14 January 2011
To help him over the Hump, a few beers would do.
No. Stesaling it from someone who works and giving it to someone who has no earthy value is the standard socialist modus operandi. Giving money to someone because you want to is the way decent people do things.
End troll ;-)
A "social" safety net is theft. Theft is wrong. But if you're ok with it, send me your motorcycle. I don't want to have to beg for one.
And we already 'socialise' the cost of crime, inasmuch as honest you and I pay for a police force, jails, a justice system etc. Life would be cheaper without them, but I don't propose unfunding them, neither I think do you. Fines etc are sadly no way large enough so that criminals are paying for it.
We need a way to support those genuinely looking for the increasingly rare jobs (e.g. Blogger Demeur) but preventing the skivers exploiting the rest of us. I think we agree here.
So I won't send you any of my M/Cs as that would be above subsistence level, but you're perfectly welcome to come riding with me if ever over here. Acceptable compromise?
No. Not even a little.
The jobs are increasingly rare BECAUSE of the social programs. Fewer social programs, more jobs. End of discussion.
There have long been individuals willing to aid the truly destitute. Every catholic church in the US has a St Vincent De paul society, whose purpose is to catch those who fall through the cracks, feed them, help them pay their bills, and get them work so they can get back on their feet. In my church alone, hundreds of thousands of dollars are donated willingly, often by the same people that took advantage of the program in previous years. The charity, by the way, is not limited to Catholics, we got a muslim family back on it's feet early last year.
Social programs are good for one thing and one thing only: Creating a permanent class of useless lazy fucks.
THeft is wrong. Government mandated "Charity" is theft.
They can't even run a boys' school over here without molesting the customers :-(