will start collecting the trash? Let's assume that garbage collectors possess a skill that enables them to do that work. Well, in that case, the salaries for garbage collectors will rise as the companies try to fill the vacancies. Imagine this scenario happening across the board in all low-paid, skilled, perhaps even unskilled jobs. You'll quickly realize that the cost of living will generally go up as now business increase their prices to cover the increased cost of employees. Either that, or the jobs get automated/worked around entirely. It's a very similar effect to what minimum wage does to the market.
Hit the nail on the head right there, AC. The irony in that statement you quoted is astronomical. He wants to force everyone to enable his decision to not work. In actuality, completely avoiding the question of whether or not people deserve the choice to not participate in such a system.
He did choose the wrong word, definitely. But it points to a much larger issue that I see so rampant in our society. I know a lot of people like to bemoan the "entitlement" culture, but there is no other way to put it succinctly. When you feel that society owes you something, that society will take care of you when you lag behind, then you really have a perverse incentive to not take responsibility for your own actions. I'm not saying people are to blame for the situations they get into out of no fault of their own. But you have to add the caveat that people are not learning from others' mistakes. Why are individual people not taking steps to prevent scenarios that could cause them, a functioning member of society, to fall down and become destitute? There are larger forces at play here.
A society based on "treat me how I expect to be treated or I'll sue" or "conform to what the authorities claim are norms or go to jail" is not going anywhere anyone needs it to go. Those aren't human conditions.
And living as a homeless person is a human[sic] condition? A lot of those individuals would be far better off in a controlled, managed environment where they are taken care of. Getting labour out of it means that they're are doing "their fair share" for the benefits they receive.
Don't get me wrong, people should be allowed to be as free as possible. But when government has turned half the environment that we inhabit every day into a fictional concept called "public property", then we have to accept that society in general has some sort of say as to who is allowed to do what on that private property. They can be free to be homeless, destitute, and crazy for all I care. Either they accept the "workfare" system as a way for them to pay back society for the benefits, or they live in freedom and leave the rest of us alone. That includes them not guilting us at every traffic stop and street-corner.
Obviously the work camps would have a point system that allows people to get back out after accumulating enough capital. If they decide to then spend/waste all that accumulated capital when they get released, then they get worse off. Whatever the implementation, the point is to make it feasible for the homeless willing to work to rejoin society.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't mind him, it's typical socialist-like thinking. Some people just can't get out of the hive mentality.
You can get all the life, liberty and happiness you want. Heck, you can use your own money to help others with it, too. But stealing money from me to help others, is the exact opposite of liberty for me, and lots of the individuals you steal from to fulfill your misguided ideals. My employer pays half of my private medical care, plainly. For them to take a leap and go the full 100% on that would be trivial, and practically guaranteed if they didn't have to pay an entire HR + accounting department to handle taxes and all the government-imposed bureaucracy and PC nonsense that comes with having employees.
Just because you have little faith in humanity, and think that without "governance" it'll dissolve into hateful individuals with very little compassion and willingness to cooperate, doesn't mean the rest of us do. It also doesn't mean you have the right to impose such hateful actions on society such as stealing money in the form of taxes, either.
Great Scott! You've figured out how to duplicate BMW's for free?!
Seems like your answer to everything is violence. Like the other person told you, you need counselling. Something very wrong went badly in your life, and you need someone to talk to. I know that venting like this on the internet, talking about violence, and stabbing is soothing to you, but it's sadly only a temporary solution. You have deep-seated issues with violence, and you need professional help to help guide you out of such a place.
I hope you get the help that you deserve. Good day.
Yes, let's all suggest that someone kills themself because someone on the internet disagress with them. Lovely idea, Mr. Binary.
You sir, are disgusting.
The only people saving money now are the rich 1%.
I'm saving money, and I'm not part of the 1%. How do you mean?
They put their money in Swiss bank accounts.
It's their money, they earned it. If they wish to keep it there, then that's their prerogative.
They are free.
The rest of us are wage slaves.
