BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Subsidies are the most efficient means for a state to redistribute wealth within its borders and ins...

Given that in general state taxation and redistribution systems have been under fire for being inefficient, it is doubtful that subsidies, as a particular form of tax redistribution would be more efficient. Not only is a bureaucratic mechanism for creating and distributing subsidies a nightmare, but the effects of such subsidies have often been questioned as well. The needs of poor communities, such as the immigrant communities in the suburbs of Paris, as often much larger than the state can provide, and patch solutions are often not a solution at all. Subsidies will not be able to solve the problems of unemployment and the concentration of the poor and immigrants in particular areas. Other solutions are required for such problems and oftentimes, the involvement of the private sector has proven to be more efficient. Encouraging a more competitive, dynamic economy by reducing the burdens of taxation and regulation is the best way to provide a route out of poverty, especially if improved educational provision and meritocratic hiring policies are also implemented.
While getting the private sector involved might indeed be a more effective solution, the reality is ...

Because government subsidies are not efficient, the large problem of social unrest is not avoided. The poor communities in the suburbs of Paris were already receiving state subsidies for housing and education, but this did not keep them from rioting. Always looking at the state for solutions makes these communities dependent on the government in a world in which the state will continue to gradually lose its power. Putting more pressure on increasingly weaker states is probably not the best idea. While powerful social-democratic states such as France might be able to handle it, developing countries or unstable states will never be able to withstand these pressures. We need to look for solutions elsewhere, and we need to accept the fact that there might not be one solution for all. Each community, facing different kinds of problems, will have to be addressed differently. The new rise in the field of corporate social responsibility signifies that corporations are looking to take over some of the responsibilities of the state.
We cannot wait for each community to find creative solutions on its own, or for corporations to deci...

The states of Latin America are faced with larger social, economic and political problems and the existence of slums and favellas with increasing criminality cannot be explained by the lack of social subsidies. In fact, quite the opposite is the case: the leftward turn in Latin America with an increase in state subsidies that promised to help poor communities has yet to ease the problems of criminality. Subsidies not only do not help or provide only weak temporary relief, but they are also used to manipulate political opinions and influence the poor particularly around election time. The successful campaigns of Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela have been run precisely on promises to the poor that for the most part were left unfulfilled.
Unless we deal with the problem of poor communities, our cities will be surrounded by a belt of pove...

The need to rethink urban-rural connections is unarguable and this will certainly need to be faced in the future. However, this has little to do with the question of subsidies. As modern societies are clearly moving away from an agricultural economy to an industrial and post-industrial economy, new demographic challenge arise with high concentrations of people in urban areas where jobs are available. The solution here is not subsidies, but rather the spreading of jobs across the whole economy, including rural areas, and the re-education of those who need to fill these jobs. These are structural problems that every society will need to address, regardless of how many subsidies the state is providing or not.
Subsidies help create an important sense of equality and non-discrimination that is essential in the...

This kind of idealism and desire to make the world an equal place has already gotten us into quite a bit of trouble, ruining a large part of the world under the rule of communism. The idea that we could solve all the world’s problems through redistribution of wealth through government subsidies is not only naïve but also dangerous. Being committed to new human rights and wanting to offer help to the poor is not the same thing as imposing subsidies. Indeed, in many countries subsidies for particular activities end up favouring well-off landowners and the urban middle classes. Examples include agricultural subsidies in the EU and the USA, subsidies for power and water in rural India, and subsidies for water or Higher Education in much of Latin America. In each case the well off benefit disproportionately, while the poor end up paying via the tax system and through reduced economic growth. It would be much better to price these activities at commercial levels and to develop economic policies aimed at growth and job creation.
Poor communities have a disastrous effect on the environment. Unless we do something about it we ri...

Rich communities have a disastrous effect on the environment as well. The question of whether development is possible without manipulating nature and the environment is again entirely separate from the question of subsidies. Ultimately, the problem is one of resources and the best distribution and management of those resources, particularly natural resources. Getting people to understand that forests, water and land are essential resources that need to be preserved is what should be done. Subsidies have in fact often created more environmental problems by investing in poorly built infrastructure and housing, and by encouraging people to stay in areas that could otherwise not support them.
Africa should have a member of the Security Council

Who should be this member though? South Africa is the most developed but compared to the other Security Council members has a tiny economy and small population. South Africa has a GDP $495bln (using favourable ppp) of and a population of 49 million.[[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sf.html]] This can be compared to the UK's $2.149tln and 61 million people.[[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html]] Both Egypt (79mln)[[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html]] and Nigeria (149mln)[[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ni.html]] have much larger populations but smaller economies. All three are the leader in their respective areas. Who should it be?
The Security Council needs to be more transparent

