[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's because it is demonstrably false by science and common sense. If you genuinely believe that paying someone not to work will make them work more, I can't have a serious discussion with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the depth of your understanding of liberal democratic theory and agenda is "They want to provide universal unemployment insurance at all costs." then you will obviously arise at erroneous conclusions. What are you really trying to get at here? You've distilled the entire theory of liberalism (modern liberalism, not laissez-faire old school liberalism) into a single provocative one-liner. This is supposed to make us all rethink liberalism?

I understand the thrust of your core argument: Securing people so that they are assured minimal levels of income will create a moral hazard where some people will choose not to produce as much as they otherwise would since they are satisfied with the minimal income. Of course this is so.

Now, you JUMP from there to "this is bad for society as a whole because it reduces contributions to society". This is not true due to "common sense" unless you think that social programs add no value and only incur the moral hazard cost above. You have provided no argument to back up this assertion other than this gem:

[ QUOTE ]
Take a course on human behavior and/or human learning. You will be amazed by how Pavlovian it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes! The invincible "If you don't agree with me it's because you're too dumb to understand why what I'm saying is true!" approach. An oldie but a goodie.

[ QUOTE ]
100% of my Birkenstock-wearing, liberal hippie big state university psychology professors agreed to the paradigm that individuals, alone, act for self-motivated reasons, and that basic learning is shaped by self-internalized consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, obviously if you give some poor people some money they will immediately "waste" it on self-motivated consumption. Or would they consider the potential benefits of using that wealth to increase their future productivity and enhance their socio-economic status? Is self-motivation limited to luxury consumption in your world view? If people act in their own self interest, is it necessarily to the detriment of society as a whole?