Tweet
For discussions sake, let's limit the question to those people in the province of (what was it, Quebec?) who have a "right" to $500/month. What are the responsibilities they owe to their society?
And, to a more fundamental point:
If the UN thinks of the Declaration as a basis for Justice, then your responsibility towards society is to make sure these basis are respected.
Mind you, the Declaration does not say you don't have to work, but talks about unemployment protection- which kinds of imply that a normal human will work.
What you don't understand is that huge welfare hasn't made couch potatoes societies. Think of Sweden, a champ of economic growth in the 90s. And yes, the average economic growth of Quebec since 1995 has exceeded the US. Huh? Yes. I'm not lying.
The Welfare states have had troubles keeping up in the 70s and the 80s, but a trend in the 90s has shown that many of them have started to take their revenge against the US. Which means: there is so much more to economic growth than reducing Public expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
Now to other facts: Even though GDP inflation-relativized growth shows the US has had economic growth since the 80s, guess what? The buying power of the middle class has not increased. That of the rich has. Which means: the rich doesn't really want welfare. They got wealthier even though poverty figures and middle class standards of life have remained similar. Wealth redistribution is not and never will be a natural course of thing.
And now to some fundamental values: why are there 4 times more murders in the US than in Canada? Why is it that the majority of Canadians think a gun is unnecessary to their security?
Why is it that poverty figures are 5 times lower in Sweden, and still 50% lower in Canada? Why is it that the richest country in the world ranks below 20th both for education and healtcare accessibility?
Some people are willing to give up SUVs and home theaters for this kind of social justice. Guess what? There are much less cars per capita in Quebec than in the US. And what does it do? Less pollution, less traffic. Better public transportation.
Some societies in the world are telling you: we are willing to give up the rich's SUVs, five-star cruises and home theaters for this kind of social justioe.
You don't agree with us? Fine. Then don't use the WTO to force the opposite through sheer power. Stop funding the righ-wing guerillas in Latin America. We'll leave you to your beliefs as long as you don't abuse your power to impose them.
Free market tells us that equality should be brought through work. Not considering that being born in a rich country has nothing to do with you work. Not considering that equality is then something that has to be earned if you were not born in such country. Randomness of being born from a rich family has nothing to do with equality.
Finally, not considering that as long the same work doesn't pay the same throughout the world, there can't be some kind of free market equality. There can just be the logic of profit without long-term thinking behind it.
Acting morally is being coherent: good for you is good for others. If child labor is bad for the US, why should it be good for Malaysia?
Claiming the opposite is not acting morally: it is acting economically, which has nothing to do with justice. "They can rot till free market brings them wealth (which is already dubious); how would I care anyway, since my ancestors have built a country for me?"
Thank you very much, I'll keep my Quebecois Social-democracy, even if that means giving 50% of my salary to the state. Even if that means that for each abuser of the 500$ rule, there will be some honest men and women who lost their job and badly need the money.
Even if that means 2% growth instead of 3%. Because I already have a computer, an apartment, clothes, food, a refrigerator and a washing machine. What's the urge to get more?
well, no. but he's not from the south.
Comment