This decrease in both social assistance and protection, displays the state's negative social power. The power, which is exercised by the state, is expressed in both utilitarian and persuasive forms. Although, the government exists as a monopoly, it cannot justify the withholding of life's essentials from its citizens. In the end, the state uses its power to influence the unemployed. Unfortunately, the consequences of this type of power are uncertain and can be catastrophic. In theory, the state should utilize its power to protect the interests of its people; in reality however, the state's power endangers the survival of its citizens. Over 100,000 people, in British Columbia alone, rely on welfare as a last resort (Lavoie, 1). Many will find themselves struggling to make ends meet while others will lose their homes. The government is expected to protect people from poverty. By contrast, it seems that the government's actions only increase the risks of poverty. Welfare was designed to provide the public with a better quality of life and "Hacking away at the country's social safety net is not the way to make Canada a Northern tiger" (Bauch, 1). The role of the state should be to strengthen social programs in order to both support citizens and better protect their needs. The two-year welfare regulation reveals both the state's failure to protect its citizens" needs and the state's abuse of power. Ultimately, people of a state are entitled to the basic necessities of life. To deprive an individual of this is not only a breach of protection, but also a total disregard of state duties.
The decreasing income assistance also reveals the government's inability to maintain stability for its citizens. In a society ruled by the people, it is essential for the state to provide stability and predictability for its citizens. By eliminating aid to the unemployed, the government increases the stress on and promotes instability of other social programs.
