The system is broken. The "strivers vs skivers" rhetoric is a deliberate tactic pushed out through a compliant media industry to distract from the fact that the real con trick is happening at the top, rather than the bottom.
You could have said the same thing about pretty much any innovation throughout history
A lot of things good and bad have happened between 1389 and the present. To say that something that was implemented in 1389 would be necessarily good today or even in 1389 is ridiculous. Technological improvement was what improved things, not price regulations. The same argument could have been used against the adoption of democratic political systems citing the improvement in standards of living between antiquity and the Baroque period.It wouldn't be an innovation, though.
It would be a radical, reactionary move back to the past before we had it.
Most people don't think things were particularly great back then.
If you are going to make such historical claims you should provide a sourceBecause we tried it through the entire rest of history and it didn't work that way.
I thought the whole point of welfare was that the people receiving it couldn't work or were working but don't make enough? Wouldn't that just be a government job by that point?
I think it's a good idea. Even if someone is too disabled to work, they should still contribute to society somehow if they're able to.
Well, that is one way of looking at it. I respectfully disagree.I am afraid that any form of welfare state is unsustainable in the long run. The welfare state as we know it was probably only affordable when we had a long period of increasing industrial output, which we don't have anymore. I don't think we have any choice but to cut back on benefits.