and that's the point of my arguement

the organization deals with groups of people

you can collectively do charity and it isn't necessarily worse off because of it

and so does welfare; but the individual is charitable

you are purposing that the individual replace the organization

but that can't work

because it changes the dynamic

Welfare is abjection of responsibility

Should be at a community level

it's also abject to individual circumstance

It is, as are all other forms of social safety nets

"safety net" is a misnomer

are we debating theory or implementation?

It isn't it shows the intended role

seriously, left-wingers have had to come up with a lot of newspeak to advertise their silliness

how is that relevant?

we aren't lefties

Safety net isn't newspeak in my eyes

it really is

Families should handle most welfare

Tbh

mine either

It describes the intended purpose

We still need some basic safety nets

it's acting like you can provide a consistent minimum

no you dont

historically that has not been the case

If it works or not is beyond the point

@ManAnimal What are you then?

as i described eariler, it makes sense people be forced to have part of their income set aside for emergency usage

as long as that money can ONLY be used by them

and upon retirement they get it back

there is no issue

@Coolitic historically we discarded the disabled as refuse unless they had some sort of worth or history

untrue

it provides a buffer

they were well taken care of

Historically we had nuclear families

until a single act was released

which kicked em all out