If you don't like it, you're "free" to start you own business. It means you won't be a wage-slave anymore. Either way, why exactly do you have a problem with earning a wage? You are selling your labor. Why use the word slave? Sounds like you have some very deep-seated anger issues towards those that are somehow currently more fortunate than you.
The majority of money you call "hoarded" is actually just re-invested. That's due to everyone wanting to beat inflation, so they save their money as investments.
As for your "getting blow on risky ventures by Trump" comment. Well, if he loses it, it still goes somewhere. It pays for stuff, it hires people, it goes into someone's investment account, whatever. The point is that, either way, that money is getting used and circulated, somehow.
Any other misguided ideas?
You do realize this system wouldn't even exist on such a grand scale if it wasn't for massive government funding? They literally pool money together from millions of individuals' taxes, and throw it at a problem. Like throwing pasta at a wall, hoping it'll stick.
Another thing you fail to realize while you were ranting about "A PRIVATE COMPANY", is that people that got screwed over by this system's failure now don't have a chance in hell to switch to a competitor. They're stuck with the system that "A PRIVATE COMPANY" built for "THE GOVERNMENT". And you know, government imposes many monopolies, of which this is one. If this system was truly built by "A PRIVATE COMPANY", then you'd be damned sure that the people would be turning to an alternative right now.
On a side note, using caps to make my point about your obvious trolling method is making me a little nauseous.
Of course... it's "public" land. That means it simultaneously belongs to everyone, and no one except the government. It is essentially the government equivalent of Nelson's "Haw Haw" laugh, aimed at the poor and unfortunate.
Typo: "Citation", not "dication". /facepalm.
You've already lost your liberty, you just haven't realized it yet. Open your eyes.
What is this Tea Party I keep you Americans talking about? From your post, I can see that you're implying that it is somehow majority composed of people that need government assistance. Yet, the first thing mentioned about this "party" on wikipedia is that is it is a "political movement that is primarily known for advocating a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes." Are you telling me that a group that advocates the reduction of taxes and spending is one that is also highly dependent on that spending staying high so that they can get their "welfare" check?
If you're right, then might I suggest you go update/edit that particular Wikipedia article? Seeing as you know something crucial about the Tea Party that the rest of the internet doesn't. Oh, and don't forget to add a dication/link for your edit.
Think about it. The money has to go somewhere. All money eventually ends up in the private sector.
And if the money stayed with the taxpayers from the start, where do you think it will eventually end up? Yup, you guessed it, the private sector, maybe. The big difference between government spending and individuals having less taxes is that less taxes allows people to save, and it allows them to have absolute freedom to choose how that portion of their money gets spent.
BTW, isn't criticizing someone else's negotiation compensation "the politics of envy" and "class warfare", or does that only apply when it's criticism of executives who get obscene bonuses for running their companies into the ground?
Only when taxpayers foot the bill in some way. What was that famous saying... "No taxation without representation." I don't know about you, but that effectively means that people need to have at least some say in where and how their stolen tax-money is used.
No one is envious here, you're projecting words into someone else's mouth, calm down. People are free to negotiate whatever cushy deal they want with whatever company they choose. Some will be jealous, but that's their problem.
What exactly do you use your PC's for that you need "BitDefender" and "malwarebytes" to be installed on them? What kind of users are there on your network?
Government isn't in the business of efficiency. It's in the business of job creation. And to do that, they have to create and reward multiple levels of useless hierarchy, with waste at every level. This is so that everyone get's appeased a little bit, instead of the most efficient getting the benefit.
I am genuinely curious, do you really believe this? That the worker bees are free to just go elsewhere to make more money? Just look into US history for labor violation. Think company store.
I don't know about the person you're responding to, but I firmly believe it. The "worker bees" are free to do anything they please, including quit to work at another company. Or move. Or emigrate. Or live in the wilderness. That is their choice, and their right. They may not always be in a position to do so due to circumstances or their willingness to endure hardship/inconvenience, but that's a separate issue entirely.
Note how you use the loaded word "worker bees". I'd make a joke here about you being a collectivist, but that wouldn't be very nice.