What goes on during Security Council discussions is too shrouded in secrecy. For people to know that important issues are really being addressed more transparency would be welcome. It is hypocritical for the UN to preach government transparency and freedom of the press worldwide but not allow it when it comes to the Security Council. The press are essential to the work of the UN as they can help to highlight areas where they may need to step in, as well as highlight the good work that the UN are doing. The emphasis on secrecy just makes it seem like the five permanent members have way too much control over proceedings and arouses suspicion about what they may be talking about that must be kept so top secret. As the UN representative for Sudan said: Sudanese mission 'Every day, the council is speaking about the need to lift press restrictions in certain countries of their choice. They themselves are not delivering what they are calling on others to do.'
Permanent members of the SC should not have so much power to veto

A negative vote, or veto, by a permanent member prevents any proposal being adopted, even if it has received the correct number of positive or affirmative votes.Since 1984, China (PRC) has vetoed three resolutions; France three; Russia/USSR four; the United Kingdom ten; and the United States 43. Proposals should be passed by majority vote, and the veto power of the five permanent members should be removed, it is a hindrance to diplomacy and means that the members of the Security Council are not all on equal terms and therefore countries who are non-permanent members cannot expected to be taken as seriously. Like the old bipolar trade agreements which marginalised less developed countries at the negotiating table have began to fall out of use, allowing them to become empowered, so should the veto power of the five permanent members.
Reform would never be agreed upon.

The difficulty of getting an agreement in reform does not mean that it should not be attempted. Replacing the UN, or even just the Security Council would have difficulty getting agreement as well. In reforming the UNSC China will try to prevent India or Japan getting a seat while the UK and France will try to keep theirs. Replace the whole lot and there are just as big questions: how do you create the new system? Who should be the members? and how can it be made fairer than the current system? and most important why would the most important nations (The US and China) want to create a new system that is fairer towards middle powers that are often their competitors?
Africa should have a member of the Security Council

Considering that seven of the UN's current peacekeeping missions are based in Africa, and Africa is the continent which has required the most UN assistance in the past it should have a seat on the Security Council. If the needs of those suffering in conflicts in Africa are to be properly addressed, understood and receive the attention they deserve a permanent African member of the Security council should exist. For too long the Security Council has failed to act quickly enough to solve problems in Africa for example the 1994 crisis in Rwanda, and African issues need to be pushed to the forefront if they are not to be ignored, such as the continuing conflict in the Congo which has led to the death of up to 3 million people. An African member would make sure this issues were no longer ignored.
Permanent members of the SC should not have so much power to veto

Reform would seriously undermine UN's position as peacemaker and its reputation for holding countries together. Many countries are abstaining from engaging in violent or illegal activities because of UN's encompassing power and the possible repercussions from it if they violate international laws. Reform would make UN look weak and would undermine its position and sway with such countries. Upcoming powers might be emboldened and for example, "virtual" nuclear states might assemble nuclear weapons believing that the UN is in a state of disarray and they won't face implications. In short, reform or replacement of the UN could backfire on the international community. The League of Nations faded because it was no longer believed to be in control, and the same might happen with the UN. The result was the Second World War, against the League's primary purpose to "avoid any future world war"
It aids power-political interests in the guise of human-rights

Despite limiting state sovereignty, the UN, the UN Charter, the International Bill of Rights, and other human rights treaties have created a state-centric human rights regime. This facilitates the use of human rights rhetoric to be manipulated into a providing instrumental use to give ideological legitimacy to the post-Cold War new world order. The state itself is implicated in producing values in pursuit of its own legitimacy – this is achieved by stronger western powers through utilising human rights rhetoric as a legitimising claim, and to delegtimise other states. The states with the most power are the ones who have seats at the UN. States with lesser economic and political power are less likely to monitor or affect the behaviour of stronger states. This adds to the construction of the southern ‘other’ and the portrayal of the North as the humanitarian provider of its salvation legitimises the northern world and produces a victim-saviour dichotomy, enhancing perceptions of the North within society and leading to further legitimization, whilst delegitimising the South.
Reform would never be agreed upon.

