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.
That in no way changes what I posted. There are over 1.5 million charitable organizations in the US. The government isn't needed to provide for poor children, the elderly, & other members of society who cannot contribute to the marketplace. It can all be done voluntarily, depending on what society values.
That in no way changes what I posted. There are over 1.5 million charitable organizations in the US. The government isn't needed to provide for poor children, the elderly, & other members of society who cannot contribute to the marketplace. It can all be done voluntarily, depending on what society values.
Remember, poor people, especially those who are rural, aren't sophisticated enough to utilize either charities or governmental programs so elitist urbanites must guide them. At least that's what I'm getting from another thread as well as countless others.
Doesn't matter. If a majority of society doesn't believes in voluntarily funding the poor, etc., which they don't, the poor shouldn't be funded
Are you afraid to state what your individual values are? Does that mean you've given up on the libertarian penchant for public shaming those who don't fall for your moral posturing schtick?
That's what the plethora of the 1.5 million charitable organizations are for. They can put their money where their mouths are.
I've been a huge advocate for abolishing all government programs for many years now. But to understand why you need to imagine what would happen if we woke up tomorrow and all government assistance was cut off.
Most poor people would have no choice but to go to churches for assistance. Not just the food banks, but everything. The net outcome would be a much more church-centric society.
The problem is that there are a lot of different churches, and some churches are much richer than others. By making a society church-centric you are creating not only an unequal society, but a segregated society.
Government-assistance creates a less fractious and more secular society.
When the vast majority of Americans were rural, and before the Federal Reserve and massive inequality, not having government assistance was acceptable. But if you tried to do it today you would either end up in revolution or dissolution.
Are you afraid to state what your individual values are? Does that mean you've given up on the libertarian penchant for public shaming those who don't fall for your moral posturing schtick?
It has nothing to do with me. It's what society values, or doesn't.
It's quite reasonable. Either the 1.5+ million charitable organizations can provide for poor children, the elderly, and the genuinely incapacitated, or society does not value doing so. And if society doesn't value doing so, the government has no business stepping in and doing it without society's consent. The basis of our federal republic, after all IS the consent of the governed.
Arguing morals and values w/ communists is a lost cause. They are perfectly willing to impoverish, even murder, one subset of society to give to another (or take for themselves)
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.
