At the risk of appearing to lecture, may I offer the following words from John Stuart Mill, from his essay on Liberty.
‘The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in th way of cumplusion or control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penaltie, or the moral coercion of publuic opinion. The priciple is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, becauase it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with an evil in case he do otherwise. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is answerable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.’
Here Mill asserts we have the absolute sovereign right over our own body and mind. It follows, therefore, that in accepting that right we must also accept the responsibility to protect ourselves.
This does not confer a right on anyone to expect me to protect them against themselves. And so those who choose the freedom of indepence must also choose the responsibility of independence.
I cannot for the life of me, see how any beneficiary recipient can claim to choose self-support responsibility when they are demanding the ‘right’ to use a part of my hard-earned money to support their life-style.
Did any of these DPB recipients confer with me as to the wisdom of their original association with the now departed partner? No!
Did the beneficiary consult with me regarding the rectitude of producing offspring into that environment? No!
Did the beneficiary consult with me as to the rectitude of splitting the family? No!
Did the recipient have the common decency to call any or all of her (DPB) supporters and ask for their grace? No.
But, you see. Without consultation, I ended up with a debt for which I have responsibility.
I’ll bet Kent would clamour loud and long if I sent him my power-bill and told my supplier my bill was Kent’s problem, not mine. But is that any different from the IRD sending me a bill for taxes to pay for those who can’t manage their own lives? No!
Has anyone ever seen a public notice from a beneficiary, thanking all contributors, at Christmas time? No!
Oh no. They all of one accord demand the right to have all tax-payers fund their appallingly governed lives, yet they refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions.
I cannot count the number of talk-back callers who have almost caused me to scream, hearing them say, ‘The Government doesn’t make it attractive enough for me to get off DPB and get a job.’!!!! Gee, I could help make it attractive.
And so these layabouts walk away from a ‘marriage’, take the kids, feed the FC with vast amounts of crap as to why the father should not be allowed anywhere near to beggar’s trough, (ergo, equal parenting rights) and swan off into the sunset, defrauding the children of a father and the tax-payer of his/her hard-earned money.
And for the record, Muldoon screwed Super Annuitants.I do not class them as beggars. But recipients of DPB, unemployment, and sickness beneficiaries are, to me, beggars and should be treated as such.
Maybe, if they were, this society’s keel may yet start to show signs of pointing downwards.
NB: I quite like the idea of beneficiaries being issued with a cash-card which restricted them to the purchase of food and clothing. Power, phone and rent would be AP’d to the legitimate recipient. The EFTPOS system could easily manage it.
Poor old Kent and Sue Bradford, and their ilk, would suggest (more likely scream) that such would be an infringement of the beneficiairies rights to conduct their lives as they choose. Sorry Kent and Sue, while I work my arse off to help pay for these beggars, then I’d kind’a like to think I had some control on what they spend my money on.
I’m not even vaguely interested in the PC crap asserting that the meek need a hand up and therefore they have a right to that hand-up. If they’re so bereft of the ability and will to survive, or are truly in such a parlous state that they actually need a hand up, then they are free to call and I will assess each application on its merits.
Survival is life 101. Surviving requires a post-grad degree in self respect. And you get that from refusing to denounce your self-respect and becoming a beggar.
But I’ll be damned if I will accept tax-payer largesse, allowing any and all layabout to survive without effort, isn’t my concern. It is! These bludgers are using my money to fund their life-style, without my permission.
All such forced largesses does is provide a foundation for consuming without a reciprocal requirement to produce.
And where has this got us??? 300,000 kids in solo-parent environments. Boys being reared almost exclusively by women, and girls being taught that such is just fine. Remember, Tana hit that bloke with a woman’s handbag. What does that say?
And we’re surprised that youth violence is at an all-time high????
Oh yes, Kent and Sue, we are breeding a fine society on the backs of those who produce.
Woooo! That was full of passion, eh?:–))