|
| Thread: Voluntary Charity vs Welfare |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted November 16, 2010 01:01 PM |
|
|
Not to repeat myself from tea party thread:
I believe private charity is insufficient. It lacks all the tools the government has: it can't address or even have info about many things, databases and such being a private effort. Government-organized "charity" is a necessity in many countries because small foundations simply lack the ability to address and solve problems as well as they would when assisted by government.
I also agree with everything Mytical said.
Cheers folks, happy discussion, I'm out 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 01:05 PM |
|
|
Let's look back at what you said then:
I made the demand that the virtues of charity would have to be taught within a reasonable ethical system generally and for all within a socciety, so that "charity" could work.
You claimed it WAS taught.
On further checking, you admitted, well, not in school, but by life, which I simply doubted.
Moreover I asked, if that was indeed so, considering that there is welfare AND charity in the US, and a lot of it, why there was so much poverty in the US.
Then you said there wasn't much poverty in the US.
I then defind "poverty" as living in a "slum" and explained that:
Quote:
Just for explanation, "poverty" is a matter of definition, and for me (living in a) "slum" is one of the main characteristics of being poor, especially for children who really can't pick their lot. With "slums" come high crime rate, low education, children and youth gangs, minimal policing, sicknesses, vermin and so on. Last thing I heard, slums are quite common in US cities (and not only there).
It didn't seem you read that, though, because next post you quote the last sentence and say about how it would depend on the definition and all and that there was scarcely a slum in the US - probably a slum like you would define it - but I gave an explanation what I understand as a slum, which YOU seem to have ignored completely.
I gave a couple of links to further flesh out what I mean - and then you come up with *I* wouldn't read what YOU are saying.
I DID understand that YOU define poverty differently, in a personal way. Yes, there ARE different forms of poverty, in 3rd world countries or just around the corner, in Mexico City or something. But the US are supposedly the richest and highest develoepd nation in the world AND there is welfare AND there is supposedly a lot of charity, so the yardstick shouldn't be 3rd world countries for poverty standards, or should they?
Binabik, in all fairness - if you are unable to engage in a serious discussion with someone you have a grudge against without resorting to insults - why do it at all?
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 01:07 PM |
|
Edited by Shares at 13:13, 16 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
What I'm saying is that if you don't want to bother reading what people actually say then that's your own problem. If you don't believe what people who have lived here over 50 years say, then get your ass over here and find out for yourself. Now fk off and quit putting words into my mouth.
The US has a tremendous size and many states are far different from some of the others. Often it can be bigger differences between the different states than between other countries(depending on what countries and states you compare of course). Even though I really respect your knowledge of the US Binabik, I really doubt that you've got all the states covered.
Besides, I think that since the Cold War the american media is kinda biased.
EDIT: One more thing. Poverty is one of those things that are very hidden society. It is biggest in the parts of time that other, "non-slummers", rarely visit or examine. It's also something that rarely mentioned in media as well as it being frowned upon and often dismissed by most. If I were to tell you that I live in poverty, most people would deny it. ("It's not that bad."/"You'll manage, right?"/"Some people have it much worse.") I lived in poverty most of my young life and it happened to me a LOT!
Not to mentioned that it is something that most poor people is very ashamed of and try to hide away from the public.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 01:26 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:34, 16 Nov 2010.
|
I would like those who favor taxation for the purposes of redistributing wealth to complete the below sentence:
---- "I have a right for the government to take part of your money and give it to me because..."
I never said there should no taxation or that taxes only go to welfare. Some taxation is legitimate and some is just theft. Taxation in the US that is in accordance with the Constitution is legitimate. Taxation for the purposes of redistributing wealth is illegitimate. Theft.
When the people of the United States decided to form a government they did so in order to protect their God-given (or natural, if you prefer) rights. They did not form a government in order to redistribute wealth. One of the main reasons that drove the founding fathers to revolution was unreasonable taxation.
Below is a portion of the Declaration of Independence:
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
While the Declaration of Independence is a United States document I think it shows the purpose of a legitimate government. To secure the rights of the people. A government is not formed to grant rights but to protect the rights the people already have.
There is no natural right of a person to the property of others.
