I do, but I'm wondering what you thought so that's why I'm asking.
I'd seriously doubt that that would be anyone's conscious goal. It might be the effects of their policies and they might register this one some level, but I would be amazed if anyone actually implementing policies realized the effects of what they were doing the way that you are laying it out.
Edit
Also, I see relatively little evidence of this in the first place. It's not like the Dems are pushing forward huge welfare measures.
Neo, have you ever read Saul Alinsky?
Nah, I doubt it. But politicians have a natural inclination to want people to become dependent on them.
If you read Rollback, you'll find a section that says that some agencies get funding per welfare recipient - therefore, they sometimes sit around trying to figure out how to get more people to get on welfare.
Bismarckian politics would say, the path to power is to get as many people financially dependent on you as possible. It's the same path the late Roman emperors took. It's worked for Chavez, it's generally the entire appeal of communism.
If you study history, you'd see that those who promised largesse from public coffers were able to become dictators. If your goal was total power, it's a logical path to pursue. I'm quite sure there are many professors and politicians who realize exactly what's going on, but want to make sure simply that they or their allies are the ones who get total control of society.
Neodoxy:I'd seriously doubt that that would be anyone's conscious goal...
To this question I would say duh.
They do:
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics."
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/index.htm
Oh, and I might add since LBJ and the "Great" Society.
what do you mean by welfare, does having a military count as welfare? i thought the general welfare was simply stuff like military, police, and courts.
it's the democrats goal to have more people contributing than taking.
the logic of a safty net is that people bounce up and go back to contributing more than they took. people cycle through being able to give more. a baby needs some nurishment to turn into a contributing adult.
those that make the most, made the most because of the system and thus pay a larger percent back as they have made the most from the system
how many husbands want their wives and children to be fully independant / hostile to the husband for finance, protection, and decision making?
i would figure and husband or any wife would want some interdependance and think there is a mutualy benefitual relationship.
how many husbands want their wives and children to be fully independant / hostile to the husband for finance, protection, and decision making? i would figure and husband or any wife would want some interdependance and think there is a mutualy benefitual relationship.
a lot of people participate in government and want it involved in their lives for one purpose or another.
i think it's a tiny minority of people that don't want a relationship to government in some form or another.
a lot of people are parts of larger organization than father-wife-children from members of a church to members of a government. those larger forms of social groups are parts off many people's lives and the groups provide perceived benefits or would be broken.
many people around the world have government or larger group than the immediate family as part of or a extension of the family or social group.
a lot of people participate in government and want it involved in their lives for one purpose or another. i think it's a tiny minority of people that don't want a relationship to government in some form or another.
a lot of people are parts of larger organization than father-wife-children from members of a church to members of a government. those larger forms of social groups are parts off many people's lives and the groups provide perceived benefits or would be broken. many people around the world have government or larger group than the immediate family as part of or a extension of the family or social group.
joseph smith was leader of church and government of the mormon community. both seem like they fit "force, coerce, or deceive". can organisations led by the same person have such different premises without being connected?
can't there also be religions with a govt propaganda effort such as theocracy like gary north talks about or is it just the other way?
well if the religion says god gives authority for a government, then god would be given authority for something bad, or it's humans using deception.
so what does it mean when someone says they are obeying god if that is not part of religion?
No. They want to set up a safety net for people to fall back on in times of trouble. They have no sinister motives besides ignorance.
Wibee: No. They want to set up a safety net for people to fall back on in times of trouble. They have no sinister motives besides ignorance.
Hahahh.
Yes, but unfortunately, this is only one aspect of statism, albeit a very popular one. The Democrats are trying to make everyone a socialist, yet in essence, so are Republicans. The Democrats push the large state agenda where everyone "deserves" wealth, yet the incomprehensible disconnect between the wealth they receive and where they get it from is sad, as government produces nothing but only steals from those who do produce. As for the Republican side of things, many, many Republicans look to the government--specifically the federal government--to provide security on police state levels, whereby many of them even want our morality regulated (this is a quotation from one hardcore Republican I spoke with earlier). These people are ok with things such as the Patriot Act, and they'd be fine with having armed guards quartering every room of the house. The police and military are practically gods in the eyes of these people. It's scary. But if you ask me, I'd say the Democrat party is worse than the Republican party due to a complete lack of financial consideration. They act as though they truly believe money grows on trees and scarcity is non-existent, and that the only thing coming in between them and their "deserved" guvment check is the rich business owners.
many people have business because someone built infrastructure. infrastructure is not magic in that it's somehow productive if built privatly yet not productive if built publicly. not many people don't use public roads or do business with people thatdon't use public roads and infrastructure, so i figure it's logical to say public roads are deemed more productive than not using public roads. people are surely willing to buy real estate near public roads and start business such as gas stations.
cab21: many people have business because someone built infrastructure.
many people have business because someone built infrastructure.
Ah, a restatement of the ol' Elizabeth Warren argument.
cab21:infrastructure is not magic in that it's somehow productive if built privatly yet not productive if built publicly. not many people don't use public roads or do business with people thatdon't use public roads and infrastructure, so i figure it's logical to say public roads are deemed more productive than not using public roads. people are surely willing to buy real estate near public roads and start business such as gas stations.
The argument only works if it were impossible to have private roads and private infrastructure, all of which is paid for use.
Since it is possible, and the public roads only exist because of government monopoly, it's a less than convincing argument. Besides which, even under the present system, you pay for use in the way of taxes. Thus you don't owe for use as if infrastructure usage became a debt. You've paid for use, you're square. You owe others nothing.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap