Final Solution to the welfare problem

Should welfare exist?
How could it be fixed?
Can it be fixed?
How should it work under our current political systems?
How should it work in a National Socialist race-state?

Other urls found in this thread:

mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/04/saving_dollars_not_people_chan.html
archive.is/lzVz7
fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I think that the dole shouldn't just be a handout, if you want to get any money from the state. then the state has an interest into making you into a productive member from society. Whether you want to or not. Mandatory job training or mandatory classes for qualifications are the answer. depending on the circumstances. But they key is that people shouldn't be allowed to get money without making themselves more employable.

Yes welfare should exist, but a sacrifice should be made by the recipient. As in if you are receiving welfare- during the time you are on welfare your civil rights are severely curtailed. You don't get to vote, you don't get to protest, you don't get to have guns, you don't get to bitch in other words. You get to live, you get to eat, and once you are a net positive member of society- you get your civil rights back and all the goodies that entails. If you wanna live (or have to live) on gibs- I got it and it sucks. But I don't want to hear you bitch about how racist I am for keeping your fat ass fed and a roof over your head whilst you shoot Janiqua for her weave. I want you to shut your fucking mouth and go do something to get your ass out of your hell-hole situation and do something positive for society. for once

Or just deport everyone that's been on welfare for over 3 years to a requisite safe zone in some god forsaken armpit of the World. I hear the weather is lovely in Liberia and Guyana this time of year.

I like some aspects of the swiss welfare system.
If you're going to have government programs as welfare, it should be as local as possible.

They give their cantons(like states) pretty much all the power to handle such things.

No it is inherently against the idea of treating everyone equal. Same thing for affirmative action. You can't have equality AND people receiving special treatment.

I like the curtailment of rights, but should we differentiate between the people who are on the dole? Surely the people that are just on the dole due to the plant shutting down etc, and might need retraining are different from never had a job dole scum?

I like the idea of localism, but what about in big cities? they will try and do the most fucking stupid awful shit. Think LA and how they would manage welfare if it was up to them. How do you stop that?

Equality is not something to strive for in some areas.

Equality under the law? k
Denying differences of race, culture, sex etc. ? not k

I agree about affirmative action. But the age old question still stands: If there is no welfare system(be it the church, charity or some sort of state welfare) what will we do with disabled/elderly people? And I mean disabled because of an accident, not cripples from birth

No.
Repeal it.
Repeal it.
It shouldn’t exist.
It shouldn’t exist.

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards–no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50 pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese, and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce, use drugs, alcohol, smoke, or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims, low profile tires, and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”
Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self-esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self-esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes, we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. 
– Alfred W. Evans

Yes.
A person can only be on welfare for 2 years. If you have anymore kids while on welfare, you're cut off. Using welfare is discouraged through social means. You must do community service while on welfare and you must pay 15% of it back once off (after 2 years of being on it) or face jail time.

This is to stop people from longterm leeching and to pressure them into finding out in a timely manner.
This is stop single mothers from having kids to get more welfare and from single mothers having childern in unfavorable economic circumstances.
To discourage single mothers and lazyfucks.
This is to encourage people to find better work for better pay and this is force them to continue finding work even when off welfare to encourage them not being some homeless fuck.

Then what do you do about poor old people? People disabled from birth?
Do we just let them die?
leave it to charity?
What do you do when there just actually arn't jobs, due to a financial crash etc. When even people looking for work properly cant find work

Some people actually need it.


Don't let immigrants use it until they are actual citizens.

You don't seem to understand that welfare is there for the protection of the state and normalfags, not out of some sort of concern for the unemployed.

As for "sacrifices", any native man is subject to the draft and hundreds of other restrictions on liberty, that is a debt which can never be repaid.
That being said, welfare should be scrapped, at the very least for immigrants.
IT IS WELFARE THAT ATTRACTS THEM HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, LIKE A BEACON

In much the same way, welfare for mothers, alimony and child support should be scrapped for all future claimants.
"unplanned" pregnancies would virtually cease overnight and marriage would again become the norm.

Also, drugtest every 3 days.

That's not good enough.
So long as the hope of receiving welfare exists, they will come and wait out the citizenship.

What do you hope to gain by drug testing, other than incentivising the engineering of drugs which leave the system in under 24 hours?

They wouldn’t be poor under a sane system.
They wouldn’t exist.
YEP.
Not welfare, that’s for fucking sure.

I like the idea of taking away certain rights of people on welfare, at least for those who got into that situation because of themselves and not bad luck.

What if you treat long term welfare as a kind of loan? As in the parasites who leech off the system (not the few unfortunate ones) have to pay back what they take out after like a tax on income or maybe if they cant find a job pay it back by work for the community

Kill yourself, you fucking degenerate.
Outing drug users, you mentally defective pile of shit.
Can’t be done. Fuck off.

Sounds fair to me. Someone should get this to the Don. Implying he isn't already on the same page.

My English buddy had to wait 4-5 years before he was able to take the Leaf citizenship test. I don't think most of those fucks would bother hanging in there that long.

You are of very low intelligence and lack the ability to engage others in a civil manner.
Feral nigger-like genes such as yours will be the first to be bred out of existence in any system of eugenics.

Such methods are employed here in the Netherlands, which resulted in sweatshops of people packing bags or cleaning trash. They are forced to do this work, and if they complain or even post about it on social media in any negative way, they receive a 50% or 100% cut into their welfare. These people live in fear with no prospect of an actual paid job.

It is done, and while it seems a good idea according to the right, it is not. It is exploited by corporations as slave labor replacing actual paid job positions in a communist setting.

They'd just dig them out.

why do you let businesses use the labor?

No, no differentiation. You don't work, you don't get a say. If the plant shuts down, you accept your lot, move on, work on getting back on your feet. Shit happens, get over it. I notice one of your unstated assumptions is a leftist one (it happens, the redpilling process doesn't happen all at once): the idea that we have to make rules for every little exception or snowflake.