One of the reasons stated for the need to "dissolve the political bands" with Britain was "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent." The people of the United States did not consent to taxation for the purposes of redistribution of wealth in the Constitution. Indeed, the Fifth Amendment specifically forbids such a use of taxation.
Quote:
......; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
A person who is taxed for the purposes of redistribution of wealth is not being justly compensated for the property taken from him.
Legitimate taxation is for the purposes of protecting the rights of the people and providing for necessary services that in general benefit everyone. These reasons for taxation are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. Taxation for support or building of the armed forces and police forces to allow the government to protect the citizens from "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Interstate roads, the post office, pay the national debt, print money, ect.
As mentioned before, the Fifth Amendment amends the Constitution to make it clear that property can't be seized unless it is "for public use" and the person losing the property receives just compensation. Redistributive taxation fails to meet these standards.
Taxation that is too high or wrongly imposed is destructive and violates the rights of the people. Taxation to redistribute wealth to poor people is just as unfair and unconstitutional as taxes would be that redistribute wealth to a specific gender or to a specific race. When taxes are used for discriminatory purposes there is a scramble to secure special treatment and redistributive "funding" from the government. Which we unfortunately see in the United States.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 01:46 PM |
|
|
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
That can never be remotely accomplished unless you redistrubute the wealth. If I am born poor, then I will have lesser rights than a person not born poor. I will have more limited funds to nurish my hobbies and interests. I know that for a fact to be true, even in the countries with very high wealth redistrubution(such as Sweden). If I had been born in a not so poor family as my own I would propably have gotten a better computer as a youth, a computer good enough to do programming, graphicing/modeling and creating games. That would've also come back to society since I then would be much better at these things that I hope to work with in the future(I would thus be a better and more useful employee). We would also have lived in a "better place". Maybe nearer to school so that I would not waste as much time going back and forth with bus, thus giving me even more time to do homework and improving my main interests.
Redistrubating wealth is good for society since it will nourish it from the bottom and allow the bottommost citizens to work their way up and contribute to society. Not redistrubuting wealth will deny them a lot of human rights as well as undermining their equality, compared to the rest of society.
Disclaimer: No, I don't want to have 100% tax, and redistrubute all wealth equaly because a) that ammount of money would be too much for some and too little for some and b) it would undermine other human rights. You have to find a balance. There's gotta be some redistrubution
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 02:57 PM |
|
|
But there is no redistribution of wealth.
Welfare is a governmentally granted and guaranteed alm - welfare isn't distributing any wealth from rich to poor.
Welfare is socialized giving, supposedly for the keeping of the inner peace and in exchange for limiting begging (which had to be allowed otherwise, because even the poorest must have a chance on the pursuit of happiness).
Of course you might leave that to the states or even counties or towns, and then counties could decide, no welfare within our borders, but full begging rights for the poor.
But this has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 03:04 PM |
|
|
Check here
Before some posters here will start using the same "tricks" as usual 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 03:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
One problem of the opening post is the fact that voluntary charity simply is no concept (to address poverty), just as voluntary schoolgoing is no concept to address education.
Pardon me? Charity it taught by all of the major religions and is a concept that most parents teach their children. And yes, charity is very effective to address poverty and would be more so if governments did not steal so much money through illegitimate taxation.
Quote:
If voluntary charity is to be more than people begging on the streets for alms, not only is it necessary to organize charity in some way (diminishing the differences to governmental welfare), it is also necessary to somehow infuse society with the idea of donating.
No it is not. individual human beings can give charitably to those around them who are in need. But there are churches that aid others and other charitable organizations. And they do organize to institute homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and other ways of helping those in need.
Quote:
And, no, known religions are not qualified, but a dicussion of that would be off-topic here.
Religions are uniquely qualified. Christianity teaches one to love his fellow man and to help those in need. Marxism teaches class warfare and the government seizing property from one person to transfer to another.
Quote:
So simply saying 'we shouldn't be taxed because of 'welfare'' is a moot point.
I certainly never said there should be no taxes. The fact that the government engages in some illegal taxation does not make all taxation illegal.
Quote:
Helping others is NOT a Marxist idea, it is a HUMAN idea.
I would be the last one to accuse Marxism of being about people helping people.
Charity is people helping people. Marxism is the government stealing the goods of one person in order to give to the property to another person.
