Here's something I never really thought of before. People are entitled to health care coverage, right? It's morally wrong to let people suffer and die without it, right? Well, if they're entitled to that then they're certainly entitled to food and shelter. It's pretty morally repugnant to let the bums live on the streets and starve while we throw away leftover portions from our own meals. So basically...shouldn't the government be providing all of our needs? Yet, if it does, wouldn't the economy basically collapse?
If the government provides everything you need, you don't really need to work. Then who generates the revenue to allow the government to take their money through taxes? Or could the free riders still be able to live off those who would work under this system because they're fools or because they aren't shut ins like the average /b/tard?
However, at some point, what people are entitled to supercedes their class and thus its almost like everyone is 'entitled' to be at least lower middle class. We know this isn't so, though, because it isn't possible. In order for there to be rich, there must be poor to balance out the distribution of wealth.
Rhetoriticians - Study his/her style of placing in the slippery slope logical fallacy into an argument, and how he/she talks as though it's the necessary conclusion and not a sufficient conclusion.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-11 10:58 ID:MPdGUeQH
Uh if people are entitled to health care, they're CERTAINLY entitled to live i.e. food and shelter
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-11 11:47 ID:WwuMRC3S
>>1
If there has to be be poor people as you say, then if we assume that the government tries to be fair and just, should not poverty be randomized? I mean, if someone is poor just because of societal destiny then that person is not responsible for being poor and therefore should the government trie to alliviate that persons situation. Its similar to be born blind or any other disability. Poverty today is as much inherited as anything else, one simple reform could be to take the inheritence from the inheritor of a whealthy estate (liek Paris Hilton) and divide it among a group of poor people and by so doing propel them to the upper class while propelling miss Hilton to the depths below. It may be unfair to miss Hilton, but as you said, some people needs to be poor and now its your fucking turn.
think of the economical impact of such a reform or just look at the mass starvations in the past socialist countries after they disowned and killed the land owners
i think even marx knew that the trade value is the value of an object
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-11 13:55 ID:/fzbviN+
>>11
The mass starvations were to get rid of a population that the central government didn't like. It was the same thing under Hitler's fascist government, although they used industrial might to accomplish the same objective. It is the same thing in the United States, although we are using the prison system to get rid of our unwanted minority (blacks).
The traditional philosophy of our Federal system is to provide whatever services are deemed to be of net value to the system as a whole. It is NOT based on whether or not we are "entitled" to particular services. We have free education because it tends to yield a more productive workforce; we have free roads because they allow the efficient transfer of goods and services.
Free food, water, and shelter to all? Not nearly so necessary, as the economic burden of a few million bums or starving children on society is relatively low, especially since we don't have to pay for their health care.
Our government is for basic things, like roads, education, and military.
You shouldn't be able to force me to help someone else that can't provide for themselves. If this is going to be done then it should be of my own free will (THATS WHY THERE ARE PLACES YOU CAN >>DONATE<< MONEY TO). Life isn't fair and some people will die for stupid reasons.
Get over yourselves you stupid socialist douche bastards.
How about you link to the people you're talking to?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-11 19:23 ID:P2Zo5xWQ
No
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-11 19:52 ID:jH3XRlzz
The government should give people enough to stay alive, have a roof over their heads, and a basic education. No more. That way hard workers at least have a place to start from, and freeloaders are still stuck with pretty minimal living conditions.
Right now, sadly, even the most dedicated citizens end up screwed if they're born to an extremely poor family.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-11 20:45 ID:WwuMRC3S
>>22
And if you are born disabled, what is the responsiblity of the government then? Is it not fair that the government makes it so that each of its citizens has the same opurtunity to achieve fulfilling lifes? Should some people just because they are borned a certain way be expelled from any form of happiness?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-11 22:20 ID:P2Zo5xWQ
People that cannot fend for themselves (AT ALL) should receive help from people willing to give it. It's not the government's place to take care of social issues.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 0:19 ID:vqNkwSf9
>>22
Pretty much yes. Give enough to keep them from being bums on the street, but not enough to make them settle for down and do nothing. >>23
Retards = Soylent Green?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 0:23 ID:NjvFEqVM
>>22
What? that's exactly NOT what the government is for. I think 24 had it right. people that need help should receive it from people willing to give it (like me). But it is absolutely not the government's job to provide for people, especially not with my hard-earned money.
>>17
Our government is for basic things, like food, shelter, and caring for its citizens.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 12:12 ID:NjvFEqVM
Where in our constitution does it say that our government is meant to provide food, shelter, and caring for it's citizens? I think you guys have the US government confused with your Nanny.
If you guys want to provide food, shelter, and caring for other citizens then nobody is stopping you. there are PLENTY of voluntary opportunities for you to do so. Quit trying to play "armchair politician" and tell us that our government needs to come rescue everyone when you aren't even lifting a finger to help other than to complain.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 15:19 ID:WeDsnWH7
No one is going to voluntarily care for people "too much." Thats why there's still millions starving in Africa while CEOs are sitting in their mansions.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 16:26 ID:NjvFEqVM
what does our constitution say about the people of africa?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 17:32 ID:DGv2qkPm
Yes, I am a national socialist. So? I dont see any problem. I embraced my anti-individualistic soul long ago and I am happy together with my communism (who is a cute totalitarian ideology!). We have a fucking lot of friends in and outside of the manifesto and I am pretty enslaved and have no personal possessions. But thanks anyway asshole. Go and watch your oil-based capitalism while I WORK in my concentration camp.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 19:27 ID:WeDsnWH7
>>31
Certainly not to give aid packages to them. But then we already do because the politicians are fags and like wasting your taxpayer dollars on dictators who will steal the packages as soon as they appear on African soil.