Posted on 06/24/2014 5:30:34 AM PDT by SJackson
yes, I totally agree with you the giving should be voluntary taxes extracted involuntarily by the government
You are failing to distinguish between a "right" and an entitlement.
Something like the "right to free speech" or "right to keep and bear arms" are things that you can do which the government is not allowed to interfere with.
An entitlement, for example food or water, is something which another entity has an obligation to provide you.
We got into this current welfare mess by subscribing to the idea that "society" is under obligation to provide resources to people, without the recipients being under any obligation to offer anything in exchange.
And telling them to stop using up their damn minutes yakking with each other, so that they have minutes left for important stuff, is out of the question.
That presents an idea: have the utilities have the power to directly garnish their bills from the welfare/SS account. When people cannot avoid having the money taken, then maybe having their kids playing with the hose all summer will be less attractive.
For those who refuse to work, my attitude is "you can work, or you can die".
The problem with Enough food, water, housing and medical care as rights is that is that in the context of the article they must be provided by someone else. One might have a right to stroll down to the lake for a bucket of water, but not necessarily for purified water delivered to his door at someone elses expense.
I have a solution: remove barriers to having sterilization performed under Medicaid. Eliminate the current waiting period (currently 30 days), and allow 18 year olds access (currently you need to be 21).
Then give a $1000 bonus, cash in hand, to any 18 year old woman on Medicaid who gets one.
Give a $300 yearly bonus to any Medicaid-covered girl, 13 or older, who gets a long-term birth control device implanted.
You think many of your clients will pass up a $300 or $1000 cash payment?
OK tough guy
I wasn't suggesting any such thing.
You selectively took words out of context and somehow put meaning to them that did not exist in my original statement.
Your viewpoint seems to be that everyone has an enforceable duty to give up resources, for the benefit of those who have no interest in living their lives in a way which minimizes burdens placed on others.
My viewpoint is that every person has a duty to not be a burden on others, to the extent of his or her ability (note: I say "ability" not "desire"), and where a person shows lack of desire to accomplish this duty (whether by refusing to work, or by spawning children who will likewise not have interest in working), then the rest of us have the right to impose sanctions which minimize the burden created by that person (rather than indulging that person in her irresponsibility).
You MUST be a lawyer, as your reply was TOTALLY incomprehensible. Only lawyer-speak could do that. Please try again.
lol! I did mess that one up. I’ll try again:
Yes, I totally agree with you, the giving should be voluntary. Taxes are extracted involuntarily by the government.
Sure, as long as YOU pay for it!
I wasn’t suggesting any such thing.
Yes, you did. The water is delivered at a cost. If certain consumers don’t pay the cost it must be passed on to other consumers.
You collectivists sure are generous with other people’s money!
Since water delivered in a pipe cannot, by definition, be "free," how else can it be "free?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.