Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People should not be forced to be alive either. No more money would have to come out of anyone's pockets if every individual was allowed the choice of a non-violent, peaceful, and legal self-termination. If you want every person to be capable of getting a job that pays at least above 50K and be self-sufficient, never get sick and not be on the streets, but then you don't want to pay for institutions or other mass living facilities, then you will need to provide a way out for those unable to become what you want them to become.
People should not be forced to be alive either. No more money would have to come out of anyone's pockets if every individual was allowed the choice of a non-violent, peaceful, and legal self-termination. If you want every person to be capable of getting a job that pays at least above 50K and be self-sufficient, never get sick and not be on the streets, but then you don't want to pay for institutions or other mass living facilities, then you will need to provide a way out for those unable to become what you want them to become.
Good idea -sic. Anyone who can’t afford to live a self sufficient life should be given the option (encouraged?) to kill themselves (and their families?)
Good idea -sic. Anyone who can’t afford to live a self sufficient life should be given the option (encouraged?) to kill themselves (and their families?)
Yep, that's where it's at. No other way of dealing with what some people want.
Everyone is forced to pay for others already. It's called taxes. There are things I support and don't support and my taxes go to both. The things I support, might be the things Bob doesn't support.
That's the problem. "Everyone" doesn't pay taxes. In fact, some folks get money back without paying in.
What is our moral obligation to them? And who are you to judge whether or not people can work? For the last two years of my dad's life he looked very healthy, the problem is that he was no longer allowed to work, the company he worked for basically fired him because he was in the last stages of heart failure and had become a liability to the company. He died when he was 66 after working at the same job for 37 years. What was his 'moral obligation' for those last two years of his life? Maybe he should have sold plasma or volunteered to be a guinea pig for drug testing?
It's a simple judgement, and has been mentioned here. If you are disabled, handicapped or mentally ill (not caused by drug abuse), then you deserve looking after. If you don't fit into any of those categories, you ARE fit to work.
As for your dad's story, he is an example of those that should be helped. Although I'm trying to figure out how he exemplifies someone who has suffered because he suffered a health issue. If he worked for 37 years, did he not have retirement? Savings? And most importantly, how much did you contribute to his survival?
lol that's priceless. Do you know what it would cost each homeowner to have a road built in front of their house, and how useless the road would be if just 10% of homeowners opted out? You guys just don't think these things through do you? It's like the libertarian wet dream of privatizing fire departments; you pay a monthly fee to a private fire department for services, but when your uninsured neighbors house burns to the ground unfortunately so does yours. Or the private police department where felony arrests are ignored because they take more time and as a result cut into profits.
Do you know how much more money folks would have to pay for their own roads if they didn't have to pay for taxes?
I get it - you're a socialist. But even you would have to agree that there is a limit to government control. When much of the money is wasted or stolen, it shows that taxes could be much lower to do the job.
Do you know how you pay internet? Roads can be paid the same way.
I don't pay for the internet, it's free silly! I can sit in McDonalds and watch youtube and play games on facebook all day without spending a penny - wow..it's amazing that you didn't know that it's free. Roads however aren't free, and if I don't build 'your' road in front of my property you're pretty much screwed because I just might decide to make sure that the ground in front of my house consists of 6" deep mud year round.
No, government should not decide who has children or not, but people should not expect the government to foot the bill. And the government should charge the people who can’t feed their children for child abuse and put those children up for adoption.
I am a libertarian. Government must stay out of our life as much as possible.
Or just stop funding their choice to have children they can't afford. If the government stopped giving women "free" money to support their children, they'd close their legs pretty quickly I imagine.
Do you know how much more money folks would have to pay for their own roads if they didn't have to pay for taxes?
I get it - you're a socialist. But even you would have to agree that there is a limit to government control. When much of the money is wasted or stolen, it shows that taxes could be much lower to do the job.
I'm a socialist? No, I'm just not crazy enough to believe that society can exist without taxation and taking care of those who can't care for themselves.
But I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean
Quote:
Do you know how much more money folks would have to pay for their own roads if they didn't have to pay for taxes?
It doesn't matter if it costs more or less, under your tax free utopia if I don't want you driving by the front of my house I simply won't build a road in front of my house, instead I will sit on my porch and flip you off as you push your car through my "un-road"
Bringin morality into this now isn't a good look for you. Children need to be taken care of.
Agreed. BY THEIR PARENTS. BOTH parents.
Expecting ME to support YOUR children, when you can't afford them IS immoral. This includes deadbeat dads. Mom has a kid by a deadbeat dad, then holds their hand out to the taxpayer to support their child. Because nobody was held responsible, they are free to rinse and repeat. Dad doesn't take care of their kid. Mom doesn't take care of their kid. The taxpayer takes care of their kid. Who is still abused or neglected in many cases.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