Too many countries would disagree on who should gain more power in the UN. The BRIC countries would support a greater role for Brazil and India, whilst Germany would say that as the EUs most powerful economy they should have a seat. South Africa would argue that there should be a seat for an African country which they would promote themselves to take up and middle eastern powers would argue that a reformed Security Council should have a place for them, a point which Israel would object to. Obviously the point of the Security Council would be undermined if it had a large amount of members as it would just be like a slightly smaller version of the main UN chamber.
The most critical consideration for extending the generally accepted age of retirement to a mandator...

The most critical consideration for extending the generally accepted age of retirement to a mandatory age of 65 for all of society is to safeguard against the effects of old age on judges, surgeons and other professional practitioners. The age of 65 is chosen as an average age above which it is possible for people to experience problems with their physical or mental well-being. Mandatory retirement would protect against the detrimental effects that could be the result of mistakes or misjudgements by elderly professionals. Many argue that these professions have a great influence over the lives of many e.g. judicial decisions, surgical procedures, and there are at present insufficient safeguards to prevent against incompetence.
Mandatory retirement allows opportunity for more employment of younger people, especially in the top...

Mandatory retirement allows opportunity for more employment of younger people, especially in the top jobs. Considering the unemployment statistics in Britain, this will help to reduce youth unemployment, and vacate jobs for those who are at the age of supporting themselves and setting up a home and lifestyle, as well as those supporting a family. This is also more economically sound – surely it makes more sense to pay more pensions, supplemented with private pensions, than support the unemployed youth of the country. If they are not given the opportunity to begin a career, or become established in a company, it is far more difficult to encourage this later in life; we need to think of the long term good of the whole workforce.
By freeing up more places in our professional hierarchies, we present younger people with opportunit...

By freeing up more places in our professional hierarchies, we present younger people with opportunities to reach the heights of their career. Often in medicine and law especially younger employees must wait for an elder respected judge or consultant to retire in order to progress along the career ladder. This is also fairer on the younger working population. The caveat to this argument is that this will also allow the exposure of youthful talent. A mandatory retirement age allows younger employees with new, modern ideas to infiltrate the professions.
A mandatory retirement age should not be considered a punishment or a reprimand of the elderly in so...

A mandatory retirement age should not be considered a punishment or a reprimand of the elderly in society. Indeed, it should be viewed as a well-earned rest and reward for 40 – 45 years of work. From the perspective of health it is far better to retire early at the age of 65, and professionals at this level are often the particular people at risk from stress related illness. Furthermore, retirement should not be seen as an end to activity; the retired population can participate in a variety of rewarding activities, from pursuing new or sidelined interests, to providing a strong voluntary base for community or charity work.
The most critical consideration for extending the generally accepted age of retirement to a mandator...

There is no medical evidence to confirm that person’s over the age of 65 are either infirm or incapable. In the professions such as law and medicine where this law would take effect, there are safeguards to identify malpractice or incompetence, and these are far better dealt with on an individual basis according to individual health and fitness, rather than punishing those healthy capable individuals who wish to work beyond this age.
Mandatory retirement allows opportunity for more employment of younger people, especially in the top...

The population of Britain is ageing. People are living longer, and forcing people to retire simply increases the heavy economic burden of pensioners on the state. The ratio of the dependent population to the working population is increasing, and a mandatory retirement age is an unnecessary measure which exacerbates the problem. On the contrary, we should be actively encouraging those who are fit to continue working. This is why the state retirement age is being raised eventually to 68 and may need to go higher.
By freeing up more places in our professional hierarchies, we present younger people with opportunit...

It is naïve to assume that we improve the standards and quality of the professions by introducing younger employees to the top positions. If we consider that it does take a number of years to reach the top of a particular field, it is unfair and unnecessary to curtail their work at this level. Furthermore, these experts are well-respected and highly proficient at their job, and bring the valuable advantage of experience to a demanding job.
Exponential population growth rate and civilisation collapse

Firstly, it is crucial to acknowledge that population growth rates are not uniform throughout the world. While many Asian and African nations (China and India being the two famous examples) have seen enormous population growth which does indeed threaten the sustainability of many communties and pose immense challenges to resources, other parts of the world see very low and. in some cases, declining population rates. This can be due to a variety of reasons, but in more economically developed countries such as Japan and Italy, it tends to be as a result of low levels of immigration (or high emigration) and sharply declining birth rates. Perhaps one way of reducing pressure on resources would be to slacken immigration restrictions and provide incentives for people in overpopulated areas to move to nations and regions which are relatively underpopulated. Secondly, human beings have a remarkable ability to adapt to seemingly inhospitable conditions. A survival instinct which goes above and beyond the realm of the animal kingdom has long ensured that when faced with adversity, humans have managed to get by. Clearly the challenges which overpopulation poses cannot be simply ignored or left to address themselves on their own, but we should not underestimate the solutions which could come out of a crisis. A strain on capacity, in terms of both space and resources could well provide the incentive for innovative new uses of existing space and resources.
Where will this then end...

