I also agree with the presumption of innocence. However, I can’t agree with the saftey net concept.

From my observation, if School A set it’s pass grade at 50 score, student will got 52-53 and said, “okay I am good enough.” if we lower it to 40, the crowd will follow, so as 30. The saftey net will of course help out those non-learner, but also discourage those capable from learning. And the level of acceptance get lower and lowered.

While helping the weak is a virtue in conventional wisdom, many pretend to be weak to leech. And I don’t like the idea of “forced donation” on goverments, isn’t that helping out should be voluntary instead of forced? (by tax)

Take an example of scholarship in school, I believed a poor family kid had a much more incentive to score it than the rich. Which is nice, the students reward of study hard.

While on the otherhand, welfare policy is, you will be reward when you are doing bad.

Helping out the real in need while avoiding drag back those who can help themselve is hard but necessary. And the goverment (and politician) will always avoid hard jobs unless ppl really ask for them.

(I hesitate to reply here, since my mind do not focus very well for the moment, but yes, I don’t like the welfare everyone idea aka “forced donation”)

I think his biggest flaw is is lack of scope, or ability to see things from any perspective from his own. His perspective of being a min/maxer, only seeing things in black and white, which no shades of grey, and we live in a world of grey.

But that’s my rant on him.

Anyways, I think the issue you are seeing is that no country’s government, nor way they deal with their less advantaged is perfect, nor does one way lend itself to another.

You are right that the M&S have to hurt to potentially learn, but some of course will not, and this is when social Darwinians will tell you they will die out, as they think they should. In reality, most modern economies have some sort of safety net, some lower, some higher. Of course some will stay in that net, and leech off the system, but it is simply an inherent problem we must live with. The principle here being, it is better to have a safety net (social programs) to help those that need it to bring them up, even if there are leeches on the system, then to have no safety net at all. This idea parallels the justice ideal of, it is better to let a guilty man free than a innocent man be jailed.