Replies

You justify it the same way you justify any other action in a Democracy. You vote on it. If most people feel the way you do, and they don’t by the way, then the poor suffer and starve. If, on the other hand, most people feel that we live in a rich enough nation that we should not countenance people starving in the streets, and going without adequate shelter and medical care, then you’ll be on the losing end of that vote.

As for being “forced”, yes, you will pay your taxes, as voted upon by the majority, or you’ll eventually end up in jail. That’s part of living in a country governed by laws. And healthcare isn’t a constitutional right, but that doesn’t mean that laws can’t be passed ensuring that the destitute don’t get it.

As for “enough” becoming “Enough,” we went past that point long ago, and I agree that we need to cut the federal government way, way, back in scope and size. I just question your choice of priorities, and I suspect I wouldn’t be the only one to question them.

“ensuring that the destitute don’t get it” should read “ensuring that the will get it.”

misstated before...

You justify it the same way you justify any other action in a Democracy.

What "Democracy" would that be? This is a constitutional republic.

You vote on it. If most people feel the way you do, and they don’t by the way, then the poor suffer and starve.

Yeah, who cares about enumerated powers, private property, and no standing army? That's all so passe. /s

If, on the other hand, most people feel that we live in a rich enough nation that we should not countenance people starving in the streets, and going without adequate shelter and medical care, then you’ll be on the losing end of that vote.

People weren't starving in the streets before there were food stamps. You sound just like a Democrat. Earth to Norseman: People fed their neighbors when they were hungry. My grandparents sat a half-dozen or more at their table every night. At that time, 25% of American households had servants' quarters. When charity was the coin of the public welfare, we were a richer country.

As for being “forced”, yes, you will pay your taxes, as voted upon by the majority, or you’ll eventually end up in jail. That’s part of living in a country governed by laws.

Laws you say? Well let's take a look at that. The Supreme Law is the Constitution. Here is what its principal architect had to say on this topic:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794 Hence, the "laws" upon which you rely are unlawful. But let that not deter you in the covetous desire to use other people's money to make yourself feel magnanimous, just, and benevolent, thief.

And healthcare isn’t a constitutional right, but that doesn’t mean that laws can’t be passed ensuring that the destitute don’t get it.

Yes, it does. I don't care what Roberts says.

As for “enough” becoming “Enough,” we went past that point long ago, and I agree that we need to cut the federal government way, way, back in scope and size. I just question your choice of priorities, and I suspect I wouldn’t be the only one to question them.

My "priority" in this vein is to see the mechanics of charity work as they once did, MOTIVATING the able poor to better themselves. The system you advocate does the opposite.