Having a one child policy does not have to mean that there will be authoritarian responses to those who have more than one child. It is much more sensible for governments declare itself to have a one child policy and to enforse it through the tax system. Large tax breaks and benefits for having one child which is all taken away when you have a second. Even in a reletively authoritarian china the one child policy is not absolute. This would mean that a one child policy is not an end to freedom of choice, simply as in so many things the government tries to guide your choice through incentives and disincentives. Very few people object to the government raising high taxes on smoking in order to discourage smoking, it would be similar in the case of discouraging having more than one child.
The punishment for failing to follow the rules would infringe on women's right to control their own bodies.

This seems to be arguing that we have the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies and the government should get out of the way, even to the point of not using a tax and benefits system. Yes people should have the right to have more children if they want but the government should be able to discourage it as much as it can because of the consequences of having more children for everyone else who is on the planet. Smoking was banned in public areas mostly because of passive smoking affecting others. Having more children certainly affects others by helping to use up the earth's resources. Moreover if the government is providing benefits for one child why should it not have the right to take away those benefits when you have more than one child? Saying that we punnish the child for the sins of the parent seems to be ignoring that the parent had already decided to do that. Their income is unlikely to go up at the point where they have a second child so they have decided to spread their income over more people already. Why should the parents have this choice and the government not?
The dangers of an aging population

Aging will be no problem. When average age will be 200 years and 150 years old man will be as young as a 30 years old person. The real challenge is the TFR total fertility rate. In Niger, Male, Columbia, Somalia, Sudan, Ethipia, Rwanda, Nigeria, Tribal areas and KPK province of Pakistan & Afghanistan etc., the TFR is the highest in the world. The result, high rate of death, most tragic deaths due to poverty, hunger, diseases & conflicts. In Afghanistan 14000 to 15000 development projects like Roads, Bridges, Power Houses, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Parliament House, Provincial Assemblies, Supreme Court, High Courts, Local Courts, Police Headquarter, Police Stations, Military Headquarters, Airports, Telephone Exchanges, Hospitals, Medical Colleges, Engineering Colleges, Secretariat Buildings, Parks, Playgrounds, Gardens, Industrial Areas, Agricultural Research Centres are being built by almost 50 countries from Germany to Japan and Korea to France. These countries have cut the budgets of their own people and at the cost of their nation's hard earned money have been spending billions and billions of dollars. This huge money which belongs to the children of Japan, Korea, Australia, Germany, France, UK, USA, Netherland, Holland, Turkey, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium etc., is being spent on the beastliest Afghanis to make them humans but the most ungrateful and thankless ferocious beastliest Afghanis are attacking and fighting with the whole civilised developed world. Pakistan instead of contributing with 1000 or so development projects as a neighbor itself creating hurdles and demanding money for itself & harboring the attackers. Why Afghanis and Pakistanis have become so mean. Because they are too much population in numbers and they have too short resources. These people are so hungry have lost their mind, sense of value and proportion. The only solution is that 1 child policy is strictly enforced in Afghanistan, FATA, KPK , other parts of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, Niger, Male, Colombia, Rawanda, Sudan, Somalia, Uganda and all the 3rd world countries. There will be complete peace elsewhere. START WITH AFGHANISTAN, ENGAGE CHINA, CHINA SHARES ITS BORDER WITH AFGHANISTAN IT IS GEOGRAPHICALLY EASY. 50 COUNTRIES SHOULD NOT WASTE THEIR EFFORT AND RESOURCES. THEY SHOULD CALL CHINESE MILITARY AND DOCTORS AND DO VASECTOMY OF EVERY AFGHAN WHO HAS 1 CHILD OR MORE AND THERE WILL BE COMPLETE PEACE IN AFGHANISTAN FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND. THE HATCHERY OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMES AND CRIMINALS IN AFGHANISTAN WILL VANISH AN AFGHANISTAN WILL BECOME A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY WITHIN 30 YEARS LIKE CHINA. SO THE ONLY SOLUTION IS 1 CHILD POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN WITHOUT LOSS OF A SINGLE DAY.