I wasn't saying that people should be made to do mandatory work, but that they should be made to get mandatory job training or get qualifications.

Well, your buddy is Whiteat least I fucking hope he is, but non-Whites can support themselves quite easily without a job, dealing drugs, robbing and so on.
4-5 years isn't that long really, I get your point though, it probably would decrease inflow.

Government is in bed with local business here, a lot. You'll see roads laid down to benefit a big player at ridiculous costs with no benefits for anyone else.

What would be your solution then?

Job training over here does happen but ends in you getting jewed over with hidden costs or endebtment where you have to pay back your job training. It is then you find out your job training was useless while they got you in an even tighter spot.

If implemented well, and not like how it is done here, it could be a workable solution. Always be aware of the jews finding a way to rake more shekels, though.

Solution to what?
Drug testing welfare claimants is pointless.
Which is why I asked you what you hope to gain from it, the answer to which was "to out drug users."
That's virtually a circular logic.
So you out them and then what?
Cut the claim? Put them in a stock and pelt with tomatoes?
What is your end goal, how would it help society?
the hopelessness of having no work and seeing your country filled with non-Whites is a large reason many people use drugs in the first place

Welfare should only be given to people during a transitory period where they may have lost their jobs due to no fault of their own. Safety nets should only be granted to people who the government knows is going to rebound.

Piles of human waste like you who rely on mind-altering substances will be very next to go under a system of eugenics, user.

Don't see where you got your rise user. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough when I mentioned that you don't get to vote, that would infer citizenship. If a non-citizen goes on or approaches going on the dole (as is now Executive Policy as of today) they get deported. That's settled. Now we need to do something with the niggers. So you actually agree with me except
where I said deport them (the niggers) after 3 years? Not sure where we really do disagree.


Of course they are user, perhaps a granular system of works achievements based on prior work history. But instead of 3 year deportation an immediate enrollment into public service (as other user said, military, public works, etc.). Since I'm more concerned about our demographic bloc in the inner cities which have enjoyed multiple generations of Johnson's master plan- I hate to disagree with you but I don't want inner city niggers in the Army. Considering they have the brain power of a gnat and the shooting skills of someone with parkinsons. I'm also extremely leery of them building roads and bridges but hey, I'm sure I could learn to put that behind me.

Its more like i feel that society should come down harder on the people that are just workshy than people that are trying. Every action of the state should be to penalize bad things and incentivise good things. the state should differentiate so as to foster more positive outcomes

"One in ten" in the UK? It has to be fucking higher. How the fuck is immigrant being defined? Probably not the descendants of non-British immigrants I'm sure but does this stat also remove those who've been in the country several years and received muh citizenship papers? Because I know for fucking sure that 50% of moslem men and 75% of their women in the UK don't work at all, and that's just one group. Can't bet it's all that much better with poo in the loos and various negroes.

Yes. Not everyone is privileged with the ability to do well.
Fund it more.
Yes, tax rich people.
Tax rich people
National socialism is a failed system and silly meme. The world has moved on to civic nationalism.

This would work in urban areas but in the sticks, good fucking luck. For instance, the local votech school here is over 35 miles away. There are no fucking buses. Are you then going to create a taxi service driving 70 miles each way for every single person? And what the hell training is there going to be? Everyone learns the same shit at the same local place, flooding the already nonexistant jobs in a place where all the factories closed 20+ fucking years ago when it got nafta'ed to guatamala.

Welfare should exist but in limited quantity. Every citizen should be allotted so much in their lifetime and if they go over that amount there should be mandatory sterilization for continued welfare.

Well taking away certain rights of everyone on welfare regardless of context would definitely set the incentive to really try before applying to welfare, which would be a good thing

Equality isn't something that exists in any area.

People get different sentences for the same crimes all the time.

>>>/reddit/


They shouldn't be allowed in to begin with, that's my point.
Unless there is literally not a single person in the whole country, or an immigration applicant from another White country who can fill this incredibly specialized job.

yeah we cant really talk about welfare until all non whites are gone. only whites see it as a shame to be on welfare. niggers see it as getting back at da whyte man.

Sign me the fuck up.

Given that overburdening the welfare system is one way to crash a country, it is a moral duty for right-wing Whites to draw as much as they can from the beast.
I don't see how it can't be.
Every pound not claimed out of "pride" is an extra pound for a non-White to use in raising a non-White child.
It's insanity to cling to morals which pertain to conduct in ethnically homogeneous nations, during a time when we are being flooded and threatened with extinction.
Claim everything you can.
low paid workers, claimants and pensioners are also benefits claimants anyway.

For one the laffer curve exists and taxing the rich excessively is the state penalizing success. National socialism didn't fail and more than democracy France failed because it was defeated in a war. Civic nationalism is inherently unstable as it relies on people buying into a shared myth based on nothing that is concrete or real. race is real and grounded in reality. Blut unt Boden etc. Civic nationalist societies haven't worked we can see this in the USA which was successful when majority white, but even still had problems with racial minorities, and its deterioration and fragmentation along racial lines now.

Exactly.

The circumstances change the sentence. No two crimes are the same.

For example: Two people rob a liquor store. They both use guns.

Guy 1: Gun not loaded. First offense.
Guy 2: Loaded gun. Second offense.

Guy 2 will get a stiffer penalty for the "same crime".

In order for it to work you would need to use existing school infrastructure i think. Use existing school systems for people to go to for qualifications etc.

I agree that it wouldn't fix the problems afflicting rural communities, but i think that a bit beyond the remit of welfare. people would still have to consider moving for work, but at least they would have the skills

That isn't the same crime.
People literally get different sentences for the same (same circumstances) crime, especially the gap between men and women is huge.
Men are consistently more harshly punished for equal crime when all factors are taken into account.
In the UK, since that is our domain of discussion, there is serious talk at the highest levels of completely abolishing female prisons because, to quote the Prime Minister "there are better ways to deal with female offenders."

