All of humanity participates in a welfare system headed by a Superintendent by the name of God and is documented as such in the language and perspective of old in the biblical text of Genesis. It is a name humanity has ascribed to an idea about a presumed he, she, or it entity that supposedly interacts in various ways with all things in the Universe. Based on various dichotomously arrayed physical parameters (hot/cold, wet/dry, pain/pleasure, comfort/discomfort, loud/quiet, up/down, etc...), elaborate systems of philosophy (frequently, but not always called a religion), are developed with the imaginative notion that this supposed imposing dominant figure watches over humanity; sometimes egotistically interpreted to such a degree of over-valued self-importance as a compensatory act of concealing deeply rooted feelings of inadequacy, that people come to imagine they are selectively chosen for a given task, purpose and self (or authoritatively) -defined assignment. The embellishments of such elaborated ideologies came to issue pronouncements of what is to be recognized as good/bad (evil), right/wrong, moral/immoral, etc., sometimes contrived into one or another trichotomy such as "The Way - The Truth - And the life," or some other tripartite arranged presumed signification such as the Trinity... in order to convince oneself of one'e own self-determined propriety.
But irrespective of the many mangled theological considerations, this god (with various names, wardrobes and sychopantic groupies) has stocked the global apartment complex-community with a store of provisions that humanity has as its one and only pantry and root cellar. There are no other pantries, neighborhood stores, gardens, fields, store-houses or neighbors to borrow from. What humanity sees is all it gets... at least on planet Earth. The planet Earth is humanity's only welfare source of available commondities. Conservation efforts notwithstanding, an appreciation of the planet's ongoing over-all deteriorations set in a deteriorating planetary system and galaxy; it behooves us to acknowledge that the resources of Earth are actually non-renewable in this frame of representative head-long course of geo-physical deterioration. While human consumption can be slowed, and the instances of increased deterioration caused by human activity can be slowed; such diminishments are little more than detours because the demise of the planet is inevitable— thus requiring humanity to develop a global welfare society focused on adopting a nomadic way of life seeking sustenance in the larger wilderness of the Universe. Humanity, which can be disparargingly defined as a collection of differing cockroach species... breed without concern or consequence for the limited resources available to them. Yet because the superintendent doesn't come out and say, in so many words, what humanity should or shouldn't do, there are those that take it upon themselves to decide what god's supposed message is, or at least would be— if he, she or it was talkative in terms of a human language.
In many instances throughout history, humanity has interpreted the silence of this god to suggest he, she, or it is deaf, mute and blind... perhaps due to injury, a borned-with deformity, or confinement (other than the kidnapping, indentured servitude or slavery that human consciousness imposes on this god and expects a reciprocating compliance). Deaf and blind to so to the pleadings of so much misery and yet somehow, in different ways, resorts to the usage of so-called "signs" to speak to humanity; that one or another person claims to be able to read and interpret correctly... thereby assigning to themselves an entitlement with which they can persuade others to provide them with social deferments... that we might otherwise called social welfare benefits instead of concealing them by labeling them as social entitlements due to one's occupation.
Such arrogance is readily seen in every single government ever created by humanity whose roots lay in the antiquities of religion concocted by adherents who typically over-valued their self-worth (though frequently exhibited a contrived form of to-be-assumed humility), or otherwise sought to overcome feelings of self-doubt by behaviors that would give the impression of self-righteous dominance and mastery, such as through acts of destruction, death, rape, pillage, suppression, slave ownership, controlled indulgence, providing a pittance of alms... and the like. Whereas the silence of this god is sometimes silently interpreted to conclude that god does not exist (but can be used to develop a confidence scam against the public)... this perspective thus affords the impetus whereby a few have claimed themselves to be god's emmisary, god's go-between whose own views are used to construct an array of laws... uniquely tailored to provide the law givers with indulgences that the larger population is not entitled to. Such individuals take it upon themselves to gather about them a few like-minded others who help them assert their views upon the many others that are forced to pay for their well-being... their welfare. Once they got people to accept their role of enforcer, the forced system of pay was later called a tax to be used for everyone's benefit... provided they supplied a service to those who forced others to serve them.
