 Shapiro responds to Goodin 's argument by challenging his factual assumption that individuals would starve if they refused the workfare throffer . In state @-@ sponsored ( see welfare state ) workfare systems , he claims , only monetary assistance is eliminated by a refusal to accept the throffer , while in private systems ( that is , non @-@ state charities or organisations offering conditional aid ) , other groups than the one operating a workfare system exist . In either system , recipients of welfare may also turn to family and friends for help . For these reasons , he does not consider the throffer to be unrefusable in the cases in which Goodin believes it is . A second ( and , Shapiro claims , more important ) objection is also presented . State welfare without sanctions fails to mirror the way that working individuals who do not rely on welfare payments take responsibility for their lives . If a person who works stops working , Shapiro observes , then they will typically find their economic situation worsened . Unconditional state welfare does not reflect this , and instead reflects the unusual position of the person who would be no worse off if they refused to work . As unconditional welfare does not mirror the situation of ordinary workers , it is unable to determine whether or not people are willing to take responsibility for their lives . 
