However, after the industrial revolution, people lived in towns and workers did not receive enough income to pay for all their needs. With every increase of income disparity the need for welfare increases. Very few people choose actively to live off welfare, but instead require welfare in order to subsist, or at least with some degree of comfort.
With due respect, you may be a bit misguided here. The industrial revolution created MORE wealth, for MORE people. The very reason peasants came in from the fields to the cities was because the dirty factory job, miserable though it may be, provided a higher standard of living than did the fields. If that were not true, why would anyone move in the first place?
Further, income disparity will always occur due to simple math. If a rich man and poor man both increase their wealth 10%, the "gap" will still grow. So what? Both are still better off, and indeed as the income disparity rises, you find that those at the bottom still tend to be improving their lot in life. Case in point: a poor family in America has a car, two TV's, refrigeration, running water, soap, food, and an Xbox.
Claiming that people "need" welfare is disingenuous, because you cannot define what "need" means. Not to mention that is a disturbing and immoral act to steal from one man in order to be generous to another. If you wish to help those who are less fortunate than you, please do so with your own money, or convince others voluntarily to help. Don't steal property and then pretend to be charitable with it...
Yes, I agree that the industrial revolution created more wealth, however at least in England, farmers were intentionally displaced. An agricultural revolution occurred during the 18th century. Instead of crop-rotation which had been the norm, enclosure of fields which reduced the amount of land was applied, in order to increase yield. Capitalists petitioned the Parlaiment who made laws. "The first enclosure act was passed in 1710 but was not enforced until the 1750s. In the ten years between 1750 and 1760, more than 150 acts were passed and between 1800 and 1810, Parliament passed more than 900 acts of enclosure." (
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture17a.html) So many peasants were forced from the land to the cities to work in factories. Without this the industrial revolution would not have played out the way that it did. This information is not disseminated in school classes. I am not arguing that the industrial revolution was not beneficial to society, which it most certainly was. What I am arguing is that society became much more unequal as a consequence of the industrial revolution.
However, you are correct about the income disparity, of course the disparity can increase while both sets of people are better off. We certainly disagree on the need or unnecessarity of welfare. With needs I mean funds to feed oneself and one's family, to educate one's children, to afford health treatment when one and one's family is ill. In many countries these absolute needs are not fulfilled. If a more equal distribution of assets existed, there would be no need for welfare. As to stealing; the far greater share of stealing has been perpetrated on the working class by the capitalist class ever since the invention of capitalism.
I know that we are about to enter into a discussion on Obama's health care legislation, so I wish to point out a few viewpoints before you present your arguments. I am aware of the fact that Ron Paul used to be a practicing doctor, and that he used to treat patients for free if they could not afford to pay, rather than ask for funds from his state (I believe it was the state, maybe county?) Paul is of the view that government interference in all spheres of life is pervasive and to give government control over health care is to extend the obtrusiveness of govenment to the detriment of freedom and liberty. Having read parts of the health care bill, and also reading extensively (at least for a non-US citizen) informed peoples' views of the health care bill, I entirely agree with Paul. The bill was literally written by the insurance industry. However, in Europe and Sweden, free health care is the norm. Although as of lately, many people do take out private insurances, due to reduced government services. Rich or poor, if one suffers from health problems, one is in nead of treatment. The have's should not deny the have not's basic needs, at least not in a somewhat equitable society.
In Sweden, different authorities are barred in law from accessing data from other authorities, which ensures privacy. At least this used to be the case; during the beginning of the 21st century these separations are being removed, one by one. Of course it is for our benefits, is what they claim - which is entirely false; it is of course the same process takning place all over the world. A police state. If I were to draw a quick timeline from capitalism it would be:
Capitalism - democracy (partially) - welfare state (partly to promote the concepts of democracy) - aristocracy (although always in existence, much more prevailing) - socialist capitalism for the rich - police state.
I appologise for gearing off-topic, it is not my intention to divert from any arguments on the original topic. I am most willing to continue a debate on the original topic.
