Am I a hypocrite for taking unemployment benefits?

[chickenado]

Graduated from uni in 2009. My temporary contract expired last month, so I'm unemployed again after working for only 14 months.

Now I'm living (quite comfortably) from unemployment benefit, thanks to my generous social-democratic government.

When I talk to my friends about the benefits of Bitcoin (undermining gov. etc.) they say I don't practice what I preach.

Now as a libertarian I'm not particularly proud of doing this, but a man needs to do what he needs to do to survive, and the opportunity is there, so wouldn't it be stupid not to make use of it? Of course I do not intend to keep claiming benefits long term.

Here are some more counter arguments I came up with...

Unemployment benefit is not a tax but an insurance  so I am simply consuming a product/service that I have already paid for(coercively).

The government is partially to blame for my unemployment. One of the reasons I'm struggling to find a job is because I don't have "3-5 years work experience". I would be happy to work for less than minimum wage, on a precarious contract, just to get that experience. But labour regulations in my country are extremely rigid. As a result, taking on someone on a permanent contract is a huge burden for a company. As a result, companies are reluctant to take on people with little experience. This exacerbates the chicken-and-egg situation for new entrants.

Sound reasonable? Or I am being a hypocrite?

[1715566146]

1715566146

[1715566146]

1715566146

[1715566146]

1715566146

[1715566146]

1715566146

[brocktice]

If you're going to be a purist, I'd say you're a hypocrite. From a more practical standpoint, the taxes you've had to pay have prevented you from, say, saving that money for a rainy day instead, and you've already paid for it, so you might as well use it.

[grondilu]

Unemployment benefit is not a tax but an insurance  so I am simply consuming a product/service that I have already paid for(coercively).

The government is partially to blame for my unemployment. One of the reasons I'm struggling to find a job is because I don't have "3-5 years work experience". I would be happy to work for less than minimum wage, on a precarious contract, just to get that experience. But labour regulations in my country are extremely rigid. As a result, taking on someone on a permanent contract is a huge burden for a company. As a result, companies are reluctant to take on people with little experience. This exacerbates the chicken-and-egg situation for new entrants.

Sound reasonable? Or I am being a hypocrite?

Sounds very reasonable.  Don't try too hard to rationalize though.

It's not just a matter of arithmetics of economics.  It's also a matter of self-estim and being capable of sticking to your principles.

[genjix]

Cognitive Dissonance.

[Bimmerhead]

In Canada the employment insurance scheme is quite distinct from welfare programs.  Employees and employers pay premiums into a fund which is used to pay for the benefits.  Welfare comes out of general revenues.

If I recall correctly, EI in Canada actually subsidizes general spending because the premiums are too high.


How would you say things are setup in your country?

[brocktice]

As an employer I can tell you that unemployment insurance is a separate tax paid by employers in the US.

[MoonShadow]

Unemployment benefit is not a tax but an insurance  so I am simply consuming a product/service that I have already paid for(coercively).

Forced insurance, yes.  You should not feel bad for using your employer paid benefits; which is exactly what (most) EI is, even if it is after the fact.  It's just like health insurance, delayed.

[FatherMcGruder]

If you voted for such policies, maybe. However, taking care of your self interests doesn't make you one.

[FreeMoney]

If you advocate for the dissolution of the state then you are absolutely not a hypocrite. Taking money from them makes them weaker. Usually the state gets a more loyal advocate out of it and that's their profit. Don'y advocate for them to have one tiny bit of power. And don't depend on the money, but by all means take it.

I don't do it because it isn't worth giving them info and doing paperwork to me, but in a pinch I'd be all over that.

[grondilu]

I don't do it because it isn't worth giving them info and doing paperwork to me,

+1

[caveden]

It's a delicate dilemma I'd say.
Is a slave that accepts a gift from his mater accepting his slave condition, or being hypocrite?
Even when you know that the gift was produced with the stolen labor of other slaves, it's complicated to condemn the one that accepts it...

While I was a student here in France, I benefited from their rent-aid program. I think such program should be extinguished, as many others, but anyway, I did get money from it.
Now that I have a job they have already taken much more money from me than what they gave me before, so I don't regret at all.

[ribuck]

If you advocate for the dissolution of the state then you are absolutely not a hypocrite. Taking money from them makes them weaker. Usually the state gets a more loyal advocate out of it and that's their profit ... don't depend on the money, but by all means take it.

Very insightful. I went to University in the late 70s when very generous government grants were available, and I chose not to take them, on principle. But I think I should have done so, for the reasons you explained.

[grondilu]

Very insightful. I went to University in the late 70s when very generous government grants were available, and I chose not to take them, on principle. But I think I should have done so, for the reasons you explained.

The problem with that is you won't be able to defend your liberal ideas.  People will, with good reasons, claim that you oppose the very thing you live on.

If you want to stand as an example, you can't accept any money from government.

[ribuck]

The problem with that is you won't be able to defend your liberal ideas.

