Is benefitting from welfare or other public services immoral?

[lockedup]

Is  it immoral to take redistributed money from government entities or use their services? Say for example a person who takes a disability check from the government because he suffers from a "mental illness". In my opinion it is and I will present my case. But I might be wrong and would like to hear other peoples opinions.

 

Molyneux once said (I don't remember exactly if he was talking specifically about disability) that since the money has already been stolen and taken away via taxation and since the service will be provided regardless, one might as well take advantage of it.

 

This assumes that the amount of money that this service requires will never increase due to an increase in demand for the service.

 

But if there is more demand for the service the government may act accordingly and generate more supply which would lead to increased taxation.

 

So for example: the more people relying on a disability handout or using X service, the more likely the governmental entity will be to request an increase in taxation to cover for this service. In a similar manner, if everyone stops relying on welfare the programs might be terminated and therefore there might be a reduction in taxation. So, as far as I can tell, everyone who is using the service is partly responsible for governmental theft.

[jughead]

I myself don't feel it is immoral in and of itself for the reasons you mentioned. Some libertarians (including Stefan I believe) have even suggested that the sooner the government becomes insolvent the better since real change will never happen through normal political channels. Thus by taking benefits you may actually be hastening the demise of the immoral system.

 

Where I would have a problem is if it leads to you becoming dependent on handouts or corrupting your views or developing a sense of entitlement.

[Will Torbald]

Is  it immoral to take redistributed money from government entities or use their services? Say for example a person who takes a disability check from the government because he suffers from a "mental illness". In my opinion it is and I will present my case. But I might be wrong and would like to hear other peoples opinions.

 

Molyneux once said (I don't remember exactly if he was talking specifically about disability) that since the money has already been stolen and taken away via taxation and since the service will be provided regardless, one might as well take advantage of it.

 

This assumes that the amount of money that this service requires will never increase due to an increase in demand for the service.

 

But if there is more demand for the service the government may act accordingly and generate more supply which would lead to increased taxation.

 

So for example: the more people relying on a disability handout or using X service, the more likely the governmental entity will be to request an increase in taxation to cover for this service. In a similar manner, if everyone stops relying on welfare the programs might be terminated and therefore there might be a reduction in taxation. So, as far as I can tell, everyone who is using the service is partly responsible for governmental theft.

 

I think limiting your question just to welfare handouts obscures the larger question of "Is using anything made with taxes immoral?" because you're just asking for a special case in welfare handouts while ignoring everything else done with tax money. Like using a road. Would you tell people standing on the street that they are immoral for using a tax payed road? Or the post office, or a library?

[GailG]

What is immoral is the capitalist system that literally and provably causes mental illnesses.  The USA has, BY FAR, the highest income inequality and the highest mental illness rate in the world.  Mental illness is now the number one reason for social security disability, and that doesn't even count the retirees who have switched from SSD and/or SSI to Social Security retirement.  The numbers of serious mental illnesses (SMIs) are rising so dramatically that Congress has been asked to fund SMIs

 

The longest lasting constitutional republic that lasted more than 700 years before being destroyed by invading Europeans was the Iroquois confederation.  They had no money but the lived amidst abundance that we today cannot comprehend.  They nurtured nature, beliving themselves part of it.  They thought that our money system turned us into slaves, which it does.  It makes us immature, like children, which it does. 

 

Not only did they have no money, but they turned from a violent and cannabilistic cultuire to a wholly peaceful culture.  Ther constitution was called "The Great Peace".  They had no poverty, no child abuse, no domestic violence, no crime, no prisons, no police, no NSA, AND theirs was a democracy by concensus,  not the domination politics that we have today.

 

Jefferson and Franklin thought we should emulate them, but the aristocrats (the Federalists) reviled the mere mention of the word equality.  Inequality CAUSES brain damage.  You can't have capitalism without inequality. 

[lockedup]

I myself don't feel it is immoral in and of itself for the reasons you mentioned. Some libertarians (including Stefan I believe) have even suggested that the sooner the government becomes insolvent the better since real change will never happen through normal political channels. Thus by taking benefits you may actually be hastening the demise of the immoral system.

 

Where I would have a problem is if it leads to you becoming dependent on handouts or corrupting your views or developing a sense of entitlement.

 

 

I think limiting your question just to welfare handouts obscures the larger question of "Is using anything made with taxes immoral?" because you're just asking for a special case in welfare handouts while ignoring everything else done with tax money. Like using a road. Would you tell people standing on the street that they are immoral for using a tax payed road? Or the post office, or a library?

While I appreciate both of your views/arguments neither of you has as of yet attacked my arguments but have instead presented me with other arguments.

While I have a sense that I might be wrong, I would also like to know for sure what exactly about my arguments is wrong.

 

 

 

Thus by taking benefits you may actually be hastening the demise of the immoral system.

Yes taking benefits may cause the government to become insolvent but it may also cause an increase in taxation.

And would you not say that immoral means never justify moral ends?

 

 

I think limiting your question just to welfare handouts obscures the larger question of "Is using anything made with taxes immoral?" because you're just asking for a special case in welfare handouts while ignoring everything else done with tax money.

I was not trying to make a special case, rather, I was trying to provide an example so as to clarify my idea.

 

Like using a road. Would you tell people standing on the street that they are immoral for using a tax payed road? Or the post office, or a library?

Can it not be possible that it is immoral to use some things that are a result of taxation but not others, why does it have to be black and white?

 

I think that because of my arguments using both a post office or a library can be immoral (depending on the use though).

 

For example if a certain book at a library gets borrowed often enough the library might consider buying a second copy (which will be done with tax money), therefore borrowing books from the library is immoral.

 

Same thing with a post office, the more people using the service, the more likely the business is to expand.

 

I think the same thing might be said about roads though to be honest I hesitate to admit it (it sounds weird to say using a road is immoral). But I am still waiting to hear a rebuttal to my arguments.