All of humanity participates in a welfare program, a sort of welfare experiment taking place on the Earth. With this god as a social scientist, a social experimenter... one must wonder if humanity is going to learn how to remove itself from being dependent on the deteriorating Earth, like many welfare recipents who create generations of inter-familial cyclical welfare cultures that is difficult for individuals to get out of... even when their living space turns into a slum... a course the planet Earth is headed along. This god-created welfare mentality of humanity perpetuates itself in its institutions such as government and religion, as well as inter-family activities where either a younger or older generation manipulates their counter-part older or younger family members to provide for their welfare.
Whereas past governments, which were initially established as theological formulas of crowd control... learned how to separate many of their strictly observable theological vestments and ceremonies from non-religious activities; most governments retain basic elements of their past theological inclinations... though language is used to conceal most connections to their religious origins of influence. Nonetheless, whether the word "taxes" or "tithing" is used to describe the measure by which an institution is supported by their adherents; it is a welfare system that has been established as a surrogate welfare formula of the god—humanity duality. But it can not go unsaid that all governments and all relgions are different formulas of welfare systems.
While some are against the idea of creating a "welfare state" of dependency, they do not appreciate the fact that all of humanity is a welfare community that has not appreciably learned how to remove itself from its "mother Earth" umbilical cord... thus generation after generation clings to the same apron strings welfare model. Metaphorically, its present explorations of space are little more than the initial kicks of an infant in the womb. Yet, the arrogance of humanity has created for itself such a huge head that its passage through the birth canal may be impossible, and a C-section may cause an abrupt death of the Earth. Like animals in the wild whose life cycle requires fast maturity rates in order to make them readily viable for acquiring self-sufficiency at an accelerated rate outside the womb unlike the long dependency required by human infants; humanity's growth towards adopting a governing philosophy to get it to provision itself for leaving the Earth must be stepped up. The global welfare state of humanity must be collectively focused on building arks to get humanity away from this solar system and eventually this galaxy. Humanity must begin its long trek into the wilderness of space.
Every single government is a welfare program in and of itself. And each of them participate in the creation of other internal and external welfare programs called foreign aid, government branches, divisions, or departments. Whereas such programs typically are attached with some sort of social service duty requirements, welfare programs which target the old, young, uneducated or disabled, do not have any such requirement but usually do not receive a paycheck as a subsistence allocation. Government workers are receive their welfare subsistence in the form of a check and other benefits, but are required to perform some social service duty in return. Most government sponsored programs of welfare (typically referred to as government employment), require such recepients to perform some government function that is aimed at supplying some supportive social benefit to the public. However, in many cases, the public's return for the amount of money they "invest" in their government-as-a-welfare-program; is considerably less than provided to government employees or selective citizen cultures that may make little or no contribution.
Before continuing, let us review: God is the supplier of resources for the human recepients, thus constituting a type of global welfare system or global welfare state. The public is the supplier of resources for both religions and governments, thus constituting other types of welfare programs. (All government employees and many religious clergy are paid for by taxes or tithing. Hence, their welfare is dependent on the public.) The silence of god causes many to infere that assumed rules and regulations of god are based on what they label as Natural or Universal laws that they make up with their imagination applied to perceptions of experiences. Their perpetually unresolved insecurities seek confirmation of assumptions by the quantity or assumed quality of persons who agree with them.
Because humanity participates in a globally entrenched practice of varying welfare programs and is a behavior set into motion by a welfare oriented and welfare demanding god, humanity's attempts to remove themselves from participating in any welfare system whatsoever, so as to develop an actual self-sufficiency; becomes entangled by efforts convoluted into expressed regressions of behavior learned over a long expanse of time reaching into their very past of biological development which was itself a product of environmental dependency. With governments and religions dependent on a public for subsistence and some people calling upon these institutions to advance policies that will remove people from a social system of welfare dependency; is a philosophically hypocritical position of expectation. Imagine if you will the expectation of a dependent institution developing a means to make itself self-suffient... thus creating the character of something other than what the central core of its being is!