Im an antisemite also, but i dont think jews destroy their own business ventures just to spite white people. Self interest is a very constant Jewish trait. Also I would also advocate for a National socialist state so the problem of jewish businessmen would be dealt with.

This is a good example of a failure to learn from history and a lack of understanding of the human condition.
In the UK there are LITERALLY less vacancies than unemployed. Millions less.
You are talking about stripping the rights away from millions of people who then have no way to feed themselves or their families.
This kind of simplistic outlook can only come from the mind of someone who has never experienced hunger.
What is the longest you have gone for without food? 6 hours? 12 hours? a day?
Try going a week and see what happens. People don't just say "well, I'm a bad person, I don't deserve food, I will lie down and die because the government said so."
There's a reason that the "haves" used to live in fortified compounds and castles, with garrisons to protect them.
How will you stop a squad of hungry, lean and angry men from taking what you have?
This is why we have welfare, it has nothing to do with "charity."
tl;dr the underlying problem has to be solved first, get rid of immigrants and create jobs before you talk about punishing welfare claimants because it's a lot more dangerous than you realize.

Your points don't follow your premise. He didn't say get rid of welfare, he said make it shitty to be on welfare.

The existing school system here is a pile of consolidated shit! Why the hell do you think the vo-tech is over 35 miles away. They have closed all the local schools so the kids would be piled up in a single brainwashing machine they bus them all to. There is no local infrastructure like there was just 20 years ago.
Life in the sticks is so fucking different than big towns and cities it's like the damned twilight zone. It's an entire different existence that can only be described by paraphrashing the line, "Hanging on in quiet desperation…"

Moving is not the answer for people whose only possession in life is their family. Keep in mind, rural folks are clannish for a reason. It's our heritage and a way of life that means something to us. Our family came here from europe with nothing and the little plot of family land is sacrosanct. It is our kingdom and once we leave it it's gone forever.

i think most black and other in the lowest tier of minorities will still be a massive problem no matter the welfare system, But i think making them gain qualifications is better than just handing them money. But really the only way to actually deal with that problem is to remove them. Or treat them radically differently within the welfare system from native whites.

I propose we create a civillian workforce structured similarly to the military with individuals living in barracks (or small apartments) sharing meals, etc.

All persons employed (yes, employed) will be under a strict daily regiment where they will work at various places throughout the country for a variety of projects, and attend classes daily that teach them marketable skills and money management skills. This program will become self-sufficient as the people will be working at for-profit companies (which will love this shit). The people will be provided with food, housing, medical, and will be paid for their work as well. The bare-minimum slackers will still earn more than they cost under such a program.

The average temp agency makes $80,000/year profit at each branch. The employees are often given the short end of the stick by the lack of housing and wind up stuck in a shitty motel room paying $800/month just for rent working 60+ hours a week to pay it, never having any opportunity for advancement and at extreme risk of catastrophic failure.

This program would be even more proffitable than the agencies as the people will be sharing a complex (reduces all housing costs), will share meals (bulk food = cheap food), will be able to supply ample manpower, will be educated (which will increase their value to the economy, which does a public good in reducing the vagrant population), and by having these people attend regimented workouts and character building exercise we will be reducing the strain on the healthcare system. It is also far cheaper to deal with health issues earlier than later, them being all in one compound will be easier/cheaper to monitor, and this is the kicker The majority of people on welfare, foodstamps, etc. have psychological issues. They do best when they have very structured "cookie-cutter" lives. It would also be a good substitute for halfway houses, homeless shelters, etc.

For those who truly cannot work I'll be honest, my head injury makes working difficult but I can still push myself to get shit done, holding onto a job on the other hand… they should be taken care of, but throwing money at them isn't the way to go either. If you can function without assisted living you can get a job, so they'll be tested and placed into jobs they can actually accomplish through the workforce program outlined above

There is only one answer user-
Make them KANGS
of Liberia

I suppose your right. I do agree with the idea of preserving rural communities to a degree. But i think that welfare reform can only do so much in that sort of situation, the only things i can really think of is taking courses over the internet open university etc. But really i think its something that cant really be solved just by changing the welfare system.

The hiring of unskilled negroes, asians and women is a very real thing in the UK.
In fact the government has recently started a new "modern apprenticeship" scheme to shoehorn niggers who lack the intelligence to receive a college or university education into corporate positions.
These people are dead weight, so their wages are a form of redistribution of wealth, paid for by the company.

Yes, Jews will do that because destroying Whites is worth the expense.


Stripping rights and making it more difficult has the same effect at a lesser scale. Besides, I'm making a general point in response to the prevailing tone of "ABOLISH WELFARE, MAKE THEM STARVE!"
This comes out so easily in knee-jerk fashion but hardly anyone thinks about the consequences.
Destitute people = increased crime.
The Daily Mail attitude of "get them off welfare" one day, leads to "do something about burglaries, omg!" a few weeks later.
I'm not a supporter of welfare but in our present situation there are tens of millions partially or wholly dependent on it and as much as one likes to fantasize, cutting off their money won't turn them into corpses overnight, rather it will cause a transmutation into a raging mob.
Think French revolution.

I think this is a good baseline.
provide that safety net for like a year to those people you mentioned and after that period they have to pay an ever increasing amount back with money they earn from a new job or if they still dont find one/want one, paying it back with mandatory community work.
That way the lazy fucks would at least be somewhat useful for society and the honest person that just got some bad luck will recover.

That wouldn't cover permanently disabled, I think for these very few people, we should let church or charity take care of it.

I dont know about the old or sick people tho. You cant train them, it's not their fault but they will be a drain forever.

Unrepentant and unashamed self-shilling.

This is the perfect answer. It is literally the only proffitable and sane way to offer welfare. People could live on it all their lives and still be productive members of society.

Welfare is dysgenic. Let communities fund local charities and take care of the deserving poor. Let inner-city niggers starve to death.

