• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SIN BINS FOR WORST FAMILIES (aka the end of liberty in Britain)

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Daily Express | UK News :: Sin bins for worst families

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

You people in Britain who say you care about freedom had better get out there and protest this loudly, because if this sticks, it's over for you as a free country.

How blatantly, literally Orwellian does it have to get for you to react?
 
Though I understand the goal of this program, I am not inclined to give the government such rights. That being said, the majority if such families are most likely the Welfare families of the nation, and as the government is their provider, should have a say in ensuring that the household is being ran in a manner that will be conducive to raising children that will be good citizens and not re-breeding more Welfare abusers.
 
So . . .

If the government gives you money, you give up your fundamental civil liberties?
 
So . . .

If the government gives you money, you give up your fundamental civil liberties?
Murphy's Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

If we surrender our wealth to the government, accepting from government such stipend as government deigns to disburse, on what grounds can we ever claim any further right or privilege?

The wise man seeks to retain his wealth, however small, thereby retaining all of his liberty, which will always be large.
 
So . . .

If the government gives you money, you give up your fundamental civil liberties?

If the governement pays your bills, then you have given-up your freedom, as you have proven that you cannot survive on your own. To allow such people to propogate more Welfare seekers and teen gangsters would be an exercise in stupidity.
 
If the governement pays your bills, then you have given-up your freedom, as you have proven that you cannot survive on your own. To allow such people to propogate more Welfare seekers and teen gangsters would be an exercise in stupidity.

This makes me sad. :(

But, if you truly believe that the government simply writing you a check makes you a subject and not a citizen, then that's the very best argument for eliminating welfare I've ever heard.

So . . . why wouldn't the government then seek to get as many people on the government dole as possible, as it extends control over as many people as possible? Because politicians are nice, high-minded people?
 
Murphy's Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

If we surrender our wealth to the government, accepting from government such stipend as government deigns to disburse, on what grounds can we ever claim any further right or privilege?

The wise man seeks to retain his wealth, however small, thereby retaining all of his liberty, which will always be large.

This is the part of, "redistribution of wealth", that most Libbos don't understand.
 
This makes me sad. :(

But, if you truly believe that the government simply writing you a check makes you a subject and not a citizen, then that's the very best argument for eliminating welfare I've ever heard.

So . . . why wouldn't the government then seek to get as many people on the government dole as possible, as it extends control over as many people as possible? Because politicians are nice, high-minded people?

My argument is that if the public is supporting you, then they should expect that you would comply with the laws of the land. If one on the government support system is unable to follow such laws, or are raising their kids to not do so, then the public interest is to monitor and correct such behavior.

I do agree the Welfare system needs to go the way of the dinosaur. As to your thought that the government would wish to extend such enrollment, I would say that there would be no need. Those who are not a leech upon society, need not be supported nor controlled. They are the individulas who are utilizing their freedom to support themselves, provide for their families, and living a peaceful, law abiding life. There is no need to hinder nor reduce the freedoms of such people.
 
You people in Britain who say you care about freedom had better get out there and protest this loudly, because if this sticks, it's over for you as a free country.

How blatantly, literally Orwellian does it have to get for you to react?

The thing is that the system is funding these people through assistance payments and the like. If you accept funds from the government to stay home and raise your children, for instance, you forfeit a large degree of your personal autonomy.

The government then has a responsibility to ensure that the taxpayer dole is spent properly, on nutritious food and quality housing, not meth for mom's tweaker habit.

The dole is NOT a way of life, but a temporary safety net. For those for whom it has become a way of life, it seems to me that society has a vested interest in habilitating these people who will otherwise be supported at taxpayer expense eternally.

And I say "habilitated" versus rehabilitated, because to a very large degree, the chronic dole abusers have very few life skills. They don't know how to cook. They don't know how to clean. They don't ensure their kids attend school. Their children don't wear clean clothes unless they wash them. They don't have any work skills, and most are illiterate.
 
Last edited:
But, if you truly believe that the government simply writing you a check makes you a subject and not a citizen, then that's the very best argument for eliminating welfare I've ever heard.

So . . . why wouldn't the government then seek to get as many people on the government dole as possible, as it extends control over as many people as possible? Because politicians are nice, high-minded people?

They can't. They need someone to subsidize the welfare payments. That would be us, the faithful workers/taxpayers of the world.
 
Daily Express | UK News :: Sin bins for worst families



You people in Britain who say you care about freedom had better get out there and protest this loudly, because if this sticks, it's over for you as a free country.

How blatantly, literally Orwellian does it have to get for you to react?

If they mooch off tax payer money(notice I said tax payer money not government money, because it is still the tax payers money) then the tax payers have the right to demand that those who mooch off us not waste our money on illegal or recreational drugs(booze and what ever drugs are legal for recreational use),not do anything illegal,not pop out any more kids you can not afford to take care of and make sure their kids grow up right. This should be true in any country that allows citizens or subjects(depending on country) to mooch off other tax payers. The whole entire point of welfare is to make sure that the people who are on it do what they are supposed to do with it and get back on their feet, this is a tax payer investment not a blank check for the welfare recipeint to do what ever the hell they want with it.
 
My argument is that if the public is supporting you, then they should expect that you would comply with the laws of the land. If one on the government support system is unable to follow such laws, or are raising their kids to not do so, then the public interest is to monitor and correct such behavior.

