Ebenezer Scrooge: Conservative or Liberal?

[Traditio]

It is the latter that shows he was part of the problem, creating the poor by working Bob hard and paying him less than he was worth.

That's conservativism/capitalism/big business.

Of course Bob helped in that by remaining there instead of finding a different job with someone who knew what good help was worth.

All of the other business owners might have been exactly like Scrooge. Scrooge's dead business partner was.

 

[vegascowboy]

All of the other business owners might have been exactly like Scrooge. Scrooge's dead business partner was.

They weren't. Scrooge's own nephew, Fred, is one example. Fezziwig is another.

 

[Spitfire]

He was classically liberal. Taken to a grotesque extreme because of his totally warped sense of ethics.

 

[vegascowboy]

Bob Cratchit is a perfect example of somebody to whom no welfare was available and therefore had to work, even though his employer exploited him horribly and he had a sick child who he could barely afford to keep alive. If there were a welfare state then he'd have the option of refusing to work for Scrooge unless he were paid and treated better, but as it was - it was submit to his boss' unreasonable demands or allow his family to die.

Alas, but no. Bob did, in fact, have alternatives. The welfare state in 19th century England may have been underdeveloped when compared with that of today (the government had only just started getting involved), there were programs available to him. It can be assumed (as much as one can make asumptions based on the thoughts of fictional characters) that he was aware of these. Bob could have sought help from any of these institutions. More than likely the outcome would have been less than desireble. His children would have been removed from his family and place in work houses or orphanages, but they would have been cared for.

Other portions of the story (the conversation between husband and wife that Scrooge overhears while in the company of the Ghost of Christmas Present, for example) show that people would rather work than rely on handouts. Even if it meant their own death.

I honestly don't understand how you can persist in holding the viewpoint that most people are on benefits because they're happy and comfortable with things that way.

Perhaps they are not comfortable with things that way, but they are not uncomfortable enough to want to change. And by change, I mean seek meaningful employment and then WORK to stay employeed. Not everyone is this way, of course. There are those who genuinly need assistance. Far too many, however, rely solely on government programs because they do not care to change their situation.

Incidentally, I also don't really understand why opponents to welfare make such a distinction between 'the state' and 'the people'. Absent excessive corruption or elitism, a democratic state is made of the people; it's just a particular way of organising them.

Yes, it's called a Republic. There are no true democracies. They simply cannot exist.

If you're a taxpayer, voting that the government increases taxation in order to fund benefits for the poor is, in effect, giving money to the poor yourself, albeit with a greater national effect.

And greater government control. The last thing we need to do is hand over money to the government and expect them to use it appropriately. It's never been done.

Finally, I don't think you've yet shown how Scrooge's pre-ghost values differ at all from those of a right-wing libertarian capitalist.

Patience, grasshopper.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because I believe in the goodness of people. I believe that, when those safety nets are removed, people will saddle up and go to work. They will take a step out of their comfortable surroundings into the darkness and find the way lit before them. Many already do.

VC, what makes you think it's "comfortable" to be on benefits in the first place? And why, if you believe in the goodness of people, would it require the lifeline to be removed before people actually seek work? What if there's a lack of jobs or a significant time lapse before employment is gained? What are folk supposed to do in the meantime? Beg for handouts from 'society' and hope for charity for some food to eat? Loads of people in the UK lost their jobs due to the latest recession and I was one of them. If the benefits system wasn't in place then I would have had no money to eat once savings were depleted, no money for rent and would have ended up on the streets.

You seem to equate a lack of employment with laziness as the starting point rather than part.

I do not in any way see Dickens' 'Scrooge' advocating the abolition of a safety net for the poor post visitation. Quite the opposite....

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This is one of the most fresh threads in years. :up:

 

[some other dude]

How can we steer it towards a discussion of homosexuality/pedophilia/trinity/calvinism? :think:

 

[genuineoriginal]

How can we steer it towards a discussion of homosexuality/pedophilia/trinity/calvinism? :think:

 

[genuineoriginal]

what makes you think it's "comfortable" to be on benefits in the first place?

I know a man who has been on benefits his whole life, and uses that as an excuse to play computer games, chat with internet friends, and watch cartoons all day. He only complains when he is expected to do a sink load of dishes in less than 10 hours and when he doesn't have enough money to buy new computer games.

He would never think of begging for money from strangers, but has no problem accepting it when the government hands it to him and he has no problem expecting that his family will support his lifestyle if the government stops handing him money.

 

[MrRadish]

Alas, but no. Bob did, in fact, have alternatives. The welfare state in 19th century England may have been underdeveloped when compared with that of today (the government had only just started getting involved), there were programs available to him. It can be assumed (as much as one can make asumptions based on the thoughts of fictional characters) that he was aware of these. Bob could have sought help from any of these institutions. More than likely the outcome would have been less than desireble. His children would have been removed from his family and place in work houses or orphanages, but they would have been cared for.

