The Conservative Myth of Social Safety Net Built on Charity

[JimC]

A riot is hardly comparable to ordinary circumstances. Most people don't live according to mob rules. I think you might be very surprised to find out how many people would choose to live their whole lives without stealing. What makes you so sure that those 'normal' people in the riots weren't poor and didn't have criminal records? Got a link to the incident? Where was it and what were the riots about? I'd like to have a look.

However, it may well be that people who " live their whole lives without stealing" do so (at least in part) because they know that there is a reasonable chance they will get caught, and suffer unpleasant consequences...

I think that, realistically, Jonno's "policeman with a big stick" is needed in some form or another...

[FBM]

Yeah, I'm sure there's always a minority criminal element active somewhere. I'm talking about the majority of the people the majority of the time, though. I honestly (see what I did there? ) don't think most people would exhibit antisocial behavior like stealing most of the time. The social consequences would be too severe on the individual. Special occasions, such as a riot, are different. But since we don't have constant rioting, that's not really very relevant to the OP. Do I think we need police? Sure! I just don't think we would immediately descend into savagery and chaos if we didn't have them. In some cases, having Big Brother standing over you all the time incites resentment and antisocial behavior where not existed previously. We do need to have a government-operated social safety net, but we don't need Big Brother. That's all I'm getting at.

[JimC]

FBM wrote:

I just don't think we would immediately descend into savagery and chaos if we didn't have them.

I agree that that wouldn't happen immediately, but more due to inertia than good ethics. I have a memory of reading about a police strike, over several days, in a Canadian city (Montreal?), during which very widespread looting behaviour occurred (not so much nasty violence, from memory...)

[rainbow]

FBM wrote:

I just don't think we would immediately descend into savagery and chaos if we didn't have them.

I agree that that wouldn't happen immediately, but more due to inertia than good ethics. I have a memory of reading about a police strike, over several days, in a Canadian city (Montreal?), during which very widespread looting behaviour occurred (not so much nasty violence, from memory...)

[JimC]

FBM wrote:

I just don't think we would immediately descend into savagery and chaos if we didn't have them.

I agree that that wouldn't happen immediately, but more due to inertia than good ethics. I have a memory of reading about a police strike, over several days, in a Canadian city (Montreal?), during which very widespread looting behaviour occurred (not so much nasty violence, from memory...)

Linky no worky...

[FBM]

FBM wrote:

I just don't think we would immediately descend into savagery and chaos if we didn't have them.

I agree that that wouldn't happen immediately, but more due to inertia than good ethics. I have a memory of reading about a police strike, over several days, in a Canadian city (Montreal?), during which very widespread looting behaviour occurred (not so much nasty violence, from memory...)

http://www.hockeydrunk.com/wp-content/u ... 25x238.jpg

What Jim said.

[MrJonno]

I think that, realistically, Jonno's "policeman with a big stick" is needed in some form or another...

By the way that's not my phrase, it comes from the God Delusion/Richard Dawkins who may well have got it from someone else

[MrJonno]

See computer piracy, a very large minority if not majority do it because the know they won't get caught.
If the risks are low and the benefits high a lot of people are dishonest. See speeding laws. They are commonly broken with little chance of being caught. Do you really think speeding would continue at the level it did if you have a sensor in your car to pick up speeding and know you were looking at 1 year in jail automatically if you went over the limit. Speed is not a trivial crime its a far bigger threat to me than say burgularly

[pErvinalia]

The people in that riot were pissed off. Got an example of people rioting just for "fun and profit"?

Of course not. He's bollocking on as usual. He may as well be a religionist with his inability to accept that a whole host of people are not immoral scumbags. Just back away quietly. He won't let go of his bone.

[MrJonno]

Hmmm someone is shot by the police 300 miles away, I know lets 'riot' and rob the local sweet/candy shop. Yes thats really because some is pissed off.

The 2011 riots were basically the equivalent of a internet flash mob they were about as political as my arse

[Tyrannical]

A government social safety net does not work, it becomes a trampoline

When government is involved it becomes an entitlement, and that requires laws, regulations, bureaucracy and lawyers. It is an inefficient and costly way to transfer resources to the poor.

A charity is often volunteer based, does not have the bureaucratic expense of a government agency, may discriminate towards those willing to help themselves, and are funded voluntarily which allows the best charities to be funded.

Do away with most government safety net spending, but let tax payers send 10% of their taxes to a charity of their choice in stead of paying into the government.

[pErvinalia]

It's a nice idea, but will it actually work? Any sort of "study" I've seen on the issue suggests it won't. And common sense says that when economic times are toughest, i.e. when people need increased amounts of charity, there will be less economic charity available.

[MrJonno]

A charity is often volunteer based, does not have the bureaucratic expense of a government agency

Aren't a lot of charities funded by the state but without the level of accountability? Oxfam is a big British charity and generally a pretty good one but the biggest slice of its income is from the taxpayer

[FBM]

Hmmm someone is shot by the police 300 miles away, I know lets 'riot' and rob the local sweet/candy shop. Yes thats really because some is pissed off.

The 2011 riots were basically the equivalent of a internet flash mob they were about as political as my arse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

From the very source you linked :

Disturbances began on 6 August 2011, after a protest in Tottenham following the death of Mark Duggan, a local who was shot dead by police on 4 August 2011.[15] Protesters became angry after police restrained a sixteen-year-old girl who was alleged to have been acting in an aggressive and disorderly manner.[citation needed] Several violent clashes with police ensued...

[FBM]

The people in that riot were pissed off. Got an example of people rioting just for "fun and profit"?

Of course not. He's bollocking on as usual. He may as well be a religionist with his inability to accept that a whole host of people are not immoral scumbags. Just back away quietly. He won't let go of his bone.

Yeah, I know. The topic's not even all that interesting, tbh, but I needed something to fill a few minutes.