Just seeking some clarification here.
Thomas Lunde wrote:
> >From The Servile State Page 122
>
> Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it.
> Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be
> liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In
> the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave.
This does not seem to address workfare. Is it not true that a person must first
apply for welfare in order to receive it? If some form of work is required s/he
should be so informed. At that point the applicant may refuse to work
presumably. No legal compulsion there. The person may then turn to
non-governmental sources for aid (charity).
>
>
> Thomas:
>
> ... it is the very business class, those
> who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of
> production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent
> to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political
> moves that are leading the poor into slavery.
While a definition of "business class" is needed here, we may _pro tem_
consider it the equivalent of business owners. In my limited experience those
who are really ticked off by many welfare recipients is not the business class
but the so-called working poor, those hard working individuals who barely earn
more than those on welfare who do nothing in return! The working poor also
includes, I'm afraid, many small business owners who barely scrape by.
Those who sponsor workfare schemes are probably in a "damned if you do, damned
if you don't" situation and are following the short-run route of expedience.
Just wondering ...
--
http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