Since the existence of government and religion are based on controlling populations— by way of machinating an extroverted personality into an introverted preoccupation of presuming a dependency on that which is itself dependent on as a reciprocation whose acknowledgement is controverted into an illusion of assumed expectations that are never realized; its transparent redundancy becomes as superfluous as the illogicality of the intellectualism displayed with the intent of contorting simplifications abstracted into verbalizations whose instigations of confusion is obligingly embraced by those presuming an understanding, and thus agree so long as clarity of comprehension remains obscured by individualized interpretability. In other words, the cyclicity of the welfare state, tied to changing environmental conditions such as weather and geological transformations, can not adequately gain a footing on solid ground so long as globally interacting welfare institutions intentionally create social earthquakes in order to perpetuate the public's dependence on their own dependency of the public.
Addressing the problems welfare systems is greatly dependent on how we define both welfare and a problem. For example, although humanity has used various types of governments and religions to address social problems, and that some observers rightly discern that govenments and religions can cause social problems that require the adoption of one or another welfare program; typical definitions of what is meant by a government and religion do not provide us with a means to identify both governments and religions as welfare systems in and of themselves, whose ruling members very often recieve their welfare from those who are socially forced or persuaded to supply goods, services or money. Such commodities are thought to be in large supply since, for example, the large sums of money showing up in lottery or gambling pools suggests the public, at least some portions of the public, have a dollar or two that could be used to supplement tax coffers... but must be conned out of the public by usage of a gaming system that provides the illusion of being able to achieve a greater personal gain not easily seen in the typical social benefits that contributory taxes provide.
Let's look at a definition of government (Source: "Government." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013):
If we were to define government as a welfare system dedicated to political activity whose members (employees) receive their welfare payments in cash and other benefits (for completing different types of community-government service); the actual reality of the welfare situation would be more easily understood.
Now let's look at a definition of religion (Source: "Religion." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013):
Human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine. Religion is commonly regarded as consisting of a person's relation to God or to gods or spirits. Worship is probably the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are generally also constituent elements of the religious life as practiced by believers and worshipers and as commanded by religious sages and scriptures.
If we were to define religion as a welfare system dedicated to political activity whose members (employees) receive their welfare payments in cash and other benefits (for completing different types of community-religious service)... even though many members work as a volunteer; the actual reality of the welfare situation would be more easily understood.
In order for either a government or religion to provide assistance, they must be paid in some manner for their activities. Even though such employees receive their wages and/or benefits from an institution, the institution gets its funds from the contributions of the public. Hence, the public is both the welfare giver and welfare recipent, whose indivicuals may directly get what they put into the system and indirecty recieve more than they contribute, such as in the case of roads, bridges, libraries, social security, etc...
A general definition of welfare describes it as something that aids or promotes well-being, with more concerted definitions typically aligned with a reference to government programs and less often to religions. But such definitions do not describe how such an ability to provide welfare is arrived at... because in so doing, such welfare administration would have to admit that it too is the product of a welfare program typically paid for by the public. In this way, humanity has been trying to solve social problems through the usage of social welfare programs administered by other welfare programs. Social problems and how to address them continue to occur because of a misunderstanding of what is meant by welfare. The funds to be used in the administration of a welfare program typically occur as a result of an accumulated budgetary surplus due to high taxes which mislead administrations into thinking that such tax revenues will be sustained indefinitely without interruption. Both governments and religions typically increase their solvency ability by taking in and hoarding surpluses that they can use as a "rainy day fund" for bartering, even though such supluses could be used to supplement incomes and/or benefits for those attempting to provide some reciprocating social or cultural service.
