[politics] freedom not-to-starve

[trochee]

For mythalethe, who has recently been posting political rambles:

somebody I was reading was frustrated about an acquaintance's (bad) decision to pursue music while on welfare.

I was thinking about that, and I realized I feel like welfare -- the freedom not-to-starve -- is something we ought to provide as an absolute like freedom of speech.

I wrote (with some modifications to protect the innocent):

I feel like being angry because welfare recipients don't act like we want them to is a little bit paternalistic, isn't it?

But who are we to say? I like to think of welfare as protecting all of us from crushing poverty and destitution, regardless of our misapprehensions about our futures, in the same way as the first amendment protects all of us from censorship, regardless of our idiot opinions. I think the Lyndon LaRouche cultists out on the quad are goofy when they're not insidious, but I also respect their right to speak.

To me, welfare is (or should be) like a different part of the social contract: everybody eats, even if they're totally silly about how they're spending their lives. But accepting that contract means -- to me -- that we don't take that away from "undeserving" people, because deciding who's "deserving" is like deciding whose speech is worthy of public display.

I am not saying that [the guy is] making good decisions. (I don't know him; he might be the next big thing for all I know, or he could be the worst kind of lamer.) I'm saying we ought to be pround of the fact that we, as a nation and a community, support people, even in the face of their own bad judgment.

Comments

[cat-whisperer.livejournal.com]

I already replied to your comment on the original post but since you elaborated, I'll add my thoughts- I don't see it as "freedom-not-to-starve" in the same way I get the impression you do. I see it as a temporary safety net while you get back on your feet and resume taking responsibility for your needs. I don't see it as a grant to pursue my interests and hobbies without work distracting me (if I did view it that way, I'd be an unemployed full-time knitter). I'm not condemning the existence of welfare (and never did in my original post) but I do expect people to utilize it in a respectful manner (which I think most people do). Those expectations are pretty basic and reasonable.

[boobirdsfly.livejournal.com]

If being a full time knitter is your dream, than I would have no problems with you doing that. And that is in fact work.

[cat-whisperer.livejournal.com]

But it wouldn't be work that would support me financially and that's my responsibility. My conscience wouldn't be clear knowing that I wasn't bringing in an income that would support myself when I'm physically and mentally able. Neither the government nor anyone else owes me that opportunity.

[evan.livejournal.com]

This is also how I think about it.

I like the idea of a right not to starve, but I don't personally want to fund it.
Along [Bad username or site: trochee'/ @ livejournal.com]'s lines I'd much rather fund specific projects: a music scholarship would be a perfect example! But otherwise welfare is apparently sufficient to make many people not want to do anything more.