Also, did I speak about unemployment benefits? I think we should try to keep as many people as possible employed, and have them all work fewer hours, whenever it is possible. Obama can't really relax too much, or share his job with another co-President, and of course if you're launching your startup and it's the challenge of your life you have to give it all - but not every job is really that important. To a large extent, the truth is that the world is full of small people who have trouble finding value and joy in their lives and want to "seem important" by working way too many hours (nor does the system help them give up part of their working hours, truth be told).
Doesn't it depend on the goods in question?
For example, it's unclear why more digital books would be a bad thing. Same for digital music and maybe even movies.
If the state needs someone who is unemployed to work for it, it should give her a contract and pay her a wage. You can’t make someone who receives welfare benefits work more than those benefits are worth anyway. That would obviously be unjust.
It’s also obvious why it is a big advantage for the state to be able to pick and chose just like the private sector instead of getting random unemployed delivered to its doorstep. There are precious few jobs were no qualifications and no training is needed. It’s also pretty unlikely that there just happens to be the right person with just the right skills around (and if it is I’m not exactly sure why the state shouldn’t hire that person instead of forcing it to work for it).
The state would have to pay for training and enforcement, there would be additional unemployed (those the state just fired and replaced with unemployed) who would also receive welfare benefits, you can’t make them work more than they receive – besides being morally questionable there is no way for the state to save any money with this scheme.
If you want truly just welfare you should advocate some sort of basic income – a fixed amount of money everyone (no matter how rich or poor) unconditionally receives from the cradle to the grave.
Unjust?
Why should taxpayers pay to have someone do nothing?
That person is consuming resources produced by other people.
> I’m not exactly sure why the state shouldn’t hire that person instead of forcing it to work for it.
There's no force. If said person can get a better deal than a dole check in return for picking up trash, said person is free to take it.
You're assuming that consumption doesn't go up.
If we're paying unemployment benefits, those folks should either be looking full-time or doing public service. Yes, that includes things that might otherwise be done by public employees.