Most people in my city are refusing work to accept the "free" money. It's going to be hell when these lunatics stop getting paid and have to get back to responsible living.
I'm particularly worried about the kids who aren't even getting a chance to learn responsible living.
There's too many of them when the government ISN'T inhibiting everyone's autonomy.
We'll just have to prepare for that. People have been pushing for easier lifestyles for a lot of years. The older generation will have to learn to be despised, shocker, and we'll have to wait for the younger generations to figure out what life really is.
Take someone from 2020 and force them to live in 1820 and if we get passed the romanticism- most people won’t prefer living then to now. Take someone from 1820 and force them to live in 2020 and despite our thoughts on how “better” things are- they probably wouldn’t enjoy it much. Even people “stuck” in their thinking from just a few decades before a time, often dislike the present and the present tends to dislike them. Abe Lincoln was progressive then- today we’d likely label him a bigot for his views and language. We can’t change physics any time soon, but society and economics are human systems. Those can be changed, and new generations don’t have to make past mistakes, but they will make new ones we never would have thought of.
When we talk about the times and resolving ones self to the world, often what that thought process overlooks is that the world is always changing, and those who cannot resolve themselves to that- tend to be left behind to the history they are stuck in.
Huh. If only we had some sort of comprehensive social programs to ensure that at the least, when unforeseen disasters struck that we could be taken care of, or perhaps even to know that the average citizens basic needs were being cared for and people didn’t have to worry about losing everything or not being able to get by. If people on unemployment are doing so well... then the unemployment isn’t the problem is it? The problem would be with a system that doesn’t protect others in the same way no?
Yeah, no. Uncle Sam isn't mommy and daddy, it ain't their purpose to provide for "basic needs". Their duty is to defend life, liberty, property, and keep the rest of the world out of our business.
Nothing is free, you can't magic food or medicine out of thin air, and nobody is entitled to any comforts or luxuries they can't get for themselves.
On the flip side, the government should have no power to force the masses into unemployment, to batter or imprison people doing nothing harmful, or to decide what people do with consent in their own homes.
The problem is people who don't want to work and a government that makes it very difficult to provide for one's own.
Is it difficult? I’m doing very well. Most people I know are doing very well. Perhaps... it is more difficult for some people than others? But- to your own logic, why should the government change to make it easier for you or certain people to get by, when plenty of folks are doing great. In fact- we have more millionaires and billions than ever in history. They’re doing well with the current rules. Why can’t everyone else figure it out and be millionaires too?
Or let’s pick at your logic from a different angle. You say plenty of people can’t provide. Like... I don’t know... the unemployed? So then... if your complaint is that people can’t provide.... what is wrong with helping people be able to provide?
Or let’s try this one.... you do realize... the government provides most of the American population with drinking water right? Roads? You know... basic needs of a modern civilization for the getting and keeping up of ones life, Liberty, and property...?
Question: you do know that water is a basic need right? You do know that sanitation is a basic need right? You do know that the government provides these things and more right? And... you hopefully realize food is a basic need- ghat without food... people... generally... die? That’s... bad for life, liberty, and property. You may also come to realize that having a place to live is intrinsic to existing no? Even a “homeless” person takes up space- usually has some sort of shelter so they don’t... die... from exposure...?
And let’s explore that. Short of killing anyone who is homeless.... do we just let people love wherever they want? Your yard, the freeway underpass, the park? And of these numbers of homeless become very large- even if we refuse to feed or give them medicine- you realize that situation is unsanitary, that makeshift shanty towns and dwellings are fire hazards and pose other dangers... to life, liberty, and property- beyond just the homeless person if we don’t care about them?
And if someone loses their job- and cannot find another job, what do you think happens when they cannot pay rent? Yes! You guessed right. If they don’t have someone to care for them- as many people do not- they end up homeless! Very good. Now- Connect the dots. I know you can.
Just in case you can’t, here’s a lesson from civics class back when they taught about government and society in public school: a society is judged by the “lowest” standard of that society. That’s not just a moral guide post- we are all linked in society. It’s a big complex thing that simple thinking isn’t very apt for. The life, liberty, and property that we enjoy is dependent on things like a basic level of social care. Move to an area with long term high unemployment, homelessness, lack of prospects. You’ll find generally high crime rates, drug use and related crimes, things that will make it very hard for you to use your liberty to have and enjoy property.
Concerns for the locals to worry about. I'm not telling Illinoisans what to do, and they have no bearing on what happens in Montana.
And my concern isn't that people can't provide, it's that the government is preventing it.
But see previous example. They aren’t preventing it. I’m providing fine. My friends and colleagues too, so if we are doing fine- we can’t say it is being prevented can we . If some people aren’t able to provide, that’s a concern for the locals no? Why does someone in Huntsville care that someone is Boise is having troubles with things? The locals can just sort it out can’t they?
There's too many of them when the government ISN'T inhibiting everyone's autonomy.
Nothing is free, you can't magic food or medicine out of thin air, and nobody is entitled to any comforts or luxuries they can't get for themselves.
On the flip side, the government should have no power to force the masses into unemployment, to batter or imprison people doing nothing harmful, or to decide what people do with consent in their own homes.
The problem is people who don't want to work and a government that makes it very difficult to provide for one's own.
And my concern isn't that people can't provide, it's that the government is preventing it.