Its been said that ambition can't be bought or artificially manufactured, and obviously people aspire to achieving different ambitions with varying amounts of conviction. Sure welfare is something that you can choose to take or choose not to take, and your ambition will determine how it's used (or not used as the case might be). But fundamentally welfare is intended to be there for people who have less of a choice than those who might have a larger amount of alternate resources or wealth to tap that allows them vastly greater optional choices.Welfare is meant to be there as a means of support when there are very few optional choices.

I was speaking to a friend I used to work with from a few years back a few weeks ago who seemed to have a great disdain for "dole dossers". Dole dossers being individuals with very little ambition to work in the conventional 9 to 5 sense, or work in what we might consider to be a contributory and productive way. I fully understand his disdain since he's done nothing but work himself and paid his taxes. So in a sense he is seemingly helping to support the "dole dosser" on the surface of things. "Dole dosser's" being those who might have the option to work and wouldn't necessarily need welfare to survive if they weren't so "lazy". The problem is we live in a system where many people that aren't on welfare were able to exploit a system where by they could amass great amounts of wealth with relatively little effort to potentially be just as lazy in another sense and optionally choose to work or not to work in different ways without being stigmatized for it like the "dole dosser" might be. However with such great amounts of wealth involved there will obviously be fewer people able to live such potentially free of stress lifestyles without same kinds of stigmatization that a "dole dosser" might face. The chances are they can also afford to pay people to handle their financial affairs and do creative accounting for them. In the purest terms some of these people wouldn't even necessarily need to continue to earn money by working to potentially be able to live very comfortably on the wealth they've amassed but yet they still choose to work and amass even more wealth. 

Then there are those born into wealth, for such people ambition to be "greater" isn't necessarily something that is essential and obviously isn’t a requirement to survive despite maybe still being strived for, as the wealth they have access too will be more then sufficient to allow them to do what ever they might choose to do in their own time. They will most likely (not all) be in a situation where they'll have lots of support and possibly be nurtured to pursue their dreams. Even with a lesser degree of conviction they might still somehow possibly even attain greater success than somebody with vastly greater desire and conviction. 

As for Moby and his political standpoint? He will do what he has always done regardless of who's in power. But what he does and has done speaks volumes in supporting what he says. He puts money back into creating opportunities for other people too whilst helping to create employment within the industries that he's connected to. At the same time he's still able to comfortably live the way he wants without unduly disrespecting people. He's also fully aware of his roots and still continues to strive to assist people. Moby for president? Although I'd somehow very much doubt he'd want to be president.