It is simply a fact of life, many of those with power will take advantage of those without power. It is Human nature. If you want to have a functioning, peaceful society, then yes, you really need to regulate things like labor laws.
You are most certainly correct. People with power will take advantage of those without it. And they, too, are free to do so, as long as they don't infringe on anyone's property rights and don't commit any fraud. Those two laws alone will fix society immensely and multiple times that of any labor law.
Another thing. We currently have a metric fuck ton of labor laws. And we most certainly do not have a functioning, peaceful society. If we did, then people would be happy and not calling for wealth redistribution, more labor laws and innumerable other regulations. This is because society will never be perfect, never finished, and no one will ever be satisfied with what they currently have.
Remember this. MOST people in the US live pay check to pay check. They CANNOT quit their job. If they lose even a week of pay, that is is the difference between eating or rent.
Well, you need to take a step back and ask yourself why they are living paycheck to paycheck. If they cannot quit their job, then their first priority should be to start saving. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you're already living way beyond your means and you need to remedy that as soon as possible.
I am lucky. I don't really need to worry about these things, but it wasn't always the case. And back then, it was scary. Having lived it, I firmly believe we need regulate these things.
Regulate what? No, really. Tell me one single regulation that will fix it without having negative effects on someone else? See, that's the problem with socialist beliefs. They're all fine and dandy when it's someone else's money being used to fix societal ills. Instead, why don't you join up with a bunch of your friends/family and get a fund going to help each other out in tough times?
People don't live in a bubble. It's unfortunate that people sometimes don't have a family/friend support structure in place to help them if they go through a rough time in life. Perhaps they won't make the same mistake their parents did when they have kids of their own, and will either not have the child or they will start saving early in order to have a support structure in place for the kids when they are down in luck.
Of course, a big part of the problem is inflation. There is no real reason things need to get more and more expensive.
Things don't get more and more expensive. It's just that your money get's less and less valuable. You can blame your loving socialist government for that. You know, the one you so eagerly want to create laws and regulations for all sorts of petty little things.
I'm glad you used the word market when describing the inability of workers to get decent jobs. A "job market" is just that, a market. By being a market, it has certain properties that will astonish most people. For one, you can choose to use a different market. And you can make your own market, if you wish. You can choose to participate in a different market by moving/emigrating. And you can create your own by starting your own town/city/village.
Please don't blame the rest of us for your lack of motivation to deal with inconveniences. Just because another group of people's work/skill/production performs well in a particular market, doesn't mean you deserve the same benefits they enjoy. We're all a commodity/product, or whatever meat term you want to use.
On a side note, there is a bit of irony when it comes to unskilled labor and the poor. The poor and uneducated continue to breed (produce) more supply for the jobs they so badly need, thereby reducing their own value. They're free to do that, just please quit paying them to do it as you're spoiling the world for all of us.
OTOH millions of people will not be able to eat next month because food stamps will run out of money. That's callous, and you don't seem to care.
No, we don't care. We're tired of caring. Sadly, in this brilliantly "free" and "democratic" society we live in, I have no say or choice when it comes to what I can and can not care for using the tax money I have earned, and supposedly "voluntarily" given to the government to use for good on my behalf.
Guilt, and the subsequent charity that follows it are nothing but addictions.
Slavery was codified by the States before there was a Federal government.
Ah huh. So your argument is "they did it first, so we're not responsible for doing it, too." Somehow, I don't think this argument will make slaves feel any better, but anyways. On to the meat.
The flaw in your reasoning is you're using the distinction between "state" and "federal government", whatever the fuck that means. Listen, your country is run by an entity. Just because that entity is part of a hierarchy of other entities where each separate entity controls different parts of your country at differing levels is irrelevant. You, as a person, are governed. The state, and the "federal government" are both part of the same thing. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll quit being a jackass arguing nitpick details.
Here you go Now kindly follow that link, it's your going away present. Don't come here again, and please leave your geek card at the front desk. That's assuming you ever got one in the first place.
