If a welfare system only works because people are culturally indoctrinated/shamed away from using it, then it's broken by design. Sure, it would be nice to have a culture in which people are disinclined to be supported by charity unless they absolutely need it (though that kind of shaming can also push people to avoid it even when they do need it). But at the same time, if that cultural disinclination is the only control on the welfare system, it's broken. The goal of any welfare system should be to prevent people from suffering or dying because something went horribly wrong; it's an insurance mechanism. Nobody should die just because they fell on a string of bad luck or circumstances; on the other hand, why should welfare support someone with piles of opportunities available but no inclination to pursue them?
That's how a functioning society works, you're shamed away from unnecessarily doing lots of things that create a burden on others. Littering for example. It creates a burden on society to clean up after others.
There isn't shame in using welfare as a safety net, its there to catch you from following in to absolute destitution from which there is no climbing out of in many cases. There is shame or stigma with staying on it and not finding work, or not retraining to find work. Their is shame in unnecessary long term dependency of an able bodied person being on it. There is shame if everyone just up and decided everything I want is already being paid for, why should I bother. That's abuse, by doing so, you take away from others who truly need welfare to survive and aren't capable of finding work or disabled, you take money from other areas that need it like healthcare, parental leave, education, etc. That's finding a candy jar of free candy and just dumping all the candy in your pocket.
There is no welfare system in existence, theoretical or otherwise that could sustain a disproportionally large number of people dependent on it by active choice, where there is more being taken out then being paid into it. There isn't a socialist democracy that can function that way.
Other than the fact that littering is typically a legal offense (albeit an extremely minor one, as it should be), I think you're saying exactly the same thing.
A safety net is exactly what a welfare or other charity system should be. I'm simply suggesting that ensuring it's no more than a safety net should be backed up by more than just shame.
To be clear, the reason to not do something wrong shouldn't just be "because I'll get in legal trouble if I do"; laws should reflect morality. But that needs to be around as a backup for the sadly large number of people who will only pay attention to that and nothing less. Some people avoid littering because it's wrong and disrepectful to others; others avoid littering because it's illegal and will cost them a fine. Some people avoid drinking and driving because it could hurt or kill people; others only avoid it because it's illegal. Some people turn down charity because they actively want to be self-sufficient and contribute something; others will only do so if it is limited to need.
> There is no welfare system in existence, theoretical or otherwise that could sustain a disproportionally large number of people dependent on it by active choice, where there is more being taken out then being paid into it. There isn't a socialist democracy that can function that way.
Agreed completely. There isn't any governmental or societal system that can function that way.
you take money from other areas that need it like healthcare, parental leave, education, etc.
That's a truism. Investing money in one sector necessarily means it doesn't go to another. All that money spent on education is one that isn't going to space research, but most people would find that sort of statement abhorrent.