Charity has been around as long as mankind has. Marxism is a fairly recent ideology.
Quote:
Not to mention that charity can and is and will be abused just as welfare.
That is false for reasons I have already expressed in my three previous posts. I can repeat them again if you wish, but it would be best for you to go back and reread what I have already posted.
Quote:
Also, do not forget that there are cases of Charities where the people in charge of them ripped those who gave off..and pocketed the money? Also, talk about 'inefficient' Often less then 80% of what is given actually makes it to the people who need it! Most organized charity have 'overhead' that they have to cover before releasing a dime to those they are collecting the money for.
Certainly there have been a small number of instances of people stealing in charities. However to say "often" less than 80% of what is given to charities reaches the intended target is absolutely and utterly baseless. And it an absolute fact that the vast majority of charities have a lower overhead than governments do. I give mostly to charities that have no or very low overhead. 95-100% of the funds go to directly to the purpose of the charity. It is quite easy to research organizations and see what their overhead is. However, I would not say that overhead is the only consideration when deciding what charity to channel your money through. Depending on what the charity does a maximal overhead of up to 33% would be acceptable to me. For example, goods and people may need to be transferred over long distances to help people overseas. And once the people get there they will need to eat and be sheltered, ect.
The more local a charity is the less overhead the charity will generally need. And the more local the help is coming from the better.
Quote:
Quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
That can never be remotely accomplished unless you redistrubute the wealth.
It has already been accomplished. Each person in all the world has the exact same rights. The only question is whether or not their rights are being oppressed.
Stealing from one person to another has nothing to do with all people being equal.
Quote:
But there is no redistribution of wealth.
Welfare is a governmentally granted and guaranteed alm - welfare isn't distributing any wealth from rich to poor.
Welfare is socialized giving...
Lol! The government certainly does engage in redistribution of wealth through taxation. Government programs that are "hand outs" are taking money from person to give to another. That is redistribution of wealth.
Charity is one person giving to another. Welfare is the government stealing money from one person and transferring it to another.
The government giving alms! Ha!! Nice try though.
____________
Revelation
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 03:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Charity and welfare are two distinct concepts. Charity is associated with compassion but welfare is associated with a "you owe me" entitlement mentality.
<IMVHO> This is too sweeping of a statement. In it's present form, it is not true. "Everyone" associated with welfare is NOT by default associated with the mind-set of entitlement. Many go to the system...kicking and screaming. Otoh, within the world of welfare and all of its failings I doubt compassion has been destroyed and is now...non-existant.
You started this thread so I want to stay within your bounds. Can I bring up something that I think very related but maybe not at first-glance? It has to do with Christ's teachings about this subject.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 03:58 PM |
|
|
@JJ
I think what Binabik is trying to say (although if I'm wrong here, do correct me Bin) is that what is considered poverty here in the US is quite different from what is considered poverty elsewhere in the world.
Yes, our major cities do have crime.
Yes, our major cities do have "slums", with burnt out buildings, gangs, and etc.
Yes, some rural areas have people living in dilapidated homes and probably living on a few dollars (or less) a day.
However, unlike people living below the poverty line in the 3rd world, pretty much everyone in this country has access to potable water, police protection, basic food staples, basic clothes and basic medical care (despite what the mass media and many pundits would have you believe), and basic human rights - whether they pay taxes into the system or not. EVERYONE can access these basic necessities, and people who do not have them choose to not have them.
Some of this charity is "government sponsored". Much of it is not. A lot of ordinary people donate copious time and money to charitable organizations - soup kitchens, salvation army, etc. - to provide these basic necessities to poor people in the US.
As for where people are taught charity - well, there's no course in 3rd grade. It's more cultural than anything else. People learned that charity is admirable the same way they learned not to steal, kill and rape other people. From their parents, from society. Not everyone is generous of course, and we have our share of criminals, but most people have a basic ethic that involves helping fellow citizens out of the implicit understanding that society is only as strong as its weakest links. (And that charity extends internationally - the US is always one of the biggest per capita givers of money and aid during international catastrophes, and a lot of that aid is NOT government sponsored.) Most Americans do not disagree that we should help our fellow man. Where most Americans disagree is over how that help should be organized.
