Drug Freeland Part 5 Rebuild the Welfare Society
Part 4 of Drug Freeland dealt with reforming the health system. the next step we should take before legalising drugs is welfare reform.
Step Number Four. Rebuilding the Welfare Society
Holland is often pointed to as an example of the failure of drug legalisation. The Dutch have very liberal drug laws, but to their detriment also have an extensive state social welfare system. Druggies simply live on the dole and lie around all day getting ripped. The Dutch taxpayers work hard and get ripped off.
Understandably, the solid Dutch burghers get pretty upset about financing these bludgers and a backlash against liberal drug laws becomes inevitable.
The long term solution however, is not to recriminalise drugs, but to remove the state from welfare provision.
In Britain for example, the state, before WW1, was a minor player in the welfare game.
That didn't mean there was no welfare.
80% of British workers belonged to "Friendly Societies". The average British middle class household gave 10% of their income to charity, more than they spent on food and clothing. It was the "done thing" for British surgeons to donate a large percentage of their time to charity hospitals.
Welfare was a vibrant and efficient sector of British society, just as it is in many Islamic countries today.
What killed that benevolent culture? Simple-the growth of the "welfare" state after WW1.
In New Freeland, people will be a dynamic and productive, orientated towards success rather than failure. Most people will be too busy making money, writing poetry or computer programmes to be interested in sordid things like dope.
Taxes will be minimal, productivity will be high and unemployment strictly a matter of choice.
The incentives to NOT use drugs will be much higher, but the help available to those who develop a drug problem will also be much better.
Welfare services will no longer be run by ration book bureaucrats with a vested interest in keeping their caseload high.
They will be run by committed individuals, with donated money, who have a strong interest in healing damaged people and helping them to get back on their feet-ASAP.
Step Number Four. Rebuilding the Welfare Society
Holland is often pointed to as an example of the failure of drug legalisation. The Dutch have very liberal drug laws, but to their detriment also have an extensive state social welfare system. Druggies simply live on the dole and lie around all day getting ripped. The Dutch taxpayers work hard and get ripped off.
Understandably, the solid Dutch burghers get pretty upset about financing these bludgers and a backlash against liberal drug laws becomes inevitable.
The long term solution however, is not to recriminalise drugs, but to remove the state from welfare provision.
In Britain for example, the state, before WW1, was a minor player in the welfare game.
That didn't mean there was no welfare.
80% of British workers belonged to "Friendly Societies". The average British middle class household gave 10% of their income to charity, more than they spent on food and clothing. It was the "done thing" for British surgeons to donate a large percentage of their time to charity hospitals.
Welfare was a vibrant and efficient sector of British society, just as it is in many Islamic countries today.
What killed that benevolent culture? Simple-the growth of the "welfare" state after WW1.
In New Freeland, people will be a dynamic and productive, orientated towards success rather than failure. Most people will be too busy making money, writing poetry or computer programmes to be interested in sordid things like dope.
Taxes will be minimal, productivity will be high and unemployment strictly a matter of choice.
The incentives to NOT use drugs will be much higher, but the help available to those who develop a drug problem will also be much better.
Welfare services will no longer be run by ration book bureaucrats with a vested interest in keeping their caseload high.
They will be run by committed individuals, with donated money, who have a strong interest in healing damaged people and helping them to get back on their feet-ASAP.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
1/17/2007 10:49:00 AM
10 Comments:
The side effect being, with the lower welfare, and hence lower tax.. I'll have more money to spend on these little indulgences :-P
Just as long as you've all your faculties for the AOC conference this weekend Michael-see you there.
the Sally army get money from the State when free loving drunken libertarians are arrested and charged with spurious drunk and disorderly charges!!!
Tax is theft, but revenue collection in the hands of over zealous city cops implementing draconian interpretations of liquor bans to boost arrest statistics SUCKS. You always get off on a diversion, but still have to pay for no damage done to property or person.
AAAAARGGGGHHHHHH!!!!
There's seven profiles of marijuana smokers: computer programmers, environmental activists, university students, teenagers, villagers in Moravia who now smoke joints instead of drinking plum brandy, reggae music listeners and 80-year-old ladies buying marijuana for their husbands who have Parkinson's and other illnesses.
Trev, where do you get the fantastic statistics to say that in the 30s British households gave 10% of income to charity.
I think you're bullshiting Honey, a common far right wing ploy !
Happy Spinning, Two Per Center !
Wake up Nice Guy. Since when were the '30s pre WW1- I also said "middle class"
It came from "The Welfare State We're In" by James Bartholemew.
Check out the website of the book here;
http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/
So is your loftiness a matter of a efficient plagiarism Trev ?
Obviously I credit you with vastly greater intellect than Our Excitable Mate Mah, but it would be nice to know what you really think, outside of an internet cut and paste number.
I mean, have you ever thought that we could lose the world if we try to make it like you want ? Noting that 2% can't possibly achieve it.
Thank....The Good....Lord. Amene !
What exactly is your point "steve"?
"Trev, where do you get the fantastic statistics to say that in the 30s British households gave 10% of income to charity.
I think you're bullshiting Honey, a common far right wing ploy !"
It was at least 10%! The friendly society's were well supported as people saw the great benefits in belonging to them.This from my Dad of 84 years who was born and raised in England and who's parents were members.
Stick that up ya pipe Steve ya no nothing dropkick!
Friendly Societies which were incorporated bodies and had a financial base were not into charity broadly. So that's not a 10% you can talk about, angry james.
It's not that you're really upset about that though, is it james ?
Another dreaming, far-right winger has just come up for a bit of sunshine !
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home