Well that sounds good, lets pay people not to be criminals, instead of punishing the fuck out of them according to their crimes, I guess that is one why to get what you want out of society, gimme or I will rob you, I love it........When do you run for office so I can vote for you?CameronPoe wrote:
The rather short answers to your main questions are as follows (you answered the first one yourself in fact):imortal wrote:
Your vision is one that you believe the world will end down without the rightiousness of your political beliefs.
I am all in favor of helping those who are "down and out." Voluntarally. I simply do not think the government needs to be a part of it, let alone madating and enforcing it. Let there be charities and churches. I wish them all the success in the world. I even suggested a voluntary government program. And I am not a medevil monach, taking everyones' income in taxes and giving nothing in return; I am advocating lowering those taxes so they are not taken in the first place! Latin America is a land that greed remembered and decency forgot. It is harder to find an honest person there than a crooked one.
Make the government smaller, and less money will be taken by it; that leaves more money in the hands of those who need it. I managed to get a new job after being let go rather handily. It simply takes some work and foresight (by getting an education however I could. If you are able to work, but too lazy to get out and look for it, then yes you should starve and die. If you are too proud and feel that flipping burgers at the local McDonalds is beneath you, then yes you should starve and die. There are still people in this country that, after having been evacuated from New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, are still living on a FEMA check. They have not gone to look for a new job. Why? One woman interviewed (while sitting beside a hotel pool) said that it was "too hot" to go look for a job. Those are people that I, quite frankly, despise.
No system created by man is perfect. Any government system that involves people will have greed. It will have people who desire power. And it will have those who will use the use for their own ends. I accept this. But there are also people who will take and take and give nothing back; they will not even work if it is for survival. I call these people a blight on society.
Why do you think the world would suddenly break down into armed camps if we simply relied on other individuals for help instead of the government? Are individual people that much less capable? Can you not depend on your family in a crisis? Would you not help your family if they needed it? Would you help your neighbor?
- Charity relies on the goodwill of human beings. Human beings, as you conceded yourself, are inherently and instinctively greedy and self indulgent. No system reliant purely on charity could possibly cover the costs of ensuring a harmonious society.
- The people you call a blight on society you will have to pay for anyway. Unless you are advocating the euthanasia of these people then you will have to fund a no doubt rather expensive federal prison system for all those who are forced into criminality to survive. Either way, you pay.
Harmonious? Who said society had to be harmonious? I actually said that those people were out there. There are also very giving and generous people out there. There are people out there in the world who enjoy giving to the poor, who volunteer their time and money to help those who do not have what they do. You only assume a society without goverment mandated, funded, controlled, and taxed substinence programs could work. There have been organizations out there for thousands of years doing what they can to help; and help they have. They are called churches. If other organizations wish to help, more power to them.CameronPoe wrote:
- Charity relies on the goodwill of human beings. Human beings, as you conceded yourself, are inherently and instinctively greedy and self indulgent. No system reliant purely on charity could possibly cover the costs of ensuring a harmonious society.
You assume they will all turn to crime. You seem to have a rather negative outlook. I think at least some of them will take hunger as an added incentive to actually work. The truth most likely lives somewhere between our statements. I do think that some crime would go up. However, since I am a believer in both capital punishment for not only murder, but forceable rape, and I believe in the legalizing of many recreational drugs, then my prisons may not be as crowded as you may assume.CameronPoe wrote:
- The people you call a blight on society you will have to pay for anyway. Unless you are advocating the euthanasia of these people then you will have to fund a no doubt rather expensive federal prison system for all those who are forced into criminality to survive. Either way, you pay.
Poe, you tend to exagerate and take to the exteremes any policy you do not agree with, and then fight those arguments as if that were what we really meant. You argue that what you think we want is so, and not what we meant.