I actually don't mind the idea of apprenticeships, its really mainly because of minorities shitting things up that causes problems. the only solution i can think of is just actually treating them differently due to their race, with regards to the welfare system or better yet deporting them all.

Training, even on the net, will do nothing. There isn't jobs for them to train for. Hell, even the local farms are nothing but huge acgibusiness concerns and they don't hire anyone but the old established farm families that got bought out decades ago. The solution is bring the factories back. That is key. We need manufacturing all across the country, on the rural local level.
Once people are employed, the rest will flow just like it used to. There is no need for welfare if you have the jink to pay the bills.

That post was b8 m8

?Our social welfare system is much more than just charity. Because we do not say
to the rich people: please give something to the poor. Instead we say German people,
help yourself. Everyone must help, whether you are rich or poor. Everyone must
have the belief that there's always someone in a much worse situation than I am,
and this person I want to help as a comrade. If you shall say yes, but how much do
I have to sacrifice? That is the glory of giving! When you sacrifice for your
community, then you a can walk with your head held up high. " Adolf Hitler

What do you do about the private businesses that could be crowded out of the market by this?
Also What do you do to try to get people out of the system? Cause since the work is mandatory im not sure how much of a help it would be on a job application, that is why i was focusing on getting people better qualified. Cause im trying to focus on getting people back into normal society as much as possible although i do see how there maybe a core of people who simply cant be a part of normal society and would need a structured government work environment,. But my assumption is that they would be in the extreme minority.

Yes, real apprenticeships are good, university degrees are massively overrated.
This programme is more about shoehorning incapable people into positions where they can be paid to do a non-job though.
The job application process is very cucked because of feminist culture in HR departments. Your job interview is now something like a shit test, you have to impress the interviewer more like a potential date than a worker. I believe this has actually be empirically studied and it has been shown that female HR persons (the majority) hire largely on the basis of sexual attraction in the case of men, and with a mind to eliminating the competition in the case of women. Very messed up situation. HR itself is an unproductive layer and a form of enhanced welfare where women are paid salaries to socialize and perform nominal work. They should be at home raising children.
The situation is so bad that "job interview skills" are now a subject in their own right.

I know but it should still be responded to as im are trying to influence the people watching the thread to consider the ideas. Not so much the person making the bait.

I've been on the dole and fucking hated it. The civil servants and family constantly assuming that I'm not trying hard enough. It was my own fault for getting a shitty degree and not bothering to get work while at college, because I was actually putting a lot of work into my shitty degree while drinking a lot and thinking we're all the same. I know of certain people who know how to scam the system so well, always one steep ahead of the game. Feigning 'Depression', child-support, using the daughter's disability to squeeze another few shekels out of them and I never intended to be on it. If they put as much effort into scamming as they did finding work, they'd be raking it in. I read Mein-Kampf when I was unemployed because I spent most of my free time at the library and I related to him in a big way being a struggling artist in a different way, wanting honest work and being feeling useless etc. I think Hitler got it right, we should just do what he did. First we boot out all the non-white foreigners. White foreigners are free to work in other white countries within reason as long as they are not criminals, have become a citizen or have something like a valid work visa or permit, the population should be mostly of that country and if the population is down to around 99.5% homogeneous, it's fuck off, we're full, and the other 0.5 are made up of other Europeans and exceptions will be made if a white person is married, or in a committed relationship with a foreign European.
In the national-socialist society, the work-shy will be forced to go to classes or workshops, and if they don't go more than three times with no good reason, they lose all benefits and will have to go to a boot-camp to build character. To punish them, but also to teach and reinforce discipline for their own good.
There should be activities for children similar to the Hitler youth, camping, hiking, getting out in the open, especially in summer. Joining the RWDS should also be encouraged as an honourable, but by no means easy profession.

Actual time on the job is more valuable than paper.
Even if you were forced to work, if you performed the job well, your record will reflect that and your skills are just as valid as someone who took the position voluntarily.

Well shit, I cant argue with these dubs

I'll have to think about your concentration camp welfare a bit more tho

Get rid of niggers and other subhuman undesirables.

Welfare isn't a problem in a white ethnostate. It serves its purpose in a fair way.

They would have referrences from the various warehouses, etc.

They would be given opportunities for education, obviously they may have to pay out of pocket to take college level courses, but not everyone is going to be able or even want to be a rocket scientist.

The incentive is a better life, if you want to be a warehouse worker the rest of your life, so be it.

As for the temp agencies, personally fuck them, but realistically they would have the experience to place these people and could become a nationalized part of the workforce. The temp work industry has really fucked over a lot of americans though and wouldn't be missed much.

Was on when my back was fucked beyond repair and still hated it despite being unable to even use the toilet without excruciating pain, never mind actually looking for work. I think this feeling is mutual among most people unless the money they get is basically like winning a lottery in that most people have it in them to not be lazy fucks, that is, unless society conditions them to be as such.

Well then you would need a well organised and standardized system of evaluation so that employers can assured that the people that they are getting didnt just fuck around and do a bad job, cause i think you would get people like that and you dont want companies to assume than all people in the work camps are like that, or it making them less sure about hiring people with experience in the camps than they otherwise would be.

Someone has to clean the camps, cook the food, etc.

There's a job for everyone, and with enough propaganda you can make the laziest nigger want to work.

Yes it is. It gives leftists sustenance. Take away their civil rights while they're on welfare though, and you'll just have impotent leftists who will be too unattractive to reproduce.

Im actually Northern Irish and were are almost totally white,(Started to change recently). But dole scum are a real problem here. More potato niggers than glorious ulster scotts obviously. But in all seriousness a white ethno-state will need need a better welfare system than what we have now in most white countries. But of course it would be a much less pressing issue.

