Bebel Without a Clause

Bebel Without a Clause

Monday, June 6, 2011

Konsep 'Welfare State' PUKISem (dulu PAS) lebih merugikan dari mengungtungkan. PAS Sudah buta hati.

Sedikit sebanyak tentang konsep 'Negeri Kebajikan' yang dipetik dari wikipedia.
Kalau dari performance data kerajaan BN, konsep ini telah lama dipraktikkan oleh kerajaan BN namun mungkin dengan kebengappan mereka yang dikatakan bijakpandai dari PUKISem (dulu PAS) yang hanya tahu berkata tapi tidak pernah berdiri dibumi nyatakan, ungappan 'negara kebajikan ini hanya dari segi nama sahaja, sebagaiman negeri Islam Kelantan yang dikatakan sebagai serambi mekah tapi berkeliaran dengan pelacur2 yang tanpa segan silu berniaga didepan bangunan kerajaan negeri.

Selam berpuluh tahun memerintah, satu masjid pun tak dibina dalam menyebar syiar Islam dan sistem perjambananan yang amat kotor.

Apa taknya dengan MB Nik Aziz yang masih mengamalkan rasuah dan kronisma dalam pemberian lesen balak kepada menantu dan anak2nya. (Lain kali saya akan ceritakan pengalaman rakan saya (ahli PUKIsem) yang di tendang sana sini dan berjumpa dengan Nik Aziz-Nak tahu apa kata Nik Aziz, nanti saya akan ceritakan dalam blog posting yang lain)

Nik Aziz, memang sudah terang lagi bersuluh, adalah musuh nombor satu Islam. Bersama2 pemimpin PUKISem yang lain, mereka ini jamgankan mengikut pegang tali Allah tapi melakukan sebaliknya dan lebih utamakan perbalahan dari perpaduan Ummah.

Dengan kenyataan yang bengap dari Hadi Awang dan Anwarista yang lain, hanya satu yang kita boleh katakan disini, PAS bukan lah dipimpin oleh mereka2 yang berprogresif malah nampaknya mereka2 ini sebenarnya telah menerajangkan PAS (kini PUKISem) kepada 60 tahun kebelakang dan ditambahkan pula dengan citarasa meliwat.

Memang benar kalau ALLAH hendak butakan hati mereka, ALLAH dapa melakukannya dengan sekejap sahaja.
Critics of the welfare state argue that such a system will make citizens dependent on the system and less inclined to work. However, certain studies indicate there is no association between economic performance and welfare expenditure in developed countries,[25] and that there is no evidence for the contention that welfare states impede progressive social development. R. E. Goodin et al., in The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism,[26] compares the United States, which spends relatively little on social welfare (less than 17 percent of GDP), with other countries which spend considerably more. This study claims that on some economic and social indicators the United States performs worse than the Netherlands, which has a high commitment to welfare provision.
However, the United States, until the financial crisis of 2007–2010 which brought a significant fall in GDP, led most welfare states on certain economic indicators, such as GDP per capita, with the notable exception of Scandinavian countries, where Norway for example has significantly higher GDP per capita.[27] Until the recession of 2008 brought about a significant rise in unemployment in the USA, the United States also had a low unemployment rate and a high GDP growth rate, at least in comparison to other developed countries (its growth rate, however, is lower than many welfare states which grow from a lower base and may benefit from recent economic liberalizations, further U.S. GDP per capita is sometimes 20-30% higher than that of welfare states).[27] The United States also had led some welfare states in the ownership of consumer goods. For example, compared to some welfare states, it has more TVs per capita,[28] more personal computers per capita,[29] and more radios per capita.[30]
Socialists criticize welfare state programs as concessions made by the capitalist class in order to divert the working class and middle class away from wanting to pursue a completely new socialist organization of the economy and society, for which it had been historically used in Germany by Bismarck along with his anti-socialist laws. Furthermore, socialists believe social programs are an attempt to "patch up" the ineffective capitalist market economy, therefore only treating the symptoms rather than the cause. By implementing public or cooperative ownership of the means of production, socialists believe there will be no need for a welfare state.[31] Marxists further argue that welfare states and modern social democratic policies limit the incentive system of the market by providing things such as minimum wages, unemployment insurance, taxing profits and reducing the reserve army of labor, resulting in capitalists having little incentive to invest; in essence, social welfare policies cripple the capitalist system and its incentive system, the only solution being a socialist economic system.[32]
Another criticism characterizes welfare as theft of property or forced labor (i.e. slavery). This criticism is based upon the classical liberal human right to obtain and own property, wherein every human being owns his body, and owns the product of his body's labor (i.e. goods, services, land, or money). It follows that the removal of money by any state or government mechanism from one person to another is argued to be theft of the former person's property or a requirement to perform forced labor for the benefit of others, and thus is a violation of his property rights or his liberty, even if the mechanism was legally established by a democratically elected assembly.[citation needed] In April, 2010, the Associated Press reported that 47% of US households will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009.[33] In his book, The Servile State, English political writer Hilaire Belloc makes his case for the natural instability of pure capitalism and discusses how (as he believes) attempts to reform capitalism will lead almost inexorably to an economy where state regulation has removed the freedom of capitalism and thereby replaced capitalism with what he calls the Servile State. According to Belloc, the Servile State shares with ancient slavery the fact that positive law (as opposed to custom or economic necessity by themselves) dictates that certain people will work for others, who likewise must take care of them. Ergo, according to Belloc, the welfare state may leads to a kind of serfdom where one group works to support another group that does not work.
A third criticism is that the welfare state allegedly provides its dependents with a similar level of income to the minimum wage. Critics argue that fraud and economic inactivity are apparently quite common now in the United Kingdom and France[citation needed]. Some conservatives in the UK claim that the welfare state has produced a generation of dependents who, instead of working, rely solely upon the state for income and support; even though assistance is only legally available to those unable to work. The welfare state in the UK was created to provide certain people with a basic level of benefits in order to alleviate poverty, but that as a matter of opinion has been expanded to provide a larger number of people with more money than the country can ideally afford. Some feel that this argument is demonstrably false: the benefits system in the UK provides individuals with considerably less money than the national minimum wage, although people on welfare often find that they qualify for a variety of benefits, including benefits in-kind, such as accommodation costs which usually make the overall benefits much higher than basic figures show.[34][35]
A fourth criticism of the welfare state is that it results in high taxes. This is usually true,[citation needed] as evidenced by places like Denmark (tax level at 48.9% of GDP in 2007)[36] and Sweden (tax level at 48.2% of GDP in 2007).[36]
A fifth criticism of the welfare state is the belief that welfare services provided by the state are more expensive and less efficient than the same services would be if provided by private businesses. In 2000, Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell published two papers stating that any social policy based on such concepts as justice or fairness would result in an economy which is Pareto inefficient.[citation needed] Anything which is supplied free at the point of consumption would be subject to artificially high demand, whereas resources would be more properly allocated if provision reflected the cost.[citation needed]
The most extreme criticisms of states and governments are made by anarchists, who believe that all states and governments are undesirable and/or unnecessary. Some socialist anarchists believe that while social welfare gives a certain level of independency from the market and individual capitalists, it creates dependence to the state, which is the institution that, according to this view, supports and protects capitalism in the first place. Nonetheless, according to Noam Chomsky, "social democrats and anarchists always agreed, fairly generally, on so-called 'welfare state measures'" and "Anarchists propose other measures to deal with these problems, without recourse to state authority."[37] Some socialist anarchists believe in stopping welfare programs only if it means abolishing government and capitalism as well.[38]

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive