Why socialism , why faith?

I stand with the archbishop. I praise the archbishop of Canterbury for moral leadership.

The archbishop of Canterbury has denounced David Cameron's "big society", saying that it comes across as aspirational waffle that was "designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable".

The outspoken attack on the prime minister's flagship policy by Rowan Williams – his strongest to date – is contained in a new book, Faith in the Public Square, that is being prepared for publication ahead of his retirement.

(Observer, today)

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/2 ... ty-cameron

I stand with the archbishop. I praise the archbishop of Canterbury for moral leadership.

The archbishop of Canterbury has denounced David Cameron's "big society", saying that it comes across as aspirational waffle that was "designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable".

The outspoken attack on the prime minister's flagship policy by Rowan Williams – his strongest to date – is contained in a new book, Faith in the Public Square, that is being prepared for publication ahead of his retirement.

(Observer, today)

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/2 ... ty-cameron

I completely agree Belinda. He raises many issues that concerns us all. Well done Archbishop you are fulfilling your role exactly as required. Charity has it place in society but it should never replace social or medical necessities.

When we are facing economic disaster and natural resources are near spent the last thing we need is growth. Growth only encourages greed among those who are already cushioned against this economic failure. Wealth does not disappear into thin air it is just concentrates into fewer hands. Refusing to tax the rich and removing help for the young and vulnerable are systematic of a government and party that are controlled by the privileged minority.

The Islamic community has to be encouraged to be as much British as they are Muslim or we will see a more divided community and that can only spell disaster.

The remarks by the Archbishop are essentially correct.

My question is; "why the thread heading?"

I wonder if it is time to ask ourselves why are the poor being asked to pay for the economic disaster whilst those that engineered it through their greed are still paying themselves large salaries and bonuses of our money in reward for their failure? As you see - I am puzzling over her thread heading. I do not see Faith as having any special role in this question. It is not as if many Xians are asking that question, nor that atheists are not also asking that question.

It might be worth comparing the words of another Man of Faith, Mit Romney, whose suggestions on Welfare Moms, is a disgrace. Mitt Romney said in January that poor women who stay at home to raise children should be required to work outside home to qualify for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits. He said that women should "have the dignity of work."

The Archbishop is totally wrong. No one is "entitled" to be supported by the society as some sort of "human right." The fact is, "society" does not exist except as a rhetorical device. When you say that "society" has this obligation, you are in fact saying that Tom, a taxpayer along with all the other taxpayers, has an obligation to help support Paul, whether or not Paul is willing to help support himself.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring some sort of work outside the home in return for some temporary benefits. The only right you have from the government is to be left alone.

The Archbishop is totally wrong. No one is "entitled" to be supported by the society as some sort of "human right." The fact is, "society" does not exist except as a rhetorical device. When you say that "society" has this obligation, you are in fact saying that Tom, a taxpayer along with all the other taxpayers, has an obligation to help support Paul, whether or not Paul is willing to help support himself.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring some sort of work outside the home in return for some temporary benefits. The only right you have from the government is to be left alone.

In any society there are responsibilities to each other. Today's tax payer maybe tomorrows unemployed, would you let them die because of your political beliefs? If Paul is a scrounger and unwilling to work then he does not deserve constant support. Tom through no fault of his may become unemployed and want some of his investment back. With your attitude we would have no police, no health service, no fire brigade. Is that what your recommending?

In any society there are responsibilities to each other. Today's tax payer maybe tomorrows unemployed, would you let them die because of your political beliefs? If Paul is a scrounger and unwilling to work then he does not deserve constant support. Tom through no fault of his may become unemployed and want some of his investment back. With your attitude we would have no police, no health service, no fire brigade. Is that what your recommending?

There is a significant difference in saying, on the one hand, that the government, as the organized body of the citizens, should provide some sort of temporary assistance to those whose circumstances require it, and saying that there is a "right" to such assistance. As an American libertarian (small 'l', not large) the only "rights" I acknowledge are negative ones, limitations on what the government can do to you, not what it must do FOR you. A policy may be an intelligent one in the name of preserving social peace and economic life without becoming a "right."