I also completely agree with Binabik when he says that Elodin's viewpoint is a minority view. I think you should know by now that I am an avid supporter of small government. However I do think the government has an important role to play in protecting the basic health and wellness of its citizens. But there are good ways to go about it and bad ways to go about it - fair ways and unfair ways - wise ways and unwise ways. For one thing I think addressing poverty and government-sponsored charity should occur primarily at the state and local rather than federal level. I'd support, for example, and increase in my state taxes for charitable spending if my federal taxes would decrease. For another, the current federal system is inefficient and I'd wager that for every dollar the government spends on charity, only a tiny fraction is actually used wisely. The new health care bill which supposedly provides everyone with health insurance is a complete load of BS. It doesn't fix any of the fundamental problems with healthcare for the uninsured and in fact will only make things worse. Charity shouldn't be just about throwing money at people. It should be more forward-thinking. The whole "teach a man to fish" thing.
Basically, both public and private sources of charity have roles to play in helping the poor. I'm in support of government-sponsored charity provided it's done right and fairly. Our government wastes so much money on noncharitable activities that I would love to see going to helping out the poor instead.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 04:59 PM |
|
|
@Markkur
I did not mean to imply that everyone who draws welfare holds a "you owe me" entitlement mentality. However, I gave reasons why the welfare system leads to such a mentality and I think the mentality is quite common especially in families where welfare is a "family tradition."
You are certainly welcome to share whatever you think is relevant to the discussion. Be it your own personal opinions, teachings from Christ, Buddha, or whatever other source you wish to present.
____________
Revelation
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 05:14 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 17:19, 16 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
@Markkur
I did not mean to imply that everyone who draws welfare holds a "you owe me" entitlement mentality. However, I gave reasons why the welfare system leads to such a mentality and I think the mentality is quite common especially in families where welfare is a "family tradition."
You are certainly welcome to share whatever you think is relevant to the discussion. Be it your own personal opinions, teachings from Christ, Buddha, or whatever other source you wish to present.
I cannot escape what Christ said to the rich young ruler.
Something I have learned in recent years is that we in the U.S. are 'almost' by default focused on "Self" where in many other countries a sense of "community" far outweighs the "individual". Anyway <IMO> what Jesus taught actually has more in common with many other cultures better than our own. Deeper roots, much quicker.
To cut to the chase; if all is given up from the outset, what the Government does becomes a moot issue. Btw, I am making no pious statement...just relating a personal conflict of sorts. Based on my incomplete knowledge and opinion that the most effective ministries cut ties with 'mammon". I.e Paul and tentmaking or St.Francis. Examples like that are hard to follow.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 05:37 PM |
|
|
As a note, I do specifically remember going over charitable / nonprofit organizations in my 7th grade civics class, so at least for me I was formally taught about the nature of these organizations and their positive impact on the community, though this isn't standardized curriculum material AFAIK.
I'm a pen pusher for a nonprofit that deals with building housing for low-income families, and so I have a couple comments about such organizations based my anecdotal experiences:
Large not-for-profit organizations are not retarded; their operations are highly organized and structured according to what has and hasn't worked over the years. It is in every sense much like a major company, and they are indeed generally very efficient (and competitive) with what they do. The further advantage is that they are able to do much of their mundane work via volunteers (or for not-so-mundane work, some of these volunteers very skilled professionals who are perhaps retired or simply community-minded). When you have groups of people doing labor as a pastime, that in itself is an immense money saver. It is possible (and has been implemented to a certain extent) to have volunteers via government channels, but it is difficult to efficiently manage, and the government has far more liability concerns than a not-for-profit organization would have and these programs often still involve some sort of tangible compensation.
Now if you're talking about some little local not-for-profit organization with 3 middle aged women sitting in an office, it's not necessarily going to be a well-oiled machine in the way a larger one would be, but they can be depending on those individual's backgrounds.
The core weakness of any nonprofit isn't in their performance compared to what the government can do, it's merely that unlike the government, which has the power to enforce funding, these organizations operate on a sporadic income. The nefarious 'overhead costs' that donors often complain about are extremely important and almost always far lower than government overhead costs, though of course nonprofits aren't immune to unscrupulous spending.