I do agree the Welfare system needs to go the way of the dinosaur. As to your thought that the government would wish to extend such enrollment, I would say that there would be no need. Those who are not a leech upon society, need not be supported nor controlled. They are the individulas who are utilizing their freedom to support themselves, provide for their families, and living a peaceful, law abiding life. There is no need to hinder nor reduce the freedoms of such people.

If it means increasing their power, why would they not?
 
They can't. They need someone to subsidize the welfare payments. That would be us, the faithful workers/taxpayers of the world.

You probably need to review the history of . . . well, government in general. But to make it simpler, start with the Bolsheviks.
 
The thing is that the system is funding these people through assistance payments and the like. If you accept funds from the government to stay home and raise your children, for instance, you forfeit a large degree of your personal autonomy.

Says whom?

The government then has a responsibility to ensure that the taxpayer dole is spent properly, on nutritious food and quality housing, not meth for mom's tweaker habit.

Then the correct thing to do is stop spending it, not restrict freedom. I.E., if you don't use the hand you're offered to make your life better, then you lose that hand.
 
This is pretty scary, actually.

When conservatives, liberals, and nominal centrists all agree that the government writing you a check means you surrender your basic civil liberties, the Bill of Rights notwithstanding, we're heading down a road that we're never coming back from.
 
This is pretty scary, actually.

When conservatives, liberals, and nominal centrists all agree that the government writing you a check means you surrender your basic civil liberties, the Bill of Rights notwithstanding, we're heading down a road that we're never coming back from.

The solution is to go a charity and not take the check. Another solution is to abstain from sex seeing how that person is obviously too stupid to use adequate protection and require that her sex partner also use a condom. or give the kids up for adoption, the state or a nice married couple can take care of those kids.



Maybe the reason why so many liberals,conservatives and centrist agree because it is not the government writing you a check with the government's money, it is the government writing you a check with tax payers money. The government has no money. So its like when the government bails out companies or funds some sort of project with our money. We would like our money to not be wasted on CEO bonuses(even though it is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the money we gave them), union vacation spots or if we are funding a road construction project we would like something to ensure that road is being built right the first time and that not a single penny is being wasted.
 
Last edited:
Says whom?

Says me, the taxpayer, who is funding this social experiment.

Then the correct thing to do is stop spending it, not restrict freedom. I.E., if you don't use the hand you're offered to make your life better, then you lose that hand.

I'm completely in favor of cutting off the handouts. But, if you accept a handout, you are opening your door to have the meddlers come into your family and meddle.
 
When conservatives, liberals, and nominal centrists all agree that the government writing you a check means you surrender your basic civil liberties, the Bill of Rights notwithstanding, we're heading down a road that we're never coming back from.

Then don't accept the check. The taxpayers have a right to ensure that the money is being spent properly. If you don't like the strings attached to the check, get off your ass and work.
 
If it means increasing their power, why would they not?

Because the point of the legislation in question is not to expand power, but to prevent crime and protect children, protect society and end wasteful spending.
 
Because the point of the legislation in question is not to expand power, but to prevent crime and protect children, protect society and end wasteful spending.

Beyond that, a person who accepts the dole is saying, in effect: "I can't handle my business, I need everyone else to rescue me from the circumstances of my life."

Don't be surprised if you get exactly what you've asked for.
 
Because the point of the legislation in question is not to expand power, but to prevent crime and protect children, protect society and end wasteful spending.

:roll:

Even if that's true, you can come up with "good intentions" for any amount of government mischief.

There are lines the government is not supposed to cross. Right?
 
Beyond that, a person who accepts the dole is saying, in effect: "I can't handle my business, I need everyone else to rescue me from the circumstances of my life."

Don't be surprised if you get exactly what you've asked for.

That is exactly right. That is why I never accept money from anyone. If I take money from my parents, then they have a say if I am wasting money. Why? Because if I need money to pay bills and borrow, but I still blow money on other things, then they have a right to either cut me off or tell me how to spend the money they give. Same with Welfare recipients.
 
:roll:

Even if that's true, you can come up with "good intentions" for any amount of government mischief.

There are lines the government is not supposed to cross. Right?

This is why I'm not in favor of government handouts in any area. Anytime you accept a dole from the government, you are opening the door for the government to meddle in your personal life.

Don't want the meddling? Don't take the check.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for you. If you don't want the nanny interfering in your life, don't try to beg money out of nanny's pocket.
 
Then don't accept the check. The taxpayers have a right to ensure that the money is being spent properly. If you don't like the strings attached to the check, get off your ass and work.

So . . .

Instead of the government existing to protect your liberties, you'd turn it into a mafia-style loan shark who comes in and busts your kneecaps if you don't behave?

I'm truly, truly frightened by the responses in this thread. We're going to be living in Orwellian state within our lifetimes, and most of you don't even know you're OK with that.
 
:roll:

Even if that's true, you can come up with "good intentions" for any amount of government mischief.

There are lines the government is not supposed to cross. Right?

Sure, there is a line. But why should the public allow worthless parents to collect money on children and stay at home on the tax payer dime, while they corrupt or damage these children, creating crime problems and more dependents on the system. There are two choices: 1) End Welfare and when people have kids but can't support themselves, the state must take the children into protective custody and find them foster homes. 2) The government monitors those on the system to ensure it is not abused. Take your pick, because one way or another, these people are freely giving-up their rights when they stretch their hands out to tax payers.
 
Back
Top Bottom