In any society there are responsibilities to each other. Today's tax payer maybe tomorrows unemployed, would you let them die because of your political beliefs? If Paul is a scrounger and unwilling to work then he does not deserve constant support. Tom through no fault of his may become unemployed and want some of his investment back. With your attitude we would have no police, no health service, no fire brigade. Is that what your recommending?

There is a significant difference in saying, on the one hand, that the government, as the organized body of the citizens, should provide some sort of temporary assistance to those whose circumstances require it, and saying that there is a "right" to such assistance. As an American libertarian (small 'l', not large) the only "rights" I acknowledge are negative ones, limitations on what the government can do to you, not what it must do FOR you. A policy may be an intelligent one in the name of preserving social peace and economic life without becoming a "right."

Well as live in a socialist country, I can say we as a community should provide essential needs to one and all. The government simply fulfill our wishes. When the government fails to share the wealth by taxation you get economic and cultural failures.

The Archbishop is totally wrong. No one is "entitled" to be supported by the society as some sort of "human right."

This is palpably and legally untrue. The Bish is right.

The fact is, "society" does not exist except as a rhetorical device. When you say that "society" has this obligation, you are in fact saying that Tom, a taxpayer along with all the other taxpayers, has an obligation to help support Paul, whether or not Paul is willing to help support himself.

Society in this context is a legal entity, and is design by legal and implicit contract for the preservation of its members.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring some sort of work outside the home in return for some temporary benefits. The only right you have from the government is to be left alone.

Wrong again. In a democracy, it is the people, NOT the government who have the ultimate decision to what degree the people may legally receive protections and support as needed. The Bish, as a member of society has the right and ability to make those judgements and is able to criticise the government for withdrawing certain rights and privileges that the people have laid out for themselves. Additionally the people have a special obligation to ensure that the government does NOT withdrawn these rights if they have not sought power with the specific understanding of these actions obtained in a MANDATE through the ballot box. ~This coalition has made such moves and will pay the price in the judgement o the people.

-- Updated Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:17 pm to add the following --

In any society there are responsibilities to each other. Today's tax payer maybe tomorrows unemployed, would you let them die because of your political beliefs? If Paul is a scrounger and unwilling to work then he does not deserve constant support. Tom through no fault of his may become unemployed and want some of his investment back. With your attitude we would have no police, no health service, no fire brigade. Is that what your recommending?

There is a significant difference in saying, on the one hand, that the government, as the organized body of the citizens, should provide some sort of temporary assistance to those whose circumstances require it, and saying that there is a "right" to such assistance. As an American libertarian (small 'l', not large) the only "rights" I acknowledge are negative ones, limitations on what the government can do to you, not what it must do FOR you. A policy may be an intelligent one in the name of preserving social peace and economic life without becoming a "right."

As a libertarian you have to right to forgo your own legal and democratic rights; you do not have the right to withhold from others, rights and privileges that have been legally established through the democratic process. You do not have to claim unemployment benefit if you loose your job. The schemes of forced labour that are being suggested are more akin to Soviet Russia, and in `Bush's time they led to the further impoverishment of the poor and the greater polarisation of wealth that is destructive of the economy.

If you are interested I can take you though the economic logic of this assertion, but I feel you would probably not listen.

How is labor forced, if it is a requirement to recieving assistance, that can be declined (or not requested in the first place)?

How is labor forced, if it is a requirement to recieving assistance, that can be declined (or not requested in the first place)?

Maldon007 is absolutely correct.

How is labor forced, if it is a requirement to recieving assistance, that can be declined (or not requested in the first place)?

Work or starve. Work or your baby is taken away from you.

How is labor forced, if it is a requirement to recieving assistance, that can be declined (or not requested in the first place)?

Work or starve. Work or your baby is taken away from you.

So, lets say you are right. Insisting someone do at least some work, to recieve assistance is unfair. Is the alternate, no requirements? Do what you want, be as lazy as you want, and those who work hard will support you & your offspring?