As far as how community-minded a society is, there is indeed a strong correlation between how much a group of people is already taxed and how much they give or get involved with charitable organizations. When you're raised in an atmosphere where a government authority tends to every need (and "need") from cradle to grave, you'll almost consistently find a more self-isolated culture with higher amounts of emo people.
So where then does government welfare come into play? Again, it simply boils down to the fact that government funding is consistent and nonprofit funding has a history of better performance but is unreliable, and if somebody truly needs something, and they aren't able to get it, well... figure it out.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 05:47 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:51, 16 Nov 2010.
|
The rich young ruler's problem was not that he possessed riches, but that riches possessed him. Jesus tried to get him to see his trust was in his riches rather than in God.
Quote:
Mar 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Mar 10:19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
Mar 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Mar 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Mar 10:22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
Mar 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
Mar 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
.
As for the apostle Paul, he stated that he had the right to be supported by the Christian community as an apostle, just as the Levite priesthood lived from the tithes during the Old Covenant. However, in order to not give any of his enemies an opportunity to claim that he was preaching for money he chose to make a living through making tents.
Quote:
1Co 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
1Co 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
1Co 9:10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
1Co 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
1Co 9:12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
1Co 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
1Co 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.
As for the most effective ministries being those that have cut ties with money, I don't see that is possible as pastors need money to support themselves an their families an church utility bulls have to be paid, van ministries have to have gas and vehicle upkeep, ect. Pastors have a great many responsiblities and I don't think it is fair for anyone to expect them to hold down another job in addition to pastoring a church.
If someone decides to give all his possessions to the poor that is fine. But he is no more holy than a person who does not do so as long as the other person is also living the gospel of Christ. God does not require one to give away everything he has. God requires that he be the only "god" in your life.
____________
Revelation
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 06:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If someone decides to give all his possessions to the poor that is fine. But he is no more holy than a person who does not do so as long as the other person is also living the gospel of Christ. God does not require one to give away everything he has. God requires that he be the only "god" in your life.
Respectfully, I was not saying that... at all. I can see this was MY mistake. How I dislike this medium. Are you open to discussing this outside HC?
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 06:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If someone decides to give all his possessions to the poor that is fine. But he is no more holy than a person who does not do so as long as the other person is also living the gospel of Christ. God does not require one to give away everything he has. God requires that he be the only "god" in your life.
Respectfully, I was not saying that... at all. I can see this was MY mistake. How I dislike this medium. Are you open to discussing this outside HC?
I don't discuss things in email. But the topic of giving, holiness, and what God requires, could easily be discussed in the new religion thread you started.
____________
Revelation
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 07:08 PM |
|
|
[quoteI don't discuss things in email. But the topic of giving, holiness, and what God requires, could easily be discussed in the new religion thread you started.
OK Have it your way. I just saw where this was going to head and it was far off-topic to most here.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 08:23 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
I'm not a huge fan of welfare, but as far as I can see, your argument against it boils down to "it's bad because the law says so". How about showing that it's undesirable on its own merits?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 08:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It has already been accomplished. Each person in all the world has the exact same rights. The only question is whether or not their rights are being oppressed.
That's but a turn of phrase. Post still standing.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 09:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin:
I'm not a huge fan of welfare, but as far as I can see, your argument against it boils down to "it's bad because the law says so". How about showing that it's undesirable on its own merits?
If that's all you see, you need better glasses!  Perhaps you should try reading my posts again. I stated why stealing money from one person to give to another is immoral and the basis of my argument was God-given rights ["natural rights" for those allergic to the word "God."] And I did also go through legal arguments.
Oh, no one who favors welfare has completed the sentence I asked them to. Please do so.
"I [or poor people] have a right for the government to take part of your money and give it to me because ___________."
Quote:
Quote:
It has already been accomplished. Each person in all the world has the exact same rights. The only question is whether or not their rights are being oppressed.
That's but a turn of phrase. Post still standing.
No, it is not a turn of phrase. All human beings are born with God-given [natural] rights. You don't have to have the same amount of money or the same size house of the same model car or the same intelligence or the same athletic ability to have the same natural rights as all other people. The only question is if you are living under a government that oppresses you and tries to prevent you from exercising your rights. Equal rights does not mean that everyone start out life under the same conditions or that life turns out the same for everyone.
|
| |
|
|
