Yes, the taxpayer pays for it; I considered that so blindingly obvious that I needn’t have put it in. Yet it’s the role of government to use the taxpayer’s money to good effect. Yes it’s often questionable how effectively the money’s used, but it does more good for people in general in the hands of an accountable government than it ever would if everyone was left to decide how it were used individually.

Magnus

If a system is heavily abused, it’s not necessarily the fault of the ideology of that system, but the way in which it’s instituted and monitored. I take your point though, a more stringent system wouldn’t go amiss here too, but personally, I just can’t reconcile myself to the idea of no system at all when compared to an abused lax one.

Your argument uses your personal experience of Canada’s social welfare system, which while it may be an accurate argument against the general institution of a welfare state, cannot alter my opinion of my own state’s public institutions which is in fact what we started off mocking here.

“I live in England, and yes our system is flawed, but it’s far less flawed compared to other systems.
It’s more flawed in other ways.”

Examples?

“The state protects me from crime.
You’re in England dude. London is so full of crime it’s stupid. If they tax you to protect you from crime ask for your money back so you can buy a fucking gun.”

Yes, because in America where everyone has the right to carry a gun, the homicide rate is so low. *Rolls eyes*

“The state protects me and my possessions in case of fire or accident.
That’s what insurance is for. That’s why you pay for insurance. Gov doesn’t pay for your insurance.”

Yes, but unfortunately I don’t own my own flood defences and fire engine to prevent damage and inconvenience in the first place.

“Well you must be one of the ones benefiting.”

Of course I’m benefiting from it, I’ve been educated, protected…etc by it for my whole life, as have you by yours. If you mean to say that I abuse it or am using it for unemployment benefit then this isn’t true, I merely appreciate its presence as reassurance.

Reboot makes a good observation though, that we simply come from differing perspectives. You may regard poverty as other people’s fault, and in some cases that’s true, but as a general rule, I don’t think it holds true. Even if that is the case, how do we judge the deserving from the undeserving?

This is an interesting discussion, but there are so many angles and considerations I think trying to put it all in mcs posts will just get ridiculous, doubtless many feel it has become so already. So this is where I sign off, there’s little likelihood of agreement but at least everyone gave reasoned points on the whole unlike most Internet arguments.

OTOH, the Americans seem to be working under the assumption that if you lose your job or don’t have health care its your own fault (“grow up people. take ownership of your own fucking life”,”You must not know the ethics of hard work my dear lazy friend”). Call it Reverse American Dream.

I can see the merits of the first time of thinking, but honestly I have to side with my fellow American. I’ve been laid-off from jobs before and always find a new own within a couple weeks. Maybe its just not hard to find a job in the US or maybe I’m just lucky.
I think that best argument for government intervention in healthcare is that its not a free-market.

If you’re injured, I have an inherent right to the best medical care availablebecause they took that money from someone else…

If you’re unemployed, the TAXPAYER provides me with money to support yourself and methods of helping you to find a new job.

If you’re homeless, the TAXPAYER is able to provide you with accommodation.

If you’re the victim of abuse, the TAXPAYER will provide you with a programme with which to aid your recovery.

If you’re mentally ill, the TAXPAYER will look after you.

If you lose your parents in childhood, the TAXPAYER cares for you.

The TAXPAYER educates you from the age of four until the age of eighteen.

The TAXPAYER provides you with access to libraries and most museums for free or at low cost.

The TAXPAYER will care for you in your old age.

The TAXPAYER provides you with sports facilities and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

The TAXPAYER protects you from crime.

The TAXPAYER protects you and your possessions in case of fire or accident.

what about the TAXPAYER? i guess he has to go to the ‘State’ to be taken care of too.

grow up people. take ownership of your own fucking life. we dont need government taking care of us from cradle to grave.

The problem I see is it allows people with heavy vices to continue. Alcoholics. Drugs users. Fat teenage mothers who love black men because they appreciate their “booty”.