What insentive would a person have to work? I will admit to not having a job at the monent, I do work though, taking care of my kids while the wife works, supporting me. I will also admit, not busting my butt out in the hot sun is better than doing so. If there was a choice, and all other things were equal, I would choose being supported to busting my butt, and I consider myself of average laziness...

Doesn't seem like a system based on this would be sustainable, ecenomies being the delicately balanced things they are.

How is labor forced, if it is a requirement to recieving assistance, that can be declined (or not requested in the first place)?

Work or starve. Work or your baby is taken away from you.

So, lets say you are right. Insisting someone do at least some work, to recieve assistance is unfair. Is the alternate, no requirements? Do what you want, be as lazy as you want, and those who work hard will support you & your offspring?

What insentive would a person have to work? I will admit to not having a job at the monent, I do work though, taking care of my kids while the wife works, supporting me. I will also admit, not busting my butt out in the hot sun is better than doing so. If there was a choice, and all other things were equal, I would choose being supported to busting my butt, and I consider myself of average laziness...

Doesn't seem like a system based on this would be sustainable, ecenomies being the delicately balanced things they are.

So what happens if your wife looses her job and no matter how much you try you can not get work?

How is labor forced, if it is a requirement to recieving assistance, that can be declined (or not requested in the first place)?

Work or starve. Work or your baby is taken away from you.

So, lets say you are right. Insisting someone do at least some work, to recieve assistance is unfair. Is the alternate, no requirements? Do what you want, be as lazy as you want, and those who work hard will support you & your offspring? Let's say as lazy as a banker
What insentive would a person have to work? I will admit to not having a job at the monent, I do work though, taking care of my kids while the wife works, supporting me. I will also admit, not busting my butt out in the hot sun is better than doing so. If there was a choice, and all other things were equal, I would choose being supported to busting my butt, and I consider myself of average laziness...

Doesn't seem like a system based on this would be sustainable, ecenomies being the delicately balanced things they are.

It is sustainable. What is not sustainable is to allow a small number of oligarchs have all the control of our money, and have carte blanche to pay themselves what they like despite the ruin of the financial system. It is the poor that is now being asked to pay for their failure whilst they continue to put their faces in the trough.

The bonus you get from paying people to stay off work when they need to is that demand at the lower end of the economy is maintained whilst you avoid taking children into care and paying out for other remedial programs related to crime and poverty. In practice, learning from places like Denmark, this system works very well - kids get the full attention of their parents, and grow up better balanced individuals. You can even argue it is better to pay mothers to stay home rather than have a long term culture of kids on the streets causing trouble. It also fosters a sense that people are part of society rather than outside of it. Alternatively you could just shoot them all with your paint gun.

The other problem of forcing people into work, that has been proved during the Bush era, was that this encourages businesses to lower wages generally as the supply of labour is increased. This depresses the economy and removes demand which is the fuel of economic growth. The result is increasing areas of impoverishment, and urban decline; the futher polarisation of wealth, more gated communities and a more divisive society.

I thought diversity was good

Nobody is being forced to work, and nobody will get shot with my paintball gun, unless they decide to play paintball, and then they still might not get shot, I miss occasionally.

So what happens if your wife looses her job and no matter how much you try you can not get work?

She may, I have created business before, I will again, or she will... Working for others is not the only option. If need be, we will move to a location with better job opportunities...

Of course some are not as resourceful as others, but that doesn't change wether a system is sustainable or not. If the system in the US continues to grow, with a higher & higher % of the population being assisted, and being assisted with more & more... then it fails (as it will), leaving millions without help or skills... Is that not as bad or worse than having a small % of the pop, who for the most part have it in their control, not flurishing under a system that is sustainable?

It certainly seems arguable, anyway... not as simple as- "If you don't want to be taxed at a high rate, to help the less fortunate, you must be a selfish pig monster"... Not that there are no selfish pig monsters who don't care about the less fortunate.