Welfare Shouls not Be Abolished

2.) It provides Basic Human Rights Someone finding a cheaper way to provide a service/product but doesn't comply with labor laws needs simply to suggest to the appropriate powers that be how the laws could be amended to facilitate his business, along with credible research to show his idea could work. But in a free market with no government intervention, employers would get away with too much, so we need agencies to intervene to ensure employee rights are established respected. We can't have businesses unwilling to pay insurance or their employees, and when they get sick due to no fault of their own, they have no source of income to pay medical expenses. This is a cruel world, and the poor do not have good Samaritans waiting around every corner to show them compassion, to feed, clothe, shelter them, and pay their expenses so they can work. If the government doesn't do it, no one will. Even in a free market with more job options for the poor, they will still only be able to afford low-paying jobs, seasonal in nature. We can't abandon their support system for a hypothetical idea in Con's mind that better job options "might" be available in a capitalist economy. Daily experience teaches us that humans are selfish. What percentage of people who pass a homeless beggar give him anything? If government doesn't look after the less fortunate society won't either. They will suffer more. Con talks about political elites making decisions without the input of the poor turning out for their benefit. There are two other options to this: leave the poor to fend for themselves, but the challenges they face as I've outlined they won't get very far; or, rely on society as a whole to show them compassion, which is tantamount to letting the poor fend for themselves. You see, at least the political elites are required by law to do something to assist the needy, the society at large has no such obligation and tend to ignore the poor. Someone renting an apartment who can't afford day-care will miss work and get fired, and without labor laws we can see how more people like that would be cast aside unfairly. After all, employers reason that workers' home problems don't' concern them. Con is leaving these folk with no support when he strips them of that welfare check. Con said: "If they are taught to be hypocrites, if their parents lie to their children or appeal to force frequently, then they will learn might makes right, and that they will never reach their dreams no matter what they do. These feelings can kill a persons chance of applying themselves and succeeding, no matter what they do." I agree. And whose fault is it they were raised in that way? Not theirs, so what do we do for them when they end up unemployed or in such low-paying jobs they can't handle all their living expenses? Do we say "tough luck" and move on? Even in Con's imaginary free market capitalist society so full of job options for the poor, what guarantee can he give that they will be paid enough and their jobs will be stable enough to make a decent living? That welfare check is a lot more certain than Con's hypothesis. Without government intervention the poor stand a better chance of being taken advantage of. Con advocates a free-market capitalist system, but let me ask him, in this dream world you've imagine would better help the poor, are there minimum wage laws? That seems a pretty good form of government intervention to me. There is no minimum wage limit determined by the forces of the free market, hence, it must be set by the state. You can't have people working or next to nothing, can we? But the extremely poor who don't have the educational qualifications for other jobs will feel forced to take the crap pay in such a system. Welfare ensures that as the cost of living rises, a minimum wage is still maintain even in cases where salaries don't increase to counter the cost of living. What about competition laws that prevent monopolies from forming and over-pricing their products out of the reach of the needy? What about cost controls on basic household commodities? What about anti-price gouging laws? Without government setting limits on greedy industrialists the cost of living will sky-rocket but wages won't, which will increase poverty. Business wolves will tear poor consumers apart like sheep; only the wealthy or well-off will survive. Con makes a glowing defense of capitalism, but what does history reveal about capitalism? Take for example the rapid industrialization in Europe which led to unfair working conditions such as 14-hour work days, child labor, and shanty towns. The average living standards didn't even improve very fast before 1840. (Frederick Engels, "The Condition of the Working Class in England" http://www.marxists.org.... Nardinelli Clarke, economist at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Industrial Revolution and the Standard of Living," The concise encyclopedia of economics. The Library of Economics and Liberty http://www.econlib.org...) In a free-market capitalist state, we won't have the intervention necessary to minimize planned obsolescence. This is a wasteful and an inefficient use of resources practice under capitalism. By designing products to wear out faster than need be, new consumption is generated. While this increases sales, it also generates excessive waste. A well-known example when Apple designed its iPod to fail after 18 months. (Phillip Inman, 2006-09-30 "When your iPod isn't all that it's cracked up to be" London: The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk...) In capitalism, the direction of the economy is unplanned, which leads to inconsistencies and contradictions, and is therefore better suited to be regulated under public policy. Con keeps saying we don't really have a free market, yet he says each person is best to decide how to spend his own money. The selfish pursuits of the individual is not always best for society as a whole, and in a market lacking perfect information and perfect competition, government intervention is justified. I mean, come on Con, don't you believe that electricity should have a price ceiling? But if power is to be affordable to all or at least most in society, who will ensure that the service provider holds to a price in reach of the poor? 200 million Indians went hungry in 1995, while the Indian economy was exporting $625 million worth of wheat and $1.3 billion worth of rice that same year. (Frances Moore Lappe, The Myth - Scarcity: The Reality - There IS Enough Food" http://www.foodfirst.org...) The more intervention we have to safe-guard folks against this kind of thing the better; would it not be good for some of that money to feed the poor? Yes Con, these exporters knew what was best for them, as you keep saying – people know how to spend their money, but they sure as hell didn't know what was best for their neighbor; if they did, they wouldn't let them go hungry. I see nothing wrong with the government playing Robin Hood, taxing the rich and giving to the poor via welfare. Someone has to look out for those fellow human beings who can't look out for themselves. Let me also add that the removal of welfare would lead to wage slavery. With nothing to fall back on, people would have no recourse but to keep their jobs (unless they qualify for another) even when they are underpaid and overworked. They become the property of their employers. The thing is, water, electricity, shelter, food, clothing, transport, these are necessities needed to thrive in the labor force, and capitalism cannot guarantee that the disabled and uneducated will suddenly find jobs paying them enough to afford such. We need welfare by way of money, low-income housing, medicine, etc, to ensure these less fortunate can operate successfully in the market. Con gives no better option.