Welfare Recepients Should Not Be Allowed to Vote

The issue of families choosing to remain unemployed for generations may very well be an American phenomenon, but it is truly a symptom of a failing in the welfare system. The point of welfare is to help people get back up on their feet, being a safety net which is meant to help those who use it no longer need it. Because so many families in the US have been on welfare and have voted in their interests (again, either out of greed or necessity), they have been able to continue to abuse the charity of the public in order to live decadent (albeit not lavish) lifestyles. What need does one have to seek employment or develop a skill if he need only vote once every few years to increase his paycheck? Although this does not permeate among the majority of recipients, it spreads among them, like a bystander effect. People most often take the path of least resistance, and so their votes will often go to the increasing of their monthly income. The more they are able to do with that income, the less inclined they will be to work. Thus they will not contribute anything back to society, but merely benefit fro the contributions of those around them. Of course "every party makes policies", and sometimes those policies are detrimental to the public. For example, in the 1930's the American Democrats adopted the position of increasing welfare, which brought many poor Americans into their ranks. This was the same party who supported segregation laws and the KKK; now that party expanded their authority by promising welfare in exchange for votes. http://newstalk1130.iheart.com... This could be done very easily today, in which a party which holds authoritarian platforms promising a great expansion to welfare benefits in order to get as many votes as possible to augment those other voters who will (or think they will) benefit from authoritarian measures. This has been done by many Socialist states. http://reason.com... Although many times the money collected for the good of the recipients is redirected towards other projects, the promise is still exchanged for votes. The irony is not lost upon me in quoting Karl Marx: "In order to arouse sympathy the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests and to formulate and indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the working class alone." Since the aristocracy was not going to completely abandon its own good, as Marx tries to imply, they will merely collaborate with the lower classes in order to regain some of its old power. The same thing, although not a nefarious, occurs when welfare recipients go to vote out of their own interests. They often vote for an expanded State and a reduction of liberties because of a promise of increased income for in exchange for a ballot. The increase in taxes upon the majority of society, or the increased regulations placed upon laborers, stockholders, and landowners does not affect the beneficiary of public assistance, as that he/she fits into none of these and pays no taxes, thus does not suffer the negative consequences of an expanded state. This brings me to the most amusing of your rebuttals. You commonly accuse me of a "complete lack of logic", but put on for display a logical fallacy of false equivalency many time. Indeed, many candidates for office pander to various demographics, such as "black people, working class, gay people, upper class etc", but none of these demographics is at all dependent upon the good will of the State. The welfare recipient is entirely dependent upon the goodwill of the state. Let us temporarily imagine that in the near future, one of our two countries is completely run by a Christian fundamentalist who decides to revoke the voting rights of homosexuals. The homosexual demographic is not dependent upon the goodwill of the state, and can move, leaving that country for one more liberal. By doing this, they deprive their old country of not one, but two contributions for each emigrant. First they take with them their goods and services, which deprives the public of their contributions. The second thing they take is that which they would have paid in taxes. The revenue of the state is decreased. However, if welfare recipients were not allowed to vote in one of our two countries, they would not be able to leave, since they are dependent and it would be most difficult to find a country that they can quickly accustom themselves to which would also provide an equivalent amount of public aide. It does not matter, for even if they did leave, the public loses nothing since they contributed nothing. The state's revenue is actually increased by this, since they are now funding fewer dependents, and as the old adage says: "A penny saved is a penny earned." This leads me to your great mistake in equating class to demographic. I shall concentrate upon the working class since they are most closest in caste to those individuals who live off of welfare. If the entire working class was banned from voting, they too would leave. Indeed, their labor and skill set may not be worth much, but it was worth something and contributed something, otherwise they would not be employed. If they all emigrated, or simply quite their jobs and went on welfare, there would be so many tasks undone. From grocery stores to restaurants to warehouses, many jobs would not be done. Society is at a loss because it no longer benefits from necessary services, and the public revenue is decreased by the loss of their taxes. The same is true of the upper classes, who are comprised mainly of stockholders and landowners, who will simply invest their capital outside of the country. The welfare recipient cannot react in the same because of the very nature of his/her relationship with society. Whereas every other possible demographic produces to the public good and contributes to the public revenue, the welfare recipients contributes nothing to the public good and takes away from revenue. This is the nature of their dependent state. The welfare system exists, as I stated before, as a safety net; it is intended to help those individuals who have fallen to stand on their own again. However, to permit such individuals to vote while receiving welfare will only encourage them to vote in favor of increasing taxation on the rest of the population, taxes which they do not pay. As Mill said, they will most often cast their vote to take from the wallets of everyone else. All the contributing members of society contribute, by tax, to the welfare system, as well they should. But these contributing members, whether they are right wing or left wing, black or white, wealthy landowner or the man who shines shoes at a stock exchange, these people contribute to the public revenue, and so they should be the ones who decide how that revenue is spent. Those persons who are on welfare, for the duration of their time on it, must not be allowed to have such a say since they do not contribute to it but take from it. It would be the equivalent of parents allowing a young child to have an equal say in the family finances.