Indeed, with the increasing amounts of money that the public supplies to governments and religions, it is of need for us to reconsider the viability of such welfare programs in their current forms. Let us take a look at a definition of Welfare culled from a 1989 copy of the New American Desk Encyclopedia (taking note of the fact that the programs listed were prominent at the time of printing):
Federal, state and local programs that provide both cash and non-cash (in-kind) benefits to the needy. The principal cash programs are Aid to Families with Dependent Children, (ADFC) Supplemental Security Income (SSI), veterans pensions, emergency assistance, and state and local general assistance. The chief in-kind programs are Food Stamps, child nutrition, Medicade, and housing assistance.
Until the 1930's, aid to the needy was the principal concern of private charities and of state and local welfare agencies. The onset of the Great Depression quickly exhausted the resources of those institutions. In 1933, the Roosevelt administration established the Federal Relief Administration (FEA) to funnel federal funds in state welfare channels. At the same time, the US Department of Agriculture began to distribute surplus agricultural commodities to the needy. These emergency measures of public assistance, and others that followed, were intended as temporary expedients until a revived economy reabsorbed the great numbers of unemployed.
The architects of the Social Security Act of 1935 envisioned a future in which comprehensive social insurance would obviate the need for public assistance. That act created a national income-transfer system— that is, a system by which revenues derived from the better-off portions of the population were used to maintain minimal incomes for the needy portions— with both social-insurance and public-assistance components. The social-insurance component consisted of a federal program of old-age insurance, the original element of the Social Security system, and a federal-state system of unemployment insurance. Under both programs, payroll taxes paid by workers and their employers were used to provide incomes for workers who lost their jobs or retired. The public-assistance or welfare component consisted of the provision of federal funds to supplement state programs of public assistance to the aged and blind and dependent children. Benefits under these programs where based only on need, not on previous contributions.
The authors of the Social Security Act were mistaken in their belief that social insurance would eventually end the need for welfare. The steady expansion of social insurance has been accompanied by a remarkable growth in the size of the nation's welfare system. New welfare programs have been established to meet newly perceived needs. Demographic changes have resulted in greater numbers of people eligible for welfare— for example, the elderly and single mothers. And the participation of eligible citizens has grown as a result of informational campaigns conducted by welfare-rights organizations, of court decisions of removing arbitrarily restrictive regulations, and of outreach programs conducted by welfare departments themselves.
The Welfare Reform Act of 1988 redefined welfare as a temporary and transitional expedient, requiring that recepients take jobs or job training to prepare for independence.
One of the problems with this type of thinking is that the goverment-as-a-welfare-program doesn't have to practice what it preaches. In other words, while it requires welfare recepients to strive for self-sufficiency, it doesn't have to. It can persist in receiving its own welfare payments in the form of taxes, and never have to abide by the policy it sets for others, because its own internal recepients have a job, and their job duties are defined as providing a community-government service. In such a formula, it grants itself the ability to forever recieve welfare assistance... though never thinks to remake other welfare programs in its own image so those recepients could forever receive welfare payments under the same or similar operational model.
Instead, non-government employee-welfare recepients are force to find their way in the morass and insecurity of public employment that government workers don't have to face the reality of. In essence, it is a double-standard. And while such a view is not meant to insist that non-government employee welfare recepients should be provided a government-like job, a philsophical expansion of cultural services can be adopted so that the "work requirement" is satisfied in artistic, research or scholarly efforts, to include invention creating, hybridization efforts, etc., all of which would have to be categorically defined in order to remove ambiquities that would be pursued and exploited by those wishing to find loopholes that permitted them from engaging in an activity that provided them a means to shirk any civil responsibility... just like those whose work in professional areas deliberately spend their time seeking the rationale to circumvent one law or another.
For example, those who espouse using public funds under the philosophical premise of "art for art's sake", often permit conditions of exploitation to surface because the generality of the phrase is attached with a generality of describing what is meant by "art", and whether it is socially valuable as a civil service beyound the application to specialized enclaves of cultural entertainment that have no applicable lasting value except to use it as an argument against the acceptance of other community service programs whose viability, if scrutinized, might well be found to encompass a similar definition as that being applied to another presmumed community service being argued against... or for.
