I don't know if claiming benefits is 'immoral' if you have been taught (and you genuinely believe) that you are entitled. Hence the 'difficulty' of MPs repaying money - to do so suggest that they feel guilty and so condemn themselves - isn't it better to be condemned for arrogance than dishonesty? So best to tough it out?
My proposal is not condemning people as immoral, but suggesting that the bounds of morality be moved further back to where they appear to have moved from (no concrete evidence to hand that they have moved - opportunity to claim may be a factor... I'll think about it!). 'Sweat of brow' as in 'there is no such thing as society' -- terry pratchett commented the other day, that every other word he writes is for the government... In the same way every n'th line of code I write is for the government etc... It is time/money that (if it weren't taken in tax) I could spend (for instance) with my family... Some net beneficiary of tax out there can be so, because the money was taken from me, meaning I have to work longer, spend less time doing what I want to do and having less money to buy things that I want - all so someone else can get what they want without working... The very least I expect is gratitude. The NHS is not 'healthcare' it is just a bloated inefficient uncompetitive organisation created to be a monopoly provider of healthcare. It is just a delivery vehicle. Disbanding the NHS has no direct link to losing universal healthcare at the point of delivery - any more than disbanding the BBC would end broadcasting in this country. Totally unlimited choice is probably impractical, but it is the ideal and the closer we can get the better. (except for directory enquiries of course...). Regards Paul /)/+) 2009/5/27 Francis Davey <[email protected]>: > 2009/5/27 paul perrin <[email protected]>: > > [snip] > >> In the past, older generations often felt guilty about taking 'hand >> outs' so a lot of work (and public money) was put in to encourage them >> to 'take up services that they had already paid/worked for'. >> Unfortunately we now have a culture that feels no such guilt (even if >> they have never worked at all) and they really believe that they >> should claim everything that is available regardless. Not so different > > Do you have any evidence of that? Sure, it is commonly repeated, but > that doesn't make it true. > > When I had time to study such things (about 20 years ago) I ran across > some cuneiform literature (I think originating in an edubba so > plausibly 6000 years old but it may have been Babylonian and a bit > later) in which two scholars are discussing how the morals of youth > have declined, they show no respect &c &c. The belief that people now > are morally inferior to those in the past seems universal even > diachronically. > > My experience differs: not long ago I dealt with a girl recently out > of local authority care who was having great difficulty paying her > rent (I was trying to stop her from being evicted). She was > *extremely* reluctant to claim income support or other state income > supplement She felt terribly ashamed for not being able to pay her way > (though as far as I could see she was trying pretty hard to find work > and did find occasional bits and pieces which of course made things > worse). > > I certainly don't detect a difference in attitude to state support > between the young and the old - but I am as ready to admit that my > sample size is rather small. Real evidence would be interesting. If > the effect you describe is real and not anecdotal then I wonder what > can be done about it. > >> from MPs claiming allowances because it is apparently within the rules >> - even if the money is not actually needed... or gordon browns >> attitude in his book 'how to scrounge off the state'. > > 'Alternative Edinburgh'. > > Rather makes my point that reticence about claiming benefits is not > new, though in the case of "Alternative Edinburgh" it does not appear > to distinguish between things that state offers (for good reason for > the benefit of everybody) from things that can be obtained by > deception and dishonesty. The two are different even if GB confuses > the two (a trap you fall into if you fail to distinguish). > >> >> Every single thing the NHS does has been paid for by money taken from >> some individual who earned it from the sweat of their brow. People who > > Its not helpful when trying to think usefully about the proper way to > fund public services (or if they exist) to use really silly emotive > phrases like "sweat of their brow". Its hard to know what that is even > supposed to convey - are you implying that advocates who spend lots of > time in the supreme court (when those wigs make your brow sweat like > mad) are somehow morally superior to those whose work is merely to sit > in an air conditioned office? I am sure you aren't, but then what? > That those who have an income are somehow morally superior to those > who don't? If that were true we'd be in real difficulty because most > primary care is unpayed (and therefore untaxed) though of vital > importance to society. > > And besides, some tax (I know not much) comes from capital gains and > inheritance tax which may well have involved the sweat of no brows at > all (well at least of the person whose money it is). > >> use 'public' services should feel rather less 'entitled', and should >> be rather less grateful to the well paid 'public servants' and a >> rather more grateful (and acknowledging) of the people whose hard work >> has been usurped to pay for them. > > Rubbish. We have public services like the NHS because they serve us > all in the following really practical sense: whether or not I wish to > use the NHS or can afford to pay for it myself, I need its efficient > existence because lots of people can't afford the health that I need > them to have. Lots of sick and dying people can make me ill, can't > work for me and support the infrastructure my business relies on and > so on. > > Its wrong to think of the NHS as some kind of charitable act for which > people should be grateful. Taxpayers get plenty of return from their > investment in education and health. > >> >> 'Choice' from a number of restricted options is no more choice than >> freedom is being allowed out of your cell occasionally. > > I cannot envisage any situation in which I could have an unrestricted > set of choices for health care (or in fact for anything else but then > I am a closet finitist). > > -- > Francis Davey > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
