Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 23:15 ID:LvPtd9BD
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.
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.