While I am absolutely in favor of the government feeding everyone who needs food, including stuff like USAID for those abroad, I do also agree with the sentiment that to the extent possible we should enable people to do this themselves instead of being reliant on the government. Because history is full of examples of governments choosing to starve people for their own ends.
I’m not arguing with you, but the Americans’ knack for turning anything into a corrupt mockery of its intended purpose was demonstrated pretty consistently while unions were at their peak.
I don’t have brain damage so I’d like to clarify that this isn’t an argument for not having unions which I fully support, instead, I look at it as an example of what not to do.
How is this related? (for the record I do believe everyone should be fairly taxed)
The state responsibility is to allow social mobility and for people to have the tools to be able to earn what they need, while contributing to society as a whole.
The reasons that people often aren’t able to take care of themselves financially are unfair labour practices and legislative capture of states by the rich. This leads to unfair taxation that disadvantages the poor and prevents the state from creating a system where everybody can take care of themselves. If you want to reduce peoples’ dependency on state handouts, those are the issues that need to addressed.
Part of enabling people to leave poverty and stop being reliant on the government is to provide the basic needs for the people that fall behind, so they can focus on improving their lives instead of doing everything to avoid tiny risk.
Anyway, a government can starve anybody at any time and don’t need any “previous dependency” as a excuse or mechanism.
deleted by creator
While I am absolutely in favor of the government feeding everyone who needs food, including stuff like USAID for those abroad, I do also agree with the sentiment that to the extent possible we should enable people to do this themselves instead of being reliant on the government. Because history is full of examples of governments choosing to starve people for their own ends.
So you’re saying, there should be strong unions and the rich should be fairly taxed?
Exactly.
I’m not arguing with you, but the Americans’ knack for turning anything into a corrupt mockery of its intended purpose was demonstrated pretty consistently while unions were at their peak.
I don’t have brain damage so I’d like to clarify that this isn’t an argument for not having unions which I fully support, instead, I look at it as an example of what not to do.
How is this related? (for the record I do believe everyone should be fairly taxed) The state responsibility is to allow social mobility and for people to have the tools to be able to earn what they need, while contributing to society as a whole.
The reasons that people often aren’t able to take care of themselves financially are unfair labour practices and legislative capture of states by the rich. This leads to unfair taxation that disadvantages the poor and prevents the state from creating a system where everybody can take care of themselves. If you want to reduce peoples’ dependency on state handouts, those are the issues that need to addressed.
Youre right. We should demand Walmart pay its people a living wage.
I’m down.
Part of enabling people to leave poverty and stop being reliant on the government is to provide the basic needs for the people that fall behind, so they can focus on improving their lives instead of doing everything to avoid tiny risk.
Anyway, a government can starve anybody at any time and don’t need any “previous dependency” as a excuse or mechanism.