Because of the diversity of problems which can exist in any one society, welfare programs meant to address a body of related individual issues stemming from, for instance, a similar lack of income, is thought by some to be addressed more productively if assistance is directed towards the functionality of welfare programs themselves, instead of individualized groups with seemingly similar issues. For example, instead of targeting a particular segment of society to receive financial, medical, or other assistance that does little to actually encourage a person towards self-sufficiency; a welfare approach by a federal government or the United Nations may be more appropriate if it supplies the resources so that infrastructure which creates a sustainable economy of jobs becomes the rationale for a particular welfare approach. Such an approach is noted in the idea of teaching a person how to fish for themselves, then merely putting oneself in the position of a mother stork who must continue to feed its brood; and is similar to the notion that by giving a person a fish they will eat for one day, but in teaching them how to fish they are then fed for a lifetime.
However, the reality of the situation is quite different since in teaching everyone how to fish, an area can be over-fished, the water become polluted, and governments may step in to get a repayment of their assistance through licensing fees, taxes on one's catch, import and export tarrifs, permitting individuals to join into a corporation that muscles, intimidates, steals, kills, etc., its way into claiming large swaths of territory, etc... Because most governments use a business model in their welfare mentality, they can use public funds to provide a form of welfare that appears to create greater prosperity for a population segment that can then be taken advantage of by a corporation who gives a cut of their gains to the government whose rules and regulations forced the creation of conditions that made it possible for a corporation to take over; whereby the people of the next generation or generation after that (with little or no memory of the previous occurrence), may face joblessness because a corporation came in to take advantage of the prosperity and automated their system which reduced the need for workers. So the government steps in again to start yet another cycle, that it had a hand in creating, evolves. In short, it is a business model of so-called "welfare reform"... that doesn't actually reform the welfare system except to change from one business model to the next.
As a welfare business model, a State's employment services have employees that don't face a shortage of work to help unemployed others in their search for employment in an environment where few or no jobs may be available. In fact, this is why many people adopt the strategy of working for the government because it does not often suffer layoffs, a person may work in excess of twenty years, and the benefits frequently are better than what other jos offer. Working for the government is a business model of welfare where employees get a paycheck (based on a salary or hourly wage) while performing a "community service" in a perscribed task. Whereas some employees may be overly competent or underworked that they must look for work in their daily routine or engage in behavior meant to "pace oneself to always look busy", the unemployed receiving unemployment checks have the assigned task of looking for work in that they seek permanent employment. Hence, an employee may "look for work" while employed just an an unemployed person may "look for work". Some workplace routines become so well constructed by individuals that a typical 8-hour job for a new employee becomes a 2 or 4-hour job for someone with experience. They either must find someplace to "hide- out" for the remainder of their shift (sometimes referred to as "milking a job"), or slow their pace to a mind-numbing pace... unless in taking on other responsibilities they can be assured of an advance in pay and position.
Typically, however, welfare programs are not classified in terms of being a business, government, religious, etc., model. Descriptions and definitions take on a standarization whereby improvement in the overall usage of welfare programs to assist the needs of a community, can only be acquired by reforming the types of descriptions and definitions. Nonetheless, one may necessarily be inclined to think of welfare reform by way of restructuring the overall government in order to establish a different perspective of governance and long-term public goals to be achieved. But we are confronted with a dilemma when discussing the need for reforming welfare programs. Because of a socially established government mindset where the public forced to expect social problems to be solved by those attached to a welfare system development system such as government or religion, ideas created by individuals external to such institutions are not likely to be put into practice unless they are forced upon such prevailing leaderships.
Conducting a Revolution against a government and/or religious system that needs to be changed is made more difficult by an increasingly large proportion of the public having become dependent on a government and social system that provides a dependence-creating-way of life that such recipents do not want to disrupt. But since such systems do not endure, and populations eventually find themselves in the midst of a situation that produces and promotes undesirable circumstances that back them up against a wall; it is of need for us to develop the necessary philosophy to be used in order to establish a better formula of government (and perhaps religion) in the future.