[freefaler]

A lot of people forget that going hungry is the default state of not doing a thing. The super rich and socially progressive societies redistribute the taxes they levy on the productive people to help the people who can not (elderly, ill) or won't (lazy bastards) work. It might be a better deal for the society as a whole, to offset the cirme that would ensue if there isn't any social net.

A lion in the plains of Africa is not entitled to a dinner, the farmer in not entitled to a crop yield. It is super rare that people can't do anything to better themselves and get more for their own skills or execution. Any buisness owner will gladly share a percentage of profit you generate for them if you can show them you're indeed generating such profit.

If you're in DPRK or Cuba then you'd need to check your free-market priviledge of having a market for your skills.

[WalterBright]

> to offset the cirme that would ensue if there isn't any social net.

The recent news from Minnesota suggests that the social safety net is a magnet for astonishing levels of theft.

[freefaler]

It's not the social safety, but the bad enforcement of the law. When bad acts are not punished, this is the problem that occurs.

Some social systems like in Israel if you're ablebodied you are given a public service job, like cleaning the park and etc... so you aren't entitled to a check for doing nothing.

South Africa hasn't any meaningful social net and the wealthy people live in special "high security" enclaves with additional guards and fenced perimeters. If you have a lot of hungry people on the street they will be forced to survive somehow and you'd get more crime.