But what's the difference now? The "standard" system is an employer reference. Paper qualifications don't really prove anything, even less since the advent of the popular Internet and sites like Fiverr where you can someone write your coursework for $5 a pop and even a thesis for a bit more.
Showing that you know your shit by answering questions put to you by an experienced interviewer (not an HR person) IS the gold standard.
You can't blag technical knowledge and skills. Last engineering job I went for, the supervisor took me straight out to the workshop and said "pick up that micrometer and measure that component", "light up that oxy acetylene torch" etc, that was after I'd done the speaking part.
These things might sound simple but it's easy to tell if someone knows what they're doing because a lot more is going on than a casual observer realizes.
Consider the simple act of firing up an oxy torch. You need to know the gas pressures to use, the order of ignition, the correct gas flow (effects the appearance of the flame) and so on.
tl;dr no need for elaborate certification, questions and answers are pretty reliable methods, backed up by professional references.

It would more to be to put th onus on the goverment to make it easy for employers to know just how usefull the peopson whos been in the sytem is and exactly what they can do and their work ethic etc. cause i really do think it would be inevitable that employers would shy away from hiring people from the system if a person from outside it is available. And i think that would need to be mitigated as much as possible.

Hello Holla Forums, here's my idea.
Almost everything bad exists as a result of """" negativity"""", that means that almost problem initiates from these causes: lack of sex/ sexual frustration/ sexual problems, family/ friend problems, mental/ trauma problems, lack of a path in life/ lack of examples to follow, un-education/ lack of realism and knowledge, etc.
If these things are reversed you would see a giant difference.
I hope Im being useful for this thread

I agree.

Sinn Fein is cucked guys, SDLP is cucked, joyless unionist cunts are also, thoroughly, thoroughly cucked. Identiy Ireland for the Irish, UKIP for the brits. It's the only way we can ever be friends but for fucks sakes get a sense of humour.

So you market it as something patriotic Americans join to "make a difference" in society.

Companies love hiring vets because the bottom line is the fascist system works, it produces top-shelf citizens. The military is just the only organization at the moment with the brass to use the system at least for training every other organization uses cucked beaurocracy.

That's a good point.
But if we are thinking that far ahead, to where these camps and forced work exist, then it should be a given that non-Whites, or at the very least, non-nationals have been deported.
It should be a worker's market then.
Employers will be desperate for staff, as it was until the 1970s. Back in the 50s and 60s there really was no excuse for being unemployed because there were more vacancies than workers.
If we remove economic migrants we should go some way to restoring that (healthy) situation. In such a case employers won't have the luxury of making 500 candidates jump through hoops and suck their cocks for 1 vacancy, they will need workers and discriminating on the basis of participation in a government work programme would be a luxury that only a fool would indulge.
The perverse thing is that (((modern))) (((Western))) society relies on permanent unemployment of around 1%, it's called making the market "dynamic."
If there is full employment then latency of filling vacancies increases. So ironically, as much as the government condemns unemployment and the press shames those on the dole, it is the way the system is designed.
Dole also serves the function of providing a comparison for the lowest paid workers, which goes something like this:
"Poverty porn" is a whole genre of television in the UK. Shows like video related are beamed out on a number of channels, almost as a threat of what can happen. For a whole hour the presenter makes sarcastic comments and rips the piss out of the unemployed, occasionally they will show an immigrant claimant, and contrast them with the Brits, as so much better and more deserving of the money.

I was hoping the reference to "potato niggers" and "glorious ulster scotts" would make it clear i was being humorous. I dont actually hate irish people, but they do use the welfare system disproportionately in Northern Ireland and they have no even vaguly right wing mainstream political party and all vote for aweful left wingers. Unionist at least vote consistently right wing even if it is cucked by our standards, the DUP is the most right wing party that has MPs in the UK, more so even than UKIP. But honestly.

Oh god yes i hate those shows. But of all the shows denigrating poor white working class people the worst is Jeremy Kyle. Yes the people on it are awful, But hey are our people and what they need is real help whether they like it or not. Not to be paraded around on that show. its like human bear baiting.

It relies on an unemployment much higher than 1% so that they can compress wages and then fire people before they qualify for benefits, etc.

The rootless shekel grubbers benefit but many costs are socialized i.e. passed onto taxpayer while profits are privatized. It's a fucking scam and if our governments weren't run largely by jews, corporations wouldn't get away with it.

I've been in the welfare system, hated it. I was put in these 'courses' to teach us common sense and I was forced to socialise with aspects of the community I didn't like on both sides. Both perfectly happy to scam the system while I was literally trying and a few others too. To be honest I didn't notice. My county has an Irish majority so I sort of expected mostly catholics but no-one hassles the prods apart from banter the odd time. You're right about the left-winger bit. I know of two Irish right-wingers who idolise Trump and Farrage, would vote Identity Ireland if they could, including myself. There's a few others floating about. Irish are simple farmers tending to their memes, a lot of us die off in a famine, irish stop taking shit from landlords jewing them all the time, colonialists sent in, Wolfetone became popular 'what do we do guys?' We'll do what the country closest to us was doing to overthrow their rich bullies, the French revolution! Tans sent in, lets to the same! Brits sent in again, Let's do the same! worked last time. Thanks unionists. You're the best. I'm concerned that you haven't denounced Israel.

Not in that order but yeah.

...

Welfare should only exist for tards and other people who are legitimately unable to function in society, and it must be limited to actual citizens of the nation providing the welfare. Spreading your legs for a hundred different men and popping out ten fatherless kids or simply having brown skin should not qualify you for a check every month. In the US, the Dems claimed in the 1960s that poor people could pick themselves up out of poverty if just given a helping hand. The result of the welfare policy they instituted, which is simply giving money to absolutely anyone and everyone under a certain income level, has been fucking disastrous. I highly recommend Thomas Sowell's books for a history lesson in the destruction of black America by welfare queens and their fatherless little shits. Also, if Europe would stop giving rapefugees free money, housing, clothing, food, and pamphlets on how to seduce European women, they would immediately stop coming.