That's what I thought at the time, when I didn't take the money, but FreeMoney has resolved the apparent contradiction. If taking the money would bring my ideas a little bit closer to reality, it's honest and worthwhile.

People will, with good reasons, claim that you oppose the very thing you live on.

FreeMoney was very careful to say that if you take the money, you mustn't depend on it (i.e. need it to live on). I took a job throughout my university education, so I was always financially independent. I should have taken the money and donated it to a voluntarist cause.

[FatherMcGruder]

FreeMoney was very careful to say that if you take the money, you mustn't depend on it (i.e. need it to live on). I took a job throughout my university education, so I was always financially independent. I should have taken the money and donated it to a voluntarist cause.

But it already is your money with which to do what you want. The government took it from you. Now that you have it back, how can anyone blame you for spending it as you would have had the government not taken it?

[FreeMoney]

Very insightful. I went to University in the late 70s when very generous government grants were available, and I chose not to take them, on principle. But I think I should have done so, for the reasons you explained.

The problem with that is you won't be able to defend your liberal ideas.  People will, with good reasons, claim that you oppose the very thing you live on.

If you want to stand as an example, you can't accept any money from government.

I strongly disagree.

If our master locks us in the cellar I am going to punch you out if you rag on me for eating the slop he throws us. It would be a total lie to say I was pro slavery because I got my food from the slave master.

If you want to insist that you can't use the money because it was stolen then you need to take it and return it. The fact that this is hard to do in no way implies that the masters should keep it.

Even if you have somehow avoided all taxation for your entire life there will never be an amount offered to you that compensates for your lack of freedom.

[FreeMoney]

FreeMoney was very careful to say that if you take the money, you mustn't depend on it (i.e. need it to live on). I took a job throughout my university education, so I was always financially independent. I should have taken the money and donated it to a voluntarist cause.

But it already is your money with which to do what you want. The government took it from you. Now that you have it back, how can anyone blame you for spending it as you would have had the government not taken it?

Depending on it is a really bad position to be in for a variety of reasons. But if you are literally starving or something I'm not saying you should turn it down to avoid being dependent.

Back to the cellar, when he tosses the bread down the stairs don't eat it contentedly and go back to sleep. You need to find a way out of the damn cellar. It's not where you want to be and it isn't even as safe as you think. He could forget about you or die himself.

[grondilu]

Depending on it is a really bad position to be in for a variety of reasons. But if you are literally starving or something I'm not saying you should turn it down to avoid being dependent.

Well if someone has really no choice, it's ok I guess.   But as far as I'm concerned, I won't claim anything until I am really really broke, starving and with no roof upon my head.

[FreeMoney]

Depending on it is a really bad position to be in for a variety of reasons. But if you are literally starving or something I'm not saying you should turn it down to avoid being dependent.

Well if someone has really no choice, it's ok I guess.   But as far as I'm concerned, I won't claim anything until I am really really broke, starving and with no roof upon my head.

I won't either. But I think anyone who takes money from the state, through non payment of taxes or through redistribution programs is helping to defeat the state. If someone starts apologetics for the state after taking the money or claiming that they deserve it or some crap then all benefit is undone.

While it's still here, bleed it out. Never advocate for it.

[FatherMcGruder]

Depending on it is a really bad position to be in for a variety of reasons. But if you are literally starving or something I'm not saying you should turn it down to avoid being dependent.

When the government gives you your money back after having taken it, you are foolish not to accept it. Instead of not claiming that which belongs to us, we should work to prevent its theft in the first place.

[nanaimogold]

Whenever a man accepts the carrots, he sets himself up for the stick.

If you were truly dedicated to being free you would not be seeking "employment" but you would be making your living without tax and social contracts with the state.

It's not easy to get free and stay free. Take heart that you are young and already understanding this when so many men never figure it out in their whole lifetime.

[FreeMoney]

Whenever a man accepts the carrots, he sets himself up for the stick.

If you were truly dedicated to being free you would not be seeking "employment" but you would be making your living without tax and social contracts with the sate.

It's not easy to get free and stay free. Take heart that you are young and already understanding this when so many men never figure it out in their whole lifetime.

So don't take it because you might get hit? What if you've already been hit?

You don't take take a tiny bite? Would you take the whole thing and let it burn without funds?

There is no way this thing is going down all at once. Kill it with millions of small cuts, take from it when you can and resist when you can.

[Anonymous]

Use the funds to buy bitcoins?

 

[chickenado]

How would you say things are setup in your country?

Similar to Canada, unemployment insurance is provided by a quasi-non-governmental insurance company except it's compulsory and heavily regulated.

[chickenado]

If you were truly dedicated to being free you would not be seeking "employment" but you would be making your living without tax and social contracts with the state.

I agree, but to be a successful entrepreneur you need capital, industry experience, and connections.

Most prospective entrepreneurs gain these by being an employee for a few years, in the industry where they want to set up their business.

I personally don't have much of either at the moment, and believe that bootstrapping is too risky.  Employment is the only realistic option in the short term, unfortunately.