A cursory look at conditions in a Victorian workhouse reveal 'cared for' to be rather an inaccurate way of putting it. In any case, the fact of the matter is that he considered that working for Scrooge in spite of being exploited and treated with utter contempt was the best option available to him. The fact is, Bob and the real workers he was based on believed that being treated like dirt and being virtually robbed of their labour was the most tolerable option available to them. I don't see how that's a good thing. I don't see how it's better than people not working until they find a job that they can bear.

Other portions of the story (the conversation between husband and wife that Scrooge overhears while in the company of the Ghost of Christmas Present, for example) show that people would rather work than rely on handouts. Even if it meant their own death.

... Which is a terrible thing, especially when you consider the sheer amount of wealth that the factory owners and other bourgeoisie (you can't criticise me for using Marxist terms as this was exactly the period he was writing about!) were accruing through paying unfairly low wages to their employees.

Perhaps they are not comfortable with things that way, but they are not uncomfortable enough to want to change. And by change, I mean seek meaningful employment and then WORK to stay employeed.

What do you mean by 'meaningful employment'? And why should we be coercing people into working (needless to say, according to terms named by the owners of the means of production) with nothing short of disease, starvation and death, when we have sufficient wealth to do otherwise?

Not everyone is this way, of course. There are those who genuinly need assistance. Far too many, however, rely solely on government programs because they do not care to change their situation.

How do you know that this is the case?

Yes, it's called a Republic. There are no true democracies. They simply cannot exist.

So instead you'd replace it with what's effectively a plutocracy.

And greater government control. The last thing we need to do is hand over money to the government and expect them to use it appropriately. It's never been done.

Are you saying that no money spent by the government has been spent appropriately, or that no government has ever spent all of the money available to it appropriately? Also, what do you mean by appropriately? Also, what reason do you have to believe that the people whose money would be saved by removing welfare programs would spend it appropriately?

Patience, grasshopper.

Tum tee tum...

:juggle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I know a man who has been on benefits his whole life, and uses that as an excuse to play computer games, chat with internet friends, and watch cartoons all day. He only complains when he is expected to do a sink load of dishes in less than 10 hours and when he doesn't have enough money to buy new computer games.

He would never think of begging for money from strangers, but has no problem accepting it when the government hands it to him and he has no problem expecting that his family will support his lifestyle if the government stops handing him money.

And? Nobody's arguing that some won't abuse the system but if you take it away completely then many people will be reduced into abject poverty.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And? Nobody's arguing that some won't abuse the system but if you take it away completely then many people will be reduced into abject poverty.

Mark 14:7a For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good​

 

[Arthur Brain]

Mark 14:7a For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good​

So don't deny the poor a welfare system which allows them money to live on then. Denying the less fortunate in society funds for food would hardly be 'doing them good' would it?

 

[genuineoriginal]

So don't deny the poor a welfare system which allows them money to live on then. Denying the less fortunate in society funds for food would hardly be 'doing them good' would it?

How does taking my money from me allow me to fulfill "whensoever ye will ye may do them good?"
That sounds more like "whensoever someone else will ye must hand over your money so someone else may do them good."
:mmph:

 

[The Barbarian]

Pre-ghost:
Scrooge's assertion that the poor should die and reduce the surplus population: Conservative.

Scrooge's view of labor and business:
Conservative

Disinclination to replace governmental programs with private charity:
Liberal

Post-ghost:
View of labor and business:
Liberal

Willingness to use private charity to help the poor:
Conservative.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Pre-ghost:
Scrooge's assertion that the poor should die and reduce the surplus population: Conservative.

That is a liberal agenda.

 

[Arthur Brain]

How does taking my money from me allow me to fulfill "whensoever ye will ye may do them good?"
That sounds more like "whensoever someone else will ye must hand over your money so someone else may do them good."
:mmph:

I paid into the system for years and I didn't begrudge some of it going towards benefits. I also contributed additional money on top. It seems that people like you would deny me the same once employment was lost and would expect me to have nothing to live on.

Tell ya what GO. You devise a realistic system where the poor are taken care of by society and I'm all ears. 'GO' for it! :thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

That is a liberal agenda.

How so? By withdrawing benefits for the poor that's what you'd be enabling unless you can draw up a system whereby nobody suffers poverty, homelessness, malnutrition etc. Even with the system in place there's people who fall through the 'safety net' and end up on the streets and I don't see 'society' helping out to any major extent.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I paid into the system for years and I didn't begrudge some of it going towards benefits.

I know people that plug money into slot machines for years, and are very happy when they get some of it back.
:chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I know people that plug money into slot machines for years, and are very happy when they get some of it back.
:chuckle:

Ok, but what's that to do with anything here?