[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

[boobirdsfly.livejournal.com]

Here is part of the response I originally posted .

America has a system that doesn't unable artists to make a place for themselves. Funding is extremely limited.
In France for instance, a lot of artist slive on a thing called RMI ( which is a sort of welfare but accessible to anyone who isn't employed or can't find work in what they call their profession. So basically everyone can get it).

A lot of anger in America against people who abuse welfare comes from a place of scarcity. It comes from a place of knowing that welfare is a limited ressource. But let's face it. The us government has enough money to give welfare to all people who want it and then even more.
The system wants you to believe this way.
The system wants you to say things like this.

Have you seen the movie Slam ?

Poetry, music and the arts are valid fields of work. How is one supposed to make it as an artist if not for outside individual or governmental help ?
It's a huge problem in this country and please consider that you might have been manipulated into thinking what you think by a system which doesn't want you to believe that the government should fund the arts.

There are a lot of people in France who are mad at the young people who "call themselves artists but use the money to drink and do drugs !instead."
So be it.
Some people will abuse the system , yes, and the French government knows it happens but to deprive the whole of the population of it, because abuse exists, is a conservative and radical stand.

Also, getting financial help isn't shameful.
It's living in a world where resouces aren't equally shared and doing the best you can.

[mattcallow.livejournal.com]

Blimey. Funny innit, how similarly we think? I'd put it down to our shared European roots, but hell, I'm British you're French. Chalk and cheese.

Except, importantly, for our ingrained understanding that Taxes Are Not Evil. Au contraire....