Reply With Quote
Its NOT an analogy.
Its an attempt to help your plan work. These charities will bail the slackers out. Then we can't get rid of them.
Charity is fine. It's a good morality lesson. Charity is personal choice to help another, it's not forced wealth redistribution. Piss poor attempt at a clever analogy.
Its NOT an analogy.
Its an attempt to help your plan work. These charities will bail the slackers out. Then we can't get rid of them.
The modern day Salvation Army is a good example of a charity that helps those that want to help themselves.
That's very different from the nanny state that enables bad behavior.
Try harder.
Charity is part of freedom. Welfare is forced wealth redistribution.
Excellent.
You can type to yourself.
I said nothing about intentions. Try harder reading. Analogy...
Well. I can see you don't see the holes in your plan.
Name a successful society that didn't have forced wealth distribution.
I can certainly name a lot of unsuccessful ones that had forced wealth distribution.
In 2016 Venezuela says hi.
define "successful society"
Well, that's because pretty much all societies have some sort of forced wealth distribution.
Throw one out and we can discuss whether or not it's successful.
Because it's my personal responsibility to care for whatever sneaks across the border and the federal government should force me at gunpoint to surrender my goods.
Well, I think we can all agree there is a happy medium. Where we tend to disagree is what that line is.
No.
It's your term. Define it or shut up. It's a red herring so don't expect me to spend much time on it if you cannot even define it.
That's fair.
More pedantic games from the tourist.
Okay then...
You have now decided to orbit Mars.
Semantic, not pedantic.
If you cannot define a term you're asking to use as a measuring stick, then your argument is moot. Anyone can define any society as successful if it meets their personal criteria, yours being that it has a welfare state.
No. pedant. As in a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules.
You missed the point. Name any society that didn't have some sort of wealth distribution.
I didn't post that to agree or disagree any of it, just to inform everyone what is out there so far on the topic. The link I provided gives more detail on each.
If all my SS insurance payments were put in my 401K instead, I would die a rich man.
Your situation, whereas living in your aunt's basement, and paying on minimum wage SS insurance, doesn't apply to all of us.
That's like saying name a successful society that didn't have crime.
Wealth distribution is one thing. Forced redistribution is quite another.
This is the problem, you're too sloppy with your argument. It's an obvious cause vs correlation fallacy you're attempting to use and unless you can show that wealth redistribution leads to a "successful society" then why discuss it? Name one that didn't have rape or murder.
A correlation between income inequality and health and social issues has been established.
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/res...e-spirit-level
an attempt to achieve a more equitable society through wealth redistribution seems a apt policy prescription.
You know another thing I've noticed correlated with income inequality is work ethic inequality and intelligence inequality
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