[...]denouncing a[sic] action, no matter how popular, that solely exists in order to harm a minority is not denouncing democracy, it's denouncing a perversion of it.
And who gets to decide that it's a perversion of democracy? The minority, or the majority? If you say majority, then you're proving my point and contradicting yourself. If you say minority, then that's not democracy anymore and change will not be the result of democracy but by tyranny of a few over many.
Right now, many minority groups are being harmed by the state, yet no one does/says a damn thing about it. This is precisely because those minority groups are past an invisible and arbitrarily drawn line. When you realize that your "minority/majority" argument is one of arbitrary lines, then you'll realize what a sham the whole thing really is.
You have to think of it in relative terms, because that is how people will perceive the resulting system. Let's say that "basic income" is $1000 a month for every individual out there. Now, let's assume that a local mechanic works as an employee, full-time, and his salary is $1700 a month. The difference between working and not working now becomes $700 a month. That is the benefit the mechanic will get by working full time, as opposed to the individual that does not work at all. The value he gains from working is diluted.
Granted, that $700 difference may be quite significant to the mechanic. But the spectrum of salaries is quite diverse. How long do you think it'll take for all garbage collectors to switch over to not working? Let's assume they get paid a lot less than the mechanic because they possess less technical skill. Perhaps their salary is only $1200. Now, let's try to imagine the cost/benefit scenario playing out in the garbage collector's head. For 160 hours of manual labour, he will get $200 more than the guy next door that doesn't work. I don't know about you, but I will gladly take a 1/5th or 1/6th pay cut so that I could stay at home and play around with my hobbies.
So now that the majority of the garbage collectors are starting to quit and go stay at home to party/watch tv, who do you suppose will start collecting the trash? Let's assume that garbage collectors possess a skill that enables them to do that work. Well, in that case, the salaries for garbage collectors will rise as the companies try to fill the vacancies. Imagine this scenario happening across the board in all low-paid, skilled, perhaps even unskilled jobs. You'll quickly realize that the cost of living will generally go up as now business increase their prices to cover the increased cost of employees. Either that, or the jobs get automated/worked around entirely. It's a very similar effect to what minimum wage does to the market.
Hit the nail on the head right there, AC. The irony in that statement you quoted is astronomical. He wants to force everyone to enable his decision to not work. In actuality, completely avoiding the question of whether or not people deserve the choice to not participate in such a system.
He did choose the wrong word, definitely. But it points to a much larger issue that I see so rampant in our society. I know a lot of people like to bemoan the "entitlement" culture, but there is no other way to put it succinctly. When you feel that society owes you something, that society will take care of you when you lag behind, then you really have a perverse incentive to not take responsibility for your own actions. I'm not saying people are to blame for the situations they get into out of no fault of their own. But you have to add the caveat that people are not learning from others' mistakes. Why are individual people not taking steps to prevent scenarios that could cause them, a functioning member of society, to fall down and become destitute? There are larger forces at play here.
A society based on "treat me how I expect to be treated or I'll sue" or "conform to what the authorities claim are norms or go to jail" is not going anywhere anyone needs it to go. Those aren't human conditions.
And living as a homeless person is a human[sic] condition? A lot of those individuals would be far better off in a controlled, managed environment where they are taken care of. Getting labour out of it means that they're are doing "their fair share" for the benefits they receive.
Don't get me wrong, people should be allowed to be as free as possible. But when government has turned half the environment that we inhabit every day into a fictional concept called "public property", then we have to accept that society in general has some sort of say as to who is allowed to do what on that private property. They can be free to be homeless, destitute, and crazy for all I care. Either they accept the "workfare" system as a way for them to pay back society for the benefits, or they live in freedom and leave the rest of us alone. That includes them not guilting us at every traffic stop and street-corner.
Obviously the work camps would have a point system that allows people to get back out after accumulating enough capital. If they decide to then spend/waste all that accumulated capital when they get released, then they get worse off. Whatever the implementation, the point is to make it feasible for the homeless willing to work to rejoin society.