No Fault Evictions

[selectortone]

Well, as I said, that's life. I can see the unfairness of it, but I'm not wasting the little time I have left fretting about something over which I have no control. Let alone pontificate about it. There will always be freeloaders, con artists, cheaters, liars and all the other undesirables that make up a fair proportion of the human race. All part of life's rich tapestry - another of my dear old Irish mother's sayings.

 

[Jacob]

In a well functioning society, individuals within it have both rights and obligations. The right is the support of society in times of need. The obligation is to contribute (where possible) to society to allow it to function as it should.

Expecting society to support those capable but failing to contribute is fundamentally wrong. It is unfair to those who do properly play their part, and arguably immoral - similar to paying a thief to stop stealing.

It inappropriately feeds a culture of entitlement, and like any other parasite they may ultimately destroy the society on which it feeds.

Those failing in their reasonable obligations towards society should be denied its benefits. That the outcome will cause them real distress is tough, but a failure to do so will simply perpetuate their anti-social behaviours.

So it's "drop dead" then? A right-wing fundamentalist.
No return of the prodigal, return to the fold, second chances, good samaritans, forgiveness, redemption, charity?
Why do they worry you so much?
What about those at the other end of the wealth spectrum who are up to no good?
They cost society very much more than a few useless ne'er-do-wells trying to live on benefits.

 

[John Brown]

Gotta punch down!

 

[ey_tony]

So it's "drop dead" then? A right-wing fundamentalist.
No return of the prodigal, return to the fold, second chances, good samaritans, forgiveness, redemption, charity?
Why do they worry you so much?
What about those at the other end of the wealth spectrum who are up to no good?
They cost society very much more than a few useless ne'er-do-wells trying to live on benefits.

If you're referring to the successful as being at the other end of the spectrum then explain how they cost society very much more than the ne'er do wells when the the top 1% of earners contribute over 25% of the tax burden and where the top 10% of earners contribute over 60%... how on earth do they cost society much more?...it just shows what utter tribal nonsense you do spout!

The ne'er -do wells and the bottom 10% of earners contribute only 0.6 of 1%. Real world facts and figures unfortunately for you trump nonsense ideological arguments.
Socialism as an ideology is an abomination which will be proven over the next 5 years when everyone will be much poorer than they are now. Everything will be relatively much more expensive due to inflation and is so predictable.

 

[Jacob]

Gotta punch down!

Well yes it's very weird. And utterly pointless except in terms of any dubious satisfaction they might gain from kicking the underdogs.

 

[Chris152]

Expecting society to support those capable but failing to contribute is fundamentally wrong. It is unfair to those who do properly play their part, and arguably immoral - similar to paying a thief to stop stealing.
...
Those failing in their reasonable obligations towards society should be denied its benefits. That the outcome will cause them real distress is tough, but a failure to do so will simply perpetuate their anti-social behaviours.

The rights and wrongs are an issue, but a bigger issue is what happens if governments - of whatever persuasion - don't support those without, whatever reasons for them being without. It's not a question of fairness, or at base even of morality, just a social reality. Maybe think of social security as a way of buying a rather large group of people's silence. Your comparison with paying a thief to stop stealing is a good one.

What happens if you make enough people still more 'without'? Just look at the history of modern Europe. Government knows and budgets for this. The last thing they want is too many people getting the hump.