Indeed, they deliberately portray them in the worst possible light and select people with luxury items or pets to cause rage in those who work but can't afford them.
Classic internecine, white on white D&C.

Yep, I realized that after I posted. 5% is probably closer.
Exactly this, in the UK the welfare paid to companies is called "working tax credit", the govt tops up the wages to a livable level in order to allow corporations to operate while paying less than the amount required for life.

oh i am an anti-semite and don't like isreal. the unionist affinity for them comes from mainly the Irish support for Palestine and identifying with being the victims of an insurgency by a native group. and feeling like a sense of connection to people that are under siege as that is how a lot of unionist felt for a long time. And its a theme that goes back to the siege of londonderry in the ulster protestant psyche. But the jews arn't actually similar to our situation except superficially and i don't feel any personal affinity to them.

Welfare is a tool of (((democracy))) used to keep a class of voters on the government payroll with the only job requirement being showing up to vote for them every four years. It's literally a method for democratic parties to pay for a sector of society to vote for them. These things all came about from jewish zombie FDR, who re-engineered the state for total control by the left, by paying a class of voters to support his government. As one of the most powerful tools of political judaism, welfare has been further used over the years to break apart families and encourage mothers to get pregnant without marrying and encourage minorities to reproduce at high rates.

Western communities were much better taken care of for thousands of years before (((welfare))).

then make it a criminal offense to do so

the government forces them to choose between drugs and food. if they insist on picking drugs, they get to live and eventually die with their choice.

first step is to stop making excuses for your degeneracy

Do you think all the rapefugees would have made a beeline for Germany and Sweden if they didn't have such generous welfare packages? Even welfare for just citizens usually incentivises those who should not be breeding to shit out kids on the taxpayers dime/replaces the role of the male breadwinner so women can act out even more.
A lot of the problems welfare presents can be nullified by the return of the strong family unit.

I'd rather have no welfare. Welfare is leftist garbage. If that's not an option politically, a negative income tax is the next best thing. If you make under $X/year, the government multiplies the amount you make - you have to work to get paid. If the margins are constructed properly such that there is a smooth transition to regular income tax (i.e. no welfare traps where you earn less overall if you advance a tax bracket), I don't see much harm that could come out of it.

Welfare should exist, but only for white people.

The problem with welfare/disability/unemployment/etc. is that people who shouldn't be getting it have it practically handed over to them without question, while people that do need it are forced to jump through innumerable hoops to prove they need to get it or to continue to receive it.

My State recently (2011-ish) enacted a lifetime four-year cap on welfare benefits. As soon as it went into effect, because something like 30,000 people were going to get booted, it got tied up in court because muh feelings or whatever. I guess the program is active now, as this article relates.

mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/04/saving_dollars_not_people_chan.html
archive.is/lzVz7

It's complicated. On the one hand, it is terribly dysgenic to divert resources from the fit to the unfit to help them reproduce. We need mechanisms to keep the gene pool pruned, or we will soon be extinct. As we've done a good job of eliminating all the natural ones, we need to either reverse course on that or introduce artificial replacements. One way or another, the bottom tier of people who can't make it in society shouldn't be breeding.
The other side of the coin is the dire problem: we need less and less people ever year to produce shit. Were reaching the same point in manufacturing that we did in agriculture when it was mechanized: we don't need much labor anymore. A tiny minority produce all the food we need, and soon a tiny minority will produce all the goods we need (and can afford). It's hard to picture a happy ending to this story.

Keep welfare but require that all folks who have it to hand in a monthly copy of a job application they submitted or monthly income of said job (if they are not severely physically impaired of course).
That way you solve two problems at once, unemployment and irresponsible use of welfare.

That doesn't work. In Aus, dolebludgers apply for jobs that they know they have no chance of getting - eg. applying for a job as a lawyer when they haven't even finished high school.

user's plan would work, since it would destroy niggers as a voting block. Welfare recipients wouldn't be able to vote for gibs, and the thing would continually keep itself in check.

To get rid of welfare, you would have to give the people a land and to teach them to grow their own food and to have children, who would take care of them when they are old - that's the way it used to be, but for that the whole system would have to change, it would make people too self-sufficient for the parasitical kikes to allow this.

JUST GAS IT

Yeah sure.

For people under 18 who have no parents to provide for them / parents who are incapable of it, yes. For people over 18 there should be some kind of government-work for people who can't provide for themselves, either military service, cleaning streets, guarding the wall, delivering food to the elderly etc, depending on their abilities for which they are given food and housing in return but not much more.

This is assuming an all white and spiritually healthy society of course. In which case there would be almost no people who want to leech anyway.

Yes, but regulate the shit out of it and punish its abusers.

Mandatory employment for one. I see a lot of filthy streets in cities and a lot of people on welfare complaining they have no jobs. Force them to work and report to a "welfare officer" that checks their work and ensures they show up. Miss X days of work or do a shit job and you lose your welfare and are unable to apply for it for another 5 years. America could become a very clean place like this and it will forever dispel the meme of "oh we just can't find jobs", shattering leftist talking points when welfare niggers and spics dont show up for work.

Another thing that must be done is to prevent children being born to get more welfare and there must be a cutoff point, something like "can't be on welfare for 2 years, must wait X years to reapply for welfare after having been on it."

Yes, see above.


It should be the only socialist policy but it must be supplanted with actual work, not merely given away. Dirty streets? Get some welfare niggers to sweep em. Trash everywhere? Get the welfare spics to pick it up. Community gets something back for welfare, Trump implementing this would also mean higher job rate making his presidency look more successful. No one can call this racist either since it would primarily help blacks and spics get shit tier jobs but still jobs.

Same way, Whites only nation would mean welfare whites have to do some work that helps their community to keep their welfarebucks. Parasitism is met with cutting of funds that sustain them.

KANGS OF LIBERIA
BY B Garrison


Once upon a time
filler
they became kangs
filler
*smacks lips* White people Help us !
THE END

It is a sad day on Holla Forums indeed..

the glass is half full Muh nigga

That's it? Are they counting the poles too are just people outside of EU?