Canada has one of the most liberal welfare systems around and it’s HEAVILY abused. And what do these idiots do? Complain. They want more free money. Free housing. Free everything.

Let’s just try a country with low taxes and no social programs. See how it goes. I know I’d go live there in a second.

btw: Canada boasts having the best healthcare system in the world. Yet when we get really sick…we go to America so we don’t have to wait for months for proper diagnoses and treatment.

Now I’ll run through Thracian’s diatribe:

I live in England, and yes our system is flawed, but it’s far less flawed compared to other systems.
It’s more flawed in other ways.

If I’m injured, I have an inherent right to the best medical care available, not the bare minimum that poorer people in the US receive.

The poor and rich both get the bare minimum in Canada because we don’t want to upset the stupid ad lazy quotient. They’re voters too you know. Pandering to the bottom of the barrel only serves to bring everyone else down to it.

If I’m unemployed, the state provides me with money to support myself and methods of helping me to find a new job.
Or you can just not find a new job and they’ll keep supporting you. Which is what families do for generations and its wrong hence this discussion.

If I’m homeless, the state is able to provide me with accommodation.

The state is. Usually prime real estate too. But the state pays for that by taxing the people. So the people pay for you free home. And they never agreed to. Which makes it extortion.

If I’m the victim of abuse, the state will provide me with a programme with which to aid my recovery.

You mean as a kid or as a woman? Cause if you’re a male over 18 and especially if your white by most government and liberal douchebag standards you can’t be abused. You do the abusing.

If I’m mentally ill, the state will look after me.

If you’re mentally ill you’re a danger to society and should be locked away with the other nutfucks. Why does it have to be anywhere nice? Stick all the blubbering coo coos in motherfucking Siberia.

If I lose my parents in childhood, the state cares for me.
No they pay some idiots to care for you adn chances are you’re going to end up a social fuckup anyway.

The state educates me from the age of four until the age of eighteen.

If your parents weren’t taxed to death you’d have gone to private school.

The state provides me with access to libraries and most museums for free or at low cost.

I have the internet.

The state will care for me in my old age.

If you weren’t taxed to death you’d pay for your damn self.

The state provides me with sports facilities and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Sports facilities? Gyms? I don’t even know what you’re getting at here.

The state protects me from crime.

You’re in England dude. London is so full of crime it’s stupid. If they tax you to protect you from crime ask for your money back so you can buy a fucking gun.

The state protects me and my possessions in case of fire or accident.

Thats what insurance is for. That’s why you pay for insurance. Gov doesn’t pay for your insurance.

None of these systems is perfect. However, I’d take them any day over those of other countries.

Well you must be one of the ones benefiting. Those of us who pay the taxes and take the raping would rather those depending on our money die in a big ass ditch than keep having to dole out our earned cash to pay for them.

I agree with the other poster: less laws. less taxes. less government.

So you capitalize Europeans, but not Americans? Good job. Also, you must not watch the news, I see protests all the time, like the Jena 6, not that I approve of that one. And, from what I see on the news (which is not much, since it’s all crap) about European protests, it’s just a bunch of kids who want to throw shit at cops and pretend to be badasses. Yes, American law and government isn’t perfect, and I think I could point out one way to make it better: give politicians less power to use/pass pork barrel legislation (I think that’s the term for when they spend tons of money on stupid shit in their home state). I would still choose to live here over any other country. I am not in favor of the government taking lots of my money, and giving it to other people. The only people who are in favor of that are people who are too lazy to work for themselves, and want a handout.

Catch up with you?
My house is older than your country.

I wasn’t suggesting that you don’t have a comparable system, but rather that ours is more inclusive and effective. Yes you have similar institutions to us, but there’s some major disparity in quality. I was also using the list of government funded systems to argue my point for the necessity of having a powerful central government rather than relying on the slim chance that everyone will help each other out that Natedog seemed to think would work so effectively.

I wasn’t saying a Liberal wouldn’t agree with my views on general taxation, but that liberal beliefs about devolution of power and minimal law making are fundamentally flawed.