>The idea that they need to be on some form of welfare ANYWAY doesn't bother you ? Unless they want to live on subsistence, they need things produced by other

>The idea that they need to be on some form of welfare ANYWAY doesn't bother you ? Unless they want to live on subsistence, they need things produced by other people. They can either do something for other people (employment) in exchange for other people's things (usually in the form of money, which is more efficient than barter), or they can receive some form of charity/welfare from other people. What's wrong with it? Why should it bother me that the universe doesn't have an infinite source of everything such that anybody can fill all their wants without anybody having to work? >it has been the same excuse forever, if we give rights the market will crash, and yet every time instead of crushing it just keeps blooming... weird. Just because everything hasn't completely collapsed that doesn't mean things couldn't be better. That's like arguing polluting the environment is fine because the planet's still alive now. You can see this by comparing for instance Eastern Europe to Western Europe; Eastern Europe didn't collapse, but due to bad economic management it grew a lot more slowly and produced much lower living standards for its inhabitants than Western Europe.