Originally Posted by bvpcvm
^ the the question is this: how do you define free-loaders? or what are your criteria at which someone goes from being a "worthy" recipient of assistance and crosses over into being "unworthy"? i would imagine that you would agree that someone who can't afford health insurance and is diagnosed with breast cancer is not freeloading by asking for assistance. or at least i would be surprised if you would consider that freeloading. so where's the border? at which point is someone's need no longer legitimate? how, in a society where everyone has rights to privacy and freedom, do you somehow define in a consistent, bias-free way, a point at which a legitimate need becomes illegitimate?
No system is perfect, but you do the best you can. In a system where "from
each according to his ability and to
each according to his need" is the mantra of choice, ability becomes a liability and need becomes a coveted asset. When economic and social policies fail to reflect reality in ANY way, aggregate economic output will probably stagnante.
REALITY: More children = less disposable income
UNREALITY: More children = more disposable income!
REALITY: If I don't work, I can't eat.
UNREALITY: If I don't work, I get free food!
While every modern industrialized nation fulfills its social contract by providing a safety net (in many cases one more robust than ours), a government failing to provide proper incentives and disincentives for certain behavior will induce people to act according to their own best interest, not the interest of the collective.
Such is the sad irony of institutionalized collectivism, the legacy of which are the stunning economic successes of Cuba, North Korea and The Soviet Union.