Wesburt
Provides an opening for some comments that have been fermenting for some
time when he says in a post on the above subject:
"Our Judeo-Christian principle of subsidiarity teaches that the public
revenue
should not be disbursed to parenting families except as public education, or
as means-tested welfare, or as means-tested unemployment compensation, or as
exemptions from taxable income. The second and third of these four
disbursements affect only a small part of the population. They could all
drop dead and society would scarcely miss them. But, the first and last of
these disbursements directly affect the great majority of parenting families,
and thereby the well-being and culture of the whole society. The need for
education, everyone understands. Unfortunately, too many understand only the
need for education. "
=========
I snip the rest as being redundant to my point.
I address both lists since my point concerns both work and income. I will
try to be brief.
Wesburt introduced the idea to me of the two commandments. The first of
which, "to each according to his need" covers the idea of universal
education. The second, "Form each according to his ability" covers
exemption from taxation.
What is not recognised in the above is the need to address, as does BI,
that "to each according to his need" must include the socio-economic tools
for parents to use to invest and endow the next generation. In order to do
that society has to provide the tools for parents to do the economic and
cultural education for the period between conception and public education.
That means, if necessary, a means tested 'generous' providence of public
funds for private use.
I continue to be under the impression that if the funds used to police all
aspects of the welfare system were directed to the unpoliced assistance of
the poor there would be more than enough for all. What governance is
required could be provided by persons in the locale of the recipient.
There was an excellent post a while back about the relationship between
society and the individual. I think that there is a deficit of correct
moral thinking. We seem to have severed the relationship between personal
choice and personal consequence in the area of behavour and the law of
cause and effect in the area of economics. Without those relationships no
amount of BI is going to resolve the problem.and no moral standard can be
established.
To institute as social entity that will grow the above, I suggest that the
BI be paid to self declared socio economic entities. Further, there would
have to be an incentive to belong to and remain in such an entity. The
option to individualism would be there but less attractive. By establishing
such entities, the "work" of inculcating correct economic and social
behaviour would fall on the leadership within the entity. That entity would
be organized in everyone's best interest or individuals within it would
separate.
Marx, I think, said that organizations (social) conform to the reality of
the material environment. By providing the parents of the next generation
with the tools for their education, and also the means to grow out of that
social environment. If work means to provide for ones needs with the
material at hand, and the opportunity to trade any surplus, the foundation
for a healthy society will have been laid.
Regards
Ed G
Ed Goertzen,
Oshawa