Is this an edit? Because if no, how do these bottom tier writers manage to be spot on on politics, but only when they're writing the villain? I can't imagine someone being capable of formulating this, without to some degree coming to the realization that the words they put in red skull's mouth are true.

Yes, no one need monetary incentive to rape

...

Charity
Charity
Nope
Yes. Charity doesn't give money just because the person doesn't have any. It must meet some conditions, one of which is… bad luck.
Government simply buys votes through welfare… take it out and you'll incentivize success, innovation and risk taking. Otherwise, you'll take away money from those who work and give it to people that don't know what to do with it… not to mention that money's journey from the source to the destination is highly inefficient.

rape it forward

Charities are being overburdened right now in trying to provide precisely because they're (1) voluntary and (2) mostly scams. Welfare isn't working because there's one rule for blacks and others, where no questions are asked, and another for Whites, that governments want less of and deliberately push them onto charities.

A properly conditional welfare system wouldn't have any negative effects on innovation or entrepreneurship, so long as the conditions are sensible like providing a certain income along with either a back-to-work programme or some sort of labour service. The only negative effect such a system would have is permanently triggering libertarian types who want to abolish (rather than limit) government taxation and spending to set society on the road to a utopia of anarchism and free association.

Maybe the ones helping muds are overburdened, but it's unlikely to try to donate to some orphanage (I've done that recently, like 2 weeks ago) and not have a prompt and respectful service.
Not all of them are voluntary. I never gave money to so-called "voluntary charities", yes, those are scams. They say like 90% of what you give them is "operational cost" or some shit. I know what you're referring to, but you can easily avoid them. You can't avoid the government…

The british have that… they paid something like $50k a year for successful cases…


The issue with your logic is simple: single failure domain. In other words… say some commie grabs the reigns of power, what then? You're fucked. The government should have little to no involvement in the economy and welfare is one of those things that just don't work, regardless of the composition of your society. The worst aspects of that community will be propped up and the people who actually worked will be… well in the same situation they're in now, but they won't pay for niggers to breed, but low-IQ whites.

I am of the opinion that if I can take my money away from someone (which is not the case with the state), they'll have the motivation to do better. That's why I give money to charities. If I get the faintest hint of the vaguest wiff of them scamming me, I'll give my money to someone else. And it's not just me, it's all the people I know who donate. Just to note, I only give money to charities that help all white orphanages and veterans.

Welfale should be replaced with a Guaranteed Community Employment program. There will always be a job to improve the community. If needed, a job will be created for your skill and ability with the ultimate aim of community improvement. All the funds currently used for welfare are to be used instead as wages for community improvement positions. Part of the committee will have to constantly brainstorm things to improve and should include improvement ideas from other citizens. Potential jobs could be stuff like cleaning streets, shop front windows, road and sidewalk maintenance, community vegetable gardens, painting, but the sky is the limit. The better the brainstorming the better the program will do. The main thing is there will be no rewards unless labor is performed.

Insentivizing sloth, mediocrity, inability, these are the reasons welfare is a burden. Instead reward productive labor.

Because we live in nation-states. By definition, governments are the basis of the economy in a state since they control the money supply.

No, they don't. They subsidize failing companies with slave labour internships to massage employment statistics so the free market credit agencies don't have to admit that their economy's fucked, like every other European service-based economy.

"Successful cases", IIRC, are usually people who get out of the intern treadmill, and then have to subsidize the rest who continuously move from internship to apprenticeship until they give up altogether.

Say some company becomes a monopoly in a libertarian system. You're just as fucked.

The ideological allowance, and even demand, for revolution against incompetent, treasonous or corrupt governments is what keeps such an all-powerful system in line so long as the people remain motivated, armed and close to their national roots. Projecting blame onto the system (assuming that it is fit for purpose, and doesn't have inherent flaws) for the actions of corrupt/weak politicians is just a rhetorical trick of claiming to empower people while relying on the fact that they're still apathetic to exploitation - as if they weren't apathetic/weak, then the hypothetical commie could never have come to power to begin with.

Literally not possible unless you go full retard and privatise/abolish
and everything else that in some way takes part in a flow of money from central government to employee, and then to a store. Not to mention, that's a one way trip to actual anarchism - until one subsumes the role of government by providing pensions, benefits and everything else in an attempt to lure workers or simply gain good PR, and you end up full circle in the same model of democratic corporate governance we have today and the only thing you get out of it is the end of the nation state. And (((who))) would want that?

Explain how the "worst aspects" could be propped up in a welfare system that is neither universal nor unconditional? It is identical to the charity model of only providing what's both beneficial and sustainable in the long-term.

The only arguments remaining are that: in a democratic system expansion of the provision is nearly inevitable in times of economic success and a contraction when necessary is not nearly as likely; and then the faith-based libertarian line of free market efficiency and the evils of government interference, which expects the adherents to ignore that the same people who turned government into an over-bloated, corrupt and unrepresentative entity are the ones who corrupted and expanded it - Jews - and want them to believe that those are inherent features in any sort of hierarchy with enough scope so they can escape culpability.

Charities might possibly provide better service, I think most likely as a further de-centralisation and extension of local government, but it's wishful thinking to think that can extrapolate from that scale up to a disparate, country-wide problem. Not least because welfare is handled by bureaucrats mostly interested in saving money and charities essentially get their money from people looking to virtue signal. It seems to that there wouldn't be much gain in spending efficiency since larger charities (the kind that would replace government provision) would be especially inclined towards thinking that they can just guilt more people into giving, like every food for Africa charity ever.

If you're going to stick with the charity approach, then if anything, probably a very localised system, at the town level or lower, would be the best at determining need and soliciting fair funds - but that's something that could be done just as easily by local government bodies with more budget autonomy, and some sort of periodic auditing to remove the tendency of such bodies to waste their entire budget for fear of it being cut the next year.