[MoonShadow]

How would you say things are setup in your country?

Similar to Canada, unemployment insurance is provided by a quasi-non-governmental insurance company except it's compulsory and heavily regulated.

Then benefits are still benefits of your former employment, only delayed.  It's unfortunate that your former employer was shackled by government regulations, but that was not your doing and they did bend to that will.  It's still your money.

[Cryptoman]

The state will never, ever be reformed through the political process.  The only way to crush the state is to bankrupt it.  Therefore, the more people receiving payments and the fewer paying taxes the better!  You should take the unemployment payments and also have some black-market income on the side.

[FreeMoney]

I realize the question in OP was about unemployment specifically, but please consider my comments to apply to all government handouts.

[MoonShadow]

The state will never, ever be reformed through the political process.  The only way to crush the state is to bankrupt it.  Therefore, the more people receiving payments and the fewer paying taxes the better!  You should take the unemployment payments and also have some black-market income on the side.

I don't know that the only way is to bankrupt it, but historicly speaking, I am aware of no case that a successful substantial reform has occurred without some greater threat beyond the ballot box.  Bloodless revolutions have occurred, but even those carried the implied threat of real actions on the part of the population.  The agorist plan of peaceful reform by undermining the government's source of funding (taxation) by advocating the rise of safe & effective "grey" markets that are difficult to monitor (and therefore tax) is a valid one.  However, I disagree that the end result would likely be the absence of a government structure.  More likely it would result in the replacement of the government structure with a more local, and perhaps less formal, form of government structure.  I agree that the vast majority of people do not need government for any honest purpose, but it is a sad fact that there is a very small minority of the population whose criminal tendancies will always require the response of a collective force.  Whatever form that collective force may take, it will always need to be subject to the collective in some fashion (i.e. regulated by representatives of the people, otherwise called a government) or it will become the government in very short order.  Human nature hates a power vacuum.

To all flavors of anarchists on this forum; be careful what you wish for, lest you get your wish.

[caveden]

The state will never, ever be reformed through the political process.  The only way to crush the state is to bankrupt it.  Therefore, the more people receiving payments and the fewer paying taxes the better!  You should take the unemployment payments and also have some black-market income on the side.

I agree on the premise that we can't expect anything from the political process.

But in your conclusion is complicated. If people just start running away from the state, that'll make it more intrusive and aggressive. Living in the "black market" is always difficult. By black market I mean anything not official, like undeclared labor, ambulant sellers who don't pay taxes etc.
Don't fool yourself to think that a black market is just like a free market. It is not. The simple fact that people have to hide from the state limit them a lot, there are lots of things capitalism can provide that they cannot use because of their hidden condition. Trust becomes much more complicated as you have no means of pursuing some one, at least not in a "civilized" manner. When you can't trust anyone like this, your circle of relations gets much smaller, what limits the benefits of capitalism.
If you ever had the chance of reading the book The Mistery of Capital, you get an idea of what I'm talking. Or, if you grew up in a third world country like me, you probably already know it. My country has something like 40% of the economy in the "dark side", and that doesn't seem to help people, on the contrary... those working on the black market are mostly the poorest.

I hope the internet (and bitcoins ) provide the means to people to escape government and also avoid all the problems unofficial markets have today... let's see.
(also, I hope the seasteading project becomes a reality soon )

[MoonShadow]

But in your conclusion is complicated. If people just start running away from the state, that'll make it more intrusive and aggressive. Living in the "black market" is always difficult. By black market I mean anything not official, like undeclared labor, ambulant sellers who don't pay taxes etc.

Greece has had a large portion of it's economy in the 'dark' for a long time.  It's entirely possible to live entirely off the books if such a lifestyle is relatively common.  It would be hard in the US, however, because there is no functioning and unified dark market that doesn't also increase end user costs due to political/legal risks.  The agorist idea is to develop such a market that can compete with the light markets on an even keel; which has proven difficult even in the age of the Internet, and I'm sure that is part of the attraction of Bitcoin for the agorists among us.  Previously, any such markets were limited to in person transaction involving precious metals; which is an incrediblely ineffecient way to buy groceries.  If the day ever comes that Wal-Mart (or a national competitor) ever starts accepting bitcoins for common neccessities without the need for additional identification (I.E. shoppers discount cards, what did you think they were for, if not to track your cash purchases?) then the agorists will already have won, even though it may take another decade for the system to actually change.

[caveden]

Greece has had a large portion of it's economy in the 'dark' for a long time. 

And for a long time they have been poorer than the western European countries. By the way, most poor countries, if not all, do have a large portion of their economy in the "dark side".

Black markets are not equivalent to free markets. The results aren't the same.
I hope these so called agorists find a way to make them be, but I'm a bit skeptical, at least for the short run. I think most governments will keep growing until their size make their ruled society so miserable that the state's own legitimacy gets threatened. At this moment, they might back off and allow more freedom, because they wouldn't have much other choices.