Private charities. The core idea is to make sure that the people who pay the cost of charity can withhold their support at any time. This way, the charities have to make sure their resources go to the right recipients, or once the word goes out their funding will disappear overnight.


Charities are being overburdened because everybody thinks that since they pay gargantuan taxes to uphold a gargantuan welfare system, the needy are surely being taken care of already. Private charity spending is inversely proportional to public welfare.

All monopolies since the dawn of time were enforced by governments.

I take it you've never been to a country with a nationalized health care system… hint: it sucks, most people avoid it at all cost and see it as a place where you go to die, not a place where you go to get well

Probably the most retarded thing ever, state run education is highly inefficient and teach nothing about the real world.

No need for that.

Politicians have no clue what's beneficial and sustainable. If they did, they wouldn't be politicians, but would run their own businesses.

Actually no, you can have multiple charities, each specializing in some area of interest to donors.

No need for large charities. It's like saying that you only have one search engine on the internet… jewgle.

As for jews controlling the economy, read "Democracy the god that failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe… and just in case you will not, here's an excerpt: "There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society."

Yet another special snowflake Libertarian who doesn't want to admit what their ideology actually entails.
fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/

Before you go, "No, my specifically infallible form of Libertarianism doesn't allow this", you should provide an actual critique to show that Libertarianism isn't an inherently materialist-globalist and Jewish system.

There is literally nothing wrong with open borders as long as niggers and shitskins get shot shortly after crosing them.

Why the fuck is this thread ankered?

It's a fucking important question for any system of government

Libertarianism is all about private property. If you want to keep nigger pets on your private property, you can, but only if you keep them there.
Otherwise, you'll be kicked out of civilized society. How do you not see that all kikes push for precisely the opposite of this?

Probably because nearly significant Libertarian philosopher is/was a Jew and what you're arguing is

To use your hyperbole, those nigger slaves price would price native labour out of competition and erode the living conditions of everyone else. Otherwise, you could keep them in your basement and what you're then arguing for "dude weed, why can't I be a degenerate if it doesn't harm anybody?".

And also
Equating private property with personal liberty, and unconstrained liberty at that, is more kike rhetoric to get you to provide moral equivalency to degenerates for fear of the evil socialist big government taking away your house in the morning for wrongthink.

Actual authoritarian, "socialist" states have worked extremely well without needing to impose a reign of terror or, unduly curtail liberties, on anybody.

Look at the problems we face today because of jews. The main one is centralization of power… I don't see why you'd be a fan of that even in the absence of jews. Do you think people are uncorruptible?

Only if people choose to exchange money for your product and if you're accepted at all by the community there (probably not going to happen).

Name one great thing created (not copied) in the absence of private property.
Which would that be… and before you mention anything in Europe, you should know that Europe has a lower innovation and growth rate than a lot of states in South America.

Just to make it clear, Libretarianism can only work in white societies. The others are either too obedient (east Asians) or too stupid (everyone else).
We thrive in competition and adversity. We are the best when we're pushed or when we have our backs to the wall. We can channel our testosterone into creating stuff… even if that stuff is destroying other stuff.

Centralisation of power contributes to economic inefficiency and theoretically enables more repressive governments, ignoring that you need effective and not just theoretical control to repress a population, but it's not an evil in and of itself.

Consumers already have that option today. See how many of them are buying American, or wherever, or refusing to patronise companies that outsource labour. How many of Apple's customers care that their iToys are made in sweatshops that need to take active anti-suicide measures? Virtually none.

Ignoring that the only way to solve that is by indoctrinating people into nationalism, thus breaking the NAP, it seems that people are always going to take the option that is most economical - which is pretty much the basis of free-market capitalism, so it seems like wishful thinking to assert from your position that people will choose what is best for their community rather than themselves. And of course, once the genie's out of the bottle, everyone else has to globalise or run slave plantations to remain competitive.

That's not just theory by the way, look at the decline of small-scale Roman farmers against the Equestrian Latifundia staffed with slaves and how that led directly to the Marian military reforms, as not enough men of means remained to staff an army and equip themselves.

I hope you just misinterpreted me, but no, there isn't a simple dichotomy between the USSR and the Free Libertarian State.

Theoretical Communism.

Actual Communism.

Virtually every authoritarian and democratic society, to various degrees.

Libertarianism.

Coincidentally, South America is where the benevolent authoritarian trend continued after it left Europe. You know exactly what I'm referring to.

Libertarianism destroys white societies by economic means, and more to the point, the argument that Libertarianism can only work in X societies undermines itself because Libertarianism is an internationalist ideology - the whole world needs to be Libertarian, if not stateless altogether, for actual Libertarianism to be achieved.

You still haven't refuted this
fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/
Either Libertarianism is, or has become, a big-tent ideology and thus you can actually disagree on borders, or it isn't, and you need to call yourself a Paleocon so you can put forward a good-faith argument. Otherwise you're using economic theory (be it good or bad) as a trojan horse to begin in radically different conceptions of society itself.

*Centralisation of power is also not a simple matter of yes or no. The US theoretically allows great autonomy to its states; Switzerland is composed of highly democratised, decentralized cantons; in some European countries the only authority your local government has is determining where the speed cameras go and when the bins are collected; the UK has been trending towards devolution, general decentralization and possibly even breakup ever since Tony Blair got elected, etc.

And then you can move on to theoretical structures where decision making is radically decentralized down to the lowest levels while defence and policing remain absolutely under federal control, thus leaving the "means of oppression" centralized. The fear of the centralization of power is just a baseless meme with by people with ulterior motives towards government as it stands wherever they're campaigning. What's appropriate and what isn't is greatly dependent on local culture and external problems, and thus decentralization is not automatically going to be a good thing.

don't let them use it at all, what right would some dunecoon have to come to a country just to wait for their citizenship and collect wellfare that they or their family never paid taxes for?